reg said:
"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."
reg,
if you new what efficient technique was, it wouldn't have taken your
whole life to smooth out that transition (not an insult, just an
observation).
reg wrote:
"*** 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."
classical singing makes use of only part of what the voice is capable
of. as there is a need to project over an orchestra in much of classical
singing, this places the voice under greater pressure therefore, making the
transition more difficult. in classical singing, efficiency boils down,
primarily, to being heard. in other types of singing, where being heard is
not a problem (thanks to modern technology), a sound's efficiency is
determined by other factors.
the development of a technique that is truly efficient, gives a singer
the ability to make use of all the options open to that singer, not just one
narrow usage.
mike
|
