Laurie:
I wanted to reply to your post because I found many good ideas
stated. Your reference to a sigh after good sex is what I would call
a moan. Sighing as a basis of singing tends to encourage too much
breath in the tone. We should really be after a balance of breath and
voice where only the amount of breath necessary for any particular
pitch is released to feed the vibration of that pitch. In reference
to Isabelle's difficulties with her student regarding support I would
suggest perhaps backing off for a little while and just have her work
on use of breath. For instance the suggestion of whispering is a good
one, provided again that you don't use too much breath. It should be
more like whispering silently, similar to warming your hands with
your breath on a cold day. It doesn't work too good if you blow on
them, but just a smooth exhalation.
I would like to ask for clarification of your intention in your
example of Jussi Bjoerling. To my knowledge Richard Miller never
studied with Mr. Bjoerling and obviously Bjoerling never studied with
Miller, so to use one person as an example of someone elses concepts
that have never even been in contact is not appropriate. Anyone can
come up with a concept and then claim that is what a great singer was
doing. It would be better to use one of Miller's students to
illustrate his teachings. As for Mr. Bjoerling, he was taught the old
Italian technique of singing by his father, David, who was also an
accomplished tenor who studied at the Metropolitan Opera School
during the time of Caruso and also in Vienna. It was rumored that he
had a lesson with Caruso himself. Jussi also studied with Joseph
Hislop who was a part of the lineage decended from Lamperti and
Garcia. I do not mean to be harsh, but it is best to be thoughtful
when making examples. It is very possible that the self-consciousness
you see in the Firestone videos stems from the fact that he was
singing on live national television at the biginning of TV's
existance. That is what I think was the cause, not his way of
supporting the voice.
To wrap this up, the key is the way the body regulates the breath. If
the inhalation muscles do not gauge the outflow of air, there will be
too much breath pressure and the throat will rebel against it. This
is what typically couses constriction, or singing with just the
troat. The only way for the throat to remain relaxed and open is to
be in total control of the breath without tension or rigidity. That
is a skill that must be developed over time, and does not happen
imediately. Another effective exercise is panting, making sure that
the only mvement is lower than the ribs. The chest should not move
and there should be very little to no air movement. If there is no
air movement there will be no sound. It is very important to learn to
breath silently. It takes time and practice. If you can hear the
inrush of breath then it is telling you your throat is constricted.
If your throat is constricted on the inhale it will be constricted on
the exhale, and vice-versa. It is the breathing muscles of the body
that determine if the throat is open or not. What happens in the
throat is determined by what goes on above and below it, i.e. your
respiration and your diction. The voice will respond to your breath,
so train the breath to be slow and smooth, not fast and jerky. If you
start your tone with just the air already in your mouth, smoothly,
you will not use too much. It should glide like good violin bowing,
not blow like wild wind. Work on starting your voice at the tone end
of singing, this will allow the instictive control of the breath to
start happening.
Thank you,
Michael Mayer
www.vocalwisdom.com
--- In vocalist-temporary@y..., > Isabelle,
>
> Like you, I think I've tried every support concept on the market
over the
> years. I also think that I exhibit tendencies similar to those of
your
> student - left to my own devices, I will do all of the work in the
throat,
> what's more I sing using a method in which this is a danger.
>
> The solution I found lay in the use of the breath. It goes without
saying
> that my teacher spent ages badgering me about this before I
discovered it!
> For me, breath and support come to much the same thing.
>
> Earlier, this is a aspect of singing that puzzled me. The method I
was
> studying taught that in good singing the voice sits on the breath,
but what
> does that mean? I sought more detailed explanations, and the
sensation of
> the voice sitting on the breath (sul fiato) was contrasted with
other
> sensations, in which the voice ran or was mixed with the breath
(col
> fiato). The 'col fiato' sensation was sometimes descibed as more
usual in
> speech, and could be used for special effect in singing (unless the
method
> was based on it, rather that the 'sul fiato' sensation, as many
were), but
> 'col fiato' was a better foundation for singing.
>
> So how does one develop the sensation of the voice sitting not in
the throat
> but on the breath? I was told that one should take a long
breath, 'long'
> here referring not to duration of expiration but to sensation in
the body.
> After much experimentation I discovered that I could best take a
long breath
> by breathing along the spine, and allowing that breath to lengthen
and
> vitalise the spine. I also found that the less volition was in that
breath
> the better off I was - more of that later. So now I have a
sensation of a
> column of breath moving through my skeleton. Where on that column
should the
> voice sit? Questions of this sort were normally met with a gesture
of the
> hand pushing/leaning out in front of the navel, and told that I
should lean
> my voice against the breath there.
