Q: ” . . . instead of solidifying [the voice is] fragmenting.” Again—glossary items?
A: These terms mean exactly what they mean in civilian English, and should be clear from the foregoing.
Q: A brief explanation of “vowel modification” (particulars of and need for, rather than the general idea) could not come amiss . . .
A: This refers to adjustments in vowel formation, intentional or not, made by a singer in the belief that they will ease the way up and down the range. (“Covering” is one of the most common and most easily spotted.) To those who believe these mutations are primary, they are the focus of much technical work, and are seen as the means of keeping the voice on a safe path. To we who believe that they are more accurately seen as contributory, and often employed as substitutes for addressing intralaryngeal dynamics, the path can lead to the wrong destination.
Q: “Format”/”conformation”?
A: Again, the dictionary definitions will do just fine. But of course one has to be thinking of a voice as having a format or conformation—admittedly, metaphorical concepts, but ones that give us useful ways of hearing and working.
Q: The concluding graph on “laryngeal energization” seems absolutely critical, but also extremely difficult for the likes of me. I think I get a lot of it, but I certainly wouldn’t want to have to take a quiz. Would it be possible to make the same point in something more like layman’s terms?
A: You are right that it is critical, at least in my view. It means what it says: directing energy, by the same brain-to-nerve-to-muscle means that we initiate any motor action, into that little cartilaginous chamber. That’s where voice originates; where control over breath pressure is exercised; and where the acoustical complex in the human throat has its foundation. To “direct energy” to any physical action means first of all paying attention to that action instead of others, then learning to mobilize the co-ordinations that will enable you to activate the desired actions to the exclusion of others. This is again a potentially long and complicated discussion. But to drop a couple of hints as to its importance in voice: Everything I’ve written here has been set in the context of the falling-off of vocal amplitude over the past half-century that has had such an enfeebling effect on large-scale operatic performance. Vocal amplitude has three sources: the drive of the vibratory action itself; its resistance to the buildup of compression in the respiratory tract; and—most important to the richness and voluminosity of the tone—the favorable alignment of the above-mentioned acoustical complex. The first two are accomplished right at the glottal level, by the vocal cords themselves, while the third derives its basic posture from the laryngeal position. The two pervasive, interrelated deficiencies in contemporary singing I’ve had all-too-frequent cause to note—a loosening, or slackness, that amounts to insufficient support, and an absence of core and brilliance—both strongly suggest diminished energization and stability at the laryngeal level, and increased reliance on a resonance adjustment dominated by the roomier, more malleable pharyngeal spaces above.