THE CULTURE OF THE SPEAKING VOICE AS THE NATURAL GROUND FOR THE
CULTURE OF THE SINGING VOICE
The physical phenomenon—voice—is, in its simpler and primitive
form, originated by a few elementary sounds, which constitute
the fundamental pillars of its phonetic structure.
The very roots of the voice are represented by the vowels—five
in the classic languages—to which the consonants are attached as
complementary elements, thus forming the definite vocal
expressions called words. Words constitute the speaking voice.
In developing the culture of the speaking voice in detail, both
as a phonetic element and as basis for the singing voice, the
author conceived the idea of formulating certain rules, molded
on the phonological structure of the Italian language, with the
object of creating one sole method of voice culture, of
elementary character, easy enough to be understood by everybody
and of benefit to students of all nationalities.
This selection is based on the belief that, from the
physiological and phonological standpoint in voice production,
there is no simpler, more complete, and beautiful language which
serves so large a variety of purposes as Italian. Among the
reasons which fully justify this preference is the almost
universal agreement that Italian is the most melodious and
adaptable language for singing; and this statement is not the
result of personal opinion, as dozens of books can be quoted,
which confirm this assertion and recommend the Italian language
for voice training.
Then, too, there is another reason, namely, to establish for
voice culture solely one method, with one language as an
educational element, which, if universally accepted, would
constitute an official standard for voice training. This would
materialize the aim of having but one system of voice education
for all the singing schools, and would provide the possibility
of giving specific principles and rules for vocal training,
which, after being recognized as the correct ones, could be
applied by the generality, just as all correct principles and
rules related to any art or science are universally recognized
and practiced. The theory of music, in all its different
branches is, in fact, taught and exercised by only one method,
with perhaps slight variations, but, on the whole, by
substantially the same procedure. Voice education should be the
same.
In voice culture, though, voice being the only means for its own
training, it is necessary that all the principles or rules which
are laid down in regard to its culture be centered fundamentally
on the physiological and phonetic mechanism of its elementary
form—the speaking voice.
Therefore the phonetic structure of the one language selected
on the merits of its phonological elements—vowels and
consonants—universally adopted and recognized for teaching,
would bring through a standardized technical medium a general
understanding on all problems related to voice culture.
It must be understood, however, that these suggestions are
intended to serve essentially in assisting beginners and
students in their vocal training, or teachers in the practice of
their profession. As for singers, after they have acquired the
correct vocal technic, through the Italian language, any
language should be adaptable and facile for singing, provided
they conform their voices to the correct mechanism of voice
production.
The author, in fact, in emphasizing the necessity of adopting
the Italian language as a basis for voice culture, has no idea
of underestimating the importance of other languages, though it
is certain that, among the experts on voice, there is much
controversy over the relative value of the different languages
for singing, while they unanimously agree on the value of the
adaptability of Italian.
Dr. Mills, in his book _Voice Production in Speaking and
Singing_, says:
“All competent to judge are agreed that Italian, because of the
abundance of vowels in its words, is the best language in which
to sing, or, at all events, to begin with as training.”
Lilli Lehmann in _How to Sing_, writes:
“Without doubt the Italian language with its wealth of vowels
is better adapted for singing than the German language so rich
in consonants, or than any other language. The organs of
speech and the vocal apparatus, in the Italian language, are
less subjected to violent form-modifications. The numerous
vowels secure for the singer an easy connection for the
sounds, while the poor pronunciation of the many hard
consonants interrupts every form—and tone—connection.”
As for English, although the author believes that it is not a
very flexible language for declamation, nor a melodious,
resonant and free one for singing, because of the great number
of consonants which prevail in the composition of the words, in
comparison with the number of vowels, and the large amount of
monosyllables in which the language abounds, yet it is his
conviction that most of the deficiency is due to the method of
its pronunciation by some English-speaking people rather than to
the language itself.
As a matter of fact, the manner of speech of the Australians
enables them to produce voices that are superior to the
English and American in quality and flexibility, and more
adaptable for vocal education, as has been proven in the
singing field likewise. It is well to remember that Nellie
Melba, and a few other singers less conspicuous, have been
products of that country; and the author has found from
personal experience with some Australian students of singing
that there is a certain freedom in the mechanism of their
voice production which is dependent on their speaking voice,
and is responsible for the pleasing quality they possess, and
for their vocal possibilities.
