from Mike >in my thinking, singing is an extension of speech in that when we >express ourselves in speech, we are usually caught up in the point we are >trying to make or the story we are trying to tell. with that intent, our >voices go through all sorts of complicated color changes that are far sublter >than anything we could ever plan (the french word 'eclat' comes to mind). >(only liars have to worry about the tone of their voices.) we can't hear >ourselves as others hear us so, what's the point in the vanity of 'touching >up' our voices?
Mike I don't get that. If there was no point in touching up our voices, car salesmen, politicians and other con men would not succeed as well as they do!!! You classify all vocalists with these!!
I think we have a 'confusion' here! Acting is insincerity and so is a snowjob, as any of those mentioned above know.
You say, in speech we color our phrases in order to communicate our message and you label anyone who does this, a liar and deceiver! : )
> (only liars have to worry about the tone of their voices.)
Overlooking your contention, that ..... 'we don't hear ourselves as others hear us', ..... you must be speaking of a "pop" style where 'originality', is the term used to conceal an artistic refusal or inability of the performer to adhere to the composer's intention. : )
A pre-requisite of course, but it is still covered by your classification!!!
This means you have painted yourself into a serious predicament.
In classical singing the tone, duration and vowel is decided by the composer and any serious departure from this means that the performer is not being faithful to the composers intention.
HOWEVER....as I understand your view of singing, anyone who sticks strictly to the composers intention is being silly and insincere in not allowing their passionate vocal foibles to override what was written.
As you've observed, telling a person to 'moan' will draw a different response from each, depending on their experience, but if you intend to draw from the potential singer, a set of sounds "they can't hear" I must ask...are you aiming for a similar sound from each? ...(in which case you're doomed to failure on your own criteria) ...or are you seeking different sounds from each? .... as an assurance that no particular composer's music will ever be accurately reproduced by these singers? No restrictions represent no standards.
Surely there is a great chasm between speech and the music of the type being performed within the composer's constraints! **
Speech is hopefully a "one off ", with the mind totally engaged in the origination and presentation process. Nothing is fixed. Pitch, pause pace or dynamics. In classical singing it is only the presentation that is flexible. Inability to accede to the composers original wishes for pitch, pause, pace or dynamics, represents failure of the will, or technique.
>in short, i keep learning that singing is the exact expression of a >notion and that technique is just a trick to unstick the point. when a >fascination for technique replaces the intention of conveying an idea, > it is not technique, it is a joke!
** "Exact expression of a notion".. is hardly what a singer is doing when they originate their own notions in total disregard of what the composer had in mind. In fact IT would be a joke, usually dictated by a technique which is incapable of addressing the task! (See pop stars singing opera for an example.)
The key word is of course, CONSTRAINTS. 1. Constraining or being constrained. 2. Restriction 3. Self-control.
Moaning is what you hear from pop singers and Mr Bush. Intoning came from the previous guy. : )
Reg.
"One must have loved a woman of genius to comprehend the happiness of loving a fool."
|
| |