Dear Mike and Vocalisters:
You wrote:
> the point of using one's speaking voice to sing with, is to bring that
>same expression that one has spent a whole life (so far) growing into, to
>singing. unbeknownst to us, we make sounds that suggest our emotions with
>our voices. most of us, when we speak, are thinking about what we are
>trying to say. our emotional condition is often reflected in our tone of
>voice. if one can accommodate those few differrences (specified pitch,
>wider range and elongated word length) between speaking and singing, then one
>can carry over the same expression from speaking into singing. all that is
>required of the singer is to make their point and allow themselves to react,
>if at all, to what they are saying. theoretically, this makes for more
>earnest expression where, constructing a tone, which is fairly common in
>classical singing, is more akin to fake laughter.
COMMENT: I cannot disagree with you more than with this statement
For me it denies the very essence of art in that art is a
distillation of reality, not the imitation of reality. I do not
expect an actor, who uses only spoken word, to present me with his
conversational voice or manner. I expect him/her to speak in a
manner that is removed from my "natural" world and is, instead, an
expression of the 'essence' of my regular world. In this sense he is
presenting a much more efficient and effective expression because it
is a distillation of what is 'real'.
The same is true for the singer/actor only even more so. Because
singing is more distantly removed from speaking it is more capable
and more likely to be an expression of the synthesis of reality. In
this sense, the more singing resembles the natural expression of
speech, the less it is involved in the realm of singing.
--
Lloyd W. Hanson
|
