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.

Testimonial from a Client

I received this contribution to my Testimonial Page last night. She is a client that has worked with me for a few months. I include it here not so much because it talks about me, that's what the testimonial page is for, but because I find what she says to be inspiring to the singer in each of us. Hopefully it will have a similar impact on other readers on how you think about your voice and singing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Michael,

I thank you dearly for sharing your wisdom and energy in our vocal lessons together. You have taught me more than how to produce good tone or how to use my voice safely. You have made me realize that voice is a natural expression of life energy, and most importantly it is an expression of human feelings. Art cannot be taught, but you have pointed the way and wisely you’ve pointed to the heart. As a result, I am in touch with the artist within me, and I sing from my heart. So thank you.

To aspiring singers,

The voice is our instrument. That is in essence what we play, and we must play it well and safely. But this instrument is also living and can get hurt, can fatigue, can be overused and misused. Like a pianist who practices daily, we need to do that and more. We have to understand the voice, connect with it, become friends with it, and take care of it.

With Michael I have explored new territories with regards to where my voice can go. And I know there is much more to come. His use of images and science to explain function is phenomenal.

As a voice teacher, he gives his unwavering attention, energy, and information during a session. He remembers where you are at vocally, what you’ve accomplished, and what you are struggling with. He not only tells you what you need to do and how to do it, but also why you need to do it. You are then inspired to sing.

Like few great teachers, he makes sure you know you did it all by yourself.

If you are overwhelmed by and tired of the infinite opinions on singing and the endless claims to good singing, this site is a step away from the beautiful and healthy voice that you’re looking for. You will enjoy the peace of mind that comes with taking vocal lessons with Michael.

Mirvat Ammouri, Aspiring musician, Beirut, Lebanon

Rssponse to Comment re: Joyce DiDonato

What puzzles me is...how does she [DiDonato] has control on her voice if she, in your opinion, sings with looseness of air? I mean, her voice would collapse because of the lack of air, or sound strained, and it doesn't sound strained, nor she has any external sign to support the sound with the throat.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, many singers sing with loose air and don't sound strained. It might be more correct to say they sing with a lack of compression. Compression of the breath is not only a matter of using the breathing musculature. It is also a matter of the proper resistance of the larynx. When the larynx "leans" into the breath it creates stability and puts the breath into a compressed state. That is what's lacking. She sings very well, but in a completely different manner than I am trying to describe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, I do not understand when you say her voice is too fat. It sounds very well-aligned and I refer to her live perfomances not to her recordings. She's got a slender medium voice, solid high notes and good low notes for a lyric mezzo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I say it is too fat I mean it is enlarged by breath rather than being completely tone. It doesn't have to be breathy in order for there to be breath in the tone. It is hard to notice if you haven't experienced it and learned to hear the difference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe, I fail to notice things well, I don't know, because I can't say in what point her voice is not clear. I don't hear any breathiness or muffle area in her voice.

Don't you think is possible to sing with control of the pressure and, at the same time, use the flow to release tension without sounding breathy? Because it seems to me she does exactly that. One actually sings on the air (sul fiato), but also with the air. I believe it's one of those paradoxes of singing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I have to say I don't think that is possible. If there is balance there will be no tension. So there is no need to release a flow of breath to release the tension. Tension exists because of the release of breath. If the larynx is properly opposing the breath pressure in a coordinated way the body will have no need to create tension in the throat. Throat tension appears when the body is trying to compensate for a lack coordinated action. The biggest cause of this is uncoordinated breath that is escaping through the phonation. The body senses this and creates tension in the throat to compensate for the lack of stability.
The meaning of the concept to sing on the air means the larynx on the breath. Not the breath flowing out and the tone is on top of it somehow. That is fantasy of imagination not physical reality. If you sing with the air that means you are letting air out as air and not as only vibration. You can't do both, they are mutually exclusive. The air that does escape is what is naturally part of the vibration as rapid puffs. But not a constant flow of breath. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I pointed her because to me she seems to have a perfect emission, or at least, the less compromised one amongst contemporary singers. But I've never seen her live, so I can't say any further.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree that she is less compromised than many other examples we could use. (i.e. Fleming) She has developed skill in the ability to hold the pharynx open to hide the breath in her tone. A singer functioning naturally doesn't have to hold the throat open, at least in the same way. The stable larynx and proper pronunciation pretty much take care of it and the throat stays open almost by itself. This is what I mean when I say the open throat is a result of complete function, not a cause of it.
This endeavor of illustrating the natural function is kind of difficult because we don't have examples of this type of singing that we can hear live on a regular basis. If we did it would be much easier to recognize it. But the big difference is in the immediacy of the tone because of its purity. I have talked to people who heard Jussi Bjorling live describe how they would hear his voice a little sooner than the other singers in an ensemble. It wasn't because he was ahead of the other singers musically, he was right on the beat. It was because of how his voice was functioning. It had no wasted breath in the tone. This kind of pure tone travels better acoustically. So it not only starts more spontaneously, but it reaches the listener faster as well.
These same people also pointed out that his voice was not really "big". But they could always hear him the best, even at the back of the theater. This is really what should be considered quality over quantity. Loud or big singing doesn't carry. Pure singing may seem loud and big in a sense because it is intense. But the singer can't try to sing loud or big or the results will be a disaster.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't worry about some comments, for reasonable people know your analysis are not to belittle the artistry of these people.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you. And thanks for contributing.

