New Blog Post

I have a new Blog Post at the new location for the Vocal Wisdom Blog.

Go to www.vocalwisdom.com/blog

My Blog is Moving

I am announcing that my blog will now be an integrated part of my website www.vocalwisdom.com.
You will see that the site itself has changed as well. This has been an effort to upgrade the site and blog, as well as stay up to date with the changes in web site development.
So please visit vocalwisdom.com and vocalwisdom.com/blog
for all future updates.

Thank you

Passaggio Question

Thank you for the detailed response to my previous question. It was quite a pleasure to be able to read something of a scientific and analytical approach.

I was wondering if you could give me advice on a more personal vocal problem. It seems that I am unable to sing past my second passagio, quite a frustrating phenomenon! After some careful observation, it seems that if I adopt an open relaxed throat, I consistently flip into my falsetto around the primo passagio. This seems to indicate to me that I have been muscling my way up. This becomes evident the closer and closer I approach my second passagio, as my voice begins to show audible signs of strain until it cannot phonate properly. Is there any advice you can give that possibly can help me sing above the primo passagio and eventually the second passagio with a relaxed throat?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm glad you appreciated my answer. This next question about the passaggio is really the fundamental issue to resolve for all of us. It is the answer to completing our voice throughout the range.

Unfortunately there is no one answer to this issue. It is dependent on the overall coordination. The perfect attack has an important role. As does proper resonance form and breathing coordination. All of these are influenced by our posture as well.

So there is no short answer to your question except to just do everything correctly. A couple things that I can say to explore that can help would be make sure to round your vowel form/mouth as you ascend. This will help to keep the resonance inside, which reinforces the upper register and will help to allow the voice to adjust.

Also, learn to listen to what your body is telling you, like you are starting to do. On the surface it seems like flipping into falsetto is a problem. But really the body is telling you what it needs to do. The voice can't go through the range in just one register. The upper register needs to be strengthened and connected. Otherwise you will have to resort to muscling the lower register up. Which is strenuous and uncomfortable.

In a way it is similar to what other wind instruments have with their register key. I also often compare it to a string instrument in the way they change strings for a new range. We change the adjustment of the voice. This allows us to phonate a new range of pitches without strain. If we don't make the adjustment we will feel discomfort and hit a ceiling.

Another point I want to make is be clear about what you mean by "relaxed throat". Of course we don't want the strain you describe. But we also don't want the larynx to be asleep. There needs to be free activity in all of the parts of the body involved. If something gets lazy it will cause the other parts to have to work harder. That is ultimately what causes strain - inappropriate relaxation.

So make sure your larynx is freely pronouncing the vowel/pitch at all times. Never rely on just the breath to do the work. The breath works with the larynx. Together they create the tone. If the larynx is not active the registers will be unlikely to adjust. That is why the perfect attack - or coup de glotte - is so important. Without it the larynx stays passive and doesn't make its adjustments.

I hope this helps some. I did my best. But we are starting to get into the territory that cannot be answered only through words and descriptions. It has to be experienced with a guide. Best of luck. Let me know if anything doesn't make sense.

Question about the "Coup de Glotte"

I was studying your website, and I came upon the idea of the Coup de Glotte. The paragraphs at the end of this e-mail are the extracts from your articles which I am referring to. Concerning the vocal cords, it seems clear that one should not allow the glottic air pressure to build up against the vocal cords; this causes an unacceptable amount of air pressure to accumulate and bow them.

However, you used a clapping analogy and I was interested in the implications of it. Can the vocal cords be injured if they are adducted too quickly, too sharply, and too firmly in the absence of subglottic pressure? In other words, do the vocal cords behave like the hands in the manner that if they are pressed together slowly they are not damaged, but if they are 'slammed together' (like slapping your hands together very hardly) they become injured?

"What makes it not acceptable is not the closure of the vocal folds, it is the build-up of air pressure against the closed cords."

"We do not want to attack the voice like clapping the hands. This is like whacking the voice and is abusive. We hear this with young singers who are very uncoordinated. The cause of this is not the contact with the vocal cords but is more a lack of breath control. They are tightening the cords and pushing breath pressure against them starting the sound with a violent explosion." 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for your question. You have actually described things quite well. Originally the term "coup de glotte" referred to the simple act of starting the vibration of the cords spontaneously with no interference. The meaning has now changed to represent a violent, cough-like attack. This change in definition has caused a lot of confusion. It is an excellent example of why we need to be very clear defining the terms we use.

The main elements that can cause interference to the free start of the vibration are muscular tension and air pressure, or a combination of the two. If we look at the situation realistically, we have to recognize that both of these elements are necessary to some degree. It is when either or both of them exist to an excess that there becomes a problem.

The excerpts of mine that you refer to are descriptions of a common example of excess tension heard in less coordinated singers. The cough-like sound relates to the "clapping" of the cords that I describe. Lamperti described the difference with the terms "whacking" and "smacking". His statement was something like "Don't whack the voice, let the vocal lips smack".

We can use the lips to demonstrate in much the same way I referred to the hands. The harsh attack is like the lips saying a "p" consonant. It is explosive. This explosive condition is abusive to the surface of the vocal folds because of the force of air rushing over them. This air can cause irritation which then can cause inflammation. This irritation can happen just from breathy phonation as well.

Irritation of the folds also can happen from the irregular vibration caused by excess tension in the vocal folds. The tension causes excess pressure in the contact of the folds with each other. When this condition exists the degree of air pressure to get the folds to vibrate increases. This will increase the irritation from the air as well as from the contact.

What we need to learn to coordinate is how to establish a condition of the vocal folds that is taut but flexible. Not loose and not tense. So the breath doesn't just rush through or get blocked by the glottal closure. The glottis must close, just as the trumpet player closes the lips. But we must not treat it like a dam, stopping the air pressure so much that it becomes difficult to phonate. Phonation should be easy, this is why so many fall into the trap of breathiness. But it is a false remedy.

Ultimately, the only way to accomplish the perfect start to the voice is to coordinate all of the aspects involved. This includes coordination in the breathing, postural alignment, resonance form, and the mental command to pronounce. This last one is probably the most important in relation to the adjustment of the vocal cords.

The adjustment of the laryngeal muscles happens in response to our desire to say something. Many of us have developed habits of imbalance in this unconscious response. These can be either a condition of constricting the air-way or releasing the air though the glottis when pronouncing. What we are after is a proper response of the larynx adjustment so that the air pressure from the respiratory system feeds the vibration of the folds.

If the air-way is constricted it will interfere with the flexibility of the folds and the free vibration. This causes an unconscious response of the body to create more air pressure to make the cords vibrate. This becomes a dangerous downward spiral causing the function to become more and more difficult.

Pretty much the same result happens when we have a weak adjustment allowing excess breath to flow through the glottis. The body senses the lack of efficient phonation and responds by increasing the air pressure to get a more complete vibration. This leads to a condition of needing more air to get the folds to vibrate, or eventually needing to constrict the air-way to make up for the lack of natural glottal closure.

The reality of the situation is the larynx is essentially a valve. Our challenge is to become sensitive enough to coordinate the adjustment of this valve while also coordinating the respiratory system to provide an appropriate degree of air pressure. Then we need to coordinate these two systems together so the air pressure from the respiratory system and the proper adjustment of the valve balance each other resulting in the edges of the tissue that make up the valve are set into vibration. If these adjustments don't match we get a poor result.

So if we go back to the analogy of the lips, the perfect attack is like what a trumpet player does. There is a balanced relationship between the vibrating tissue and air pressure to create a buzzing vibration. This is the source that is then amplified by the resonators into the tone we hear. The difference between the lips and the vocal folds is the vocal folds are much more flexible and suitable for the purpose of being a vibrating source.

