caio wrote:
<< 2. As has been said, singing teachers with successful methods have existed since a long time before vocal science appeared, so they shouldn't owe anything to it. However, isn't their rate of success due to natural selection of students? isn't it the same success 'shamans' had when they beat people to rid them of 'bad spirits'? Placebo effect cures, but effective medication cures at a higher rate. >>
children all over the world learn a language, some learn two, others learn three. they do this without the aid of voice science, voice teachers, speech pathologists, etc. the distance traveled in going from 'ga ga, goo goo' to speaking a language is greater than going from speaking a language to singing.
it is possible to assemble better speaking and singing habits out of existing abilities. for example, i learned to sing high notes when i realized how high the sound i made while yawning was. i had been given the 'yawn approach' by several different teachers to no avail. i had been imitating the pharyngeal gymnastics of yawning but not that sound. when i got rid of the pharyngeal 'humping' and just sang with that sound, i could sing high notes. i have used the making of that sound on a lot of my students and i have never had a male student who could not vocalize high with it. (i use 'that sound to help female students get through their breaks).
a few months ago, i asked the list the question 'what has voice science done for you?' or something like that. i was asking specifically about spectral analysis. the response was generally along the lines of 'it confirmed what i already knew' or, as one person answered 'it confirms the teachings of the old italian school'. i have asked in the past 'has spectral analysis caused you to make any radically new changes based on that analysis?' for that, i got no answer.
imagine a room full of voice scientists. they are presented with a number of spectral readings of voices they know well by sound of the same general catagory but of whose voices they have not seen spectral analyses. mixed in with these readings are readings of other singers they do not know. do you think these people would be able to identify the readings of the voices they know?
i continue to seek as much knowledge as i can about the voice. i think voice science can be useful in explaining to a student why they should stop doing something stupid. dumb example: 'stop stretching your neck for the high notes, your vocal folds are horizontal, see?' (show picture).
a tape recorder is probably the most useful tool that the teachers of the old italian school didn't have. convincing a student that the weird noise you just taught them to do makes them sound better is easier if they can hear for themselves.
(why the hell did i put a comma in 'ga ga, goo goo'?)
mike
|