> > i can't agree that all styles are a deviation from good technique.
> > this notion assumes that there is an established 'good technique' from
> > which to deviate. i believe that technique should be considered a
> > method by which you accomplish a purpose. the value of a method should
> > be judged on its effectiveness in obtaining the result.
>
> I think you missed the point here. She meant to say that a 'good
> technique', or a perfect technique, doesn't exist, since you'll always have
> to do something 'wrong', or unhealthy, to accomplish stylistic demands. As
> all singing has to be in a style( except for vocalizes, that is, no style at
> all ), deviation from good technique is a rule, and escapades from healthy
> singing habits are implicit in singing whatever style it is.
Perhaps someone can back me up here, but several years ago I read some
research in which vocal chords from various groups were looked at by
researchers and rated as to degree of healthiness by group. The top rated
group was professional choral singers, the second was opera singers. At
the bottom of the list were heavy metal performers in the penultimate
position, followed by black gospel singers. Now, that said, this
fruitless (!) argument periodically raises its head, constantly
comparing apples and oranges. As it will NEVER be agreed upon by all
parties, doesn't it seem silly to constantly argue these positions? I
realize that there has been an element on this list as of late who argues
for the sake of arguing, constantly choosing the most inflammatory
position and staking out its argument by force and rhetoric. For that
reason alone, I hope Marko can get us back in our old home soon. I miss
the regular posts of the knowledgeable, rather than the merely loud and/or
prolific.
Mark Montgomery
|
|  |
