23
teacher, I am compelled to take issue with the gentleman in question and deny those statements in toto.
Voice culture at present is based only on vague traditions or personal views and impressions. No standardized principles exist.
This may be true of the lecturer’s own method of teaching and doubtless is as he makes the statement himself and they are bis own words, but it is not true of the capable American vocal teacher whose method is based on scientific natural laws. The method of the competent vocal teacher is based on scientific principles, modified in some cases to suit the individual voice, but demonstrated and proved correct every day in his studio. The development of the voice in volume, quality, flexibility, range and ease of production is positive proof that the method is correct and that it will bear investigation. Standardized principles do exist in the studio 'of the capable American vocal teacher, but “vague traditions and impressions” find no place of abode within the walls of that sanctuary. “By their fruits ye shall know them.”
At any rate, if some benefit, however slight, results from my attempt at this reform, and future singers thereby gain more possibilities in their careers, I shall consider it a great accomplishment for voice culture inasmuch as it will establish the truth that the word, not the tone, is the leading factor in modern vocal art.
So that’s it 1 At last we have found the correct vocal method; the word’s the thing and hang the man who tries to sing. All hail, ye voiceless singers 1 Away with bel canto and beautiful tones! Just let your words come “trippingly off the tongue” and you will all be ready for the grand opera stage in no time at all. So easy!
Of the making of vocal methods there is no end, and we hear of new ones every day. We hear of different methods of breathing and many different theories concerning the registers of ־the voice but never, never until now have I heard our beloved bel canto decried, derided, belittled and reviled; yea, despised and rejected of men, thrown into the discard there to remain in innocuous disuetude until it disintegrates and passes off into vacuous oblivion.
Alas! how the mighty have fallen! Tell it not in Gath nor whisper it in the streets of Askalon, lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice and the makers of the modern vocal art laugh us to scorn.
Poor bel canto! How many crimes have been committed in thy name? How many times and oft on the Rialto has thy name 'been taken in vain? Nevertheless, with my trusty sword will I defend thee and none shall harm thee unless they first pass over my dead body. Around thy sacred form I draw the awful circle of our sacred calling; set but a foot within that holy ground and on thy head, yea, though it wore a crown I launch the curse of all the great ones of the past—long since gone, but not forgotten.
(Signed) Carl Fabian.
MUSICAL COURIER
Musical Courier Readers
April 19, 1923
cans go about “talking with their mouths shut, keeping their throats, palates and especially their tongues in permanent tension.” This is a reflection on American culture and good breeding and should not be allowed to pass unnoticed. Well bred people in all climes use well modulated voices and I think the culture apd good breeding of the average American citizen is quite equal to that of the foreigner—if not superior. I am quite sure that no American teacher would go to a foreign country and tell the people there they did ot know how to speak their own language.	.
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.
I deny that statement flatly 1 The American speaking voice is not a deformed voice. In my fifteen years’ experience as a teacher of music in public and private schoo s, I have always found the voices of children and adults pleasant to listen to, and every whit as good as the voices of children and adults in any foreign country I have ever visited. 1 would like to know the lecturer’s authority for such a drastic statement; it is false to the very core and a well bred man of sound judgment would never say such a thing to a representative body of- American singing teachers. It is ungracious and ungrateful and merits the strongest rebuke that can be expressed in words.
As for singing, the American language rings about defects which are more difficult to deal with. .	.	* .i_ •
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 ot singing than anyone else, and have consequently produced few good singers, as far as proper voice production is concerned.
I deny that statement also. America has produced a great many good singers and among them are some who have been the world's greatest singers. Have we forgotten Kellogg, Carey, Emma Eames and the lamented N ordica ( These singers have sung the greatest music of the greatest masters before the greatest audiences in the world, not once but many times. If this is not a proof of greatness then I would like to know what is. What more is there for any one to do?
THE PENNINGTON SCHOOL FOR BOYS (Founded 1838)
Pennington, New Jersey
April 5, 1923.
To the Musical Courier:
The article in your issue of March 22, entitled Word Vs. Tone, is interesting as an educational and literary curiosity, and as the author invites a frank and free criticism, I take the liberty of sending you these lines for publication although I am not a member of the New York Singing Teachers’ Association.
With reference to making the word more important than the tone in voice culture, I clip the following excerpts from his lecture as reported in the above mentioned issue. The author’s denunciation of bel canto and beautiful tones in singing is so strange and unusual, and his condemnation of American voices and American singers in general is so drastic and so lacking in every semblance of truth that it should not be allowed to pass unnoticed or unchallenged, and I hope that others, like myself, will come forward in defense of American art, American singers and the American vocal tedcher.
