Were the voices of yesterday better than today's? The author of this article, John D'Ancona, a singer himself, is convinced this is so and points to erroneous or insufficient technical and pedagogic support in voice teaching as the primary reason. Nevertheless, the author provides a remedy, which includes re-assessing the fundamentals that govern the way voices are produced today and looks to the successful methods of teaching a century ago.

 John D'Ancona

Voices produced today are, in general, inferior to those produced in the past. One could argue that this is merely a personal point of view or opinion, which in essence it is, and that others who are involved in the singing world might have their own vastly differing view on the subject. However I believe this conclusion to be fact when one notes the differences in voice quality and ability in today's singers to those that came before them. True vibrato (regular, quick pulses which unnoticeably span across the mean of the note), effortless legato, clarity and a vast palette of dynamic control throughout the vocal range without any constriction, are not only rare to find today, but have been replaced by inferior efforts that have come to be accepted in today's performances. The current dearth of good Verdi and Wagner singers able to cope with the demands that both composers impose on the performer also supports this case. In trying to reason why this might be so, many have attributed any vocal changes over the years to the increasing size of orchestras or the emergence of verismo, though the change that even more directly affects the voice, and one which is often forgotten, is the teaching.

Firstly it should be made absolutely clear that this is not a comment on teachers themselves. There are many good people who are excellent at imparting knowledge to others, and without doubt, the teaching profession's intentions are entirely honourable and with only the best intentions at heart. The problem comes with 'what' is taught, and 'how' this is taught in regards to the time given by institutions. This article highlights the change in the fundamentals of vocal teaching which seem to be the cause of the decline in singing today. It should also be made clear that this refers to the voice alone and does not deal with matters of interpretation or style.

Both the time spent on training a voice and the method used have changed considerably over the past 80-100 years. Whereas a pupil would spend an hour in lessons each day for several years working on simple vocalizzi (on vowel sounds only; consonants came a few years into the study), a student at today's conservatoires can expect to have only 1 hour of vocal lessons a week, which generally consists of a warm-up followed by learning repertoire. This reduced time and lack of concentration on the vocal mechanism of a student, mixed with the drive for them to learn repertoire before securing their voice properly, is one of the marked changes in today's teaching. Although some teachers might begin with a short period of exercises in a pupil's study, this is often not enough to ensure, not only the correct movements of the vocal organs, but the development and strengthening of the muscles required in singing. With this in mind, the only people who will really succeed are those with a naturally correctly-functioning instrument, which requires less training. Today's commercial world has not got the time to train voices, and in doing so has tried to speed up the process of 'building' a voice. The result has been the loss of the vocal attributes mentioned above, in favour of a seemingly improved interpretation, though even this is reliant on the ability of the instrument to perform the desired effects.

Due to the need for quicker results, the knowledge of how the voice works has been confused and muddled, similar to a game of Chinese whispers. Key pieces of information on the workings of the voice have been either misunderstood or lost which has resulted in differing opinions in how the voice works. Contemporary teaching tends to base its foundations on breathing, and providing enough air to support a sound, and it is indeed common for singers to refer to 'support', or advocating a particular method of breathing. Others talk of 'placing' the voice and instructing students to position body parts in order to achieve a sound. What they do not realise is that there is another aspect of singing that is more important, more influential on the sound, and more ignored (not always deliberately), which relates to the muscles and movements in the larynx. The methods mentioned above affect the complex structure of the larynx in only a superficial way, hence neglecting their proper development. It is the foundations and fundamental principles that are wrong in today's teaching, and this is resulting in the true potential of singers not being realised.

Breath on its own does not make sound. The vocal cords could actual make a sound without breath being forced against them, via stimulus of the mind moving the cords to produce the necessary displacement of air particles, though this is not substantial enough to sustain a medium such as singing in opera. In saying this, it shows that the cords are not just passive instruments, which only come into play when breath is pushed against them. The vocal cords adjust, lengthen and change in vibrating mass in order to determine the pitch, texture, intensity and the production of the vowel sound. In addition to this, all of these movements need to happen BEFORE the breath is applied to the cords. Why then is most of the emphasis of modern teaching placed on breathing? Breathing, support and breath control cannot influence the complex acts just mentioned, and 'placement' is too superficial and prone to bringing in unwanted tensions to achieve the necessary results, therefore how can these be the basis of instruction? Many singers and teachers today, without knowing it, do not develop the muscles in the larynx correctly and concentrate far too much on breathing. By doing that, they are only teaching people much less than half of what is necessary in voice production. If, as a singer, you are lucky enough to have the muscles in good working order (which very few are), you will succeed. If you don't, you run the risk of having your voice ruined through inadvertently abusing the mechanism.

