Dear Ken,
As many have given their take, I shall offer mine, also commenting on some
points made by others.
Many teachers, including myself, have a method of teaching as opposed to
what I call 'patchwork' teaching. In my mind, I treat the voice like I
treat my body (I am a bodybuilder.) I start each student with an
exercise that sets up certain things: sense of tonal depth, pharyngeal
space, a narrow breath column, a raised palate, an open throat, use of
head voice, lifting of the zygomatic arch, and equalization of vowels.
To the great majority of my students, this creates a sound which most find
'too dark'. I know where we are going, so I don't comment on this - it
is only a station on the way to the destination. I simply want them to
get certain concepts engrained as habit before we move on to the next
elements: air flow, focus, resonance.
Someone commented on the longevity of singers with 'ping' vs. space: an
ideal voice must have a balanced registration, what the master teachers
call chiaroscuro. Marilyn Horne was singled out as too 'hooty': while I
artistically did not care for her use of chest voice, Ms. Horne's vocalism
sat her at the top of her profession for many years. Would that we all
should have her vocal longevity. To suggest that singers with 'bitey'
tone last longer than singers with 'artificially darkened ones' is too
vague. But I will say that under no circumstances should a student be
taught a 'tight' tone: if I have misunderstood you, Isabelle, please
correct me. Focus has nothing to do with a 'tight-sounding tone, edgy
passagio and top'. Years of a tight-sounding tone? I have to firmly
disagree with this idea. This is the principle reason I start with space.
I want the student to have comfort and ease in singing from the very
beginning.
Mark Montgomery
|
|  |