Another analogy with the lips that relates to the Lamperti quote from above of "smack don't whack" is to start like the folds pucker and kiss. The folds massage each other rather than slap or explode. We can demonstrate this with our lips by making a kissing sound. Then we can imagine doing the same thing with the vocal lips.

When people learn the perfect attack they often observe that it feels like rolling the edges of the cords together. This is the feeling we get when we "kiss" with the glottis. This is what the "coup de glotte" was meant to represent. But through misrepresentation and misunderstanding the meaning changed over time. So now something that was healthy and rehabilitative for the voice is thought to be damaging.

Facial Posture - Video Example

I have often talked about the importance of posture, especially the posture of the face. The feeling of lift under the eyes is critical to opening the upper resonating space behind the nose and above the mouth. Once again I use Jussi Björling as an example of this coordination. But now I have video to show exactly what I'm talking about. This is a television appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show in 1957. It is a performance of an excerpt from Verdi's opera Rigoletto.



And as a bonus, this video features two women that also exemplify this coordination. The soprano is Hilde Güden and the Mezzo is Thelma Votipka. Just watch how they all have a lift alongside the nose when they open the mouth. This opens the resonating space behind the nose that really makes the vocal function easy. Many assume this will cause the tone to be nasal. But nasal singing happens not because the resonance is in the nasal passages but because the throat and nasal passages are constricted. The key is to keep them open. It almost feels like yawning with the nose.

Another element that could cause the tone to be nasal in quality is if the vibration is incomplete and the tone is restricted in the nasal passages. For this resonance condition to be correctly achieved the tone must place itself in the open resonating space. We must not try to deliberately place the tone. This is accomplished by understanding the difference between breath and tone. If we try to blow the tone into the nasal resonator we will have too much breath passing through the glottis, creating an incomplete vibration. There needs to be a pure vibration from the vocal folds to create the acoustical property of resonance.

Also, if we try to place the tone we will very likely constrict the vocal tract in some way. We need to keep the vocal tract, which is basically the air-way, open. Then with a complete vibration of the vocal folds the tone seems to place itself with no help from us. If we provide a path for the tone it will take that path through its own properties of radiance. This is one of the challenges of singing, trying not to control the things we can't control. Trusting the laws of nature to do their thing.

A common concept that was traditionally taught was the idea of "smelling a rose". I have described it in other articles, but this is an example of that in action. What is intended by this imaginary act is to lift the nose and face to open the nasal passages. It gives a feeling of stretch inside that resembles yawning inside and behind the nose that I mentioned. We can continue to feel like we are "smelling" while we sing to keep the open feeling. I sometimes imagine I am smelling my tone. This allows us to feel like we are pronouncing above the mouth.

This condition has a very interesting relationship to the soft palate. Most people that have been around the study of singing have heard people emphasize the importance of the soft palate being stretched and lifted. I have long been suspicious that there has been a misinterpretation of the proper behavior of the soft palate, as well as an over-emphasis of its importance. There are references in some older writings that recommend the palate be in a flexible condition and not pulled up so the naso-resonator is freely accessible.

The tone quality that people associate with a lifted palate is actually the result of this lifted and open nasal passage resonator. If we look in a mirror to observe the inside of the mouth and lift the palate the resulting sound is trapped in the throat and uncomfortable. I think what people sense as a stretch of the soft palate is actually a stretch of the soft tissue that lines the naso-pharynx, of which the soft-palate is the bottom. I'm not interested in trying to scientifically prove this assertion, but I think some mindful experimentation can help to clear up the confusion for each person.

Now I admit that Hilde Güden's facial expressions are a little exaggerated. I don't think it is necessary to exaggerate in order to have the resonators open. On the other hand, her face is nicely alive compared to many modern singers. And I am a believer in the saying it is better to do too much than too little, although we would like to find balance above either of these. I am willing to forgive her knowing that she had a functional reason behind it. But I would recommend a more subtle application, like we see with the other two singers.

I want to make a special point of highlighting the brief but enlightening example of Thelma Votipka (1906-1972). She was an American Mezzo from Ohio. The majority of her career was as a Comprimario, as she is here. She holds the record for most performances at the Met by a female of 1,422. I had no idea who she was before seeing this clip. I am blown away by her optimal function. You won't hear that quality in a comprimario these days. I hope it is noticeable.

As always comments below are welcome.

Question about sore voice from speaking

I was wondering if you might be able to help me. I think I hurt my voice from teaching this past spring semester. My voice feels sore and dry, and I've been trying to consistently drink a lot of water. I'm not doing any shows and not singing a lot. I feel really disappointed that I might have damaged my voice - it's been very important to me that I preserve my instrument so that I might have a chance to sing in an opera or do a full recital sometime in my life. I'd like to have the opportunity to sing really well sometime in my future and perform.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry you have had difficulty with your voice. The classroom environment is a big challenge to vocal health. Staying hydrated is a good place to start. I like the formula that recommends we drink half our weight in ounces daily as a minimum. More if we exercise or are in more extreme weather. (hot or cold extremes)

My guess would be that you have irritated the voice to some degree, but most likely have not done any damage. You would definitely benefit from some consistent reinforcement of positive coordination. Overuse issues with the voice are really more a matter of underusing the physical components in a balanced way. Which is to say coordinating and balancing the three main components of the vocal instrument.

For instance, when we use the breath without a balanced relationship from the larynx and/or the resonator the voice will suffer. This is essentially what happens when we talk loudly, as in a classroom. The breath tends to over-power the vibration of the larynx and we don't get the amplifying benefit of our resonators. This will put extra stress on the larynx and cause irritation.

Another byproduct of this condition is what is often referred to as a "closed throat". The throat muscles instinctively constrict relative to how loud we talk. This constriction acts as an extra level of resistance to the breath pressure causing the vibration to be louder. It is an almost automatic response in the throat. This is why it is recommended to not think of singing loud but full. A subtle but important difference.

Thinking of singing full helps us accomplish our result with the use of our resonance. Just thinking loud will cause a strong tendency to over-sing and throw off the balance of the instrument. This is one of the biggest challenges of singing. And is important to the long-term health of the voice.

This coordination is just as big of a challenge, if not more, when we are speaking. Especially in a loud environment. One particular aspect of our situation is a major contributor to this problem - The relationship of our tone to our ears. In other words, how we hear ourselves.

This is something we may not even be aware of. Yet it has a huge influence on how we pronounce. How well we hear ourselves has a conscious and unconscious influence on how the larynx, throat and mouth adjust when we sing or speak. The acoustic relationship between the mouth and ears is such that we are influenced to spread the resonance form to hear ourselves better. It is like we "reveal" the sound more to hear it better.

What we don't realize is we don't hear ourselves accurately. So what sounds better to our ear often sounds worse to an outside listener. Not only that, but in order to hear ourselves better we have thrown the entire system out of balance. Anytime we do that we are more at risk of irritating the voice, and eventually causing damage.

An example that illustrates how strongly our voices are tied to our hearing is observing someone talking with earphones on or has temporarily lost their hearing from a loud concert. They automatically talk louder even though the environment is not loud. It is just because they can't hear themselves.

This shows a low degree of sensitivity to the voice. It is actually the basis of a good exercise. Try speaking and/or singing with your ears covered so you can't hear from the outside. It is an odd experience at first. It forces you to tune into your sensations and your internal hearing. This is beneficial because when we function well we don't hear ourselves from the outside very well. And that is difficult to get used to. But it is important or we will continue to fall into the trap of listening to our own voice.

