Vocalist.org archive


From:  "Lloyd W. Hanson" <lloyd.hanson@n...>
Date:  Fri Jan 31, 2003  4:56 am
Subject:  [vocalist] Re: The Language of Singing

Dear Katherine and Naomi and Vocalisters:

Thank you Katherine for the well defined statement that "The language
of singing/teaching must be clear, precise, scientifically accurate
and above all, effective." You went on to say that you "do not
believe that images are, for the most part, particularly helpful" and
then gave some wondrous examples.

And thank you, too, Naomi for stating well the feelings of the
instinctive/kinesthetic learners and the idea that a particular
combination of words or thoughts helps you more to function in
harmony with your anatomy than does the scientific term for the same
body part or process.

It would be very tiresome and sterile if all or our communication in
our field was of one type or the other. I think we would all likely
agree with that. And yet, that is exactly how it has been from the
beginning of the teaching of singing. Almost all of the terminology
is based on personal sensations and images. Anyone who tries to
read the instructions manuals of teachers of singing from the
earliest of times until most recently are immersed in a language of
individualism. It would be better if the writers had chosen poetry
as their medium because we then would probably have some common
subliminal messages that would come through via the rhythm, rhyme,
and pictures of such writing. In fact these treatises are so
confusing that it is commonly said that on cannot learn to sing from
a book

But when one reads the writings of such people as Richard Miller,
Barbara Doscher, Ingo Titze and others, complex and difficult as they
are, we find a common thread of expression between these authors that
is not as individual but is more in keeping with accepted medical and
scientific terminology. We can go from a question raised in our
minds by one of these writers and seek answers from the others and
have little difficulty finding these answers because of a more or
less common usage of terminology. It should also be noted that these
teachers only represent the beginnings of literature about vocal
function in singing which is committed to as accurate a terminology
as possible. And these three teachers are only representative of
others who are doing this same work. Many, many names could be
mentioned.

None of this concern for a "language of singing" that is"clear,
precise, scientifically accurate and above all, effective" denies or
flies in the face of how we learn or how we feel or what our
individual learning tendencies might be. In fact, a "language of
singing" terminology should not be attempting to "describe our
sensations". It is describing function and, possibly, the process
our bodies use to achieve a particular result. The fact that almost
all of the vocal instrument is built out of muscles and nerves
systems that are defined as involuntary requires that we have an even
more thorough knowledge of these systems if we are ever to have their
use completely available for our singing needs.

There is no singing without imagery. Our images are our source of
inspiration, our synthesis of concepts and ideas. The more accurate
our images the more effective they become. I truly believe that
understanding how the diaphragm controls the exhale as we sing helps
us to use the breathing mechanism in a more efficient way with less
likehood that we will involve non breathing muscles in the process.
The Alexander Technique is an excellent example of one man using a
three way mirror and the scientific method to decipher his own
speaking difficulties and not only correct them, but develop a method
of body use that is built on an accurate understanding of body
function. Out of this he developed images that are more effective
because they are founded on what is actually happening with the body

--
Lloyd W. Hanson




  Replies Name/Email Yahoo! ID Date  
22290 Re: The Language of Singinglestaylor2003 <LesTaylor@a...>lestaylor2003 Fri  1/31/2003  
emusic.com