taste is an odd thing. the phrase "develope a taste for" really
means systematically forcing oneself to like something we didn't like in the
first place. quite often, we develope this taste because someone
intimidating told us we should. or sometimes, we find some aspect appealing
but we hate the rest. that aspect is appealing enough for us to work hard
to accept the rest (for me, mushrooms and scotch fall into this catagory).
another development of a taste for something, occurs when we gradually change
our opinion of something for a variety of reasons.
liking a type of music is a subjective activity, not a duty. we
don't die from the music we listen to. so, it's not really like eating food
that's bad for you. the question of health and singing is objective. but,
it is not the measure of success in singing. if one chooses to sing in a
way that is unhealthy because the results are what one desires then, that is
what one must do (it's not like bungy jumping wrong). the key word is
'choice'. i am sure that a lot of singing, in every genre, is passed off as
'that's what i wanted' when, it was not.
artists work either through process or, for results. in painting,
richard estes would be an example of an artist who works towards a result
while van gogh was an artist who worked through process. others are not so
easily discerned (i suppose there are many who go for some results and the
process slaps them in the face but, they end up with something they like
anyway).
music is completely unnecessary so, what other criteria is worthwhile
besides 'do i like it or, not'?
most of the singers i know who i have sought help for damage have been
classical singers and the only singer who i can think of who died while
singing, was leonard warren, an opera singer.
mike
|
