This past week I met up with an adult student and friend for bagels at a brand new shop in town1. My student shares an equal passion about bagels, vocal technique and the ethics of singing, so we had a lively conversation. Carbs and pedagogy? I’m always down for that.
One topic that came up in our discussion was a rehashing of a particular dichotomy I often encounter: the contrast and implications between the Direct Control/Localization School and the Indirect Control/Coordination School of voice training.
The former school was best defined by pedagogue Herbert Witherspoon as,
…the school which teaches to stress certain acts with definitely separated organs such as the palate, tongue, larynx, fauces, lips, diaphragm, abdominal muscles, back muscles, facial muscles, the feet, legs, buttocks, and in fact every part of our unsuspecting anatomies2.
The latter school rejects in toto all attempts at localized or mechanistic controls of the voice. It rests upon the foundation that the voice can be led through indirect means of pitch, vowel, and volume to ‘find’ itself. It is, as Witherspoon rightly acknowledged, a school of coordination. The aim of this school is for the teacher to lead the student through a program of training that aims to cooperate with Nature’s laws - the dictates so scrupulously attended to by so many of the early writers on voice teaching.
Understanding this dichotomy brings me to my argument today: the training of singing must embrace variety to mitigate the adverse effects of adhering too rigidly to one pedagogical direction.
If a teacher adopts the direct/local control method, it is even MORE imperative that they work diligently to counteract the inherent limitations of that school.
Swing the Pendulum Constantly
In my own teaching, I often talk about the idea of a pendulum when thinking about vocal development. By this, I mean that there is a continuum of behavior in the voice that we can balance from in order to gain insight into where we are at any given moment. But we must be on guard that we don't get 'stuck' at either end in trying to fix problems.
Berton Coffin also agreed that exercises in singing should be constantly varied in singing training and practice:
The voice is a flexible instrument and lives best on change. Keeping changing the types of exercises to automate the controls and to strengthen the muscles involved with giving the various sounds. Unless you vary your singing you will become fatigued and your audience will believe your singing to be colorless.3
The metaphor of a pendulum to illustrate the balance in vocal pedagogy is quite effective. By encouraging the opposite of a student's habitual fault, we can often achieve a more favorable vocal response over time.
However, it is crucial to exercise caution to avoid replacing one vocal fault with another in this corrective process.
For instance, if the larynx is positioned too high, exercises that encourage a lower position can help achieve a more balanced alignment. If the vowels are overly spread, vocalizing with more narrowed lips can be beneficial. Similarly, if the chest voice is excessively dominant, focusing on the head voice for a period can create equilibrium. Following this approach, exercises should be prescribed to counteract the current fault.
The issue with the pendulum approach arises when the singer or teacher concentrates on the opposite side for an excessive period, thereby creating a new vocal problem and causing the student to become "stuck" on the other side.
Frederick Husler and Yvonne Rodd-Marling discuss this exact phenomenon in their book Singing: The Physical Nature of the Vocal Organ (1965). Prolonged experimentation in one area results in another one-sided issue. As they assert in their book, our goal is to strive for the complete integration of the voice.
The voice trainer, like the physician, carries out a therapy, his concern being to cure defects of a functional nature. He corrects unphysiological movements by exercising physiologically correct ones. He invariably carries out this treatment by way of his ear; his ear and that of the pupil. He hears analytically when working on parts of the whole; but he never loses sight of the whole so that the organ’s functional balance may not be destroyed. The creative side of his work lies in this comprehensive listening, in this striving towards the whole.
[...]
Not knowing, however, the physiological processes that underlie the practices he used to obtain the improvement, all his further work is now in danger of taking a wrong course. He does not realize that the 'right' he has been teaching will soon produce new 'faults'. This is what happens. His 'correction' has accentuated, has isolated, one set of muscle movements, one manner of functioning, out of the whole organic complex. Further, by focussing the attention so long and so consistently on to one process (by using a particular sound-picture, 'placing', etc) other, and equally important processes in the organ have been brought to a partial, perhaps total, standstill. In this way, at least two new so-called 'faults' will have come into existence. Most artificially engendered disorders occur in this manner; and the more thorough the teaching, the graver the results. Should the pupil's natural singing instinct be very strong, it will subconsciously resist, it will counteract the damage done and may, just possibly, assimilate correctly the thing 'learned'. This very seldom occurs.4
This is a rather strong argument for resisting the urge to keep a student for too long in any ONE corrective vocal exercise.
I try to remember the holism of the voice through the idea of the pendulum at all times. I have seen students get 'stuck' in one direction on my exercises, and I only have myself to blame. For example, by staying too long in lower laryngeal exercises (to counterbalance a high larynx), I've had students become throaty and guttural. Oops!
This is why some specific methodologies for training the voice can become rather limiting over time. A student may note rapid improvement at the beginning, but over time, the instrument will come back to a standstill, as Husler and Rodd-Marling described.
If the image of the pendulum is lost, single-cure pedagogies spring up to claim that ONE thing is the secret to vocal technique. If the teacher believes these one-sided directives (breath, registration, resonance) are the answer to all vocal problems, one can miss the forest for the trees.