>
> Now hitherto I had thought of my 'leaning point' at the top of my
windpipe,
> and so was a little confused. It was explained that indeed, there
was, and
> should be a sensation there, but that it wasn't the switch that
worked the
> voice - the breath was - and that I should let go of the tension at
the
> throat and allow my voice to float down onto my breath. Many
singers I spoke
> to described an elastic connection between the larynx and the
stomach area.
> But the motive force is that of the breath.
>
> Out of all this I developed two contrasted concepts. In the first
the voice
> is conceved of as a reed: it vibrates when air is pumped through,
and the
> sensation of vibration is very much localised in the reed. In the
second it
> is more like the string of a a stringed instrument. A fine string
player has
> the sesation that the string, while vital, of course, participates
less in
> the production of the sound than the rest of the instrument -
fingers,
> sounding board, bow. A friend of mine - a Double Bass player -
spoke with
> admiration of Casals, saying that at an advanced and infirm age his
bow
> 'still sat on the string'. I was a violinist in civilian life, and
knew what
> he meant. The bow floating on the on the string creates the sound,
even
> though the elastic bits and pieces that more it are elsewhere. The
voice
> sitting on the breath creates the sound, even though the elastic
bits and
> pieces that move it are elsewhere. And a bow can move float quicker
or
> slower, lighter or deeper. With this concept, so too can the
breath.
>
> So now I have to develop a sensation of singing out of my stomach, a
> seemingly impossible task. The first thing I had to do is to get
all the
> tension out of my larynx, so that my voice to float down to allow
the breath
> to work it. I tried all kinds of things here - singing while
shaking my head
> quite vigourously, sensations of opening and 'dropping the bottom
out of my
> voice', attacking the sound in the pit of the stomach. And some
singers
> provided excellent models - Siepi especially, but also Corelli,
Freni,
> Bastianini, in no particular order. The things which made a big
difference
> were
> 1) Trying to sing (and speak) without any sensation of buzz in
the
> throat
> 2) If normal singing is talking on pitch, I would whisper on
pitch -
> but still full voice
> 3) As 2) above, but sighing gently. There are many kinds of
sigh. The
> one I found useful was one that passes down the front of the body,
stimlated
> by relief, or the afterglow of good sex.
> 4) Tipping the head right back while singing or speaking. This
is a
> good one for developing the sensation of a pipe of vibrations below
the
> throat leading to a pool of vibrations in the stomach. I
pinched it from a
> book of voice exercises for actors. Dropping the sholders while
lifting the
> elbows is also good.
> 5) Singing/singing/making noises while lying flat on the floor,
> preserving the sensation when upright.
> 6) Building vowel shapes from neutral ur/schwa type vowels.
Build the
> vowels in the chest and stomach (this is easy to do if you're flat
on your
> back).
> 7) No manipulation of the throat when singing.
> 8) I found that consciously breathing in to sing tightened my
throat.
> So I started to work with concepts not doing 'singer's breathing'
to sing.
> For example I would start a piece without consciously taking a
breath,
> and allow the breath to replace along the spine (not through the
throat)
> between phrases, as one one does in conversation, or indeed, stage
> declamation. This lead to some very interesting discoveries. I'd
started by
> breathing through the nose, as this disturbed the throat and the
position
> less, but I could seldom take enough breath this way to sustain
a
> phrase in Verdi. So started with the other end of the column,
breathing down
> the spine. I found that, this way the breath replaced more
efficiently,
> and was better matched to the length and character of the phrase.
I can
> still breath vigourously and take in a great deal of breath when
necessary,
> but I don't have to disturbed the singing position of tighten the
throat to
> do so.
>
> The less careful you are when doing all of this the better. The
more animal
> and sub-intellectual you can let it be the better. And don't listen
to your
> sound. Listen to the sensation. All of the above are beautiful
sensations -
> they make you feel as though all the top part of your body is
opening -
> flowering - outwards, while all the conscious work of singing is
gathering
> to a single point in front of your lower stomach. Tap that point
and you
> ring the whole bell.
>
> And lo and behold, as I did all of the above, I could feel the
sensation of
> vibration leaving my throat and settling on my stomach. I have no
scientific
> explanation for this, but the sensations are very positive, and I
understand
> that adepts of the Alexander technique report similar phenomena.
