CHAPTER XIX

THE CULTURE OF THE SPEAKING VOICE AS THE NATURAL GROUND FOR THE CULTURE OF THE SINGING VOICE

The physical phenomenon—voice—is, in its simpler and primitive form, originated by a few elementary sounds, which constitute the fundamental pillars of its phonetic structure.

The very roots of the voice are represented by the vowels—five in the classic languages—to which the consonants are attached as complementary elements, thus forming the definite vocal expressions called words. Words constitute the speaking voice.

In developing the culture of the speaking voice in detail, both as a phonetic element and as basis for the singing voice, the author conceived the idea of formulating certain rules, molded on the phonological structure of the Italian language, with the object of creating one sole method of voice culture, of elementary character, easy enough to be understood by everybody and of benefit to students of all nationalities.

This selection is based on the belief that, from the physiological and phonological standpoint in voice production, there is no simpler, more complete, and beautiful language which serves so large a variety of purposes as Italian. Among the reasons which fully justify this preference is the almost universal agreement that Italian is the most melodious and adaptable language for singing; and this statement is not the result of personal opinion, as dozens of books can be quoted, which confirm this assertion and recommend the Italian language for voice training.

Then, too, there is another reason, namely, to establish for voice culture solely one method, with one language as an educational element, which, if universally accepted, would constitute an official standard for voice training. This would materialize the aim of having but one system of voice education for all the singing schools, and would provide the possibility of giving specific principles and rules for vocal training, which, after being recognized as the correct ones, could be applied by the generality, just as all correct principles and rules related to any art or science are universally recognized and practiced. The theory of music, in all its different branches is, in fact, taught and exercised by only one method, with perhaps slight variations, but, on the whole, by substantially the same procedure. Voice education should be the same.

In voice culture, though, voice being the only means for its own training, it is necessary that all the principles or rules which are laid down in regard to its culture be centered fundamentally on the physiological and phonetic mechanism of its elementary form—the speaking voice.

Therefore the phonetic structure of the one language selected on the merits of its phonological elements—vowels and consonants—universally adopted and recognized for teaching, would bring through a standardized technical medium a general understanding on all problems related to voice culture.

It must be understood, however, that these suggestions are intended to serve essentially in assisting beginners and students in their vocal training, or teachers in the practice of their profession. As for singers, after they have acquired the correct vocal technic, through the Italian language, any language should be adaptable and facile for singing, provided they conform their voices to the correct mechanism of voice production.

The author, in fact, in emphasizing the necessity of adopting the Italian language as a basis for voice culture, has no idea of underestimating the importance of other languages, though it is certain that, among the experts on voice, there is much controversy over the relative value of the different languages for singing, while they unanimously agree on the value of the adaptability of Italian.

Dr. Mills, in his book _Voice Production in Speaking and Singing_, says:

“All competent to judge are agreed that Italian, because of the abundance of vowels in its words, is the best language in which to sing, or, at all events, to begin with as training.”

Lilli Lehmann in _How to Sing_, writes:

“Without doubt the Italian language with its wealth of vowels is better adapted for singing than the German language so rich in consonants, or than any other language. The organs of speech and the vocal apparatus, in the Italian language, are less subjected to violent form-modifications. The numerous vowels secure for the singer an easy connection for the sounds, while the poor pronunciation of the many hard consonants interrupts every form—and tone—connection.”

As for English, although the author believes that it is not a very flexible language for declamation, nor a melodious, resonant and free one for singing, because of the great number of consonants which prevail in the composition of the words, in comparison with the number of vowels, and the large amount of monosyllables in which the language abounds, yet it is his conviction that most of the deficiency is due to the method of its pronunciation by some English-speaking people rather than to the language itself.

As a matter of fact, the manner of speech of the Australians enables them to produce voices that are superior to the English and American in quality and flexibility, and more adaptable for vocal education, as has been proven in the singing field likewise. It is well to remember that Nellie Melba, and a few other singers less conspicuous, have been products of that country; and the author has found from personal experience with some Australian students of singing that there is a certain freedom in the mechanism of their voice production which is dependent on their speaking voice, and is responsible for the pleasing quality they possess, and for their vocal possibilities.

