Saturday, September 13, 2014

Kashu-do (歌手道): Becoming Tenor 2: The Nature of Talent and the Responsibilities Thereunto

Several things inspired this post.  First, in checking the traffic on this blog, I noticed a large number of people find the blog by searching "baritone to tenor switch" or similar search titles.  Second, I feel the word "talent" as it is often used can be a preparation to disaster.  Third, and a commentary of my second reason, very little difference is made between what are genetic attributes and the skills developed relative to such attributes.

I have often said on this blog that I did not "change" from baritone to tenor.  I don't believe a natural baritone can make a change to become a reliable tenor.  To support this statement, I must define what is a natural tenor as distinguishable from a baritone.

Parameters that are used to distinguish voice types:

Timbre:  When my voice changed at age 11 or 12, I dropped from a high soprano to a low bass.  My choir teacher in middle school wrote special bass parts for me and by the time I got to high school I was the lowest bass in the section, and proud of my special "talent".  I thought then, this was the "nature" of my adult voice and my very caring teacher never said otherwise.

Arriving at Westminster Choir College (Princeton, NJ, USA), I quickly discovered there were voices that were both lower and more substantial than mine.  Nevertheless, I felt more comfortable as a bass and through my senior year, I sang bass roles even though by that point I had developed higher notes, felt comfortable performing G4 in both my junior and senior recitals and would occasionally sing the tenor Bb in the touring choir's encore number, an arrangement of the Battle Hymn of the Republic.

In graduate school, at the University of Michigan, back then always in the top four music schools in the United States, I encountered very well-developed voices in my vocal category and quickly thought I was a lyric baritone, albeit with a very rich tone color.

For a total of 25 years I sang oratorios and orchestral concerts and some 40 operatic roles with middle level organizations and occasionally replacing someone for a high profile performance.  When I felt ready to take the next steps into higher level performance, it seems people became increasingly disenchanted with what was always referred to as a superior package.

At very least, we can agree that my timbre did not change drastically.

Why did I not simply develop over time as a bass?  I had both the dark vocal color and the low notes.  I can still sing C2 regularly.  Not very loudly, but respectably. Many basses I know have not developed those notes.

Let us talk about what is primarily responsible for natural vocal timbre (i.e. what nature gives us)!  I have concluded that natural color of the voice is determined by the thickness of the mucosal layers of the vocal folds (also called fold-cover), which in an ideal situation make up the vibratory tissue during phonation.

We will return to how vocal color is not a primary determinant of voice type but rather a secondary definer of sub-categories.

Range:  A singer who can sing a low C like I could would be considered a bass at first thought.  By the time I got to graduate school, my teacher, George Shirley, routinely warmed me up beyond C5. Is a male singer with a high C necessarily a tenor?  I teach dramatic baritones who can sing an easier high C than I can.  They are not lazy tenors.  I should be able to tell, given my experience!  I have dramatic coloraturas who sing higher than some lyric coloraturas and lower than some baritones.  What does that say?  It says those baritones have not explored their low range and the lighter coloraturas sometimes are happy enough to be able to touch F6.  There are notes beyond the required performance ranges.

Tessitura (Let us call it Area of Unforced Power):  In listening to my old recordings, what makes me not a baritone is that when I sang an F4 (supposedly a money note for a baritone), it does not sound very intense.  Therefore, being a sensitive dramatic singer, I knew what color was necessary for those Fs and so I unknowingly manufactured a tonal color to fit my given vocal type (my label).  No matter how convincing I could be in some auditions in a small room, those notes did not sound as exciting in a large room with orchestra.  When I would sing a third higher, my voice became effortlessly powerful.  I imagined I simply had to develop that kind of power in the baritone tessitura, but powerful F4s were not in my vocal make-up.  In student productions, yes! In top professional situations, not as good!  When you find yourself playing Leporello opposite the rich voice of John Cheek's Don Giovanni, you better be a great actor.  My acting ability made up for what was lacking in natural vocal power.  I had enough color to make Leporello work, but not the vocal intensity in that tessitura.

