The mechanism of speech might be discussed at any length, but to reduce
it to its simplest form it consists of the sound producing
instrument,--the vocal cords, the organs of enunciation--lips, tongue,
teeth and soft palate, and the channel leading to the outer air. When
the vocal cords are producing pitch and the channel is free the result
is a vowel. If an obstruction is thrown into the channel the result is a
consonant. Vowels and consonants, then, constitute the elements of
speech. The vowels are the emotional elements and the consonants are the
intellectual elements. By means of vowel sounds alone emotions may be
awakened, but when definite ideas are expressed, words which are a
combination of vowels and consonants must be used. It is nothing short
of amazing that with this simple mechanism, by using the various
combinations of open and obstructed channel in connection with pitch,
the entire English language or any other language for that matter can be
produced.
Vowels are produced with an open channel from the vocal cords to the
outer air. Consonants are produced by partial or complete closing of the
channel by interference of the lips, tongue, teeth and soft palate.
If language consisted entirely of vowels learning to sing would be much
simpler than it is. It is the consonants that cause trouble. It is not
uncommon to find students who can vocalize with comparative ease, but
the moment they attempt to sing words the mechanism becomes rigid. The
tendency toward rigidity is much greater in enunciating consonants than
it is in enunciating vowels, and yet they should be equally easy. Here
is where the student finds his greatest difficulty in mastering English
diction.
The most frequent criticism of American singers is their deficiency in
diction. Whether it please us or no, it must be admitted that on the
whole the criticism is not without foundation.
The importance of effective speech is much underestimated by students of
singing, and yet it requires but a moment's consideration to see that
the impression created by speech is the result of forceful diction no
less than of subject matter. Words mean the same thing whether spoken or
sung, and the singer no less than the speaker should deliver them with a
full understanding of their meaning.
The proposition confronting the singer is a difficult one. When he
attempts the dramatic he finds that it destroys his legato. He loses the
sustained quality of the organ tone, which is the true singing tone, and
_bel canto_ is out of the question.
This is what is urged against the operas of Wagner and practically
everything of the German school since his day. The dramatic element is
so intense and the demand so strenuous that singers find it almost, if
not quite impossible, to keep the singing tone and reach the dramatic
heights required. They soon find themselves shouting in a way that not
only destroys the singing tone but also the organ that produces it. The
truth of this cannot be gainsaid. There is a considerable amount of
vocal wreckage strewn along the way, the result of wrestling with
Wagnerian recitative. Wagnerian singers are, as a rule, vocally shorter
lived than those that confine themselves to French and Italian opera.
But it will be argued by some that these people have not learned how to
sing, that if they had a perfect vocal method they could sing Wagner as
easily as Massenet. That they have not learned to sing Wagner is
evident, and this brings us to the question--Shall the singer adjust
himself to the composer or the composer to the singer? A discussion of
this would probably lead nowhere, but I submit the observation, that
many modern composers show a disregard for the possibilities and
limitations of the human voice that amounts to stupidity. Because a
composer can write great symphonies the public is inclined to think that
everything he writes is great. Let it be understood once for all that
bad voice writing is bad whether it is done by a symphonic writer or a
popular songwriter. In the present stage of human development there are
certain things the voice can do and other things it cannot do, and these
things can be known only by those who understand the voice, and are
accustomed to working with it. To ignore them completely when writing
for voices is no evidence of genius. Composers seem to forget that the
singer must create the pitch of his instrument as well as its quality at
the moment he uses it. They also forget that his most important aid in
this is the feeling of tonality. When this is destroyed and the singer
is forced to measure intervals abstractedly he is called upon to do
something immeasurably more difficult than anything that is asked of the
instrumentalist. Many modern composers have lost their heads and run
amuck on the modern idiom, and their writing for voices is so complex
that it would require a greater musician to sing their music than it did
to write it.
But to return, I do not say that it is impossible to apply the
principles of _bel canto_ to Wagner's dramatic style of utterance. On
the contrary I believe it is possible to gain such a mastery of voice
production and enunciation that the Wagnerian roles may be sung, not
shouted, and still not be lacking in dramatic intensity, but it requires
a more careful study of diction and its relation to voice production
than most singers are willing to make.
