Hi, everyone
Isabelle wrote:
>Isn't it strange the way our mental concepts influence what we do. When I think "UH" it just makes a backwards "ah" fly right into a nice, free, forward place. I must have a strange, forward concept of "uh."I guess this is why we will never be able to teach voice with the so-called "scientific" method -- there's just no one-size-fits-all rule to fix every vocal problem.<
But, Isabelle, a 'scientific' method would be the only one to consider idiosyncratic influences in singing, and not the opposite. Science is usually taken as an attempt to generalize rules, but that is not exactly true and is actually 'trueR' ( double checked that word: some dictionaries say that comparative doesn't exist, some say it does. Well, the important is that it serves the purpose! hehe ) of singing teachers who try to impose their inner sensations upon their students.
In this case, science would 'generalize' that placement sensations are not accurate, therefore cannot be appropriately used as a teaching device ( at least, not for everyone. That would depend on the student's sensations matching those of the teacher ).
Lloyd:
>English is replete with diphthongs but it is still possible to isolate the differences in the first of the diphthongs sounds and sustain these rather than the second of the diphthong sounds.<
Lloyd, you called attention to something that I'd already noticed by myself: I don't know if that happens with the British also, but Americans at least tend to perceive the vowels and semi-vowels in diphthongs as pertaining to an inseparable unity, as if they were ONE sound only. That's why you ( and the British too ) pronounce 'ballet' as /baley/: you just don't 'accept' that /e/ without an 'accompaniment'.
Just as a comparison, we have many more diphthongs in Portuguese, but we clearly notice they're composed by differnent sounds. In fact, it's hard for us to 'accept' the existence of something called a 'semi-vowel', although we produce them as such. They're all vowels to us.
Doris:
>But I think in the case of *shun,* it has turned into what I would not call an *ah.* Isn't that the sound depicted by the upside down V which is a variety of *ooo* or *u* and not an ah at all?<
For us, Portuguese speakers, they're all a single 'ah'. As Italian doesn't have those at least 3 'ahs' you have ( 'proper' /ah/, the schwa and the upside down V ) either, but you have imported the whole singing culture from their opera, I guess many discussions we see here off and on stem from that different perspective.
Lloyd:
>I wonder what differences these regional dialects will produce in this "test".File Father Shout Shun.<
Doris, on Lloyd's chart:
>The first vowel of each dipthong is an ah, each coming from progressively further back in the mouth as you go down the list.<
That is: 'file' back, 'shun' forward.
VERSUS
Lloyd, on his chart:
> Each of these forms of AH do tend to move progressively further back in the mouth if one pays attention to that<
That is: 'file' forward, 'shun' back.
Isabelle, on the same chart:
>The first is forward (correctly placed, in my vocal lexicon), the second is "normal" American AH, while the last two are backward. For me.<
That is: 'file' forward', 'shun' back.
Do you guys speak the same language? hehe
These are my considerations: consonants and semi-vowels must be 'contaminating' your placement sensations. More specifically: you blow up the air from the pharynx to the mouth in order to produce the vowel sound, it ( the air, not the vowel, or course ) hits the palate, the different portions of the tongue, teeth or lips ( depending on the 'neighboring' sounds in the word ) while lips, tongues and teeth also touch each other in different ways and portions, and you take those sensations caused by air and organs friction as being something called different 'placements' for the same vowel sound.
What accounts for Lloyd and Isabelle to report the same placement, while Doris feels exactly the opposite, MAY BE that they're emphasizing different sensations. Let's take 'shun' as an example: if you focus your attention on the sensations coming from the tongue when you pronounce the consonants, and allow them to 'contaminate' the vowel in between, the 'uh' sound is felt 'forward' because the tip of your tongue in involved, although in different ways, in both consonant sounds. BUT if you focus on the sensation caused by the air being pursed back and pressing the palate and the inner parts of your cheeks due to the tongue/tooth ridge obstruction when the 'sh' and /n/ sounds are produced, you'll feel the vowel 'backward'.
Mike: >if you say 'uh' as in up with that slight smile thing and then say 'duh' as in duh, does your larynx move up or down or not at all as you go from one to the other?<
Isabelle, on Mike's question:
>Yes... for the second, the larynx moves down and it feels like a distorted backwards UH with the lips held into an artificial smile.<
I think in 'duh' you are being forced to create room in the mouth due to the obstruction of the air to produce the /d/ sound. You must do that by lifting the soft palate a bit, and that causes the larynx to move down. That's the only explanation I've found, since it happens to me too, and I'm not a native speaker of English.
Lloyd:
>The "Shun" vowel is an excellent vowel for singing because it is really akin to the schwa which is the most open throated, least tongue obstructed vowel we can produce. It is the vowel that gives the natural relaxed resonance of the vocal tract and an almost consistent tube shape from the vocal folds to the lips.<
A have a manual on American English pronunciation where they say that it's useless to try to explain the difference between an upside-down V and the schwa to a non-native ( and now I see, probably to a native too hehe ). It gives the same phonetic symbol for both ( a schwa ) and let the stressed and unstressed position of that sound do that job by its own.
If what I said above about sensation 'contamination', then the schwa must suffer that much more than any other vowel sound, since it's unstressed and, therefore, more subject to being influenced by neighboring sounds. Allthough of a different nature, we see that happening with an unstressed T in American English, which is 'contaminated' by voiced sounds ( as in 'water' ) around. The upside down V, on the other hand, would be less subject to that, maybe except when it's 'caught' in between two consonants in the same syllable, as in 'shun'. Try that ( I'm a non-native and biased.. hehe ) with 'shUn', 'cOlor' and Mike's ( or should I say mike? ) 'duh'. Also, compare 'up' to 'uck' ( whatever that might be ): do you think the 'p' being articulated with the lips and the 'k' with the back portion of the tongue influences your 'placement' sensations?
And here we have another problem: syllables in Portuguese, and I think in Italian too ( Valle, please!!! ), are not separated the same way, what may show different ways to deal with sounds. I've just opened and English dictionary and looked for a word where that difference would be clearly noticed. I have found 'pip-ette' ( the tube used in labs ) and 'plan-et'. We would have 'pi-pe-ta' and 'pla-ne-ta'.
If what happens in Portuguese is true of Italian too, and added to that, the fact that we have, even in words that separation of syllables coincide with English, MANY MORE syllables ending in vowel sounds than you do, then 'contamination' is MUCH MORE likely to happen in English, and therefore MUCH MORE natural and even expected when SINGING in English. As a consequence, those of you who speak English as the first language and are singing in Italian should change your instinctive 'syllabification' ( that word exists, although most Americans I used it with asked me what a hack it meant! ) system when singing.
Bye, ( but there's more to follow )
Caio Rossi Sao Paulo, Brazil
|