In a message dated 7/21/2002 12:51:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
bandb@n... writes:
>
> While I'm here, the idea of "classically trained" singers changing
> over to "speech level" singing as someone has said, implies that
> speech level sing is NOT a classical technique. Be that as it may,
> it also suggests that the person who had not yet attained a smooth
> transition from chest to head voice, had not nearly achieved a
> "classical training."
> Strange that such silliness should be discussed.
reg,
'speech level singing' (the approach developed by seth riggs, that is)
is a technique for developing the use of the voice for singing while varying
as little as need be from the act of speaking, as i understand it.
'classical training' refers to a specific usage of the voice and the training
of the voice for that purpose. there is a long standing myth that
'classical training' is the only way to develope the use of the voice that is
efficient, safe, etc. in the past, 'classical training' was the only
training of the voice available. this is no longer true as the best usage
of the voice exists outside of any style of music. still, as louis
armstrong demonstrated, the best usage of the voice is not necessary to sing
beautifully.
mike
|
|
|  |