Question about the Separation of the Registers

What do you think about the approach of seperating falsetto and chest muscles and then when they are strong enough, coordinate them? I have come across threads in the forum at classical-singer.com and it seems like a few active people there advocate that. For example: singing forte in pure falsetto on "OO" or "EE" around F4-C5 and forte in chest voice on "EE" or "EH" around E3 and below. One coordination-exercise is to do yodels from chest register to falsetto and not hold back. It seemed like to be able to strenghten the muscles properly you have to do the exercises pretty loudly. What is your opinion?

Thanks!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your question. I agree with the basic concept of separating the registers and strengthening them. I learned the concept from my research of the teaching of Allan Lindquest and from my work with David Jones. The practice dates back to the very beginning of organized voice training. The pedagogue Mancini refers to the practice in his book. (I'm going by memory so I think it was Mancini) He states that the voice naturally divides itself into two basic registers. This is observable by anyone doing a little experimentation. We should exercise the voice in each register separately and then join it from the upper down to the lower.


Lindquest practiced this by using a two-octave exercise that started as low as the singer could comfortably phonate. After doing a three-note scale in the very low register you either stop and then start again two octaves higher, or you slide up two-octaves, and come back down on a long two-octave scale. The vowels that are generally recommended are "ah" in the lower part and "oo" in the upper. Males can change to "ee" in the upper to strengthen the register after doing it on "oo" for some time.


I agree that the lower register should definitely be performed forte in order to anchor the voice. The upper register should be performed solidly, but no louder than can be done with stability. Usually when I have heard others perform this exercise (not guided by me) typically they force the upper register. This is partly due to thinking falsetto and partly due to singing louder than the register is strong enough to take.


The first part of the problem is why I don't use the term falsetto for the pure upper register. I define falsetto as not only a false tone, but a false vibration of the folds. When this condition exists the vibration is not pure and true, but diluted by unvocalized breath. (Using this definition makes it possible to be falsetto in the lower register as well. That is also referred to as crooning.) When I do this exercise I emphasize not to sing too loud in the pure upper register because it is generally starting from a weaker condition. We want to keep the vibration true or else we are just forcing the breath through the glottis, which does nothing to strengthen and develop the voice. It helps to think you are just speaking confidently to begin with so you don't force the breath through the glottis, but actually phonate in a balanced manner.


With this approach you strengthen the registers through purifying them and not through brute force. This applies to the lower register too. But it is naturally stronger so it is less at risk. It is important to recognize the difference between strengthening the tone by just using more breath force, which is harmful to the voice; and strengthening the vocal muscles themselves by keeping a balance between their resistance and the breath pressure and gradually increasing the strength of both.


After the body becomes more sensitized to the proper balance between the resistance and the breath pressure of the upper register the downward scale brings that condition into the middle range. This is how we find our perfect balance of strength and flexibility in the middle. Many teachers profess that the best way to work the voice is from the middle out. This is only true if the voice is in balance. If it is not it will be a difficult if not futile process. But if this register balancing has been done (which is the process of working from both opposite extremes back to the middle) it gets us to the point where we can then work from the middle back out. This process encompasses all possibilities of vocal coordination and develops the voice in the most complete manner possible.

Comment on Cecilia Bartoli

Decibelomaniac...I had the pleasure of hearing Ms Bartoli in the greatest and most important halls in Europe, with - contrary to some US halls - marvellous acoustics. E.g. the Berlin Philharmonic with almost 3000 seats - she filled and coloured the air and brought to us the joy and energy of singing and life.No, no mikes... and she was clearly audible even as she sang toward the masses seated behind her... For more than 20 years now...and still going strong. Why is it that a singer who is able to sing and move in an unparalleld way and let us discover old and new rep is judged by the question if she is able to fill a hall ? What matters more - quality or quantity ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I appreciate this anonymous comment because it shows someone who cares about good singing. But they have completely taken what I am saying backwards. My very point is that quality is more important than quantity. This applies to the breath as well. The modern singers I cited emphasize a quantity of breath over a quality use of the breath.