It seems that the scarcity, if not the total absence of English singers in the operatic field is ascribed by some experts principally to the language and its enunciation, though there are other reasons also.

John Hullah, Professor of Vocal Music in Queen’s College, gives the following version of this subject in general:

“It is generally admitted that the Anglo-Saxon race, now the majority of the population of Great Britain, are less gifted vocally—have the vocal apparatus naturally in less perfection, and artificially in worse order—than any other variety of Indo-Europeans. As a rule, the English voice, if not always of inferior quality, is almost always, in intensity or capacity, inferior to (for instance) the Italian, the German, or the Welsh. The number of English speakers who can, without too evident effort and for any length of time, fill our largest interiors, or make themselves audible and intelligible at an open-air meeting, is as small as the number of English singers who can hold their own against a modern orchestra, or make their presence felt in every part of the Crystal Palace transept....

“To the foreign and unaccustomed ear the English language sounds, as to the foreign eye the Welsh language looks, made up of consonants, and these hardly distinguishable from one another. As a rule, our speech is wanting both in _resonance_ and _distinctness_. We reduce to a _minimum_ the _sonority_ of our _vowels_, and omit or amalgamate with one another half of our consonants.... Certain it is, that from the most sonorous of these—_the Italian_—it is possible to compress into an intelligible sentence many very uncouth vocables, especially when he who uses them knows the value of ‘harsh din’ as a set-off to euphony.”

The most renowned English authority on voice, Dr. Mackenzie, has widely illustrated the value of the Italian language and given his ideas in reference to the English as follows:

“The effect of living out of doors [he says], is not confined to children; one may nearly always recognize a person who spends much of his time _sub dio_ by the ringing tones of his voice. Miss Braddon, the distinguished novelist, once told me she has often been struck by the fine voices heard among gamekeepers and huntsmen; and many people must have admired the melodious, far reaching cry of the Newhaven fishwives. I am inclined to attribute the _vocal superiority of the Italians_ in some measure to this cause. Every one who has traveled in Italy must have noticed how often trades which in our climate have to be pursued indoors are there carried on in the open air. Tailors, shoemakers, tinsmiths, etc., work _al fresco_, making the streets ring the while with noisy but not unmusical chatter. The balmy atmosphere, as it were, coaxes the month to open wide and the demonstrative nature of the people finds natural vent in loud and emphatic utterance. On the other hand, it is a common reproach to Englishmen when they attempt the pronunciation of a foreign tongue that they _will not_ or _cannot open their mouths_ but make a _rumbling, gurgling_ sound in _their throats_, which is presently hissed or sputtered out through the set teeth, as if the speaker were afraid to open his mouth too wide for fear something should get into it. This may be a wise precaution in a climate like ours and Milton apparently attributes our mumbling habit of speech to this cause when he says: ‘For we Englishmen farre northerly doe not open our mouthes in the cold air wide enough to grace a southern tongue, but are observed by all nations to speak exceedingly close and inward; so that to smatter Latin with an English mouth is as ill a hearing as law French.’ It has also been said to be due to our reserved and undemonstrative nature which leads us to avoid making ourselves conspicuous. Whether this be part of our natural character we must see ourselves as others see us to determine. At any rate, whatever be the amount of our retiring modesty that stays at home, our travelers do contrive (against their will, it may be presumed) to make themselves the observed of all observers wherever they go. And it may be asked, is the climate of Scotland more genial or the character of its people more effusive than ours? Yet Scotchmen have the gift of articulate speech; and display considerable aptitude for acquiring the pronunciation of foreign languages, especially of those in which open vowels predominate.

