Michael, that was an excellent discussion on how to sing. TOO MANY singers strive for a certain sound, whether it is operatic or pop. And in striving to create a sound, they destroy the ability to actually communicate meaning.
The only addition I would make is some voices are simply not suited to all types of music, even when using balanced function. Rosa Ponselle, for example, never had a “child’s voice” but from her young age a voice that was quite adult. She never studied singing, but could do what she did naturally. It suited opera more than any other type of music (and her incredible trill on any volume and for any length of time was a miracle even to other opera singers). She did record other types of music, and they were beautifully sung. But no matter what she sang, she didn’t sound “modern.”
The rest can be found here: http://vocalwisdom.com/u1b
—————————————————————————————————-
Thanks for your comments, Bea. I agree with what you are saying, but I feel you are complicating the situation compared to what I am trying to say. Expressing with the voice is simpler than trying to make a particular kind of sound. And because it is simpler, we should be able to express in different styles with balanced function. This doesn’t mean it will be equally effective in every style. But we should be able to use the voice naturally independent of style.
You bring up Rosa Ponselle, and I would think of her as a good example of a natural singer. This means, to me, someone whose vocal function is well balanced naturally. Before training. She sounded mature as a teen. But it was a natural use of the voice. Unlike the modern connotations of child “opera” singers like Charlotte Church and Jackie Evancho. Actually a new one pops up each year. These kids are just being taught to imitate a mature sound. It is not a legitimate use of the voice as an instrument.
But, yes, the industry can put pressure on singers to sound like an expected ideal. This happens all over the operatic world as well. And singers need to be more knowledgeable to understand that the “industry” doesn’t care about the health of their instrument. That is the responsibility of the singer. If they buy into doing what is expected of them without taking care of their voice they will burn up quickly.
I said before that I feel that your perspective is more complicated than what I am saying. (I don’t mean that in an accusatory sense. I just mean I want to keep things simple so people can understand) What I mean is the singer doesn’t have to use all that they are capable of. Just because a sports car is ideally suited to going 100+ mph doesn’t mean it has to drive that fast all of the time. Now, I concede that to keep the car well-functioning it is best not to only drive it below its ideal level all of the time either. That is why we need to exercise the voice through its full potential consistently. But the music we are performing should determine the expression and the intensity in performance.
Your comments about Jussi Bjorling actually leave out the example of his “Erik Odde” recordings. These were recordings he made with a dance band early in his career under the stage name “Erik Odde” to make some extra money. He had to use his voice much more simply and less intensely for the popular music of the time. In terms of degree, contrary to what you said, it would compare to what could be used for modern singing or musicals. He always emphasized the importance of using the voice in a completely natural way. Now, would he have a feel for the music we have now? That is a completely different question.
I agree that not all voices can do all styles, even with good function. I am not saying that people can. I’m saying that it just makes it possible. Not necessarily doable. People can only sing music for which they have a feel for. If you don’t feel a certain type of music it is unlikely that you will be able to express it convincingly.
I have said many times that performance is made up of more than function. But function is what makes performance possible. Because with poor function the voice will not be responsive to fulfill the intentions of the singer. And over time poor function will cause a voice to deteriorate.
I feel that a singer who has established the foundation of a well-functioning instrument can add the occasional “effect” to more-completely express their style. But the problem for many is their whole manner of using their voice is based on the “effects” of the style so they have no foundation. And again the voice breaks down.
I think you mis-interpreted something I said along the way, because I did not intend to imply that singers should, or needed to, sing many different styles or else they are limited. They should sing what they feel drawn to and able to express. I did say that if they are imitating a sound of a style they are limiting their voice. Singers can stick to one style and not be limiting themselves. The limitation comes from not using the voice naturally. When they limit themselves by imitating the sound of a style they limit themselves expressively, even in that style. But a singer doesn’t need to sing many styles to prove that they are not limited.
I make a distinction between speaking and talking. Speaking is using the voice in a complete, balanced and natural manner. Talking is the incomplete, habitual manner we tend to use the voice. If we are “speaking” in a good way, there should be little variation when we transition to singing other than intensity and continuous vibration.
The problems stem from people taking that description and trying to sing from a foundation of talking. That creates a result that is both functionally and esthetically compromised. And you are correct that this can never translate into classical singing.
