Mike:>yes, i was pointing out the roundness of the earth as, i wasn't sure, from your previous post, we were in agreement (you're not thinking of a disc, are you?).<
No... BTW, neither has ever the Church or the Bible believed that. Medieval cathedrals already represented Jesus Christ holding a globe in his hand. So maybe not every supposedly educated information is to be taken seriously.
>yes, lots of voice teachers (and tv psychics) try to use nasals to try to 'trigger' head voice. does it trigger head voice? no. can it accidently precede the stumbling into head voice? sure.<
That has a name: prejudice! You're adapting reality to your expectations. As I said, people have used that for ages, there's a cause and effect relation there, and you're assuming it's mere accident.
Doctors used to say, based upon "science", that fat IS unquestionably bad to one's health. Then, they found out that people on a Greek island practically breathe in olive oil but have great health. Now it's considered the healthiest diet on Earth. After FACTS like those, they started saying that ANIMAL fat only is harmful. There's always someone to believe their guesses.
I should even have added a P.S. note to my post on the "RRRRRR" thread: although the trilled "R" is widely used in my native language, I could only hold it for long, as I've already mentioned here, not by doing the exercises prescribed by my speech therapist, but by singing along a Portuguese singer, as their "R" are REALLY trilled. There was absolutely no difference between the exercises I tried to do and my sing-along, AS FAR AS ANATOMY IS CONCERNED. The mere description of the movements involved in trilling an "R" DOES NOT EXPLAIN WHY THOSE EXERCISES WERE NOT EFFECTIVE.
Maybe he/she will get it only after going to a Reichian therapist and having a cathartic muscle releasing experience. Or after a threesome!! Or who knows what! We know how the intricate muscular chains and emotions are related to voice production, but as they ( mostly emotions ) are variable that can't be easily controlled, scientifically-educated singing teachers do not take them into consideration. Why do you think Alexander technique COULD ONLY BE DEVELOPED by an artist, not a scientist?
When I studied cognitive science in college I read Howard Gardner's classic book on the subject and right in the introduction you could read something like this: "Although we know emotions are intrinsically related with cognition, that variable cannot be easily controlled. Regardless of that, we're trying to deal with 'pure cognition' in our models of the mind first, but efforts shall be made to integrate emotions in the process". That means: WE'RE LYING TO OURSELVES ABOUT OUR REALITY, OTHERWISE WE WON'T HAVE ANY MODELS. WHEN THAT LIE CANNOT BE SUPPORTED ANYMORE, THEN WE'LL START CONSIDERING WHAT WE KNOW REALITY REALLY IS.
That's what you're doing! That's what most "well-trained" singing teachers do. Although acting involves mechanical training, I've never seen an acting teacher putting so much emphasis on that. That's PART of their training, not its foundation. That's because no physicians have imposed their simplistic explanations on that area, but as a "voice science" has developed, a purely physical description of the act of singing has gained the status of "educated teaching".
If singing teachers were surgeons, most of them would be in prison. they might have their successful students testifying in their favor, but that wouldn't raise the dead. Not even my beloved uncle... sniff... sniff
Best wishes,
Caio
|
| |