In a message dated 11/24/00 4:19:42 PM Central Standard Time,
bandb@netspace.net.au writes:
Of course we've been here before so let's not get too bogged down
with our preoccupation that pre-phonatory tuning has more noble
origins than the concept of support, nor for that matter that the
Bernoulli effect is immune to external influences. Obsessing with
the Bernoulli effect is just as extreme, if not more-so, than is that of
the principle of support. The problem, as we all seem to agree, is
the difficulty of making the support concept have the same
meaning for all.
Regards Reg.
Reg,
I've read your responses to my postings and others for a long time now.
While I'm degreed in speech language pathology, teach about 70 students a
week, have done original research on postoperative rehab (which looks like
it's going to be published in NATS), am in a graduate school for speech
language pathology, have credits on major label releases, am producing an
instructional CD/book with my clients (Dove award winning gospel singers
Angelo and Veronica), have given master classes across the country, have read
and understood the major voice science and vocal pedagogy texts available, I
seldom understand what you are getting at. I am positive I am not alone on
this. Why the confusing verbiage and subterfuge combined with a slight hint
of piety?
Randy Buescher |
