THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE OLD ITALIAN METHOD AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF
MECHANICAL INSTRUCTION
One of the most mysterious facts in the history of Voice Culture is the
utter disappearance of the old Italian method. This has occurred in
spite of the earnest efforts of vocal teachers to preserve the old
traditions. If the conclusions drawn in the preceding chapter are
justified, the old method consisted of a system of teaching singing by
imitation. Assuming this to be true, there should now be no difficulty
in accounting for the disappearance of the imitative method by tracing
the development of the mechanical idea.
Imitative Voice Culture was purely empirical in the ordinary meaning of
this word. The old masters did not knowingly base their instruction on
any set of principles. They simply taught as their instincts prompted
them. There can now be no doubt that the old masters were fully
justified in their empiricism. They taught singing as Nature intends it
to be taught. But the old masters were not aware of the scientific
soundness of their position. So soon as the correctness of empirical
teaching was questioned they abandoned it without an attempt at defense.
As a system of Voice Culture, the old method occupied a weak strategic
position. With absolute right on its side, it still had no power of
resistance against hostile influences.
This does not imply that the old masters were ignorant men. On the
contrary, the intellectual standard of the vocal profession seems to
have been fully as high two hundred years ago as to-day. Even famous
composers and musical theorists did not disdain to teach singing. But
this very fact, the generally high culture of the old masters, was an
important factor in the weakness of the old method against attack. The
most intelligent masters were the ones most likely to abandon the
empirical system in favor of supposedly scientific and precise methods
of instruction.
The hostile influence to which the old Italian method succumbed was the
idea of mechanical vocal management. This idea entered almost
imperceptibly into the minds of vocal teachers in the guise of a
scientific theory of Voice Culture. A short historical sketch will bring
this fact out clearly. This necessitates a repetition of some of the
material of Chapter I of Part I; the entire subject will however appear
in a new light now that the true nature of the mechanical idea is
understood.
From the founding of the art of Voice Culture, about 1600, up to 1741,
no vocalist seems to have paid any attention to the anatomy or muscular
movements of the vocal organs. In 1741 a French physician, Ferrein,
presented to the Academy of Sciences a treatise on the anatomy of the
vocal organs, entitled "De la Formation de la Voix de l'Homme." This
treatise was published in the same year, and it seems to have attracted
at once the attention of the most enlightened masters of singing. That
Ferrein was the first to call the attention of vocalists to the
mechanical features of tone-production is strongly indicated in the
German translation of Tosi's "Observations." In the original Italian
edition, 1723, and the English translation, 1742, there is absolutely no
mention of the anatomy or physiology of the vocal organs. But in
preparing the German edition, published in 1757, the translator, J. F.
Agricola, inserted a description of the vocal organs which he credited
directly to Ferrein.
Mancini followed Agricola's example, and included in this "Riflessioni"
(1776) a brief description of the vocal organs. But Mancini made no
attempt to apply this description in formulating a system of
instruction. He recommends the parents of a prospective singer to
ascertain, by a physician's examination, that the child's vocal organs
are normal and in good health. He also gives one mechanical rule, so
obvious as to seem rather quaint. "Every singer must place his mouth in
a natural smiling position, that is, with the upper teeth
perpendicularly and moderately removed from the lower." Beyond this
Mancini says not a word of mechanical vocal management. There is no
mention of breathing, or tone reflection, or laryngeal action. Although
Mancini borrowed his description of the vocal organs from Ferrein, his
notion of the mechanics of tone-production was very crude. "The air of
the lungs operates on the larynx in singing exactly as it operates on
the head of the flute."
Voice Culture has passed through three successive periods. From 1600 to
1741 instruction in singing was purely empirical. Ferrein's treatise may
be said to mark the beginning of a transition period during which
empirical instruction was gradually displaced by so-called scientific
methods. This transition period lasted, roughly speaking, till the
invention of the laryngoscope in 1855. Since that time vocal instruction
has been carried on almost exclusively along mechanical lines.
No vocal teacher had ever heard of a problem of tone-production previous
to 1741, and indeed for many years thereafter. The earlier masters were
not aware of any possibility of difficulty in causing the voice to
operate properly. Their success justified their ignoring of any
mechanical basis of instruction; but even of this justification the
later masters of the old school were only dimly conscious. They builded
better than they knew. When any teacher of the transition period was
called upon to explain his manner of imparting the correct vocal action
he was at once put on the defensive. No champion of the imitative
faculty could be found. This lack of understanding of the basis of the
empirical method, on the part of its most intelligent and successful
exponents, was the first cause of the weakness of this method against
attack.
