MUSICAL COURIER
46
March 2 2, 1923
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, and without centering their attention on the real causes. Recently I heard a well known personality, who supervises the. voice, education of fourteen thousand children, deliver a speech on this subject. His voice, produced in his throat, was one of the most atrocious phonetic expressions I ever heard. Evidently it is easier to preach than to practice.
As: a matter of fact, it is ■certain that as long as the phonetic elements are produced in the throat, bringing about a forcible function of the vocal organs, nothing can fundamentally modify the voice production.
As for singing, the American language rings about defects which are more difficult to deal with.
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 anyone else, and have consequently produced few good singers, as far as proper voice production is concerned.
While I am aware that many will make objection to this statement, I am nevertheless convinced that this is actually the case.
A natural feeling of protest and reaction is innate in all of us. We resent hearing our faults. It is a weakness which should not affect educated people, for without criticism there can be no exchange of thoughts nor incentive to progress; yet it does and often with an evident disadvantage.
How the present situation may be overcome has been in recent years the predominant concern of certain circles in the musical field of America. A campaign for the purpose of standardizing the American language for singing has been widely patronized by prominent figures in the musical world. Societies have been organized, lectures delivered, opera companies formed. All this was a worthy program for a worthy cause, but with what result? In some opera houses where all operas were sung in English, most of the audiences openly expressed their dissatisfaction and refused to lend their support. “How can anybody,” they said, “prefer a performance of Carmen in English, when it is impossible to understand what they are singing about?”
As for American operas written on English librettos and produced by the largest operatic institutions in this country in recent years, they too brought out evidence of the real sentiment of the public. Their performances were criticized by the critics and audiences principally because they were unable to understand the words. 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 made themselves better understood.
This would seem to prove 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 than in speaking and are responsible for these conditions. The enunciation of American singers, with few exceptions, is tight and throaty, so that only with difficulty can their words reach the audience. Yet it cannot be entirely the fault of the singers. The language, too, as it is spoken, is responsible to a great extent.
It is not unpatriotic to recognize and admit the existence of these handicaps. It is more so not to try to overcome them.
Therefore I claim that English can be made into a language suitable for singing if its phonetic elements are modified by training beginners to a proper pronunciation which insures the natural placement of the voice and the correct freedom of its production. The idea of resorting to new and easier language—the Italian for instance—then molding the English on its phonetics, would be of inestimable help in accomplishing the only practical and at the same time radical reform in voice culture. This is not, in truth, intended for changing English phonology, but only for simplifying it, especially for the benefit of those who are directed toward a stage ■ career. Giving beginners the phonetic rules of a new language appeals to their imaginations in a new manner and stimulates in upbuilding a new conception of the phonetic mechanism of voice production. This, from my own experience, is of immense value. A new language is also more apt to train the organs of declamation to radically different adjustments, building up an entirely new mechanism. It is very difficult to change the habitual rhythm of the vocal organs after they have worked for years in a certain direction; only a different element, acting under a new influence, can easily readjust it, and for this reason I feel justified in suggesting the Italian phonetic elements for this reform in voice culture.
A lecture can do nothing, or very little, if I may be so optimistic, toward the solution of so vital a problem as the
GÈZA KRESZ STUDIO: SCHÖNEBERCER UFER 44			Hungarian Violinist BERLIN W.		
LEONI PROFESSOR L UITPOLDSTR,	D KREU1 AT THE STATE HIGH 29	rZE SCHOOL		R, OF BERL	Pianist
					flUSIC IN W 30
LOUIS
BACHNER
Professor of Singing Staatl. Akad. Hochschule für Musik
(National Academy of Music)
Berlin W. 15	Konstanzerstr. 62
WORD VS. TONE
(Continued from page 13)
gestions I gave for a radical reform of voice culture was the following one:
“The education of the voice must begin in the elementary schools, and must first be taught to children in the form of the correct use of the speaking voice.
“We believe this to be the most important feature in the reform of voice culture, being directed to the very source of what is responsible for the initial defects and deterioration of the natural voices of children.”
