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
|
|  |