What then is responsible for determining tessitura?  

Fold Mass!  Longer (Horizontal) and deeper (vertical) folds have a great influence on how low one can sing and most importantly that the folds reach a strong tautness at lower frequency levels and thereby create a much more intense tonal quality at those lower frequency levels.  Long and deep folds have naturally lower notes (although many singers do not explore their low range completely. Many professional basses sing below the confines of the traditional piano keyboard).

Let us say that a natural bass with long and deep folds does not sound as rich as his dramatic baritone counterpart!  Why is that, if the bass has longer and deeper fold mass than the average baritone?  Because the baritone has thicker mucosal layers.  The vibratory body of the folds should be the mucosal layers.  However, some singers will press the folds together to induce a thicker vibration mode than is native to them.  This requires greater compression of the breath and a great deal more pressure on the larynx as a whole.  The tone often sounds hard and on the verge of instability.  Some physically robust singers can endure this kind of phonation for a long time.  But they are more the exception than the rule.  Parenthetically, our bass with the leaner mucosal layers (fold cover) would be called a lyric bass.

To conclude my story, I discovered late in my career that I had folds short like a tenor, with a very thick fold cover akin to a baritone, even bass-baritone.  The color of the voice reminds of a baritone, but its natural tessitura is higher.  The thicker fold cover provides greater resistance to the air stream and so my ability to generate adequate breath pressure must be better developed to maintain a free vibration along the fold cover.  The moment that this breath support fails, the larynx makes up for it via the inter-arytenoids that presses the folds together, reducing the breath flow to a trickle. A more intense but less resonant sound. Fold vibration frequency is constant for a given fundamental pitch.  If the breath pressure is reduced too much, maintenance of that fundamental frequency require the breath usage to lessen.  To maintain a more flowing vibration modality (flow-phonation) a certain amount of breath is necessary to keep the fold cover vibrating freely (not trapped by a medial squeeze).

Considering my past, in the attempt to sound like a baritone, I must have pressed my folds together to achieve more intensity and a thicker vibration modality.  Nevertheless, it would never sound as free and resonant as a natural baritone not pressing.

In retraining as a tenor, I had to:

1) take away the false pressure (retrain the inter-arytenoids not to press the folds together and trapping my fold cover)

2) Develop a breath support system that was equal to the nature of my fold cover

3) Develop a dynamic between fold length and depth (Crico-Thyroid vs. Vocalis [Internal Thyro-Arytenoid) that created the most efficient fold vibration (because I also sang a Vocalis-dominant sound in an attempt to sound more at home in the baritone range)

4) Develop a balanced resonance strategy relative to lower and higher formants, such that the voice sounded natural relative to its native make-up.

This was a tall order.

And now that I am a confident tenor after seven years of hard work, was it worthwhile?

To me yes!  But not everyone has that kind of patience, and not everyone can decide to let go entirely of what was working at a decent level.  I got hired by 5 Universities based partly on my ability to present a convincing performance at the audition, as well as be able to teach well--Never mind that I do not think very much of academia for the development of a singing artist. There are few schools willing to and equipped to address the dilemmas intrinsic in becoming a classical singer--

I had something that could earn me a decent living.  I was a functioning baritone, good enough for some decent name University programs and some regional orchestras and opera companies that were willing to give me an opportunity to display my talent and grow in the process. For me that was not enough.  The same thing that drove me out of Academia is the same thing that drove me to becoming the tenor that I am.  I became a singer to achieve the highest level of artistry possible.  For me...for me (not necessarily for others), I could not go on knowing that there was something better that was not being investigated.  Same is true of the academic institutions I experienced as a teacher.

Freelance teaching is not the most financially secure situation, but I managed to make a living at it at least equal and some years better than I was doing in academia.  It takes a lot more responsibility on my part and also a great deal more traveling than I would like.  But I am honestly facing my ability as a teacher and by extension I am forced to evaluate my worth as a singer.  I must be better if I am so bold as to instruct professionals and aspiring professionals and my favorites, the committed amateur who is determined to be the best s/he can be.