I often recommend developing a sense of visualizing the tone. This is a way of using the imagination to "see" the tone and where it is located. It is a way of noticing where the resonance is. The main purpose is to be aware of inefficient resonating adjustments. For example, a very common condition is for the resonating adjustment to be such that if we "see" the tone we will notice it is in front of our mouth. Actually escaping out of the resonators. When this condition exists it a result of the front of the mouth being too open in relation to the back. This reduces the benefit of the pharynx as a resonator and loses the natural amplification that can happen with good resonance.

When we notice this position of the tone it tells us that the pharynx is not open enough or we are not utilizing it enough. The condition I recommend is to "see" the tone stay inside the mouth/throat. This will allow the resonance to ascend along with the pitch to take advantage of "head" resonance, which is critical for easy access to the upper range. An easy way of conceptualizing this is to pronounce with a rounded feel to the mouth. It gives a "shading" effect. Then as we ascend, instead of opening more, we still stretch the jaw but shade with the lips a little more. This makes the effect of "mixing" the form of "o" into all of our vowels.

This resonance is important because it takes the burden off the voice itself. And that is the critical component that makes the difference between vocalizing loud vs. full. It is our own natural amplifier. Acoustic amplification. The key to keeping the voice healthy.

Question re: my Statement about Functioning Instinctively

"If I'm not mistaken, you have mentioned several times that, based in your experience, you consider vocal function to be physiological and to a certain degree innate. Or at least inherent to the phyisiological reality of the phonating organs. You have also mentioned a couple of times - when explaining about the connection between singing and "emotion" - that prehistoric man would have expressed himself pretty much in the same manner you describe. I have a problem with that statement. When talking about music in prehistory, we innevitably fall in the realm of opinion and supposition (quoting a teacher of mine, you look at a bone with some holes in it and you wonder whether it's some sort of primitive flute or just a chicken with osteoporosis). There is no ACTUAL way of knowing what prehistoric music or musical instruments sounded like (most scholars believe man would immitate the sounds of nature and animals  around them) and, although we assume that the vocal mechanism was pretty much the  same it is today, there is also no way of knowing how they ACTUALLY used it. The origins of language, music, dance and religious ceremonies are tied together in this one question to which, in my humble opinion, we can't give a decisive answer: "How did man begin to communicate?". We can assume, however, that music played a significant role in the development of primitive man's communication. It is scientifically proved that the area in the brain which is connected to music is a very primal system (shared by humans with animals as primitive as lizards, for instance) responsible for fear and survival instincts. Therefore, there is a deep connection between music and the immediate urge to communicate, as if life itself depended on it. And we can also assume that, before inventing musical instruments, primitive man used his own body as a musical instrument and a tool for communication (at that point it was probably the same thing). But, I restate, there is NO WAY of knowing HOW primitive man used his voice as an instrument.

I know it seems like I'm just being picky about one of your statements, but that's not it. You see, although I research mainly cultural and music history from the XIXth and XXth centuries, I have done some reading in ethnomusicology and I realized that, although differences in instrument use are an object of research for other instruments (flutes, lutes, percussion, etc.) differences in vocal "style" (let's call it style although it's not a good term) are never mentioned. However, when you actually listen, the difference between how African, Asian, Arabic, East European and Amerindian musical cultures make use of the voice as an instrument is HUGE! Alright, I remember you have also stated that "style" oriented use of the voice can lead to someone immitating a particular sound instead of actually using their voice but this is not my point. Based on what you said, about the effective use of the voice being "innate" or at least potentially innate, I am guessing you use the example of prehistoric man only to reinforce your point that effective vocal function is not determined by "style". I agree with you when it comes to Western music... But then why is it that singers in Folkloric/religious/ethnic manifestations - which are based in oral traditions, not influenced by Western notions of "musical style", "musical taste" etc etc etc (I'm talking about in loco recordings for research which I have had access to, and not commercial Folk music, of course) - do NOT make use of the voice effectively? You have scream-like voicalizing, spoken-like voicalizing, crying-like voicalizing, even vocalizing that imitates a particular sound (using vocal distortion to imitate the sound of an animal, for instante)... Which comes to my point: Does culture play a key role in how people use their voice as an instrument? 

OK, let me talk about something in which I have some experience. I live in a region that is somewhat of a cultural melting pot, where Amerindian, African and Iberic cultures mix, so we have a considerable amount of folkloric/religous manifestations that include singing and dancing. Every one of them employs that "scream-like" vocalizing - sometimes it is even hard to perceive a melody. Since none of them is worried about sounding like an opera singer, or like a music theater singer (and some of them aren't even worried about the artistic or esthetic quality of their music, since the function of the music is to serve a religious purpose of some sort), why is it that their vocal function is so far from the "ideal" or "optimal" condition?

Which inevitably comes to my other point: How long has there been a notion of an "ideal" or "optimal" use of the voice as an instrument? As far as music theory goes, we are talking about bel canto (about which you obviously know a whole lot more than me). I think it is safe to say that bel canto is basically an oral tradition, transmited from teacher to pupil, and there aren't many documents about it before Garcia's writings in the XIXth century. The first document I remember that mentions something similar is Giulio Caccini's preface to the edition of his songs (can't remember which specifically). This was right in the beggining of the XVIIth century, and it is a document with great historical value, in which he explains how he and the gentleman of the Camerata Bardi "invented" a new style of music drama (which by the time was still not called "opera"), he shows some interesting examples of vocal embellishment, and claims that "the way he taught his pupils how to sing was most excellent". Although Caccini was very full of himself, I imagine he is actually talking about a different way of singing, something closer to an "optimal" condition. This is the first written document which I remember (other than testimonials from audience members) that mentions something resembling bel canto... Am I incorrect?

What I mean is that, although I find the notion of an "optimal" use of the voice comforting (at least for me, who hope to benefit from it), I still think that your claim of it being "style-free" is very close saying that it is "the same throughout history and the same in different cultures". And that is something I have a hard time accepting. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that was the impression I was left with."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You make many good points. But regarding the statement I have made you
are going beyond what I'm referring to. When I say that we want to
find the instinctive utterance, that similar response that we would
find in nature, I'm referring just to the initial stimulus/response
relationship in the nervous system and vocal organs. It is a condition
where the sound produced is a spontaneous response to an emotional
feeling.

I'm not referring to the quality of the sound, or what we do with that
sound. Those things are dependent on our intention of what we want to
express and how. That is a matter of our imagination, intellect,
conditioning, and choices. That is the music we choose to make. The
result of our vocalization. But before that comes into existence we
have the stimulus, which originates in the brain but not the
conscious/thinking part.

The stimulus for the voice is rooted in the animal part of our
brain/nervous system. The part that contains our automatic responses.
Like pain reactions to heat, when we pull our hand away from a flame
without thinking of doing it. Reflex action. That is what we need to
discover vocally. We all tend to behave as if we directly control the
singing act through deliberate thought. Like you have stated, there is
a tendency to think intellectually to produce our singing.

Now, what we want to do with our singing does depend on our intellect
to some degree. But that is what I'm describing as what we do with our
singing. This automatic action of the physical instrument realizes our
intentions that originate in our imagination. We create the music in
our mind and the body is stimulated into an automatic/reflex response
to bring that imagined expression to life. What I often refer to as
thinking out loud.

So to answer your questions about different cultural/historical
manners of musical expression. That just is how they conceived of
their expression. It was what they chose to do with their singing.
That has little to do with what we are trying to accomplish.

Your questions come from a perspective of "how to sound" vs. "how to
function". If I said my statement in reference to how we should sound
then your argument would be true and I would have a disagreement with
my statement as well. But my statement refers to how we should
function to create our intended result.

It only refers to the initial stimulus, not the result that comes from
it. The result completely depends on what we want. So each person will
have their own expression, even in the same style. We can have the
intention to use that stimulus/response to create a balanced function
or to create a shrieking tone. But the stimulus is the same. The
result depends on what we want.

