Inhaling the voice
Hi gracesong-When you write 'golden age of bel canto', are you referring to early recordings? Early recordings only capture a limited range of frequencies and women's voice did not record as well as men's. As such, they sound more tinny. After technological advances in the early 1920's however voices have more 'depth' and the sibilants are much clearer.
A tinnier sound could lead one to think that the larnyx is higher, but I think this perception may not be accurate. We do know that a singer like Nordica was never satisfied with how her full lush voice sounded on record. It never quite 'got' it.
However, like you, I've often thought that voices before the 1940's did sound different is that they used more 'head' voice, which is a different concept that 'chiaro'. As such, my understanding is that, in the bel canto school, 'chiaro' and 'scuro' are two halves of the same phenomena which entails a rounding of the vocal tube.
Oh, when I mentioned the Golden Age I meant the early twentieth century up until about 1950 or so. Yes, I'm aware that the old recording technology did make the women's voices sound tinnier while still revealing a bit about their technique. Well, I noticed this difference in technique amongst the singers of yesteryear such as Galli-Curci, Todi dal Monte, Lily Pons, and Roberta Peters in comparison to the coloraturas we have today like Dessay, Sumi Jo, and others. I'm intrigued, though. You'd said that the difference in sound was due to their using more head voice. Could you elaborate? I had a teacher that stated the exact opposite. He stated that the reason, partially, we had such inferior technique wass the improper coordination of chest voice into the sound.
gracesong- I think your teacher is correct. My understanding of how Old School voice teachers taught speaks to this point. With women, they often had them excercise the chest voice. Why? To get the vocal folds to adduct (come together) with depth. Then they taught them how to keep this adduction active in the middle range. Example: Garcia had women practice the middle register on an [i] vowel.
The Old School taught that [a] was the vowel to obtain chest function and [u] head function. [i] is the vowel that most easily brings the folds together. In reading Lamperti, one finds that he said that if one doesn't sing [a] at the bottom of the throat one is not singing! In other words, the old teachers sought to establish an overall condition for making vocal tone. In other words: chest voice (full voice!) with vocal fold adduction and a lower larynx than everyday speech (a little goes a long way!)
So- the trick is to keep the conditions of chest voice - lowered larynx and vocal fold adduction - while being able to sing up the scale and letting the voice move into other registers. If the larnyx comes up too far one is not able to sing the higher notes with a chiaroscuro tone. Of course, the larynx does rise for most women in the highest notes. But the old teachers taught that it should do so with some 'control'. (I put the word control in quotes because the control we are talking about is not a direct control but someting that is heard/felt by the singer.)
What I am writing about here is essentially how the messa di voce was accomplished. Going from a resonant chiaroscuro piano to a rich mezzo forte is simply the addition of more chest function. (One can also do the messa di voce in only head voice. And I have read in a few old books that this latter accomplishment was the test for true head voice.)
Speaking of inhalare la voce, my observation (empirically speaking) is that it is the sensation of balanced function between head voice and chest voice function. Voice science now calls this CT and AT function.
Back to your original point: most of the theatres in Europe are smaller than they are in the US. As such, one one can sing with less force. Force activates more AT function. And even though Pavarotti said that singing is refined yelling, one has to use (I think) the utmost discretion is the use of the voice and its repertoire. Bigger is not better if it robs the singer of head voice. Lilli Lehmann (How to Sing) wrote that head voice was the forgotten stepchild of the singer. And I think she was right.
