> > Taking chest up even a fourth higher
> > does not mean it is muscle bound.
>
> Don't you think the term in question here is "raw
> chest"? [snip]
> "Balanced chest" (as I call it) is mixed from the
> bottom all the way up the voice, (usually by a
> very frontal placement)
This is precisely what I meant.
Taking raw chest up higher than an E is not
necessarily unhealthy (you can learn to belt up to a
certain point without strain, for example), so I alter
my original statement, but it is detrimental to
operatic singing. (Miller would say that it's
detrimental to health, strength, and beauty, but
that's another story.) It's very easy for singers who
once belted to find themselves having a very hard time
letting go of that chesty muscle memory and learning
to sing in a more resonant fashion in the middle voice
(which in turn opens up the top). If you drag chest
voice up into the middle of the voice, not only does
the sound not suit the style, but it trains in a
certain tension that is not desireable for operatic
singing.
Raw chest can be thrilling when used in opera -- I've
never heard the end bit of "Suicidio" sung in anything
else, for example; and people used to go wild when
Callas plunged into open chest in her dramatic arias
-- but that's usually in the range of middle C and the
B, A, and G below.
Raw chest exercises are also very useful for
strengthening the head voice, as I have described here
before. But I maintain that (and, Randy, I agree that
I should have phrased it:) it's not good operatic
training to sing above an E (or perhaps F, for
lighter/higher voices) in raw chest as a rule.
Isabelle B.
=====
Isabelle Bracamonte
San Francisco, CA
ibracamonte@y...
__________________________________________________
|
|  |