So there are several layers of skill that we are talking about and
need to learn and develop. The first is the instinctive automatic
response of the vocal organs. The second is coordinating these to
function in a balanced manner. Then finally is the musical result that
includes style.

In order to accomplish all three of these most successfully we need to
kind of work backwards. First we mentally picture what we want to
accomplish in our imagination. Then (which is really simultaneously)
we set up our physical structure to ensure balanced functioning of our
vocal instrument and prepare it for activity. And finally we stimulate
the act with the instinctive spark that causes the voice to respond
automatically just like any other emotional expression.

If we have done these things well we can expect the result we were
intending. But this only happens after we have conditioned this
behavior through repetition. We then get to the point where we know
our result before we act. Which is ultimately the goal of training.

But we can only express what we have in our mind. So we have to
develop our musical imagination. And just the opposite is true. We can
only be as musical as our physical equipment will allow through good
function. This is why we develop and train our physical responses.

Singing is the ultimate combination of mental/physical/emotional
behavior. And the reason I emphasize the physical behavior is because
without coordinating it well we can't reveal completely our mental and
emotional musicality. But maybe even more important is over the long
term we can completely lose our ability to express ourselves vocally
because of the deterioration of the vocal equipment from wearing out.
And I can't think of a more depressing thing than someone who wants to
express themselves through singing and can't because the voice is
gone.

I hope this gives more clarity to the meaning of my statements. Thanks
for asking.

What is Singing?

"The beginning of wisdom is a definition of terms." -- Socrates
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
I saw this quote recently and I thought it was a great place to start in our exploration to define what singing is. I think it only makes sense that if we are interested in singing that we figure out what actually comprises the act. On first thought it seems too obvious to even bother with. But it is important that we are very clear on what singing is if we are going to investigate how to do it and what makes it good. So that's what I want to try and find out here. I think why this is important is so we don't get confused by the different aspects of singing when trying to work on or assess one aspect.

For example, this site and my efforts are focused mainly on the function of the voice. This is only one aspect of singing. There are others that make up the whole. But I feel it is the least understood and has great potential to improve the overall result. But if we are going to be able to objectively discuss this aspect of singing we have to understand what role it plays and that it is just one part.

This is why there is sometimes confusion over what I am saying when I talk about a singer having less than ideal function. There are sometimes strong reactions from people who admire him/her. This is the kind of thing I want to go into and explain. So in order to help us understand the importance of function we have to understand the role it plays in the overall act of singing.

The logical place to start is to simply ask the question "What is Singing?" If we were to brainstorm on this question I'm sure we would come up with many answers. I find myself starting from the statement that "singing is the act of vocal musical expression that makes an effect on a listener." The key for me is the effect we make on the listener. This is what determines if we, as listeners, like or dislike a performance. If we take this farther we can identify several components to this situation and see why we may like a performance even if one of the components is not well done. (The main example we will illustrate in later posts are performances where we like the effect even with poor function)

Function
An obvious component, since it's what we're discussing on this site, is function. Specifically the functioning of the vocal instrument. I have stated in other places that when I talk about the voice I usually am referring to the larynx, the voice box. But it is important to recognize that the vocal instrument consists of more than just the voice. It includes the larynx, probably the most important part, along with the respiratory system and the resonators of the airway, pharynx and head. There are also the additional parts of the mouth for distinguishing words. And all of these are linked to the brain through the nervous system. These are the things we are going into through our exploration on this site. So when I say function I'm talking about the functioning of these physical parts of the body that make up the vocal instrument.

Expression
Now what I want to establish are the other components that make up singing. We could probably give each of these different names, but I think of this next one as "expression". This comprises the feeling the singer is trying to convey. And just like function it can be done well or poor. Expression contains the mood of the piece and the emotional context of the character that is communicated through the words and how we say them. This is the aspect that is unique among musical performers because no other instrument can include words. Many good acting singers make their living by being good at this aspect, which usually combines well with personality/presence below.

Musicality
This could also be thought of as "musical expression". It is hard to separate these things but I think of this as the musical aspect of what the singer is doing. If the previous section dealt with mood and textual expression this would be expression of the music in melody and rhythm. It can be thought of as the instrumental aspect of singing. The actual making of music like any other musical instrument.

Personality/Presence
Another component that makes up a performance is the singer's "personality and stage presence". What do they communicate just from their presence. This is a subtle, but often obvious, thing. This is communicated mainly though "body language". It is obvious when we watch an inexperienced performer because it is lacking. And with a great performer this aspect can make up for deficiencies in the other components. Something we could look for is a sense of calm and confidence being communicated to the audience. The performer should appear comfortable so we can feel who they are as a person. If the performer lets their fear or nervousness overpower them the audience won't be able to feel their personality. And that is a poor presence.

So the point I want to make is that what I am usually talking about, function, is only one part of the whole performing situation. A means to the end product. It can make the final performance much better. And many people can give wonderful overall performances without doing well in this one aspect.

This is how we can have someone with poor vocal function and still be a great singer. Because the measure of a singer is the overall effect they make on the audience. Some can make a very strong effect from the emotional expression they tap into in their performance. Others make a beautiful effect through their musical expression. Still others make a very successful career from the sheer power of their personality and presence. And many great artist become recognized because of their ability to combine these all at a high level.

So in a way function is the least obvious aspect of great performance. Great function alone will not make a great performance like great expression or great personality can. But function can open the door to better expression. It can allow the voice to act like a musical instrument to maximize beauty and musical expression. It can provide the peace of mind that will allow the performer to feel calm and confident to communicate their personality freely and have a powerful presence. It's like good function super-charges all of the other components of performance.

But the most important benefit of good function may be something that we don't notice for years. It is the ability to keep the instrument fresh and youthful for life. To have a voice that doesn't deteriorate over the years allows us the time to improve in the other aspects of performance and still have an instrument worth hearing by the time we become great artists.

This reminds me of an old quote. I don't remember who said it, but I know it was an old operatic tenor that had great function so his voice had retained its youthfulness. His son commented to him about another tenor being a great artist. The sage responded by saying, "people become artists when they can't sing anymore". This was his way of saying what I described above. With poor vocal function the voice deteriorates over time. When the voice stops being able to do the things the singer wants, they are forced to be "artistic". Which in reality is not really artistic, it is faking their way through to cover the fact that the voice is not all there anymore.

This happens to opera singers and it certainly happens to non-classical singers as well. I remember when Mariah Carey came out with her fourth or fifth album the critics were praising her "deepening artistry". Well, she was also singing lower in tessitura because her voice was wearing out from all of the high singing she did early in her career. The voice was already breaking down, but she changed her musical approach to cover that up.

Now that is not necessarily a sin. But I think if any of us were given the option to either have our voice break down and not be able to do the things vocally we could, but become a better artist; versus keeping our voice fresh and healthy so we can do everything vocally we want and more, while also improving as an artist, I think we would all choose the latter.

Unfortunately that is a choice we can only make at the beginning. We can't destroy our voice and then decide we want to stay vocally young for life. We can still choose after but then it requires rehabilitation. And that is never as good as being healthy from the start.

There is more that can be discussed about this topic, but I'll save that for as we go along. The main thing I wanted to illustrate is that there are several components, or aspects, that make up a performance. People can be fulfilling them at different levels, which when combined determines the effect they make on the audience. And it is this effect that makes the audience decide how much they like a singer.

Please add your responses and comments below. Thanks.