Did I sacrifice my professional career development?

I don't believe I did.  I don't think I could have made a real impact at the top of the field using my tenor voice as a baritone.  Some disappointing auditions, at which I was told I had a flawless vocal technique but not enough vocal power, made me begin to question.  Questions that ultimately lead me to understand (through a series of events) that I was in fact a tenor.

As I prepare for my first Winterreise as a tenor (I sang the cycle often as a baritone), I feel more empowered artistically than ever before.  My voice feels the most honest ever and I am enjoying the relearning of this cycle with a fresh feel.

With a fully developed voice (technical mastery is a lifelong pursuit of course) I have the great benefit of no longer being a victim to reflux or minor food intolerances.  If I wake up with a case of reflux, I am able to warm up, and feel functional.  The better my technical work the day before, the easier my voice works the day after, regardless of reflux, slight cold or allergy.

In short the benefits of this seven-year journey are undeniable to me.  But that is my journey.

Granted, not every tenor who starts as a baritone deals with the issues I had.  I teach a young tenor who is physically robust and always used his voice relative to its nature.  He always used his voice like the tenor he is.  But because the voice is robust, in his undergraduate years he sang baritone and bass-baritone like I did.  Yet he used his voice correctly.  When we started to work together, he did not have many bad habits to fix.  It was a matter of developing ease in the top range.  He could already handle the tessitura pretty well.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Nature of Talent

Relative to what I discuss above about my own journey, the nature of classical singing talent is a complicated thing.  One must look at talent not as vocal ability, but rather as the attributes necessary to get those in power to pay attention:

1) You are a young singer, 20 years old, with an even three and a half octave range that you can produce every day with apparent ease...

That is enough to get most people to call you very talented (I know at least 20 such singers).  

What takes you from interesting to earning your living in the art of classical singing?

A.  How fast can you learn music accurately without the aid of a recording? Better said, what is your musicianship level?

B. How well can you deliver foreign language text while singing and convince your listener you understand every word and its dramatic purpose?  In other words, how musical and how dramatically compelling are you?

C. How charming are you as a person?  In other words, will the person hiring feel comfortably sharing a meal with you, and will you be a hit at a party thrown by patrons of the organization?

D.  How physically attractive are you? In other words, can you fill the extremely revealing undergarment that substitutes for "costume" in the current production of the opera you are applying for?


If you can do three out the four items above well, you may be ready to have a professional career at the tender age of 20.  It has happened. 

In most cases however, it will takes 5 to 10 years of working hard to achieve the three things above.  And as you get older the expectations are higher.  

In other words, the assessment of "talent" changes depending on age!

2) If you are a true dramatic tenor, nearing 50 and you have a flawless high C and you are dramatically compelling and master all the major operatic languages and have the stamina to sing Tannhäuser, Parsifal, Otello, Samson, Radames and Cavaradossi without a sweat...

That is enough to get people to call you very talented (I don't know so many people like that)

What takes you from interesting to earning your living in the art of classical singing?

A.  How fast can you learn music accurately without the aid of a recording? Better said, what is your musicianship level?  Can we call you at 3 am and ask if 24 hours is enough time for you to learn Bacchus of book?

B. How well can you deliver foreign language text while singing and convince your listener you understand every word and its dramatic purpose?  In other words, how musical and how dramatically compelling are you? Can you move on stage in such a way that everyone believes you are 25 years old while delivering crazy difficult music with Jonas Kaufmann style ease?

C. How charming are you as a person?  In other words, will the person hiring feel comfortably sharing a meal with you, and will you be a hit at a party thrown by patrons of the organization?

D.  How physically attractive are you? In other words, how much space do you take on stage that is consistent with being a lead tenor (Meaning, you cannot be perceived as fat).  Therefore, how muscular can you be?  How much will the rich female patrons pay to see you again when you appear shirtless in your Otello love scene or in your final Samson scene? Enough to want to give a couple of million toward the next production?

