LANGUAGE
“Italian is the easiest language to sing, then comes Russian, and I
should put English next. All languages affect the tone, unless the tone
is first able to carry the weight of the language. A singer may study in
any language, but in only one until after the tone is placed beyond any
possibility of being affected by the demands of the different
languages.”
I am disposed to think that there is a good deal of truth in this. How
serious is the influence exercised by the language used upon the quality
of the tone produced is illustrated by German vocalism and American
intonation. For here you have entire nations who, in the vocal sense,
may be said to illustrate the evil effect upon tone of a harsh and nasal
language.
German singing seems to be different, not merely in degree, but even in
kind from that of other lands. In the case of even its best exponents
there is a harshness and a tonelessness about it which differentiates it
from that of any other race. German singers often have strong, lusty
voices, likewise plenty of intelligence and dramatic feeling; but for
beauty of tone and all the finer qualities of vocalism one listens for
them in vain.
The fact is strange, but it can hardly be denied even by those least
disposed to admit it. That one of the most musical nations in Europe
should also be that of all others least dowered with the gift of song is
a remarkable paradox which is not a little difficult to understand.
It is not a case of differences of taste. The point is that the German
voice, as such, is indisputably inferior in point of quality to that of
practically all the other European races. There is no discredit in the
circumstance. It implies no reflection on anyone. It is merely an
unfortunate physiological fact which must be accepted like any other of
those decrees of Nature which are not to be gainsaid.
Such being the fact, how is it to be explained? Why is it that German
singing is of this strange quality? How has it come about that so
musical a race has been so shabbily treated by Nature in this important
regard?
Various theories have been advanced. According to some the explanation
is that it is the German language with its explosive consonants, harsh
gutturals, and other unmelodious characteristics, which is at the bottom
of the trouble.
Students of voice production will prove to you by ingenious experiments
that the disposition of the vocal organs, breathing, and so forth,
required for the utterance of the German language, are in themselves
incompatible with the emission of a beautiful quality of vocal tone; and
however this may be, it is hardly to be disputed that regarded from the
standpoint of euphony, pure and simple, the German language is certainly
not to be called melodious.
It seems quite a plausible theory, therefore, that harshness of language
and harshness of voice are not disconnected, especially when the
suggestion is fortified by the converse association of the most
beautiful voices with the most mellifluous language, in the case of the
Italians.
And if so much be admitted, it is obvious that it may indeed be a
question of importance, as Signor Bonci has suggested, what language is
employed by the student in that critical initial stage when his voice is
being “placed.”
For the rest it may be noticed that another great modern tenor, namely
Caruso, insisted especially, when discussing this question of placing,
upon the supreme necessity of freedom and ease and the absence of all
unnecessary contractions of the muscles.
Signor Fucito tells us that on this point he expressed himself as
follows: “It is necessary through the aid of self-study and the help of
a good singing teacher to become aware of every physical defect--such as
contractions of the muscles of the throat, of the face, or of the
jaw--which can hinder the tone from being emitted in all its fullness
and purity. These rigid muscular contractions bring about a throaty
tone, which lacks support and is incapable of purity and amplitude....
The singer should apply himself to his study with great naturalness and
relaxation; this is the _sine qua non_ of beautiful cantilena singing.”
With every word of these remarks I heartily agree. Indeed, I imagine
that they would gain the universal assent of all qualified to write on
the subject.
The pronunciation of foreign languages is a point to which the student
can hardly give too much attention. It also affords another argument in
favour of study abroad, since it is certain that a foreign language
cannot possibly be acquired so effectually anywhere as in the land where
it is spoken. And foreign languages are indispensable to a singer
nowadays who aspires to be equal to all the requirements of the modern
répertoire.
True it may not be necessary to possess the linguistic powers of a
Mingotti, who spoke German, French, Italian, English, and Spanish. But
at least it may be laid down as an inexorable rule that no one should
ever attempt to sing in a foreign tongue until he has acquired absolute
command over every detail of its pronunciation by means of study, if not
in the land itself, at any rate with a native.
Otherwise the result can only be a travesty of the composer’s--or at all
events of the poet’s--intentions and a source of mirth to all hearers.
Little do some artists realise, indeed, the impressions which they
produce at times when, with misplaced assurance, they venture on songs
in tongues with which they are imperfectly acquainted.
Even in the case of the best equipped it is a proceeding attended with
risk to sing in a foreign language; but without complete knowledge there
is no more certain way of exposing one’s self to ridicule.
And I am afraid that it must be said that, contrary perhaps to the
general belief, Italian suffers no less than any other language from
misguided attempts of this kind. The idea is commonly entertained that
Italian is “easy” to speak, but of course this is not the case if it is
really to be properly spoken.
To which I may add that few peoples seem to experience more difficulty
in mastering its subtleties than the English. It may be recalled, too,
that this was also the view of Lamperti. Of all the European nations, he
declared, the English, and especially Londoners, pronounced Italian
worst. The sounds that they produce, he remarked, are nearly all
guttural, the vowels being excessively weak, while their accent was
entirely wrong--the men, he added, being even worse than the women.
The Scotch, on the other hand, were not quite so bad in his judgment,
while the Irish were best of all. Indeed, he agreed that the latter with
study could learn to speak Italian quite wonderfully--as is illustrated,
I may say, at the present time by Mr. John McCormack, who has a most
admirable Italian diction. But it certainly is not often that one can
speak in similar terms of the average English artist.
If anyone doubts this, let him read and ponder over some caustic remarks
once made on this very point by the late Sir Charles Santley. Nothing
was more deplorable, he said, than to hear the atrocious manner in which
the beautiful Italian language was murdered at times by untrained
English singers, and if, he added, they had any notion of the effect
which they produced by such attempts upon such of their hearers as
happened to be really familiar with the language, they would assuredly
never make themselves so ridiculous again. Better a thousand times, he
concluded, to sing all your life in your own tongue rather than make
yourself a laughing-stock by attempting a task beyond your power.
To which I need hardly add that the same applies no less to French and
German, though I am myself less qualified to speak concerning those
languages.
It is not for me, perhaps, to say much about Wagner singing, which is so
far removed from my own chosen province, but I may be permitted,
perhaps, while on the subject of diction, to point to the appalling
manner in which the divine art of singing has been perverted by
Wagnerian singers under the mistaken notion that they were in this way
carrying out the wishes of the sublime master.
I say “under the mistaken notion” because it is well known by those
acquainted with the fact that the so-called “Bayreuth method” was as far
removed as possible from Wagner’s actual ideas. It is true that he
attached the utmost importance to clear and emphatic enunciation of the
words so that the course of the drama might be quite clearly understood,
and therein he was quite right. But there is little reason to suppose
that he was in reality satisfied with the actual results achieved by the
German singers by whom his works were originally presented.
It is, indeed, an utter mistake to suppose that the harsh and strident
singing of the average German vocalist was of a kind to commend itself
to Wagner. On the contrary, it was one of his pet schemes, if I have not
been misinformed, in connection with Bayreuth, to institute a School of
Singing which might lead to better things; and the kind of singing at
which he aimed may be gathered from the fact that the teacher whom he
wished to secure to carry out his views was none other than that famous
exponent of Bel Canto, the late Señor Manuel García!
In the same connection, too, may be recalled the remark made by the
composer after hearing a performance of “Lohengrin” (with the great
Italian Wagnerian tenor Borgatti) on one occasion at Bologna. Almost for
the first time, he said, he had heard his music really sung. All of
which suggests how far they are from actually fulfilling the wishes of
the master in continuing at Bayreuth the horrible vocal methods which
had become so unfortunately associated with his name.