Question about Diaphragmatic Vibrato

I have unknowingly developed a diaphragmatic vibrato. But now even when I know the difference between the false and true vibrato, I can't manage to prevent false vibrato from my voice. How can I do that?
-------------------------------------------------------------- 
Thanks for writing. The condition you describe is a symptom of imbalance in your body. Even a good vibrato is just a symptom of the condition of your body, as a confirmation that things are balanced. So the remedy is not to fix the vibrato. It is just telling you that things in your body are off. You need to make sure the parts of your body involved in singing are behaving appropriately.

This gets into physical functioning that is beyond what can be communicated in writing. But what I can offer is make sure you are breathing in a complete and coordinated manner. Try to stay in an inhaled position when you start to sing. Don't allow yourself to exhale when you sing. Experiment with not moving and staying elastically stretched in your torso. Then the breath that is needed will come as a reflex.

The correct action is similar to laughing in the sense that the breath comes automatically and freely when you laugh. The difference is that when we sing it is a sustained gesture rather than a bouncing one as in laughter.

The other aspect to address is that your larynx is truly saying the vowel when you sing. It is very common for the larynx to be relaxed and inactive while singing. This will cause an imbalance in the relationship between the breath and the larynx.

These are just general points. Unfortunately I can't be very specific to you without actually hearing your condition myself. If you would like to send a recording I could give you more accurate feedback. Thank you.

Comment about how simple singing really is

I am just shocked and amazed at how complexity distorts reality. If we are not grounded in the fundamental truth, we can go bananas so easily! It's all so simple and it scares me how complicated and disconnected from the ground we can be!
------------------------------------------------------------------------

This comment was left anonymously on my post about the role of the teacher. It is such a true statement. I think anyone who has struggled with understanding their voice can relate to this comment.

I think this issue might be the biggest stumbling block we face in our journey of understanding our voice. It is so easy for us to complicate things. I think it is perhaps the most difficult thing in life to think about things in a simple manner and resist the temptation to make it more complicated. It can make us bananas. 

This is especially true when we start talking about singing. It gets to a point where we are convinced the act of singing is a completely foreign, unnatural act. Even though it often feels that way, it is helpful to remember that singing actually is a natural act. We may need to fine tune it for our purpose. But the underlying principle of singing is natural. It is hardwired in our instinct.

It can be helpful if we can imagine what it would be like to live as a human animal, like a caveman. In this life we would be much more in tune with our instinctive behavior. This is where we can explore our instinctive desire to sing. I like to think of singing as a physical response to an emotional feeling. It is in the same family of physical expressions as laughing and crying, cheering and celebrating. Things of this nature.

Now, artistic singing as we know it may not be what would come naturally from the circumstances I'm describing. But the basic physical response necessary, the basic gesture, would. This is what we need to base our singing on.

If we can discover this relationship in ourselves it makes the act of singing much more automatic. And that is the basis of simplicity. We complicate everything by thinking we need to consciously control it all. We don't. Much of what happens can be allowed to happen reflexively. The challenge is that, contrary to what we may believe, it does not happen by itself. We still need to stimulate it so the automatic response happens. This takes time to develop and is the real skill of singing.

Please respond below if you have comments or questions. Thanks.

Question about Losing Upper Range

Hi, I came across your website and thought you could help. I've been a high first soprano since my sophmore year of highschool (I'm a junior now). When I first entered highschool, I could not sing high notes at all, but then started my upper range started to develop [and a bit of my whistle register too]. I switched to a different voice teacher in the middle of my sophmore year and thought I was making progress with her. She focuses a lot of her training on strengthening the muscles of the face [by making her students make strange stretched out faces while singing] and uses lip trills and excercises that place the sound in the nose for warm ups [like "nay nay nay"'s and "ng" sounds]. I almost never actually sing when I warm up with her. It's generally just lip trills, "nay nay nay"s, and "ng". I seemed to be doing well with her lessons, and thought her training was helping. However, when I entered my junior year, it started to become difficult to sing higher notes. [I also continously had throat health issues; during my sophmore year, i started to get very bad sore throats, to the point where sometimes I would not be able to speak. these would linger for a few months]. I began to crack on notes that usually were not high for me [such as a G]. I'm near the end of my junior year and the problem has still not been solved. Now when I sing, my upper range just sounds weak and hoarse, when it use to sound full and strong. I use to be able to sing High Bb's, but now I can barely reach it without cracking. I don't know what's wrong  I went to my doctor numerous times and he said it was probably allergies that were causing my throat to be sore. However, I've taken the allergy medicine and it has not helped. I'm not sure what is wrong with my voice, I feel like I'm losing my upper range, please help! 
===============================================

Thanks for writing me with your question.  I'm sorry to hear that you are having such difficulties. I should start by saying that I can't be certain about what's going on with your voice without hearing an example. But a few possibilities come to mind.

The exercises you mention may be fine or not depending on how you are doing them. Based on the problems you are having I suspect that you have gotten in the habit of doing them in an unproductive way. Stretching is good, but if you stretch in a way the eliminates a good resonating form you will have trouble. (An example of this would be stretching the front of the mouth or just the face and not including a stretch of the back of the mouth.) This is because the throat space will close, which includes a raising of the position of the larynx. When this condition exists it often leads to sore throats because the tissue of the throat gets irritated. The inflamed tissue leads people to wrongly assume that allergies are to blame.

The closing of the resonance space and the higher larynx position would also make sense with the difficulty and cracking in the higher range. The extension of the range is dependent on the stability of the larynx so the vocal folds can stretch for the higher pitch. If the larynx is allowed to rise it will not allow the folds inside to stretch for pitch. The high range also depends on the stable larynx to keep the resonator of the pharynx open. The proper resonance reinforces the vibration and amplifies the tone so the vocal folds can vibrate smaller in order to vibrate faster for higher pitch. When this is lacking the voice gives out or strains in order to produce higher pitches.

Like I said, I can only give educated guesses based on your descriptions. If you want more accurate feedback you are welcome to send me a recording. It can be some exercises or a song. But if you can show me some examples of the difficulty I can give you a more accurate assessment.

Comment About Role of the Teacher

Hi
first of all, I want to thank you for your this blog and all the information in it...

I just read some previous post and comments...I noticed some people questioned about your capacity as voice instructor...well, I'd like to say that being a career singer and being a voice instructor are not the same job. You don't need to be a perfect model of the concepts you teach, a teacher doesn't have to be the most perfect singer in the world...if things were that way, then only a few singers in the whole world could teach how to sing...Even best singers had teachers who were not famous or perfect... Being a teacher, or a guide to some one else is about being capable of bringing the best out of the person who trusted you.
The instructor is the torch which guides in the darkness... not the map to get to a destination...each singer will walk a different way to get where they want...the instructor will light the way but won't be the eyes of the walker...The light will show the bridge to cross the river (which is the safest way to cross it)..but it is up to the walker if they want to use it or if they want to jump to the current and try to get to the other side...some super talented swimmers will succeed, while others will drown...

Yes, there are many ways to cross a river, but we must agree that using the bridge is the safest.

About this approach to singing...there are many people out there walking with their hands...this approach only says "notice you have feet, use them"... I am sure many will applaud the acrobatics of those walking with their hands, but only those waking with their feet can run, or jump, or reach the end of the road...

Thanks for the valuable help you are giving...
----------------------------------------------------------------
I received this comment on the post with a testimonial from a client. I felt that what he says is very helpful and well-stated. The very first point he makes is golden. Being a singer and helping others learn how to use their voices are completely different skills. They are obviously related. And you would rarely become an instructor without having been a singer to some degree. But to be skillful at one does not equate to skill in the other.


I do consider myself a singer and I do perform on occasion. And I like to think I am pretty good. I know I am better than some and probably not as good as others and I am always working on improving. Obviously I don't perform at an international level or even at regional opera companies. I could try and search for reasons for this, some would make sense and some might sound like excuses. But the bottom line is my path has not led to being a professional performer. 