Another source of weakness in the hold of empirical systems on the vocal
profession was seen in the generally high intellectual standard of the
more prominent teachers. These masters gladly accepted the new knowledge
of the basis of their art, offered them in the description of the vocal
organs. Thoroughly conversant with every detail of the empirical
knowledge of the voice, the masters of the transition period were well
prepared to understand something of the mechanical features of
tone-production. By their auditory and muscular sensations of vocal tone
they were able, to their own satisfaction at least, to verify the
statements of the anatomists.
It is not easy for us to put ourselves mentally in the position of a
vocalist, thoroughly familiar with the empirical knowledge of the voice,
and yet ignorant of the first principles of vocal mechanics. In all
probability the early masters were not even aware that tone is produced
by the action of the breath on the larynx. They did not know that
different qualities and pitches result from special adjustments and
contractions of the throat muscles. Yet they were keenly aware of all
the muscular sensations resulting from these contractions. We can well
imagine how interesting these vocalists of the early transition period
must have found the description of the cartilages and muscles of the
throat.
It seems to us but a short step from the study of vocal mechanics to the
application of the results of this study in the formulating of a
practical system of vocal instruction. Yet it required more than sixty
years for the vocal profession to travel so far. Even then the true
bearing of this development of Voice Culture was but dimly realized. In
1800 the mechanical management of the voice was not even thought of.
This is conclusively proved by a most important work, the _Méthode de
Chant du Conservatoire de Musique_, published in Paris in 1803.
There can be no question that this Méthode represents the most
enlightened and advanced thought of the vocal profession of that day.
Not only does it contain everything then known about the training of the
voice; it was drawn up with the same exhaustive care and analytical
attention to detail that were devoted to the formulation of the metric
system. To mechanical rules less than one page is devoted. Respiration
is the only subject to receive more than a few lines. A system of
breathing with flat abdomen and high chest is outlined, and the student
is instructed to practise breathing exercises daily. Five lines are
contained in the chapter headed "De l'emission du son," and these five
lines are simply a warning against throaty and nasal _quality_. The
pupil is told to stand erect, and to open the mouth properly. But a
foot-note is given to the rule for the position of the mouth which shows
how thoroughly the mechanical rule was subordinated to considerations of
tone quality. "As there is no rule without exceptions, we think it
useful to observe at what opening of the mouth the pupil produces the
most agreeable, sonorous, and pure quality of tone in order to have him
always open the mouth in that manner." In the main the Méthode outlines
a purely empirical system of instruction, based on the guidance of the
voice by the ear. There can be no question that the idea of mechanical
management of the voice was introduced later than 1803.
Citations might be made to show the gradual advance of the mechanical
idea from two interesting works, _Die Kunst des Gesanges_, by Adolph B.
Marx, Berlin, 1826, and _Die grosse italienische Gesangschule_, by H. F.
Mannstein, Dresden, 1834. But this is not necessary. It is enough to say
that Scientific Voice Culture was not generally thought to be identical
with mechanical vocal management until later than 1855.
Manuel Garcia was the first vocal teacher to undertake to found a
practical method of instruction on the mechanical principles of the
vocal action. When only twenty-seven years old, in 1832, Garcia
determined to reform the practices of Voice Culture by furnishing an
improved method of instruction. (_Grove's Dictionary._) His first
definite pronouncement of this purpose is contained in the preface to
his _École de Garcia_, 1847. "As all the effects of song are, in the
last analysis, the product of the vocal organs, I have submitted the
study to physiological considerations." This statement of Garcia's idea
of scientific instruction strikes us as a commonplace. But that serves
only to prove how thoroughly the world has since been converted to the
idea of mechanical Voice Culture. At that time it was generally believed
to be a distinct advance. Garcia expected to bring about a great
improvement in the art of Voice Culture. His idea was that the voice can
be trained in less time and with greater certainty by mechanical than by
imitative methods. As for the inherent falsity of this idea, that has
been sufficiently exposed.
So soon as the theory of mechanical vocal management began to find
acceptance, the old method yielded the ground to the new idea. That this
occurred so easily was due to a number of causes. Of these several have
already been noted,--the readiness of the most prominent teachers to
broaden their field of knowledge, in particular. Other causes
contributing to the acceptance of the mechanical idea were the elusive
character of empirical knowledge of the voice, and the unconscious
aspect of the instinct of vocal imitation. No master of the later
transition period deliberately discarded his empirical knowledge. This
could have been possible only by the master losing his sense of hearing.
Neither did the master cease to rely on the imitative faculty. Although
unconsciously exercised, that was a habit too firmly fixed to be even
intentionally abandoned.