(This is the problem I find with SLS – Speech Level Singing – and its followers. They treat talking as if it is good speaking. From this simple mis-interpretation everything gets messed up. I feel it should be called TLS – Talking Level Singing)
This is much like problems found in a Logic class. Something may be true when going one direction, but if we reverse the equation it is not necessarily true. Singing operatically requires an intensity level not everyone is capable of. This intensity is what causes the type of resonance and ring that we identify as operatic singing. Not by the artificial, imitative swallowed sound that many “opera” singers make in an attempt to sound like an opera singer.
But just as in the sports car analogy of earlier, a voice that is capable of operatic intensity is not bound to that level of singing all of the time. If they are then they have limited themselves to it. They don’t speak with that intensity. It all depends on how much energy is brought to the singing. We can sing in a balanced manner with the energy of speaking. We can even sing in a balanced manner with the energy of cooing, like a baby, and produce a very intimate quality appropriate for ballad singing with a mic.
What I want people to recognize is that it is possible to do what they want. But they also have to understand what the voice is capable of doing without injury. If what they want to do is also injurious to the voice they will have problems. So better to avoid them before they happen than after. We can’t afford to be like the guitar player who plays so aggressively that they destroy the instrument in a couple performances. We can’t buy a new voice. And often when the voice gets damaged it can be healed, but it usually is not able to return to complete health.
I also want to emphasize that even with the pressure of the industry, healthy singing should make you a superior singer, not inferior, to the standard. If it doesn’t then something is not being correctly applied. But it is a certainty that you cannot sing non-classical styles with an imitative classical “technique”. That is just bad singing. Period.
Jackie Evancho has crossed over to pop territory lately. There are changes in her voice. Gone is the dark timbre of the voice we heard when she was on America’s Got Talent. Now, her voice sounds translucent and pure.
Yes, the vast majority emphasize these things. But they are only parts that aid the core activity of vibration. They don’t cause it. By focusing on secondary things they neglect the primary. The bottom-line is everything needs to be acting correctly. The majority of what we do is done before we sing, as a preparation.
Breath control and an open throat are not really causes or effect, they are conditions that allow the causes and effects to happen. I guess you could say they are an effect of the emotional condition that causes them. But the important thing is that they exist, which for most of us they don’t until we figure out how to stimulate them.
We can’t just try to open the throat or control the breath. It has to happen as a natural result of putting ourselves into the right state of being. When we do that the act of singing is almost the only thing that can happen. We almost can’t help but to sing. That is why we want to prepare in this way.
It is like a bow and arrow. The objective is to have the arrow fly to the target. But while that is happening we aren’t doing anything. Our job is done before the action happens. We prepare the flight of the arrow by drawing back the bow and holding it in a state of elastic tension that is full of potential energy while we aim where we want the arrow to go. Then we release the energy which sends the arrow flying on the trajectory of our aim. Once we release the arrow we don’t have much influence on its flight at all.
This is what I mean when I say most of our work is in the preparation. We create a condition in the body of potential energy that when released in a coordinated way causes the vocal cords to vibrate. This requires very little from us once it starts, other than to keep the condition from falling apart.
It is more of a process of making sure we DON”T do things than DO things. An open throat exists because we make sure NOT to close it rather than DO something to open it. We support the voice with the breath by making sure we DON”T let the lungs deflate rather than DO something with the breath.
The open resonators and especially the lifted soft palate are just elements of the condition of the body. Not things we directly try to DO. Breath support is an automatic result of keeping the condition of the body and not letting it collapse. Then we can pronounce with the mental awareness at the larynx to stimulate the adjustment of the glottis and the spontaneous action of the vibration. This is done, at least in how we experience it, with no impulse of breath or muscular strike. It is as if the vocal cords just start vibrating like we flipped a switch. Like a light. The body unconsciously does what is necessary to allow this to happen.
There must absolutely be NO HOLDING at the larynx. The term Cord Closure is used by some. Yes, the cords are closed but we MUST NOT try to close them deliberately. They must close as a natural response to our desire to say something. It is an automatic reaction to our intention to pronounce with the larynx. It is more like it is electrical rather than muscular.
But this can only happen if all of the conditions are correct. And developing that is the real skill of a singer. It doesn’t happen just by knowing the right things. It takes time to create that kind of sensitivity in the body. We develop our skill over time, just like any other athlete. I may understand perfectly the mechanics of shooting a basketball, but it has taken me many repetitions to develop that understanding into my nervous system so I have the skill of being a good shooter.
That is what we need to do to be a well-functioning vocal instrument. There are no shortcuts and it is not enough to have the knowledge.
