In this country Jo Estill's method seems to be the generally accepted approach
to teaching contemprary singing technique as opposed to classical training.
Although I have not learnt Estill technique, there is a great difference in the
sound of these two approaches. Firstly there seems to be a greater emphasis on
"twang". Secondly there seems to be a much wider aceptance of breathy and
parlando approaches in contemprary singing. Thirdly many of the singers seem to
have a reduced vocal range. They also often seem to emphasise rather than smooth
out natural breaks that occur in a singer with no classically training. Eg (like
yodelling in country and Western).
I agree that in theory singers should be able to sing comtemporary music with a
classical technique. However when we spend most of our lives trying to make our
tones effortless and also seemless, why bother,.
Further I remember a vocal conference I attended with apparantly one of the top
teachers in the USA. What he found was that after analysing the sounds of
professional singers both contemporary and classical that the later had a longer
and and more complex set of overtones on ever note. Further that this tended to
occur through out the range. The contemporary singers on the other hand tended
to have a very uneven sequence of overtones. The speech format was sometimes
missing or there where other gaps in the bottom or middle.
Further he found that singers like Louie Armstron tended to make alot of use of
the false vocal folds on either side of the regular vocal folds.
"edsmed969 <michael.gum@d... wrote:
Ok, so what your saying is .. that since I sing and sang 'popular'
music and not 'operatic' music when I was originally trained .. that
I was not trained classically ???
--- In vocalist-temporary@yahoogroups.com, Cindi Waters
<musicteachky@y...> wrote:
>
> Hello, Margaret, Ed, and vocalisters. I was trained basically as a
classical singer. Later on I decided to pursue an avenue on interest
in commercial singing. I did not pursue it, but I did study a little
bit in that area. I can say that without doubt there is a big
difference in the style. The early vocal pedagogues understood that
once a pop area is tried by the vocalist, it is more than likely the
operatic purity will be lost. While I did not lose my ability to sing
classically, I also noticed a difference of thought, thus approach.
Cindi
> "Margaret L. Harrison" <peggyh@i...> wrote:edsmed969
<michael.gum@d...> wrote:
> >
> > As far a vocal training .. how would you classify training as a
classically trained vocalist? Is it by the music preformed or the
method of training?
>
> I would say it could be either, both, or neither.
>
> I think, from reading discussions on this list, that
the "classical" method of vocal study refers for most people to the
teaching of a vocally healthy manner of singing, which is capable of
being applied in a stylistically correct manner to the
performance "classical" vocal music (opera and art song, and artistic
settings of folksong). This type of teaching can be applied to any
style of music, but for a student who wants to learn to healthily
sing other styles to be happy, the teacher would need to be very
familiar with the style of music the student wants to learn.
>
> Peggy
>
>
> Margaret Harrison, Alexandria, Virginia, USA.
>
>
unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
---------------------------------
- Exchange IMs with Messenger friends on your Telstra or Vodafone mobile phone.
|