To quote at random:
Grand Opera Society President Protests Politely
To the Musical Courier:
In the March IS issue of your paper I notice the cavalier remark of Mme. von Klenner (president of the National Opera Club) regarding the Grand Opera Society Qf New York, of which I have the honor to be the founder and president. We do not deny that our rehearsals are full of “the sweetness of sugar and richness of cream.” I plead guilty of being very fond of ice cream and cake myself, and we do occasionally■ indulge, and even dance once a week after rehearsal—but we. also have good solid food for the mind and never allow pleasure to interfere with the work in hand. But “too much work and no play makes Jack a dull boy” and what applies to the individual applies equally to an organization. It is because the Grand Opera Society has learned the wisdom of this maxim, that it has flourished. What other organization, at the end of three years, can boast of more than fifty performances of grand opera, all given in English and at popular prices? This, in comparison with the older organization’s one performance and an occasional scene from opera—in a foreign tongue, if I am correctly informed—speaks for itself. Who will deny us the privilege of waving our caps and shouting, “We are for opera in English, American opera preferred, and at popular prices.”
Are we not entitled to ice cream and cake, after four long rehearsals each week, and who knows but this very sociability may not cheer some lonely heart in this great city?
We have singers and students from all parts of the country, who come to New York to study or to seek a career, and who join our society to take advantage of the opportunities it affords them, and which can scarcely be found elsewhere without paying a large fee, or going to the smaller cities of Europe for routine and experience.
We regret Mme. von Klenner’s misinformed statement, especially as it will get such wide publicity throughout the medium of so popular a paper as the Musical Courier— as it may create a wrong impression. We will welcome Mme. von Klenner or any members of her club, at any time, to see just how hard we really do work, and to sample our ice cream and cake, which we guarantee home-made, pure, and strictly American, and we promise to satisfy any connoisseur of the culinary art.
When may we have the honor of your company again?
We are giving a complete performance of Tales of Hof-man in the Auditorium of Wadleigh High School, on April 26, with a cast of eighteen people and full chorus.
With kind regards,
Very sincerely yours,
(Signed) Zilpha Barnes Wood.
Our Stand Commended
[The following letter addressed to the Musical Courier by Harold L. Butler, Dean of the School of Fine Arts of the University of Kansas, requires no comment. — The Editor.]
To the Musical Courier:
My compliments to you on your support of American artists. The University of Kansas Concert Course of eight concerts has engaged the following artists this year—they were not engaged because they are Americans, but because they are genuine artists: Cyrena Van Gordon, Albert Spalding, Guy Maier and Lee Pattison, Frieda Hempel, Kansas City Symphony Orchestra, Arthur Middleton, two concerts by the Minneapolis Symphony Orchestra.
Although we are paying approximately twenty per cent more this year to the artists and organizations of our course, the course is financially successful. With such an array of artists the musical success of the course is a foregone conclusion.
With kindest regards and best wishes for the continued prosperity of the Musical Courier, I am,
Sincerely yours,
(Signed) H. L. Butler, Dean.
The enunciation of American singers, with few exceptions, is tight and throaty, so that only with difficulty can their words reach the audience.
I wish to deny this statement emphatically. The style, tone production and artistry of the average ^American singer is every whit as good as that of the foreigner, and their stage presence and stage deportment is superior to that of the foreigner.
In some opera houses where all operas were sung in English most of the audiences openly expressed their dissatisfaction and•«fused to lend their support. “How can anybody, ־ they said, prefer a P“) formance of Carmen in English, when it is impossible to understand what they are singing about?”
This difficulty might have been remedied if these people had supplied themselves with a libretto of the opera W^.at did they go to the opera for—just for the words? When the Arditi waltz song or the waltz song from Romeo and Juliet and scores of other songs of that style are sung, who cares anything about the words? Who cares anything about words when listening to the sextet from Lucia or the quartet from Rigoletto. It is the beautiful melodies which could only be written by a genius and the wonderful execution when sung by a fine artist that thrills us with the very joy of living and fills us with awe and admiration for the super-genius who created the wonderful melodies, and the divine voice which put a soul into the music and made those melodies live.
Words are not necessary to the enjoyment of a piano or violin solo. A symphony orchestra under the baton ot a skilful director will paint you a beautiful picture m colors of tone and that picture will tell you its own story, but not in words—they are not necessary. Music conveys its own message in its own way and that way is not always through
the medium of speech.	__
I am reminded of the fact that when Dr. John Henry Newman, the author of Lead Kindly Light was comp mented on the beauty of the hymn he replied, Yes’ buht * was the tune that gave wmgs to the words and sent them flvine around the earth.” And what was it that made that wonderful poem The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, so suddenly popular? Nothing else than Liza Lehmann s musical setting which sent the poem flying from one end of the English speaking world to the other.
When our dull minds can grasp the meaning of such
phrases as “acoustical sounds and the	state-
no- music,” and when we can accept the lecturers state ment that “the simple function of speaking is no different from that of eating, breathing or walking we may. be able to realize our debt of gratitude to the foreigner, who though speaking our language imperfectly bjmself, comes over here to teach us how to speak it correctly. And is not a little strange that the foreigner who comes to our hospitable shores because, perhaps,■ of intolerable conditions in his own land, should tell us in public that we are deficient in one of the strongest evidences of American culture a refined and well modulated speaking voice.
