Legato-II/VI: The Problems of Notation.

In this second part, we ask why we, singers and teachers, should think about legato. We suggest it has transformational potential. Then, we examine a common definition of legato: binding notes. But to do this, we first have to consider notes. We discuss how they, and notation more generally, cause singers many problems. So many problems, in fact, that we will only be able to turn to binding in Part III.

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

Why legato?

A coherent understanding of legato can transform singing.

Legato represents, rather profoundly, much of what we mean by “good singing” in the Western Classical tradition. If a singer understands what legato is, how to plan for it, how to fulfil that plan, they are on the way to fine singing. This is true from a number of perspectives:

• Acoustically, as a singer moves from representing the symbolism of notation in sound, to expressive, meaningful singing, legato is imagery that removes notes, creates continuity.

• Physically, the intention to sing a true legato demands the continuity of engagement (air flow, space, lift, or other preferred physical parameter) required to sing well. The intent to sing a true legato demands continuous physical tonus.

• Expressively, legato and its continuous forward motion, are linked to the expressive direction of expanded sentences of sung language. The imagery of legato is linked to communicative integrity. We’ll return to this.

To plan to sing a true legato is to plan to sing well.

Let’s look, then, at different imageries of legato, and consider how effective, how true, they might be. We’ll start with the classic: binding notes.

Defining legato in relation to notes.

Legato is commonly defined as “binding notes”, expanding the Italian legare: to bind.

This definition recognises that a common problem for young singers is “note-y” singing: singing with audible evidence of the symbolism of notation. It suggests that notes (separate sounds), need to be “bound together”, to remove gaps between them, promoting a smooth sound. This seems to make sense, as there do seem to be notes, and we don’t want to hear them.

Yet, by carrying notes at its heart, this definition is a Trojan Horse, smuggling enemy notes into the city. Just as “don’t think of an elephant!” summons herds, so “bind the notes!” keeps notes firmly in mind.

But, what is so wrong with notes?

Beware of the Note.

It’s churlish, self-evident, perhaps both, to point out the dangers of notation for singers. Churlish to criticise the combined symbols and text of the conventional system of musical notation so widespread in Western classical music. Self-evident to point out that this pictorial, linguistic system conveys much, but not all, of what one mind would like another mind to produce in affective musical output. We know that much has to be assumed, guessed, inferred, fully to realise a musical performance from the symbolism of the score.

Yet it is worth looking carefully at the consequences of notation specifically for vocal performance, specifically for young singers. The familiarity and ease with which we might navigate the system, the translations we automatically make, to better imagery, can blind us to the imagery problems it creates for others.

Many vocal problems have their roots in poor mental imagery, and this imagery is often built on misinterpretations of notation. Recognising, then solving, these problems, can transform singing.

Notation with Fresh Eyes.

To see notation as once we did, and as young singers often do, let’s imagine a singing alien. Arriving to earth, this alien wishes to sing, but has only the notated scores of Western classical music from which to learn. What would they see? What would they infer? How would they sound?

Well, they would see ovals. Ovals separated by significant distance, both vertical and horizontal. If they understood ovals to represent sounds of certain pitch and duration, they’d infer these sounds were discrete, atomic, alone.

They’d see these atoms of sound either speared by one horizontal line, or trapped between two. Understanding that these horizontal lines defined pitch, frequency, our alien might deduce pitch to be constrained, ruler-fixed, for the duration of each note.

And, the alien would have to do some maths to calculate that duration, once they understood it was codified. Codified through additions to the oval: vertical lines, infills, dots, tails (the latter two: single or multiple). They’d learn the mathematical operations these additions represent, to determine the duration of the pinned pitch.

Our alien would notice also that underneath the notes are words, separate from them. They might then believe that there are notes, and there are words, that the two are separate, and must be combined. They might infer that words are to be “added” to notes.

So, our alien would see individual entities of sound, pinned precisely in pitch, held in time for a calculated duration, separated from words.

Effort against Gravity.

But there’s more.

If they came from a celestial body of significant gravity, and saw the ladders of the musical staves, our alien might imagine notes, too, existed in a gravitational field.

They might imagine ovals higher up the ladder required more effort, more tension: lower ovals, they might assume were more relaxed. Seeing a phrase of climbing ovals, they might expect to increase strain, muscularity, effort, on the climb. Equally misguided, seeing a descent, they might expect to neglect or relax the lower pitches.

