The immediate effect of the laryngoscope was to throw the whole
subject into almost hopeless confusion by the introduction of
all sorts of errors of observation, each claiming to be founded
on ocular proof, and believed in with corresponding obstinacy.
Sir Morell Mackenzie. _Hygiene of the Vocal Organs_.
He who studies the voice in a physics laboratory naturally considers
himself a scientific man, and those teachers who make his discoveries
the basis of their teaching believe they are teaching the science of
voice production. The scientist says: "Have I not studied the voice in
action? I have seen, therefore I know." But the element of uncertainty
in what he has seen makes his knowledge little more than speculative.
But suppose he is sure of what he has seen. Of what importance is it? He
has seen a vocal organ in the act of producing tone under trying
conditions, for one under the conditions necessary to the use of the
laryngoscope is not at all likely to reach his own standard of tone
production.
Scientists would have us believe that the action of the vocal mechanism
is the same in all voices. This claim must necessarily be made or there
would be no such thing as scientific production. But of all the vocal
vagaries advanced this has the least foundation in fact.
Scientifically and artistically speaking there is no such thing at
present as perfect voice, and there will be no such thing until man
manifests a perfect mind. The best examples of voice production are not
altogether perfect, and most of them are still a considerable distance
from perfection. It is with these imperfect models that the scientific
man in dealing and on which he bases his deductions.
Be it right or wrong singers do not all use the vocal mechanism in the
same way. I have in mind two well known contraltos one of whom carried
her chest register up to A, and even to B flat occasionally. The other
carried her middle register down to the bottom of the voice. Can the
tenor who carries his chest voice up to [Illustration: Figure P] be said
to use his voice in the same way as one who begins his head voice at
[Illustration: Figure Q]?
In the examination of a hundred voices selected at random all manner of
different things would be observed. Perhaps this is responsible for the
great diversity of opinion among scientists, for it must be said that so
far there is little upon which they agree. Before absolute laws
governing any organ or instrument can be formulated the nature of the
instrument must be known. The scientists have never come anywhere near
an agreement as to what kind of an instrument man has in his throat.
They have not decided whether it is a stringed instrument, a brass, a
single or double reed, and these things are vital in establishing a
scientific basis of procedure. Not knowing what the instrument is, it is
not strange that we are not of one mind as to how it should be played
upon.
If we are to know the science of voice production we must first know the
mechanism and action of the vocal organ. This instrument, perhaps an
inch and a half in length, produces tones covering a compass, in rare
instances, of three octaves. How does it do it? According to the books,
in a variety of ways.
A majority of those voice teachers who believe in registers recognize
three adjustments, chest middle, and upper, or chest medium, and head,
but Dr. MacKenzie claims that in four hundred female voices which he
examined he found in most cases the chest mechanism was used throughout.
Mancini (1774) says there are instances in which there is but one
register used throughout.
Garcia says there are three mechanisms--chest, falsetto, and head, and
makes them common to both sexes.
Behnke divides the voice into five registers--lower and upper thick,
lower and upper thin, and small.
Dr. Guilmette says that to hold that all of the tones of the voice
depend on one mechanism or register is an acknowledgment of ignorance of
vocal anatomy. He further declares that the vocal cords have nothing to
do with tone--that it is produced by vibration of the mucous membrane of
the trachea, larynx, pharynx, mouth; in fact, all of the mucous membrane
of the upper half of the body.
When it comes to the falsetto voice, that scarehead to so many people
who have no idea what it is, but are morally sure it is wicked and
ungodly, the scientists give their imaginations carte blanche. Dr.
Mackenzie, who says there are but two mechanisms, the long and short
reed, says the falsetto is produced by the short reed.
Lehfeldt and Muller hold that falsetto is produced by the vibrations of
the inner edges or mucous covering of the vocal cords, the body of the
cords being relaxed.
Mr. Lunn feels sure that the true vocal cords are not involved in
falsetto, that voice being produced by the false vocal cords.
Mantels says that in the falsetto voice the vocal cords do not produce
pitch, that the quality and mechanism are both that of the flute, that
the cords set the air in vibration and the different tones are made by
alterations in the length of the tube.