“Whatever be the cause of our peculiar manner of speaking, there can be no question as to the _utter badness_ of it. Nor is there any reason _why this national reproach should continue_. To any one who has been fortunate enough to hear the noble tones of some of our great orators, or the elocution of some (alas too few) of our dramatic artists, the notion that English is an inharmonious tongue may well seem absurd. The music is there, but it needs an instrument to give it voice, and the instrument again must have a player. ‘There’s the rub.’ It is not the vocal organs that are at fault in most cases, but the method of using them. This, as already said, must be taught, and, to be helpful, the teaching must be of the right kind.”

The contents of the above quotations are of great value to the author of this book. Although he is not as familiar with the English spoken in England as he is with that spoken in America, he has the impression that the conditions of speech in this country are more deplorable than in the country to which Dr. Mackenzie, Prof. Hullah and others refer.

In certain sections of the United States, in fact, the speaking voice is decidedly deformed by typical, peculiar inflections, and misplaced in its production, being distinctly emphasized in the posterior nasal cavities; while in other sections it is produced much more euphonically, and is more adaptable for drama and singing. The latter sections, however, are exceptional when compared with the English spoken in general throughout the country; but this exception proves that if the pronunciation were phonetically correct, English could be made a singing language as well as most languages, though not to be compared with the Latin languages, which get from the abundance of their vowels and the proper production of their consonants a phonetic mellowness and flexibility which make them almost perfect.

In these languages the ease of their phonetic production facilitates their placement in the physiological center of the voice—the mouth—by an almost spontaneous, natural and instinctive act. That is responsible for the smoothness and the melodious characteristics of the Latin languages, which can never be approached by the Anglo-Saxon.

The author has often heard the remark that some great singers—Caruso, for instance, or Galli-Curci, Ruffo, Bonci, etc.—can sing as well in English as in Italian, as far as voice production is concerned. That is true; but their English is substantially Italian in enunciation and accent, the vowels and consonants being placed and produced according to the phonetic rules of the Italian language, and the voice emphasized according to the Italian fashion of singing.

The disparity, in reality, between the Italian language and the English, and more particularly between the Italian and American, lies, at the bottom, in the marked difference in placing and producing the vowels and consonants. By correctly placing and shaping the vowels, and producing the consonants properly, according to the phonetic classification of the classic languages, Italian forms its phonetic elements markedly and distinctly in the mouth. The English-speaking people, on the contrary, particularly the Americans, misplace these elements, giving a decidedly guttural accentuation and tight production. The tension of the laryngeal, pharyngeal and oral organs during the act of utterance is the principal cause. Vowels, when misplaced, become deformed in shape and sound, and by their amalgamation with misplaced consonants produce words which are consequently phonetically deformed, and of disagreeable resonance.

The emphasis given to the act of singing forces these imperfections of voice production to an exaggerated degree, and this marked fault, added to the lack of freedom of the vocal organs, constitutes the essential deficiency of the English language in singing.

In reference to the lack of freedom, and the traditional New England “Yankee twang,” Dr. Eugene C. Howe, Professor of Hygiene at Wellesley College, startled his class of girls by declaring that “it is due mostly to laziness of the jaw. It is not attributed to a lack of jaw exercise, but to an unaccountable failure to let the lower jaw fall far enough in articulating.”

No doubt the remarks of Dr. Howe have a very strong foundation. Americans are decidedly handicapped in their enunciation by several bad habits, the predominating one of which is talking with their mouths shut and tightened, holding their throats, palates, and especially their tongues, in permanent tension. That brings about a lack of flexibility, because of the stiffness and rigidity of the oral movements during the act of phonation. Americans make of the natural, simple and agreeable act of speaking a very complicated, difficult function. We do not aim to give the impression that we are prejudiced against the American voice production; just the contrary. Our criticism, which is the result of long observation and study on this subject, and is more emphatic than that expressed by many experts on voice, purports to call attention to the real phonetic causes which are responsible for these defects, and to propose a radical reform of them.

