Further, it is frequently stated that the old Italian masters paid much attention to the subject of breathing; the assumption is also made that these masters approached the subject in the modern spirit. Neither this statement, nor the assumption based on it, is susceptible of proof. Tosi and Mancini do not even mention the subject of breathing.
Breathing has been made the subject of exhaustive mechanical and muscular analysis, for one reason, and for only one reason. This is, because the action of breathing is the only mechanical feature of singing which can be exhaustively studied. The laryngeal action is hidden; the influence of the resonance cavities cannot well be determined. But the whole muscular operation of breathing can be readily seen and studied; any investigator can personally experiment with every conceivable system.
Furthermore, the adoption of any system of breathing has no influence whatever on the operations of the voice. A student of singing may learn to take breath in any way favored by the instructor; the manner of tone-production is not in the least affected. Even if the correct use of the voice has to be acquired, the mode of breathing does not contribute in any way to this result.
All that need be said in criticism of the various doctrines of breathing is, that the importance of this subject has been greatly overestimated. Breath and life are practically synonymous. Nothing but the prevalence of the mechanical idea has caused so much attention to be paid to the singer's breathing. A tuba player will march for several hours in a street parade, carrying his heavy instrument, and playing it fully half the time; yet the vocal theorist does not consider him an object of sympathy.
No doubt the acquirement of healthy habits of breathing is of great benefit to the general health. But this does not prove that correct singing demands some kind of breathing inherently different from ordinary life. To inspire quickly and exhale the breath slowly is not an acquired ability; it is the action of ordinary speech. Singing demands that the lungs be filled more quickly than in ordinary speech, and perhaps a fuller inspiration is also required. This is readily mastered with very little practice. It does not call for the acquirement of any new muscular movements, nor the formation of any new habits.
What is left of all the materials of modern vocal instruction? To sum them up in the order in which they were considered in Part I:
Breathing does not need to be mastered in any such way as is stated in the theoretical works on the voice. Breath-control is a complete fallacy. The doctrines of registers and laryngeal action are utterly valueless. Chest resonance, nasal resonance, and forward emission, are scientifically erroneous. The traditional precepts are of no value, because nobody knows how to follow or apply them. Empirical teaching based on the singer's sensations is of no avail.
In other words, modern methods contain not one single topic of any value whatever in the training of the voice. It will be objected that this statement is utterly absurd, because many of the world's greatest singers have been trained according to these methods. No doubt this is in one sense true; modern methods can point to many brilliant successes. But this does not prove anything in favor of the materials of modern methods.
Singers are trained to-day exactly as they were trained two hundred years ago, through a reliance on the imitative faculty. The only difference is this: In the old days, the student was directly and expressly told to listen and to imitate, while to-day the reliance on the imitative faculty is purely instinctive. A fuller consideration of the important function of imitation as an unrecognized element of modern Voice Culture is contained in Chapter V of Part IV.