It seems that the scarcity, if not the total absence of English
singers in the operatic field is ascribed by some experts
principally to the language and its enunciation, though there
are other reasons also.
John Hullah, Professor of Vocal Music in Queen’s College, gives
the following version of this subject in general:
“It is generally admitted that the Anglo-Saxon race, now the
majority of the population of Great Britain, are less gifted
vocally—have the vocal apparatus naturally in less perfection,
and artificially in worse order—than any other variety of
Indo-Europeans. As a rule, the English voice, if not always of
inferior quality, is almost always, in intensity or capacity,
inferior to (for instance) the Italian, the German, or the
Welsh. The number of English speakers who can, without too
evident effort and for any length of time, fill our largest
interiors, or make themselves audible and intelligible at an
open-air meeting, is as small as the number of English singers
who can hold their own against a modern orchestra, or make
their presence felt in every part of the Crystal Palace
transept....
“To the foreign and unaccustomed ear the English language
sounds, as to the foreign eye the Welsh language looks, made
up of consonants, and these hardly distinguishable from one
another. As a rule, our speech is wanting both in _resonance_
and _distinctness_. We reduce to a _minimum_ the _sonority_ of
our _vowels_, and omit or amalgamate with one another half of
our consonants.... Certain it is, that from the most sonorous
of these—_the Italian_—it is possible to compress into an
intelligible sentence many very uncouth vocables, especially
when he who uses them knows the value of ‘harsh din’ as a
set-off to euphony.”
The most renowned English authority on voice, Dr. Mackenzie, has
widely illustrated the value of the Italian language and given
his ideas in reference to the English as follows:
“The effect of living out of doors [he says], is not
confined to children; one may nearly always recognize a
person who spends much of his time _sub dio_ by the ringing
tones of his voice. Miss Braddon, the distinguished
novelist, once told me she has often been struck by the fine
voices heard among gamekeepers and huntsmen; and many people
must have admired the melodious, far reaching cry of the
Newhaven fishwives. I am inclined to attribute the _vocal
superiority of the Italians_ in some measure to this cause.
Every one who has traveled in Italy must have noticed how
often trades which in our climate have to be pursued indoors
are there carried on in the open air. Tailors, shoemakers,
tinsmiths, etc., work _al fresco_, making the streets ring
the while with noisy but not unmusical chatter. The balmy
atmosphere, as it were, coaxes the month to open wide and
the demonstrative nature of the people finds natural vent in
loud and emphatic utterance. On the other hand, it is a
common reproach to Englishmen when they attempt the
pronunciation of a foreign tongue that they _will not_ or
_cannot open their mouths_ but make a _rumbling, gurgling_
sound in _their throats_, which is presently hissed or
sputtered out through the set teeth, as if the speaker were
afraid to open his mouth too wide for fear something should
get into it. This may be a wise precaution in a climate like
ours and Milton apparently attributes our mumbling habit of
speech to this cause when he says: ‘For we Englishmen farre
northerly doe not open our mouthes in the cold air wide
enough to grace a southern tongue, but are observed by all
nations to speak exceedingly close and inward; so that to
smatter Latin with an English mouth is as ill a hearing as
law French.’ It has also been said to be due to our reserved
and undemonstrative nature which leads us to avoid making
ourselves conspicuous. Whether this be part of our natural
character we must see ourselves as others see us to
determine. At any rate, whatever be the amount of our
retiring modesty that stays at home, our travelers do
contrive (against their will, it may be presumed) to make
themselves the observed of all observers wherever they go.
And it may be asked, is the climate of Scotland more genial
or the character of its people more effusive than ours? Yet
Scotchmen have the gift of articulate speech; and display
considerable aptitude for acquiring the pronunciation of
foreign languages, especially of those in which open vowels
predominate.
