Tim: I guess my evaluation of Rolando Villazon goes back to my days as a basketball coach. I used to have kids who had great skills honed by daily hours spent on the playground. They could really play the game in such a way that it was beautiful just to watch their athleticism. As I learned how to coach I came to understand that they played almost entirely by instinct and not by technique. They could shoot the ball but they didn’t understand WHY the ball went in the hoop. So if a kid hit a slump and the ball stopped going in the hoop they had no idea as to what had happened. My players who went on to play college ball (and two to the Pros) learned from me the physics of how the entire body (feet, hips, elbows, position of head etc.) all had to be aligned to shoot the ball correctly. And I gave them exercises to use when they were having problems they could diagnose where they were going wrong and correct the problem.
I guess I see Rolando as a very gifted “athlete” who has no idea as to why, operatically speaking, the ball isn’t going in the hoop anymore. And, as with a basketball player, the more he uses the wrong technique the worse things will get. It isn’t just singing the wrong rep too much. It’s singing it, to return to the basketball metaphor, with his feet turned the wrong way and his elbows sticking out like chicken wings. He needs time off and a really good mentor (Bergonzi?). Well, that’s how I see it at least and would appreciate feedback.
Me: This is a very accurate analogy. I always use other athletes as examples for singers. Because singing is more an athletic activity, at least for the singer, than a musical one. (Like other musical instruments) Maybe it would be more
accurate to say that singing is equal parts athletic and musical. (giving some insight as to the rarity of greatness) The reason being that the musical instrument of a singer is the living body. And any activity of the body is athletic.
So in my mind singing has more in common with dance than it does with playing the piano, for instance. The reason I feel this way is singing and dancing are both the physical expressing of emotion through the body, and require the commitment and coordination of the whole body. Other instruments only need the commitment and coordination of the parts involved in activating the particular instrument.
Even though dance is a visual art form and singing is still aural like other instruments. And dancing has movement and singing, for the most part, is done standing still. That is a more noticeable difference from the perspective of the audience. But from the perspective of the performer they have a lot in common. The singer has the greater challenge because they need the same physical activity/energy as the dancer without the benefit of moving to accomplish it.
This brings to mind a quote by Pavarotti. He said something to the effect that “our kind of singing is like the 100 meter dash. There is no other kind of running for us. ‘Crack’ and go!” This was his way of describing the energy and commitment that the singer needs to accomplish their task.
I also want to point out that I too have a deep affinity to basketball, so it is nice to hear from another who has spent their life with the game. I have played since we were allowed to start in 3rd or 4th grade and still play actually, in an adult pick-up game. Most are older than I and still can play quite well. I have never coached, but I have wanted to. I think if I wasn’t a voice specialist I would coach basketball. As my kids grow I’m sure I will coach them.
So, Tim, thanks again for the B-Ball analogy. I think it is a very helpful way of describing a singer’s situation for non-singers to understand.
Sue: Michael, I’ve been mulling this over for a bit, and I think you have it just right. Most musicians can separate their bodies from performance, and have a chance to perform well (and musically ) even if they don’t feel 100%. Both singers and dancers are in the same bind as most athletes (maybe not baseball players, as much as I love the game, since they are not asked to put out total effort very often) as they rely so utterly on their state of being. There can’t be any other professions where one is so totally hostage to one’s physical state.
Me: Hi Sue, Just read your response. Thank you. Just today I was working with a young singer on learning to establish an effective body condition. I am becoming more convinced that the difference between pretty good singing and great singing is not so much WHAT we do or even HOW we do it. What matters is that the body is in an alert, action-ready condition so it can react to our intentions spontaneously. In working with this singer she was quickly able to recognize the significant difference.
Sue: Hi Michael, And I think we need to add to that that a person needs to have a “soul,” or whatever we choose to call it, so that there is some interior life to be shared with others.
I don’t think it’s actually possible to have great singing without something personal being communicated. On the other hand, there
are surely great voices without any consideration of what’s being sung (for me, Corelli, for example).
And by this I don’t mean to understate the importance of the physical voice and the importance and fragility of the physical body.
Your posts are always thought-provoking. Thank you for that.
