This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Opera, a group writing and editing Wikipedia articles on operas, opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project discussion page is a place to talk about issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Is this supposed to be mixing together the head/cgest voice pages together? Ihave never heard of a Modal Voice Register unless it is those two things I mentioned earlier (and middle voice). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The article explains it pretty clearly. What exactly do you not understand? First let me say that this is a topic with a lot of diverging opinions and with several different professions overlapng: speech pathologists, vocal pedagogists, and linguists to name just a few. The modal register is the register used during normal speech. The registers named on the vocal registration page are the ones used in speech pathology, phonetics, and linguistics (none of them use chest or head register). These registers can also be found in many books teaching the art of singing as well (although not all). The term modal register was first used by speech pathologists in the 1930s and is still used today in speech pathology to describe phonation during normal speech. The term has been adopted by many vocal pedagogists as well. Also, the terms chest and head register can mean several different things depending on which school of vocal pedagogy you ascribe to. Some teachers teach that there is chest, head, and falsetto register (in that order). Others teach chest, middle, and head. (in that order) Still others bring in terms like passagio (as a register). And there are about a thousand other variations when you bring in the concept of vocal transition points. There is no one understanding of those terms so it really is hard for me to address your first question because I don't know which school you come from. Regardless, the terms chest register and head register are not used in speech pathology because the physiology of vocal registers involves laryngeal function that is not influenced by the chest or the head. With new technology (when I say new really back as early as the late late 1930s up to today), the physiological understanding of speech (and singing) has improved to the extent that it is apparent that the sense of sound coming from the chest and head is really a vibratory or resonance sensation that has nothing to do with the larynx and is therefore not really a part of registration. For this reason, many teachers have started to use the terms head voice and chest voice instead of head register and chest register, thereby moving these terms from a topic of vocal registration to vocal resonation. This further confuses the issue. In speech pathology and linguistics and phonetics, however, the terms chest register and head register have never been used. The terms chest register and head register came from before the bel canto school of thought and have developed and changed in meaning over time. This is why there are so many opinions. Read the articles on chest voice and head voice. Not all views are there but a couple of them are. The important thing to know is that these terms can have a plethora of meanings within vocal pedagogy and there is not really a consensus of thought concerning there use and definition. I hope that helped.Nrswanson (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Would you please discuss them here Kwami before unilarerally implementing them. I have worked long and hard on this article and I feel like you are denegrating the position of speech pathologists and vocal pedagogists to suit your own agenda. I am definitely up for improving the article as long as the position already in the article remains as well.Nrswanson (talk) 01:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
"Denigrating"? Please point out where I have done that. My apologies in advance if I have. "My agenda"? My agenda is to make an encyclopedic article. I should hope you share it.
Although I appreciate your hard work, you do not own the article. Also, your field does not own the term. The term "modal voice" is common to both subfields of phonetics, and the meanings are almost identical—the only real difference I see at any rate is a difference of context rather than substance. Since I don't know your field, I'm sure I got some details wrong when trying to reorganize the contents. However, since I can see no reason to have two articles, "modal voice" and "modal voice register", I've reverted to the integrated version of the article. kwami (talk) 02:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I am happy to work with you on creating an integrated article but several of the changes you made do not accurately represent the perspective of speech pathologists or vocal pedagogists. Let's work out the details here first and then change the article. Ok?Nrswanson (talk) 04:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Great article, thanks for hard work Nrswanson. Would it be an idea to use either vocal folds or vocal cords consistently as a term? (VBurmester, 09.12.11)