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
|