This comment specifically calls out my example of Cecilia Bartoli. I have included a video of my personal favorite example of her singing. The Vivaldi aria "Sposa, son di sprezzata". I find it to be beautiful and very expressive. But it still shows the violations to natural function that I have been talking about. 


In another part of the TV special this clip comes from (that can be found on YouTube) they interview her Mother, who is her teacher. They specifically discuss some technical concepts that she has taught to Cecilia. They main one of interest being the dropping of the larynx. She is of the opinion that we must deliberately lower the larynx before we sing and keep it there. This is a mis-interpretation of the instruction to have the larynx in a low position. The larynx should be lower than normal and it should definitely not be lifted. But the larynx taking a low position is a result of good function not a cause of it. When we manipulate the larynx into a low position it interferes with the instinctive behavior of the larynx. This means that the ability of the larynx to properly resist the breath pressure has been tampered with.


When we positively use the larynx the proper musculature gets activated to suspend and stabilize the larynx. Part of that action draws the larynx into a lower position. But it happens without our awareness. The important difference lies in the condition of the glottal closure. When done consciously the lowered larynx impairs the natural closure of the glottis. When the larynx behaves instinctively the glottis closes naturally and the larynx descends as part of the function and not by conscious choice. 


The same kind of thing happens with the breath. When we allow the body to behave naturally the proper action of the breath happens as a part of the function and not by a conscious action of the breath.


This comment also illustrates what I was trying to say in my last post. A singer doesn't need to be functionally perfect to move an audience artistically, as this individual was by Cecilia Bartoli. Her personality is a very strong force of expression and communication. That is what makes her a great artist. And often great artists not only succeed in spite of their deficiencies, their deficiencies eventually help to define their greatness. (i.e. Maria Callas) 


One last response from me to this comment. First, I'm confused by the salutation of "Decibelomaniac". Is that supposed to be me? I wonder because this individual also brings up the point of being "able to fill a hall". Like they believe I am saying good singing should be loud. And this is what I meant at the beginning about this person getting what I'm saying completely backwards. I am always emphasizing that we shouldn't be trying to sing big with lots of breath escaping. I said a balanced voice is more audible in a hall. I said nothing of filling a hall. Filling a hall with sound will result in oversinging, at least if that is the intention. Good balance in the function makes it so we don't need to oversing to be heard. The clarity of the tone makes it easy to be heard acoustically. Notice I used Bidu Sayao as an example. This was a pretty small voice. She couldn't try to be heard by singing loudly. She was able to be heard by the clarity of tone that resulted from the efficient function of her voice. My whole point was to emphasize quality of tone over quantity of tone.


The fact that many people have complained that it is hard to hear Bartoli, with the exception of this commenter, is the point I was trying to make. She over-darkens her tone with the unvocalized breath that escapes so the tone loses the clarity that would make it sound right next to every listener. This doesn't necessarily detract from her wonderful ability to be expressive with her voice. She may be a great artist. But again, she is not a good example of function. 

Question about Joyce DiDonato

A singer that caught my attention recently was Joyce DiDonato. I think her sound is very balanced and her technique is healthy. And she is a good singing actress. What is your impression? She sings with such a free emission that is impressive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for bringing her up. I have seen her performances on the Richard Tucker Gala a couple times, one of which I have included below. I know she is becoming very popular, and she is a very good artist. My personal feelings, which really shouldn't be an issue for anyone, are that I wouldn't rush out and buy a ticket if she did a concert in my city. I agree with your points above. But her function still lies on the modern side of balance. What I mean is she sings with the typical looseness in the breath that is standard for today. It is not to as great of a degree as someone like Renee Fleming so it is not as disagreeable or obvious. This is part of why I am a little indifferent to her. 


The tone is still a little too fat to be something I would recommend as a model. And I should emphasize that is what I'm doing on this blog. I'm not saying this singer is great and that singer is awful. I'm trying to show examples of the concepts I'm talking about here to help people understand them. I'm not saying anyone should not like the modern singers I use as examples. These singers are very good artists or they wouldn't gain the attention they have. 
This brings up the point that there are two kinds of art in play with a singer. There is the art of creating music, which comes from the person and can be accomplished with any voice or instrument. Then there is the art of using the voice. This is the hidden art because everyone is mainly concerned with the art of expression and making music. But using the voice is an art unto itself that can be appreciated for its own worth, even if the purpose of it is a means to express the art of music. 
And so this is the art I am most concerned with because it is the one that gets neglected. And it is not just a matter of opinion. The art of using the voice can be quantified in terms of efficient function that can be heard when you know what to listen for.  One of the primary qualities I listen for is clarity. And most modern singers that I have heard lack this fundamental quality. Clarity is what allows us to be audible at a distance without resorting to excess loudness.
So, my feelings are, like many modern singers Joyce DiDonato is a fine expressive artist that pleases a very large audience around the world. But I am trying to raise the awareness of modern singers to the qualities that the natural behavior of the vocal instrument requires. As represented by the older generation of singers. And DiDonato is not a model of those qualities.