Public opinion also had much to do with the spread of the mechanical
idea. Teachers found that they could get pupils easier by claiming to
understand the mechanical workings of the voice. In order to obtain
recognition, teachers were obliged to study vocal mechanics and to adapt
their methods to the growing demand for scientific instruction.
No master of this period seems to have intentionally abandoned the
traditional method. Their first purpose in adopting the new scientific
idea was to elucidate and fortify the old method. Every successful
master undoubtedly taught many pupils who in their turn became teachers.
There must have been, in each succession of master and pupil, one
teacher who failed to transmit the old method in its entirety. Both
master and pupil must have been unconscious of this. No master can be
believed to have deliberately withheld any of his knowledge from his
pupils. Neither can any student have been aware that he failed to
receive his master's complete method.
Let us consider a typical instance of master and pupil in the later
transition period. Instruction in this case was probably of a dual
character. Both teacher and pupil devoted most of their attention to the
mechanical features of tone-production. Yet the master continued to
listen closely to the student's voice, just as he had done before
adopting the (supposedly) scientific idea of instruction. Unconsciously
he led the pupil to listen and imitate. When the student found it
difficult to apply the mechanical instruction the master would say,
"Listen to me and do as I do." Naturally this would bring the desired
result. Yet both master and pupil would attribute the result to the
application of the mechanical rule. The student's voice would be
successfully trained, but he would carry away an erroneous idea of the
means by which this was accomplished. Becoming a teacher in his turn,
the vocalist taught in this fashion would entirely overlook the
unobtrusive element of imitation and would devote himself to mechanical
instruction. He would, for example, construe the precept, "Sing with
open throat," as a rule to be directly applied; that he had acquired the
open throat by imitating his master's tones this teacher would be
utterly unaware.
More than one generation of master and pupil was probably concerned, in
each succession, in the gradual loss of the substance of the old method.
The possibility of learning to sing by imitation was only gradually lost
to sight. This is well expressed by Paolo Guetta. "The aphorism 'listen
and imitate,' which was the device of the ancient school, coming down by
way of tradition, underwent the fate of all sane precepts passed along
from generation to generation. Through elimination and individual
adaptation, through assuming the personal imprint, it degenerated into a
purely empirical formula." (_Il Canto nel suo Mecanismo_, Milan, 1902.)
Guetta is himself evidently at a loss to grasp the significance of the
empirical formula, "Listen and imitate." He seems however to be aware of
an antagonism between imitation and mechanical vocal management. The
reason of this antagonism has already been noticed, but it will bear
repetition. For a teacher to tell a pupil to "hold your throat open and
imitate my tone," is to demand the impossible. A conscious effort
directly to hold the throat open only causes the throat to stiffen. In
this condition the normal action of the voice is upset and the pupil
cannot imitate the teacher's voice.
This was the condition confronting the teacher of the second generation
in the "maestral succession" just considered. He found his pupils unable
to get with their voices the results which had come easily to him.
Attributing his satisfactory progress as a student to the mastery of the
supposed mechanical principles of tone-production, this teacher ascribed
his pupil's difficulties to their failure to grasp the same mechanical
ideas. As a natural consequence he labored even more energetically along
mechanical lines. Curiously, no teacher seems to have questioned the
soundness of the mechanical idea. Failure on the part of the pupil to
obtain the correct use of the voice served only to make the master more
insistent on mechanical exercises.
In direct proportion to the prominence given to the idea of mechanical
management of the voice, the difficulties of teachers and students
became ever more pronounced. The trouble caused by throat stiffness led
the teachers to seek new means for imparting the correct vocal action,
always along mechanical lines. In this way the progress of the
mechanical idea was accelerated, and the problem of tone-production
received ever more attention.
Faith in the imitative faculty was gradually undermined by the progress
of the mechanical idea. With each succeeding generation of master and
pupil, the mechanical idea became more firmly established. Something
akin to a vicious circle was involved in this progress. As attention was
paid in practical instruction to the mechanical operations of the voice,
so the voice's instinctive power of imitation was curtailed by throat
stiffness. This served to make more pressing the apparent need of means
for the mechanical management of the voice. Thus the mechanical idea
found ever new arguments in its favor, based always on the difficulties
itself had caused.
It is impossible to assign a precise date to the disappearance of the
old Italian method. The last exponent of the old traditions was
Francesco Lamperti, who retired from active teaching in 1876. Yet even
Lamperti finally yielded, in theory at least, to the mechanical idea. In
the closing years of his active life as a teacher (1875 and 1876),
Lamperti wrote a book descriptive of his method, _A Treatise on the Art
of Singing_ (translated into English by J. C. Griffith and published by
Ed. Schuberth & Co., New York). When this work was about ready for the
press, Lamperti read Dr. Mandl's _Gesundheitslehre der Stimme_,
containing the first definite statement of the opposed-muscular-action
theory of breath-control. At the last moment Lamperti inserted a note in
his book to signify his acceptance of this theory.
