>In dampening, the amplitude of vibration is not would contribute to a robust
>sound in in my estimation. It would be the length of the closed cycle
which
>would lead to more compression of the airstream, hence more rarefaction
>leading to more amplitude in the sound wave. I've witnessed dampening
during
>stroboscopic exam. The folds lack the elasticity to indefinitely lengthen,
>so a reduction of vibrating length is a way to accomplish higher pitches.
Dear Randy,
Damping of a moving body such as the vocal folds, is a
function of its frictional losses and the load presented to it by the air
column upon which it acts.
While it is useful to consider this principle in developing
an acceptable technique of singing, ideal damping will be a secondary
effect, not a primary one that is directly controlled.
It is futile for SLS to claim objectivity while it uses terms so loosely.
>As far as some of the other question raised like singing into the mask, SLS
>deplores a deformation of the vocal tract which attempts to guide the
>resonance into a particular place. Most informed pedagogies at this point
>(such as Miller) refute such devices as does SLS.
But since you have classified SLS as an informed pedagogy by associating it
with that of Miller, I would like to know whether you include the mouth and
lips as part of the deformation of the vocal tract that you find so
objectionable.
If not, where do you imagine the demarcation lies and how do you isolate
the regions if not by imagery?
Assuming this is proprietary information, am I left to guess that the
secret lies in general immobility of vocal apparatus? I think not.
>SLS instructors aren't into imagery as a tool, feeling it is too vague and
>subjective, we euse exercises that induce or stimulate targeted behaviors.
Isn't this what all teachers do and still classify it as imagery?
Targeted behaviour?
To induce...? A certain tone?
" " ...? A fixed epiglottis??
Please convince me of your objectivity.
Regards Reg.
|
|  |
