From many discussions of this type on the list, I am left wondering what
"Classical voice teaching" actually means in the US. Many of the
descriptions of "classically trained" that I have heard don't match anything
that I have ever studied. I have only ever had two teachers (and a one off
session with a third), but the approach has always involved a relaxed
position for the larynx, an enabling of the voice to take from the body what
it needs (breath wise especially), and the allowing of the voice to sing in
the register most appropriate for the range/style of the piece. My current
teacher, and my first teacher have students of many different genres, but
the principles hold. Many of my friends from opera groups have teachers who
espouse similar methods. They are mainly Bel Canto teachings. Also, isn't
SLS basically built on Bel Canto foundations? If this is the case, and it
holds quite well for many teachers in this country, where did this
"Classical training" that seems to involve singing entirely in head voice
come from? Where did it all go wrong?
Colin Reed, tenor
Newark, UK
----- Original Message -----
From: <buzzcen@a...>
To: <vocalist-temporary@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 17 November 2002 06:33
Subject: Re: [vocalist] Re: classical isn't the only way (was amplification)
> You will eventually conclude that most voice teachers suck ... they don't
> take things as seriously as we on this list do.
>
>
> Randy Buescher
>
|
