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 |