Whilst we are on the subject of breathing, it is interesting to note that support is a term that has only gained in significance over the last 50-70 years. Some singing manuals of the 19th Century briefly mention techniques of breathing, though this is far from being the most important aspect of their instruction, and in the earliest singing manuals, breathing is barely mentioned. Tosi, the castrati and teacher during the Baroque era, merely mentions that you should take enough breath to finish the phrase. If that is the case, what did the previous singers use if 'support' hadn't been 'invented'?

The answer lies in what was the basis of vocal teaching up until the turn of the twentieth century: Registration. In essence, it is the practise of gradually strengthening the mechanics of the voice (the registers - chest and falsetto), via simple vocalises, then bringing them together as one cohesive unit, using the pharyngeal or feigned voice. By concentrating on the two types of sound, you are actually isolating, stretching and strengthening the correct muscles needed for singing. I suppose you can think of it as a 'workout session' for the muscles in the larynx. More importantly, you are also gaining indirect control over involuntary body parts via the mental stimulus of the pitch, vowel, intensity and duration of the note.

For the average student, the above process of learning could take anywhere from 2 to 7 years of intensive, regular study. The student would only be introduced to repertoire when they could competently produce every note in their range using every vowel, with ease, flexibility, and a variety of dynamics. Many feel that this 'hard-line' stance is not necessary, yet I would cite the fact that the results of the 'softer' approach have only been mediocre, especially when comparing them to such artists who did undertake such intensive study, or who had a naturally functioning organ to begin with. One of the products of a correctly-functioning vocal mechanism is the Vibrato, and it is this feature that is often the biggest clue in identifying a well-produced voice.

The vibrato, as mentioned, is the result (or product) of a free-functioning vocal mechanism. When the muscles in the larynx are working correctly and without unwanted tensions from other body parts, the vibrato will come. You can't directly teach it, though, worryingly, it has been heard that some teachers ask pupils to put on a 'wobble' and then they would file it down at a later date. The key points to note are that the pulses in a vibrato are fast (approx. 6-7 times a second), are constant regardless of pitch and intensity (i.e. it still beats at 6-7 times a second, even if you are on a high 'c' loudly, or a low 'a' quietly), and only vary from the centre of the note in an inaudible, unobtrusive way (i.e. the tone oscillates minutely around the centre of the note, as opposed to oscillating over two distinct notes, as is found in a wobble). In recent performances of 'Maria Stuarda' from the Edinburgh festival, and also 'Roberto Devereux' at Covent Garden, one was amazed to find that not one of the lead singers in these 'Bel Canto' performances had a proper vibrato. Listening closely to the voice of the singers, most had varying pulses, which often slowed down the higher and louder they were singing, or their sound was far too openly spread, and obtrusive. This disturbance in the sound manifested itself in a lot of obvious bodily tension, which showed that they required more force to reach the notes. Unfortunately such performances are not isolated incidents. Today it is rare to hear a proper vibrato in a live or recorded performance, and more worryingly, the obtrusive wobble has been accepted as a 'vibrato' by not only the teaching world but the listening public as well. Is that not a bit of a concern?

The greatest loss in today's teaching has been the true knowledge of registration, as developed principally by the castrati. When they ceased to be 'snipped' much of their key knowledge and experience was lost with them. Although most teachers know of the existence of registers and the need to join them together, few know or really understand the importance of the pharyngeal voice in uniting the voice into one cohesive unit, and fewer still actually know how to develop this mechanism correctly. On its own the pharyngeal voice is strident, similar to a cackle, yet combined with either the falsetto or chest voice, it produces a voice of great power, agility, range, and with noticeable ease. Garcia in his second Treatise in Singing purports to a type of mechanism that enables tenors to produce high and extreme high notes with astonishing ease and power. It is this mechanism that is the key to producing high notes at all dynamics (remember the pianissimo B flat at the end of 'Celeste Aida' which needs to be sung by a spinto?), the messa di Voce, the brightness and clarity of all notes in the range (for want of a better word, the term 'squillo') as well as ensuring the sound is produced with ease.

If we are to progress the art of singing and vocal performance, we must acknowledge the fact that a better period of singing existed before our own time, and from this, we must re-assess the fundamentals that govern the way voices are produced today. We must also acknowledge that many elements of the vocal teaching that was applied over a hundred years ago can still apply now, hence the importance of not neglecting and correctly understanding the writings of the old masters. Finally we must devote more time to correctly developing the delicate muscles required in singing, in both our institutions and our private study, so as to achieve not only beauty of sound and flexibility, but vocal longevity. It is not asking us to live in the past, or to neglect the work on style and interpretation that is currently being excellently taught in conservatoires today. It is simply asking us to use and build upon a knowledge base that has already produced a wealth of exceptional singers and interpreters. When the voice works well and with ease, the full potential of the interpretation and performance of the artist can be realised. People need to question the principles that have been laid down in today's teaching, because on the face of it, with the lack of decent singers, loss of vibrato, legato, clarity, ease, dynamic variance without constriction, it just isn't working.