In this country Jo Estill's method seems to be the generally accepted approach to teaching contemprary singing technique as opposed to classical training. Although I have not learnt Estill technique, there is a great difference in the sound of these two approaches. Firstly there seems to be a greater emphasis on "twang". Secondly there seems to be a much wider aceptance of breathy and parlando approaches in contemprary singing. Thirdly many of the singers seem to have a reduced vocal range. They also often seem to emphasise rather than smooth out natural breaks that occur in a singer with no classically training. Eg (like yodelling in country and Western).
I agree that in theory singers should be able to sing comtemporary music with a classical technique. However when we spend most of our lives trying to make our tones effortless and also seemless, why bother,.
Further I remember a vocal conference I attended with apparantly one of the top teachers in the USA. What he found was that after analysing the sounds of professional singers both contemporary and classical that the later had a longer and and more complex set of overtones on ever note. Further that this tended to occur through out the range. The contemporary singers on the other hand tended to have a very uneven sequence of overtones. The speech format was sometimes missing or there where other gaps in the bottom or middle.
Further he found that singers like Louie Armstron tended to make alot of use of the false vocal folds on either side of the regular vocal folds.
"edsmed969 <michael.gum@d... wrote: Ok, so what your saying is .. that since I sing and sang 'popular' music and not 'operatic' music when I was originally trained .. that I was not trained classically ???
--- In vocalist-temporary@yahoogroups.com, Cindi Waters <musicteachky@y...> wrote: > > Hello, Margaret, Ed, and vocalisters. I was trained basically as a classical singer. Later on I decided to pursue an avenue on interest in commercial singing. I did not pursue it, but I did study a little bit in that area. I can say that without doubt there is a big difference in the style. The early vocal pedagogues understood that once a pop area is tried by the vocalist, it is more than likely the operatic purity will be lost. While I did not lose my ability to sing classically, I also noticed a difference of thought, thus approach. Cindi > "Margaret L. Harrison" <peggyh@i...> wrote:edsmed969 <michael.gum@d...> wrote: > > > > As far a vocal training .. how would you classify training as a classically trained vocalist? Is it by the music preformed or the method of training? > > I would say it could be either, both, or neither. > > I think, from reading discussions on this list, that the "classical" method of vocal study refers for most people to the teaching of a vocally healthy manner of singing, which is capable of being applied in a stylistically correct manner to the performance "classical" vocal music (opera and art song, and artistic settings of folksong). This type of teaching can be applied to any style of music, but for a student who wants to learn to healthily sing other styles to be happy, the teacher would need to be very familiar with the style of music the student wants to learn. > > Peggy > > > Margaret Harrison, Alexandria, Virginia, USA. > > unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > Service. > > > > --------------------------------- >
--------------------------------- - Exchange IMs with Messenger friends on your Telstra or Vodafone mobile phone.
|