The Psychology of Singing / A Rational Method of Voice Culture Based on a Scientific Analysis of All Systems, Ancient and Modern

by David C. Taylor

In the accepted Vocal Science the terms empirical and scientific are used in a sense entirely different from that which properly attaches to these words. Present knowledge of the operations of the voice is called scientific, solely because it is derived from the sciences of anatomy, acoustics, and mechanics. The term "empirical knowledge of the voice" is used as a name for knowledge of the subject drawn from any source other than these sciences. Yet so far as the modern vocal world seems to be aware, it possesses no knowledge of the voice other than that commonly called scientific. It is supposed that the old Italian masters had some "empirical understanding of the voice." But, if this was the case, their empirical knowledge has apparently been utterly lost.

Thus far in the present work, the usage of the terms empirical and scientific, accepted by vocal theorists generally, has been adopted. A distinction has been drawn between knowledge of the voice obtained through the study of the vocal mechanism and that obtained through observation of any other kind. The purpose will best be served by continuing this same usage.

It must be apparent to the reader, from the analysis of modern methods, that no real Science of Voice has thus far been erected. This is due to the fact that the general principles of scientific investigation have not been applied to the study of the voice. Under the influence of the idea of mechanical vocal management the attention of all investigators has been turned exclusively to the mechanical features of tone-production. Meanwhile the empirical knowledge of the old masters seems to have been forgotten. As a matter of fact, as will now be seen, this empirical knowledge has never been lost. Every modern teacher of singing shares the empirical knowledge which formed the sole material of the old method. But this knowledge is not applied effectually in modern instruction for two reasons. First, modern teachers do not realize the importance of this knowledge; indeed, they are practically unaware of this valuable possession. Although in fact the basis of nearly all modern instruction in singing, empirical knowledge is always unconsciously used. Second, empirical knowledge is always applied in the prevailing mechanical spirit. The attempt is always made to translate the sub-conscious empirical understanding of the voice into rules for direct mechanical management. Under the influence of the mechanical idea the modern teacher's most valuable possession, empirical knowledge of the voice, becomes utterly unserviceable.

Thus far, the whole result of this work has been destructive. The accepted Vocal Science has been shown to be erroneous in its conception and unsound in its conclusions. The work cannot halt here. Vocal Science must be reconstructed. This can be done only by following the general plan of all scientific investigation, beginning with the observation of all ascertainable facts bearing on the voice.

How can any facts be observed about the voice other than by the study of the vocal mechanism? An answer to this question is at once suggested so soon as scientific principles are applied to the subject. Strictly speaking, the voice is a set of sounds, produced by the action of the vocal organs. The scientific method of inquiry is therefore to begin by observing these sounds. Sounds as such can be observed only by the sense of hearing. It follows then that the attentive listening to voices is the first step to be taken.

Can any empirical knowledge of the voice be obtained by the mere listening to voices? If so, we ought now to be in possession of any facts which might be thus observed. Is it possible that information of this character is already a common possession of the vocal world, and yet that this information has never been applied in the investigation of the voice? This is exactly the case. Many facts regarding the voice have been observed so continually that they are a matter of common knowledge, and yet these facts have never been recorded in a scientific manner.

Consider, for example, this remark about a famous singer, made by one of the foremost musical critics of the United States: "Mme. T—— 's lower medium notes were all sung with a pinched glottis." How did this critic know that the singer had pinched her glottis? He had no opportunity of examining her throat with the laryngoscope, nor of observing her throat action in any other way. In fact, the critic was seated probably seventy-five feet from the artist at the time the tones in question were sung. The critic had only one means of knowing anything about the singer's throat action, and that was contained in the sound of the tones. There must therefore have been something in the sound of the tones which conveyed this information to the critical listener. For many years this gentleman had been in the habit of listening closely to singers, and he had found some way of estimating the singer's throat action by the character of the tones produced.

This same means of judging the manner of production from the sound of the tones seems to have been utilized nearly two hundred years ago. Speaking of the most frequent faults of tone-production, Tosi remarks: "The voice of the scholar should always come forth neat and clear, without passing through the nose or being choked in the throat." Mancini also speaks of the faults of nasal and throaty voice: "Un cantare di gola e di naso." A throaty tone, therefore, impressed these writers as being in some way formed or caught in the singer's throat. It may be set down as certain that no pupil ever explained to either of these masters how the objectionable sounds were produced. How then did Tosi and Mancini know the manner in which a throaty tone is produced?

We need not go back to the early writers to find out what is meant by a throaty tone. Fully as many throaty singers are heard nowadays as the old masters ever listened to. What do we mean when we say that a singer's voice is throaty? The answer to this question seems at first sight simple enough: The tones impress us as being formed in the singer's throat. But what conveys this impression? Something in the sound of the tone, of course. Yet even that is not enough. How can a tone, merely a sound to which we listen, tell us anything about the condition of the singer's throat during the production of the tone? Here again the answer seems simple: The listener knows that, in order to produce a tone of like character, he would have to contract his own throat in some way.

Here we have a highly significant fact about the voice. On hearing a throaty tone, the listener can tell how this tone is produced; he feels that he would have to contract his own throat in order to produce a similar tone. Let us carry this discussion a little further. How does the listener know this? Certainly not by actually singing a throaty tone. When seated in a concert hall, for example, and listening to a throaty singer, the hearer cannot rise from his seat, sing a few throaty tones himself, and then note how his throat feels. The critic just mentioned did not sing some notes with "pinched glottis" in order to learn how Mme. T—— sang her low tones. Evidently it is not necessary actually to imitate the singer; the hearer gets the same result by imitating the sounds mentally. In other words, when we hear throaty tones we mentally imitate these tones; thus we know that we should have to contract our own throats in order to produce similar tones.