Response to "Comparison of the Older Generation with Modern"

Sayão didn't have a great voice, no matter how she sang and if she passed over the orchestra. Her sound was always one of a lirico-leggiero and excelled in soubrette parts. As a full lyric she was not so sucessful, except in the French repertoire.
Also, her diction suffered from certain laziness. I'm brazilian and have some recordings of brazilian songs she did. They are awful. You cannot understand a word. She distorts the vowels voluntarily and it sounds like Polish. Granted, the recording technique was not so advanced then. I recognize she phrases well and makes good technical use of her little voice. But she is not one of my beloved singers. Maybe in the theater she was fantastic, I don't know, but I can't see a superstar quality in her voice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I appreciate your comments and opinions. From what you are saying it sounds like you don't think a light-lyric can be a great voice. I pointed out that she was a light-lyric soprano, and that was what she was best known for. I admit I am not very knowlegable about her. I am most familiar with her because she paired with Jussi Bjorling several times. Most notably in the 1947 "Romeo" from the Met, which is considered by many publications to be the greatest live opera recording available. All of the opinions I have heard have been very positive. As I said in the post, when I have heard her I tend to feel that the tone is a little too white for my taste. But in this particular recording it is much more balanced. It is interesting that you mention Polish since she studied with the Polish tenor Jean De Reszke.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that singing with some breath moisture to the tone is not such a great sin. Garcia admitted the use of aspired "h" in Rossini coloratura. Not to mention the idea of Vennard of an imaginary "h", that inevitably leads to some air escaping (although imperceptibly) before the sound being uttered.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The use of the breath in the tone is what I have been referring to recently as a belief. It is not based on the laws of nature. Imagine any other instrument functioning with an equal defect as breath in the tone and it becomes obvious that it is a big problem. A violin with a slipping bow ruins the vibration. A trumpet leaking breath results in no tone. A clarinet with a cracked reed doesn't work. The voice is the only instrument that can give a result, and a surprisingly good one in some cases, even when it is functioning at an incomplete degree.


I am not familiar with that opinion of Garcia. Everything I have ever read from him and other master teachers of that generation expressly stated that an aspirate should not be used for the coloratura. The reason being it actually slows down the response of the vibration. And Vennard's concept that you refer to was absolutely not meant to include breath. I admit that he did have a tendency to allow too much air in the tone of some of his students. But this particular concept was meant to help people feel the release of the throat while still allowing the vocal folds to vibrate in a closed position. Note that it is an imaginary "h", not an actual "h". By imagining an "h" it was intended to keep the air-way open so the vocal folds would close without closing the throat. Also by thinking an "h" without actually saying one helps to give action to the breath without causing it to go past the vibration. It is important to remember that just because we don't want breath in the tone or to leak out of the voice it doesn't mean we don't still use the breath in the act of singing. The breath is an integral part of the coordination. It must be compressed towards the larynx to feed the continuous vibration of the vocal folds. But if it goes past the folds it is wasted because the only purpose the breath has is to feed the vibration. It serves no purpose above the larynx. The challenge lies in coordinating the application of breath pressure and the resistance of the vocal folds.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine a student or established singer who has a tendency to squeeze the folds, who has a pressed voice. Isn't it what he is supposed to do? Use the airflow to his advantadge, to relieve tension? We know that ideally the edges of the folds must offer a slight resistence to the air and I don't mean singing opera as a crooner. A balanced attack is not a breathy onset but also cannot be a grunt and make the singer uncomfortable, as if pressing his folds. So, I think this is an individual issue.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is exactly what I'm talking about. The need to coordinate these opposing forces. And what you describe does seem to make sense on the surface. But if we go deeper into the situation we can find other alternatives that are more correct.


If a singer is squeezing the folds to create what is called "pressed phonation" it is caused by muscles extrinsic to the larynx and excessive to balanced function. These are muscles that cannot be active during breathing, so it can be helpful to momentarily allow some breath to pass while phonating to experience those muscles letting go. But it must not be a long term crutch. The closure of the glottis, without extraneous help, only resists the breath pressure to the degree that the edges are caused to vibrate. If the glottis is able to stop the breath and resist it to the degree that the vibration is distorted, like you describe, than that is the result of extra muscles. Not just the intrinsic laryngeal muscles. So the logical remedy is not to use airflow, but to remove the extra muscular involvement. Then we can start to experience the proper balance in the relationship between the larynx and the breath. If we start to use airflow as a crutch we have just created a new problem.


