robin frye (astonished) wrote:
<< Please don't tell me that you mean to say you think she should be using
only
chest voice from nearly an octave above middle C down? >>
no- speaking voice, whatever mix that person speaks with(and that may be
what one would call chest voice). marthea reported that the student's
speaking voice is fine and that the problem occurs when she sings. singing
in 'head voice' in this range would be a radical change and the most likely
culprit (remember, use of falsetto in the speaking range is considered
dysfunctional by the speech pathology community). (don't get upset yet.
wait till you read the rest.)
<< I hope you would agree that head voice should predominate through most of
that octave, gradually mixing in with chest voice, until chest voice
predominates, and then she is in full chest voice on her lowest notes. >>
just as some foods that are good for you don't neccesarily taste good
and vice versa, what is best for your voice isn't always the way you may want
to sound.
the way in which most operatic female singers sing is essentially the
same as the way a counter-tenor like david daniels sings. the way in which
aretha franklin or barbara streisand sings is more like the way 95% of all
men sing- in the same voice they speak with extended by a mix in the high
range (i am struck by the similarity in the sounds of alison krauss and billy
gilliam).
there can be endless debate over which way of singing is healthier but,
where the equipment is basically the same in men and women, we can't say one
is good for women and the other is good for men.
that being said, singing is an art not an exercise regimen. if you
wish to sing like an operatic female and that is unhealthy, you still have to
do that to get 'that sound'. if you want to sing like barbara (like butta)
and that proves to be unhealthy, you must sing like that to get 'that sound'.
in other words, if you must violate principles of good health to sing the
way you wish, i say 'go out in that flaming ball of glory'.
mike
|
|  |
