Ear Taylor and Randy and Vocalisters:
Just some general comments on your ideas expressed around this
"thread". They are my own.
I question the ideas expressed by both of you that classical singing
technique always or almost always encourages female voices to being
the head voice down with the resultant lack of proper use of chest
voice or chest voice, head voice mix in the middle voice. I can
think of no successful classical or opera singers for which this is
true even though they do not use chest voice as high as is prominent
in pops singing nor do they often use as heavy a mix of chest voice
in the upper passaggio of the female voice.
I will agree that I have had students who tell me that this is the
desired quality (head voice as low as possible) that their former
teachers demanded or encouraged but in all cases when I came to know
these teachers it was possible for me to realize that they were in
the process of developing the students head voice and the concept of
head voice down was merely an attempt to strengthen the head voice as
it moved through the upper passaggio. The translation of the
teachers intent through the student was not an accurate one even
though it was the students intent to be forthright and honest in
relaying this information.
However, there is the matter of desired sound that is considered
correct for different musical works and these patterns of sonic taste
do have national tendencies. As I have said before, it has been my
experience that the German school of classical singing tends to avoid
anything that resembles the qualities of unregulated chest voice
because they consider it a vulgar vocal quality. The Italians, by
contrast, encourage the use of chest voice especially as a dramatic
element in opera. But none of this eschews the use of chest voice,
only the degree of unmixed chest voice that is desired. The German
school of singing produces female voices with very substantial low
registers that can be heard over large Germanic sized orchestras as
in Wagner operas yet they do not care for unregulated chest voice
even in their lowest notes.
It is most difficult to generalize about the teaching of voice and
its correctness or lack of same in the United States. We have so
very many methodologies in use. Very few voice teachers in the US
eschew a particular method of teaching. They tend to be independent
people who choose from that which they find works and reject that
which does not. I would say that few US teachers are 'disciples' of
their former teachers even though we all tend to teach are we were
taught. It is for this reason that a generalization is not easy.
However, some writers on voice and voice teaching have developed a
particular, correct method or methods and, sadly , some of these
writer tend to denigrate the methods of others. Curtis falls in this
camp. So does Cornelius Reid. And any definable technique that is
'franchised' in the sense of being licensed or officially designated
tends to be viewed this way as well. Speech Level Singing falls into
this category.
It is my opinion that what voice teaching needs is a grounding in the
fundamentals of vocal function much as a physician is grounded in the
anatomy and function of the human body so that we, as teachers, can
also be in some sense therapists of the voice and not, simply,
teachers of song or opera.
Ingo Titze has attempted to put this concept into action with a
series of courses that direct the teacher or singer toward a level of
achievement which he calls vocalogy. As I understand it, however,
the vocology idea does not purport any particular technique of voice
use or singing but only a knowledge of vocal function and an
awareness of vocal research. The student who complete these courses
will still have to develop a personal technique of teaching what
works for him/her. Hopefully such developed techniques will be built
on an informed basis rather than simply what works for the time being.
--
Lloyd W. Hanson
|