Yes, I've read some of Lehmann's book too. She talks a lot about whirling currents of air, though. lol To add to the whole chest/head discussion, I think also our vowels tend to be a lot darker and less "forward" as those which were used by the Golden Age singers. Many of the singers today just sound like they're singing through balls of cotton stuck in the back of their throats. From what I've been told, this is due to their lack of coordination in the chest register and tuning to the second formant instead of more to the first. also, I believe the tip of the tongue and where it's placed has a great impact upon the singer's tone and how he/she will sound. I really admire the work of Shirlee Emmons and have read some of her work in the area of vowel modification and the tongue. She states that the tongue tip should be placed on top of the bottom teeth in order to give it that bright sound. Furthermore, the vowels should remain forward too. (the Tongue as Master of Your Singing) http://www.sci.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~jones/Shirlee/tongue.html (Achieving Carrying Power) http://www.sci.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~jones/Shirlee/carrying_power.html One of her students: (With Virdure Clad) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XouUI1VuHH0&feature=related She works very closely with Berton Coffin's vowel chart, and I believe it rests at the core of what she teaches. I also feel that today's singers tend to resort too much to the darker vowels especially in their passaggi partially maybe resulting in that I'm-singing-through-cottonballs-sound. But to go back to inhaling the voice, I've heard some teachers state that while the breathing mechanism is responsible for holding back most of the air, the vocal folds are also partially responsible as well. toughts? great discussion, and I'd be curious to hear your thoughts.
gracesong- there is a lot in your post to repsond to!
I like Shirlee Emmons and have had the pleasure of talking with her on several occasions. She sang with Melchior and other great singers. A lot of knowedge there! And what a wonderful singer. However, I am not convinced about the idea of putting the tongue on top of the bottom teeth. While it may help in bringing the back of the tongue into a better configuration, it's hardly is a position one has in normal speech. If adopted then, one observes that the sound become rather lispy. The Old School teachers I have read (Garcia & Lamperti exponents) repeatedly write about the tip of tongue as leaning (not pushing!) against the roots of the teeth.
I would agree that many singers today sing cottony vowels. And I am revisting earlier material on this thread, but I often think this has everything to do with the disbelief that vowels can be percieved as being 'forward' or as being in the head/face. My own teacher said that the tone 'goes back to go forward', but this is something that has to demonstrated in order to be understood. (bones vibrating?)
Garcia wrote that it is the adducting vocal folds which give one the sense that less air is being used. And I agree with that. He was the first to observe that the vocal folds adduct fully on the [i] vowel. But the action of the body below the folds has a part to play too. I think of it as being synergistic. If one sighs, the ribs fall dramatically. And the vocal tone is nothing like a resonant [i]. However, in making a resonant [i], the chest lowers ever so slowly- correct tone leading the action of the body action. Can one hold up the chest and get a resonant [i] tone by this action alone? I don't think so. My understanding is that mechanical action alone is not enough. One has to be listening to what one is doing.
Lamperti wrote:
Always remember that what "goes on" above the throat are illusions no matter how real they may feel and sound. Vocal Wisdom p. 39
He writes good deal about 'placement' (or rather William Earl Brown records his teaching) in Vocal Wisdom. And it's my contention that despite the illusory nature of the phenomena called 'placement', voice teachers might produce better singers if they didn't tell singers that they can't hear anything in the head, or if they do, they shouldn't pay attention to it.
Which reminds me, the Old School taught that 'the Italian singer has no throat', which is an interesting and ironic statement when one considers that many modern voice teachers tell their students they have no 'mask.' In short, as you suggest, too many singers sound like they are all 'throat' and no 'head'.
Vowel modification! Oh my god- that is a huge subject. That said, I like to think of it simply, and must confess that the Berton Coffin approach seems very complicated, rather like a centipede learning to walk by moving one leg at a time. Perhaps it can be done, but it strikes me as a long way to get 'home.' One way to deal with it? I believe a lot can be accomplished by having the student practice clear and open vowels ( I actually mean open throated...another controversial term) like [i] in the middle range and then having them shift to its modified equivalent- that is- [ü] - while hearing the difference in resonance (it seems to get darker and higher towards the back of the head). The trick (for a man) is to sing a high range [i] with this resonance in mind. In other words, to hear where it is going. Of course, the umlauted vowel needs to be as 'clear' as the [i]. It's this kind of nuance that is not better undertood or practiced.
