In a message dated 2/12/01 5:20:00 PM Central Standard Time, bounousb@i... writes: bounousb@i... writes:
> > Well, > > > Characters such as Estill and Lisa Popeil are cataloguing > > behaviors that are hyperfunctional > > Hyperfunctional by who's definition?
COMMENT: A raised larynx puts the vocal folds into a valving position where the extent of closure is more forceful than in other maneuver including forceable closure. If that's not hyperfunction what is?
> > and using the word technique to describe > > what is done. > \ > If belt means bringing up chest past the point it is healthy, > > you are promoting pressed phonation which leads to abusive behaviors on a > > laryngeal level. > > Most current literature both pedagogical and scientific defines belt as > something other raised chest voice. The only people who define it as > such are either unfamiliar with it or are trying to demonize it. > > COMMENT: If it is not raised chest then some form of vocal fold lengthening is being used which would mean the CTs are involved. This is a mix at this point, the degree of the mix is dependent on such factors of CT Vs TA involvement and the degree of compression. >
> > It's nice to have a Ph.D., and years of experience, but since you brought > > that all up I'd be interested in who you've produced with this technique. > > > > Who would be the example we could listen to? SLS can point to many we can > > all listen to, as could I from my own studio. > > > > I am very familiar with the lengthy lists of names generated and > maintained by SLS instructors. They can legitimately claim many fine > singers as having been exposed to SLS however, because of the extreme > self-promotion of the system, I know singers who have had a single > coaching or signed up to sing in a workshop and have later found > themselves listed as products of the system or adherants. I also know > collegues who have agreed to participate in an SLS workshop and who also > therafter appear in literature as students, teachers, or supporters of > SLS (without their knowledge or consent). I even know a student who > called an old friend of his, currently an SLS instructor, asked him a > question over the phone, and later found himself listed in the teachers > promotional literature.
COMMENT: I'd be very careful about such comments. If this was as prevalent as you insinuate, litigation would be occurring on a rather consistent basis, and it is not. By the way, I'm still waiting to here what singers of yours we can listen to. I am truly interested in hearing what you teach as belt. By the way, you can hear one of my students on the upcoming Streisand special.
> > While I have never had any problem with the vocal technique espoused by > SLS, I find that many SLS teachers only have the vaguest notion of what > really makes the voice work or current vocal science in the slightest > way. They simply parrot the instructions they have been given and if it > doesn't work for a particular student then they are at a loss - usually > blaming the student for the problem. Systems don't make a technique - > good teaching does. >
COMMENT: This may be true in certain cases as it would be with many voice > teachers regardless of what they teach. But those of us who take this > seriously are up to date with the literature. Are you insinuating the SLS > teachers on this list fall into the category of being ignorant of > physiology and research. By the way, I will be a speaker at the upcoming > Chicago chapter of NATS/Chicago Guild of Voice Teacher joint conference on > technique and vocal health along with Dr. Robert Bastian and I'm very close > to completing my MS in Speech Language Pathology. > > And I do believe that systems do make technique. In fact the word a > systematic approach is used in Miller's The Structure of Singing as part of > the title. What we teach is the most important aspect of the process, not > the teacher. An inferior clinician teaching a superior technique is better > than a teacher teaching an inferior technique. > > Randy Buescher
|
| |