It is a fact, regardless of how disagreeable it may appear, that American voice production, with few exceptions, requires much more care and attention to restore it to a natural, easy form of speaking, than is given at present. Americans themselves can scarcely realize how far from natural and easy their voice production is. If they would look at the rigidity of their vocal organs, while talking, especially the throat, the neck and lower jaw, they would be convinced.

This condition is related to many causes: physiological and psychological, but most essentially phonetic. There are some doctors who contend that the climate, dust and noise are responsible for the harshness of this country’s voices. Other causes are attributed to a certain psychological influence. Dr. P. Fridenberg, in a booklet entitled _Every-day Causes of Voice Deterioration_, states the following:

“The commoner causes of voice defect and voice deterioration in the average healthy individual may be arranged in three classes, and depend on the climatic conditions, including wind and dust; improper use of the voice, with the factor of strain in loud talking as it is made necessary by our noisy environment, and, finally the lack of attention to voice culture and voice care in our schools. Climate is of great importance for the voice. It is impossible to consider this phase of the subject at length.... Another and very important one is the constant noise. In our larger cities it is impossible to keep up a conversation out-doors without unduly raising the voice, and on most car lines it is necessary to shout in order to be heard. In this city the roar of the elevated railways is added, making high pitch and over-exertion inevitable. The amount of effort expended is apparent when we note the facial contortion, the intensity of oral motion, and the loud tone heard during a sudden lull in the street noises. Women are the worst offenders, as they will continue to carry on a conversation at the top of their voices, while most men will, literally, shut up until there is a possibility of being heard without tearing their throats out. American women have been said to converse ‘like shrieking canaries,’ and this is one of the causes. Another is to be found in the lack of attention to voice and speech in the home and in the school. In our mixed population, each element contributes some peculiarity or irregularity not only of accent and pronunciation, but of modulation, intonation, and timbre as well. Each has some typical defect, and some have a large number. Instead of being corrected at school, the teachers themselves, sprung from the ranks of the immigrant, are like the blind leading the blind. Any one who has listened to the exercises of one of our New York public schools will remember the common, slovenly, and unmusical speech of the average public school teacher. Distinction and precision of speech are often considered affected, even snobbish. It is a fact that nowhere is grace of speech and voice more truly a class distinction than in this country.... The great United States language, and especially the variants heard in our large cities, is a marked exception to the rule of clear and agreeable speech. It is true that ‘elocution’ is taught in our schools, and that there are daily recitation exercises, but little if any heed is given to inculcating the production of beautiful tone, and the precept is nullified by bad example and evil communications which corrupt good speech no less than good manners. The schoolboy imitates the tough and vulgar accents of the street gamin, the college ‘man’ takes as a pattern the variety actor, the professional athlete and the ‘sport’ in diction, as well as in intonation. The home is a correcting influence only in those communities in which there is homogeneity of race, or in the mansions of the wealthy where English governesses and maids are employed and the children have a chance to forget the ‘American’ language.”

The author does not fully agree with Dr. Fridenberg on the influence of climate, dust and noise on the deterioration of American voices. These conditions may exercise a certain influence, but not one of overwhelming importance, for the same may be said of other countries and cities, where they do not exert such a deleterious influence on the speaking voice, nor even on the singing voice. In London and Paris these conditions are almost the same as in New York, and the author believes that in London the voices are somewhat more flexible and agreeable, and in Paris they are far superior. Milano has one of the most severe climates in the world, and is a rather noisy city, yet it is the residence of most singers and singing students. There are villages in America with much better climate and much less noise than New York; yet the English spoken there is not better, with the exception of some Southern states.

The third reason given by Dr. Fridenberg is, according to our impression, the most important one, and personally the author is almost exclusively concerned about it as the real cause of the deterioration of the American language. It is purely a psychological influence that is responsible for the voice production of this country, inherited for the most part, and is the logical result of its phonetic evolution.

It is, as Dr. Fridenberg says, that this country is the outgrowth of a mixed population, each element contributing some peculiarity or irregularity of accent, pronunciation, etc., each having some typical defect, and some having a large number.

