At 01:04 AM 21/07/02 -0400, you wrote:
>In a message dated 7/21/2002 12:51:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>bandb@n... writes:
>
>
>>
>> While I'm here, the idea of "classically trained" singers changing
>> over to "speech level" singing as someone has said, implies that
>> speech level sing is NOT a classical technique. Be that as it may,
>> it also suggests that the person who had not yet attained a smooth
>> transition from chest to head voice, had not nearly achieved a
>> "classical training."
>> Strange that such silliness should be discussed.
>
>reg,
>
> 'speech level singing' (the approach developed by seth riggs, that
is)
>is a technique for developing the use of the voice for singing while varying
>as little as need be from the act of speaking, as i understand it.
>'classical training' refers to a specific usage of the voice and the
training
>of the voice for that purpose. there is a long standing myth that
>'classical training' is the only way to develope the use of the voice that
is
>efficient, safe, etc. in the past, 'classical training' was the only
>training of the voice available. this is no longer true as the best usage
>of the voice exists outside of any style of music. still, as louis
>armstrong demonstrated, the best usage of the voice is not necessary to sing
>beautifully.
>
>mike
Mike, it's not my intention to have this develop into another
marathon about speech level singing but merely to point
out once again, that less than 'optimum' vocal adjustment
will certainly achieve less than optimum results. As one
who has striven all his vocal life to smooth this chest
to head transition, I have found it goes hand in glove with
efficient technique. If speech level theory and practice
achieves a result which does not include this optimum
adjustment , then it will always fall short of the vocal goal. ***
*** Purity of tone, control and magnification that is based on
full understanding of the technique the individual is attempting
to engage. If the speech-level technique reaches this zenith
then it is no different from "classical technique." Yet, in spite
of claims to the contrary, I have no reason to believe it has
achieved this same goal. Therefore I suggest its practise is
grounded on erroneous theory.
|
|  |
