RALUCOB@a... wrote:
> it has been my general practice, in the past five years to teach women
> both methods i spoke of however, as i thought about it this morning, i
> realize i have greatly reduced the use of the more operatic of the two
> methods. partly due to the fact that, in the past six months, i have worked
> on getting rid of anything operatic sounding in my own voice (after
> forty-plus years of listening to it, twenty-five years working on it, i
> finally came to the (personal) conclusion that operatic singing really does
> sound kind of silly. it's not like i didn't give it enough time.) and also
> that it leaves women with nothing much below middle C.
I don't know what you teach or observe that you call "operatic" that leaves
women with
nothing much below middle C. I am a soprano with a very small light voice.
Before I
started vocal training (which I suppose you would call "operatic" as I
primarily sing
classical music and no popular music), I couldn't sing very low at all. Or
very high.
But now, I can make a very viable sound down to about the G below middle C,
though of
course my best sound down there is in a pure chest tone - but it's a healthy and
good-sounding tone. Good "operatic" voice training certainly does not and
should not
ignore the female chest register.
It would be helpful to the discussion if you would explain more of what you
mean by
"operatic", and how your experience or training brought you to that
understanding.
--
Margaret Harrison, Alexandria, Virginia, USA
"Music for a While Shall All Your Cares Beguile"
mailto:peggyh@i...
|
|  |