Me: Hi Sue, Absolutely. That is the part that is taken for granted, which usually means it doesn’t happen. But the soul, or whatever, is at the heart of the whole situation. But only if the singer is mindful of, and accesses, it. I always think of it as the body needs to respond to the soul, the intention, where the expression originates. That is what sets everything into action. But very often we witness singing that is executed only from deliberate consciousness. The part of the mind that thinks in words. “Do this and that…” (Technique)
But if the singer is thinking about HOW to make their voice work technically that part of their awareness will be distracted from WHAT they are meaning to say. This lacks the soul of the person. It is the strong desire to sincerely say something that stimulates the body into spontaneous action. That is all the technique a singer needs. The body knows how to do the correct things. We just need to learn how to stimulate it. Then we can learn how to be like the natural singer, but better. Then we can create the effect of “thinking out loud”. There is a direct link between our brain (thinking of what we want to say) and our body (which actually says it).
What creates this link between the two elements through the nervous system is the sincere feeling that brings everything to life. This is the difference between singing with technique only vs. understanding the principles of the living vocal instrument that is comprised of a physical body, a thinking mind and a feeling soul. When we understand how this whole being can operate as a singer then we can accomplish something special. We can be the singer we imagine. But we will never get there if we don’t tap into the elemental part of ourselves. That is the secret to great singing.
Thanks for your comment, Anna. I agree with what you say. I guess I neglected to introduce the exchanges in this post were from a discussion group that I participated in. So everyone’s opinions were valid and it was not something I was moderating.
Having said that, I don’t usually challenge people’s comments of how they feel about a singer. Only if someone is disrespectful of other readers here. But thanks for your input and for reading the blog. Hope you find more that you like. Michael
This is a thrilling blog for a simple opera lover such as myself: a great resource for understanding vocal art.
However, the statement that Corelli was ”a great voice without any consideration of what is being sung” is really crass. I wonder how it is possible to say such things in 2010 when various live recordings of Corelli are available. One may not like his approach, artistry or whatever but one must certainly suffer from some sort of tonal aphasia for not noticing his phrasing, his inflexions on significant words and more importantly, his ability to express the dramatic aspects of the score. Corelli is certainly one of the first examples which comes to mind when one mentions ”singers with a soul”. There are enough recordings to prove it.
He worked constantly in order to improve himself (something which some comments on his self taught status fail to capture) and thus had a good understanding of how and why he sounded the way he did. His interviews on the subject show that he was a very articulated man in that regard, far from someone who supposedly ”had no considerations of what is being sung”.
Of course, everyone is entitled to his opinions. However, it seems quite strange to me that Sue’s absurd comment was not challenged on a blog of such a quality.
Hi, this is really a good post!
Dear Michael,
They were electrifying (my performances). I really enjoyed everything I was singing. The work, as usual, was tremendous. The preparation unbelievable, and dealing with conductors interesting. It seems now days few actually understand singing themselves. It is not hard to agree with, or support, common sense. Research brings us to a level of truth, even if we never learn all that truth at once. Like so many singers say: by the time I had to retire, I was just beginning to understand what singing was all about. Singing is such a special joy, but one of extreme work. I really don’t know how to stress to your readers that they will not find a magic scale, or some special exercise, that will open the flood-gates of instant fame and excellent production. And even when things are wonderful, the voice is working super well, each role brings with it challenges that are not, were not, part of your training. One must very methodically go through the role, consider the technique you have and figure out how to apply it to the various needs of the role. Sometimes one has to decide which notes even to stress. An example is in Abigaile from Verdi’s Nabucco. So many of those horrific scales go sky high and descend to the depths, but to stress both the top and the bottom will weaken the middle. So you have to decide which parts you will stress, or if you stress all the notes, make sure you sing the role but 3 or 4 times a year.
And then there is marrying your vocal technique to the physical act of acting. That is another thing entirely that most students are not at all prepared to face (I know I wasn’t at my debut). One simply will NOT know it all when they begin. That is why it is a life pursuit.
Some roles must be approached from a more personal vantage point, and one that not all audiences or critics will approve. If one’s voice is quite lyrical, one cannot push for the most dramatic, so the reading of a role will be more lyrical than perhaps people are used to.
