Mike,
About the aesthetics of rock versus classical: If someone has been
exposed to classical technique (and has the perseverence to really
make it his own), he is at least in the position to choose what he
wants to do with it, how far he wants to go etc. Some new aesthetics
could arise from this. In the seventies there were some keyboard
players in rock music who were classicaly trained like Keith Emerson,
Rick Wakeman and Patrick Moraz and, whether you like them or not,
they have been able to a large extent to create a new type of
aesthetic which is neither rock nor classical. I have only heard of
one (Dutch) rock band with a classically trained singer, but it
was rather short-lived. Well, just a thought ...
> in the largest group of singers, in my experience. and, it would
seem that
> larynx height has far more to do with timbre than power.
>
This is contrary to my experience and what's in the literature
(which does not necessarily mean that you're wrong by the way ;) ).
As for the singer's formant: if it is too high (like when using a
high larynx) it is less effective as the partials generated by
the vocal folds become weaker with increasing partial number. With a
low larynx the SF should be between 2500 and 3000 Hz and certainly
not in the 3500 Hz range. Johan Sundberg did some research on the
singer's formant and he found that the amplitude of the SF rises when
the larynx is low and the pharynx is wide, but I never
did the comparison myself. I sing with a low larynx and my SF is
quite prominent. In the past when I didn't have any technique I also
didn't have a spectrography program. I must remember to do some
experiments with it.
Wim
|
|  |
