Katherine wrote:
>I agree with Mr Hanson: The language of singing/teaching must be
>clear, precise, scientifically accurate and above all, effective. I
>do not believe that images are, for the most part, particularly
>helpful. Telling a student to make the sound point toward the top of
>his head or to squeeze out the breath as from a toothpaste tube are
>directions that no person of normal intelligence could follow, so it
>is no wonder they do not work, not to mention they defy physiology.
>It behooves us to "get it right". Reading Sandra'a post shows how
>important that is.
I must speak up on behalf of the instinctive/kinesthetic learners out
here! I am very glad to have studied with teachers who understood
the mechanics of voice production -- but who communicated with me on
many different levels. Despite having normal intelligence -- ; ) --
I don't tend to understand or connect with scientific terms. I
respond much more readily to just the kinds of suggestions you
disdain, and if a particular combination of words or thoughts helps
me to function in harmony with my anatomy, I'm all for it! I guess
the important thing is for the images or suggestions to trigger
action which makes efficient use of the existing anatomical mechanism.
Naomi
www.naomigurtlind.net
|
|  |
