In view of the generally understood nature of involuntary action and the
extent to which it obtains in all good singing it is difficult to
understand why any teacher should work from the basis of direct control.
It is a fact, however, that teachers who have not the psychological
vision find it difficult to work with a thing they cannot see. To such,
direct control seems to be the normal and scientific method of
procedure.
Let me illustrate: A student comes for his first lesson. I "try his
voice." His tone is harsh, white, throaty and unsympathetic. It is not
the singing tone and I tell him it is "all wrong." He does not
contradict me but places himself on the defensive and awaits
developments. I question him to find out what he thinks of his own
voice, how it impresses him, etc. I find it makes no impression on him
because he has no standard. He says he doesn't know whether he ought to
like his voice or not, but rather supposes he should not. As I watch him
I discover many things that are wrong and I make a mental note of them.
Suppose I say to him as a very celebrated European teacher once said to
me: "Take a breath, and concentrate your mind on the nine little muscles
in the throat that control the tone." This is asking a good deal when he
does not know the name or the exact location of a single one of them,
but he seems impressed, although a little perplexed, and to make it
easier for him I say as another famous teacher once said to me: "Open
your mouth, put two fingers and a thumb between your teeth, yawn, now
sing _ah_." He makes a convulsive effort and the tone is a trifle worse
than it was before. I say to him, "Your larynx is too high, and it jumps
up at the beginning of each tone. You must keep it down. It is
impossible to produce good tone with a high larynx. When the larynx
rises, the throat closes and you must always have your throat open.
Don't forget, your throat must be _open_ and you can get it open only by
keeping the larynx low." He tries again with the same result and awaits
further instructions. I take another tack and say to him, "Your tongue
rises every time you sing and impairs the form of the vocal cavity. Keep
it down below the level of the teeth, otherwise your vowels will be
imperfect. You should practice a half hour each day grooving your
tongue." I say these things impressively and take the opportunity to
tell him some interesting scientific facts about fundamental and upper
partials, and how different combinations produce different vowels, also
how these combinations are affected by different forms of the vocal
cavities, leading up to the great scientific truth that he must hold the
tongue down and the throat open in order that these great laws of
acoustics may become operative. He seems very humble in the presence of
such profound erudition and makes several unsuccessful attempts to do
what I tell him, but his tone is no better. I tell him so, for I do not
wish to mislead him. He is beginning to look helpless and discouraged
but waits to see what I will do next. He vexes me not a little, because
I feel that anything so simple and yet so scientific as the exercises I
am giving him ought to be grasped and put into practice at once; but I
still have resources, and I say to him, "Bring the tone forward, direct
it against the hard palate just above the upper teeth, send it up
through the head with a vigorous impulse of the diaphragm. You must
always feels the tone in the nasal cavities. That is the way you can
tell whether your tone is right or not." He tries to do these things,
but of necessity fails.
This sort of thing goes on with mechanical instructions for raising the
soft palate, making the diaphragm rigid, grooving the tongue, etc.,
etc., and at the end of the lesson I tell him to go home and practice an
hour a day on what I have given him. If he obeys my instructions he will
return in worse condition, for he will be strengthening the bad habits
he already has and forming others equally pernicious.
This is a sample of teaching by direct control. It is not overdrawn. It
is a chapter from real life, and I was the victim.
You will have observed that this lesson was devoted to teaching the
student how to do certain things with the vocal mechanism. The real
thing, the tone, the result at which all teaching should aim was placed
in the background. It was equivalent to trying to teach him to do
something but not letting him know what. It was training the body, not
the mind, and the result was what invariably happens when this plan is
followed.
In the lesson given above no attempt was made to give the student a
correct mental picture of a tone, and yet this is the most important
thing for him to learn, for _he never will sing a pure tone until he has
a definite mental picture of it_. _A tone is something to hear and the
singer himself must hear it before he can sing it._
Not one of the suggestions made to this student could be of any possible
benefit to him at the time. Not even the sensation of feeling the tone
in the head can be relied upon, for physical sensations are altogether
uncertain and unreliable. As I have observed in numberless instances,
there may be a sensation in the head when there are disagreeable
elements in the tone. If the ear of the teacher does not tell him when
the tone is good and when it is bad he is hopeless. If his ear is
reliable, why resort to a physical sensation as a means of deciding? In
the properly produced voice there is a feeling of vibration in the head
cavities, especially in the upper part of the voice, but that alone is
not a guaranty of good tone.
This teaching from the standpoint of sensation and direct control will
never produce a great singer so long as man inhabits a body. It is
working from the wrong end of the proposition. Control of the mechanism
is a very simple matter when the mental concept is formed. It is then
only a question of learning how to relax, how to free the mechanism of
tension, and the response becomes automatic.
Is there no way out of this maze of mechanical uncertainties? There is.
Is voice culture a sort of catch-as-catch-can with the probabilities a
hundred to one against success? It is not. Is singing a lost art? It is
not. Let us get away from fad, fancy and formula and see the thing as it
is. The problem is psychologic rather than physiologic. The fact that
one may learn all that can be known about physiology and still know
nothing whatever about voice training should awaken us to its
uselessness.
Man is a mental entity. When I speak to a student _it is his mind that
hears, not his body_. It is his mind that acts. It is his mind that
originates and controls action. Therefore it is his mind that must be
trained.
Action is not in the body. In fact, the body as matter has no sensation.
Remove mind from the body and it does not feel. It is the mind that
feels. If you believe that the body feels you must be prepared to
explain where in the process of digestion and assimilation the beefsteak
and potato you ate for dinner become conscious, because to feel they
must be conscious. We know that the fluids and solids composing the body
have no sensation when they are taken into the body, nor do they ever
become sentient. Therefore the body of itself has no initiative, no
action, no control. All of these are the functions of mind, hence the
incongruity of attempting to solve a problem which is altogether
psychological, which demands qualities of mind, habits of mind, mental
concepts of a particular kind and quality, by a process of manipulation
of the organ through which mind expresses itself, making the training of
the mind a secondary matter; and then absurdly calling it scientific.
In every form of activity two things are involved: first, the idea:
second, its expression. It must be apparent then, that the quality of
the thing expressed will be governed by the quality of the idea. Or, to
put it in another way: In the activity of art two things are
involved--subject-matter and technic. The subject-matter, the substance
of art, is mental. Technic is gaining such control of the medium that
the subject-matter, or idea, may be fully and perfectly expressed. Ideas
are the only substantial things in the universe, and that there is a
difference in the quality of ideas need not be argued. Two men of the
same avoirdupois may be walking side by side on the street, but one of
them may be a genius and the other a hod carrier.
I have dwelt at some length on this because I wish to show where the
training of a singer must begin, and that when we understand the real
nature of the problem its solution becomes simple.