Well, in terms of the tongue tip being on the bottom teeth, I think we might have to agree to disagree. Yeah, yeah. I'd be going against tradition, though. :) Personally as a singer I feel that it helps me keep the tongue out of the back of the throat and helps me form the vowels in a more "forward" and "Open" direction. Going back to the technical side,though, I find that many of today's singers' vibratos are all voer the place. Here at the university I'm attending, the voice faculty I've heard tends to have quite the wide vibrato, and I feel that that's why many people are turned away from opera. Also, I think that inhaling the voice has a lot to do witht eh muscular balance of the voice, i.e. TA and CT.
gracesong- I don't think tradition has to be worshipped or adhered to rigidly, and remembering reading somewhere that the old school teachers were adept at having the student form the opening of the mouth to bring out the best sound. In other words, their 'rules' were individually applied.
Re wide vibrato. I could not agree more. I think Titze or Sundberg did a study that showed that the most pleasing vibrato is between 6-8 beats per second. Anything outside of this and it sounds 'off'.
My own observation is that when there isn't enough 'head voice', the beat gets wider and wider.
Musickate has repeated assertedly that voice placement or singing the mask could not have been part of Garcia's thinking, and even if he did have something to say about it, he must have been mistaken. While I cannot intuit what Garcia thought about the matter, the historical record has left us some clues to ponder. I have already given this Forum two references and now offer a third.
http://books.google.com/books?id=PnFMAAAAMAAJ&pg=PT597&dq=tubbs+lamperti...
Afer clicking the link, you will need to scroll up to find the begining of the enty.
The writer of the article in the link (an encyclopedia article) was a student of Garcia and of Lamperti. Curious readers can google the author for verification.
I read everything about voice. Appeared to be two articles. I'm not sure. It is very old. The writer refers to Garcia's (Jr.) students in the present tense. No problem with that. But it had to have been written before much of anything that we now refer to as "vocal science" had come in to being. I think you need to do some additional reading as to latest thinking. One: the sinus cavities are fixed and bony structures. As such, their value as resonators is extremely limited as they cannot adjust to the nature of the sound coming from the folds. Also, the soft palate rises and seals off the sinuses when we sing in head voice. So, although there is some sense of vibration in the head, it is referred (mostly) and of little value for resonation. I did not make this up. It is fact. The nasal and laryngeal pharynx which are adjustable and lie just above the folds are the principle resonators of the voice. Two: it is the nature of sound to travel in all directions from its originator until blocked by something that does not effectively carry the vibrations. It is then bounced off in other directions until this blockage occurs again, and so forth. I don't know the principles of acoustics in detail, but I know this much. Acousticians have to try to figure out how to use this blockage and bouncing to create an effective resonance state in a hall because THE SOUND CANNOT BE DIRECTED IN A STRAIGHT LINE! Except in singing???? In singing, we are told that we are supposed to aim the sound north, turn it at a 45 degree angle and re-aim it into the sinuses so as to place the tone. Young man, it cannot be done. It will never be done. Tonal placement is a faulty concept and is extremely destructive to the voice. There is no question that, in a healthy production, singers have a sense of placement. But that is entirely subjective and has to do with the movement of air in the pharynx. Voice has a sense of place, but it cannot be placed. It is foolishness to try.
Musickate- You are indeed confused if you insist on instructing me in areas where we are in agreement, and that is that a stream of air cannot be sent into the face. :)
Believe me, I understand vocal physiology and acoustics, having read widely (Titze & Sundberg & Miller to name a few) and also taken several classes.
Here's my point: you say yourself that singers "have a sense of placement." In your world it is a 'subjective' matter and has to do with "movement of air in the pharynx." And while this may seem like a reasonable statement, it glosses over a phenomena that has it's roots (placing the voice, tonal placement, mask, singing forward etc) in the great teachers who's writings grace this site.
What is this site geared to do? My understanding is that it is to investigate and learn from the great teachers of the past. With that in mind, I have included sources from the historical record which show that our understanding of Garcia is incomplete. He is commonly refered to as being the father of voice science. The assumption being (read A History of Bel Canto) that the man could not have taught voice placement. Well. He did. In fact, it looks like the man originated the idea. Am I saying we should do the same? NO. I am not. What I am saying is that voice science needs to do further research in the phenomena you blithy categorize as being 'subjective'. My observation in a previous post was that this may have something to do with the perception of tonal qualites.
