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.