As I noted at the end of Don Giovanni 2 (July 6), I’ve been getting questions and comments  from obviously well-informed readers that call for further elaboration or clarification. This happens especially when I write about vocal technique, and it reached peak intensity when I wrote about two ascendant stars, Jonas Kaufmann and Anna Netrebko (see the post of May 25). Some of these responses come from readers who are knowledgeable about singing and singers but are not  voice professionals, and aren’t necessarily familiar with the lingua franca of singers and pedagogues—among whom, I should note, there is by no means universal agreement on the interpretation of many terms. Others come from readers who are professionally involved with voice, but are either confused by or in disagreement with my way of talking about what we’re all hearing—either they hear differently, or they hear as I do but differ with my analysis. And finally, there can be puzzlement over my sometimes idiosyncratic syntax, or with neologisms I invent when I think there is no standard word, or only an imprecise word, for what I mean. So today I will address some of these questions, and will append a little glossary of my own usages. Some of these last I have so far avoided here. But I use them in Opera as Opera, and will be referencing them in posts from time to time.

It is one of my ambitions to direct more readers’ attention to what I call functional hearing, to how voices are put together and how they work, and to the causative relationship of vocal function to vocal aesthetics. That would lead to a richer understanding, to less misapplied enthusiasm, greater appreciation of true expertise, and more informed discussion and argumentation about singing—all, it seems to me, desirable for the health of our artform. So I’m grateful for questioning that pushes me to be as clear as possible on the subject. The first series of inquiries comes from a credentialed correspondent I’ll call Reader One. He has handily put some of the terms in bold face. I’ve edited a bit. Since he quotes directly from the Kaufmann/Netrebko post, I suggest reference to that for context.

1) Q: ” . . . the fundamental, structural parts of technique, not the pretty artifacts” (pretty artifacts–would these be coloratura, trills etc.?).

A: Yes, exactly. But I intend the term to extend to almost everything we call “effects”—even the messa di voce, for instance, and particularly the diminuendo phase of it, or the suspended pp high note, which, especially in early Romantic writing, have become signature interpretive gestures, to the point of tedium in voices of no great presence or timbral interest to begin with. They are all legitimate technical accomplishments, but what one has to keep in mind is that they can sometimes be executed by voices that are actually quite out of balance, seriously constricted, or incompletely developed, and are not always as indicative of “good technique” as they may seem. Firm, even tone, with undistorted vowels and no noticeable weaknesses up and down the range, is a better indicator than flashy, sexy gestures, no matter the voice type.