Vocalist.org archive


From:  Reg Boyle <bandb@n...>
Reg Boyle <bandb@n...>
Date:  Thu Nov 23, 2000  9:38 am
Subject:  Re: [vocalist-temporary] Vibrato and More


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.




emusic.com