I think the reason I’m asking is because many people seem to put a lot of emphasis on deliberately lifting the soft palate or supporting the voice, and the idea of a proper glottal adjustment is simply overlooked. It’s as if they believe that putting everything else in its place without addressing the larynx itself will cause an ideal phonation.
With that being said, would you say that good breath control, an open throat, etc. are causes or results of proper technique? Or do they cause each other?
Yes, everything needs to be conditioned to behave correctly so we get the proper response when we sing. Also, the way you characterize what I’ve said is not quite accurate. It is true that stimulating the larynx sets everything into action, like the spark that ignites a fire. But that is completely dependent on the other parts of the body being in a condition that will respond to that stimulus. And it depends on the proper stimulus, which doesn’t happen without developing the ability to do it.
There is also the fact that all of these parts are inter-dependent. The larynx will cause the other parts to do what they are supposed to. But they need to be prepared correctly. They won’t respond if they are in a normal condition. That is why you can’t just stand up and do it. The body needs to be prepared and in the proper state. we can only take advantage of the automatic nature of the body if it is in a state, or condition, that allows that to happen.
The singer’s intention is what determines the nature of the vocal production once he/she has solidified a healthy technique.
You’ve mentioned on this site that stimulating the larynx directly causes various coordinations to fall into place – for instance, the breath support will be automatic, the throat space will adjust to the intensity of the vibration, and the glottis will close properly. But I know for a fact that I, personally, can’t just stand up from this chair, focus on my voice box, and suddenly sing with great breath control, a blending of the registers, and an open throat. Am I right in guessing that all these correct coordinations have to be trained before somebody can just “think out loud” on pitch?
That’s right, Joseph. There is no other way, really. To do otherwise would be fake. Any preconceived adjustments interfere with the natural behavior of the body. “Think out loud”.
So basically, stimulating the larynx into action with a certain intention in mind – whether it be making a big operatic sound or a sweet, gentle lullaby – is what determines the intensity of the vocal vibrations as well as the openness of the throat, which in turn determines what type of sound comes out. Am I correct thus far?
All of those are involved. Think of a violin string. When the bow is drawn across the string the string naturally provides resistance. The two forces involved combined with the inherent quality of the string results in vibration that causes sound waves. The vocal folds are different, but behave on the same principle. The difference is the folds are adjustable to different degrees of resistance. So the results vary with the changes in resistance. The obvious example is the difference between falsetto (very little resistance so the result is airy and incomplete) and pressed chest register (excess adduction with thick cord mass, resulting in a held, struggling sound).
When you say “resistance at the vocal folds”, does that refer to how tightly or loosely they adduct, or how much air is allowed to go through, or is it a matter of the intensity of the vibration? Or is it perhaps something else altogether?
Yes, Joseph. The amount of resistance by the vocal folds will determine the nature of the vibration. And the differences in the vibration will result in differences of the quality of tone. For the examples you state the differences should be made by the larynx. If they are made in the throat space the only option is to close it. This will create an imbalance in the pressure on the cords and will cause problems. This is why I say the air-way should always be open. So only the true vocal cords resist the air. When we close the throat there is additional resistance which puts the cords under an unhealthy pressure. Also, the open condition of the throat is determined by the proper resistance of the larynx. This is because the proper resistance of the larynx is what keeps the larynx from inappropriately rising and closing the throat. The stable larynx is the only natural way to have an open throat. Any deliberate opening of the throat without stimulating the natural use of the larynx is just an imitation, not natural function.
So we’ve already established that one major determining factor in what type of sound comes out is the shape and openness of the throat, but I believe you mentioned to me once that it is also determined by the “resistance at the larynx (I think that’s what it was)”. For instance, if a female singer wishes to make her upper head voice sound like an extension of her chest voice for popular music (rather than the sound used in opera), what changes need to place and where do they occur? Or how about a male singer who is trying to make an edgy, high-pitched rock sound in his head voice without sounding like a countertenor (you demonstrated this to me once)? Or, more simply, any singer who is trying to sound like they are “speaking on pitch”? Is this determined by the throat space or the voice box, or both?
It all depends on what you are doing. The body, in all parts, should react to your intention. If you are singing quietly or intimately there won’t be as strong of a response as there will if you are singing an intense high note operatically. The body should be dynamic. Not static. That is the definition of natural singing. No set position, no pre-determined adjustments. We are looking for spontaneous action that happens in response to our intention as a reflex action. So style will have an influence because your intention will vary with style. The only thing we want to always have is a hollow throat/airway. But we don’t want to deliberately “open” it arbitrarily. That is why it sounds unnatural to sing a pop song with a yawning fake-opera “open throat”. That is not a natural response of the body for the intended expression. And it just sounds wrong.
