Reading time: 3 minutes
I had a coaching session last week, and the topic of vocal science came up. Now I am ALL for further understanding of science: it is an incredibly helpful tool.
However, whenever I see a new idea presented in vocal science, or some aspect that is preached heavily by various teaching methodologies, there is invariably a problem. Science can only – at best – explain why something has happened, it does not inherently create a roadmap or set of helpful instructions for others to follow. The key question we must always ask with anything to do with voice, is how do we apply something helpfully in a singers voice.
What’s the point?
I have met some incredibly knowledgeable vocal coaches over the years. Some of them are excellent coaches and apply what they know effectively in tools, but others seem to be acquiring knowledge for knowledge’s sake.
The voice is incredibly complex, and it is worth pursuing understanding. But, so what if you understand formants, can name every aspect of vocal musculature, measure or manipulate laryngeal tilt, etc… If a coach or singer can’t leverage that knowledge into making a voice better effectively, what good is it?
This quote by Einstein sums it up best for me:
“It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure.” – Einstein
Subjective vs Objective
Science seeks to describe things objectively and un-emotionally. This is perfect for robustly explaining things. But singing is a wholly subjective experience for the singer, as well as highly emotional.
Do you see the inherent problem here?
How can you build a voice that sits within a completely subjective and emotional domain, but ONLY using an objective and impersonal framework to do so? The answer: you can’t.
What one person experiences when they sing or speak is different to what others feel when they do the same. Even if the outside world were to agree objectively that the sounds generated by two singers were the same/similar, the two singers may find themselves describing their subjective experience entirely differently. Or two singers may describe their experiences as very similar, but have radically different sounding voices out front. Therefore trying to use pure science as the starting point for every singer is not only typically unhelpful, it’s missing the point of singing entirely: the singer themselves must come first.
Put the singer’s experience first
We’ve got to start building a voice from the singer’s perspective first – i.e. build someone’s voice so that the singer feels like that their singing voice is consistent with their normal full voice. That way any acquired technical ability “feels like home” to them, no matter where they are in their voice or range. To start from any other foundation makes little sense.
I often meet singers who have acquired the facility to hit high notes, or do unusual things with their voices that are scientifically and objectively sound, but they are constantly afraid of singing that way. Why? Because they claim those notes feel alien to them.
It’s not a question of confidence, it’s a question of having gotten to that place of facility via the wrong route and not integrating their voice like it was their own. Having “tricks” to hack someone’s voice into an upper register is pointless if it can’t be integrated into a voice the singer can trust and feel comfortable in. And that metric is far less scientific and far more emotional in scope.
Don’t get me wrong, we NEED science
I’m not advocating for abandonment of vocal science, I’m advocating for an effective partnership between good understanding of vocal science AND good coaching capacity. But the latter must always lead the former. Knowledge without application is pointless.
Of course, as voice coaches we desperately need better and better vocal science to understand WHY what we are doing is working, but where many lose their way – in my opinion – is that knowledge of the science becomes an end in itself, when it should be a means to an end.
Putting science as the foundation of good singing for singers can lead to objectively consistent instruments to those listening, but a very fractured experience for the singer themselves. But if we are driving a wedge between a singer and their voice in the name of “scientifically proven technicality”, what’s the point?
We must respect the subjective nature of singing first and foremost, and apply good technique whilst building from that foundation. From there can then build upward and outward towards the objective agreement of good singing in the outside world. This is all while maintaining a completely integrated and emotionally engaging/rewarding vocal experience for the singer themselves.
Learn More: Related Articles
If you want to learn more about vocal technique and great singing, you may enjoy these related articles:
The Difference between Amateurs and Pros
Vocal Pedagogy: Past, present and future
Singers: The Difference Between Vocalists and Performers
Can vocal technique help laryngitis?
Vocal Tessitura: What is it?
What is vocal fach?
The Key to Vocal Consistency