Davidson Palmer says that the falsetto is the remnant of the boy's voice
which has deteriorated through lack of use, but which is the correct
mechanism to be used throughout the tenor voice.
Mr. Chater argues along the same lines as Mr. Mantels except that he
makes the instrument belong to the clarinet or oboe class. Others
believe the vocal cords act as the lips do in playing a brass
instrument.
But the action of the vocal cords is but the first part of the
unscientific controversy. What takes place above the vocal cords is
equally mystifying. The offices of the pharynx, the mouth, the nasal
cavities, the entire structure of the head in fact, are rich in
uncertainties.
Some think the cavities of the pharynx and head are involved
acoustically and in some way enlarge, refine and purify the tone, but
one famous man says the head has nothing whatever to do with it. Another
gentleman of international reputation says the nose is the most
important factor in singing. If your nasal cavities are right you can
sing, otherwise you cannot.
And so this verbal rambling continues; so the search for mind in matter
goes on, with a seriousness scarcely equalled in any other line of
strife. There is nothing more certain to permanently bewilder a vocal
student than to deluge him with pseudo-scientific twaddle about the
voice. And this for the simple reason that he comes to learn to sing,
not for a course in anatomy.
What is scientific voice production? Books without number have been
written with the openly expressed intention to give a clear exposition
of the subject, but the seeker for a scientific method soon finds
himself in a maze of conflicting human opinions from which he cannot
extricate himself.
We are told with much unction and warmth that science means to know.
That it is a knowledge of principles or causes, ascertained truths or
facts. A scientific voice teacher then must know something. What must he
know? Books on scientific voice production usually begin with a picture
of the larynx, each part of which is labeled with a Greek word sometimes
longer than the thing itself. It then proceeds to tell the unction of
each muscle and cartilage and the part it plays in tone production. Now
if this is scientific, and if science is exact knowledge, and this exact
knowledge is the basis of scientific voice teaching, then every one who
has a perfect knowledge of these facts about the voice, must in the
eternal and invariable nature of facts be a perfect voice teacher, and
every one of these perfect voice teachers must teach in exactly the same
way and produce exactly the same results. Does history support this
argument? Quite the reverse.
There is a science of acoustics, and in this science one may learn all
about tones, vibrating bodies, vibrating strings, vibrating cavities,
simple, compound and complex vibrations. Will this knowledge make him a
scientific voice teacher? When he has learned all of this he has not yet
begun to prepare for voice teaching. There is no record of a great voice
teacher having been trained in a physics laboratory.
It is possible to analyze a tone and learn how fundamental and upper
partials are combined and how these combinations affect quality. Does
this constitute scientific voice production? This knowledge may all be
gained from the various hand books on acoustics. Has any one the
hardihood to assert that such knowledge prepares one for the responsible
work of training voices? One may know all of this and still be as
ignorant of voice training as a Hottentot is of Calvinism.
Further, who shall decide which particular combination of fundamental
and upper partials constitutes the perfect singing tone? If a tone is
produced and we say, there is the perfect tone, all it proves is that it
corresponds to our mental concept of tone. It satisfies our ear, which
is another term for our taste.
Can a tone be disagreeable and still be scientifically produced? One
combination of fundamental and overtones is, strictly speaking, just as
scientific as another combination. The flute tone with its two overtones
is just as scientific as the string tone with its six or eight. A tone
is pleasant or disagreeable according as it corresponds to a mental
demand. Even the most hardened scientist would not call a tone which
offends his ear scientific. Therefore he must first produce, or have
produced the tone that satisfies his ear. The question then naturally
arises--when he has secured the tone that satisfies his ear of what
value beyond satisfying his curiosity is a physical analysis? A tone is
something to hear, and when it satisfies the ear that knows, that in
itself is unmistakable evidence that it is rightly produced.
If this scientific knowledge of tone is necessary then every great
artist in the world is unscientific, because not one of them makes any
use whatsoever of such knowledge in his singing.
