Vocalist.org archive


From:  buzzcen@a...
Date:  Wed Sep 6, 2000  3:13 pm
Subject:  Re: [vocalist-temporary] female falsetto


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

emusic.com