At 03:57 PM 22-11-00 -0700, you wrote: >Dear Vocalisters > >On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 Randy wrote: >"The word support is often undefined and a catch all." > >Mark Montgomery added: >"You left out "and misunderstood by the majority of the vocal teaching >establishment."
>Lloyd... >COMMENT: There is no doubt that the teaching of breath support or >breath management is one of the most difficult concepts to impart.
From Reg.....a singers point of view. As you may recall I've always been a strong supporter of 'support'. I've now come to believe there are TWO main methods of uttering the tone and that Lloyds Italian candle trick is an attempt to differentiate one from the other.
The first singing method and the one I've used for years, IMO uses about 3 times the air of the second which therefore comes much closer to matching Lloyd's criteria.
How do I differentiate one from the other? Lloyd is saying that if we succeed with the candle test then we will have arrived at the second method.
I approach it from the opposite end. If we produce a tone that internally seems much darker because of attempting to keep the back of the mouth open by say, raising the uvula, than the effort needed to produce a certain external quality is less, the voice is more mobile and lo and behold it meets Lloyd's description of 'candle flicker'. And the support???
FAR less conscious effort compared to the FIRST method of singing for which the epigastric stability is literally the single leg upon which it stands.
When I asked Ian some time ago to describe his approach to what he said was a completely stable singing style, I was hoping to get a clue from his reply as to where his singing stood in relation to this and thereby test my observations.
He, (sorry to talk about you like this Ian) had said that support was not within his perception. Now we, I'm sure, can all perceive the difference between a good English G&S tenor and an Italian type tenor. To me, the first has developed that epigastric control to such an extent that he can float everything, but in my terms, has an inefficient transfer system. The second, in Lloyd's terms as well, has perfected the transfer system by using an altered resonating space within the upper throat which is SO MUCH more efficient, that the required rate of air flow is reduced. I would suggest, to about one third that of the other. And the support???
A secondary consideration because it does seem to just happen. BUT.... for me at least, BECAUSE it IS now secondary, when the time comes to ensure the stability of a top note or its pianissimo, the support of the epigastric muscles come blazing through. They are NOT already totally committed. The problem now is to guard against flipping between the two!!!!!!
IMO both these systems are capable of success and development, but the second, far more than the first. If a teacher has to contend with both of them, then the approach to each would be aimed at completely different goals in order that the student be convinced that the study was meeting his needs. I'm suggesting that the change of technique will often be initiated by the student. Sorry, I can't talk of female voices.
I suggest that the candle test could be mis-understood if the tester did not appreciate the fact that the already low air flow of the first method of singing could by reduced by 60% with the second. And this even ignores the other advantages of the second method.
IMO this is not a matter of taste either, it is one of vocal survival and breadth of musical ability. It certainly confirms to me that music written with the second technique in mind would probably not be adaptable to the first, but an Italian type tenor with style, could sing G&S.
Really appreciate your input Lloyd. Regards Reg.
|
| |