Vocalist.org archive


From:  "Caio Rossi" <caioross@z...>
"Caio Rossi" <caioross@z...>
Date:  Tue Nov 7, 2000  6:22 pm
Subject:  Re: [vocalist-temporary] Re: LARYNX: up, down or at rest?


John wrote:

>There's no question that so
> called classically trained and pop styles are radically different both
from
> a sound and technique perspective. The strange sounds that pop singers
use
> put them at extreme risk for vocal problems including mucosal lesions,
> strain, hemorrhage, etc.

But what proves that belting, for instance, is necessarily harmful? Who can
guarantee there's no such thing as safe belting, as Estill advocates? Maybe
those who can belt without Estill's help are doing what Estill might
recommend, so what determines vocal damage may not be what ( belting ), but
how. Saying those who do it and have not had any vocal problems have a more
resistant larynx, not a better way of doing it, seems to be only a
supposition based upon those who had vocal problems, not on those who
haven't had any.

Also, as there is a quality control over classical singers that does not
apply to pop singers, how can you say opera singers necessarily have healthy
habits? Those who damaged their voices by using classical technique may have
stopped singing before any public performance ( something that does not
happen in the pop area ). I have many friends who started taking opera
singing classes and their teachers said they should stop because "they
didn't have a voice'. And Kiri Te Kanawa's interview saying most of her
classmates at the conservatory she went to when she started ended up
quitting due to serious vocal damage caused by practicing OPERATIC TECHNIQUE
seems to support my doubt.

I'm just applying Darwinian selection principles to classical singers in
general and pop singers looking for medical help. The former would be the
fittest ( to their technique ) and the latter the unfit ( to, maybe, lack of
any technique ). In both cases you would be dealing with a more or less
uniform population that does not represent the population as a whole ( and
in the case of professional pop singers with vocal problems, not even the
whole population of pop singers ).

In the introduction of that research comparing classical vs pop singers they
say they consider muscular constriction in the larynx( I think they gave it
another name, but I won't look it up now ) to be a problem BASED UPON
PATIENTS IN THEIR CLINIC. All their subjects were supposed not to have had
any vocal complications in the last 2 years, so as to be considered HEALTHY.
Therefore, pop singing subjects had muscular constrictions that did not
interfere in their vocal health, according to the researchers' own
criterium. Anyone rational enough would conclude from that that there are
two kinds of larynx constricting singers: healthy and unhealthy ones. That
is the obvious consequence of what the researchers wrote, but if they didn't
waste their time reading what they themselves wrote, why should we bother to
do it :-)

Bye,

Caio Rossi




emusic.com