We all admit that the pioneers of this country, and especially the vast mixed population that came from all Europe, constitute the American masses of to-day, who in influencing even indirectly the American language and manner of speaking, did not lend the most select fashion of speech and pronunciation of their original countries. As the author knows, and as can still be observed among certain Italians, they do not even speak their own national language, but a number of the various dialects. The same condition exists among Irish, Germans, Russians and French of the same class. Therefore, from this _mélange_ of common and uneducated voices and pronunciations a pure and euphonic American language could not readily result. On the contrary, the few originally good English-speaking Americans suffered from the influence of the others who infiltrated into the “American” language all the commonplaces of their foreign languages, which they spoke in an inferior and corrupted form.

Thus the American voice production, under these evil influences, was subjected to the gradual deterioration which constitutes, at present, the inherited condition of the deformed American speaking and singing voices. Besides this physical inheritance, is the influence exercised by the homes and schools, as can be observed by following closely a growing child. When he begins to perform the function of speech, under the guidance of Nature, he produces his words with a natural mechanism, in which his vocal organs act without any strain and are ruled by a normal rhythm of movements, under an instinctive rather than an artificial control. Gradually his ears begin to be affected by the voices of the people around, becoming accustomed to forced and harsh sounds. His vocal organs, by the power of imitation, follow the deformed mechanism of his models, until unconsciously he himself falls into the same habits as those who involuntarily influenced him. Commencing from the age of five, six, or seven, his voice changes entirely, and acquires all the characteristics and artificial defects which are prevalent among adults.

The majority of Americans, in truth, make a great effort in talking. They make of the simple, natural function of speaking, which is no different physiologically from the function of eating or breathing, or walking, a complicated performance, in which all the organs concerned work to their utmost efficiency. Yet there is no necessity for contracting the larynx, squeezing the throat, raising the palate, and stiffening the base of the tongue in talking. All of these unnecessary efforts create the sensation of an obstacle in the throat which hinders the free delivery of the speech; and once that sensation is perceived, instinct suggests a manner of compensating, by augmenting the pressure and amount of breath, which, instead of relieving the strained function of the vocal organs, adds a new element of artificial nature.

The average individual gets accustomed to this mechanism, which establishes the incorrect habit of making _force_ the principal element in voice production; and this effort, in the long run, results in impairing the vocal apparatus, adding another cause for disagreeable speaking and defective singing.

In the majority of cases that is the actual fundamental cause of bad voice production, and is responsible also for the lack of expansion, resonance, and ease.

In singing, these deficiencies are the source of innumerable difficulties, particularly since the instinctive conception of singers is to compensate for the lack of resonance with the force of breath—the only help known to them—having been misdirected by singing teachers and by the methods of singing in vogue.

This error, however, cannot be corrected unless we resort to radical means. We must strike at the very origin of these deficiencies, and ascertain the freedom of voice production by the correct physiological and phonetic formation of its very essential elements—the vowels and consonants—and the natural manner of delivering them. This is the most important and fundamental reform to be undertaken; trying to educate pupils to the right conception of the natural function of talking and singing.

Therefore, since English is phonetically rather a difficult language, in some instances made more so by inherited bad habits, we must try to modify it, to smooth it, to produce it in a more natural manner, softening the sounds of the vowels, giving the correct phonetic articulation to the consonants, and, above all, placing both these phonetic elements in the organ suggested by Nature—the mouth.

At any rate, if a reform is to be suggested, it must affect the English phonology as it now stands, and correct it by uprooting it entirely, because that is responsible for the existing conditions.

The materialization of this program must start by giving to children a new phonetic culture, from the very beginning of their education. There would be no practical difficultly in accomplishing this, if public opinion favored this reform. Children learn everything easily.

