> To suggest that singers with 'bitey' > tone last longer than singers with 'artificially > darkened ones' is too vague. But I will say that > under no circumstances should a student be > taught a 'tight' tone: if I have misunderstood you, > Isabelle, please correct me. Focus has nothing to > do with a 'tight-sounding tone, edgy passagio and > top'.
When I was 17 and 18, my top voice sounded like a young, healthy squillo-heavy voice -- to the people who prefer soft, rounded choral voices, it sounded (as I was told) edgy and tight. The fact was, it felt free and wonderful while sounding overly-pointy and tight (maybe "shrill" is a better word for tight? I don't mean tension-bound), but it was one of the beginning steps in the long training process -- first the focus, then the bloom.
I very seriously believe that you need to train in the squillo (the chiaro) and let maturity and natural relaxation take care of the richness (the scuro). I don't agree with physically adding space to the voice, because I think it creates an artificial darkness -- far better to accept the natural color of your voice that comes after years of focus-training and release of unnecessary tension. I find that people who are trained to sing with a lot of space in the mouth and throat, a warm dark tone, who assume that the bite/ping will come in as the voice matures, are wrong and only get woofier as they age.
It's not true that teaching should "never" involve tension. Let's say you're teaching a student to start producing a tone in a forward way instead of covered back in the throat. You say to the student, "wrinkle up your nose like you're a witch," and voila, the tone springs forward and frees up, and the student knows what he's aiming for. That's not "bad" tension.
That witchy sound may sound too bright to a listener's ear. They say to the student, "You have a tight, edgy tone." The student, however, says nothing, because he realizes that in his next lesson, he is going to take that witchy forwardness and integrate it into his normal singing mode, with the result that his singing is now pulled out of the back of his throat and has developed some chiaro to go with his scuro.
Replace "days" with "teenage years" and add in other technical concepts, and that's me.
About "bitey" singers lasting longer than "woofy" singers -- I didn't clarify. I consider a healthy tone to have bite in it (otherwise you wouldn't cut through an orchestra). Plus, (for me) it's the focus that I lean on and that keeps my voice off the throat and keeps me singing for hours without getting tired. I think that many people consider a "normal" chiaroscuro tone to have much less chiaro than I do. This is an opinion. I listen to mostly-scuro singers like Hvorostovsky going downhill (from listening to his live performances), and am reminded that a healthy voice rides on the focus.
I have a fabulous recording of a very young Tebaldi. Her top notes are shrill and tight (by "tight," by the way, I mean ALL point and no warmth... maybe shrill is a better word). In her middle twenties and thirties, the natural weight and color and blossom of the top came in and it was balanced out naturally. I don't think that the way to "fix" her young sound would have been to open up her throat and tell her to take more space in. I think that maturity takes care of that part on its own.
Of course, I prefer more bitey singers anyway. It's partially an esthetic.
Isabelle B.
===== Isabelle Bracamonte San Francisco, CA ibracamonte@y... ibracamonte@y...
__________________________________________________
|