The direct sensations of tone are never so vivid, so precise, nor so reliable as the sympathetic sensations. In other words, the hearer is better able to judge of the singer's throat action than the singer himself. This may seem a paradoxical statement, but a brief consideration will show it to be fully justified.
In the case of teacher and pupil, it will hardly be questioned that the master hears the pupil's voice to better advantage than the pupil. This is also true when a trained singer's tones are observed by a competent hearer. The singer's direct sensations are highly complex. They include the muscular sensations accompanying the exertion of the breathing muscles, and these are usually so intense as to overshadow the sensations due to the laryngeal adjustments. On the other hand, the hearer is free to pay close attention to the sensations of throat action, and therefore feels these much more keenly than does the singer. On this account the direct sensations of tone are of vastly less value in the study of the vocal action than are the sympathetic sensations.
[CHAPTER III]
EMPIRICAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE VOICE
Through attention paid to the sympathetic sensations of tone, the listener may carry on mentally a running commentary on the throat actions of all those whose voices are heard. Continuing to use the word empirical in the sense thus far adopted, it may be said that the summary of the impressions conveyed in the sympathetic sensations of tone constitutes empirical knowledge of the voice. In other words, empirical knowledge of the voice is an understanding of the operations of the vocal mechanism, obtained through the attentive listening to voices.
Let us consider first the running commentary on the throat action, mentally carried on by the listener. This mental commentary is an inseparable accompaniment of the listening to the voices of others, whether in speech or song. As we are concerned now only with the problem of tone-production in artistic singing, our consideration will be limited to the critical hearer's observation of the tones of singers.
Let us imagine two friends to be seated side by side in the concert hall, listening to the performance of a violin sonata by an artist of about mediocre ability. Suppose one of the friends to be a highly trained musical critic, the other to be almost unacquainted with music of this class. Let us now inquire how the tones of the violin will impress these two hearers; and further, let the inquiry be limited strictly to the matter of tone, leaving out of consideration all questions of composition and rendition.
As a matter of course, the tones of the violin will impress these two listeners in widely different ways. The untrained observer will greatly enjoy the beautiful tones,—supposing of course that he be gifted with a natural fondness for music. But so far as musical value is concerned, all the tones will sound to him practically alike.
For the trained hearer, on the other hand, every note drawn by the performer from his instrument will have a distinct value. Some of the tones will be true in pitch and perfect in quality. Some will vary slightly from the correct pitch; others will perhaps be in perfect tune, and yet be marred in quality by faults of scratching, thinness, roughness, etc.