When I look at that list, I imagine I have as much a chance as anyone and I've got most of this down.  But I also know that that list list of A-D is meaningless until I get the fundamental talent in place.  So that is how I spend my time.  I know I have the musicianship, musicality, language skills and stagecraft.  I know I am charming enough to be a hit at a party, particularly when I am already the center of attention at a production.  Been there done that.  Bodybuilder-type muscles have never been a priority with me, but I am a brown-sash in Kung Fu and whenever I train for three months straight I get close to the Barihunks aesthetic.

None of this is impossible!  The question is how do you want to play this game?  I chose to play it peacefully.  My blog is as much a therapeutic way of airing out my thoughts as it is an attempt at informing and instructing.  I am an artist first.  A career in the questionable world of opera does not define me.  However, like any honest singer, I want to have the opportunity to sing my favorite repertoire in a venue and atmosphere that does the art credit.  Therefore I have to be willing to play the game by meeting the challenges that the business puts before me.

I believe presenting yourself before you are 100% confident in your abilities, especially at a more advanced age, is a recipe for failure.  I never imagined becoming the dramatic tenor that I am was ever going to be easy.  The fact that there are few dramatic tenors in the world singing these roles with consistency and ease (it has been so since I saw my first Tannhäuser at age 16) made it clear to me that I had my work cut out for me.  I also knew from the start that it would be certain failure to rush into auditions half-baked.  I watched too many colleagues fail thinking that their charm and 1 out of 10 B-flats in auditions is enough to get them having a career because there are so few viable dramatic tenors.  Since there are few truly great dramatic tenors around, no one is interested in having more mediocre ones.  Like it or not, Domingo was the last undeniably successful Otello.  If you audition with that role, people will have certain Domingo expectations until someone else comes along and redefine the role.  Either you meet the Domingo expectation or you give an alternative that is just as powerful or more so!

I'm the first to to argue the dysfunctional nature of the operatic field!  The above expectations are in part laughable, but notice that many of the expectations I write here have to do with bona fide operatic skills.  As operatic aspirants, we have to play the game that is being played, but we do not have to sacrifice our values to do it.  If we can respect ourselves and live by our standards, we can pump iron and give the meat-marketers the six-packs and guns they want, because we will not be defined ultimately by the superficialities but by the artistry that we value.

© 09/13/2014


Sunday, September 7, 2014

Kashu-do (歌手道): Old School or Cult?: The Aversion to Discipline in the Modern Operatic Culture

In Le maître de musiqueone of the rare films dealing with the operatic discipline, a master teacher played by celebrated baritone, José van Dam, talks proudly about killing his young student with scales. Later in the film, he has his young tenor swim laps in the pond of his property and has him hold his breath underwater to see if he can control his breath, stating:

"...you are a tenor!"   
"But you said before I was a baritone," the student replies.   
The teacher counters: "You are a tenor.  You have the voice.  It is the physical stamina you lack!"
To his young female student he discussed concentration.  He opens a blind while she sang and she was distracted.

 "You must be the music! Nothing else exists!" 
 "You must never close your eyes. You sing with them as much as with your voice." 

This movie details in such wonderful precision, the nature of our art form:  the politics, the sacrifices in the name of art, the daily discipline that yields great results and the charismatic influential teacher who promises careers but lacks the skills to bring his own students to professional readiness.  The film should be requisite viewing for all aspiring classical singers.  Yet its message is subtle.  It is a Belgian film and it does not hammer the "moral of the story" home like a good Hollywood drama!

I venture to think the average young singer would miss the point entirely.  A dying singer who takes on two students and "...kills them with scales" until they are whipped into shape might be considered cultish, to the blasé and jaded youth of our times.  Students today find it normal to take uppers to give themselves a performance edge or downers to keep them from getting nervous.  Sleeping one's way to the top is considered good business sense in most circles now instead of the selling of the soul that it is. Learning one's music by listening to recordings and being devoid of musical opinion, letting oneself be spoon-fed by a répétiteur is preferred to honest scholarship and intelligence.  What is cultish?  The teacher who aspires to old-fashion rigorous training or the one promoting doping and prostitution?

