Dear Randy:
I have included your quoting of my comment and your comment on that quote. I am not suggesting, nor to my knowledge have I ever suggested, that pops singing causes more damage to more singers than does amateur classical singing. It is reasonable that it should not.
Any singing that is miked will more likely be singing of a lower dynamic level. The electronic amplification possible using the mike can provide whatever volume increases that are desired. Whereas, acoustic singing that, for reasons of venue uses etc., require increased volume levels which are not assisted by electronic amplification. This makes greater demands on the voice which must be addressed by thorough voice training and development. Such training is not, by definition, a part of the performance package of most amateur singers. Amateur singers who attempt to perform in the classical singing styles and in classical venues should rely on the mike. Andrea Bocelli is a good example.
The same argument could be made that miked singing allows the amateur singer a wider palatte of vocal colors. BJJA has stated this a number of times in his/her posts. A wide palette of vocal colors is one of the goals of classical vocal training but it takes years to develops this skill because such colors must be achieved within the demands placed on the classical voice for projection of tone primarily through acoustical means. In the process of achieving this goal the classical singer develops an instrument that is strong, supple and has the potential for a long career with only minor changes in vocal potential through that career.
My recent comments about miked or amplified singing were about the effects it has on bringing forward poor quality singers into the public venue. Amplification makes it possible for singers with very limited vocal skills to not only be heard but heard to such an extent that qualities we usually associate with the singing art are replaced with qualities that have little to do with singing. I do not consider yelling to be singing. Both forms of vocalization may be closely related but one is not the other. I don't consider speaking to be singing, yet it now passes as not only singing but the most desirable kind of singing. A "natural" singing it is called which does not have the flaw of "sounding like singing". These are not, in my opinion, merely matters of differences in taste that have happened to develop but differences of taste that have been created by and the effect of amplification.
>In a message dated 11/13/2002 9:12:31 PM Central Standard Time, >lloyd.hanson@n... writes: > >> For example,. have you any comments on the singing of Clark who just >> won the "favored singer"award and cannot do her CD because of voice >> fatigue. Or the contestants who are even now yelling their way to >> fame on the Today show? >> > >Clark has bad technique in that she sings very wide vowels through where she >should mix for her voice (bflat above middle c). But from what I've heard >about her personality, she is also a classic overdoer in that she never shuts >up; this is at the root of most vocal disorders regardless of genre. Dr. >Robert Bastian had an excellent article in a recent nats jos about vocal >overdoer syndrome. If you're familiar with the data the leading category of >singers who have irreversible lesions are amateur classical singers who are >certainly unmiced.
-- Lloyd W. Hanson
|