But all this comes from learning to understand one’s own voice and one’s own sound.
I find it funny how so many people have really defended singers they love (which we all do) but simply refuse to accept that not everything they do is perfect. I would hardly say all my performances over the decades have been perfect. There have been many I really hated, and many operas I find more than disgusting to sing that I have sung. Singers are people, and we all find our place and what suits us best as we grow and develop, and as we sing before the public.
I think it is wonderful people ask questions, for that is the best way to learn. But are they listening to the answers? Are they willing to probe the answers deeply and discover why they are right? I am not sure.
It is far deeper than being able to spout off some axiom we all hear dealing with singing. It is really delving into the reasoning behind the axiom and coming to fully understand what it actually means, and from all angles. I really believe you are providing a forum where students of singing will be forced to think, to learn, to ask, and to study for themselves. For if they don’t do that, they will never grow or learn enough to really make a career, or even find the unbelievable joy that comes through the act of singing itself.
Hi Bea, great to hear from you again. I hope your performances were satisfying. As usual your comments are very informative. And they have the extra validity of decades of experience. Always nice to see that they support my research and theories. Thanks.
I have not read this blog in a long time. My career as a singer has taken me away from the opportunity to read it. These discussions are becoming so esoteric that the reality of what singing is all about seems to be lacking. I do NOT blame Mr. Mayer one bit for this, but rather the comments of the readers. Singing is an art and it is very physical, just like anything an athlete does. And BOTH groups of people need long hours, even years, of preparation to have the muscular memory needed to perform their tasks. Of course, all the bodily involvement in singing is natural to the body, or should be, but things go far beyond just that.
The basketball comparison was used, and it is a good one. To shoot hoops, to play well, requires a very strick use of the body and understanding of how it works to create the correct amount of strength needed to shoot a ball the distance and with the accuracy required. Singing is no different. In the example of natural basketball players, those who became quite good, even great to watch, but had no technique, we see what happens when someone used what “comes naturally” without any understanding of WHY it comes naturally, or what to do when the strength of youth disappears. Technique is understanding what the body is doing and learning how to recreate that function, even during times of illness or stress, to produce excellent sound, emotional involvement, and dramatic purpose to the singing. Lofty ideals are wonderful, even lofty dreamy explanations of what good singing involves are nice, but unless real foundations of understanding are placed under those dream castles, nothing will come of it, least of all any career worth speaking of.
It was also mentioned that one needs soul in what their sing. That I fully agree with. But only feeling that inner soul when you sing does not provide that as an audience experience, nor does it necessarily mean you will survive or sing well beyond that one performance. many singers sing with soul and deep emotion and their careers end in two shakes. In many ways just singing with soul because that is how you feel it is no different than just playing basketball in the school yard, looking really good at it, but having no understanding of how to maintain that ability.
Technique is the understanding of HOW to use the body and to keep it working, knowing exactly what is needed to accomplish the given task of singing. Sounds like what you have all been saying, but it is not.
Let me give an example: many young singers love to sing, and they sing well, in small rooms or their bathroom. Then they get the opportunity to sing in a larger hall, maybe even audition in a large theater. Their voices crash. What comes naturally did not supply the strength or the know-how to accomplish the act of singing in a larger place. They started to force the sound, push too much breath to be heard, all because they didn’t have the development, the technique, needed to know HOW to use the voice at its fullest.
One often hears of singing teachers constantly telling students to not put too much pressure on the voice, to hold back, to be gentler in what they do. The actual strength needed to sing, especially against a huge orchestra and in a large theatre, never develops. It is true one should NOT push the voice too much, but it takes far more muscular strength to sing opera than most voice teachers imagine.
Singing is very athletic, and like our basketball coach stated, it takes learning HOW to use and develop our muscles that makes us a great player. So it is with singing.