You mention a grunt. Yes, a grunt is too extreme for the purpose of singing. But it is in the same family of natural functions as the act of singing. Allan Lindquest and others have talked about thinking of a mini-grunt. I find exploring the feeling of a whimper to have the most potential for people. A whimper is like a grunt in that it includes the action of the body in compressing the breath. It also resembles crying. But the difference from grunting and crying is the whimper is much smaller in size and intensity than either of these other functions. It also has more of a relationship to the lighter register adjustment, where the grunt and crying (forceful crying) are more related to the thicker lower register. 


The upper register, for both women and men, is a very productive condition of the vocal folds. They can be close together but very flexible at the same time. The flexibility allows us to apply just about as much breath pressure as we want and the folds will work with that pressure productively, rather than work against the pressure and get stiff and dampen the vibration, or the opposite and release the breath.


The key point to recognize is that the function of the voice is based on the relationship between the pressure from the breath and the resistance to that pressure from the larynx. If either of these opposing forces overpowers the other we are no longer in balance. So in the condition you describe the force of resistance is overpowering the force of pressure. If you resort to air-flow you have just changed the condition to one of insufficient resistance, which by default results in the opposite condition of the breath over-powering the resistance. As I said earlier, a new problem.


This condition of the breath pressure over-balanced in relation to the resistance is my definition of falsetto. Many people use that term to describe any kind of upper register adjustment. I feel it is more accurate to define it as a "false vibration". A condition where the resistance of the vocal folds is lacking and the breath is not completely turned into vibration. This is what happens with unbalanced breath flow. (Again, I point out that the opposite of just stopping the breath is not what we are after either) So in reality we can have a falsetto condition in either register and in both males and females. Much of the so-called "legit" or "classical" singing being performed by high-school aged singers is actually falsetto. It contains an excess of breath in the phonation and a lack of balanced resistance. This would also be an accurate definition of "crooning". An unbalanced condition where the breath is freely flowing through the glottis lacking an appropriate level of resistance. Generally crooning is recognized to primarily exist in the lower register and falsetto generally in the upper register.


Getting back to the condition you describe. The logical remedy is not to encourage an increase in air-flow, but to reduce the excess resistance. The weight of resistance needs to balance the weight of breath pressure to allow a coordinated function. In the same way a violinist can press the bow into the string excessively, we can fall into the trap of having an excessive weight of resistance to the breath. (This is usually caused by the root of the tongue, not the folds themselves) The results are similar as well. The violinist that has too much pressure on the string from the bow interferes with the vibration of the string, causing it to be dampened. A similar thing happens in the voice where the muscles "crush" the vibration stimulating the body to push the breath pressure harder to get through the excess resistance. This results in a harsh, excessively intense vibration.


The characteristics of a balanced condition that we are looking to achieve include a steady weight of breath pressure that is almost automatic from the proper posture. And a relatively light weight of resistance from the larynx. An image to help with the weight of resistance is to think of the larynx as a feather, bubble, or some other kind of near-weightless object. The idea being if the breath is too forceful the balance of the larynx will be blown out. So we are looking for a delicate condition, not just a hard stoppage of the breath.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are some singers, like Cecilia Bartoli, who uses this all the time and even exaggerates, that sing with much more fire (even very difficult repertoire) than those with perfect techniques. And I prefer them, once they can be heard. Bartoli only sings in medium-size rooms. Fleming sings in large houses and, as a very critical acquaintance from Germany told me, she fills the room. She started her career very well, but now she abuses with scoopings and crooning a bit. No one knows really what happens. They are very demanded and the toll is heavy. Maybe she uses that as some kind of compensation. Also, I think she is weighing her voice a little bit to sound more dramatic. I have a Don Giovanni from the Met in DVD which is not that good. She is making her voice very dark and heavy artificially and by the end of the performance you feel she is tired.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These observations contribute to my point. The lack of audibility in the hall is a common complaint with Bartoli. And over time allowing extra breath to escape causes the voice to deteriorate. Hence the scooping and crooning. It is gradual so the singer doesn't really notice until it is significant. And the artificial dark quality is the most common side-effect. If fact many singers want the tone so dark that they allow the breath in order to achieve that. 


The point I'm trying make with this comparison is not to say Bidu Sayao was the greatest soprano to ever live. Just the opposite. She was a very good artist with an average instrument and with good function she became world-famous. Renee Fleming and Anna Netrebko are world-famous because of great instruments and their artistry in spite of their functional limitations. The expectations of singers now are different than they were in past generations. Singers needed to compete with the greatest instrumentalists, and they did. Now the vocal function has no resemblance to that of great instrumental technique.

