randy,
it has been my general practice, in the past five years to teach women both methods i spoke of however, as i thought about it this morning, i realize i have greatly reduced the use of the more operatic of the two methods. partly due to the fact that, in the past six months, i have worked on getting rid of anything operatic sounding in my own voice (after forty-plus years of listening to it, twenty-five years working on it, i finally came to the (personal) conclusion that operatic singing really does sound kind of silly. it's not like i didn't give it enough time.) and also that it leaves women with nothing much below middle C. i have noticed with a few students, fifty and older, who had already been singing in the more operatic of the two, that they had developed big wobbles that disappeared instantly when they began to use their chest voices extending the high range using the 'door-creak' method. they also sounded twenty years younger (on this issue, i received no complaints).
there is a lot about 'speech level singing' that appeals to me and some of its elements i have stumbled on by sheer accident and have been practicing for a number of years. i work with roger love's cd a lot, and although he prefers to think of himself as seperate from seth riggs, the influence is obvious. i think mark baxter has a similar philosophy though his approach to implementing it is radically different.
mike
|
| |