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.