In past articles much has been written on breathing, but not one reader has ever clued in on WHY those exercises are done. It is not so you learn to hold your breath for a long period of time (though that can be a byproduct) rather it is to develop the muscles needed for the complete combination of appoggio (the leaning out or pressing out of the solar plexus muscles) and the support (the active use of the lower abdominal muscles). These muscle are used to regulate the rise and lowering of the diaphragma muscle so as to control the flow of breath and to regulate the breath pressure against the folds. Many famous singers (Domingo for one) state how it took them nearly two to three years to perfect the breathing and to fully strengthen the breathing muscles. This strength is needed to support the tone so it can carry over large orchestras and in large theaters, including out-door theatres. The purpose of so much exercise and of building such strong muscles is so that one has the needed strength to endure the work. These muscles take the load. Yes, they are used as is natural for the body, but in its natural state or the state of the average person, those muscles are extremely weak. To rely on that weakness to perform super-human feats of singing, and for hours on end, is unwise.
It is true that some singers sing with their technique on their sleaves. Some singers have no soul, as one writer put it, because they are too worried about their sound, their technique, and what have you. That is absolutely true. Even some very great singers had issues with their technique. Rosa Ponselle, as wonderful as she was, suffered the worst stage fright, which ultimately ended her career, and that was because she was a natural singer with a naturally suited voice for opera, but she had no understanding or technique to fall back on when the music she was singing was too frightening. Corelli was the same; a man with a self-taught technique, for the most part, and one who was forever worried about whether or not he would endure the performance. He also had a wife that completely destroyed him with critism each and every performance. He was never any good, in her opinion. Imagine being a nervous man, one uncertain of your own technique, and enduring that each and every performance. Believe me, the critics are often terrible enough, but to endure that at the same time, well, it is amazing he accomplished what he did at all.
There is a purpose behind technique which it seems everyone is missing. That purpose is to make the act of singing second nature. Natural singing without training soon decays, soon falls apart, and soon loses its energy and bloom. The reason is even though all muscles work the same way in no matter what music you sing, not all music requires the same strength of all those muscles. The singer simply has nothing to fall back on, no understanding of what to do or how to modify the use of various muscles to fit the needs of the music they are singing. This is what we learn when we study our technique. We learn how to use our muscles completely and with the needed strength to produce sound, good sound, for hours on end, and in large theatres against a huge curtain of never ending sound (often blarring sound, if you consider the brass instruments while singing Wagner, a composer I have sung often for decades now).
In order to elicit the emotions that communicate with an audience, to feel them within is not enough. Often that comes across as nothing at all. What you THINK you are feeling often registers as nothing to the audience. This is where a singer must take the time to understand how their technique can be used to present or create a specific emotion in the voice. I say that because you cannot actually feel those emotions within. If you do, for example, feel the rage Norma expresses, you will not be able to sing the music. Your voice will not function at all. Just consider what you sound like, and how you speak/yell when you are angry. Do you really use correct functional breathing? Do you really regulate your voice well so it can produce excellently poised pitches? Can you really sing coloratura effortlessly? The answer is a resounding NO. The voice crumbles under such pressure, and as we all know, when such an episode is through, we are often hoarse.
So though it is nice to babble about emotional connection with the message of the music, it is in reality just that — babbling. To sing, one must be aware of the emotions they are presenting, but must feel the peace of a spring day within. The real emotion you send out to your audience is one of “the joy of singing.” That joy pushes forth the pretended emotion that fits the situation. Michael Mayer has an excellent article on how we use our emotions to sing. Read it.
It is a certainty that no opera singer who has ever made it does so by simply picking up a score and singing the notes. They work through the piece, learn the words and why the composer has written the notes and phrases he did and how those melodies express the meaning and emotions behind the words. They take the time to learn how to use their technique to produce the needed results for the particular music at hand. Even though one uses the same muscles no matter what music one sings, one does not sing all music the same way. As an example: Norma must be sung with a stately noble fashion, but still infused with all the emiotions that the music will allow. Norma is not Puccini or Verismo, so that technical use of your abilities is wrong to use here. One must produce the emotions by producing the rhythms within the rhythm, putting the accents most perfectly where they fall, making sure that the beat always has the vowel placed upon it, etc. It is through these means that one breathes life into Norma. Gioconda is quite different. With this singing, one at times must use far more pronounced muscular involvement of the support muscles. One even must descend into the chest register without breaking the tone when rising out of it again. A very full understanding of how the support the voice is needed so as not to create breaks in the sound. But one must also be more physically involved. Where Norma is sung for the most part with a long bel canto line almost as it every line can be sung in one endless breath, Gioconda is sung with more emphatic emotional lines. But it is learning to use your technique to accomplish those things that is important.
