Hello,
I find this article to be very interesting. I am
classically trained and I do have to teach people who
sing Gospel music, pop music and the like . I find
that they 'drive'the voice, force the chest into the
top register.There are times that I do wonder if my
teaching makes sense to them.
I use slides,messa di voce etc.However I do know that
after their lessons with me some of them go right back
singing the way they did before.
Norma
--- william_h_flanders <flanders@d...>
wrote:
> > i think it is important to realize that
> classical singing is
> just one
> > of the many things one can do with a voice. it
> has its criteria
> to be met
> > but, that criteria is not all inclusive of vocal
> usage. as many
> other
> > styles of singing exhibit, there are other uses of
> the voice.
> >
> > regardless of what one decides to do with a
> voice, the study
> of how it
> > works and which action equals which resultant
> sound, can be
> helpful. what
> > has been unfortunate in the past has been the
> application of
> classical
> > singing techniques for the purpose of singing
> styles that are
> actually very
> > different. if one wishes to make a sound or,
> series of sounds
> that are in
> > oppostition to classical technique, studying
> classical singing is
> not a very
> > good way to achieve that goal.
> >
> > as far as i know, both sinatra and bennett
> had voice
> lessons. both
> > are/were great singers but (fortunately for me),
> neither exhibits a
> use of
> > the voice that is peculiar to classical singing.
> i would guess
> that both
> > had teachers who were classical singers and, they
> either distorted
> what their
> > teachers said until it worked for them or, they
> didn't listen.
> >
> > mike
> >
>
> I'm surprised that there is no consensus on this
> point
> in this newsgroup. Logically, if we back up and
> think
> about this from a worldwide perspective, all singing
> is, is tone production, period. It can be done
> naturally,
> by the most primitive of people.
>
> There are many ways to produce tones using air and
> your throat to harmonize with music. Or even
> NOT harmonize with music... create dissonant sound
> that is dramatic in the music.
>
> Whatever the case may be, some people produce these
> sounds, we call singing, and the result is or is not
> effective to listeners. It can sound flat, it can
> sound
> gravely, it can sound resonant, it can sound whiney,
> it can
> sound irregular and imperfect, it can result from
> movement
> of the head or the abdomen or the jaw. It can be
> whispered or
> yelled in an uncontrolled manner. All of these
> factors play into the way singing is perceived
> emotionally
> by various listeners. They also play into whether a
>
> technique can be sustained over the days or over the
> years (and many popular techniques *are* bad for
> your
> throat... read about pop singers getting nodules)
>
> The fact that a type of singing is successful,
> in my mind, doesn't necessarily mean it adheres
> to a traditional technique, only that it creates
> a sound that is consistent with the music, or
> more importantly, the musical context for the
> style of music.
>
> Your point about Sinatra and Bennet is right on
> the money. I find it hard to believe that people
> think that these styles are creative applications of
> classical techniques. Why think that? I know
> quite a few singers who can sound very professional
> in those styles who have no classical training at
> all. I find nothing about classical technique in
> terms of larynx position, breath control, vibrato
> consistency, use of blended voice to be relevant at
> all for that sort of lounge-style singing.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
|