A majority of singers never succeed in establishing the right relation
between the vocal organ and the organs of enunciation. Years of
experience have verified this beyond peradventure.
It is a very common thing for singers to vocalize for an indefinite
period with no ill effect, but become hoarse with ten minutes of
singing. The reason is apparent. They have learned how to produce vowels
with a free throat but not consonants. The moment they attempt to form a
consonant, tension appears, not only in those parts of the mechanism
which form the consonant, but in the vocal organ as well. Under such
treatment the voice soon begins to show wear, and this is exactly what
happens to those singers who find it difficult to sing the Wagner
operas.
The solution of this problem lies in the proper study of diction. The
intellectual elements of speech consonants are formed almost entirely in
the front of the mouth with various combinations of lips, tongue and
teeth. Three things are necessary to their complete mastery.
=First,=--consonants must be produced without tension. It will be well
to remember in this connection that consonants are not to be sung. They
are points of interference and must be distinct but short. The principle
of freedom applies to consonants no less than to vowels.
=Second,=--consonants must not be allowed to interrupt the continuity of
the pitch produced by the vocal cords. This is necessary to preserve
legato. Some consonants close the channel completely, others only
partially. It is a great achievement to be able to sing all consonant
combinations and still preserve a legato.
=Third,=--consonants must in no way interfere with the freedom of the
vocal organ. If the student attempts to sing the consonants, that is, to
prolong them he is sure to make his throat rigid and the pure singing
tone at once disappears. He must therefore learn dramatic utterance
without throwing the weight of it on the throat. To do this he must
begin with a consonant which offers the least resistance and practice it
until the three points mentioned have been mastered. The one which will
give the least trouble is l. At the pitch G sing ah-lah-lah-lah-lah,
until it can be done with relaxed tongue, with perfect continuity of
tone, and with perfect freedom in the vocal instrument. In the same way
practice n, d, v, th, m, and the sub vocals, b, d, g. Always begin with
a vowel.
If the singer has the patience to work the problem out in this way he
can apply the principles of _bel canto_ to dramatic singing. The road to
this achievement is long, longer than most people suspect, but if one is
industrious and persevering it may be accomplished.
But there remains yet to be mentioned the most important element of
artistic singing. To the pure tone and perfect diction must be added the
imagination. The _imagination_ is the image making power of the mind,
the power to create or reproduce ideally that which has been previously
perceived: the power to call up mental images. By means of the
imagination we take the materials of experience and mold them into
idealized forms. The aim of creative art is to idealize, that is, to
portray nature and experience in perfect forms not with the
imperfections of visible nature. "In this" says Hegel, "art is superior
to nature."
The activity of the imagination is directly responsible for that most
essential thing--emotional tone. Taking intelligence for granted, the
imagination is the most important factor involved in interpretation. If
the imagination be quick and responsive it will carry the singer away
from himself and temporarily he will live the song.
Every song has an atmosphere, a metaphysical something which
differentiates it from every other song. The singer must discover it and
find the mood which will perfectly express it. If his imagination
constructs the image, creates the picture, recalls the feeling, the
emotion, the result will be artistic singing. The song is that which
comes from the soul of the singer. It is not on the printed page. If I
study a Schubert song until I have mastered it, I have done nothing to
Schubert. It is I who have grown. Through the activity of the
imagination, guided by the intelligence, I have built up in my
consciousness as nearly as possible what I conceive to have been
Schubert's feeling when he wrote the song, but the work has all been
done on myself.
A chapter might be written on the artistic personality. It reveals
itself in light, shade, nuance, inflection, accent, color, always with a
perfect sense of proportion, harmony and unity, and free from all that
is earthy. It is the expression of individuality. It cannot be imitated.
If you ask me for its source I repeat again Whistler's immortal saying:
"Art is an expression of eternal, absolute truth, and starting from the
Infinite it cannot progress, =IT IS=."