Which one of the following teacher statements is cultish and which one wise?

A.  You are dumb, you have no talent and no charisma! Without me you will not amount to anything? Now I will charge your credit card for $250.00 for 45 minutes.

B.  You have potential but you lack work ethic!  Singing requires extreme discipline in many areas including vocal technique, physical fitness, language training, and general education in the arts as well as social skills...

The average student in a large city in the world will pay the $250.00 and equate verbal abuse to "tough love!"  They might also be led to believe that anything worthwhile costs more.  The teacher who charges less must not be very good.

A common conversation between an Old-School teacher and a modern student:

Teacher: When you go to the top voice, do not lose the support you feel in the low! Maintain an open throat and all the while sing clear intelligible vowels!  Emit the breath freely and unimpeded, yet do not waste air by pushing it out nor hold it back and prevent its natural release.

Student:  It is much easier when I just lighten up and let it go bright in the head!

Teacher:  Of course it is easier.  It is a one-sided experience and the tone is of poor quality!

Student:  It does not sound poor to me and I can do it every time.  When I attempt what you ask, it is more difficult!

Teacher:  Let's go to the park!
(At the Park)

Teacher: Please uproot one blade of grass from the ground!  Make sure you bring it up entirely, root and all!  (Student performs the task easily and smiles)!

Teacher:  Do it again! (Student performs the task easily a second time and smiles proudly)!

Teacher:  Now uproot three blades of grass at the same time!  (The student tries and one out of three blades broke in the middle.  He tries again and this time two blades broke and one is uprooted.  He tries several times and does not succeed and stops with frustration and anger)!

Student:  It's not possible to uproot three blades at once!  What does it prove? Just like trying to sing a pure vowel in throat and keeping weight in the top voice and blowing air through the vocal cords while hoping not to waste it! All impossible!

(The teacher bends down and three times in a row uproots three blades of grass).

Teacher:  It only takes practice!  The first time I tried it, I failed too.  But I knew it was possible!  And it is not "singing a pure vowel in the throat" but rather "maintaining an open throat while singing clear intelligible vowels."  That is a big difference!  It is not "keeping weight in the top voice" but rather "maintaining support as you ascend toward the top" and it is not "blowing air through the vocal cords while hoping not too waste it" but rather "emitting freely the amount of air that is required, no more no less!"

Student:  But what is wrong with just doing what comes easily?

Teacher:  Nothing, except that there is nothing special about it.  I can ask anyone here in this park to uproot one blade of grass and they would succeed.  But how many do you think could successfully uproot three blades of grass consistently?  Uprooting three blades of grass, like a superior vocal technique, is a learned skill that requires repetition. Concentrated repetition!

Student:  Why does it have to be hard?  Shouldn't singing be fun?

Teacher:  Once the superior skill is trained, it is not so hard and it becomes exponentially fun because it permits you to do so many musical things easily that your current technique will not allow.  What you can do easily, hundreds of young singers your age can do.  If you develop a real skill, you will be set apart from your competition.

Student:  How long is that going to take?  How much older will I be when I learn this? Won't I age out of most auditions and competitions? Until now I've always been told I am talented.  If I follow your program, I will lose all confidence in my talent.

Teacher:  Or you will gain greater confidence, true confidence in a consciously learned skill that you will be able to repeat at will.  And with such skill you will have a much greater chance of succeeding at auditions when you do present yourself, instead of doing auditions just to do them and accomplish nothing in the process.

Student:  I don't think so!  I'm done.  This whole thing is a little too "cultish" for me.  I want to stay natural!

Teacher:  I wish you well on your journey!

