At 09:52 AM 23-11-00 -0500, you wrote:
>from Randy
>Once you start altering the airflow, the folds will react accordingly.
OK ..a chicken or eggs question? You appear to suggest that
an attempt to change the flow rate will automatically have
compensating effects at the folds? Alright, but altering the
reflected loading on the folds by incorporating more space
at the top of the pharynx, (uvula/soft palate) is also bound to
yield a considerable alteration to their oscillatory environment.
>Higher airflow will cause the folds to either hyperadduct to resist, which
>will inevitably involve extrinsic muscle groups, or gap in someway to avoid
>the hyperadduction which will lead to breath mixture in the tone.
If I read you correctly here, you are saying that unrestrained, (by
that I mean incorrectly loaded,) airflow past the folds, will cause
a matching 'unrestrained' reaction one way or the other, there is no
disagreement.
The area in contention I think, is whether correct pharyngeal
loading of the folds as I suggest, is more ..or less, legitimate,
healthy, productive, artistic, natural, relaxed or controllable?
>Of course all this talk of support is useless in the long run, because it is
>ultimately the prephonatory tuning of the folds themselves that determine how
>much air is used and how the body will react to deliver the air necessary to
>engage Bernoulli.
Of course we've been here before so let's not get too bogged down
with our preoccupation that pre-phonatory tuning has more noble
origins than the concept of support, nor for that matter that the
Bernoulli effect is immune to external influences. Obsessing with
the Bernoulli effect is just as extreme, if not more-so, than is that of
the principle of support. The problem, as we all seem to agree, is
the difficulty of making the support concept have the same
meaning for all.
Regards Reg.
|
|  |