With that in mind...
When a student is able to make a resonant and clear [i] -as in EE vowel- that has chiaroscuro qualites, 'where' is this percieved 'subjectively' speaking? Where does the student 'locate' the sound? (Notice I write sound and not vibration.) Most students and teachers will say towards the front of the face. Some on the hard palate, between the eyes, others on the teeth etc. The commonality of this perception is that it is 'forward'. The Old School teachers would say that the throat needs to be 'open' for this to be acheived. Another 'subjective' term. I am sure you know that Old School teachers taught their students to take the other tones/vowels from this auditory experience (however subjective it may be). Example: Garcia taught his student to 'pinch' the sound, which we call adduction of the vocal folds- and used the [i] vowel to do so, especially with women in their middle range.
This 'opened-throated' [i] has acoustic properties which can be measured with electronic equipment. The Old School, on the other hand, used the ear. And called what it perceived as the placing the voice.
This is what history tells us.
You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. If it is not possible to place the voice, to direct the sound into the "mask" by directing an air stream - which you SAID you agreed with me about - then why talk about the sound being forward. Okay, so let us suppose this is right, that the sound feels forward. How does that help us to learn to sing if we cannot make the sound go there? As to the "EE" vowel, it does not feel forward in my voice nor has any of my students in nearly forty years of teaching ever mentioned this to me. So it is not a given, as you say. None of my voice teachers (four in number) evera sked me to place the sound forward, either.
As far as "investigating and learning from the Old Master teachers," if all you want to do it put your imprimatur on whatever they said and canonize them, be my guest. You cannot have it both ways. Are we going to discuss the principles of singing or are we just going to quote Garcia and Lamperti endlessly? Number one, they need a lot of interpretation as you mention with the "pinch the sound" remark. For another, they might have been wrong about a few things. Maybe, I'm missing the point, but it seems to me we are, in fact, discussing the Old Masters as you wish to do.
Yes- from my point of view you are missing the point. And truthfully, I am not interested arguments or being top dog- as it were. You however, cannot seem to make a post without referring to your 40 year experience. This may serve you I suppose, but I don't don't see how it serves the discussion.
Lastly, you've repeatedly written that the old masters 'could have been wrong about a few things." Well. I am sure they were. However, this seems to be the your default statement when faced with something you don't like.
Perhaps forums are not the best place to discuss these matters.
Addendum: you have stated yourself that the singer has a perception of tone in the head. Regardless of its location, how do you account for this? What explains the phenomena? What is its cause? Does it have any meaning for you? And if so, what?
Do you want me to stay or go? I am indifferent either way. If the consensus is that I am not being useful, I will depart. I don't need to argue. I think it is quite possible to disagree strongly without losing our tempers. I have not lost mine.
The perception of vibration in the head is referred. Vibrations move through any medium that will carry them, so they move through bone, muscle, cartilege, etc., and the vibration is felt in the head, including vibration of existing air in the sinuses. My point is that, being inflexible, the sinus openings are not good resonators. Therefore, even if it were possible to refer tone to the sinuses, it would not be advisable. But since the velum closes when we sing "head voice," it is not possible to send vibrating air into the sinuses. I promise I will not bore you by saying this again, Three or four times is sufficient.
Ah...so vibrations move through bone? I would agree with you on that.
Do all the vowels produce the same sensation in the head? And if not, what is the difference?
I suspect there IS a difference as there would have to be some (at least tiny) change in vibratory pattern, but again, the sinuses are such poor resonators that I doubt one can feel any change. I certainly can't. The change is minimnal even in the pharynx, the sense of "location" of the sound remaining constant despite vowel change.
The thing is, you do have sensation in the head, correct? And you already stated that you have more in 'head voice', correct?
So you have an increase of sensation or perception of tone in the 'head' as the pitch rises?
Do singers with guttural or nasal voices have the same kind of sensation/perception?
