always
unconsciously used. Second, empirical knowledge is always applied in the
prevailing mechanical spirit. The attempt is always made to translate
the sub-conscious empirical understanding of the voice into rules for
direct mechanical management. Under the influence of the mechanical idea
the modern teacher's most valuable possession, empirical knowledge of
the voice, becomes utterly unserviceable.

Thus far, the whole result of this work has been destructive. The
accepted Vocal Science has been shown to be erroneous in its conception
and unsound in its conclusions. The work cannot halt here. Vocal Science
must be reconstructed. This can be done only by following the general
plan of all scientific investigation, beginning with the observation of
all ascertainable facts bearing on the voice.

How can any facts be observed about the voice other than by the study of
the vocal mechanism? An answer to this question is at once suggested so
soon as scientific principles are applied to the subject. Strictly
speaking, the voice is a set of sounds, produced by the action of the
vocal organs. The scientific method of inquiry is therefore to begin by
observing these sounds. Sounds as such can be observed only by the sense
of hearing. It follows then that the attentive listening to voices is
the first step to be taken.

Can any empirical knowledge of the voice be obtained by the mere
listening to voices? If so, we ought now to be in possession of any
facts which might be thus observed. Is it possible that information of
this character is already a common possession of the vocal world, and
yet that this information has never been applied in the investigation of
the voice? This is exactly the case. Many facts regarding the voice have
been observed so continually that they are a matter of common knowledge,
and yet these facts have never been recorded in a scientific manner.

Consider, for example, this remark about a famous singer, made by one of
the foremost musical critics of the United States: "Mme. T---- 's lower
medium notes were all sung with a pinched glottis." How did this critic
know that the singer had pinched her glottis? He had no opportunity of
examining her throat with the laryngoscope, nor of observing her throat
action in any other way. In fact, the critic was seated probably
seventy-five feet from the artist at the time the tones in question were
sung. The critic had only one means of knowing anything about the