I have consistently been drawn towards figuring out the voice and understanding how it works. Along the way I have learned that I have an ability to take that understanding and communicate it to others so they can easily understand their own voice. This ability has made helping others on their journey much more rewarding than trying to be a performer myself.


The comments about the teacher being a guide is exactly how I see my role. He uses the illustration of being the torch, which is very accurate. I have often described the situation with my clients as being a guide to the blind. As a singer who is figuring out their voice, we are like a blind person. We can't see how our voice works. We can't see the path to coordination. We are forced to rely on our sense of touch and hearing to find our way. In order to become self-sufficient in the world the blind person needs to learn how to get around their home first, and then how to, for instance, get to the bus stop to go to work or the grocery store.


At first this would seem like an impossibility without the aid of sight. Knowing which way to go, crossing streets, taking the correct turns. Difficult and dangerous situations that a person with the ability to see takes for granted.


But with the work of a guide, someone who can see the way, the blind can learn how to negotiate the challenges of everyday life. Through repetition and correction, the need for the guide gradually decreases. Eventually the blind person can get around and accomplish all that they desire.


This is essentially the same process we go through as a singer. The guide can see the way, but we can't. This is because in this case the guide is also blind but they have learned to "see" with their sensations. They know the path the singer needs to experience in order to learn the way. At first, even as the singer is guided down the correct path, there is not much certainty about what has been experienced. It takes repetitions of the same path before the singer can feel their way along on their own.


Gradually the path becomes more and more familiar to the singer, and they are able to travel on their own more successfully. They begin to be able to "see" with their sensations as well. Sometimes when faced with new challenges it is like going down a path you haven't been down before. So the use of a guide is necessary again. But every new path tends to be learned faster because of the experience that has been gained.


This analogy seems to be helpful to illustrate the nature of learning the skill of using the voice naturally. Please leave comments below if you found this helpful or if you have a questions. Thanks.

Question about Methods and the Truth

I noticed in your recent Alexander Technique response that you seem to show an aversion towards creating methods and "techniques," I understand this, because I am just like you. I'm not sure how to formulate the question, but do you find that sometimes we can be a little too anti-method and anti-technique? I believe I perfectly understand the reasons for this aversion (for lack of a better word) I know how easily an effect-consciousness can arise out of doing this (as opposed to the natural cause-consciousness) -- basically I know it's easy to become deluded when one has labeled the truth.

But there is value to packaging truth too, don't you think? In the sense that it gives you an organized context to work with. This can be good for those who are inclined to these sorts of things, don't you think? Obviously, I know the negative potentials in the creation of these systems too.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Since you are interested in this type of thing I'll tell you that I have been strongly influenced by the philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti. The main point of his teaching was presented by him in his statement "Truth is a Pathless Land". Regarding your question, I have learned to avoid methods because the truth is always simpler. The truth provides its own method if we see it. We don't need another. If you "package" it, as you ask, then it is no longer the truth. The truth is alive and we can only package something that is not living. Living things grow and develop and morph. That is how it continues to be true. It changes but it continues to be what actually is. But something packaged is limited by that package so it can't keep up with the unfolding of life.

A similar conundrum is the concept of perfection. I once witnessed an online discussion where one person stated that a particular singer had perfect technique. Another person responded that it was impossible because they were human, so they had to have made a mistake at some point in their career. This is a typical example of how the concept of perfection tends to be viewed. I think when applied to a singer, or any living thing, perfection can mean simply to be just as they are meant to be. Which in my mind can include momentary imperfections. This can be a hard concept to hold in the mind. How can something imperfect be perfect at the same time? Well, if they are behaving completely in line with natural laws of functional behavior then that would be perfect to me. It doesn't need to mean having no blemishes or whatever the common belief of what is perfect.

In this context the attempt to be perfect would actually make perfect function impossible. Because the attempt to make a perfect tone would cause a disturbance in the natural reactions of the body. This interference causes the body to no longer be a living musical instrument. It is this relationship that is the basis for why I encourage people to not be concerned with how they sound and learn to trust that if they function correctly the sound will be what they want. But the attempt to make the sound they want will always fail.

But there is a limitation with talking, writing and reading about this. We can only refer to the truth through these forms of communication, not experience it. The actual thing can only be experienced by the individual. But the individual will never know to look if someone doesn't talk about it. So that is why I go ahead and put it out there anyway.

Response to "Comment on Renee Fleming" - A Male Perspective

In listening to the examples here, I wasn't entirely sure that I could hear what I was supposed to hear. I think that is in part because, as a male singer, I have much more experience with the nuances of the male voice.

To me, it seemed as though Fleming example demonstrated more clarity than the Ponselle -- perhaps it is Ponselle's vowel color or the quality of the recording, but her voice sounds artificial to me, as if she is singing with cotton in her mouth, particularly at the 0:55-1:05 portion of the recording.

Due to my lack of experience, it is also difficult for me to know if the differences I hear between voices are because they are different voices or because of differences in technique. It would be useful to eliminate the different voices aspect and demonstrate what the same singer sounds like when they are using good technique and when they are using bad technique. I would imagine that examples could be found where a singer with otherwise good function sings a particular passage with poorer function. I know I do that all the time, but then again, I'm not a professional singer. . .

As well, it might be helpful to do a side be side comparison of some male voices. (I haven't seen any on your blog, but perhaps I haven't looked back far enough.)

Thanks!
----------------------------------------------------------------
OK, I hear what you are saying. The first thing that comes to mind is that this takes some time to develop. You might not hear what I'm talking about right away. Perhaps you recognize the process of developing a sense of pitch? When we start participating in music our sense of pitch is not very well developed compared to where it gets after a period of time working with it consistently. It is much the same for developing a sense of functional listening. The more you expose yourself to listening from this perspective the better you hear what people are doing. You can't expect yourself to hear pitch with absolute precision with no experience. It is the same for this.


The second thing to consider is the unfortunate fact that the quality of the recordings are not what we have grown accustomed to. But if you have developed hearing you can still hear it on recordings like this. I remember when I was a student in college and I really didn't care to listen to recordings like these. I didn't think they sounded good. But if no one encourages you to do so you may miss out on some valuable lessons, eventually.


A key thing to recognize is the difference between listening to the singing as a performance and listening to the function.


I will keep your requests in mind as I put together future examples. I started with females because I have been accused of talking about Jussi Bjorling too much. But I have an excerpt from the Ed Sullivan Show with him and a couple females that are all good examples. But I will try and put something together that fits what you describe as well. Thanks.

Clarification on the Purpose of this Blog

I wanted to talk a little on what my purpose is with this blog. From some of the comments I've received, both public and private, it seems like some people have the wrong idea of what I'm doing. First let me state that no one is going to learn how to sing from reading this blog, my web site, or any other. The same applies to books, CDs, and videos. These things very well may help people better understand the concepts involved and may even guide them to improvement. But there is almost always an uncertainty that lingers asking, "am I doing this right?" That question can only be answered by an experienced person to guide their progress.

I understand this limitation. So I have no intention of trying to actually teach people how to do the things I'm talking about. I can only do that directly in a one-on-one situation where I can give immediate feedback. What I am trying to do is present concepts, principles, even ideas that people may not be aware of. I do this in a hope of stimulating some thinking and curiosity. Maybe even guide someone in a direction that helps to overcome a problem, or at least understand a little better why they are experiencing it.

That is basically all. I have started to provide examples of some things I find worthwhile. It doesn't mean they are the absolute best. They are just one example of something good. There are many examples and no one has the time to cite them all. As far as me providing examples myself. That is something I intend to do. But just like the understanding of the voice comes gradually, so does the development of this blog. To criticize me because I don't have recordings of myself singing and performing is, from my perspective, unfair and irrelevant. I'm not trying to promote my singing. I would have a separate website for that anyway. If examples of me demonstrating things I talk about is what is wanted, then it is planned but I just haven't done any of that yet.