----------------------------------------------------------

My little story only illustrates what occurs too often in studios throughout the world, particularly in big cities.  In a fast-food culture of immediate but superficial gratification, art is synonymous with entertainment.  The average person cannot distinguish from a beautifully painted landscape and a painting by numbers.  S/he considers Sarah Brightman and Andrea Bocelli to be operatic icons while few people outside of operatic circles know the names of Jonas Kaufmann or Stephanie Blythe.  (For the uninitiated, Brightman and Bocelli are not opera singers and they could not be heard in the presence of a symphonic orchestra without microphones).  Young singers in big cities tire quickly of a day job that sucks their artistic energy and they would give their bodies and souls to leave those jobs and get a shot at their dreams at whatever the cost.

In truth, we cannot totally blame them!  It is often after spending four years  at conservatories and music colleges, taking the easy route to a degree, that they are confronted with the savage reality of the operatic field:  that there are thousands of young singers just like them coming out of schools just like theirs every year and there are not enough jobs or even training opportunities that would make them viable singers.  By that point, they are only looking for a teacher with a good illusion, a magic trick of sorts, that convinces them they could turn into Cinderella at the wave of a magic wand and have a go at the Operatic ball! 


To tell them there are no magic wands or quick tricks makes you the villain!  They would rather hide in a cocoon of self-delusion rather than confront the reality that they are not as good as they need to be to have a real shot.

The solution is early discipline!  There are two types of students: the one who gives up on a math problem after 15 minutes and the one who solves it in 45 minutes.  The one who worked 30 minutes more investigated 3 times the number of possibilities until s/he arrived at a solution.  S/he not only develops the confidence that s/he can solve future problems, but s/he has already learned that perseverance leads to results and has explored a number of avenues that may prove helpful in future problems.

For my part, I live by the following axiom:  There are either winners or those who quit too soon!
In every discipline, there are thousands of times more quitters than there are winners!

© 9/7/2014

Friday, August 22, 2014

Kashu-do (歌手道): Going to the "Insecure" place": Crescendo-Diminuendo and Other Advanced Exercises

"You have to let go!"  How many of us have heard this assertion and others like it from our well-meaning teachers?  As always, our teachers are not wrong for bringing up these wonderful ideas, however the question is whether a student is at a point whereby s/he is truly able to let go without things falling apart.  Imagine asking a young gymnast to do a one-handed handstand on the first week of classes or someone who has done little physical development to do a one-arm push-up!

Tai Chi has taught me that grace and fluidity comes from the leg strength that permits one to do a slow movement that carries most of the body's weight on one-leg and ever-so gradually transfers the weight to the other leg.  Both legs must be strong to make the transition fluid and unbroken.  Likewise, an ideal stability is necessary when crescendoing on a a single note.  

Why is it that particularly difficult to crescendo-diminuendo on a note that lies in the muscular passaggio (where the mechanism goes from a vocalis-dominant [thickening] mode to a crico-thyroid-dominant [stretching] mode?  
The reasoning here is that during the crescendo phase, more sub-glottal pressure is exerted on the vocal folds.  If the phonation is truly balanced and the set-up is strong enough to handle the breath pressure, the crescendo occurs without a glitch.  However is one of the two muscle groups is weak, it will buckle under pressure.  That is, if CT is weak, the voice might lower slightly during crescendo.  If Vocalis is weak, the voice might go sharp during crescendo.

If the set-up of the particular pitch (Fundamental Frequency) is unbalanced, say that one of the two main muscle groups is hyperactive, the Inter-arytenoids  will compensate.  In the case of too much vocalis activity, which would lengthen the vibration cycle, the IAs relax to accelerate the "opening" portion of the close phase.  This relaxation might cause some breathiness or else the folds may just fall apart from each other.  If on the other hand the CT is hyperactive, it could cause sharpening, the singer with a good ear might compensate by slowing down the opening phase through IA contraction (in essence pressing the fold edges together).  In such a case, the sub-glottal pressure might be too much and result in a sudden break (cracking).  Alternatively, the folds may endure the pressure but the tone would sound tight.