Assuming you teach a classicial technique, how do your students know what the tone is 'correct'? Do they also have this pereption of tone in the head?
Sorry to be so long about responding. Very busy. I did say that there was some preception of vibration in the head. No, I did no say that there was more in head voice. No, I did not say that the sensation increases as pitch rises. You are projecting your ideas into my mouth.
As far as what my students feel, I do not ask and they do not tell me vis-a-vis head vibration. It is not a part of my teaching. I mention in my introductory talk, when they come for the first time, that the term "head voice" comes from a feeling of vibration in the head and was used by the early teachers because they did not know anatomy and physiology and, hence, described tone by what it sounded like or felt like. I never mention head vibration again.
Operboy, you will not, no matter how hard you try, back me into a corner on this and persuade me to agree to the idea of placement. I do not agree to it. I will never agree to it. It is destructive as a teaching concept. This single thing - placement of the voice - is responsible for the poor singing we have today and for the loss of great voices that never reach their potential.
Hi musickate- I won't comment on your teaching or your students. That would out of line.
If by referring to your introductory talk, if it is outside this thread, I haven't read it. :)
As for your assertion about what early teachers did or not do based on our present understanding or anatomy and physiology, I have to say that I understand the matter differently that you. And this is where we will have to agree to disagree.
My final comment to you on the matter is this: I think your are forgetting the role of bone conduction. I humbly suggest that you investigate the work of Dr. Alfred Tomatis, who discovered- among other things- that the voice can only produce sounds which the ear can hear. Fascinating stuff!
Of course you won't comment on my teaching. You know nothing about it. I would not comment on yours. My "introductory talk" is given to students who come to interview. It is on my understanding of bel canto and how it is to be taught. I have not posted it here so you have not read it to comment on it.
I know of the existence of Tomatis but have not read his writing. Perhaps I will. Of course, the voice can only produce sounds which the ear can hear. That seems pretty obvious. The issue is how we hear the sound which is both from the outside and inside. So our perception of the sound is faulty as each kind of hearing distorts the other. That is why we need teachers to help us determine when we have the free sound. I wonder how this producing only what we hear applies to the profoundly deaf who learn to speak to some degree. Does he talk about that? Perhaps their sometimes difficulty with consonants implies that consonant perception is an "outside hearing" thing.
According to Tomatis, we listen in two ways, via air conduction and bone conduction. In fact he posits that bone conduction is faster than air, reaching the inner ear first. So, while our perception of our voice is different that what is heard on tape (I recently read a study which shows that the singer/speaker is less aware of higher frequences than lower ones), part of the process in learning to sing has to do with what one listens to. Bone conduction is also a vestibular function, that is, a feeling of the sound. This accounts for how the deaf go about learning to speak- an arduous process since they cannot listen to what they are doing. Tomatis' view answers your last question: if you can'attend to the higher frequencies which is where the consonants like 'S" and "Z" and "TH" lie, it is very hard to produce them. Tomatis understands that there is a great difference between listening and hearing. The first is active, while the second is passive. Learning how to listen well leads, in his understanding to better audio-vocal control.
My contention is that the Old School's methods spoke to this matter of audio-vocal control.
Most interesting. I totally concur that the ability to actively listen to what we are doing is primary for changing and improving the singing voice. It is a very difficult skill for most singers to acquire. I actually had an opera student several years ago who said to me, "You want me to listen to myself? I neve listen to myself!" To which I replied,"Well, Honey, it's time to start."
You remind me that Lilli Lehmann wrote (How To Sing) that the first and most important lesson for the student was to learn how to listen. Tomatis was the first to give the matter real thought. I've taken the audio-vocal training. Life-changing!
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.
There is no doubt that singing well brings about certain feelings. I also think that perhaps we can, to some extent, use those feelings to "check our work." The problem is that modern teaching has made the subjective feelings the CAUSE of good singing and not the result. So, it is one thing to feel the sound in the head. It is quite another to try to make the sound go into the head to achieve that feeling (an impossibility).
We cannot turn effect into cause. It does not work.