“Whatever be the cause of our peculiar manner of speaking,
there can be no question as to the _utter badness_ of it. Nor
is there any reason _why this national reproach should
continue_. To any one who has been fortunate enough to hear
the noble tones of some of our great orators, or the elocution
of some (alas too few) of our dramatic artists, the notion
that English is an inharmonious tongue may well seem absurd.
The music is there, but it needs an instrument to give it
voice, and the instrument again must have a player. ‘There’s
the rub.’ It is not the vocal organs that are at fault in most
cases, but the method of using them. This, as already said,
must be taught, and, to be helpful, the teaching must be of
the right kind.”
The contents of the above quotations are of great value to the
author of this book. Although he is not as familiar with the
English spoken in England as he is with that spoken in America,
he has the impression that the conditions of speech in this
country are more deplorable than in the country to which Dr.
Mackenzie, Prof. Hullah and others refer.
In certain sections of the United States, in fact, the speaking
voice is decidedly deformed by typical, peculiar inflections,
and misplaced in its production, being distinctly emphasized in
the posterior nasal cavities; while in other sections it is
produced much more euphonically, and is more adaptable for drama
and singing. The latter sections, however, are exceptional when
compared with the English spoken in general throughout the
country; but this exception proves that if the pronunciation
were phonetically correct, English could be made a singing
language as well as most languages, though not to be compared
with the Latin languages, which get from the abundance of their
vowels and the proper production of their consonants a phonetic
mellowness and flexibility which make them almost perfect.
In these languages the ease of their phonetic production
facilitates their placement in the physiological center of the
voice—the mouth—by an almost spontaneous, natural and
instinctive act. That is responsible for the smoothness and the
melodious characteristics of the Latin languages, which can
never be approached by the Anglo-Saxon.
The author has often heard the remark that some great
singers—Caruso, for instance, or Galli-Curci, Ruffo, Bonci,
etc.—can sing as well in English as in Italian, as far as voice
production is concerned. That is true; but their English is
substantially Italian in enunciation and accent, the vowels and
consonants being placed and produced according to the phonetic
rules of the Italian language, and the voice emphasized
according to the Italian fashion of singing.
The disparity, in reality, between the Italian language and the
English, and more particularly between the Italian and American,
lies, at the bottom, in the marked difference in placing and
producing the vowels and consonants. By correctly placing and
shaping the vowels, and producing the consonants properly,
according to the phonetic classification of the classic
languages, Italian forms its phonetic elements markedly and
distinctly in the mouth. The English-speaking people, on the
contrary, particularly the Americans, misplace these elements,
giving a decidedly guttural accentuation and tight production.
The tension of the laryngeal, pharyngeal and oral organs during
the act of utterance is the principal cause. Vowels, when
misplaced, become deformed in shape and sound, and by their
amalgamation with misplaced consonants produce words which are
consequently phonetically deformed, and of disagreeable
resonance.
The emphasis given to the act of singing forces these
imperfections of voice production to an exaggerated degree, and
this marked fault, added to the lack of freedom of the vocal
organs, constitutes the essential deficiency of the English
language in singing.
In reference to the lack of freedom, and the traditional New
England “Yankee twang,” Dr. Eugene C. Howe, Professor of Hygiene
at Wellesley College, startled his class of girls by declaring
that “it is due mostly to laziness of the jaw. It is not
attributed to a lack of jaw exercise, but to an unaccountable
failure to let the lower jaw fall far enough in articulating.”
No doubt the remarks of Dr. Howe have a very strong foundation.
Americans are decidedly handicapped in their enunciation by
several bad habits, the predominating one of which is talking
with their mouths shut and tightened, holding their throats,
palates, and especially their tongues, in permanent tension.
That brings about a lack of flexibility, because of the
stiffness and rigidity of the oral movements during the act of
phonation. Americans make of the natural, simple and agreeable
act of speaking a very complicated, difficult function. We do
not aim to give the impression that we are prejudiced against
the American voice production; just the contrary. Our criticism,
which is the result of long observation and study on this
subject, and is more emphatic than that expressed by many
experts on voice, purports to call attention to the real
phonetic causes which are responsible for these defects, and to
propose a radical reform of them.