As an aside, we might wonder how, if our alien dwelt in deep space, ignorant of gravity’s effects, they might interpret the vertical axis of pitch. Might they see it as a spectrum, like the spectrum of visible light, free from connotations of gravity and effort? We’ll (probably) never know.

A Singer Singing Notes.

All these alien inferences are regularly made by young singers.

They lead to predictable, audible problems. Problems that need solving through a change of imagery, rather than a change of technique, as the former will elicit the latter, but not necessarily vice-versa.

The separations of note from note are our main business here, and we’ll look at them below when we consider bindings. Before we do, let’s sketch some other real-world problems arising from singers believing in notes. Problems of spearing, maths, notes vs words, and gravity.

Speared to Death.

Notes are speared, lifeless, by ruler straight lines. If singers are fooled by this, they make it their priority to provide notes of absolute, unvarying pitch. Whilst pitch accuracy is vital, it is not everything, and is not good primary imaging for singing. Only robots could achieve perfect, invariant pitch: this is not a successful aim for the solo singer, and is not a part of sung language.

The aim of perfected pitch is attempted through tension. The singer “holds” muscles in order to hold pitch. This muscular holding is often misidentified as solely a technical or physical problem, which we’ll discuss further in the Physical Misdiagnosis section below.

Pitch fixity is often accompanied by dynamic fixity: as if to really show precise pitch, dynamic, too, is held rigid. This rigidity negates word shape, phrase shape, direction, sense.  Neither fixity is human or expressive, Phrasal architecture, of language or music, is impossible.

Out for the Count.

This fixity, of dynamic and pitch, can be further exacerbated by the implications of calculation.

Having calculated duration, the singer may arrive at the conclusion: this is how long this note must be held for.

Holding, we know, is not good. But neither is the conclusion that “I sing this note for this long because that is how long it is”. Experienced interpreters instinctively know they must find reasons for everything, but younger singers often don’t. If they believe in notes, and believe that representing the implications of notes in sound is what singing is, they don’t sound good. Again, this calculation tension is often misdiagnosed as a physical problem.

Unless a singer moves beyond maths, “notes”, held for calculated duration, negate direction, phrasing, shading. Though it perhaps seems obvious that counting isn’t singing, some singers have difficulty recognising this, remaining, as they do, in the notational schema. Identifying the tension of counting can suggest solutions that free the singer, getting closer to the source of their problem.

Meaningless Sounds.

Notation presents words separately from sounds. The implication is that notes exist separately from words, and that words might be soundless.

So, on the one hand, there are notes, sounds, which it is a singer’s job to sing. On the other, there are theoretical, abstract, sound-free words, that might have an un-spoken, un-sounded existence. Singers fall for this.

They prioritise notes, hoping to “add” words later. They believe notes tell them that they must learn to make a series of sounds, with which soundless words will then be combined.

They can harbour a deep misconception that words are somehow separable from their pitch. Yet, can a spoken word have no pitch? And, can that pitch be severed from communicative purpose? Clearly not: words necessarily have pitch, and pitch is sound is word is meaning.

Yet singers put notes first, holding their images and implications at the front of their preparing mind. They intend to make sounds that reflect their understanding of notes. They might do this for so much of their practice time that, even when words are “added”, they still play second imaginative fiddle to notes.

In fact, such devotion to the note means they risk only rarely practising singing, largely practising sound-making instead. This, of course, misshapes their singing: note and sound are so far ahead of language, it becomes odd.

We might add that, as well as neglecting meaning, believing notes to be things separate from words can create technical problems based on that belief, problems that wouldn’t exist without it. Passaggio transitions are a prime example. Whilst there are, undoubtedly, passaggio events, events that singers need to understand to avoid entrapment, approaching these from the perspective of the note often creates, prolongs, and reinforces, those traps.

False Gravity.

We’ve already hinted at the problems caused by a belief in a vertical understanding of pitch. Strain on ascent, and in top notes. Larynx rising, chin lifting. Excessive muscularity and effort. This belief, in effort against gravity, that “the top” is difficult, can persist, even through rigorous technical training designed to eliminate it. Making the untrue belief explicit can help.

As well as ascent, the embodiment of descent causes problems: sound loses focus, coloratura clarity, words meaning, breath vanishes. Many fine imagery solutions for singers emphasise horizontality, to overcome the problems created by beliefs in verticality.

But now, finally, we should return to legato. And, the understanding that legato is the “binding” of “notes” together. Seemingly common sense, this approach causes problems. Problems caused both by preserving the imagery of notes, and then by the imagery of trying to bind them together.