Shouldn't we have a functional definition of chest, falsetto,
and 'head' voice? It is my understanding that the Head voice is a
mixture of pure [functional definition of] chest and pure
[functional definition of] falsetto. In fact, it is not only my
understanding but my experience, both direct and vicarious. The
Head voice is, ultimately, a prime facility which allows the singer
to execute a true messa di voce on any pitch. Functionally, a
countertenor would never be able to use pure falsetto for a role, as
there is no possibility for changes in intensity/dynamics. Also,
pure falsetto uses up the air VERY quickly and has little aesthetic
value.
Therefore, by definition, countertenors today and forever have used
a bastardization of the Head voice. It is one that is primarily
falsetto-based, of course, with some sort of individualized
constriction of the chest register active in the sound. The
aesthetic qualities of any voice reflect the functionality, purity,
and balance of the registers.
You see, the question at hand is one of semantics. True, pure
falsetto is used for voice building and never for singing [unless
the effect desired is one of a blousy, hooty, train whistle]. All
other voices a mixtures or odd balances of chest and falsetto
functions.
Nick Scholl
|
|  |