Vocal mechanics was at first studied by teachers of singing as a matter
of purely academic interest. No insufficiency of imitative teaching had
ever been felt. Teachers of the transition period, even so late probably
as 1830, had in most cases no reason to be dissatisfied with their
methods of instruction. Garcia himself started out modestly enough to
place the traditional method, received from his father, on a definite
basis. His first idea, announced in the preface to the first edition of
his _École de Garcia_, was to "reproduce my father's method, attempting
only to give it a more theoretical form, and to connect results with
causes."
Interest in the mechanics of the voice continued to be almost entirely
academic until the invention of the laryngoscope in 1855. Then the
popular note was struck. The marvelous industrial and scientific
progress of the preceding fifty years had prepared the world to demand
advancement in methods of teaching singing, as in everything else. When
the secrets of the vocal action were laid bare, a new and better method
of teaching singing was at once expected. Within very few years
scientific knowledge of the voice was demanded of every vocal teacher.
Nothing could well be more natural than a belief in the efficacy of
scientific knowledge of the vocal organs as the basis of instruction in
singing. Surely no earnest investigator of the voice can be criticized
for adopting this belief. No one ever thought of questioning the
soundness of the new scientific idea. The belief was everywhere
accepted, as a matter of course, that methods of instruction in singing
were about to be vastly improved. Vocal theorists spoke confidently of
discovering means for training the voice in a few months of study. The
singer's education under the old system had demanded from four to seven
years; science was expected to revolutionize this, and to accomplish in
months what had formerly required years.
Even then tone-production was not seen to be a distinct problem. The old
imitative method was still successfully followed. No one thought of
discarding the traditional method, but only of improving it by reducing
it to scientific principles. But that could not last. Soon after the
attempt began to be made to manage the voice mechanically,
tone-production was found to contain a real problem. This was of course
due to the introduction of throat stiffness.
From that time on (about 1860 to 1865), the problem of tone-production
has become steadily more difficult of solution in each individual case.
This problem has been, since 1865, the one absorbing topic of Voice
Culture. Probably the most unfortunate single fact in the history of
Voice Culture is that scientific study of the voice was from the
beginning confined solely to the mechanical features of tone-production.
Had scientific investigators turned their attention also to the analysis
of the auditory impressions of vocal tones, and to the psychological
aspect of tone-production, scientific instruction in singing would
probably not have been identified with mechanical management of the
voice. All the subsequent difficulties of the vocal profession would
almost certainly have been avoided.
Every attempt at a solution of the problem of tone-production has been
made along strictly mechanical lines. Attention has been devoted solely
to the anatomy and physiology of the vocal organs, and to the acoustic
principles of the vocal action. Since 1865 hardly a year has passed
without some important contribution to the sum of knowledge of the vocal
mechanism. For many years this development of Vocal Science was eagerly
followed by the vocal teachers. Any seemingly authoritative announcement
of a new theory of the voice was sure to bring its reward in an
immediate influx of earnest students. Prominent teachers made it their
practice to spend their vacations in studying with the famous
specialists and investigators. Each new theory of the vocal action was
at once put into practice, or at any rate this attempt was made. Yet
each new attempt brought only a fresh disappointment. The mystery of the
voice was only deepened with each successive failure at solution.
A review in detail of the development of Vocal Science would be of only
academic interest. Very little of practical moment would probably be
added to the outline of modern methods contained in Part I.
Teachers of singing at present evince an attitude of skepticism toward
new theories of the vocal action. Voice Culture has settled along
well-established lines. In the past fifteen years little change can be
noted in the practices of vocal teachers. The mechanical idea is so
firmly established that no question is ever raised as to its scientific
soundness. Under the limitations imposed by this erroneous idea,
teachers do their best to train the voices entrusted to their care.
Vocal Science is of vastly less importance in modern Voice Culture than
the world in general supposes. Only an imaginary relation has ever
existed between the scientific knowledge of the voice and practical
methods of instruction. To cause the summits of the arytenoid
cartilages, for example, to incline toward each other is entirely beyond
the direct power of the singer. How many similar impossibilities have
been seriously advocated can be known only to the academic student of
Vocal Science. Vocal teachers in general have ceased to attempt any such
application of the doctrines of Vocal Science. Even if these doctrines
could be shown to be scientifically sound it would still be impossible
to devise means for applying them to the management of the voice.
Accepted Vocal Science has contributed only one element of the practical
scheme of modern voice culture; this is the erroneous notion that the
vocal organs require to be managed mechanically.