It is a matter of complaint among all persons of good taste, who take
an intelligent interest in art, and especially in music, that fine
singers are becoming more and more rare, while formerly there appears
never to have been any lack of men and women eminent in this art. The
complaint seems not altogether without reason, when we revert to that
rich summer-time of song, not yet lying very far behind us, in the
last half of the last century, and compare it with the present. The
retrospect shows us plainly that the art of singing has descended
from its former high estate, and is now in a condition of decline.
When we consider what is told us in the historical works of _Forkel_,
_Burney_, _Kiesewetter_, _Brendel_ and others, and compare it with
our present poverty in good voices and skilful artists, we are struck
with the multitude of fine voices then heard, with their remarkable
fulness of tone, as well as with the considerable number of
singers--male and female--appearing at the same time.
We first recall to mind the last great artists of that time,
whose names are familiar to us because they appeared in public
after the beginning of the present century:--_Catalani_, who
preserved to extreme old age the melody and enormous power of
her voice; _Malibran_, _Sontag_, _Vespermann_, &c.; the men
singers, _Rubini_, _Tamburini_, _Lablache_, and others; and,
still farther back, _Mara_, whose voice had a compass, with
equal fulness of tone, of three octaves, and who possessed such
a power of musical utterance that she imitated within the
compass of her voice the most difficult passages of the violin
and flute with perfect facility. Then comes the artiste
_Ajugara Bastardella_, in Parma, who executed with purity and
distinctness the most difficult passages from si (b) to si
(b³), and roulades with successive trills, with enchanting
harmony; and the old Italian singing-masters, who sang and
taught with an art which we should scarcely hold possible, were
it not for the unanimous testimony of their contemporaries.
There were _Porpora_ and his pupil _Perugia_, who sang two full
octaves, with successive trills up and down in one breath, and
executed with perfect exactness all the tones of the chromatic
scale without an accompaniment; and _Farinelli_, who to his
latest age preserved his wonderfully beautiful voice. Of him
it is related, among other things, that on one occasion he
competed with a trumpeter, who accompanied him in an aria.
After both had several times dwelt on notes in which each
sought to excel the other in power and duration, they prolonged
a note with a double trill in thirds, which they continued
until both seemed to be exhausted. At last the trumpeter gave
up, entirely out of breath, while Farinelli, without taking
breath, prolonged the note with renewed volume of sound,
trilling and ending, finally, with the most difficult of
roulades. _Pistochi_ and _Bernucchi_ rivalled Farinelli. The
latter, although he had received from nature a refractory voice
of little excellence, nevertheless succeeded in cultivating it
so highly that he became one of the most distinguished artists
of his day, called by Händel and Graun, “The King of Singers.”
It is impossible to mention by name all the many singers, male
and female, who won applause and renown in the beginning and in
the middle of the last century. Almost every European state was
furnished with most excellent operas, and troops of artists,
men and women, with voices of the highest cultivation, flocked
thither. Even in the streets and inns and other places in
Italy, where elsewhere we are accustomed to seek only music of
the lowest kind, one could then hear the most artistic vocal
music, such as was found in the churches, concert-saloons and
theatres of Germany and France.
It appears that far greater demands were made upon singers then
than now-a-days. At least, history celebrates, together with
the great vocal flexibility of the earlier singers, the measured
beauty of their singing, the noble tone, the thoroughly cultivated
delivery, by which they showed themselves true artists, and
produced upon their hearers effects almost miraculous.
On the other hand, how sad is the condition of vocal music in
our time! How few artistically cultivated voices are there!
And the few that there are, how soon are they used up and
lost! Artists like _Lind_, and more recently _Trebelli_,
are exceptions to be made.
Mediocre talent is now often sought, and rewarded far beyond its
desert. One is often tempted to think that the public at large has
wellnigh lost all capacity of judgment, when he witnesses the
representation of one of our operas. Let a singer, male or female,
only drawl the notes sentimentally one into another, execute
a tremulo upon prolonged notes, introduce very often the softest
piano and just where it is entirely out of place, growl out the
lowest notes in the roughest timbre, and scream out the high notes
lustily, and he or she may reckon with certainty upon the greatest
applause. In fact, we have become so easily pleased that even an
impure execution is suffered to pass without comment. Let the
personal appearance of the singer only be handsome and prepossessing,
he need trouble himself little about his art in order to win the
favor of the public. This decline of the art of singing is usually
ascribed to the want of good voices, and this poverty of voices
to our altered modes of living. To me it appears as the natural
consequence of the whole manner and way in which the art of singing
has been historically developed since its earlier high state of
perfection.
