Inhaling the voice
Interesting. I'm curious as to what sort of a reply you were expecting. Let me try a few. You pick the closest one to what you were expecting, and I'll delete the others. Okay?
Reply #1.
Flame back, flame back, call you some nasty names, troll, troll, flame.
Reply #2.
Thank you so much for generously taking your time to reply. Your gracious wisdom and sage advice have been most helpful, and I shall endeavor to incorporate all of your helpful suggestions and recommendations into the continuation of my learning.
Reply #3.
[quote=musickate]Sorry about this, but you invited comments on your website so here are mine. [/quote]
If you re-read my post, I asked for some discussion and thoughts on the inhalation of the voice. I asked if anyone out there uses or knows about that aspect of the technique.
[quote=musickate]I read your entire website. I attack your efforts at learning. I attack your interpretation of the technique but offer no better advice myself. I attack your recorded examples. I attack your examples some more, because the first part really wasn't enough. I attack your teacher.
I attack you by making an assertion that you know absolutely nothing. I attack whatever knowledge you claim to have. Meh. I should have known. You're a rock singer, so you're all turds anyways. Attacking others with my elitist position makes me feel more secure.[/quote]
So, enlighten me. What was I supposed to find helpful here? What was in your little tirade that addressed anything that I asked for? I'm really at a loss to explain why you made the effort to post that.
Is everyone around here as helpful as you, or is the lack of traffic here just because the site is new?
CT
PS. My personal favourite, and I believe the most appropriate of the three is #3.
PPS. I searched for other posts by you to gage how helpful you have been to others. You know. "Maybe it IS just me!" It seems that your attempt to help me was this discussion board's introduction to (and will represent everyone's first impression of) musickate. I wish I could say I was honoured to be worthy of your first post.
Sorry that was such an abrasive first response!
If i can offer my personal take on the subject: there is a lot of bullshit being passed around the world as "bel canto." EVERY teacher lays claim to "bel canto" technique, to teaching people to sing with "appoggio" and "supported." We can surmise from the calibre of performance that we see at the top opera houses, that most of these teachers are mistaken, lying, or just wrong.
IMHO when a teacher claims to be teaching you Bel Canto, all it means is that they know the lingo of good singing. There is no real way to know what they're teaching you, except that it's a safe bet they're working to make you sound the way they did. This can be a perfectly good thing if they were a great singer.
But if you're interested in learning REAL bel canto, historical bel canto... the only way to do it is from primary sources. That's actually why this website exists. Whether your teacher was accurate or not, trusting ME to tell you is next to useless. You're still just trusting someone else's knowledge (or lack thereof). I recommend reading Lamperti, Marchesi, and Garcia over the course of a few weeks. Take copious notes, and then turn back to your Met teacher's comments. Not only will you be able to decide for yourself how "bel canto" his teaching was, you'll find it much easier to determine for other teachers in the future.
WARNING: this approach may make you jaded and fed up with teachers in general. You will be in good company. Many of the best singers I know are self taught from primary sources, recordings, a very good recorder, and 2 or 3 very trusted sets of external ears.
I apologize for going over the top. It was not personal although it certainly must have seemed so. I normally do not “flame.” As a senior citizen without the quick, sophisticated techie minds of you younger folk, I am only dimly aware of what that even is. I will try to give you a serious answer to your request for comments.
I have been teaching for nearly forty years. I have devoted my life to helping people sing with all the ease and freedom possible. When I read things like you wrote about inhaling the voice (absurd and impossible) and hear the complete misapprehension of singing exhibited in your clip, I get crazy. Somehow I seem to have missed this "inhalation" thing in my reading of Lamperti and I would appreciate your referring me to the quote so I can study it. If he said it, it’s still absurd, but I would like to read it. I am going to assume that this teacher with M.E.T. after his name has verified that your idea of chest, falsetto and head are accurate. Since they are absolutely not, then he must be to blame for the state of your voice which – based solely on the clip – is not good. If you are the one who got it wrong and he has told you this, then he is due my apology as well.