That actually makes sense, what you say about an open throat equaling an unconstricted throat. But then the question is, just how open should the throat be? Should the larynx be lowered, the palate raised, and the wall of the pharynx stretched? Or does it vary from style to style?
Thanks, Simon. Again, it all depends on the definition. If by “open throat” we mean not being closed, then yes, that is a necessary component of producing an operatic sound. But the throat should always be open. If we close it we create interfering tensions that will cause problems.
If by that it is meant a yawn-like enlarging of the space behind the mouth. Then that is the way to imitate an operatic sound. But it is noticeably contrived and artificial. That is a big reason some people don’t like opera. Because they have heard this artificial singing and are turned off by the unnaturalness of it. At least that is what makes sense to me. I’m sure there are people that don’t like opera because it is in foreign languages, or it has orchestra music, or it is loud. Any number of possibilities. But I know for some it is the fake sounds.
Side point issue. For an example of things, your definition of “Speaking” and “talking.” To the average person they are one and the same thing. Until this very moment in your response to my first posting, no person would have known at all that you saw those two words as something different. The word Speaking doesn’t imply some correct way of talking, at least not to the average person. In my original post, I mentioned that now days people want all singing to match their speaking voice, or the voice they use for plain talking. That is not really conducive to good function. But WHY isn’t it? That has to be explained. Just saying Speaking is using good function like used in singing, but talking isn’t, doesn’t really tell the reader all that much that they can identify with. They are still striving to figure out what good function means in singing (which they have not yet understood). I guess that is my point of being too academic. The explanation can be so academic that we need a degree to understand what is intended. It may be clear, clear as glass, but it presupposes that the reader fully understands what the basis of everything is. I cannot say for Simon, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that is exactly the factor that made things unclear to him. He was lost because the words were not the words the average person would use. They were cloaked in academia. Your explanations were far clearer in the beginning when you first started your site. When one reads your essays you wrote in the past, they were clear, very clear, and not complicated. Things are now getting complicated because they are sounding like someone is striving to sound academic. I have read all your postings and articles on your site, but I can’t remember them all when reading an explanation. I can’t remember a point that may be the most important of all that was made three years ago. I have to look it up. But most won’t. You may have to repeat things a lot. But don’t sound scientific. Instead, sound like a friend speaking to a friend. Or an instructor speaking to a child. For in reality, all of us coming to your site are children coming to learn. But you have to speak our language or we are lost. That is my opinion again. Sorry if it seems harsh. You did say, though, you were interested in what was not clear, as you strive for clarity (and I am well aware of the fact you do). From my point of view, that is why things are unclear at times.
Oh it’s just that I thought that “open throat” would lead to a more operatic sound, but as you’ve mentioned, it’s just the intensity that leads to the resonance suitable for operatic singing.
Sorry if you felt my comment complicated things. That was not the intent. I have always felt that a good functioning voice can work independent of style. The original comment did imply that a singer could sing all types and styles of music simply because they had good function, and that they should be equally good at all of them. I was simply pointing out that that is not exactly true. If you are not effective at singing a given style, even if you have good function, you will not succeed singing that style. I am sorry, but that is plain and simple. That is all I was really saying. I also do not agree that Bjorling’s band music would pass on the Broadway stage. But what would pass then is quite different than what will pass now. Styles really have changed that much. It is true that good function would make you a better sounding singing in whatever you sing, but it doesn’t guarantee the ability to excel in all fields. Knowing that fact does not complicate anything. That was all I was trying to clarify as that fact was not stated. I agree that those “stars” you mentioned like Charlotte Church were “immitating” a certain sound. And most that do that (especially the young) end up finishing before they really start. But here is a good example that really means nothing. Charlotte Church sounded beautiful. So how would you help a person understand she was singing with incorrect fuction? You can say she had poor function, but until you can explain WHY it was incorrect so that the average listener can pick up on it, the example becomes meaningless. People base what they understand on how they hear, not on what they think things may mean. I can guarantee you she didn’t sound like an opera singer, no matter what the publicity stated. I took no exception to anything you were trying to say. Sorry if you thought that was what I was doing. Sorry also, if you felt that this clarification complicated things. The truth is, until a person has real experience with correct function, they cannot see how it applies to singing any particular style, and most especially how it