The human voice is, of all instruments, the most natural, the
most perfect, the most intimate in its relation to us, as,
for the use of it, we have a talent or faculty innate, which,
in the case of other instruments, can only be laboriously
acquired, to say nothing of the fact that these instruments
are first to be invented and put together. Hence vocal music
appears to have been almost the only music among the Greeks,
and the rude instruments then in use served merely for an
accompaniment. The history of our so-called _Western_ music,
which dates no farther back than the fourth century after
Christ, tells us hardly anything else than of vocal musicians
and of their compositions for concerted and chorus singing.
Our art, only slowly developing itself from those earliest
times, was cherished, mainly in Italy, for the sole purpose of
exalting divine worship. We have, at least, no account of any
secular art of music in those days. As yet unacquainted with
harmony, the only singing was _in unison_, as was the custom,
at an earlier period, among the Greeks; for not until the tenth
century of the Christian era was it attempted, and then by a
Flemish monk (_Hukbaldus_), to harmonize several and different
notes; thus was invented and founded our harmony, whose exponent
was the organ.[1]
From that time forward, history makes mention of many persons who
labored worthily, now more and now less, to create a theory of music,
seeking to found a system of harmony upon that rude beginning, and by
degrees to improve it. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries music
burst forth into blossom in the Netherlands, and thenceforth rose
steadily in excellence, when also it began to branch out into the
excesses of counterpoint. The fame of the Netherlands soon spread over
all the civilized countries of Europe. The artists of the Netherlands
were invited upon the most favorable terms to Italy, France, Spain,
and Germany, and thus the progress of music spread over all these
countries almost _pari passu_. For two hundred years the Netherlands
maintained the reputation of the best and highest culture in vocal
music, and not until the middle of the sixteenth century did there
appear in Italy and Germany artists who attained to a like renown. Up
to that time prejudice denied to the Italians _all talent for music_,
as it has ever since exaggerated their claims in this respect.
_Kiesewetter_ remarks, in his History of Music, that, although the
Netherlands in Italy no longer had the monopoly, they nevertheless
always maintained the supremacy in music. Climate and language were,
however, so favorable to vocal music in Italy that it soon found there
its peculiar home, and though theoretical knowledge of music was
advanced by the earlier singers, now richness and power of voice were
also attained. As it had previously been with the Netherlanders, so it
now became with the Italians. They were drawn to all countries in
which there was any love of art; and they soon won that supremacy in
music which they maintained until the last century. Until the latter
part of the sixteenth century, good musicians were devoted almost
exclusively to church music, and held it beneath their dignity to take
part in music of any other kind. All but church music they left to the
minstrels and strolling singers, who traveled over the country from
place to place, and in different lands were styled _minstrels_,
_minnesänger_ and _trovatori_. They mostly sung love-songs, which they
often extemporized in word and tune, finding place and popularity on
all festive occasions. But under the impulse which music began to
feel, the desire among the educated class to revive the old Greek
drama, which just at that period had come to be well known, became
more and more urgent. Imbued with the spirit of that age, the whole
tendency of which was to exalt the ancient classic poets, a circle of
men of science and culture from the higher classes gave themselves to
the task of producing a style of music such as the Greeks must have
had in the representation of their dramas. In the mansion of Count
_Bardi_, in Florence, then the centre of union for all who had any
claims to cultivation, music was first arranged for a _single_ voice
by a dilettante, the father of the renowned Galileo.
This attempt met with applause and imitation among the most
distinguished singers of the time, who thenceforth turned
their attention also to secular music. It thus came about
that, towards the end of the sixteenth century, on festal
occasions in Italy, and even earlier in France, theatrical
representations were given with vocal music. This music was,
however, always composed in the form of the chorus, and the
leading voice alone was represented by a singer; the other
voices were represented by instruments.
Such was the beginning of solo singing, which, growing ever
more in public favor, soon came to be introduced into the most
solemn church music; dramatic representations, religious and
secular, grew very popular, and were the forerunners of the
opera and oratorio, the richest inventions of the sixteenth
century.
Up to this time, a singer of sound musical culture sufficed for
chorus singing, but by the introduction of solo singing a more
complete education of the organ of singing became a necessity.
Indeed, as early as the middle of the fifteenth century there
existed in Rome and Milan schools of music and professorships for
the education of singers; but with the introduction and diffusion
of solo singing similar conservatories were established in nearly
all the more considerable cities of Italy, and all the energies
of the musician were devoted to the highest possible culture of
the voice.
But, with solo singing, greater attention was paid to instruments,
which were already in those days constructed with the greatest
care and skill. With the higher cultivation of single voices,
chorus singing also became richer in harmony and embellishment,
but as, in vocal music, words accompany the music, the expression
of the music becomes more definite and intelligible for the
hearer, and thus with the higher cultivation of vocal music,
and by means of it, even our whole modern system of harmony
has been developed.