Once they
> were reasonably well established I could stop doing all the things I
> described above and play with the sensations of the voice leaning
on the
> breath with no involvement of the upper body. I still feel
vibrations
> throughout my chest, neck and head and a looze buzz at my larynx,
but those
> vibrations are akin to the vibrations in the sounding box of
a 'cello - they
> are effects, not causes. What makes it all work is that little buzz
in front
> of my stomach which draws its vitality from air passing along my
spine.
>
> Some of these ideas might be of some use to your pupil. I am well
aware of
> their absurdity - people's descriptions of their sensations usually
are. For
> myself, I think that absurdity is useful. There were a number of
comments on
> this list a few months ago about what a ridiculous book 'Great
Singers on
> Great Singing' was. It was held to be ridiculous because, in the
opinion of
> many listers, the singers either didn't know what they did when
they sang or
> couldn't describe it. I disagree with this, and I think this is an
extremely
> valuable resource. I think most singers do do know what they do
when they
> sing, but the things they do are the sort of things I have
described -
> useful absurdities. The statement ''x' doesn't know how he sings,
or can't
> describe it' really means 'I don't understand what 'x' says when he
> describes what he does to sing'. If we try to think ourselves into
the
> language another person uses to describe their sensations, we might
actually
> learn something. The further singers 'x's description is from ours,
the more
> we might learn, because the very unfamiliarity of the description
takes us
> away from our own comfortable world of familiar sensations with
familiar
> gestures, and throws up a challenge. A challenge can be ignored,
dismissed
> or confronted. Only confrontation will lead to development. It is
comforting
> to read a description of singing that exactly matches one's own,
but such a
> description can only reinforce what one does already: it will
seldom lead to
> new discoveries. There are still many things in 'Great Singers on
Great
> Singing' I don't understand, but I intend having a wild time trying
to
> understand them. Many of the singers in that book sing a lot better
than I
> do: it's got to be worth the effort to try to figure out what makes
them
> tick, even if I reject it, or am incapable of understanding it. And
the
> Hines book does allow us to match intentions to results, and then
to compare
> and contrast.
>
> I know perfectly well that, objectively speaking, I don't breathe
along my
> spine. Nobody does. Many would ridicule this idea as unscientific,
and they
> would be right. I came across the idea in the same book of
exercises for
> actors and thought it ludicrous but thought I'd give it a go.
Within days it
> was making a dramatic difference to my singing. And anyway: more
ludicrous
> than what? Producing the singers formant? I can't do that
consciously.
> Placing the voice so firmly in the mask so that it feels the front
of my
> face will come off? Last time I saw a photo of Paul Plishka his
face was
> still there. The truth is, the terms we use in singing are
determined by
> their utility, not their accuracy.
>
> I offer the above list of absurdities in the hope that a few of
them might
> prove creative.
>
> (The whole
> >"Italian appoggio" academic school is an Americanized
> >concept at best
>
> It is nice to find someone else who is underwhelmed by Miller!
The 'apoggio
> concept', as described by Miller, seems almost entirely absent from
Italian
> literature before his own publications (unless you equate it, as
some do,
> with Lamperti's 'lutte vocale', which I think is tenuous). Franklyn
Kelsey
> describes something similar, and he learnt from Bouhy (I think) in
Paris -
> not a bad pedigree. But as we're talking about the Hines book,
compare and
> contrast Miller's apoggio with the descriptions given by, say,
Corelli and
> Pavarotti. Are they describing the same thing?
>
> My objection to Miller's concept is that I many people it induces a
certain
> rigidity and self-consciousness into the body. Works for some (look
at Jussi
> Bjoerling on the Fireside videos), but not ideal, I would suggest
for most.
>
>
> >-- from my experience and from what
> >other teachers have said, native Italian singers use
> >the term "appoggio" to describe everything from
> >bearing down as if to have a bowel movement to
> >balancing the ribs outward to pushing against a belt
> >with the tummy).
>
> Yup. Italians in my experience normally use appoggio to describe
sensations
> that a thesaurus might categorise under down and out. Some link it
to the
> breath, as I did above, others don't. To my ears, voices trained
according
> to Millers principles, while efficient, often lack body and
character. For
> this reason I think it a pity that his views have become so
widespread,
> although I can see the advantages of his method.
>
> I hope you find some of this useful. Good luck.
>
|
|  |
