I’ve recently come to an interesting and personal conclusion. Voice Pedagogy is NOT Voice Science.
In many academic institutions throughout the United States, voice students can take classes in Vocal Pedagogy at the college level. Most of these classes are formed upon an intensive study of laryngeal muscles, the throat, the torso, as well as an in-depth discussion of acoustics, resonance, and formant tuning. But I believe that this particular approach is deeply, deeply flawed.
The aura and imprimatur of science is dangerously alluring and tends to give a sheen of respectability to these higher education courses. Science legitimizes its own study, precisely because it is so respectable, and because of this it is not questioned for study in Vocal Pedagogy classes. But, in my opinion science is the what; pedagogy is the how.
The definition of ‘pedagogy’ according to dictionary.com is as follows:
For Vocal Pedagogy courses to be TRULY pedagogical in nature, their function should be established as a discovery and study of the great teachers, writings, and teaching methods of the past. This is because study should be upon the art and science of TEACHING voice. Science to date has offered fascinating knowledge of what the voice is DOING, but has not offered us an operant principle upon which a system of voice training can be built.
HOWEVER, the writings of the Great Masters DO provide us with a treasure trove of information on how voices have been trained over centuries. This is valuable information for the emergent voice teacher, and CAN help the teacher formulate a method based on the work of centuries in singing studios all over the world. No mathematician or scientist EVER made a contribution in their field without knowing the theories and work of those men and women that came before. For a college student to take Voice Pedagogy and NOT study the writings of Tosi, Mancini, Manfredini, Garcia, and Marchesi is a miscarriage of justice! You cannot formulate a technique of singing on charts and graphs of the human body alone.
My particular theory on why academia teaches SCIENCE instead of TRAINING HISTORY is because science is not as controversial to college voice faculty who may be publicly exposed for teaching untenable concepts in their lessons. I can imagine a student poring over bel canto texts and wondering why their teacher is talking about ‘putting it in the mask’, ‘spinning the tone’, or ‘inflating the tube’ when NONE of these classic voice training texts mention anything of the kind. This type of pedagogy course could potentially put out of business many of those in academia who suffer from an “Emperor Has No Clothes” teaching methodology. Students might demand a higher level of instruction if they were to become aware of the vast body of teaching information that dates back to the 1600s.
As a corollary, I recently purchased a book on pedagogy for teaching piano. Chapters include such topics as “Developing a Teaching Philosophy”, “Systems and Principles of Learning”, “Goal Setting”, “Note-Reading Approaches”, “Teaching Children/Adults”, “Common Problems of Beginners”, and “First Year Goals”. THIS kind of pedagogy is what is SORELY lacking in many academic programs throughout the country. Many of these questions can also be solved by reading the Old Masters and how they tackled many of these same issues.
Voice Science is a wonderful thing for teachers everywhere, but it shouldn’t be lumped into Voice Pedagogy courses as if it were somehow the foundation and crux of all voice training. In my opinion, two classes should be offered: Voice Science, and Voice Pedagogy. The bifurcation of these two ideas would give them their proper setting and place them within a specific context for teaching purposes in higher education.
Historical teaching and pedagogy needs to take place of prominence in any course carrying the title of “Voice Pedagogy”.