So much has been said about the Old Italian Vocal Method that the very
name brings ridicule in some quarters. Nothing has been the subject for
so much charlatanry. It is something that any teacher, good or bad, can
claim in this country. Every Italian is of course very proud indeed of
the wonderful vocal traditions of Italy, the centuries of idealism in
search of better and better tone production. There are of course certain
statements made by great voice teachers of other days that have been put
down and may be read in almost any library in large American cities. But
that these things make a vocal method that will suit all cases is too
absurd to consider. The good sense of the old Italian master would hold
such a plan up to ridicule. Singing is first of all an art, and an art
can not be circumscribed by any set of rules or principles.
The artist must, first of all, know a very great deal about all possible
phases of the technic of his art and must then adjust himself to the
particular problem before him. Therefore we might say that the Italian
method was a method and then again that it was no method. As a matter of
fact it is thousands of methods--one for each case or vocal problem. For
instance, if I were to sing by the same means that Mr. Caruso employs it
would not at all be the best thing for my voice, yet for Mr. Caruso it
is without question the very best method, or his vocal quality would
not be in such superb condition after constant years of use. He is the
proof of his own method.
I should say that the Italian vocal teacher teaches, first of all, with
his ears. He listens with the greatest possible intensity to every shade
of tone-color until his ideal tone reveals itself. This often requires
months and months of patience. The teacher must recognize the vocal
deficiencies and work to correct them. For instance, I never had to work
with my high tones. They are to-day produced in the same way in which I
produced them when I was a boy. Fortunately I had teachers who
recognized this and let it go at that.
Possibly the worst kind of a vocal teacher is the one who has some set
plan or device or theory which must be followed "willy-nilly" in order
that the teacher's theories may be vindicated. With such a teacher no
voice is safe. The very best natural voices have to follow some patent
plan just because the teacher has been taught in one way, is
inexperienced, and has not good sense enough to let nature's perfect
work alone. Both of my teachers knew that my high tones were all right
and the practice was directed toward the lower tones. They worked me for
over ten months on scales and sustained tones until the break that came
at E flat above the Bass Clef was welded from the lower tones to the
upper tones so that I could sing up or down with no ugly break audible.
I was drilled at first upon the vowel "ah." I hear American vocal
authorities refer to "ah" as in father. That seems to me too flat a
sound, one lacking in real resonance. The vowel used in my case in Italy
and in hundreds of other cases I have noted is a slightly broader vowel,
such as may be found half-way between the vowel "ah" as in father, and
the "aw" as in law. It is not a dull sound, yet it is not the sound of
"ah" in father. Perhaps the word "doff" or the first syllable of Boston,
when properly pronounced, gives the right impression.
I do not know enough of American vocal training to give an intelligent
criticism, but I wonder if American vocal teachers give as much
attention to special parts of the training as teachers in Italy do. I
hope they do, as I consider it very necessary. Consider the matter of
staccato. A good vocal staccato is really a very difficult
thing--difficult when it is right; that is, when on the pitch--every
time, clear, distinct, and at the same time not hard and stiff. It took
me weeks to acquire the right way of singing such a passage as _Un di,
quando le veneri_, from _Traviata_, but those were very profitable
weeks--
[Illustration: musical notation
Un di, quan-do le ve-ne-ri il
tem-po a-vra fu-ga-te
]
Accurate attack in such a passage is by no means easy. Anyone can sing
it--but _how it is sung_ makes the real difference.
The public has very odd ideas about singing. For instance, it would be
amazed to learn that _Trovatore_ is a much more difficult role for me to
sing and sing right than either _Parsifal_ or _Pelleas and Melisande_.
This largely because of the pure vocal demands and the flowing style.
The Debussy opera, wonderful as it is, does not begin to make the vocal
demands that such a work as _Trovatore_ does.
When the singer once acquires proficiency, the acquisition of new roles
comes very easy indeed. The main difficulty is the daily need for
drilling the voice until it has the same quality every day. It can be
done only by incessant attention. Here are some of the exercises I do
every day with my accompanist:
[Illustration: musical notation
_First time forte second time piano._]