Women were, by ecclesiastical law, excluded from participation
in church music, and as the voices of boys could be used only
for a few years, they did not suffice to meet the ever-increasing
demands of church music. At first it was attempted to supply
the place of the sopranists and contraltists with so-called
falsettists. As, however, these substitutes proved insufficient,
the soprano and contralto of boys were sought to be preserved in
men. And so, in 1625, appeared the first male sopranist in the
Papal chapel in Rome. Such sopranists and contraltists soon
appeared in great numbers, and as their organs of singing
continued soft and tender as those of women, and their compass
was the same, to them the education of female voices was given
over exclusively. Thenceforth women became the richest ornament
of the opera, then blooming into beauty. But only when the
ecclesiastical law forbidding women to take part in church music
was annulled, did women begin, in the middle of the last century,
to take the place of those male sopranists and contraltists.
It thus became unnecessary to secure longer duration to the
voices of boys, especially as these were never able to attain
to the peculiar grace of the female voice, and so this class
of singers gradually died out. But still in the first half of
the present century there were many of them living and sought
for as teachers of singing. _To the disappearance of this
kind of singers, Rossini thinks the decline of vocal art is
to be mainly ascribed._
The art of singing rose in the course of the seventeenth century to
an extraordinary height of cultivation, and was diffused more and
more by means of the opera, then blooming, as we have said, into
beauty. But in that brilliant springtime of vocal art, it was not
mere externals, such as beauty of tone, flexibility, etc., that were
striven for, but, above all, the correct expression of the feeling
intended in the composition. This rendered necessary to the singer
the most thorough æsthetic culture, going hand in hand with the
culture of the vocal organ. For only thus could he succeed in acting
upon the souls of his hearers, in moving them and carrying them along
with him in the emotions which the music awakened in his own mind.
The dramatic singer was now strongly tempted to neglect the externals
of his art for the æsthetic, purely inward conception of the music.
Certain, at least, it is that to the neglect of the training of the
voice (_Tonbildung_), and to the style of writing of our modern
composers--a style unsuited to the art of singing, and looking only
to its spiritual element--the decline of this art is in part to be
traced. _Mannstein_ says that, with the disappearance of those great
masters, power and beauty of tone have fallen more and more into
contempt, and at the present day it is scarcely known what is meant
by them. True it is, that a beautiful tone of voice (_Gesangston_),
which must be considered the foundation and first requisition of fine
singing, is more and more rare among our singers, male and female,
and yet it is just as important in music as perfect form in the
creations of the sculptor.
But the complete technical education of the earlier singers
misled many of them into various unnatural artifices, in order
to obtain notice and distinction. The applause of the public
caused such trickeries to become the fashion among artists. The
multitude, accustomed to such effects, began to mistake them
for art. By the gradual disappearance of the male sopranists,
instruction in singing fell into the hands of tenor singers,
who usually cultivated the female voice in accordance with
their own voices, which could not be otherwise than injurious
in the uncertainty existing as to the limits in compass and the
difference between the male and female organs of voice.
Thus it has come to pass that people are now apt to imagine that
they know all that is to be known; and as teaching in singing is
generally best paid, the office has been undertaken, without the
slightest apparent self-distrust, by many persons who have not the
slightest idea what thorough acquaintance with the organs of
singing, what comprehensive knowledge of all the departments of
music and what æsthetic and general culture, the teacher of singing
requires. Very few persons indeed clearly understand what is meant
by the education of a voice, and what high qualifications both
teacher and pupil always require. The idea, for instance, is very
prevalent that every musician, whatever may be the branch of music
to which he is devoted, and especially every singer, is qualified to
give instruction in singing. And therefore a dilettanteism without
precedent has taken the place of all real artistic endeavors. Be
this, however, as it may, such is the wide diffusion and popularity
of music beyond all the other arts, that the want of singers
artistically educated, and consequently also of a recognized sound
method of instruction, becomes more and more urgent; and although we
have in these times distinguished singers, male and female, as well
as skilful teachers, yet the number is very small and by no means
equal to the demand.
But now, as every evil, as soon as it is felt to be such, calls
forth the means of its removal, already in various ways attempts
are making in the department of the Art of Singing to restore it as
perfectly as possible to its former high position, and if possible
to elevate it to a yet higher state. It was natural that the attempt
should, first of all, be made to revive the old Italian method of
instruction, and that, by strict adherence in everything to what has
come down to us by tradition, we should hope for deliverance and
salvation; for to the Italians mainly vocal music was indebted for
its chief glory. Without considering in what a sadly superficial way
music--and vocal music especially--is now treated in Italy, many
have given in to the erroneous idea that any Italian who can sing
anything must know how to educate a voice. Thus many incompetent
Italians have become popular teachers in other countries.