Sometimes one has to learn how to stress their technique in ways that change the vocal center. Some roles are written higher than others, and just “feeling it naturally” will not give you the strength to endure the role. At 52 and at 58 I was required to sing Gilda and Ortrud within the same month, actually with only 2 days rest between the two. And so the run ran for 2 full months. They are NOT similar at all. Ortrud is a heavy Wagnerian role, often sung by mezzo-sopranos or contraltos, and at times by dramatic sopranos. My voice, having a very rich contralto quality, but not a contralto center, did the role well and with great volume and presence (it was my debut role at 18 years of age as well). But Gild, as we all know, is considered a coloratura role. Many high notes are now traditional, and frankly, without them, the role is sort of dull. So high Es were needed. The center of each role is quite different. So, I had to sit down and figure out how to lighten the voice, without strain of any kind, so as to sing a very young “girlish” role. The support necessary was far beyond anything needed for Ortrud. When I approached the role when 52 I had not sung it for over 30 years. I had to really sit down and work. I had to consider where I could keep the voice center comfortably placed (not all the role is all that high) and where I would have to allow it to raise a bit, but not too much. It was basically planning out my attack, my way of winning the war.
That is where technique comes in. One has to go through all they know about how the voice works, what is wanted to be achieved, and what you hope to be the end results. You have to learn the words, learn the music, learn the reasons behind what the characters are doing (and this is just as important in lieder), and then you must figure out how to use your technique to produce those results. Another of your goals is to always be as fresh in voice when you are finished singing as you were when you started. That requires the technique of pacing, of learning when to inhale quickly, or pace it over many measures. It includes learning how to incorporate rest moments in your singing, even while you are singing, not just when you are not singing. It requires learning how to feel repose when singing very fast music so as to not be winded, or learning to feel the forward pulse of the music in slow music to keep it moving and again not become winded. It requires also learning how to physical respond to what others on the stage are doing so as to appear like you actually are there taking part in a real drama (and you would be surprised at how many singers DON’T listen when their collegues are singing).
I could go on for hours. This is what technique is all about. It is something you learn, and to be truthful, you never stop learning no matter how long you sing. As you age, you have to study even more to learn how to use your technique in the most effective way, as the body is getting older and its natural strength is dwindling.
I really believe if the readers of this blog took the time to really understand what is behind singing, not the specific ideas of what makes a good technique or any specific technique per se (for I have found in my nearly 40 year career that no specific technique has all the answers, they often have their own limitations that bring about other problems; one often has to learn how to combine many various techniques to completely train the voice to be able to achieve its fullest potential) they would learn more. There is much to singing, far more than most people think. Its application is far more reaching than anyone knows, until you are up there doing it for an audience. And the world of singing is very much a work a day world. There isn’t the smallest particle of glamour to it, but there is much joy and satisfaction. But that comes only through extreme discipline, hard work, taking time to really understand what it is all about, and seeking answers at all times. And believe me, when you find one solution to one problem you have, the doors soon open to present you with another problem to deal with. That is how we grow and improve in singing. Sometimes I think that nature deliberately makes it so we are forced to deal with one issue at a time, for if we had to deal with all our needs, flaws, and requirements all at once, we would be overwhelmed.
When people write to Michael, don’t be impatient, nor get so off track you are speaking in riddles about nothing of substance. Those things do nothing to further your understanding of singing. They will set you back much further than you are. Understand that when you get an answer for one problem, it is but one problem, but seldom is that the only problem you will be having with your singing. But as that problem is cleared up, a new one will surface. Then you will perfect that and something else will appear. That is how we grow and develop, and that is why we learn technique. Technique helps us learn to manage our difficulties and use our own unique voices in the best way possible. Strive to learn and there is nothing you will not conquer; strive to condemn, complain, or challenge the knowledge coming your way and you will never grow.