Mirko wrote:
>It's easier to sustain a high pop tessitura
> than a high classical tessitura, because you can do it *anyway you like*-
> some like to shout, some scream, some whine, few sing.
But shouting, screaming and whining are necessary for certain parts of
certain songs. If they can control it and do it at will, not by accident, it
has more to do with singing than an involuntary vibrato in opera.
>95% of the larynxes are raised, throats are closed etc.
According to the literature I've had access too, and also Lloyd's post some
time ago: "COMMENT: Attempting to control pitch by raising the larynx is
counterproductive. The control mechanism for raising pitch is within the
larynx, not outside it. Raising and lowering the larynx as a means of
controlling pitch is using muscle systems that are not intended to this
purpose and are not effective in doing so. That is, the singer may raise
and lower larynx as pitch goes up and down but it is not the raising and
lowering of the larynx that is causing the pitch change. "
He also added: "COMMENT ON COMMENT: A lot of rock and pops singing CHOOSES
( Caio's upper case ) to distort the upper registers of the singing voice.
The tone that is desired appears to be a pained vocal tone that is akin to a
yell. It is the antithesis of the high voice tone that is desired in
classical singing. The artistry of this choice is not a part of this
discussion but the effect on vocal functions is. I do believe it is
possible to produce the "yell" voice in the upper registers but the balance
of vocal function necessary to do so must be given consideration. Raising
the larynx has been proven to be damaging and should not be attempted.
Notice how often rock/pop singers raise the chin and tip the head back
slightly for the high tones. This movement tends to lift the larynx and
pull the vocal mechanism out of its natural, balanced position."
That is: it may be harmful if done too often ( my speech pathologist
recommends to balance that, 'yelling' on certain syllables and releasing on
others. Besides being healthier, she believes the distortion will have a
better effect if shown on a smoother background. Most of my headbanging
friends wouldn't agree, though! ), but it's an aesthetic requirement for
certain styles.
> Imagine the guy from Savage garden singing without a microphone- he'd
> probably collapse after half a song. he sings 'off' his voice and can
> sustain a higher (albeit light and quiet) tessitura than he could without
a
> mic. But i'm sure he's perfectly happy with his voice.
I don't know any of Savage Garden's songs ( if I know the song, I don't know
who performs it ), but it seems to me that you're missing what's most
important here: don't you think that using a mike helps the singer project
the sound more freely, so as to focus on things that are overlooked in the
opera field, like sounding more natural, avoiding distortion of words or
vowel substitutions, delivery, etc? I think that by using a mike you can be
more artistic and less mechanical. More software, less hardware.
BTW, someone said here that opera singing technique is concerned with good
articulation. I read an interview with Montserrat last year and the
interviewer asked her what she thought about the 2 tendencies in opera
singing: emphasis on the music with possible sound distortions to fulfill
that, or emphasis on the text, with negative side-effects on the music. He
even cited the Italian names for these two tendencies, so I think it's
something that comes from a long time ago and is an intrinsic feature of
opera.
Bye,
Caio Rossi
|
|  |
