Voice habilitation presents a number of challenges, one of which is psychological. Our understanding of our voices provides an essential element to our identity. When we train our voices, therefore, we accept that on one hand we would like our voices to change, and on the other, that changing them will alter the basic core of how we understand who we are. That’s a tall emotional task, and is the focus of our first Zine, set for publication this October.
This challenge leads people into complicated emotional/psychological dances. A common version includes the concept of “natural”. People are told that they have a natural, one might think “perfect”, version of their voice, which they can learn to utilize (see “Platonic Realism”). The challenge with this approach presents itself in comparisons, and feelings of insecurity. “They must be inherently better than me” or “she’s so talented, and I can’t sing a note” or “I’ve got a big voice, I can’t sing that” are common thoughts people have because of this mindset. Although vocalists benefit from learning to appreciate their voices as theirs, they live in fear that they will never measure up, if they can even figure out what the measure is in the first place. |
Another challenge that comes with the “natural” voice model is a belief that vocalists are, by design, confined to certain, specific uses of their voice…that:
singers are somehow destined to sing in certain styles
actors are made for Shakespeare and not contemporary work
teachers with scratchy, soft voices are just meant to get tired every day
radio personalities who vocal fry do so because
“that’s how their voice sounds”
actors are made for Shakespeare and not contemporary work
teachers with scratchy, soft voices are just meant to get tired every day
radio personalities who vocal fry do so because
“that’s how their voice sounds”
Back to the identity challenge: There is nothing wrong with any of these identifications. If an actor wants to identify as a Shakespeare actor, or a radio personality wants to vocal fry, that’s their choice, and a choice that often serves them well. If they identify in this way because they have been told that they have no other options, however, a conflict arises with our understanding of science.
A separate challenge arises from the Bizarro cousin of “natural”, which is the specter of “manipulation”. The logic flows that, in order to achieve perfection, we need to know how to force the voice into its proper alignment by holding, pushing, placing, etc. Where there are few options, control asserts itself as a containment device. Conversely, where there are many options, habituation opens doors to possibility. |
Thanks to the challenges of choral singing, which asks singers to regularly phonate in different styles, I’ve long believed that the voice has multiple capacities, and can be trained to sing or speak healthily in varied ways. Science supports this fully. Further, psychological research has shown that people learn faster, actually grow their intelligence and talent, and identify more positively with themselves when they acknowledge that they have a range of choices from the outset. The focus changes from attention to how they are, into what they can become. Their goals become measured targets rather than random “what ifs”.
This is a sea change that the voice world clamors for and celebrates, but can’t seem to find a regular path toward. The answers sit just on the other side of a mindset shift. The chasm between what we know and don’t know is vast compared to the fissure between what we know and knew. Taking the first baby step to allowing for possibility will open the voice world to the possibilities that science has proven exist. We need only to claim them...and begin our target practice.
~David
~David