Singing and posture–see Categories, About, Launch 4-2014

Restoration of the Self after experiencing Chua’s incorrect system (continued from above Chua’s incorrect premises and conclusion)

Once many of the children trained under this Chua-style Asian training system in a Western world grow up to feel depressed, lack self-confidence, and are too obedient, the question remains, how does he or she recover his original self?  How does he or she get rid of the anger, depression, sadness that has accumulated?  How does he or she now better acquire the social belonging with peers, the leadership skills—the many things he or she missed?

Unfortunately, once trained thus, these are difficult challenges to solve and western psychology is weak for solving these.   The key will be Eastern concepts of restoring the original self. 

I, of course, went through the system Chua described, but didn’t take pills to resolve my own challenges and western psychology didn’t work for me.  Again, too lengthy to explain, but once one understands that the body (and not the mind) stores most of the anger, depression, sadness, the self-restoration needs to begin through the body.   I discovered this while trying to learn how to sing, and am putting down these ideas in a blog called VocalPosture (unfortunately, most of this blog not revealed because I want a book too.  But ask me at the blog, I might answer.).  No, singing does not restore the self, but good singing is a symptom that the self’s body is restoring its natural muscular tonality, and such muscular tonality is at the heart of emotions. Social fitting in, leadership, and creativity have a lot to do with emotional tonality.

 The solution will be freedom from one’s past training.  The same freedom described in Plato cave allegory, Nietzsche’s overman, Bhavagad Gita, Dhammapada, Tao Te Ching.  In the Eastern spiritual tradition (including India and not the Confucius tradition), this means trusting that the innate self can itself restore and recover from one’s development mishaps.

Chua is correct that disciplined training can result in great individuals.   So, why don’t you take what your parents taught you, and simply try to lose the excess baggage, so you can be free and great!

Chen Sun, www.WebAndNet.com  ; http://Chen.WebBIZcard.com

The entire forward torso should feel uplifted, starting from the hips.   This is what a good posture feels like.

<a href=”http://www.WebAndNet.com”>www.WebAndNet.com</a&gt;, Houston Strategic Web Marketing

<a href=”http://chen.webbizcard.com/”>Chen.WebBIZcard.com</a&gt; ,a web invention prototype

from themodernvocalist.com  [quote=VIDEOHERE]hiya folks,
i’ve heard two schools of thought on these two subjects, can you let me know the better way to go?

1. when singing on stage, is it better to breathe from the nose or the mouth?…some say the mouth is better, but tends to dry the throat.

2. when inhaling should the chest be pushed up or left to itself? i know you want to expand the ribs and leave the shoulders down, but i thought it’s better to keep the chest unlifted.

thanks in advance, bob[/quote]
The nose is built for breathing, but when extra air is needed, the mouth can add.  Thereby, the answer to your question is how fast one needs to replenish the lungs.   If slowly, nose is better; if not (e.g. need air to sing next note), both.

Most people have posture problems, in particular, slouches.   Therefore, the correct position for most people is the chest pushed up, which is its natural state.  Unfortunately, most people have so much body tension that they slouch.   In slouching, the myofascia tissue, muscles, and spinal alignment actually adjust to a near-permanent tension state.   So, if the chest is then pushed up to its natural state, there is greater tension still.

So, the correct solution is to straighten the spine, which is a lengthy process.    The incorrect process is to minimize tension, which is to go into the most relaxed slouch state; which is the better short-term solution.

In short, the chest should be naturally pushed up and left to itself.

Very interesting post, Steve!  May I ask some questions?

[quote=Steven Fraser]  In singing, we train the enormously powerful #1 action of breathing to be more subtle, and we lessen (or eliminate) the motions of #2 and #3 so that they do not overpower the teeny, weenie laryngeal muscles.

[/quote]
How do these overpower the laryngeal muscles, and I don’t understand the singing-sound effects of all four.  What does, for example, laryngeal have to do with sound other than volume?

