Dear Barry:
>I wrote:
> > If a technique of singing is sought in which the larynx is to be
>> raised, as Barry's description of his (and Estill's ) belt technique
>> states, it is logical that the palate will not be in a raised state
>> as described above.
You responded
>I'm afraid you lost me on this point. In my experience the vp is
>certainly close-able and the the pharynx is stretch-able (although
>admittable less-so than with a lowered larynx). The muscle systems are
>somewhat interconnected but not rigidly so. They can function
>independently. The image which always works for my belters is:
>"classical uses an incipient yawn feeling up to the top of the head and
>down into the chest. In belt, you just yawn upwards only." Works
>almost every time.
In the paragraphs previous to the one you quoted from me, I indicated
that the kind of raising of the palate in which the larynx is lowered
simultaneously is:
1 the form of palate raising which is sought after in classical singing.
2 is different than raising the palate to close off the
velopharyngeal port
3 is not possible if the larynx is raised.
This does not mean the the pharynx is not adjustable when the larynx
is raised but, in my opinion, such adjustments are not the same as
the raising of the palate which simultaneously lowers the larynx
(obviously, I guess).
The classical singing approach to raising the palate has been
developed and taught for ages because it produces the quality of tone
that is sought in classical singing. A redundant, statement but
true. It is unnecessary to impose some other adjustment to producing
a classical tone if this one is so successful. It is important that
the modern analysis of the traditional classical singing techniques
not blur the tenants of these techniques but, rather, derive the
functions that make these techniques work
Now if other tonal concepts are desired, and they are for recent
forms of musicals and pop singing, then these can be also taught but
they are, and ever should be, different. Many times on this list and
many times in singing and voice teaching discussions there is
confusion about what is a good singing tone because the distinction
between various styles are not given clear consideration. You, at
BYU, have a reputation for teaching a wide variety of vocal styles
(is it 6 in all?) and I respect the fact that you have studied the
functional demands that are required for teaching the technique
demanded by these different styles.
There is a difference in the processes that have brought about a
modern study of classical technique and a study of belt or pops
techniques. So much of what is taught in belt and pop singing is
concerned with style rather than technique. At the present time,
this is not true of classical technique because the technique is
taught first or simultaneously with style. Years of study are
expected before one is ready to perform in the classical singing
style.
But belt and pops, by their natures, are more often a self taught
style and very little functional technique is learned to accommodate
the style. Only after the style has been around for a number of
years is an analysis of the techniques that are required sought and
an attempt to develop a healthy, functional technique achieved. We
seem to be in the middle of that development at the present time.
--
Lloyd W. Hanson, DMA
Professor of Voice, Pedagogy
School of Performing Arts
Northern Arizona University
Flagstaff, AZ 86011
|
|  |