It is a fact, regardless of how disagreeable it may appear, that
American voice production, with few exceptions, requires much
more care and attention to restore it to a natural, easy form of
speaking, than is given at present. Americans themselves can
scarcely realize how far from natural and easy their voice
production is. If they would look at the rigidity of their vocal
organs, while talking, especially the throat, the neck and lower
jaw, they would be convinced.
This condition is related to many causes: physiological and
psychological, but most essentially phonetic. There are some
doctors who contend that the climate, dust and noise are
responsible for the harshness of this country’s voices. Other
causes are attributed to a certain psychological influence. Dr.
P. Fridenberg, in a booklet entitled _Every-day Causes of Voice
Deterioration_, states the following:
“The commoner causes of voice defect and voice deterioration
in the average healthy individual may be arranged in three
classes, and depend on the climatic conditions, including wind
and dust; improper use of the voice, with the factor of strain
in loud talking as it is made necessary by our noisy
environment, and, finally the lack of attention to voice
culture and voice care in our schools. Climate is of great
importance for the voice. It is impossible to consider this
phase of the subject at length.... Another and very important
one is the constant noise. In our larger cities it is
impossible to keep up a conversation out-doors without unduly
raising the voice, and on most car lines it is necessary to
shout in order to be heard. In this city the roar of the
elevated railways is added, making high pitch and
over-exertion inevitable. The amount of effort expended is
apparent when we note the facial contortion, the intensity of
oral motion, and the loud tone heard during a sudden lull in
the street noises. Women are the worst offenders, as they will
continue to carry on a conversation at the top of their
voices, while most men will, literally, shut up until there is
a possibility of being heard without tearing their throats
out. American women have been said to converse ‘like shrieking
canaries,’ and this is one of the causes. Another is to be
found in the lack of attention to voice and speech in the home
and in the school. In our mixed population, each element
contributes some peculiarity or irregularity not only of
accent and pronunciation, but of modulation, intonation, and
timbre as well. Each has some typical defect, and some have a
large number. Instead of being corrected at school, the
teachers themselves, sprung from the ranks of the immigrant,
are like the blind leading the blind. Any one who has listened
to the exercises of one of our New York public schools will
remember the common, slovenly, and unmusical speech of the
average public school teacher. Distinction and precision of
speech are often considered affected, even snobbish. It is a
fact that nowhere is grace of speech and voice more truly a
class distinction than in this country.... The great United
States language, and especially the variants heard in our
large cities, is a marked exception to the rule of clear and
agreeable speech. It is true that ‘elocution’ is taught in our
schools, and that there are daily recitation exercises, but
little if any heed is given to inculcating the production of
beautiful tone, and the precept is nullified by bad example
and evil communications which corrupt good speech no less than
good manners. The schoolboy imitates the tough and vulgar
accents of the street gamin, the college ‘man’ takes as a
pattern the variety actor, the professional athlete and the
‘sport’ in diction, as well as in intonation. The home is a
correcting influence only in those communities in which there
is homogeneity of race, or in the mansions of the wealthy
where English governesses and maids are employed and the
children have a chance to forget the ‘American’ language.”
The author does not fully agree with Dr. Fridenberg on the
influence of climate, dust and noise on the deterioration of
American voices. These conditions may exercise a certain
influence, but not one of overwhelming importance, for the same
may be said of other countries and cities, where they do not
exert such a deleterious influence on the speaking voice, nor
even on the singing voice. In London and Paris these conditions
are almost the same as in New York, and the author believes that
in London the voices are somewhat more flexible and agreeable,
and in Paris they are far superior. Milano has one of the most
severe climates in the world, and is a rather noisy city, yet it
is the residence of most singers and singing students. There are
villages in America with much better climate and much less noise
than New York; yet the English spoken there is not better, with
the exception of some Southern states.
The third reason given by Dr. Fridenberg is, according to our
impression, the most important one, and personally the author is
almost exclusively concerned about it as the real cause of the
deterioration of the American language. It is purely a
psychological influence that is responsible for the voice
production of this country, inherited for the most part, and is
the logical result of its phonetic evolution.
It is, as Dr. Fridenberg says, that this country is the
outgrowth of a mixed population, each element contributing some
peculiarity or irregularity of accent, pronunciation, etc., each
having some typical defect, and some having a large number.
