Mike wrote:
> children all over the world learn a language, some learn two, others
> learn three. they do this without the aid of voice science, voice
teachers,
> speech pathologists, etc.
Children are still specially hardwired to learn very many different
languages just by being sufficiently exposed to them in an uncontrolled
environment. After they're older ( and I mean about 10 or less ), they lose
that ability. I am of course talking about the average children and the
average older people. After a certain age, it's practically impossible to
learn another language without someone else's help ( and that someone else
would be a trained teacher, someone who can use tested methods to induce
their learning ).
At the binational center I used to work, all new students had to take
placement tests before registering. Most of the people who had never had
English classes were placed at the beginning level, but I can remember 2 or
3 who were placed at Intermediate levels just because they liked
English so much that they studied by themselves, and they generally did that
by studying grammar rules
and lists of vocabulary only ( what has shown to be a big mistake ). They
were people who would probably learn the language in any circumstances
earthquakes, explosions, Florida recounts,
rapes, car chases, etc ), so they can't be taken as examples.
Now, apply what I just said to singing teachers and wanna-be singers.
>the distance traveled in going from 'ga ga, goo
> goo' to speaking a language is greater than going from speaking a language
to
> singing.
>it is possible to assemble better speaking and singing habits out of
>existing abilities
Mike, I think you're confusing things: the distance from basic sounds babies
produce is SO MUCH greater than going from speaking to singing that they
can't be compared! And you admit that distance above. Singing would be
applying what you do in speech in a 'rehearsed' way, while going from 'ga ga
goo goo' to speaking a language is LEARNING to produce sounds they still
don't know and coordinate them in a cultural pattern. That's completely
different.
>i have used the making of that sound on a lot of my
> students and i have never had a male student who could not vocalize high
with
> it. (i use 'that sound to help female students get through their
breaks).
>i asked the list the question 'what has voice science
> done for you?' or something like that. i was asking specifically about
> spectral analysis.
Mike, what you found out by yourself about your soft palate and now teach to
your students is empirical: you tested it, it worked, then they tried that,
and it worked too ( at least with your remaining students ). Another teacher
may try something different ( if several of your former teachers taught you
the 'yawn approach' it was because it worked with them and must have worked
with most of their remaining students too ). The aim of voice science is to
find 'universals' AND explain why 'partials' may 'partially' work. Brazil
started to make better wines only when German immigrants and their
descendents stopped trying to grow grapes like they did in cold Germany and
used what Agronomy had to offer to adapt and develop new techniques for
growing grapes in a tropical country. That's what science is for.
> imagine a room full of voice scientists. they are presented with a
> number of spectral readings of voices they know well by sound of the same
> general catagory but of whose voices they have not seen spectral analyses.
> mixed in with these readings are readings of other singers they do not
know.
> do you think these people would be able to identify the readings of the
> voices they know?
But, Mike... that's the point! The readings would be giving information they
wouldn't have otherwise! The advantage of those readings over hearing only
is to avoid certain discussions we read here. It's just to avoid subjetive
interference ( or, some may say, as voice scientists are generally ENTs, and
they always advocate not using cotton swabs because ears can clean
themselves, it may be due to their 'hearing impairment''** )
Bye,
Caio Rossi
** hearing impairment= PC for wax.
|
|  |