The old Italian method of instruction, to which vocal music
owed its high condition, was purely _empirical_, i.e., the
old singing masters taught only according to a sound and just
feeling for the beautiful, guided by that faculty of acute
observation, which enabled them to distinguish what belongs to
nature. Their pupils learned by imitation, as children learn
their mother tongue, without troubling themselves about rules.
But after the true and natural way has once been forsaken, and
for so long a period only the false and the unnatural has been
heard and taught, it seems almost impossible by empiricism
alone to restore the old and proper method of teaching. With
our higher degree of culture, men and things have greatly
changed. Our feeling is no longer sufficiently simple and
natural to distinguish the true without the help of scientific
principles.
But science has already done much to assist the formation of musical
forms of art. Mathematics and physics have established the principal
laws of sound and the processes of sound, in accordance with which
our musical instruments are now constructed. Philosophical inquirers
have succeeded also in discovering the eternal and impregnable laws
of Nature upon which the mutual influences of melody, harmony and
rhythm depend, and in thus giving to composition fixed forms and
laws which no one ventures to question. And more recently Professor
Helmholtz, in his great work, “Die Lehre von den Tonempfindungen,”
has given to music of all kinds a scientific ground and basis.
But for the culture of the human voice in singing science has as
yet furnished only a few lights. The well-known experiments of
_Johannes Müller_ upon the larynx gave us all that was known,
until very recently, respecting the functions of the organ of
singing. Many singing masters have sought to found their methods
of instruction upon these observations on the larynx, at the same
time putting forth the boldest conjectures in regard to the functions
of the organ of singing in the living subject. But they have thus
ruined more fine voices than those teachers who, without reference
to the formation of the voice, only correct the musical faults of
their pupils, and for the rest let them sing as they please.
This superficial treatment of science, and the unfortunate results
of its application, have injured the art of singing more than
benefited it, and created a prejudice against all scientific
investigations in this direction among the most distinguished
artists and teachers, as well as among those who take an intelligent
interest in this department of music. It is a pretty common opinion
that science can do little for the improvement of music, and nothing
for the culture and preservation of the voice in singing. And the
habit of regarding science and art as opposed to each other renders
it extremely difficult to secure a hearing for the results of
thorough scientific inquiry in this direction.
Science itself admits that it can neither create artistic
talent, nor supply the place of it, but only furnish it with
aids. Besides, with the whole inner nature of music, no forms
of thought (_reflection_) have anything to do. It has “a
reason above reason.” This art transmits to us in sound the
expression of emotions as they rise in the human soul and
connect themselves one with another. It is the revelation of
our inmost life in its tenderest and finest processes, and is
therefore the most ideal of the arts. It appeals directly to
our consciousness. As a sense of the divine dwells in every
nation, in every human being, and is impelled to form for
itself a religious cultus, so we find among all nations the
need of music dwelling as deeply in human nature. The most
uncivilized tribes celebrate their festivals with songs as
the expression of their devotion or joy, and the cultivated
nations of ancient times, like the Greeks, cherished music as
the ethereal vehicle of their poetry, and regarded it as the
chief aid in the culture of the soul.
But together with its purely internal character, music has yet
another and formal side, for if our art consisted only in the
æsthetic feeling, and in representing this feeling, every person
of culture, possessing the right feeling, would be able to sing,
just as he understands how to read intelligibly.
Everything spiritual, everything ideal, as soon as it is to
be made present to the perceptions of others, requires a form
which, in its material as well as in its structure, may be
more or less perfect, but it can never otherwise than submit
to those eternal laws to which all that lives, all that comes
within the sphere of our perceptions, is subject. To discover
and establish the natural laws which lie at the basis of all
our forms of art is the office of science; to fashion and
control these forms and animate them with a soul is the task
of art. In singing, the art consists in tones beautiful and
sonorous, and fitted for the expression of every variation of
feeling. To set forth the natural laws by which these tones
are produced is the business of physiology and physics.
Thus is there not only an _æsthetical_ side to the art of singing,
but a _physiological_ and a _physical_ side also, without an exact
knowledge, appreciation, observance, and study of which, what is
hurtful cannot be discerned and avoided; and no true culture of
art, and consequently no progress in singing, is possible.
In the _physiological_ view of vocal art, we have to do with
the quality and strength of the organ of singing in the act
of uttering sound, and under the variations of sound that
take place in certain tones (the register being transcended).
By the _physical_ side is to be understood the correct use and
skilful management of the air flowing from the lungs through
the windpipe, and brought into vibration by the vocal chords
in the larynx.
But the _æsthetics_ of vocal art, and the spiritual inspiration
of the form (of the sound), comprise the whole domain of music
and poetic beauty.
[1] Those who are interested in the history of music are
referred to the historical works already mentioned for
a fuller account of what is only alluded to above.