Musickate wrote- There is no doubt that singing well brings about certain feelings. I also think that perhaps we can, to some extent, use those feelings to "check our work." The problem is that modern teaching has made the subjective feelings the CAUSE of good singing and not the result. So, it is one thing to feel the sound in the head. It is quite another to try to make the sound go into the head to achieve that feeling (an impossibility).
We cannot turn effect into cause. It does not work.
I believe we are trying to say the same thing re not mistaking an 'effect' for its 'cause'.
Garcia himself remarked to a Mr. Frederic W Root (Bel Canto: a history of vocal pedagogy by James Stark, p. 51) that he used to direct the tone into the head and that one cannot direct the tone up or back or forward- it can't actually 'go' there. However, it should be noted that Garcia also wrote about the pharynx as being the 'reflector' of tone.
My own understanding is that this 'refection' is what is experienced as 'forward' or 'mask'. Science may not have an adequate explaination for it, but the absence of one does not disprove it. And not to beat a dead horse, my own digging has shown that the Garcia School did teach awareness of 'mask' or 'forward tone. Two sources come to mind.
1) Oscar Saenger in The Oscar Saenger Course in Vocal Training, 1916, p. 21. He studied with Jacques Bouhy who was trained with a student of Garcia I at the Paris Conservatory. "The way to place the tone is to think it forward. That is actually the way in which the student must focus his tone. He must thing it into place and put it there through the exercise of a purely mental process. ...When we speak of 'placing the tone forward in the face' (masque), we mean to focus the tone forward in such a manner that the vibrations will resound in the cavities of the face."
"Purely mental process" is a elegant way of putting it, don't you think? It encourages the student to listen to the tone rather than push air to a place.
2) Amercia's Musical Interitence by Anna E. Schoen-Rene, p. 110. Schoen-Rene studied with Pauline Viardot-Garcia and ber brother Manuel Garcia. Schoen-Rene recounts a scene where she and Garcia first listened to 2 American men who though they were trained in his technique (they were not), and then had the pleasure of listening to Plancon, the great basso-cantante. "Sing me" he begged, "a few of your beautiful tones so that I may be sure that correct singing still exists." Manuel Garcia's expression lost its discouraged sadness and became radiant, as he exclaimed, "That is singing through the mask and not through the nose! The nose is the wastebasket fo the brain but not considered for resonance." Suddendly turning to me, he grumbled, "Why do they sing and speak with that nasal quality in Amercia?" I, who detested the ugly nasal speaking voice and had fought against it so long, answsered, "Master, ti comes from ignorance- from not knowing that mask and nose are two separate resonances." "Yes- I think you are right. God may forgive them, but I cannot."
If the father of voice science understood the necessity of 'mask', then surely our age can find a way to incorporate it.
Hence my thesis: it's about listening to tone, rather like a juggler who keeps an eye on the ball. The more one becomes aware of mechanics (hands for the juggler and say...pushing air with the abdomen re the singer) the further afield one is lead.
Your first quote I discount. The statements of students of students of students cannot be trusted as having any validity whatsoever, in my mind, as coming from the mouth or thoughts of the master teacher. The second begs interpretation, it if ever happened. Since he supposedly said, "....through the mask and not the nose...." and since most mask teachers teach aiming the sound into the front of the face, an utterly absurd proposition, we have to try to discern what Garcia meant by "mask, not nose." We also have to take into our thoughts that he recanted some of his teaching at the end of his life, like breath control, for instance. And even if he said it and meant the sinus cavities - which I truly doubt - he could be wrong. My remaining point is a restatement. It is not possible to aim sound. I don't care who said or says you can. You cannot. Do you have a quote from Garcia that teaches aiming the sound?
musickate wrote-
Your first quote I discount. The statements of students of students of students cannot be trusted as having any validity whatsoever, in my mind, as coming from the mouth or thoughts of the master teacher.
I agree with you that the words of students of students can be suspect, but it should not be forgotten that Garcia (1805-1906) himself was a student of a student of a student, stretching back to Porpora. Should we discount what he says because we don't have the words of Porpora himself? I think not.
musickate wrote- We also have to take into our thoughts that he recanted some of his teaching at the end of his life, like breath control, for instance.
