Voice Production in Singing and Speaking | Page 5

art
that a knowledge of the structure and functions of these delicate
arrangements of Nature would be at least of great if not of essential
importance. The engineer knows the structure and uses of each part of
his engine, and does not trust to unintelligent observation of the mere
working of mechanisms which others have constructed. The architect
studies not only the principles of design, etc., but also the nature and
relative value of materials. In his own way he is a kind of anatomist
and physiologist.
We do not trust the care of our bodies to those who have picked up a
few methods of treatment by experience or the imitation of others. The
doctor must have, we all believe, a knowledge of the structure and
working of the animal body; he must understand the action of drugs
and other healing agents. We expect him not only to diagnose the
disease--to tell us exactly what is the matter--but also to be able to
predict with, some degree of certainty the course of the malady. Even
the nurse of the day must show some grasp of the principles underlying
her art.
In connection with all the largest and best equipped universities in
America there are officials to plan and direct the courses in physical
culture. This matter is no longer entrusted to a "trainer," who has only
his experience and observation to rely upon. It is realized that the

building up of the mechanism which they are supposed to train in an
intelligent manner rests upon well-established principles.
It would be just as reasonable for an engineer to point to the fact that
his engine works well, as evidence of his ability, as for the teacher of
voice-production to make the same claim in regard to the vocal
mechanism. In each case there is a certain amount of justification for
the claim, but such teaching cannot be called scientific. Is it even
enlightened? It is just as rational to follow in medicine methods that
seem to lead to good results, without any reference to the reason why,
as to train for results in speaking and singing by methods which have
for the student and teacher no conscious basis in scientific knowledge.
The physician to-day who treats disease without reference to anatomy
and physiology is, at best, but a sort of respectable charlatan. Why
should students and teachers of voice-production be content to remain,
in the advanced present, where they were hundreds of years ago?
Indeed, there is much more reason now than formerly why the vocalist,
speaker, and teacher should have a theoretical and practical knowledge
of the structure and workings of the mechanism employed. Many
tendencies of the present day work against successful
voice-training--worst of all, perhaps, the spirit of haste, the desire to
reach ends by short cuts, the aim to substitute tricky for straightforward
vocalization, and much more which I shall refer to again and again.
They hurt this cause; and I am deeply impressed with the conviction
that, if we are to attain the best results in singing and speaking, we must
betake ourselves in practice to the methods in vogue at a time which
may be justly characterized as the golden age of voice-production.
We have advanced, musically, in many respects since the days of the
old Italian masters, but just as we must turn to the Greeks to learn what
constitutes the highest and best in sculpture, so must we sit at the feet
of these old masters. Consciously or unconsciously they taught on
sound physiological principles, and they insisted on the voice-training
absolutely necessary to the attainment of the best art.
However talented any individual may be, he can only produce the best
results as a singer, actor, or speaker, when the mechanisms by which he

hopes to influence his listeners are adequately trained. Why do we look
in vain to-day for elocutionists such as Vandenhoff, Bell, and others?
Why are there not actors with the voices of Garrick, Kean, Kemble, or
Mrs. Siddons, or singers with the vocal powers of a score of celebrities
of a former time? It is not that voices are rarer, or talent less widely
bestowed by nature. It is because we do not to-day pursue right
methods for a sufficient length of time; because our methods rest
frequently on a foundation less physiological, and therefore less sound.
Take a single instance, breath-control. In this alone singers to-day are
far behind those of the old Italian period, not always because they do
not know how to breathe, but because often they are unwilling to give
the time necessary for the full development of adequate breathing
power and control.
There was probably never a time when so much attention was paid to
the interpretation of music, yet the results are often