>The only >difficult I have with his approach is that it is not in line with >present facts about vocal function.
>The names we give to registers is not important. The names that have >been give to vocal registers throughout history is even less >important because we seldom can know what early writers really meant >by their subjective definitions.
This is precisely Reid's point. In the beginning, there seems to have been only two names. And they may or may not have been accurate at all. He's simply saying that too many layers and divisions and modifications of the terms have come into play. The 20th century models are not his own understanding. Also, he never makes the claim that these 20th century terms are based on sort of true knowledge of vocal fucntion, as was explained in your well-written post. He merely seeks to display the ridiculous extent to which the matter is confused.
Nick http://www.opacodex.com
|