When you can’t find an objective criterion to compute accuracy and are left with consensus, this is a clue that you are dealing with social, not physical, reality.
How Emotions Are Made by Lisa Feldman Barrett
In the voice community, great time, effort, and capacity are put into the science of singing. Physiology, acoustics, and the resulting differences from measuring and forming.
To some degree, this empowers both singers and voice educators. Finding the “why” often leads to a more productive “how.”
In some pedagogical circles, however, there seems to be a devotion to the science of singing, as though to understand singing and be a responsible voice educator one must have an applicable understanding of the tiny percentage of reliably measurable science that goes into the act of singing.
In the pursuit of donning this shield of science (which we may be using to protect our notions of ourselves as educators), we’re sometimes (often?) quick to grab anything that looks like armor. Terms such as evidence-based, studies show and research has shown are tossed about. Those are easy terms to latch onto; I readily admit that I’ve done it.
Since becoming a bread-crumb-following, rabbit-hole-diving, science-hungry nerd I’ve discovered some things about these terms. I’ve discovered that it’s worth knowing the details about a study, the evidence, or research.
Who were the study subjects, and what were the objectives of the study?
How many study subjects were used, what demographics were included, and were the results duplicated elsewhere?
In the case of singing science, who were the singers in the study; were they trained singers, regular folks, or experienced professionals? If they were trained or professionals, what genre of music are we talking about?
I’ve learned that professional journals often do not hold themselves to particularly strict standards, especially when it comes to “peer reviews.” Many professional journals, in fact, are in the business of business - charging the researchers and readers while asking editors and reviewers to work for free. When reviewers are not compensated for their time, the journal may not be reaching for the highest shelves, as it were, or even asking qualified people.
I’m not suggesting that we ignore available science when it comes to vocal pedagogy. Not even a teeny-tiny bit. I adore science. I’m merely suggesting that we stop treating singing as though it is a thoroughly measurable, understandable science.
Singing, at its core, is a social construct. By their nature, social constructs are unmeasurable. Certainly, elements of a given construct can be measured, but the whole cannot be understood via the sum of its parts.
Singing is a way to engage with, experience, and communicate music; itself a social construct. There must be a certain amount of agreement and consensus to create and maintain a social construct. However, one would be hard-pressed to find any social reality in which all people agree upon every component of that reality.
I hope to see vocal coaches and teachers feel curious about science, questioning that same science, and embracing the human, ineffable, ever-changing, and magical parts of our extraordinary art form.
Meredith Colby is the author of Money Notes: How to Sing High, Loud, Healthy and Forever, and the creator of NeuroVocal Method, an approach to coaching for popular styles based on brain science.
Meredith teaches privately online to professional & adult singers, and voice teachers & coaches from all over the world.
You can get information and book individual sessions or classes from this site.
This blog post is about the #scienceofsinging and #singingtechnique. It is meant for #singers, #vocalists, #voiceteachers and #voicecoaches. In #vocalpedagogy there is an underlying message to voice teachers and coaches that they must learn and understand the #scienceofsinging. This post calls this to light and suggests a balance. This post also includes a #freedownload of a #microphonesetup for voice teachers and vocal coaches that can be used in the #voicestudio.
Comentários