Gina wrote:
> I also do not believe that it is advantageous to tell a student that > he/she has "registers." "The voice is one piece of cloth." Approach it > as if there were no registers, just a unified instrument from top to > bottom. (I should say from the middle out.)
Dear Listers,
I agree with Gina and the fact that the idea of voice training is to have a 'seamless' or blended registration. How we get there is an entirely different story. A skilled organist is able to judge the approximate setup of the organ registration by listerning to its sound quality. A voice teacher should also be able to functionally analyze the technique of a student by observing the development and balance of the registers as expressed through tonal quality. As a teacher, I feel that I need ask myself this basic question: Do the methods I employ in my studio have historical precedence? Now back to registers:) Everyone is in a different camp with regard to this controversial subject. However, we must all make an attempt to gain some knowledge from the vast amount of literature that exists on registers. I am certain that many of the people on the list have already done that- and hats off to ya. The fact remains however, that the registers of the voice have been used for centuries as a building block for voice training. Whether you agree or disagree with this statement is a matter of opinion. But, if you open any pedagogy book by the italian masters like, Garcia(who invented it's definition) or Mancini, they speak of registers on every page. If they believed in the importance of registers, why don't we. Considering they and their students produced the greatest era of singing ever, do we simply dismiss the idea of registers, or listen to their advice. Granted, teaching is difficult. But, there are many stones out there that might not be turned over yet.
Take Care All,
Taylor L. Ferranti DMA Candidate in Vocal Pedagogy LSU
|
| |