| | From: "Lloyd W. Hanson" <lloyd.hanson@n...>
Date: Tue Jan 28, 2003 9:40 am
Subject: Re: [vocalist] Practical Singing
| Dear Vocalists:
Many of you have responded to my suggestion that we should reconsider
our attitudes toward the science of vocal production. What surprises
me most is the assumption many of you have made that I am suggesting
that our sensations about singing have no value or should not be
considered. It thought I was presenting an argument for developing a
more accurate description of vocal function that is based on actual
events rather than emotion and sensation. Only in this way can a
common language be developed to describe what we all do with our
voices when we sing.
However, how we each choose to feel about these more accurate
descriptions or what our individual body sensations are as they guide
us is not my concern in what I presented. That does not mean it is
not important nor that it is not useful. But just as many teachers
do with their students when they seek to discover the students
feelings and sensations because they are personal to each student so
I do not wish to impose my concepts of feeling and sensations on
anyone else. I have never once found another singer who sensed
singing as I do: never once. Why should I learn words and phrases
from other singers that reflect their individual feelings and
sensations; why should I spend years learning the magic language of
my teacher no matter how great he or she is or was just so I can
finally "know" what the teacher is talking about.
Burt Coffin never requested this from me. Barbara Doscher never
requested this from me. And after watching a weeks worth of lessons
give by Richard Miller he doesn't request a learning of such
emotionally sensational language. All of these teachers could
explain almost exactly what was happening when I sang, could give me
exercises to practice the best vocal functions for my vocal needs and
could show me how to more accurately evaluate my own work and all of
this without the need to even record my lessons.
My work in voice labs has eliminated most of the extended time that
is associated with the usual vocal learning through trial and error.
Of course using a spectrometer or a vowel mirror is also trial and
error but much less of each. Each trial gives immediate feedback
and the degree of error is greatly reduced. The mechanical quality
of such study may not appeal to everyone but there is no question
about its effectiveness.
And contrary to a very popular belief that the voice is a compound
which can never be separated into its elements, the functions of
phonation and resonance can very easily be separated and very easily
melded together. It has always been so. Even the oldest forms of
successful voice teaching from Italy emphasize the onset (attack) of
the tone which is one of the finest methods of improving phonation,
and vocal tract formation through vowel study which is nothing more
or less than a study of resonance. And in the traditional methods
these are very often studied separately.
If we understand, even in the most basic way, how the parts of the
body work individual and together to make singing flexible,
expressive, and enjoyable we cannot help but become better singers.
I used athletes as a metaphor not because I think they make better
singers but because todays athletes have exceeded every kind of
record keeping developed for any sport and most of this excellence is
the direct result of a scientific study how their bodies function and
how they can be trained to function more efficiently. Most athletes
today understand quite well the mechanics of the particular motions
they must use to excel in their sport. Yet it is a rare singer who
has even the faintest idea of what the vocal folds look like.
Just because a muscle or muscle group is involuntary does not mean we
cannot control it. I can decide when I want to take a breath but my
diaphragm is most often described as an involuntary muscle group. I
can train by vocal folds to close in a certain way through my
practice of onset exercises and the very act of pre-phonatory tuning,
of which this is an example, is nothing more than my having some
control of this very involuntary act by very involuntary muscles.
And, as a corollary to this, when my legs twitch at night while I am
sleeping I am involving my very voluntary leg muscles in a most
decidedly involuntary act.
Many singers still have a concept that the tone is carried out of the
mouth by the breath much as a sweet smell is carried to us by a
breeze in spite of the very clearly stated and explained fact that
sound does not travel in the air because of a forward motion in one
direction of the air molecules as one would find in a wind. Without
a concept and understanding of how sound is transmitted it is no
wonder that so many foolish ideas are put forth about how one should
use the breath to sing. Even the old Italians knew this fact; the
candle flame must not flicker as one sings because singing is not the
act of moving air.
I enjoy the discussion. I hope we can keep it moving forward and it
can become a growing point for all of us.
--
Lloyd W. Hanson
|
|
|  |
