lloyd wrote:
"It appears that it is very difficult to separate vocal technique from
vocal style. It should not be so. Vocal technique applies only to
how one achieves a vocal quality or effect, not the effect itself.
Vocal technique is more a study of the process of singing and less a
study of the product. For this reason, vocal technique is style
insensitive."
lloyd,
i agree. perhaps it is better to look at how the voice is used
differently by those who use it well. what to me seperates all those great
crooners you mentioned from opera singers, i suppose, is more attributable to
how they learned their techniques and what effect that has on the outcome.
while some of them had some training, many did not. i think it is very
possible for someone to learn to sing in the crooning style by using what
they already posses, their use of their voices in speaking. crooning, after
all, is sustained speech.
lloyd wrote:
"Classical singing is, basically an acoustic art form and much less an
electronic art form. In a way, comparing classical singing with pops
singing is similar to comparing acoustic guitar playing (completely
non amplified) with electric guitar work."
there is a big difference between an amplified guitar and an electric
guitar. while i don't argue that many pop singers use the engineer to
basically turn them into singers, many do not. some are only amplified.
amplification allows the intimate to reach a large crowd without having to
distort it. the same really can't be said about the opera singer, in that
those sounds most would agree as intimate, would never make it out of the
singer's shadow.
mike
|
