| Date sent: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 10:13:31 EST Subject: Re: The female speaking voice To: vocalist Send reply to: VOCALIST <vocalist>
michael (cheseboro), i think you have raised some valuable points and i think we can take it further and ask the general question; how many voice teachers have actual experience with a significant number of singers or speakers who have actually developed a vocal pathology as a direct result from the way they use their voices. yes, of course, we can all think of those one or two singers who were burning a short fuse (jose carreras, for one) but, usually the problems these people run into is making a sound that is just out of their league. many times these singers know what they are doing and know that their deal with the devil will be short lived (compare the chapters on carreras and krauss in matheopoulos' 'divo'). one of the things that has come to bother me more and more, has been the general claim by a good number of classical voice teachers that their way is the only safe way. compared to other styles of singing, the classical approach often concerns itself with the pursuance of a ubiquitous tone color. we all know from playing the piano that, when the string changes length and base thickness, its tone changes. a technique that seeks to take advantage of the strengths of the voice at both extremes- chest voice for the lowest (or fry, if you can get away with it) all the way up to whistle tone for the highest. the main concern would be the constant, gradual 'turning over' as one went from low to high (much like the one-club approach to the short game in golf). this would put the voice at its most natural at any part of its range. following, what one uses for a speaking voice would depend on where one speaks. singing is an art first and a science second (or maybe, last). so, all of us have to decide, if it comes to this, whether to sell our souls or to sell our throats for our art.
mike
| |