Colin wrote:
>where did this
>"Classical training" that seems to involve singing entirely in head
>voice come from? Where did it all go wrong?
*******************************************************
Dear Colin and List,
How is everyone doing? School and work have kept me extremely busy
lately. However,I saw this post and thought I'd like to respond.
The question of "where did it all go wrong" can keep voice teachers
busy for the next hundred years. The idea of singing entirely in
the head-register is not a new idea by any means. It seems to have
appeared along with the ideas of vocal placement and "masque"
singing that originated with tenor Jean De Reske and Dr.Holbrook
Curtis. De Reske was having vocal problems on the stage. So, the
two developed a way of singing that would take much of the stress
off the vocal fold level and bring it into the supraglottal area.
They discovered that by driving the sound into the masque area, De
Reske could sing for longer periods of time without getting tired.
Their focus was clearly on RESONANCE, which was a sharp contrast to
what the historical Italian school focused on: registers.
Their theory seemed to work rather well until De Reske developed a
huge waver in his voice and his career was truncated rather
quickly. In addition, their theory had two major flaws: the nasal
cavities are non-adjustable and very tiny. Therefore, they are not
suitable as a resonator. Secondly, singing in the masque
or "placing the tone in the masque" acts like the muffler on an
automobile...it dampens the sound. This can and has been verified
through acoustic analysis of singing.
Singers often have the mistaken notion that when they "feel" a
tremendous focus and energy into the front of their face (masque
area), when they sing a high note...it must sound great to the
audience. This notion however, is far from true.
De Reske and Curtis become famous for their theory. And it began to
get wide endorsement from pedagogical circles. Just look at L.
Lehman's book with the diagram depicting each note of the grand-
scale in a particular spot or "place" (relating to placement) on the
body; put the A5 here, G4 there, F#5 there. That diagram alone has
been hurting the field ever since its inception. It is rather
absurd to think that a singer must try meticulously tweak each note
to be felt in some pre-determined spot of the anatomy. Furthermore,
when a singer thinks of a high-note as coming out of the top of the
forehead for example…this almost always results in a high laryngeal
position, which greatly effects tonal quality, formant structure,
etc.
All of the students I have taught and all of the singers I know who
are taught to "sing in the masque" or the sing "out the top of the
head" or whatever you want to call it- have blatant technical
problems. Namely, they are head-dominant singers with no or very
few low notes and they are just plain tense when they sing.
When a female brings the head-register down to the bottom, what is
left? A breathy, inaudible sound that just does not work on the
stage. A large faction of contemporary pedagogy is teaching this
idea to females. Saying the chest-voice is taboo...don't use it,
just bring the heady-quality down. Well, you can bring the heady-
quality down for years and never develop to your full potential as a
singer.
The idea of "vocal placement" (singing in the masque, placing the
tone, or whatever you call it) along with the "don't use the chest
voice" school, has done much damage to the field of voice teaching.
Oren Brown described these issues in the most amusing way (Nats
Journal quote): "The 19th focus was on breathing, the 20th century
focus was on resonance, maybe the 21st century focus will be on
brains!"
Any thoughts on these issues fellow listers?
Nice to contribute again...Take Care All,
Taylor L. Ferranti
DMA Candidate in Voice Science/Performance
Louisiana State University
Certificate of Vocology (U. Iowa)
Associate Director of Music
First Presbyterian Church, Baton Rouge
|
