Legato-IV/VI: Physical Instruction and Mental Imagery

Now, we consider how physical instruction contributes to the mental imagery of legato: how does being asked to do something technical or physical with your body influence how you “see” legato. We look at airflow and abdominal engagement, two common physical approaches to legato. Airflow, in particular, weaves a subtle dance around the imagery of legato: which is more real, air or legato?

Please share if you find something interesting or helpful: I am absent from social media. AA

Physical Instruction, Imagery and Legato.

Can physical instruction shape the imagery of legato?

Physical instruction, “technique”, is, of course, a widespread approach in vocal pedagogy.  For some, singers and teachers, it is what “properly learning to sing” is.

The principle of physical instruction is, roughly, that there are things that can, and should, be done by the singer with their body that will improve their singing.  Or, conversely, that there are things a singer should not do with their body, and they should be told to stop doing them.

Either way, physical instruction tells a singer what to do with some part of their physiology. The singer does it, and their singing is improved. So the theory goes.

“Do do” examples of physical instruction include: “lift the soft palate”, “place the tongue like this”, “keep a low larynx”, “breathe low”, “engage support”.

“Don’t do” examples include “release the jaw”, “release the abdomen”, “release the tongue root”. That is: stop doing the thing you were doing with that muscle by releasing it.

Physical instruction relies on several assumptions. It assumes that a singer has effective local control over areas of their musculature. It assumes that exercising this control, through internally-focussed attention, can improve performance. It might also assume that  there are unique physical coordinations in Western classical singing, that must be directly learnt and done, else the appropriate sounds are not possible.

In sum, it is assumed that physical instructions might be necessary, can be followed, and should be effective.

Some physical instructions relate to legato. In order to prevent a singer singing notes, to find a continuous flowing sound, they are asked to do a physical thing: that physical thing, it is hoped, promotes legato singing. We might imagine that this physical thing precludes their notey singing, prevents them from embodying their intention to sing notes, ensures they are engaged in the physicality, embodiment, of legato, or forces them to generate continuous sound.

But how does physical instruction influence mental imagery? How does it affect what the singer sees, what the singers imagines legato to be?

Two common technical approaches that have a bearing on legato are airflow, and continuous, conscious, abdominal engagement. Let’s look at these, and consider how they relate to the imagery of legato.

Airflow and Active Engagement.

Airflow instructions ask the singer to generate, or maintain, a continuous flow of air throughout the sung phrase to ensure a legato line. They may not specify how the airflow is to be done, but they ask for it to be sensed or imagined. The flow of air might be through vocal folds, larynx, pharynx, mouth, or perhaps lips. It should be continuous.

The reasoning is that, since it is a flow of air through the vocal folds that generates sound, a continuous flow of that air will generate a continuous sound: legato.

Airflow is presumably linked to abdominal engagement, and active engagement instructions ask the singer to provide the engagement that provides the flow of air. (There are rationales other than airflow for active engagement, but they don’t concern us here). It is presumed that a continuous action somewhere in the abdomen provides a continuous flow of air.

This action or engagement can be suggested at various locations, but is normally somewhere on the front abdominal wall, often quite low, and is normally inwardly directed. Instructions such as tucking in, drawing in, imagining a shortening string  from belly button to back are ways of asking the singer to create a continuous abdominal engagement. The engagements are essentially consciously done, localised tensions in portions of the abdomen.

So, legato is a continuous sound, requiring a continuous flow of air. Abdominal engagement provides a continuous flow of air. So, the theory goes, either, look for the flow, or do the engagement: legato will follow. How does this work in practice?

Airflow: Fact or Fiction?

When well done, airflow weaves a fascinating dance around legato: which is real, which the metaphor?

For, if a singer looks for airflow, what are they looking for? Perhaps for air in sound, or vocal tract. But, if they find air in their sound, they are phonating breathily. And, if they feel air in the vocal tract, again: breathy phonation, and probably a closing vocal tract too.

Breathy phonation is not what we want, nor is a closing vocal tract. We may want continual airflow, since we understand it motivates the vocal folds to produce sound, but we don’t want audible or kinaesthetic evidence of that air.

What other evidence, though, could confirm continual airflow? Well, what about sound? A continuous, though breath-free, sound provides evidence of the continuous flow of air that creates it.

