Karin said...
***********************************
Dear Lloyd,
Yes, that makes very much sense. Thank you.
There is one thing, though, that is puzzling me:
It is my impression that the female middle voice do not appear in most
untrained voices.
Untrained female voices are typically more like:
Chest voice - <big ugly break> - High voice.
(with diverse variations - some use predominanty chest, some use
predominantly high voice, and I'm leaving out the whistle to simplify
things)
In other words: I perceive the middle voice more as a "passagio" area.
A while ago, someone argued that it was a matter of definition how many
registers you use to describe the voice. I think one lister wanted to define
the (male) passagio as a separate register. An argument for NOT doing so
(from another lister) was that it was more of a transition area than a
separate register.
Why the difference in description for male and female voices?
Tradition? Or practical reasons? (if you have a rather large area in the
middle of your voice you need to work on, it is practical to have a specific
name for it).
************************************************
Karin,
I am not Lloyd (nor do I have his experience or knowledge), but I thought I
would throw in my two cents. It seems to me that difference in descriptions
is not necessary. In the male voice, from the point of the first passagio,
there is a need to begin adding in more of the "head voice" quality (read
less thyroarytenoid activity, and more cricothyroid activity) as you ascend
the scale. The same is true for the female voice, except that the middle
voice of the female (depending on how where you designate the first
passagio) is larger than the male's, encompassing an octave or so. Of
course, any time you talk about registers, there is debate, because there
has not been enough conclusive research, and lots of strong opinions.
There is mine (subject to change, of course),
David Grogan
Marshall, Texas
|