No. All of the scientific knowledge one may acquire is no guaranty of
success as a teacher, but is rather in the nature of a hindrance,
because it is likely to lead him into mechanical ways of doing things.
Further, the possession of such knowledge is no indication that one will
use it in his teaching. How much of such knowledge can one use in
teaching? How can he tell, save from the tone itself whether the pupil
is producing it scientifically? It is a well established fact that the
more the teacher tries to use his scientific information in teaching the
less of an artist he becomes.
Could it be possible that a beautiful tone could be produced contrary to
the laws of science? It would be an extraordinary mind that would argue
in the affirmative.
=The most beautiful tone is the most perfectly produced, whether the
singer knows anything of vocal mechanism or not.= In such a tone there
is no consciousness of mechanics or scientific laws. The vocal mechanism
is responding automatically to the highest law in the universe--the law
of beauty. The most scientific thing possible is a beautiful idea
perfectly expressed, because a thing inherently beautiful is eternally
true, hence it is pure science.
Every tone of the human voice is the expression of life, of an idea, a
feeling, an emotion, and unless interfered with the vocal mechanism
responds automatically.
He who by experiment or reading has learned the action of the vocal
mechanism, and attempts to make his pupil control every part of it by
direct effort may imagine that he is teaching scientific voice
production, but he is not, he is only doing a mechanical thing in a
clumsy way.
Is it a scientific act to tell a pupil to hold his tongue down, as one
writer argued recently? Is a teacher calling into action the eternal
laws of science when he tells his pupil to drive the tone through the
head, hoist the soft palate, groove the tongue, and make the diaphragm
rigid? No. He is simply doing a mechanical thing badly for want of a
better way. It is no more scientific than kicking the cat out of the way
if she gets under your feet.
Any one who has learned the elements of psychology or philosophy knows
that everything exists first as idea. The real universe is the one that
exists in the mind of the creator. The real man is the part of him that
thinks. To hold that the body thinks or acts is equivalent to saying
that Gray's "Elegy" was in the pen with which the poet wrote.
To a natural scientist the only real thing is what he can see, therefore
he bases his faith on what he conceives to be matter; but if we study
the great ones--Oswald, Huxley, Grant, Allen, and the like, we find that
they have long ago reached the conclusion that there is no such thing as
matter. According to Schopenhauer the world is idea, and this so called
material environment is thought objectifying itself.
Vocal teachers, like the members of other professions, are not
altogether immune to an attack of intellect, and at such times the
thought that they are doing something scientific is particularly
agreeable.
The only study of science that can benefit any one is the study of
causation, and causation cannot be cognized by the physical senses. We
never see, hear, feel, taste, or smell cause. What we see or hear is
effect. Causation is mental. Natural science is dealing with phenomena,
with effect not cause. A regular recurrence of phenomena may establish a
so called natural law, but the law is that which caused the phenomena,
"Law is force" says Hegel, and it is therefore mental. We are told that
the law of the earth is its path around the sun. This is not true, the
law of the earth is the mind which makes it revolve around the sun. If
we would learn the nature, activity, and cause of anything we must look
for it in _mind_ not in matter. For this reason the process of voice
production is _psychologic_ not physiologic. When a pupil sings, what we
hear is _effect_ not cause. If he is doing all manner of unnecessary
things with his lips, tongue, larynx, etc. what we see is effect and the
cause is in wrong _mental_ concepts. The thing which caused the tone is
_mental_, the force which produced it is _mental_, and the means by
which we know whether it is good, or bad is _mental_.
Of this we may be sure, that the tone the pupil sings will not be better
than the one he has in mind. _A tone exists first as a mental concept,
and the quality of the mental concept determines the quality of the
tone._
If there be such a thing as scientific voice production it will be found
in the sense of what is inherently beautiful, and the scientific tone is
one which will perfectly express a right idea or emotion, and in the
nature of things there is an appropriate tone for everything that may be
legitimately expressed, for they are correlated ideas.