We all admit that the pioneers of this country, and especially
the vast mixed population that came from all Europe, constitute
the American masses of to-day, who in influencing even
indirectly the American language and manner of speaking, did not
lend the most select fashion of speech and pronunciation of
their original countries. As the author knows, and as can still
be observed among certain Italians, they do not even speak their
own national language, but a number of the various dialects. The
same condition exists among Irish, Germans, Russians and French
of the same class. Therefore, from this _mélange_ of common and
uneducated voices and pronunciations a pure and euphonic
American language could not readily result. On the contrary, the
few originally good English-speaking Americans suffered from the
influence of the others who infiltrated into the “American”
language all the commonplaces of their foreign languages, which
they spoke in an inferior and corrupted form.
Thus the American voice production, under these evil influences,
was subjected to the gradual deterioration which constitutes, at
present, the inherited condition of the deformed American
speaking and singing voices. Besides this physical inheritance,
is the influence exercised by the homes and schools, as can be
observed by following closely a growing child. When he begins to
perform the function of speech, under the guidance of Nature, he
produces his words with a natural mechanism, in which his vocal
organs act without any strain and are ruled by a normal rhythm
of movements, under an instinctive rather than an artificial
control. Gradually his ears begin to be affected by the voices
of the people around, becoming accustomed to forced and harsh
sounds. His vocal organs, by the power of imitation, follow the
deformed mechanism of his models, until unconsciously he himself
falls into the same habits as those who involuntarily influenced
him. Commencing from the age of five, six, or seven, his voice
changes entirely, and acquires all the characteristics and
artificial defects which are prevalent among adults.
The majority of Americans, in truth, make a great effort in
talking. They make of the simple, natural function of speaking,
which is no different physiologically from the function of
eating or breathing, or walking, a complicated performance, in
which all the organs concerned work to their utmost efficiency.
Yet there is no necessity for contracting the larynx, squeezing
the throat, raising the palate, and stiffening the base of the
tongue in talking. All of these unnecessary efforts create the
sensation of an obstacle in the throat which hinders the free
delivery of the speech; and once that sensation is perceived,
instinct suggests a manner of compensating, by augmenting the
pressure and amount of breath, which, instead of relieving the
strained function of the vocal organs, adds a new element of
artificial nature.
The average individual gets accustomed to this mechanism, which
establishes the incorrect habit of making _force_ the principal
element in voice production; and this effort, in the long run,
results in impairing the vocal apparatus, adding another cause
for disagreeable speaking and defective singing.
In the majority of cases that is the actual fundamental cause of
bad voice production, and is responsible also for the lack of
expansion, resonance, and ease.
In singing, these deficiencies are the source of innumerable
difficulties, particularly since the instinctive conception of
singers is to compensate for the lack of resonance with the
force of breath—the only help known to them—having been
misdirected by singing teachers and by the methods of singing in
vogue.
This error, however, cannot be corrected unless we resort to
radical means. We must strike at the very origin of these
deficiencies, and ascertain the freedom of voice production by
the correct physiological and phonetic formation of its very
essential elements—the vowels and consonants—and the natural
manner of delivering them. This is the most important and
fundamental reform to be undertaken; trying to educate pupils to
the right conception of the natural function of talking and
singing.
Therefore, since English is phonetically rather a difficult
language, in some instances made more so by inherited bad
habits, we must try to modify it, to smooth it, to produce it in
a more natural manner, softening the sounds of the vowels,
giving the correct phonetic articulation to the consonants, and,
above all, placing both these phonetic elements in the organ
suggested by Nature—the mouth.
At any rate, if a reform is to be suggested, it must affect the
English phonology as it now stands, and correct it by uprooting
it entirely, because that is responsible for the existing
conditions.
The materialization of this program must start by giving to
children a new phonetic culture, from the very beginning of
their education. There would be no practical difficultly in
accomplishing this, if public opinion favored this reform.
Children learn everything easily.
