In a message dated 3/8/2001 5:29:52 AM Eastern Standard Time, bandb@n... writes:
<< 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!!! >>
reg, as i was saying, only liars have to worry about the tones in their voices. i can only assume you include television evangelists in 'other con men'.
<>
it doesn't have to be. taking the approach of 'now if it were i, i would probably say it like this' removes the need to pretend that one is the character leaving the actor to 'represent' the character rather than commiting an act of unnecessary delusion. and, in representing the character, an actor can become quite impassioned in the championing of that character's intentions.
<<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! : )>>
no i don't. in speech we get caught up in what we are saying. sometimes we express ourselves when we wish we wouldn't. we can come across as nervous, impatient, depressed, etc. when we might wish to conceal those emotions. fake smiles, insincere good wishes, compliments to hated rivals, etc. usually ring false. the expert liar is the liar who manages to obscure the difference between fact and fiction which allows them the benefits of truthful expression.
<<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. : )>>
i haven't a clue how to answer this. i can only assume you have no idea what i'm talking about.
<<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.>>
i was right, you have missed the point. as you may remember, the distinctions i make between speech and singing are; a wider range of pitches is used in singing and, where specific pitches are sustained for specific durations, it takes longer (generally) to say the words while singing than it does while speaking.
<<Moaning is what you hear from pop singers and Mr Bush. Intoning came from the previous guy. : )>>
moaning is a lot closer to what opera singers do than what pop singers do. where a great many pop singers do something between talk-sing and yell-sing, the extension of word length that is extreme in operatic singing more closely resembles extreme moaning. in fact, the greatest stylistic distintion i make between singing pop and singing opera is more moaning for opera. btw, the moaning idea is one i got from the late john haber. john had worked as an assistant to wesley balk at western opera theater and was the director of the opera dept. at boston university until he left to become a buddhist monk. sadly, he is dead. he was a great teacher.
the point i have been trying to make concerns tonal quality as a means of expression. to take advantage of the voice's natural tendencies to express the 'feelings' of its user is much better than to try to construct something. we hear roughly 85% of our voices inside our heads. the tone we hear is further affected by resonance and the muffling by our heads. in order to color the tone as we'd like it to be presented to our listeners, we have to supply X, not the tone we want them to hear. and like lying and fake smiles, it requires constant construction and does not allow for true inspiration.
<<Reg.>>
it is a comfort to know the teachings of the great professor irwin corey will be passed on to future generations.
always a treat, mike
"One must have loved a woman of genius to comprehend the happiness of loving a fool."
>>
|