Whence originated this so called scientific voice teaching? That the old
Italian knew nothing of it is well understood. They considered the
process artistic rather than scientific. _How does it sound_, was their
slogan. The thing uppermost in their minds was beautiful tone, and they
were wise enough to know that when one has a definite concept of the
pure singing tone he has a more valuable asset than all the mechanical
knowledge he can acquire. They had but one end in view, namely, a
finished artist, and everything they did was made to contribute to it.
The artist always has in mind the _finished product_. The scientist
tries to find out _how it is done_. The artist begins with the idea and
works forward to its complete expression. The scientist begins with the
physical mechanism and works backward toward the idea.
What is responsible for the change from the methods of the the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries? It is safe to say that it did not
come through the voice teachers.
In the early part of the nineteenth century an interesting thing
happened. How it happened or why it happened at that particular time is
not known nor does it matter. The human mind became all at once
aggressively inquisitive. The desire to get at the ultimate of
everything took possession of humanity and still holds it. The result
was an era of scientific analysis and invention, the aim of which was to
control the forces of nature. Previous to that time methods of living,
production, transportation, agriculture, etc. were little different from
that of biblical times. People and nations lived much to themselves.
They looked within for their inspiration and developed their own
national characteristics. But with the invention of the steamship,
railway, and telegraph a change came. These improved methods of
transportation and communication brought all of the mentalities of the
world together, and soon all habitable parts of the globe were in daily
and hourly contact. The result was a mental fermentation which increased
the complexity of civilization immeasurably and the present exaggerated
and unnatural condition of society is the outgrowth.
Between 1809 and 1813 were born Mendelssohn, Chopin, Schumann, Liszt,
and Wagner. These men are known as the founders of the modern romantic
school of music. They grew up with the new civilization and could not do
otherwise than reflect its complexity in their music. That the new
civilization was responsible for the new art there is no doubt whatever.
All old types have passed away. All branches of art have suffered
radical changes in conforming to new ideals.
Since the wave of scientific investigation started around the world
nothing has been able to escape it. The hand of the scientist has been
upon everything, and to him rather than to the voice teachers must be
given the credit for originating scientific voice teaching.
When the scientists began publishing the results of their investigations
voice teachers at once became interested. The plan looked promising. It
offered them a method shorn of uncertainties. A method that brought
everything under the operation of physical laws; a method that dealt
only with finalities, and would operate in spite of a lack of musical
intelligence on the part of the student, and at the same time enable
them to lay to their souls the flattering unction of science. True it
ignored altogether the psychology of the matter. It said "do it this way
and a beautiful tone will come whether you are thinking it or not,
because scientific laws eternally operating in the same way eternally
produce the same results."
The scientific method gave voice teachers an opportunity to work with
something tangible, something they could see; whereas the development of
tone concept, the artistic instinct, musical feeling, and musicianship
had to do with things which to most of them were intangible and elusive.
No one doubts the honesty of the teachers who became obsessed with the
scientific idea. To them it meant increased efficiency and accuracy,
quicker results with less effort, and so they broke with the old
Italians, the basis of whose teaching was beautiful tone and beautiful
singing. In spite of the honesty of purpose of all those who followed
the new way, the results were calamitous. The art of singing received a
serious setback. Voices without number were ruined. From the middle to
the end of the nineteenth century the scientific idea was rampant, and
during that period it is probable that the worst voice teaching in the
history of the world was done. Large numbers of people with neither
musicianship nor musical instincts acquired a smattering of anatomy and
a few mechanical rules and advertised themselves as teachers of
scientific voice production. The great body of vocal students, anxious
to learn to sing in the shortest possible time, having no way of telling
the genuine from the spurious except by trying it, fell an easy prey,
and the amount of vocal damage and disaster visited upon singers in the
name of science is beyond calculation.
Fortunately the reaction has begun. Slowly but surely we are returning
to a saner condition of mind. Every year adds to the number of those who
recognize singing as an art, whose vision is clear enough to see that
the work of the scientific investigator should be confined to the
laboratory and that it has no place in the studio. We are beginning to
see that the basic principle of singing is _freedom in the expression of
the beautiful_, and that the less there is of the mechanical in the
process the better.