I know I can't avoid all criticism. That would not be realistic. But to criticize me says more about the critic than it does about me. It shows that they have not taken the time to try and understand what I'm talking about. I'm not trying to force anyone to believe what I'm saying, so no one should feel threatened. Hopefully everyone can come to this information with an open mind and some objectivity. We can only know what we have experienced. And if you haven't experienced what I'm talking about it might not make any sense. But the remedy for that is to investigate it and experiment yourself. You are not going to get it by just believing me or by me trying a hundred different ways of explaining it. The responsibility is always with ourselves, not someone else.

I think this might be the most important thing I can communicate. The ability to hear function, as well as coordinating our vocal function, takes time to develop. The brain and the body take time to acclimate to new experiences, ideas, and concepts. Keep investigating and exploring what is possible. Don't limit yourself to a method or a technique. Try to see what is real. Look to nature to guide you.

Another key point that I want people to understand is even though I studied with David Jones, I am not limited to his opinions and assessments. Before I ever met him I was interested in exploring and understanding the concepts that were expressed by Giovannin Battista Lamperti. These are mostly found in the book "Vocal Wisdom", which is where the name for my web site comes from. I was attracted to David's teaching because of the Swedish/Italian School being associated with Lamperti and representing the same concepts. But it is important to recognize that the Swedish/Italian School doesn't have any value in itself. It is the fact that this school of thought followed the principles of natural function that makes it worthwhile. The same applies to Lamperti. He expressed things in such a way that sometimes it is hard to understand what he's talking about on first reading. But that is the enigmatic nature of the truth. It takes a little mental struggle to grasp it. There is a quote that represents this I thought was from Liszt, but I can't find it. It goes something like "Art doesn't give up her secrets easily." I can't remember it exactly, but it applies here.

So I am trying to follow the same example as Lamperti of looking at the principles of natural function as my guide. Not some method or technique. It is human tendency to want to follow someone or something. It happens in all aspects of our lives. But whenever we follow something we have created a layer of interference between us and spontaneous action. And that is what is natural. So there really is no method or technique. There just is what exists. Any attempt to have more than that is an interference that limits our performance.

One of my clients shared with me something the pop-star Usher said on American Idol last week. He emphasized the importance of a performer "connecting with the audience". This is a widely recognized characteristic of good performance. And I agree with it. If we don't the audience doesn't receive our expression. My client made a very interesting observation about this concept. She said if, as many spiritual thinkers and philosophers have stated, we as human beings are naturally connected then why is it so hard to connect to an audience. It seems like something we are trying to do but shouldn't need to try to do because it already exists. I found this to be a very interesting idea to explore. It makes me wonder if when we perform we create blockages or interference in the energy that normally connects us with others. I don't know for sure, but it is something to think about.

Well, I guess that's it for now. I thank you for reading and hope you find the information here helpful.

Comment on the Alexander Technique

I'm curious about your Alexander Technique comment. As a singer who has benefited enormously from, and done quite a bit of research into it, it is clear to me that its based on a solid understanding of physical functioning, and a clear method of improving it. The British Medical Journal recently published a major study showing it was the most effective method of helping people with back pain. etc etc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for your comment. I am pretty familiar with the Alexander Technique. I'm sure not as well familiar as you. I would not pose to be an expert on it. I am glad to hear you have found it beneficial to you. It seems like you assume that since I mentioned it I am bashing it or don't think it is any good. You are mistaken. That was not my intent behind my statement. Notice I included the school of singing I have most closely identified myself with in my teaching as well.

As you state, it is based on a solid understanding of physical functioning. My question then becomes, was it Alexander Technique that helped you or was it the fundamental principles of physical function that it is based on that helped you. Another way of saying what I mean is, if someone worked with you and taught you to recognize the fundamental principles that are the foundation of physical function, and that helped you improve that function, but they didn't call it "Alexander Technique" would that be just as good or not as good as learning the Alexander Technique. Does it have to be Alexander Technique to use the body in that way. Can someone just use their body following the same principles, without attaching a name to it? 

The point I'm trying to get across is that we get attached to the name and the technique when what really matters is the reality of the physical functioning. The only thing that exists is the truth of physical functioning. Many of the different successful techniques out there dealing with the voice or the body are based on accurate fundamentals of physical function. There are others that are based on someone's opinion of how to make a certain kind of sound. Our challenge is to recognize the difference. Because if we don't the health of our voice and body are at risk.

This is what interests me because this is where I see the most confusion regarding the voice. I frequently get questions about the Swedish/Italian School this and the Swedish/Italian School that. Because they want to compare it to some other school or technique. And then decide which one they like better. The name is distracting people from the fundamental principles that are the important thing. So I'm just trying to get people to think about this and ask themselves if they recognize the difference. It is not about what we like or don't like. It is about what is real and what is imagined. What is physical fact and what is personal opinion. This is what I'm interested in because opinions on how the voice works don't help people. Understanding the facts of physical function does.

I notice a similar tendency with Speech Level Singing, or SLS. Seth Riggs developed this method, or technique. If we read his bio this is the description of what he teaches:
Approach emphasizes Speech Level Singing, which is exceptionally adaptable to a broad range of styles, because it does not force rigid technique. Develops voice free of clutter, manufactured sounds, and overculture. Individual application of seventeenth century Italian Bel Canto Techniques originating in the Schola Cantorum, including an intimate understanding of Castratti techniques of vocal registration balance. Approach responds to both the immediate and structural problem of the individual singer including constriction caused by high larynx and the resultant inability of the vocal cord structure to allow easy pitch control and natural vowel formation in the throat.

Now to me this is a great description of what we are after. We can't really disagree with anything it says. But I have observed SLS teachers and singers who don't seem to be representing these concepts. Does that make SLS wrong or bad, or does that mean these individuals aren't quite getting an accurate understanding of the fundamental principles that underlie the "technique". And if, as it says right there, SLS is essentially the principles of 17th century Italian Bel Canto; and the traditional old Italian school was based on the principles of natural functioning of the voice; why do we need the fancy name "Speech Level Singing". Is it so we can pay hundreds of extra dollars to get certified as SLS trainers? But the fancy name is not what determines our success. How well we understand the fundamental principles does. And no one can own those. Or buy them.

Now before people who support SLS start writing me with death threats. Please understand that I am not bashing what SLS or Seth Riggs teaches. I just stated for the record that SLS is based on the fundamental principles of natural functioning of the voice. Exactly what I am guided by. But I do NOT teach SLS. It is not SLS that helps people find success with their voice. I am sure Seth Riggs is a great teacher because of his understanding of the voice and how it functions. Not because of his invention of SLS. It is the functional principles successfully applied. It is the proper understanding and application of the principles that determines if something is beneficial. The same thing I was saying about Alexander Technique. It isn't the name that helps people. It's the functional principles and understanding them that does. And those are available to anybody to discover for themselves.

I believe the success or failure of any technique is dependent on the understanding of the underlying principles, and being able to put them into practice, not necessarily the technique. So if that is the case, then why not forget the question of technique and just focus on the underlying principles. The things that actually make the difference whether we improve or not. That to me is the definition of "natural". To behave as nature designed us with nothing encumbering the free physical function. That is what I have been proposing and trying to illustrate on this blog. I understand that it might be hard to grasp at first. It is a somewhat different way of thinking about things. But it removes all of the bull that goes along with "he says this, she says that". "This technique and that technique." It gets to the point you don't know who to believe and what to do.