I deem it unwise to pass unnoticed or unchallenged unjust reflections on American manners or the American teacber of singing, no matter how unwittingly or ignorantly uttered or by whom proclaimed. A lecturer must indeed be suffering from a paucity of ideas when he distorts his subject by making false statements about it and then backing up those statements by an undeserved and injudicious attack on our natural vocal talents and intelligence. It is the lecturer’s privilege to hold any opinion he likes, on apy subject, in private; but when he, a foreigner, stands up in public in the capacity of a public educator and tells a rep ^ sentative body of American singing teachers that we have “inherited deformed voices,” “that we go about talking with our mouths shut and our throats, palates and tonSu^ in permanent tension” that “the enunciation of American singers, with few exceptions, is tight and throaty and “that we have produced few good singers, he reflects upon our intelligence and culture, and challenges not o״ y our criticism but our patriotism as well.	Therefore in
defense of the American singer and American singing
I have therefore chosen to express some views on a radical reform in voice culture, emphasizing my belief that the word, not the tone, must be the leading factor in modern vocal art.
To begin with, I believe it is time to rebel against old traditions, in voice culture. We must abolish all unprogressive conventionalities.
The most detrimental of them, in my opinion, is the obsession of the
° The idea of centering all attention and effort in producing perfect tones is the preoccupation of the great majority of singers today, yet it is a conception which should belong only to the past. Voice culture should be freed from this misleading influence which retards the evolution of the modern art of singing.
If the acquisition of beautiful tones or a beautiful voice is a “misleading influence which retards the evolution of the modern art of singing” why study voice culture at all? What is voice cultur? if not the development of beautiful tones? If the art of singing to be modern must be devoid of all tonal beauty the necessity for voice culture is entirely done away with, it seems to me, and the vocal teacher s occupation is gone.
The lecturer says he has “chosen to express some views on the radical reform in voice culture” and I am sure his reform is radical enough. If he finds any who agree with him in those views I certainly shall not be among the number.
In the art of the past, however, singing was characterized essentially by the formation of beautiful tones, in the perfection of which lay alsd the excellence of style. That was the creed of the famous school of bel canto.
Then why condemn the bel canto? If a singer has beautiful tones and excellent style it is to be inferred that other qualifications are his also.
In some cases several singers could at the same time, and to the same music, express their love and joy, as well as their jealousy, defiance or hate, without offending the common sense of our undis-criminating forefathers, just because the listeners were satisfied with beautiful melody. That was certainly the age of the decadence of singing music, and it was quite natural for singers to have followed that conception.
O tempora! O mores! How we do live and learn, to be sure! Although the lecturer gives them credit for having “common sense” what a lot of queer people our “undiscriminating forefathers” must have been just because they were satisfied with beautiful melodies. And then he declares: “That was certainly the age of the decadence ot singing.” Shades of Patti, Gerster, Jenny Lmd, Nilsson, Tamagno, Campanini, Mario, and a host of others we were always taught to believe were great singers! How terribly mistaken they all were, both the singers and the listeners, just because those artists used the bel canto in their singing and loved beautiful melodies and beautiful tones.
This radical evolution consequently is aiming a death blow at the school of bel canto, which in truth has had a deservedly glorious past, but which is no longer adapted to modern vocal compositions.
Poor bel canto! Discarded like an old shoe and relegated to the junk heap at last—and by an Italian, too.
If vocal tones were sufficient to convey our sentiments and thoughts by themselves, we could have entire compositions sung on an A or U, but who could endure such empty singing for any length of time. Who would recognize such singing as artistic?
Well, we have to listen to much of that very thing in the oratorios and grand operas. Handel’s Messiah contains much of that very kind of music, and so do many of the Italian grand operas. The Indian Bell Song from Lakme is a good example of that type of song, and a’s0 Chaminade’s Summer. I have never before heard of any one objecting to it and I think most people listen to it with keen delight and appreciation.
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 fnd ous struggle for tone? The bel canto? But why the bel canto any fonger? 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.
I don’t know what bel canto has to do with “the deep and intense psychology of our generation but I do know that if a singer doesn’t use it, he wont get very far in his
profession.	.	׳
With this fact established, let us center our efforts in reforming the art of singing on the fundamental principle that the word is the lead hie factor m tinging and not the tone. This conception compels us to direct our attention to the formation of beautiful works by taking care of th^roTs from which these works take origin-the phonetic elements.	,	״
Why study singing at all then? Why not go to a school of elocution for operatic training? And isn t it a little strange that in the English opera company referred to by the lecturer, the one foreigner in the company was the only one whose English could be understood? It is very singular how much more some foreigners know about our language than we know ourselves. Verily, ‘There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamed of in thy philosophy.”	. .	.
cmtmgfS
pa"atef and especially their tongues in permanent tens,on.
The lecturer must indeed be afflicted with an auditory nerve of peculiar construction. In my many years of experience as a vocal teacher I have yet to learn that Amen-