But, hang on, we were using flowing air to find flowing sound, and now, we are using flowing sound to find…flowing air. This feels circular. Airflow is suggested as the cause of continuous flowing sound, but the singer only knows they have flowing air through their continuous, flowing sound. Flowing sound, of course, sounds suspiciously like…legato.

So, we seem to have legato as evidence of continuous airflow, not vice-versa. Is, in fact, the intention to sing legato the cause of continuous airflow, not vice-versa? Is airflow effect not cause?

Continuous airflow suggests continuity, and in this can be useful in preventing notey singing, but it is detectable perhaps only through sound: so why introduce the concept? Perhaps it is introduced to bring the authority of voice science into a lesson. Airflow is responsible for continuous, flowing sound; please, singer, be responsible for airflow. A reassuring “this is a real, physical thing” instruction, to ground the misty metaphor of legato?

But it sounds dangerously like airflow is, in fact, metaphor, whilst legato is real: we are describing the unknown, undetectable, un-doable airflow in terms of the known, observable, done, legato. Perhaps we could trust sound and imagination a little more?

Engagement and its Perils.

In the absence of evidence for moving air, singers often try to guarantee its presumed cause: abdominal engagement. By “engaging”, they can feel more confident that they are doing something that promotes a continual flow.

We can probably all agree that there is engagement of the abdominal musculature during singing. We can probably all disagree on whether it happens, or whether it is done. And we can probably all argue about where this done/happens abdominal engagement occurs: solar plexus, rectus abdominis, pubic synthesis, everywhere?

But, in practice, for the singer, any directly done, intention-guided abdominal engagement is perilous. It easily leads to pushing, and, so, to pressed phonation. For, without guiding purpose, it is hard for a singer to know “how much” engagement is right. Is more more? Is too little causing this problem? When do I stop?

Misunderstood, mis-done (over-done), abdominal engagement is a commonly encountered problem. A singer might have heard, probably in one of too few lessons, that more engagement, support, is required, and so they look for it. But, they don’t know quite how, and they don’t know quite how much. But, they continue with the crucial technique, hoping their singing will improve, not realising they might be making it worse.

Intention-stripped abdominal engagement is perilous because it is not in service to a clear aim: where, and what, is the guiding mental imagery?

The Imagery of Airflow and Engagement.

Both airflow and engagement can be, are often, done without guiding imagery, without guiding intention. The javelin is thrown without imagined flight-path. There is no clear target (I will sing this, like this, for this reason) motivating, coordinating, the body, other than a general desire to “engage”. There need be no mental imagery that inspires, requires, specific action. Instead, often, the singer engages and hopes, probably whilst continuing to sing notes.

And airflow and engagement don’t have any mental imagery of their own, except, perhaps, the imagery of pneumatics or robotics, resting, as they do, on the notion that the singer is some sort of operator of their mechanical body.

Abdominal engagement is an action that may or may not support well-conceived and executed legato, but it is not itself “legato”, and nor does it contain clues as to what legato is. Engagement contains no concept of sound, meaning or expression in itself. It has no purpose other than itself, unless a purpose is clearly supplied. A singer with a mind full of abdominal engagement or airflow may not even have much room left for intention and imagery.

Abdominal engagement might, in fact, be better considered as the effect of well-intentioned, well-embodied singing, rather than its cause. Even though it is, often, presented as a cause of good singing for young singers, the long-term success of such instruction is not clear. Either way, on its own terms, abdominal engagement has little to contribute to the imagery of legato.

Neither is airflow part of the imagery of legato: if anything it’s the other way round. You may imagine a stream of air, but you can’t sense it, and, anyway, how does that stream sound? You might do a thing to your body that you imagine creates continuous airflow, but why? There is no necessary acoustic ideation, no pre-hearing.

The conceptual emptiness, neutrality, of airflow and conscious engagement is shared by other physical instructions. They might help realise a vision of singing, but they are not that vision.

That may be obvious to the experienced singer and teacher, who already has a strong, steady vision, but will likely not be to the young singer. Young singers, perhaps not knowing what singing is, are often trying to do the wrong thing. Physical instructions are not guaranteed to correct that. They may simply add physical manipulation to misguided intention. What singing is, and how to do what singing is, are two separate things. It is important, crucial, vital, that the how is the servant of the what.

If physical instruction does not supply much to the imagery of legato, what, then, about imageries of continuous sound, found in pedagogies across centuries?