There are several institutions in America concerned about the
necessity of improving the speaking language, but the evil lies
in the fact that the promoters are in the awkward position of
preaching reforms which they themselves do not practice. In
fact, their concern is confined only to the improper inflection
of the voice and to the lack of clarity, refinement, and
distinction in talking; but as for its correct physiological
production with regard to its phonetic elements—vowels and
consonants—they are not cognizant of its actual deficiency. If
they are, they do not think it of much importance, for they
limit all their attention to the English language in itself,
without investigating its defects by comparison with the classic
languages.
As a matter of fact, it is certain that as long as the vowels
are produced in the throat, and the consonants are phonetically
misplaced, bringing about a forcible function of the vocal
organs, nothing can fundamentally and substantially modify the
voice production.
As for singing, the American-spoken English brings about defects
which are more difficult to deal with than almost any other
language.
There is no exaggeration in stating that Americans, in spite of
their natural gift of beautiful voices, which among women are so
abundant, and their inexhaustible ambition, are more handicapped
in the art of singing than anybody else, and consequently very
few good American singers exist, as far as _proper voice
production is concerned_. It is true that English in itself is
not an easy medium for singing, but with the American
pronunciation it is made even more difficult.
While we are aware of the objections that this statement will
arouse, we are convinced, nevertheless, that this is actually
so.
A natural feeling of protest and a sense of reaction are innate
in all mankind. We resent being told our faults. It is an
illogical weakness which should not affect educated people, for
without criticism there would be no exchange of thoughts nor
incentive to progress; yet it does affect individuals as well as
communities or nations, often with evident disadvantage.
Therefore, even after statements like those made by Prof.
Hullah, Dr. Mackenzie, Milton, etc., about the English and
Italian languages, and those of Dr. Mills and Lilli Lehmann in
reference to Italian for singing, to which a hundred more could
be added, resentment and objections to our view are not
unexpected. We think it proper then, to quote an opinion
disagreeing for the greater part with ours, so as to let the
reader decide impartially which one, in reality, is of greater
advantage to American singers. It is our aim to convince people
that English, and especially “American-English” is by no means a
language fit for voice culture; it must be understood, though,
that we do not mean for singing, in its finished form, but only
for vocal training. For this purpose we wanted the support of
all authorities who are approximately of the same mind. We point
out now an opposing view by Leo Kofler, organist of St. Paul’s
Chapel, New York, and singing teacher also, which is quoted in a
book on voice by a foremost American laryngologist, who shares
his opinion:
“It is true, as Kofler says, that the Italian language presents
few difficulties to the singer. In it pure vowels predominate
and consonants are in the minority, and even then many of these
consonants are vocal, while the hard aspirates of other
languages, especially German and English, are unknown to Italian
lips. But that which is easier, by no means is always the most
artistic. Ease rarely leads to depth. And this ease of
pronunciation may account for a lack of dramatic grandeur and
vigor in Italian and for the Italian’s method of tonal emphasis
and vehemence of gesture.[5]
“The German or the English artist has no need for such
extravagances, because the immense richness of these
languages—the great variety of vowels and the vigorous aspirated
elements—gives to his utterance a dramatic freshness and force
which are life and nature itself.[6]
“The English language is probably the one that has been
described by foreigners as the most unfit for singing. Greater
calumny has never been uttered. I contend for just the opposite;
that English is the very best language for an artistic singer to
use, for it contains the greatest variety of vocal and aspirate
elements, which afford an artistic singer the strongest, most
natural and expressive means of dramatic reality. The English
language has all the pure vowels and vocal consonants of the
Italian; and besides, it is full of rich elements, mixed vowels,
diphthongs and an army of vigorous aspirates. I admit that it is
not as easy for singing as Italian is; but just here its true
merit and advantage arise.
“The difficulties thus forced upon the singer compel him to
study deeply and perseveringly; but the treasures thus unearthed
and placed within his reach will amply repay for hard work.”[7]
The views of Mr. Kofler, which leave much room for discussion,
have, in recent years, been the predominant concern of certain
circles in the musical field of America. A campaign for the
worthy purpose of standardizing the “American” language for
singing, especially in opera, has been widely patronized by
prominent figures in the musical world. Societies have been
organized, lectures delivered, opera companies formed, and even
all the unsuccessful prima donnas, anxious to seek success in a
new field, interviewed. It was unanimously agreed that foreign
languages for singing should be ostracized and English imposed.
