tone that satisfies his ear of what
value beyond satisfying his curiosity is a physical analysis? A tone is
something to hear, and when it satisfies the ear that knows, that in
itself is unmistakable evidence that it is rightly produced.

If this scientific knowledge of tone is necessary then every great
artist in the world is unscientific, because not one of them makes any
use whatsoever of such knowledge in his singing.

No. All of the scientific knowledge one may acquire is no guaranty of
success as a teacher, but is rather in the nature of a hindrance,
because it is likely to lead him into mechanical ways of doing things.
Further, the possession of such knowledge is no indication that one will
use it in his teaching. How much of such knowledge can one use in
teaching? How can he tell, save from the tone itself whether the pupil
is producing it scientifically? It is a well established fact that the
more the teacher tries to use his scientific information in teaching the
less of an artist he becomes.

Could it be possible that a beautiful tone could be produced contrary to
the laws of science? It would be an extraordinary mind that would argue
in the affirmative.

=The most beautiful tone is the most perfectly produced, whether the
singer knows anything of vocal mechanism or not.= In such a tone there
is no consciousness of mechanics or scientific laws. The vocal mechanism
is responding automatically to the highest law in the universe--the law
of beauty. The most scientific thing possible is a beautiful idea
perfectly expressed, because a thing inherently beautiful is eternally
true, hence it is pure science.

Every tone of the human voice is the expression of life, of an idea, a
feeling, an emotion, and unless interfered with the vocal mechanism
responds automatically.

He who by experiment or reading has learned the action of the vocal
mechanism, and attempts to make his pupil control every part of it by
direct effort may imagine that he is teaching scientific voice
production, but he is not, he is only doing a mechanical thing in a
clumsy way.

Is it a scientific act to tell a pupil to hold his tongue down, as one
writer argued recently? Is a teacher calling into action the eternal
laws of science when he tells his pupil to drive the tone through the
head, hoist the soft palate, groove the tongue, and make the diaphragm
rigid? No. He is simply doing a mechanical thing badly for want of a
better way. It is