Dear Taylor and Vocalisters:
On 2/22/01 you wrote
> Here is an interesting thing I recently read in the recent NATS
>Journal. Quoting now: "RM's reputation as a scientist and his
>profound grasp of scientific principles........." Through attending
>the Oberlin workshop and reading his books many times over, I'd say
>the latter comment is QUITE appropriate. However, the "reputation as
>a SCIENTIST" comment is stretching it a bit too far, considering both
>of RM's degrees are in PERFORMANCE! He is without question a
>brilliant pedagogue who has done immense good for this field. But,
>if I got under the hood of my Miata and rebuilt the engine this
>weekend- could I call myself a "mechanical engineer" when I had
>finished the job?
The portion of your post listed above I completely misunderstood.
You were stating that Richard Millers was not, in your opinion, a
vocal scientist and your quote from the NATS Journal argued that he
WAS a voice scientist, with which you disagreed.
My misunderstanding was that I thought the Journal quote you gave
continued beyond your second quotation mark, which I missed, and was
openly critical of Richard Miller in print. It was your comment that
was critical of Millers being considered a vocal scientist, not the
Journals. I only discovered this when I read the article you
mentioned and could not, for the life of me, understand how it
supported what I understood your quote to say. I then went back and
re-read your post and I understood my error.
Your opinion of Miller's status as a voice scientist or as not a
voice scientist is valued as an opinion and I believe this Vocalist
forum is a proper place to express that opinion. The NATS Journal is
not a place, however, to determine if anyone is or is not a good
voice teacher, voice scientist, etc. It is a learned journal and
should concern itself with documented research. Book reviews are,
perhaps an exception.
You also wrote:
>Lloyd, you responded to a post I wrote several weeks back saying
>that the study by Bill Vennard done in'71 was- dated. Listen to
>these dates from SOS on the VP issue: House and Stevens, 1956/ Bjork
>1961/ Zwitman 1973/ Fritzell, 1979. It appears that the sources
>which RM quotes from are also- dated! :)
If I remember correctly the Vennard work you quoted was a 1971 4rd
edition of his book. His first edition was dated 1949, the second
1951 and the third 1964. He continually updated his work and has
proven to be a most valuable resource. But in any form of his book
one must be concerned with the dating of his material. The 1971
edition does contain material from the earlier editions. This was my
concern. The quotes in the Miller book are from a variety of time
periods and involve individual work by a variety of researchers.
This tends to increase the validity of this information. But it is
not, by any means, the final authority on the matter in discussion.
thanks for the posts.
--
Lloyd W. Hanson, DMA
Professor of Voice, Pedagogy
School of Performing Arts
Northern Arizona University
Flagstaff, AZ 86011
|
