> i think it is important to realize that classical singing is just one > of the many things one can do with a voice. it has its criteria to be met > but, that criteria is not all inclusive of vocal usage. as many other > styles of singing exhibit, there are other uses of the voice. > > regardless of what one decides to do with a voice, the study of how it > works and which action equals which resultant sound, can be helpful. what > has been unfortunate in the past has been the application of classical > singing techniques for the purpose of singing styles that are actually very > different. if one wishes to make a sound or, series of sounds that are in > oppostition to classical technique, studying classical singing is not a very > good way to achieve that goal. > > as far as i know, both sinatra and bennett had voice lessons. both > are/were great singers but (fortunately for me), neither exhibits a use of > the voice that is peculiar to classical singing. i would guess that both > had teachers who were classical singers and, they either distorted what their > teachers said until it worked for them or, they didn't listen. > > mike >
I'm surprised that there is no consensus on this point in this newsgroup. Logically, if we back up and think about this from a worldwide perspective, all singing is, is tone production, period. It can be done naturally, by the most primitive of people.
There are many ways to produce tones using air and your throat to harmonize with music. Or even NOT harmonize with music... create dissonant sound that is dramatic in the music.
Whatever the case may be, some people produce these sounds, we call singing, and the result is or is not effective to listeners. It can sound flat, it can sound gravely, it can sound resonant, it can sound whiney, it can sound irregular and imperfect, it can result from movement of the head or the abdomen or the jaw. It can be whispered or yelled in an uncontrolled manner. All of these factors play into the way singing is perceived emotionally by various listeners. They also play into whether a technique can be sustained over the days or over the years (and many popular techniques *are* bad for your throat... read about pop singers getting nodules)
The fact that a type of singing is successful, in my mind, doesn't necessarily mean it adheres to a traditional technique, only that it creates a sound that is consistent with the music, or more importantly, the musical context for the style of music.
Your point about Sinatra and Bennet is right on the money. I find it hard to believe that people think that these styles are creative applications of classical techniques. Why think that? I know quite a few singers who can sound very professional in those styles who have no classical training at all. I find nothing about classical technique in terms of larynx position, breath control, vibrato consistency, use of blended voice to be relevant at all for that sort of lounge-style singing.
Bill
|