Please supply the source of the assertion above. :)
musickate wrote- Your first quote I discount. The statements of students of students of students cannot be trusted as having any validity whatsoever, in my mind, as coming from the mouth or thoughts of the master teacher. The second begs interpretation, it if ever happened. Since he supposedly said, "....through the mask and not the nose...." and since most mask teachers teach aiming the sound into the front of the face, an utterly absurd proposition, we have to try to discern what Garcia meant by "mask, not nose." We also have to take into our thoughts that he recanted some of his teaching at the end of his life, like breath control, for instance. And even if he said it and meant the sinus cavities - which I truly doubt - he could be wrong. My remaining point is a restatement. It is not possible to aim sound. I don't care who said or says you can. You cannot. Do you have a quote from Garcia that teaches aiming the sound?
Hi musickate- a few things in regard to your response to my post.
1) I am not your student and was not asking for your approval, either of my sources of thoughts. My view is that forums are for discussion, not ultimatums.
2) The historical record is what it is. I made no claim that anyone should or could send the voice into the mask. Rather, I gave two examples from those closer to the time of Garcia himself reflecting the thinking of the time. Again, it was not, and is not my intent, to claim that air goes into the nasal passages. Furthermore, I already said I agreed to your point that one cannot. And to beat a dead horse, I quoted Garcia who said the same thing. So I do not understand why you are asking me for a quote from the man saying the opposite.
3) My point is that into the mask may have something to do with tonal perception- ie how the brain perceives different qualities of tone (since older pedagogues used the [i] vowel to 'place the voice' forward, this seems a reasonable place to start).
4) Yes- one would have to think about what Garcia meant when he said 'mask' and not 'nose'.
Thank you for weighing in on this.
I think you presented an excellent perspective on this discussion.
The basic nature of it was essentially what I was thinking, but hadn't gotten around to posting yet. I've been waiting to be in contact with my mentor to discuss a couple of things with him before posting back.
However, your knowledge and research background, I'm sure, have provided more credibility and depth to these points than I would have been able to provide.
CT
Ah...I neglected to mention the formant in question. And by that I mean the singer's formant- commonly known as 'ring'.
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.
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
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.
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.
I think musickate made a very good first impression, you, on the other hand, not so much.
[quote=Knutta]
I think musickate made a very good first impression, you, on the other hand, not so much.
[/quote]
Well, I would say that Musickate made a very good second and third impression, as she has contributed to this discussion in a positive and meaningful way.
You, on the other hand, have merely provided us with an indictment of your character.
CT
Auch, that is harsh.
I have looked over your webside.
What you write about sucking air in to produce a sound? I believe you have taken the quote: "inhalare la voce" to far. I think it was ment to get the student to use as little air as possible to create the tone.
When you sing? Do you feel the air going in or out of your mouth/nose?
I look at this from a classical singing point of view. Maybe you can sing like you do in the rock genre, but that won't fly in the operahouses.
[quote=Knutta]Auch, that is harsh.[/quote]
What did you think you were going to get as a result of fronting an attack, other than an attack in return? In my eyes, when one person attacks another, and a second person stands back and applauds the attacker while denigrating the victim, that says something about them. I just called it as I saw it.
That said, I am glad to engage in something more productive with your more recent post.
[quote=Knutta]I have looked over your webside.
What you write about sucking air in to produce a sound? I believe you have taken the quote: "inhalare la voce" to far. I think it was ment to get the student to use as little air as possible to create the tone.[/quote]
...or is it possible that many of us haven't taken it far enough? Clearly, these ideas challenge both experienced and inexperienced singers. Sometimes it's just easier to give in.
[quote=Knutta]
When you sing? Do you feel the air going in or out of your mouth/nose?[/quote]
When you speak, do you feel the air going out of your mouth? No. It is controlled and measured so efficiently that, no, you do not feel it.
