In a message dated 11/24/00 4:19:42 PM Central Standard Time, bandb@netspace.net.au writes:
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.
Reg,
I've read your responses to my postings and others for a long time now. While I'm degreed in speech language pathology, teach about 70 students a week, have done original research on postoperative rehab (which looks like it's going to be published in NATS), am in a graduate school for speech language pathology, have credits on major label releases, am producing an instructional CD/book with my clients (Dove award winning gospel singers Angelo and Veronica), have given master classes across the country, have read and understood the major voice science and vocal pedagogy texts available, I seldom understand what you are getting at. I am positive I am not alone on this. Why the confusing verbiage and subterfuge combined with a slight hint of piety?
Randy Buescher |