Comparison of the Older Generation with Modern Sopranos

I get a lot of requests for examples of singers doing the things I talk about. So I came across a singer that makes a good example. The Brazilian soprano Bidu Sayao was active from the mid-1930s until the mid-1950s. Her voice was essentially a light-lyric soprano, although she did perform some full-lyric roles. On some of her recordings I personally find her voice a little white in color at times. But in this selection her resonance is well-balanced and is a great example of clarity in the voice.




While listening to this selection, notice the lack of audible breath in the tone. It is pure. Even if you don't understand Italian the words are intelligible.

Now compare this to some of the most famous sopranos of today. Let's start with Renee Fleming.




The first thing I notice is the large amount of excess breath in the tone. Some hear that as a "lush" quality that adds to the beauty of the tone. I hear it as an artificial quality. And it makes the words seem "mushy" and hard to understand. This is a big part of the reason even English in opera is hard to understand.

Now let's hear Anna Netrabko.




Similar quality to Renee Fleming. The singing is beautiful, but I am focusing on function. Some may question what does it matter. If the singing is beautiful why does function matter? The answer is vocal health and longevity. Any muscle that is habitually asked to act in a relaxed manner gradually breaks down. These modern singers are functioning with a relaxed glottal adjustment. This is what allows excess breath to escape while phonating. Now the answer to a relaxed condition is not to be tight. It is like anything with the body, there should be elastic muscular action. Now lax and not rigid. Balanced. The problem here lies in the fact that it is an unbalanced condition.

Another aspect to consider is acoustically Bidu Sayao would be more audible in the hall, especially in quiet passages, than her modern counterparts. This has to do with the purity of the vibration. The sound waves will travel farther than the diluted ones of Fleming and Netrebko.

Use the comment section below to contribute your reactions to comparing these different singer. Thanks.

Question about the Resistance of the Larynx

"The larynx as a platform of resistance": I think I get that, rationally. But I can't really comment until I learn how it works and feel it working. You said so yourself, it's not a widespread concept - none of the other teachers I have contacted or studied with ever mentioned it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding "The larynx as resistance." We have talked about the concept of closing the cords in our sessions together. The cords, and the larynx in general, is essentially a valve. We close the glottis and the valve behavior controls the emission of the air pressure. The unique quality of the vocal valve is that as the air pressure is released the edges of the valve opening (the vocal folds) are pliable and can be caused to vibrate from the air pressure. Most valves "hiss" when they release air pressure. (or water pressure for that matter) That is the basis of the hissing exercise that many people use. The body creates a steady pressure of air against the valve-like closure of the "s" consonant. Then you use that to feel the continuous, coordinated release of the pressure through the hissing without completely releasing the pressure by opening the "s". This is a similar experience to the coordinated release of pressure through the glottal valve.

So the closure of the glottis, which creates this valve condition, acts as a resistance to the air pressure that the breathing system creates through the coordinated use of the breathing muscles. The challenge that complicates things is, when functioning correctly, we don't really feel this resistance or the closure of the valve. It feels more like a compression of the breath at the larynx, but the larynx itself disappears. If we use too much muscular involvement from the larger muscles around the larynx, over-compensating, we can feel the resistance. But this tends to create discomfort and interference with the free and balanced vibration.

So how do we get this to work for us if we can't feel it? Well, this is where our imagination comes to the rescue. We can use certain tools to discover where this resistance should exist in our sensory awareness. We can touch our larynx with our fingers on the outside of our neck. We can do a very light cough to locate the vocal cords in our sensations. But it must be stressed that we DO NOT DO THIS WHEN WE SING. I have to always emphasize that very clearly because we all invariably make that mistake when we are trying to figure this out. The light cough is only for locating the glottis in our sensations, it is not what we do to start the vibration. I also use the glottal fry to identify the location of the point of resistance. But again, we don't want to actually do that when we sing.

Once we have identified the location of our glottis in our sensations we now need to figure out how to establish the closure of the glottis in the appropriate manner. The trick, as I pointed out before, is that when we do it correctly we no longer feel it. So we have to establish a clear mental sensation of the closure of the glottis by first feeling the closure of the larger muscles, which are adding extra pressure to the closure making it too much for healthy singing. Because of this we don't want to do this too much and definitely not regularly. But it gives us something to go by. Then, through repeated experimentation, we try to recreate the closure without the larger muscles that we can feel. I always think of it feeling like a "force-field" stopping the breath from flowing out instead of the muscles stopping the breath. If we do use the muscles to stop the breath it will crush the vibration to some degree and cause discomfort. But for many people not using the muscles causes the breath to rush out. So that is the reason it is such a challenging coordination to establish. I like to relate the throat muscles to our hands (as I have said in previous posts), and so the act of singing correctly is like doing something without using your hands to do it. If we don't do this something the breath will just rush out, and the throat muscles will have a strong temptation to get involved to stop the breath from getting away. So we need to stop the breath with the vocal folds, which we can't really feel. But we can feel if the breath is flowing out or if it feels like it is being resisted. This is why so many people feel like it is just the breath that does everything. Because the resistance of the voice is not something we really feel, like we can feel the muscular interference. 