There are several institutions in America concerned about the necessity of improving the speaking language, but the evil lies in the fact that the promoters are in the awkward position of preaching reforms which they themselves do not practice. In fact, their concern is confined only to the improper inflection of the voice and to the lack of clarity, refinement, and distinction in talking; but as for its correct physiological production with regard to its phonetic elements—vowels and consonants—they are not cognizant of its actual deficiency. If they are, they do not think it of much importance, for they limit all their attention to the English language in itself, without investigating its defects by comparison with the classic languages.

As a matter of fact, it is certain that as long as the vowels are produced in the throat, and the consonants are phonetically misplaced, bringing about a forcible function of the vocal organs, nothing can fundamentally and substantially modify the voice production.

As for singing, the American-spoken English brings about defects which are more difficult to deal with than almost any other language.

There is no exaggeration in stating that Americans, in spite of their natural gift of beautiful voices, which among women are so abundant, and their inexhaustible ambition, are more handicapped in the art of singing than anybody else, and consequently very few good American singers exist, as far as _proper voice production is concerned_. It is true that English in itself is not an easy medium for singing, but with the American pronunciation it is made even more difficult.

While we are aware of the objections that this statement will arouse, we are convinced, nevertheless, that this is actually so.

A natural feeling of protest and a sense of reaction are innate in all mankind. We resent being told our faults. It is an illogical weakness which should not affect educated people, for without criticism there would be no exchange of thoughts nor incentive to progress; yet it does affect individuals as well as communities or nations, often with evident disadvantage.

Therefore, even after statements like those made by Prof. Hullah, Dr. Mackenzie, Milton, etc., about the English and Italian languages, and those of Dr. Mills and Lilli Lehmann in reference to Italian for singing, to which a hundred more could be added, resentment and objections to our view are not unexpected. We think it proper then, to quote an opinion disagreeing for the greater part with ours, so as to let the reader decide impartially which one, in reality, is of greater advantage to American singers. It is our aim to convince people that English, and especially “American-English” is by no means a language fit for voice culture; it must be understood, though, that we do not mean for singing, in its finished form, but only for vocal training. For this purpose we wanted the support of all authorities who are approximately of the same mind. We point out now an opposing view by Leo Kofler, organist of St. Paul’s Chapel, New York, and singing teacher also, which is quoted in a book on voice by a foremost American laryngologist, who shares his opinion:

“It is true, as Kofler says, that the Italian language presents few difficulties to the singer. In it pure vowels predominate and consonants are in the minority, and even then many of these consonants are vocal, while the hard aspirates of other languages, especially German and English, are unknown to Italian lips. But that which is easier, by no means is always the most artistic. Ease rarely leads to depth. And this ease of pronunciation may account for a lack of dramatic grandeur and vigor in Italian and for the Italian’s method of tonal emphasis and vehemence of gesture.[5]

“The German or the English artist has no need for such extravagances, because the immense richness of these languages—the great variety of vowels and the vigorous aspirated elements—gives to his utterance a dramatic freshness and force which are life and nature itself.[6]

“The English language is probably the one that has been described by foreigners as the most unfit for singing. Greater calumny has never been uttered. I contend for just the opposite; that English is the very best language for an artistic singer to use, for it contains the greatest variety of vocal and aspirate elements, which afford an artistic singer the strongest, most natural and expressive means of dramatic reality. The English language has all the pure vowels and vocal consonants of the Italian; and besides, it is full of rich elements, mixed vowels, diphthongs and an army of vigorous aspirates. I admit that it is not as easy for singing as Italian is; but just here its true merit and advantage arise.

“The difficulties thus forced upon the singer compel him to study deeply and perseveringly; but the treasures thus unearthed and placed within his reach will amply repay for hard work.”[7]

The views of Mr. Kofler, which leave much room for discussion, have, in recent years, been the predominant concern of certain circles in the musical field of America. A campaign for the worthy purpose of standardizing the “American” language for singing, especially in opera, has been widely patronized by prominent figures in the musical world. Societies have been organized, lectures delivered, opera companies formed, and even all the unsuccessful prima donnas, anxious to seek success in a new field, interviewed. It was unanimously agreed that foreign languages for singing should be ostracized and English imposed. The result was as follows: In some opera houses where all operas were sung in English, most of the audiences openly declared their dissatisfaction and deserted the houses. “How can anybody,” they said, “enjoy a performance of Carmen in English, and one in which it is impossible to understand even what they are singing?”