It is indeed a fact that American voice production requires much more care and attention than is given at present. Americans are decidedly handicapped in their enunciation by shortcomings such as talking with their mouths shut, keeping their throats, palates and especially their tongues in permanent tension. This brings about a lack of flexibility in the voice, because of the stiffness of the oral organs during the act of phonation.
It makes a very complicated function of the natural and simple act of speaking. According to Dr. Howe, the most conspicuous fault among Americans is what he calls laziness of the jaw. “It is,” he says, “an unaccountable failure to let the lower jaw fall far enough in articulating.”
The deterioration of the American speaking voice 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 voice. Others give great importance to certain psychological causes.
I do not fully agree in reference to the climate, dust and noise. These conditions may exercise a certain influence, but not one of great importance, for the same may be said of other countries and cities where they do not exert such a deleterious influence. Conditions in London and Paris are almost the same as in New York, yet I observed that in London the voices are somewhat more flexible and soft, and in Paris they are far superior. Milano, which has a very severe climate, is the residence of many singers and students of singing. There are cities in America with better climate and less noise than New York, yet the English spoken there is no better, except in some few Southern States.
The real cause of the deterioration of American speaking 'voices is principally a phonetic one, inherited for the most part as the logical result of certain phonetic deformities which take origin in a complex manner. America is the outgrowth of different nationalities, each contributing some phonetic pecularities and defects of its own.
The vast mixed population that came from all Europe in earlier days constitutes the American masses of today, who by influencing even indirectly the English language and manner of speaking, certainly did not lend the most select fashion of speech and pronunciation of their respective countries. I know that many Italians do not speak even their own national language, but a number of the various dialects. The same condition I believe exists among Russians, Germans, Greeks, and French of the same class. A pure and euphonious American language could not readily result from this melange of uneducated voices. On the contrary, those few Americans who originally spoke English correctly have suffered from the influence of the others who infiltrated into English all the commonplaces of their own languages spoken in an inferior and corrupted form.
Thus the American voice production, as a result of these evil influences, has been subjected to the gradual deterioration which constitutes at present the inherited deformed speaking voice.
Besides this physical inheritance is the influence exercised in the homes and schools, as can be observed by closely following a young ■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 strain and are ruled by a normal rhythm of movements, under instinctive control. Gradually his ear begins to be affected by the voices of the people around, and becomes accustomed to forced and harsh sounds. His vocal organs, by the power of imitation, follow this deformed mechanism until unconsciously he himself falls into the same habits of those who involuntarily influenced him. Commencing from the age of four or five, his voice changes entirely, and acquires all the characteristics and defects prevalent among adults. From that time on he makes the simple function of speaking, which is no different from that of eating, breathing, or walking, a complicated performance in which all the organs concerned work to their utmost intensity. This unnecessary tension and effort creates the sensation of an obstacle in the throat which hinders the free delivery of the speech, and once that sensation is perceived instinct suggests compensating by increasing the pressure of the breath, which, instead of relieving the strained function of the vocal organs, adds a new element of an artificial nature.
The average individual thus accustoms himself to this mechanism which establishes the injurious 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 a defective speaking voice.
In the majority of cases this is the actual fundamental cause of bad voice production, and is responsible also for the lack of ease, expansion and resonance.
Now, what can be done to overcome these conditions? How can we restore voice production to a natural function?
No practical results can be obtained unless we resort to radical means. We must strike at the very origin of these deficiencies, and base the freedom of voice production on the correct physiological and phonetic formation of its most essential elements—its vowels and consonants. From their proper enunciation correct words and beautiful speech are derived. Therefore, this is the most important and fundamental reform to be undertaken and must begin by educating pupils to the right conception of the natural function in talking.
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—the vowels and consonants—they are not cognizant of .its actual deficiency. If they are, they do hot think it
singing. Calvé had no such preoccupation. Her mind and soul were free, therefore her rendering was so psychologically powerful.
