Dear Reg and List:
--- In vocalist-temporary@yahoogroups.com, James <bandb@n...> wrote:
> It is my experience that a graded classical set of material
> is most helpful in developing a solid technique. It is a fact
> that there is some material which is impossible to sing with
> any degree of professionalism unless the technique is both
> correct and reliable. Similarly there is music at the other
> end of the spectrum, where a simple, yet undeveloped
> technique will do.
Reg: a couple of comments:
a) First of all, I would distinguish between a "classical teacher"
and "classical material". I have no objections to a classical
teacher and in the past have worked exclusively with classical
teachers since I admire their technique and abilities.
b) However, if a student does not wish to sing classical material (or
at least not opera arias...), or does not wish to exclusively sing
classical material, I see no reason why they cannot find a
classically-trained teacher who is willing to work with them on their
non-classical material and show them how to apply the technique in a
style appropriate manner. John Link gave the example of an operatic
rendition of "Happy Birthday" sounding ridiculous - classically
trained singers sometimes are unable to apply their well-trained
voices to other styles.
c) I find that even the simplest of songs reveal the difference
between a better and lesser singers, especially if the song involves
sustained notes.
d) Finally, as far as the comment about "rock" (not quoted) - well
I'm still not sure what "rock" means - heavy metal? rock and roll?
pop? etc. but some of the "rock" material I am familiar with has nice
melodies etc. In addition, many of these "rock" songs are originally
in a high key, and some of the male "rock" singers are very high
light tenors, so I imagine that attempting to sing well in such a
high range poses a considerable challenge.
Cheers,
Michael Gordon
|
