Mike wrote:
>if tyler is lifting his larynx on the high stuff (and i > think he is), he would be going against what both preach (but not against > what estill preaches).
What exactly does Estill say about that? Can't wait to meet that woman. She's like God: most say she exists, but only some claim to have seen or talked to her!
however, this may be his choice as this may be the > only way he can get that sound so far (or maybe he just thinks it's fun). > he has been doing it a long time.
So have: my teacher, Iron Maiden's Bruce Dickinson ( according to Pavarotti, the best male pop singer ), ex-Black Sabbath's Dio ( he's over 50 and people say he's never canceled a gig due to a 'sore throat' ), Deep Purple's Ian Gillan ( not that good anymore, people say. They performed here in São Paulo with the Jazz-Symphonic Orchestra and with Dio as a special guest. The 4 songs Dio performed were the climax ), and many, many, many, many others. Throats of Steel Hall of Fame.
Kiri-Te-Kanawa ( I think I've mentioned that here ) said in an interview that she was a lousy singing student and used to cut classes very often. Most of her singing mates then are not in the business anymore due to over-practice ( so she put it ). The more I read posts here, the more I agree with my voice pathologist: there's no such thing as a good technique. Some people do things no one believes is right and have no problem. Others go by the book and always have problems. The important is to find the method that suits your voice.
Probably Lloyd knows the answer to this question ( I always assume he knows the answer to all questions ): are 'healthy' singing habits determined by analyzing patients only or are there control groups? Maybe, let's say, 20 people look for medical help and you find out they have the habit of lifting their larynxes. Another 5 people look for help and don't have that habit. You may then assume lifting the larynx is harmful, but MAYBE AGAIN 1000 people lift their larynxes while singing but only 10 don't, therefore ... I think the conclusion is obvious )
> the chart you're refering to seems to me to make sense according to both > approaches. it seems to be inkeeping with randy's definitions of 'soft' and > 'hard' mixes. i can only think that baxter takes it beyond the point where > the sls people see as reasonable. it would seem to violate their adherence > to the location of 'bridges' (i don't mean that as a value judgement. it > does seem that sls feels that the location of 'bridges' are more constant > than baxter does.).
Only SlSers can tell! SLSer, please, one step ahead!
Bye,
Caio Rossi
|
| |