reg said:
"As one who has striven all his vocal life to smooth this chest to head transition, I have found it goes hand in glove with efficient technique."
reg,
if you new what efficient technique was, it wouldn't have taken your whole life to smooth out that transition (not an insult, just an observation).
reg wrote:
"*** Purity of tone, control and magnification that is based on full understanding of the technique the individual is attempting to engage. If the speech-level technique reaches this zenith then it is no different from "classical technique." Yet, in spite of claims to the contrary, I have no reason to believe it has achieved this same goal. Therefore I suggest its practise is grounded on erroneous theory."
classical singing makes use of only part of what the voice is capable of. as there is a need to project over an orchestra in much of classical singing, this places the voice under greater pressure therefore, making the transition more difficult. in classical singing, efficiency boils down, primarily, to being heard. in other types of singing, where being heard is not a problem (thanks to modern technology), a sound's efficiency is determined by other factors.
the development of a technique that is truly efficient, gives a singer the ability to make use of all the options open to that singer, not just one narrow usage.
mike
|