In a message dated 6/23/2002 11:43:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ezweig@e... writes:
> but the > bottom line is the health of the voice
erica,
i have to disagree. the bottom line is technique serving the intentions of the artist. one would hope to find the most efficient way to sing, given the intentions of that singer, whether it be to achieve a particular sound or to allow for a wide variety of 'accidental' utterances. obviously, if one can keep a voice healthy, the longer a singer will be able to use a voice.
if concerns for health are in direct conflict with the artistic goals of the singer, that singer will not be satisfied. jose carreras might have retained the beauty of his voice had he stuck to the lyric roles rather than venturing into the heavier ones that took such an obvious toll on him. had he sung in a less boisterous manner, he probably would also have kept the health of his sound longer. but, ultimately he would have been unsatisfied. by his own admission, this was a conscious choice.
it is my feeling that the voice teacher's duty is to instruct students in the use of the voice for the purpose of finding the most efficient technique to realize their artistic goals. "Pedagogically, we can adapt what we teach to accommodate changing technologies and styles..." if, by this statement, you are refering to all the possible uses of the voice, then we are in agreement. if, however, you are refering to that which is taught specifically to classical singers for the purpose of classical singing, we are not in agreement, particularly for female singers.
mike
|
| |