Of course, any imbalance during the crescendo will be experienced badly during the diminuendo.  If the tone is pressed during crescendo, diminuendo will require too much relaxation in the IAs which would result in breathiness.  Yet some singers have very strong IAs and may be able to do a tension-filled crescendo and still manage a gradual diminuendo.  That ability may be exciting but it is not an ideal form of a crescendo-diminuendo.  Appropriate strength should make it possible for us to make sound in ways that appear effortless.  That is to say, the correct muscles exert such that the phonation process remains flexible and fluid.  Strength that creates rigidity or extreme tension in the singing process is ultimately harmful to the long-term health of the instrument.

What about the breath?

The kind of dynamic regularity that is necessary for a truly fluid and balanced crescendo-diminuendo can only be achieved if the breath is reactive.  If I decide to take a cup of coffee and lift it, a number of muscles in my arm and hand response in perfect concert to achieve a move that is in fact extremely complex.  Yet we make that very difficult movement look simple every day.  That is because we take for granted that our brain is better than we are at calculating the precise muscular coordination for that movement.  Do you remember when you were a baby trying to grab an object with your fingers and the extraordinary concentration that was necessary to do what now looks so simple?  How many attempts over how many months did we invest before that move became fluid and not awkward and baby-like?  How many muscles had to be balanced to accomplish what now seems like a simple task?

For a gradual crescendo-diminuendo, beside the complex muscular coordination discussed in the previous section, there is also an even more complex process relative to the muscles of breathing.  We often think we have direct control of breathing and support because we can move the muscles of the stomach and ribcage at will.  But we rarely stop to ask ourselves whether the movements we are able to access directly are precisely the ones needed for the vocal emission we are attempting.

The gentle, clean onset that is both clear and fluid requires very little air pressure, an almost passive action from the standpoint of conscious muscular control.  Beginning the tone cleanly in a way that feels relatively "unsupported" is in fact the correct support for that quiet onset.  From there, a crescendo calls upon the necessary muscles more and more until it feels that the entire body is involved in the crescendo.  Then we attempt to maintain that coordination as much as possible during the diminuendo to avoid a sudden disengagement of the complex support system.

This "observing" the instrument at work and instructing it only by having a clear idea of what is to be achieved (like lifting a cup) is the ultimate goal of singing coordination.  The mind imagines, the body does as the mind observes and does not interfere.  Interference is simply activating extra muscular activity to help in a situation whereby we feel uncertain as to whether we can achieve what we set out to accomplish.

Some compensation is always necessary during early training.  Just as a parent holds a baby's hands when they are first learning to walk, some muscular compensation will usually occur before the singer is strong enough to accomplish the job with the right muscular coordination.  But just as a parent stops helping the baby and encourages him/her to walk by himself (even if he falls after a step or two), so must we let go of compensatory muscles and allow the natural process to take over as those muscles become strong and coordinated.

As always, in pedagogy, success of a particular technique depends on when it is introduced.  Crescendo-diminuendo and other exercises such as coloratura-training and trills are advanced exercises that should be introduced when breath and fundamental phonation coordination has been learned and consciously understood.  That a student makes a very good sound has no bearing on whether they know what it is they are doing.  While basic phonation may be learned from childhood and properly influenced by the environment that the singer grows up in, it in no way implies conscious singing and does not help the singer go further when it comes to fine-motor-control tasks like crescendo-diminuendo and trills.  Knowing how the instrument should work (i.e. what is our conscious part and what other parts are automatic) leads to high level skills.  Some believe that knowledge is tantamount to interference.  Singers who sing mindlessly will tend to be out of the way and for beginners that may not be such a bad thing.  But when fine motor skills are necessary, they will eventually be lost.  Singers who sing consciously can identify good tensions that come from necessary good coordination and the interfering kind that is "extra" and unnecessary.

Letting go is not mindlessness.  It is a conscious decision to allow the instrument to work the way it is meant to because one becomes aware of the difference between consciously taking a good breath that uses only the necessary muscles and therefore feels free of compensatory muscular actions and one that is mindless and lazy.  One is organized the other is not.

It is a very different thing to consciously decide to jump off of a cliff into the water below than it is to fall off of a cliff.  The former is a calculated risk, the latter is mindless and dangerous.

© 08/22/2014