As for American operas written on English librettos, which have been given by the largest operatic institution in this country for several years, they also brought out evidence of the real sentiment of the public. Their performances were criticized by the critics and the audiences principally on account of the language. Furthermore, in one of these operas it was generally remarked that in the cast which included only one foreign singer, the others being American, this singer was the only one whose words were intelligible to the audience. One could barely detect that the others were singing in English, though when the same artists were called upon to sing in Italian they usually could make themselves better understood.

This proves that there must be some causes related to the voice production of American singers, or to the language in itself, or to both, which become more conspicuous in singing and are responsible for these conditions. The enunciation of American singers, with very few exceptions, is painfully tight and so throaty that only with difficulty can their words reach the audience. Yet it cannot be entirely the fault of the singers. The language, too, is responsible, to a certain extent, as is shown in the case of the foreign singer above-mentioned, whose singing was intelligible, certainly not because of his superior intelligence, but rather because he molded his English on a foreign language in which he was trained, and by that means he could sing much easier in English.

It is not unpatriotic to recognize and admit the existence of these inconveniences. It is more so not to try to overcome them. We know of a very prominent American prima donna—an artist more than a prima donna—who has always refused to sing rôles in English. We admire her frankness and courage, though we think that if her voice had been correctly placed and trained at the beginning of her vocal studies by molding it on the Italian language, she would not find English so objectionable for singing, since, with the aid of her exceptional intelligence, she sings in all other languages which do not possess the phonetic difficulties of the English.

Therefore, we claim that English can be made a good language for singing if its training is begun with an easier language which secures the natural placement of the voice and the correct freedom of its production. But we do not agree at all with the opinions emphasized by Mr. Kofler, that English is the very best language for an artistic singer to use. This statement contains an exaggerated dose of praiseworthy but not helpful patriotism.

At any rate it is the general opinion that English is not the best language for singing much less an easy medium for voice training, and that the American-spoken English is not the most pleasing tongue to the ear, as has been remarked most frequently by prominent American laryngologists and voice experts. If, therefore, singers, actors, and speakers are handicapped in delivering their voices properly because their vocal organs act under a difficult mechanism, why not resort at the start of their vocal training to an easier language, Italian, for instance? If the formation of the English phonetic elements is not easy and proper, why not go to the very root of this troublesome cause and apply a radical remedy?

These conditions suggested to the author the idea (which, in truth, is not intended for reforming English phonology, but only for simplifying it in behalf of those who are directed toward a stage career) of giving to beginners and students the phonetic rules of a new language, thus appealing to their imaginations in a new manner which stimulates the upbuilding of a new conception of the phonetic mechanism of voice production.

By this means speaking and singing can be performed in a natural and easy manner, the voice being placed, with the guidance of another language, in its scientific center—the mouth. Thus singers are enabled to avoid the long and difficult struggle with their vocal organs, which are already accustomed to the deformed production of the language they have spoken since their infancy.

A new language is also more apt to train the organs of elocution to radically different adjustments, building up an entirely new mechanism. The vocal organs cannot change the habitual rhythm of their function after having worked for years in a certain direction; only a different element, acting under a new influence, can easily readjust it, and for this reason the author feels justified in selecting the Italian language as the most adaptable for this purpose. At any rate, this attempt would not bring any injury to the English, but make it smoother, softer and more suitable for voice culture, and if coming generations gain more possibilities in the field of singing, as a result of the help given to their voice production by Italian as an educational element, the experiment will have been generously repaid, and the aim of the author fully accomplished.[8]

In this method of scientific voice culture, illustrated in the following chapters, the medium adopted for all vocal exercises will be the Italian language.