Bel canto should be taught from the standpoint of function. The goal should be to make it possible for the voice to work correctly and that is where attention should be placed, not on the beauty of tone or on sensation, but on the function of the voice. That is how I try my best to teach. I do not think a teacher or student can focus on how pretty the sound should be because neither teacher nor student can know what the voice will sound like when it has been totally freed and is functioning in an ideal state - if such could be obtained. But functionality CAN be addressed. It must be addressed and yet, this is difficult because the vocal mechanism is largely an involuntary one and not subject to control. Our task, then, is to figure out how to make it respond and, as I say to my students, “get with the program.” To that end, we can use a number of facts that we know to bring about response.
We know the ranges of the two registers, chest from “middle E” down, falsetto from A below middle C to the third space C treble clef approximately. We know that the chest likes open vowels and high volumes. The falsetto likes closed vowels and is strong at the top and weak at the bottom. Chest has a bright, brash and sometimes grainy sound. Falsetto is hooty, as breath is being released quickly. Hence the term chiaroscuro which the old masters used to describe the healthy voice, bright-dark or clear-muted, however you choose to think of it. Both chest and falsetto combine in virtually every tone we make into “head voice” (chiaroscuro). We know that the registers and the passaggio are identical in all voices. There is no gender difference. There is no difference according to voice type, for example, contraltos do not have a lower passaggio then sopranos. That middle E (give or take a tone) is the break point for all voices of whatever type. And so forth, other facts being added to this list. We know how the mechanism works, basically air moving through the vocal folds setting up vibration in the existing pharyngeal air and creating the resonance situation. With these and other facts, we are prepared to begin to change and improve the inadequate voice which we all have to some extent, keeping in mind the uncontrollable nature of the voice and focusing on the singer’s need to change his/her concept of the voice, as that is the way to change the voice, through conceptualizing a new sound. This conceptualizing is so vitally important because the vocal mechanism responds to our concept and gives us exactly what we think we will get.Since we cannot control the mechanism, this is a good thing otherwise we would be unable to change the singing.
The problem is that things are taught as facts which are not facts. Air does not enter the mouth and waft over the vocal folds, meeting the outflowing air. This is not physiologically possible. We take in air and it comes out. You cannot inhale and exhale simultaneously. Also, the sinus cavities are not the principal resonators of the voice, the laryngeal pharynx is. These errors would be laughable if they were not so sad, and yet teachers teach things every day that are laughable and singers give up their common sense to these people and believe things that cannot be believed. Is it any wonder that I should become angry over this? Here in my community, I hear young voices in terrible condition at the hands of prominent teachers and there is nothing I can do about it. Nothing. Voice training is in dismal condition. If it were not, the world would be full of magnificent voices and I am hard pressed to think of one or two. I suspect 98% of teaching is destructive to singers’ voices. No exaggeration. Again, I’m sorry if I offended you.
[quote=musickate]
I apologize for going over the top. It was not personal although it certainly must have seemed so. I normally do not “flame.” As a senior citizen without the quick, sophisticated techie minds of you younger folk, I am only dimly aware of what that even is. I will try to give you a serious answer to your request for comments.[/quote]
Apology accepted and gratefully acknowledged. Flaming is the act of making a personal attack on the internet. Your post this time around facilitates considerably more meaningful discussion.
[quote=musickate]
I have been teaching for nearly forty years. I have devoted my life to helping people sing with all the ease and freedom possible. When I read things like you wrote about inhaling the voice (absurd and impossible) and hear the complete misapprehension of singing exhibited in your clip, I get crazy. Somehow I seem to have missed this "inhalation" thing in my reading of Lamperti and I would appreciate your referring me to the quote so I can study it.[/quote]
Inhaling the voice is not impossible if I and others can do it. As you correctly state below, the act of inhaling and exhaling are exclusive. You cannot do both at the same time. However, the air enters through the mouth and escapes through the nose. From the research I have been doing, the bulk of the information seems to come from GB Lamperti's "Vocal Wisdom" which I am only able to find a few quotes from. My recollection suggests that the quote was roughly "sing as if continuing to take in breath."
I was able to find a couple of links that obliquely refer to it, though.