So this all comes down to sensing rather than feeling. When done correctly, you can't feel the closure of the cords but you can sense it by the nature of the air pressure. You also sense it by the purity of the vibration. There is no sense of leaking breath but also no feeling of holding the breath with the throat. We close the cords with our thought rather than with our muscles. This is also because the voice does a lot of its work unconsciously. So we need to allow it to do that and not get in the way.

Questions and comments are always welcome. Thanks.

Feedback from a Reader

I received this feedback from a reader after I answered some of their questions with a recording to demonstrate what I was talking about. I thought some of what she says might be helpful to others.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your explanations are very clear and easy to understand, and that is very refreshing. Some teachers make singing sound like a hermetic art not easily accessible to everyone. Your view of the voice as a natural function makes it seems less scary. I think there are three concepts that sound "new": Breath compression, Laryngeal "resistance" (or whatever you call it) and pharyngeal resonance...I think it is very very helpful that you relate breath compression with other bodily functions, like sneezing or coughing - tasks that are simple to accomplish. In traditional training, we do these breath exercises and we're not really sure what they are meant for and, more importantly, if we're supposed to do the same thing while singing. The sustained "s" was always a source of confusion for me, because it was the first exercise I learned, and because no one ever explained to me what was the point of the exercise, from the start I was left with the impression that singing was just having an even and constant flow of air. I suspect this might be the case with many other students too. Also, early on in my training, because of how my first teacher demonstrated this exercise, I was under the impression that we needed a huge amount of air to sing. But very soon I discovered that when we push an enormous amount of air out the sound is "forced", the throat starts to hurt, and you're not able to sing very well. Come to think of it, since this teacher was a tall mature man, and a bass-barytone, I assume he could withstand this "pushing" much more than a short 17 year-old, haha. So I just assumed that I was physically unable to perform the task of "using the breath" to sing...I have heard different concepts about resonance. Some teachers say the voice needs to be "forward" ("imagine a line going straight to the other wall", things like that), but, like you explained, that is the description of a result. I have "tried" to get the voice forward, and the sound was always plain, weak, and flat, so that has never helped me, at all. One teacher also had come up with the concept of "vocal twist" ("giro vocálico", it's hard to translate that into Englih), meaning that the sound should resonate in the open spaces of the skull, and the vowels needed to be "vertical". She also emphasized the importance of facial posture. Sure, but then she had me vocalizing in "i", "o-i" or "i-a", whatever, which also did not help me (like I said, the sound was either "buried" or "spread"). I was always told to "raise" the soft palate, and that was the most dangerous for me, because, if I have air coming out and raise the soft palate, the voice automatically gets breathy. If I understood what you were explaining, for the "open" pharynx to work as an effective resonator the cords (folds) need to be adducted, not leaking air...The things you've demonstrated, I think, could be very helpful to people in the same situation. There are questions we sometimes want to ask, but don't, because they're just too embarrassing. "How come she sounds so much louder than me?" or "Why does my voice sound so weak?". These questions sound kind of childish, but it's not just the illusion of looking for the "big sound" (which I assume leads to a different kind of vocal trap). From my experience this matter is never addressed directly. I've had the courage to ask similar questions, out of sheer frustration, and had a lot of different answers, things like "Oh, don't worry, your voice will be fuller as you get older" or "Each voice is different from the other, lighter voices have different qualities, etc, etc". Then there are the mean ones that just say "You're sound is not going to evolve, so you should just quit". I guess that figuring out your voice is a process that takes time, and I know that "classical" voices don't mature until later, but I think the things the singer him/herself experiences should be taken into consideration. Like me, for instance. Doesn't the fact that I had recorded evidence that my voice doesn't carry in a big room, not even in a small distance, count for something? Not according to some teachers. I should just "wait" until the problem is magically solved as I get older and the so-called "spot" is just going to "pop out" in my face. Either that or this horrible flat tone is the only result I can ever have. I suspect that some students are categorized into a voice type without suspecting that they sound this or that way because of some misconception, or because they are deliberately trying to sound like "this" or "that" voice type. From your explanation, I can finally hope that there is a way around it, that I can have a "normal" voice that people can actually hear, and learn how to use it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you to this reader. Questions are always welcome from anyone. Just comment at the end of a post and I'll get en email automatically. If you want to keep it private, go to my web site, www.vocalwisdom.com and email me. 