[quote=Knutta]I look at this from a classical singing point of view. Maybe you can sing like you do in the rock genre, but that won't fly in the operahouses.[/quote]
I have heard from some singers - yes, some even in opera houses - who are aware of this technique and state that they use it.
As I say, my own instructor was with the Metropolitan Opera. Unfortunately, the best recording I have is of a recital done when he was almost 70, recorded with, I think a ghetto blaster at the back of the room.
However, here are some excerpts - http://www.now-here-this.com/Edward.mp3
CT
That guy sings way different then the way you sing?
No straight tones, and good intonation.
I do feel air coming out when I speak/sing. Especially if i have a very small mouth opening, like the italian (u) vocal.
[quote=Knutta]
That guy sings way different then the way you sing? [/quote]
Yes, and there are a couple of very good reasons for this. One, that explains why he is(was) the master, singing for the Met, etc., and I am not, nor will I ever be.
I state very clearly in my website that my background is such that I have absolutely NO natural ability. I was so bad that I spent ten years mouthing the words to "happy birthday" at family functions - and no, I'm not exaggerating.
Be assured, though, that it IS the same technique. He's just infinitely better at it than I am, and was born gifted with the right tone for that genre.
He seems to have been born a Steinway, whereas I was born the Wal-Mart off-brand. The two pianos share the same mechanics, but the two will never, ever sound comparable.
(not to suggest for a moment that he never had to work at it.... A Steinway that sits with a cover over it for five years is still little more than a pretty hunk of wood. I'm just suggesting that he most definitely had a natural aptitude for it, which does help a great deal. )
[quote=Knutta]No straight tones, and good intonation.[/quote]
For an amateur, my intonation is reasonably okay. Remember, I have no natural ability to sing, so intonation does present me with some challenges. In light of that, I think I'm doing pretty good.
I am curious as to what you're basing your assessment on though. If you listened to the rock recordings I have, (which are also older), there is very little vibrato. That's just idiomatic to the genre. Too much vibrato in rock music just sounds funny. (that guy from System of a Down sounds artificial and "put on" as a result)
My recording of Oh Holy Night has considerably more, as is appropriate to the piece, but again, does not ask for the same vibrato that would be idiomatic for Italian opera.
[quote=Knutta]I do feel air coming out when I speak/sing. Especially if i have a very small mouth opening, like the italian (u) vocal.[/quote]
This reminds me of something that I came across that was NOT a part of my training. Apparently, it used to be the case where a singing teacher would have a student sing in front of a lit candle. If the flame was flickering, it meant that too much air was coming from the mouth and acting upon it.
What do you make of that? *Should* you feel the air coming out when you sing?
CT
Yes I have heard about the flame in front of the mouth exercise. I don't think it's in use now a days, but the way I see it, the point of the exercise is to extend the breath. To use as little air as possible to create the tone. But yet again, to push air out.
The phenomena witch is called the bernoulli effect is what I use to close the cords, are you familiar with it?
As Caruso once said: (not the actual quote ) "to sing, i take in an equal amount of air of that wich i need for casual conversation, and put it in my back.
He states that to sing, you must take in air first, and use it to create a vibration. And that you should feel an expansion in the lover back.
Knut
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.
You know, after listening to some of the singers of the Golden age of Bel Canto, I've noticed that their voices, in general, tend to have much more of the chiaro in their voices not ot mention more agility and beauty. Do you think that along with believing in the concept of inhaling the voice their larynxes were a bit higher? BTW, here's a singer I think that comes the closest to the Golden Age singers of yesterday, the late Elizabeth Parcells. Lakme's Bell Song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ilpVmE3DBI Enjoy!
You know, after listening to some of the singers of the Golden age of Bel Canto, I've noticed that their voices, in general, tend to have much more of the chiaro in their voices not ot mention more agility and beauty. Do you think that along with believing in the concept of inhaling the voice their larynxes were a bit higher? BTW, here's a singer I think that comes the closest to the Golden Age singers of yesterday, the late Elizabeth Parcells. Lakme's Bell Song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ilpVmE3DBI Enjoy!