Though I disagree with the taking in of air through the nose, this seems to refer somewhat to it:
http://vocalodyssey.wordpress.com/2007/05/23/breathing-and-breath-control/
And this woman seems to refer to it more directly:
Brian Vollmer (yes, a rock singer) describes the whole inhalation thing quite specifically here: http://www.brianvollmer.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47:inhalation&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=50
... and some further discussion: http://brendaroberts.net/2009/12/21/inhalare-la-voce-inquiries/
This author talks about it in terms of "singing on the breath" http://books.google.ca/books?id=nfgmgjqDwuMC&lpg=PA34&ots=14HMVansub&dq=singing%20%22on%20the%20breath%22&pg=PA44#v=onepage&q=singing%20%22on%20the%20breath%22&f=false
EDIT: Though this doesn't refer specifically to inhalation as I described it, the use of the 'h' to assist in "singing on the breath" is a useful tool in achieving that end.
The same author talks a little more about it here too: http://books.google.ca/books?id=nfgmgjqDwuMC&lpg=PA34&ots=14HMVansub&dq=singing%20%22on%20the%20breath%22&pg=PA49#v=onepage&q=singing%20%22on%20the%20breath%22&f=false
I do agree with you that the clip you referenced was not a good example. In fact, over the next couple of days, I'm going to edit it out. The original purpose of it was to highlight some alarming confusion that people had regarding the difference between head voice and falsetto. To that end, I exaggerated the qualities of each of them to negative effect. None of them represent my abilities as a singer.
[quote=musickate]
Also, the sinus cavities are not the principal resonators of the voice, the laryngeal pharynx is. [/quote]
I'm not a physician and have not done any medical-accoustical research, so take this for what it is worth. Again, from GB Lamperti's "Vocal Wisdom"
"The more evident the sensation of resonance in the cavities of head and mouth, the better the 'placement' of voice. The more ringing the sound of vibration in the bones of head and mouth, the better the production of tone. Both resonance and vibration must finally 'take possession' of the cavities of bones of head, mouth (and in low tones the chest) and be permanently resident there"
CT
Just found this!
http://belcanto.myseriestv.com/showList.php
The sixth video is Edward himself describing the whole inhalation of the voice from his instructional video (never made commercially available - just to students of his).
CT
Thank you. I read everything you wrote which was sent to my email. The problem with all of this is that it is not physiologically accurate.
1) Of course there is air present in the pharynx and mouth at all times. But air does not come actively into the pharynx while we are breathing out. This cannot be. When one sings, there is a warm "oozing" of air outgoing. Nothing is coming in. It does not happen that air comes into the mouth and draws different air out of the lungs. It - does - not - happen.
2) The sinuses are very, very secondary as resonators of the voice, if at all. This is because they are fixed, bony structures with no possibility of adjusting for differences in sound. Studies have been done by vocal scientists wherein the sinuses were packed with sterile cotton to see if resonance was decreased when their vibratory capability was hampered. There was no change in the voices or resonance of the singers. This is simply not true that the sinuses are important for resonance. The principle resonator of the voice is the laryngeal pharynx. When the sound is correctly made, the air LEAVING the lungs and PASSING THROUGH the vocal folds sets up vibration in the existing air in the pharynx. My teacher used to describe it as an action like wind across a wheat field. In the ideal situation, this creates a standing wave as air bounces around. This is how the voice is resonated, not by the sinuses. The sensation of head vibration is a transference of vibration through muscle, cartilege and the like in the normal way of sound vibration.
3) The subjective sensation of the sound coming in is simply that: subjective. As such, it cannot be relied upon. I am not at all sure that Lamperti meant it as you are taking it. I think he may have meant that we need to keep the thorax poised AS IF breathing in, i.e., the ribs outward as best we can, in the inhalation phase. But ultimately, the issue of support and breathing has to do entirely with how efficiently the vocal folds and the other muscles of phonation are doing their jobs. If the vocal folds approximate correctly and stay approximated, then we should have enough air for what we want to sing. We should not make it more complicated than that.
Hi axemmchris- thanks for introducing this topic. I see that it has brought out an various responses.
I've been researching Old Italian methods for a long while now after being taught concepts similar, if not identical, to the one on this thread (and on your site), from a well-known pedagogue in the Garcia line. Her teaching was criticized, of course, by modern teachers who asserted that the face had nothing to do with tonal production. Being a curious fellow, I wanted to find out if what she taught had a histocial basis. In due course, I read all of the texts on this site as well as many others, including many old musical journals/newspapers. Several things became clear to me which have a bearing on this discussion.
