Mike wrote:
> i understood your original post to suggest that before voice science, > teachers got good results out of the luck of having students with good > voices.
Also, but not only! They also had students who had the 'equipment' adaptable to their approach, regardless of having good voices before or not.
> the above approach does not work on students with obviously good > voices and obviously inferior minds.
I don't think so. Spectral analysis makes it so obvious that even morons would get it. Then, it's just a matter of having them train to reproduce the same pattern ( or better ) on the screen and try to memorize what the corresponding sensation is. With time, they would be able to reproduce the same sound by activating the same sensations. Even rats can do that!
>the real point is > that i am sure that voice teachers, before voice technologies, probably used
Hey, Mike! I used to do that too, until someone called my attention: saying that you are SURE that something PROBABLY happened is not really a logical sentence! OH, these people with narrow rationalistic assumptions!
> an empirical approach in learning how to sing better as well as learning how > to teach better. it was not just their luck in which students they ended up > with.
From my experience, most of my friends', and I GUESS, WITH CERTAINTY, most of this list's members', that's not what really happens. Most teachers tend to stick to their methods and adapt students to them. BTW, your experience with your teachers doesn't sound to be much different: you had to realize how to raise your soft palate by yourself. > > << 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. >> > > so far the only 'universal' benefit i have seen in spectral analyses, > from those who would swear by them, is that the analyses confirm what they > already knew
But don't you agree that, if internal sensations don't correspond to what people are hearing, spectral analysis is better than a tape recorder or MD? And how about those people who don't have your musical perception and are not sure about the quality they hear? With time ( again ), they might develop that notion by matching what they hear, their internal sensations AND the objective measure on the computer screen. I don't think people are for using spectral analysis forever. That's a learning device. The problem is that you are forgetting the darwinian effect again: people HERE didn't need spectral analysis because they had that perception you have too. Those who didn't have that perception could never become a singing teacher or a succesful performer.
> if any one of these people already knew something contrary to the rest, it is > not universal and has confirmed nothing.
What?? Give me an example, please. That's too metaphysical to me ( would that be the effect of Brazilian or German wine? )
Bye,
Caio Rossi
|
| |