The result was as follows: In some opera houses where all operas
were sung in English, most of the audiences openly declared
their dissatisfaction and deserted the houses. “How can
anybody,” they said, “enjoy a performance of Carmen in English,
and one in which it is impossible to understand even what they
are singing?”
As for American operas written on English librettos, which have
been given by the largest operatic institution in this country
for several years, they also brought out evidence of the real
sentiment of the public. Their performances were criticized by
the critics and the audiences principally on account of the
language. Furthermore, in one of these operas it was generally
remarked that in the cast which included only one foreign
singer, the others being American, this singer was the only one
whose words were intelligible to the audience. One could barely
detect that the others were singing in English, though when the
same artists were called upon to sing in Italian they usually
could make themselves better understood.
This proves that there must be some causes related to the voice
production of American singers, or to the language in itself, or
to both, which become more conspicuous in singing and are
responsible for these conditions. The enunciation of American
singers, with very few exceptions, is painfully tight and so
throaty that only with difficulty can their words reach the
audience. Yet it cannot be entirely the fault of the singers.
The language, too, is responsible, to a certain extent, as is
shown in the case of the foreign singer above-mentioned, whose
singing was intelligible, certainly not because of his superior
intelligence, but rather because he molded his English on a
foreign language in which he was trained, and by that means he
could sing much easier in English.
It is not unpatriotic to recognize and admit the existence of
these inconveniences. It is more so not to try to overcome them.
We know of a very prominent American prima donna—an artist more
than a prima donna—who has always refused to sing rôles in
English. We admire her frankness and courage, though we think
that if her voice had been correctly placed and trained at the
beginning of her vocal studies by molding it on the Italian
language, she would not find English so objectionable for
singing, since, with the aid of her exceptional intelligence,
she sings in all other languages which do not possess the
phonetic difficulties of the English.
Therefore, we claim that English can be made a good language for
singing if its training is begun with an easier language which
secures the natural placement of the voice and the correct
freedom of its production. But we do not agree at all with the
opinions emphasized by Mr. Kofler, that English is the very best
language for an artistic singer to use. This statement contains
an exaggerated dose of praiseworthy but not helpful patriotism.
At any rate it is the general opinion that English is not the
best language for singing much less an easy medium for voice
training, and that the American-spoken English is not the most
pleasing tongue to the ear, as has been remarked most frequently
by prominent American laryngologists and voice experts. If,
therefore, singers, actors, and speakers are handicapped in
delivering their voices properly because their vocal organs act
under a difficult mechanism, why not resort at the start of
their vocal training to an easier language, Italian, for
instance? If the formation of the English phonetic elements is
not easy and proper, why not go to the very root of this
troublesome cause and apply a radical remedy?
These conditions suggested to the author the idea (which, in
truth, is not intended for reforming English phonology, but only
for simplifying it in behalf of those who are directed toward a
stage career) of giving to beginners and students the phonetic
rules of a new language, thus appealing to their imaginations in
a new manner which stimulates the upbuilding of a new conception
of the phonetic mechanism of voice production.
By this means speaking and singing can be performed in a natural
and easy manner, the voice being placed, with the guidance of
another language, in its scientific center—the mouth. Thus
singers are enabled to avoid the long and difficult struggle
with their vocal organs, which are already accustomed to the
deformed production of the language they have spoken since their
infancy.
A new language is also more apt to train the organs of
elocution to radically different adjustments, building up an
entirely new mechanism. The vocal organs cannot change the
habitual rhythm of their function after having worked for
years in a certain direction; only a different element, acting
under a new influence, can easily readjust it, and for this
reason the author feels justified in selecting the Italian
language as the most adaptable for this purpose. At any rate,
this attempt would not bring any injury to the English, but
make it smoother, softer and more suitable for voice culture,
and if coming generations gain more possibilities in the field
of singing, as a result of the help given to their voice
production by Italian as an educational element, the
experiment will have been generously repaid, and the aim of
the author fully accomplished.[8]
In this method of scientific voice culture, illustrated in the
following chapters, the medium adopted for all vocal exercises
will be the Italian language.