1) Until the advent of research into acoustics in the 40's and 50's, voice teachers with their roots in Garcia and Lamperti, while they may have known about the physiology of the voice, did not - as a rule- use it as a basis for instruction. Those who did are credited with starting what is derisively called the 'local school' which started in the later part of the 19th century (Edmund Myers wrote a great deal about this aspect). And by this I mean teachers who taught by positioning the body parts- in other words- a mechanistic approach. Of course, there is a great irony involved here, because Garcia is credited with being the father of voice science which involves a study of anatomy & acoustics. (He was the first to assign different conformations of the vocal tract to tone quality ie- a longer tube creates a more sombre/closed tone, which the shorter one creates a clear/open one.) I am disgressing here somewhat, but modern learning theory reveals that the mechanistic approach is the least effective and the most time consuming approach in singing. (Kitty Verdolini - a researcher at Carnegie Mellon - has written and lectured on the matter).
2) The old teachers - even those with a knowledge of physiology - were ear-based in their approach to the teaching of singing. The terms they used still have revelance today, but are understood differently. And this is where- I believe- things go awry. Empirically speaking (meaning from an aural perspetive), terms like head voice and chest voice are understood to bring to mind the body parts associated with them. However, from a scientific view point, head and chest voice are about vocal fold function. These two views are often in conflict. Of course, it is now known that the sinuses do not have anything to do with tone production, that is, unless one makes a nasal sound. Then, the soft palate is lowered so that the nasal port is open. Making a clear sounding [a], however, closes the port.
3) What is one to make out of all of this? Several things I think. One is that more attention needs to be put on a study of the how sounds are perceived and felt. Voice science has been intent on looking down the rabbit hole for so long (and ironically- Garcia has been credited with beginning this because he was the first person to use the laryngoscope to see what was happening in the vocal folds during singing) that the ear has been left out. Why is this important? Anyone with a little training can percieve that lower tones seem to be oriented towards the chest while higher ones are oriented towards the head. This is empirical knowledge not physiology. With further training, students often remark that the tone is 'forward' or 'in the mask'. While not physiologically correct, the perception is one that becomes a guiding force. My own thought on the matter is that 'ring' in the voice is perceived as being at the level of the eyes- and this is what I was taught to perceive by my Garcia lineage teacher. Do the bones of the face actually vibrate to create this perception? Voice science says no. But that doesn't mean the perception is invalid. I should mention that several scientists (Titze is one that comes to mind) have posited that this perception may have something to do with acoustical pressures in the vocal tract. And I should mention that Lamperti noted that perceptions above the larynx, while illusions, are a guiding force (Vocal Wisdom). But the absence of scientific understanding of the phenomena does not mean that it doesn't exist. Again- my take is that this has everything to do with the ear and how to perceives sound- a woefully under researched area of vocal pedagogy. That said, I have found one or two instances that connected the presence of the 'formant' with the perception of 'forward' tone. (I will look at my files for the specific reference).
4) Garcia and Lamperti both taught that the student to form the opening of the mouth towards a smile.
Ah...I neglected to mention the formant in question. And by that I mean the singer's formant- commonly known as 'ring'.
I think musickate made a very good first impression, you, on the other hand, not so much.
I read your entire website. I regret that you spent ten years being taught nonsense. I regret also that I found nothing in your exposition of bel canto technique that is accurate. I further regret that the three tones you set forth as head, falsetto and chest are NOT head, falsetto and chest. Your head voice example is an unpleasant scream with no resonance nor vibrato whatsoever. Your falsetto is a tight, shut off, nasty little sound, not a full bodied falsetto at all. And your chest sound is husky and weak, not clear, bright and resonant. What was this man teaching you, for God's sake? You may have loved him and thought he was wonderful, but he did you no favors.
Sorry about this, but you invited comments on your website so here are mine. If I were teaching you, I would start back at square one, as if you had never had a lesson. I would teach you a proper falsetto and chest and then teach you to coordinate the two. You do not know at this point how to sing. I suppose it does not matter as you are a rock singer and you all scream anyway.