[quote=Steven Fraser]
In singing, the way that #2 and #3 are lessened is to make them part of the posture.  If you don’t move them much as you breathe in and out, they don’t add unwanted, or uncontrolled breath energy.  Its very hard to do either thing subtly.   Keeping the sternum in one place prevents gravity from powering air out of the body.  It does not necessarily have to be high… just not moving when you breathe in and out.   FYI, classical singers very often adopt a ‘high sternum’ chest position… and leave it there all the time.  It looks a bit better on stage 🙂

When #2 and #3 motions are stilled, breathing happens entirely by #1, the diaphragmatic action in coordination with the abdominal muscles.  This is very often called ‘belly breathing’, ‘low breathing’, ‘breathing from the diaphragm’, etc.  All those terms mean that only motions of the diaphragm and the abdominal muscles are involved in moving the air.   This takes us back to the kind of breathing your body does when you are asleep.  Same thing as a baby does.  You have breathed this way your whole life.

[/quote]

Also, very interesting.   My thinking is to be as natural as possible–that is, letting the lyric’s intended emotion drive the responding body posture.   Though most of the time, the body is stilled, I don’t understand how continually stilling helps to emit (create) the singing emotion.   I understand “it’s very hard to do either thing subtly.”, but what is difficult with deliberate action may not be nearly as difficult emotionally.  For example, deliberately crying is more difficult than emotionally crying.

Fundamentally, I don’t understand why stilling muscles is a good approach.

Temporary link to book review.   Not relevant to this blog.

http://webandnet.wordpress.com/

Tension is some form of continous taut muscles or glands.  Strain is deliberately exerting in singing.  The sound of strain usually has to do with conflicting muscles in use, more than overexertion due to volume increases.

 Tensed muscles are more likely to be strained because they are taut.

To reduce strain, the muscles need to work in harmony instead of conflict.  This can be accomplished whether tensed or not tense; but it is far easier when not tense, as being “detensed”, the muscles have greater freedom of movement.

from themodernvocalist.com discussion forum:

[quote=VIDEOHERE]
folks, this is such an interesting topic, i wanted to insert this again to make a point:

2 singers, singing the same song, tom “the powerhouse” jones, “richard “tenor-sounding” marx”

jones is singing 2 steps higher than marx, but marx’s more piercing timbre cut through to sound “high”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKBFj6pLz_8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBDe3O63cDU

so i think it’s not whether or not someone is a tenor or a baritone, but the vocal timbre of the vocalist.[/quote]

In follow-up to how tenors and basses affect live audiences discussion…

These videos demonstrate the effects of technology well.  Bass sounds are truncated in downloaded audio technologies.  Tom Jones has a full spectrum voice and his video’s bass sounds are reduced, it is even partially imagined, which is part of the bag of tricks in audio technologies’ truncating bass. Marx utilizes the music’s bass undertones to create his music; Marx lacks a full spectrum voice and relies on audio technologies so we imagine his sounding full.

The PCs sound card also makes a big difference in download audio technologies.  What you’re hearing may be different from what I’m hearing on a different sound card.

Also, these videos demonstrate the difficulties of capturing sounds in live recordings versus studio.  Tom Jones has to compete against an entire orchestra.

Isn’t Marx’s recording’s music also slightly lower pitch?  If music is lower pitch, it’s would be easier for Marx to cut through singing lower pitch.

I personally believe that live, Tom Jones is far more impressive because of his full spectrum voice that cuts through an entire orchestra.  In live sounds, the bassier male singers, and better yet full spectrum singers, are more impressive, have more power, stature, and can create more moods.

Where are there tradeshows, conferences, etc. on music instructions?

I’m developing an unusual method to learn how to sing, called VocalPosture.com, presently in random blog notes.   VocalPosture says that the alignment of the skeletal system affects the vocal apparatus and hearing pathways, and a realignment process can restore accurate hearing and innate vocal singing, for the vast majority of people.   Analogy and supporting evidence is provided by references to Zen Buddhism, which likewise is a restoration of one’s own innate “subconscious” capabilities.  VocalPosture is unlike Alexander Methods or Feldenkrais.

Unfortunately, I’ve had to develop these methods independently and have no idea what vocal pedagogy already knows, but the literature I’ve researched—on the web and in older library books don’t show anything like this.   Other than its methods working very well for me, supporting evidence from Eastern religions and Western psychology and physiology, I have no evidence how accurate my ideas are.  And singing is strictly a hobby.

So, I’m curious as to where I can go to have my ideas tested out and examined by professionals and amateurs.   Something alike bar camp in the IT discussions side, where lots of pros attend and anyone can propose and lead a topic of discussion.

I’m in Houston, TX and visit Silicon Valley once every six months.