Question about Various Types of Attack

I was reading Richard Miller's Structure of Singing, and he's down on the phonation style Swedish-Italian uses.  Are you familiar with what he says on it?  I'm not trashing it, but curious. I was reading about types of onset, and there were three types, with the balanced onset being the one in the middle.  One was breathy/ aspirate, one used air build up to close the cords, and his description of balanced seemed to be in between the other two.  Maybe I am not understanding the usage of our suspension of air before phonation, or our thinking of what the larynx feels like just before a grunt.  I look forward to having you explain this to me. Basically pages 1 through 5 deal with what balanced onset is, indicating the hard attack to be only used in rare occasions, so I am wondering if the Swedish-Italian school takes a different route?

 

I also need clarification of page 5's discussion (at the bottom) of fully opened glottis with inhalation and then efficiently closed glottis.

 

Maybe this will help you see where my confusion lies.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By your questions I'm starting to realize where your confusion lies. It sounds like you think we want a hard attack. Maybe you have missed all the times I've pointed out that we don't want the hard start to the tone that resembles the vocal cords clapping. I'm always repeating that we are looking for balance. It is a balance between the air pressure provided by the breathing and the resistance provided by the larynx. But that is a fine coordination. The spectrum of possible onsets that you are referring to is a description of the possible conditions that result from either of these two forces overpowering the other. This is the basis of the coordination that I am always talking about. The aspirate and the hard attack are both examples of a lack of coordination. There is also a difference between hard and firm. That might also be a point of confusion. Hard is lacking coordination. Firm is stable, not loose, and refers to the condition of the breath as much as the larynx.

A way of thinking of what we're after is to consider the difference between the intrinsic muscles of the larynx and the extrinsic muscles of the throat. I always get the image of the throat muscles being like hands. They want to hold onto the sound to feel in control. The intrinsic muscles of the larynx pull the vocal folds together and stretch them appropriately for the pitch. We need these muscle to be active, but they are very small and we don't really have sensation of them. They also depend on coordinating the breathing so we don't exhale through them and cause them to open, defeating their ability to tune a pure vibration. This is especially important because there is an instinctive reaction in the glottal muscles to open when we breath. This is what Miller is referring to in your last question. The glottis opens automatically when we breath. If we try to phonate while we are still breathing we will get an incomplete action which will impair the quality of the vibration. The glottis closes naturally at the point of the breath cycle that lies between inhalation and exhalation. That is the point we want to sing at by sustaining that portion of the cycle which usually only lasts a moment. 

Getting back to the throat muscles (hands), they are larger and we can feel them. Because we can feel them they tend to be used by many people to feel secure. We can use them to close the throat, in an attempt to close the glottis, as a way of compensating for the opening that happens when we breath. So the closed throat often gets mis-interpreted as a closed glottis because it is more obvious to feel. What we want is an open throat and a closed glottis, which only happens through subtle coordination and not muscular effort. For these people that have developed a dependence on the throat muscles, if they let go of them they have no control and the breath escapes wildly. The challenge is learning how to coordinate things so the vocal muscles can close naturally to tune and vibrate freely. To the singer this is like learning how to do something without using their hands. It feels completely out of control. The voice is at the mercy of our breathing. That is why the breath is so important, (for coordination) not because we need to use a lot of breath to sing. This coordination is critical, because a lack of coordination in the breathing will cause the breath to go through the larynx and dilute the purity of the vibration.

Now the way we establish this coordination is by suspending the breath. The breath suspension is talked about by Miller. It is the whole purpose of the "Noble" position of posture that he talks about. The breath suspension is how we avoid the hard attack. The hard attack is caused by uncoordinated loose breath being pushed out, trying to escape the glottis, and the throat muscles blocking it. This pressure is then released violently making a harsh attack.

As I said before, the key is recognizing what is the goal and what are the means of getting there. If someone has no experience of resisting the breath then trying to accomplish it "with no hands" usually doesn't work. We have to first use the help of the hands and then progress to doing it with no hands. (The hands being the throat muscles) 

I think a key element that may not have been emphasized by me enough is always keeping an open pharynx. If we do this correctly it removes the muscles of the throat from getting in the way. This is the part that can make or break the whole coordination. Allan Lindquest was quoted as saying that the open pharynx acts as a shock absorber for the vocal cords. And I find that to be absolutely true. A universal characteristic of voices that develop problems is an ineffective resonating space in the pharynx. So I need to emphasize more consistently the role that aspect plays as well.