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.

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.

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 Breathing for Singing

Wondering if you could help me with my understanding of how the breath works? In the last lesson when I had some vocal co-ordination success by thinking of replicating the feeling of playing sax with the mouthpiece being at the base of the neck, would it be right to say there was more breath compression and less 'loose air'? How exactly does this compression work? If the body has the feeling of squeezing/being thinner/wearing a tight belt etc wouldn't that shoot the breath out faster and 'overpower' the larynx? Because I feel like that 'overpowering' wasn't happening, I feel confused about how the breath 'support' mechanism works. Part of my confusion I think is to do with some people saying push out, some push in, some push down, some say feel the expansion here or there, some say support is automatic if the sound is properly onset and that 'connection' maintained through the duration of that note. Any wisdom :) or analogies regarding this topic would be greatly appreciated.

You have hit on one of the biggest problems with singing. The confusion over differing opinions about the breath. There are several aspects we need to look at to understand this discrepancy.

First, you are correct to say you are experiencing breath compression instead of loose breath. One reference book states that, “we compress air by breathing out.” But this is only partially true. To better understand this it might help to look at normal respiration and compare that to what is needed when singing. When we breath normally the diaphragm contracts to descend and increase the volume of the chest cavity. This increase of volume reduces the internal pressure so air from outside is drawn into the lungs. The air in the lungs goes through a process where the body extracts the oxygen and deposits it into the blood. The blood has also carried waste back to the lungs which is released so it can be exhaled. The act of exhalation in normal breathing is largely a passive one. The diaphragm rises because the contraction is relaxed, decreasing the chest cavity volume expelling the air in the lungs.

When we sing the requirements of our breathing change. The act of inhalation is essentially the same, but our exhale is treated differently. Where exhalation was more of a passive release from a contraction in normal respiration, in singing we need to have a more active exhalation. This involves a steady pulling in of the abdomen which pushes the diaphragm up, shrinking the chest cavity and compressing the air. It should be noted that the active exhalation is performed below the lungs. In order to have a balanced phonation we need to feel like we are NOT exhaling above the lungs, at the top of the chest. If we exhale above the lungs we will have the result of shooting the breath out faster and overpowering the larynx. See, your sensations are attuned to the feeling of resistance that the mouthpiece provides with your saxophone. So you are unconsciously providing a similar resistance with your larynx, that we feel at the top of the chest, when you recreate that feeling.

As I have stated before, we must be careful not to try and have the same amount of compression as we feel with the wind instruments. This is because these other vibrating materials are larger and not as flexible, so they tend to need more pressure than the smaller, more flexible vocal folds to make them vibrate. The other thing to keep in mind is our purpose is to vibrate a balanced sound from the voice. So if we arbitrarily compress the breath with no care for the vibration we are liable to force the breath out, or add excess resistance with the root of the tongue, to the detriment of the vibration. This was the idea behind the Swedish/Italian School's adage that the breath comes because we have something to say. If we are focused on what we are saying/singing, it will protect us from over working the voice with excess breath, as we might if we are just focused on the breath and trying to compress it.

Now the problem with all of the differing opinions of what to do with the breath. Push out, pull in, push down, pull up, expand you belly, expand your ribs, lift your chest, don't lift your chest. There are advocates of just about every possible option. And they all have an element of truth to support them because we are dealing with the concept of balance. Everything that is stated is in opposition to each other. One person says one thing because it helped them, another says the opposite because that helped them. The reason different things helped each person was because that is what was needed to get closer to balance. That is why there are people who believe in each one. A thorough explanation of each possibility and why it works, or seems to work, for different people would be more time consuming than we have time for here. But what I always answer when people ask a “this or that” question is “both”. We are looking for balance and there is an element of both in what we do. The bottom line is we need some kind of air pressure to make the vocal folds vibrate. Even loose air has some degree of pressure. That is why people who sing with a flow of breath can make a tone, sometimes even a good sounding one. Next we need some degree of resistance to the air pressure by the vibrating material, in this case the vocal folds. This resistance can be adjusted many different ways giving us the range of possibilities we hear in different people. Then we need some kind of resonator to amplify the source vibration from the vocal folds. All of these basic elements can be coordinated in a near infinite number of ways. On top of this we all come to learn singing from different backgrounds of vocal habits. So making a certain adjustment may have an immediate improvement because it counters their bad habit. So they latch onto that and think everyone needs to do that. If they teach, that is what they end up teaching, and then wonder why it only helps half their students. This is what I call teaching from opinion. Opinion is the basis of the old statement “there are as many methods as there are teachers.” I feel that this should not be the case. If we have a clear understanding of the nature of the voice and how it is designed to function then opinion goes right out the window. In other words, you can believe whatever you want but until you see the truth you will be disappointed with your results. I don't claim to hold the truth, nobody can say that. The truth of the voice is right in front of us to see. All we have to do is open our eyes and wipe away the blinders that we have on from all of the opinions and beliefs that we call technique.

As we go on we will continue to address the different elements involved, gradually getting more in-depth. Eventually I hope we can illustrate things clearly enough so what we are trying to do becomes obvious. I am not here to convince anyone to believe what I am saying because these concepts are not based on my beliefs. I am trying to describe the truth of the situation we are faced with when we sing so each person can see it for themselves.