Another brilliant (and personal favorite) author who described the dangers of getting stuck on one side of the pendulum was Herbert Witherspoon.
Writing in his magnificent book Singing (1925), he laid out a brilliant paragraph on the dangers of what can happen when the cure becomes the fault:
Again, teachers must continually keep in mind that any undue prolonging of the use of any phonetic may result in the forming of a new fault, because of the exaggeration of action and resonance which the use of the phonetic causes. Therefore it must never be forgotten that the acquiring of perfect coordination is the aim and end of all our study. To make this clearer, let us take a specific case. Suppose the pupil sings too much in the pharynx, due to the idea of “drinking in” the tone, of “attacking” almost like inhaling, or some habit or acquired fault. The teacher may ask him to vocalize upon HUNG, followed by MY, MING, MEE, and finally EE, using the opposites of the fault. If the pupil continues too long in the use of these phonetics, he will not only lose the habit which he is trying to change or cure, but he may acquire a thin, reedy, pinched tone, faulty in the opposite direction, and resulting from the vowel EE, which intensifies larynx action, raises the larynx, and causes the strongest reaction upon the larynx. We must use the phonetics simply to release tensions, change directions of action, alter resonances, until we can with safety use the complete singing sound of AH. It is really a very simple method of procedure, based upon actual principle and common sense, and the law of opposites.
For teacher and pedagogue Jeannette LoVetri5, too much training in one direction was to likened to sailing:
When tackling a tough vocal technique problem you cannot go in a straight line. It is very much like sailing into the wind — first you sail to the right, then you make a sharp turn and sail to the left, but always on the diagonal. It takes longer, but you get there.6
LoVetri has deeply examined the pros and cons of all voice maneuvers. No direction of training is THE direction of training. You are guaranteed to get into trouble if you stay too long in one direction.
No one way IS THE way. Each color represents an opposing pedagogical direction (loud/soft, fast/slow, etc).
There are pros AND cons for each technical direction if indulged in for too long a period of time.
As a teacher I must remember that pendulums need to move to create energy. Too much attention one on side of the arc risks creating problems instead of solving them. To develop a balanced voice, balanced pedagogy should be the goal for any teacher of voice.
Informed Consent
It is my professional opinion that as long as the singer is fully informed about the implications of any one approach—and what they will be gaining and losing—they are free to experiment with various techniques.
However, should a teacher choose to pursue a singular direction, I firmly believe they should inform the student of the limitations associated with that specific technique. Students should be informed about what they are gaining and losing.7
With this understanding, anyone can proceed as they wish.
Regrettably, most instruction is unaware of the potential musical losses incurred by rigidly fixing the voice in such specialized positions.
Train a voice how you will. Sing the way you wish. But any species of training should allow a student to have informed consent over what they are gaining AND losing.
Conclusion
As teachers and singers, it is essential to recognize the diverse methods and techniques available for voice training and understand the potential implications of each approach.
My metaphor of a pendulum serves as a powerful reminder that vocal development is a dynamic process requiring constant adjustment and balance. By encouraging exercises that counteract habitual faults, we can often achieve a more favorable vocal response. However, it is crucial to avoid becoming fixated on any one corrective measure for too long, as this can lead to new issues and hinder overall vocal progress.
Historical and contemporary perspectives, such as those from Herbert Witherspoon, Frederick Husler, Yvonne Rodd-Marling, and Jeannette LoVetri, underscore the importance of striving for the complete integration of the voice. These experts highlight the dangers of one-sided training and advocate for a comprehensive approach that considers the voice as a whole.
As educators, we must remember that our goal is to develop a balanced voice through varied and adaptive pedagogy. Informed consent plays a pivotal role in this process. By ensuring that students are fully aware of the benefits and limitations of any given technique, we empower them to make informed decisions about their vocal development. This is pedagogical empowerment.
Ultimately, the path to vocal mastery is not a straight line but a journey of exploration and adjustment. By maintaining an open mind, staying attuned to the needs of our students, and fostering a holistic approach to voice training, we can help singers achieve their fullest potential while preserving the integrity and versatility of their voices.
See you next week,
JP
Massachusetts bagels are okay - but nothing compares to the bagels I had when I lived in New Jersey. Something in the water made them fantastic bagels.
Witherspoon, Herbert. Singing: A treatise for teachers and students. New York: G. Schirmer, 1925.
Coffin, Berton. Overtones of Bel Canto: Phonetic Basis of Artistic Singing: With 100 Chromatic Vowel-chart Exercises. Scarecrow, 1980.
Husler, Frederick, and Yvonne Rodd-Marling. "Singing: The Physical Nature of theVocal Organ." London: Hutchinson & Co. Ltd (1965).
For example, all students should be informed that by anchoring the larynx in a low position, they are sacrificing agility, dynamic contrast, and the flexibility for spontaneous expression. I have seen YouTube channels completely devoted to the pushed low larynx, using it as a selling point for some kind of “Old Italian” technique. This creator might wish to read the accumulated historical literature, listen to recordings of the early 20th century, and cease attributing the singing of the 1950s to some kind of historical Italian school.