In a message dated 9/6/00 2:17:50 AM Central Daylight Time, RALUCOB@a... writes:
<< i usually teach men to do the latter and teach women to do both. when women do the former, they sound more operatic and also experience the 'disconnection' from their 'chest' or 'speaking' voice (or whatever you wish to call it). when singing in the second way, they are able to connect to their 'chest' voice and are able to extend as high, if not higher than the former. although a woman's sound in these voices is more similar than in men's, there is still a difference. additionally, a woman's voice, taking the latter approach, is more variable. and, though not quite as appropriate for opera as the former method, can be used for classical but, can also be used for jazz, country, pop, broadway (right up there with such all purpose terms like 'bel canto' and 'national security'), rock (hard core and otherwise), etc >>
Now that's quite a dilemma isn't it? The second way you teach the female voice is actually more efficient and produces more range than the first which would imply it is more functionally efficient, but on the other hand it is deemed not as appropriate for opera. Why? Most likely it lacks the contrived lower end of the operatic female voice. What you've stumbled upon, (the creaky sound creating good adduction) are actually many of the principles (and probably the sound) used in speech level singing. And you're right, while it may not be as operatic enough for some, it can sing classical music very well as well as all the other sounds you mentioned above. All without changing the technique.
Randy Buescher
|
| |