Katherine wrote:
>I agree with Mr Hanson: The language of singing/teaching must be >clear, precise, scientifically accurate and above all, effective. I >do not believe that images are, for the most part, particularly >helpful. Telling a student to make the sound point toward the top of >his head or to squeeze out the breath as from a toothpaste tube are >directions that no person of normal intelligence could follow, so it >is no wonder they do not work, not to mention they defy physiology. >It behooves us to "get it right". Reading Sandra'a post shows how >important that is.
I must speak up on behalf of the instinctive/kinesthetic learners out here! I am very glad to have studied with teachers who understood the mechanics of voice production -- but who communicated with me on many different levels. Despite having normal intelligence -- ; ) -- I don't tend to understand or connect with scientific terms. I respond much more readily to just the kinds of suggestions you disdain, and if a particular combination of words or thoughts helps me to function in harmony with my anatomy, I'm all for it! I guess the important thing is for the images or suggestions to trigger action which makes efficient use of the existing anatomical mechanism.
Naomi www.naomigurtlind.net
|
| |