Vocalist.org archive


From:  Martyn Clark <martyn@v...>
Martyn Clark <martyn@v...>
Date:  Tue Oct 24, 2000  3:53 pm
Subject:  Re: Empirical Science



Weird.

While skimming over vocalist messages - having just returned from the US
- I read one article which summarised very well indeed some of the
thoughts I have recently had with regard to the arrogance often found in
scientific circles, especially in relation to the "lesser disciplines"
of the arts. Many scientists would have us believe that if there is not
a peer-reviewed article published in a 'knowledgeable' journal, then our
hunches, our insight based on experience, our general understanding of
the way things work, can not, under any circumstance, be correct.

I am a scientist. I am a singer. I try to understand how the voice works
from a physical point of view as well as try to abandon that
understanding and 'just communicate'. Because I am a scientist, my brain
likes to organise things. Because I am a singer, I can be stopped dead
by music which moves me beyond any equation. I like equations because
they are a simpler way for me to describe the physical world. I like
music because it is the most wonderful way to express emotion. When I
sing, I think as a singer. When I do my physics, I think as a scientist.

When I present at conferences on singing, I am for ever amazed at how
much higher value singers and singing teachers place on whatever I have
to say about the workings of the voice than what other singers/teachers
say. The fact that I approach the voice from a scientific viewpoint
somehow seems to give me unwarranted authority. Often scientists are
guilty of abusing this unwarranted status - they bask in the glory of
science without actually engaging in discussion. I have found this abuse
of science as horrific in my experience as Les seems to have found it.
And this in some of the top laboratories in the world, whether in
Physics or Voice Science. I try to avoid it. It's not easy.

When I meet singing teachers with 50 years of teaching experience, those
who have read all the pedagogy texts they can lay their hands on; those
who have sat and listened to the teaching of hundreds of the top singers
and teachers, I wonder how it must feel to have absorbed so much
EMPIRICAL information about the voice without necessarily knowing much
about its inner workings. I have nothing but admiration for such
experience, and find that the more I meet such people, the more respect
I have for everything BUT science, for disciplines where a person's
EXPERIENCE is seen as being as important as their knowledge. Singing
teaching is one of these areas. There will never be any quick answers.
An experienced ear is worth everything to the singer. We will never be
able to analyse the voice in the same way an experienced ear can.

Every time our piano needs to be tuned, I cannot help but sit and watch
for a while. It amazes me that there is no simpler way. Sure, electronic
tuners have been invented, but none comes near to the experience of a
tuner. In fact, our understanding of the world around us is really
unbelievably limited, yet everywhere we go we hear a continuous clamour
about how much we know. That's why my presentations about the voice
generally begin with a slide of some rediculously complex system - I
think we can all do with regular reminders that we haven't got all the
answers.

I'm not sure whether I have fallen on one side or other of the argument,
but I do know that I loved watching the dolphins and pelicans in
Charleston, SC!!

Martyn Clark
VCard
Martyn Clark <Martyn Clark < Director
Edinburgh Voice Centre
45 Newhaven Main Street
Edinburgh

EH6 4NQ
Scotland

Cell: +44 (0)7974 083 197
Fax: +44 (0)7970 796 321
Home: +44 (0)131 552 8013
Work: +44 (0)7974 083 197


  Replies Name/Email Yahoo! ID Date Size
5936 Re: Empirical Science Lloyd W. Hanson   Tue  10/24/2000   5 KB

emusic.com