Watch our contemporary operatic artists. Who is holding incontestable superiority over all? A man whose singing has almost completely abolished the concern about tone, but whose words always display such truthfulness, realism, sincerity and effectiveness that the desire of hearing a big voice is completely forgottten, and this man is a basso— Feodor Chaliapin. His greatness, over and above his histrionic ability, is demonstrated by the intense feeling and truthfulness of expression of his words. He has shown that the time when the singer was only a musical manikin for displaying big or beautiful tones is gone forever.
The modern singer must be a human being, not a music box; a man conscious of what he is singing, who expresses what he desires without technical fears or limitations. He must give life to his roles, suffer or be happy, have drama in his heart, love and joy, and express them without bothering about the dimensions of his tones, his B flat or high C. His voice must be the unconscious revelation of his soul and intellect, and he must use his brain, not his muscles.
Watch another singer, Antonio Scotti, who still remains a master of the operatic stage. If he had to rely on his big tones the Metropolitan would long ago have lost one of the most effective artists living today.
Another, De Luca. I can forgive him for indulging in bel canto, because his singing might be called the “modern bel canto,” so much sincerity and significance are embodied in the words he sings. Thus De Luca happily combines the qualifications for modern singing. He is both singer and artist.
On the other hand there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of singers who, in their efforts to compete with blowing machines, struggle very hard for the coveted big tone. To the discriminating audience their singing is a painful waste of energy, a display of effort which achieves nothing save to further the decadence of the real sense of art.
What, then, is our fear or hesitation in looking toward a new orientation for the art of singing? What have we to lose? Must we delay our progress and evolution to indulge in an empty and dangerous struggle for tone? The bel canto? But why the bel canto any longer? What has it to do ;with the deep and intense psychology of our generation; with our aspirations for progress; our artistic manifestations? Enrico Caruso violated its traditions.. He was, perhaps unconsciously, a rebel against its conventionalities. Even technically, his sobs, his attacks, his recitatives —almost spoken—have been a flagrant transgression of the bel canto traditions. But we idolized his singing more than any other, and perhaps it was because with his magnificent and spontaneous emotional expression he was rendering sincerely, in his personal manner, his musical feelings, regardless of traditions. Nature was stronger than himself, and through his instinct he achieved a more complete beauty of expression than tone values could attain, so great was his almost unconscious valuation of the power of the word.	.
On the other hand, we need not fear we are sacrificing true beauty of .singing by placing the word above the tone, for beauty, to be sure, must be the hand-maiden of truth, and truth lies in the word and its psychological contents.
With this fact established, let us center our efforts, in reforming the art of singing on the fundamental principle that the word is the leading factor in singing and not the tone. This conception compels us to direct our attention to the formation of beautiful words by taking care of the roots from which these works take origin—the phonetic elements. Their correct and perfect pronunciation alone can establish the radical change of platform needed to bring about practical results in the reform of voice culture.
At a recent dinner given by the Musical Alliance of America, I heard, among other speakers, Mr. Oscar Saenger, who stated that besides giving children a musical education more attention should be paid to the culture of the speaking voice in schools. I was much gratified, as I told him, to hear that he was advocating á reform which I had been preaching for three years.
I take the liberty of repeating some points on this subject which ! emphasized largely in my book. Among the sug-
S SWAYNE 'HT
3 Ave. Sully Prud’homme (Quai d’Oraay) Pari» vii, France
Jean de Reszke 53 Rue de la Faisanderie Paris
I CCrUFT17ïY institute
LLOV/llL 1 1¿״IV. I of Piano
Gaveau Studio», 45 rue la Boétie, Pari», France
Under the personal direction of MME. THEODORE LESCHETIZKY
(Marie Gabrielle Leschetizky)
John Heath, Associate Director. Artists’ Class and Private Lessons
AUSTRALIA-NEW ZEALAND-HONOLULU
INTERNATIONAL TOURS, Ltd,
Head Office. IS Ca.tlereagh Street	Sydney. Au.tralia
E. E. Brook*. Secretary
L. E. Behymer. Los Angeles, American Representative
Frederic Shipman. Managir with International Tours, entire time, as heretofore, of each year to Personally Canada. Mr. Shipman’s a Hotel Trenton. Loe Angele*.
he will devote the greater portion ected Tours of the U. S. A. and as for the next six weeks will be