Like I said in my last post. We need to learn to see the truth of the situation. And there is simplicity in truth. It isn't complex. But it falls under that rule that "simple is not easy." And I repeat, no one can own this. Not the person that put their name in the title and certainly not me. It is there for all of us. We just need to learn how to recognize it. Thank you.

Response to "Comment on Renee Fleming"

One of my favorite sayings:


"pluck a feather from every passing bird, but follow none completely".


To the girl who in writing sounds attacking, I say this with love: I am sure you can pluck some wonderful truthful ideas from Mr. Mayer. And surely, you shouldn't follow him completely.


Obviously, he has done the same for himself. He didn't follow Mr. Jones completely.


And I'm sure, you have a lot to share with others as well. So enlighten us if you please. And allow us to choose what we want to pluck.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I appreciate this anonymous comment from the discussion about Renee Fleming. The reason I want to highlight it is because it has a lot of wisdom in it. I personally would go even farther than what it says. I would say don't follow me at all. Don't follow anyone. Be your own master.


But in order to be able to do that we have to learn how to see the truth. No one owns the truth and no one can really lead us to the truth. We have to see it for ourselves. Others can help us by pointing to it, figuratively speaking, but we must be open to it and recognize it. If we are concerned with technique and sound and what this person says versus what that person says we will be blind to the underlying reality.


Truth can only be experienced directly. It can't be experienced through another. How does this apply to singing? There is a natural truth to the functioning of the voice. That is what I am concerned with. And since it can't really be taught I am trying to "point" to it to help people experience it for themselves. Of course we talk about the principles involved, we can demonstrate the different ways of functioning. But really understanding it only comes when you yourself have experienced it and recognize the truth of the situation.


This starts to get somewhat philosophical. And I should also point out that something is not true because I say it is. It should be self-evident if it is true. That is the problem I have with labeling things like "Speech Level Singing" or "Alexander Technique" or even "Swedish/Italian School". Even if these methods are providing accurate information, there is still only what actually exists. If someone claims to own a method that no one else knows then that is a lie or they are filled with fantasies. The truth is there for any of us to see and no one can put a patent on it.


We shouldn't follow something because it is written or that is what our teacher told us. It takes some commitment, but we need to learn to see the truth in the situation. We need to look beyond what someone says and really understand the underlying meaning. And then we need to assess the actual thing and see if it makes sense. That is what I have been told by clients very often. Things just make sense when they recognize how the voice is designed to work.


This becomes a problem for people who want to capitalize on their research. We have to put a label on our "method" in order to own it and sell it. We have to give it a name to differentiate it from others and make it unique. Ultimately it is all marketing. This is why I have stopped referring to the "Swedish/Italian School" unless I am citing something that was specifically done by those teachers. Because if the concept is true it is true independent of where it comes from. It is universal.


I have a wonderful person who reads this blog and writes to me with her feedback. She has shared many great singers of the past that represent the qualities I talk about. But she correctly points out that none of them were directly trained by the "Swedish/Italian School". And that is OK because the Swedish School is really just the traditional Italian School that many are familiar with. And even that is limiting because the Italian School is just the principles of natural vocal function. Which is universal. There are singers of every nationality that have exhibited these principles.


These principles are also not limited to opera. Many of my clients are what I term "non-classical" singers. One of the characteristics of good function is not being limited to one style of music. I have heard many people complain of not wanting to sound like an opera singer. But the teachers they have talked to have told them they have to because that is what healthy singing sounds like. That is just not true. A healthy voice sounds natural. It sounds like a person. It doesn't sound like an opera singer. It doesn't sound like a musical theater singer. It sounds like a person expressing music. The opera singer may sing with more intensity because of the needs of the situation. But no one should ever sound "pigeon holed" into a style.


A natural functioning voice is flexible and responsive to the desires of the singer. So if the singer desires to express themselves in a different style of music they just need to conceive of that and the voice and body will respond. When we establish healthy conditions for singing it becomes like we are thinking out loud. I have experienced the truth of this from working with clients from such diverse styles as opera, musicals, jazz, folk, rock, country, christian, pop, choral, crooning (style), cantor, and speaking.


This is the ultimate goal for the singer. To have the act of singing be an automatic, natural response to their desire to express. A condition where the body is behaving instinctively, like a great athlete. Without technique or methods. Without preconceived ideas about the breath, vowels, consonants. But all of these things happening as a natural response to our desire to express ourselves through speech or singing.

Comment on Renee Fleming

Would you, perfect technicians, explain to me why Mr.Jones wrote this article?
http://www.voiceteacher.com/renee_fleming.html
I don't share your golden ears nor your convinctions and it seems your mentor, Mr. Jones, doesn't join your voices either. I have attended some of Ms. Fleming performances and she is an outstanding singer.
Funny enough, in the quest for perfect singers, Mr.Mayer approves only the dead ones. He never heard Bjorling live. However, he claims relying on his super special aural skills to define who is a perfect technician and who is not. I would love to listen to one of you singing, guys. Really. Especially the master. On his site one cannot find a single song or aria sung by him. It's always easy to play the wise and criticize established artists!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a comment I received from my post comparing the difference between older singers and modern ones. I expected to get some negative comments from this like I did when talking about Rolando Villazon's difficulties. There is a reason these artists are famous and at the top of the Opera heap. They have many faithful fans that are passionate about their singing. And I think that is great. There is nothing wrong with admiring a singer, that is what keeps the art form alive.


Even though it is often a challenge, I am asking people to be objective when listening to a singer. This is difficult, especially when it is a singer you enjoy and identify with. When I used Renee Fleming as an example of the difference in function between the older and modern singers I tried not to make a judgement about her artistic abilities. In fact I thought I pointed out that she is obviously a wonderful artist. But at the same time she is being very artistic with an inefficient vocal function. Which is what I am trying to illustrate for people who want to learn how to maximize the potential of their voice. I obviously touched a nerve with this person. And I could have used other singers. She is not the only modern singer who we could use as an example. But she is one of the most obvious examples and is of a high enough stature that she can handle the comparison. (I think it might be unfair to use someone who is not an established artist, as this person seems to imply I should do)


The reason I am highlighting her comment, which was rather nasty towards me, is to illustrate how irrational we can be about "our" singers. Being objective is obviously not in this person's skill set. And I admit it is easy to become defensive when someone attacks one of "our" singers. But if we are interested in learning then we need to learn how to differentiate between artistic expression and vocal function. You can make an argument about artistic expression because it is in the realm of personal preference. You can like or dislike what someone does artistically and argue about it with someone else. Vocal function provides less to argue about, if we are able to look at it objectively. This is because function is rooted in the natural design of the body as it is provided to us. Our job is to learn how to recognize that natural design and follow the principles laid forth by nature. There is not much room for opinion or preference when talking about natural function. This is because poor function leads to fatigue, break-down and injury of the voice. If we have the opinion of liking an unhealthy function, that may be fine artistically. But we will always lose that argument with nature. Just ask the rock singers who like their distorted sound, or the pop singers who like the power of their belting, or the opera singers who like the feeling of ease in their breath flow. Eventually the voice will become unsteady and break down.


Here I would like to use Renee Fleming as another example. This time singing "When I have sung my songs to you" from the Joseph Volpe Gala at the Met. I find it a very nice performance that is especially touching because of the setting. 





Then for comparison is the same song sung by Kirsten Flagstad and then Rosa Ponselle. Now please recognize that I am not trying to compare the artistry of the singing, because all three are at such a high level that it would be foolish to try and argue who is the best. The point of this comparison is to observe the difference of the vocal function between the modern Fleming and the older singers Flagstad and Ponselle. The Flagstad and Poselle recordings are both from the mid-1930s when recording was essentially a live performance.