applies to styles so vastly different as Rock from opera (again, the perseption is based on hearing, not feeling or any such thing, as they cannot know what the singer they are listeing to is experiencing within themselves). There is quite a difference understanding function mentally, and understanding it from actually doing it. You are a lucky person, as you can empathetically feel what a person is doing wrong when you hear them. Most people cannot do that (even some experienced people) especially those just now learning about something they have never heard of — Good Function. You dislike the term “technique” because it is so changeable depending on how someone interprets it. But Good Function often doesn’t sound any different to a read than just another technique to replace the ones they have already read about. I know that is not what you intend, but that is how it comes across. Those are my opinions, and they certainly were NOT meant to confuse anyone. Perhaps an example of what good funtion is in opera, say, and how singing pop can use that same function is needed. And they both must sound perfectly correct for their various styles. I do know this: one cannot define something clearly by defining what it is not. One has to define it as it is. I guess, for me, I found the explanation fine, but even with all my experience, I didn’t find it clear. Talking about good function doesn’t mean a great deal without details. What makes good function? What can a person know about themselves so they can tell if they are using good function? What does it feel like? What sort of sound is revealed by good function (and there are many different sounds that all are good function). I certainly didn’t bring clarity to these things (nor even consider them). I was simply addressing the other point. That is why I used examples, weak as they were, so people could consider voices that they have heard that had good function, and see how that illustrated the point. Even with Bjorling; people for the most part will NOT be listening to his band music, or even know it is available. They will listen to what he commercially recorded that is readily available. And for the most part, that is opera, and his folk music still to most ears sounds like it is opera. At no time to anyone’s ear are they hearing a sound that could transfer easily to what we call pop music today. And one must frame examples with what we hear today, not over 60 years ago. I know that my examples were not exhaustive by any means. But it did give readers reference points on which to draw. And as I said, I was illustrating that even if you can sing everything because you have good function, that doesn’t mean you will sing it well, or succeed at it, or that your voice will suit all you sing. In this response you have acknowledged that point. You didn’t consider it in the original posting. Or if you did, it was not at all clear. Perhaps the difficulty was in that you were clear, but too academic, too “the specialist” discussing things as you understand them. And the rest of us simply are not to that point in our understanding. Obviously I did misunderstand your comment about limitations. But your original implied no other interpretation. It fully implied that if one discovered they excelled at one style and sang no other, they were limiting themselves. I see now you were meaning that if by what we are doing, if it ends up limiting what we can even do to such a point we are restricted to one thing, then we are limiting ourselves because of poor function. But that was NOT what you stated, even if that is what you really meant. Sorry, I didn’t understand that point. I hope you can see now that I was not complicating anything. I was attempting to bring clarity to something that was not clear. I may have gone about it in the wrong way, or in a way that seemed complicated to you. Sorry for that. But if I got it wrong (and obviously I did) I am sure others did too.
You’re welcome, Simon. From my perspective I’m not sure what was not clear. I always try to explain things clearly. Can you give me an example of what you weren’t clear about? Thanks.
She is a very good example, Olga. It wasn’t really my intention to give examples, but Bea brought up a few singers that I wanted to respond to. I think the issue with lower voices being more acceptable in cross-over has to do with the public being able to identify with those voices easier. That range mostly resembles the speaking range, which everyone can identify with. The high soprano feels too different from what the average person can feel like they can do. That is why many poor singers are so popular. The average person can identify with what they are doing.
Thanks for that Michael, because as I read the previous article, I did have similar thoughts to what Beatrice had. Thanks for clearing things up.
Hi Michael! You have left out Helen Traubel, who I feel is a great example of an operatic singer (a Wagner singer!) successfully crossing over to popular music, which she did more in the end of her career. I do agree that pop singers trying to sing opera are usually pitiful – which is a shame, because it would really help to make classical music more “standard” and less “highbrow” in popular common sense.
Another thing I have always noticed is that it is easier for medium or low-voiced singers who are classically trained to be accepted as popular singers, just as it is easier for men than it is for women. Perhaps because of the amount of chest resonance in their sound, it makes it easier for them to be in the vicinity of a popular sound. There is something about the high female voice that just scares people who are not used to this kind of singing. In the 1930’s and 40’s it was alright, because there was popular music suited for that kind of voice, but nowadays, that is pretty much gone.