If a truth is palpable and of importance in practice, let us pity him who misconceives or distorts it. —Volney

I think it is high time someone explained to the public that the difference reported to lie in the vocal training by reputable teachers is due, in the main, to the inordinate desire of said teachers to set themselves up as doing something no one else has done or can do, and, if possible, to take the lead. Now this desire is manifested in every profession, but while laymen never pretend to understand other professions, and certainly do not attempt to discuss them, with the vocal profession it is different. Just because everyone can sing (?) (even children and fools), so each feels himself entitled not only to express opinions, but to criticise what he is ignorant of as of the North Pole. To aggravate all this teachers themselves, while frequently understanding each other perfectly well, appear not to, but ridicule and split hairs until it is no wonder the public is suspicious and the vocal profession has sunk into disrepute.

When the physiologists (throat specialists) came upon the scene I was in hopes they would gather up individual terminology and straighten it out by giving correct expressions; but heavens! they, also greedy for reputation, pretend not to understand anything the vocal teachers said and added just so much more fuel to the fire. How much better it would be if teachers would uphold what they know to be right, even if said by a rival teacher. If they recognize the truth in the words of a rival, why keep it to themselves to profit by in private, while denying its possibility even when approached for public opinion? Is it any wonder the public sneer and laugh and demand “factology”? Those who are musical can see beyond the concrete, but the others cannot, and this profession, of all others which deals with the unseen, needs binding together in a solid community which settles its differences, if need be, behind closed doors.

If twelve reputable teachers would make up their minds to put aside all personal feeling and come together in some quiet place, where each could be given an evening to explain his or her methods, and then a few evenings more to discuss points of difference, each teacher could vote for or against the other, and then all could form themselves into a committee to investigate the rights of all others to call themselves teachers. Forms of questions could be made out which, if satisfactorily answered, would entitle the candidate to enter the list of legitimate (or any other name) teachers, to be known as such and respected as such by his or her confrères in the profession; these answers to be decided upon as right or wrong vote by a committee. While it must be understood some teachers like some singers, must necessarily reach greater heights than others, because of exceptional endowments, experience and study, it need not in any way conflict with those fundamental principles which all, without exception, should be convinced of before entering the profession as vocal teacher. The work upon the voice is exhaustless, and we would not pretend to take up specialities except, perhaps, a few for extremely hard cases, of the sake of mutual interest of those forming the committee.

Nowadays everyone studies to be a great (?) artist; everything possible must be done to awaken the light in the inside, for no teacher can rule it in on the outside, and a voice must be placed just to determine what it is fitted for. Voices are classified by their quality. How many ask themselves whether they use their natural or an acquired quality, and if acquired, why that before any other? A few fundamental truths should be agreed upon by all teachers, so as to make of the vocal profession an honored and respectable community and weed it out of charlatans.

—Florenza D’Arona, “D’Arona on Fundamental Principles,” The Musical Courier, May 11, 1898, 7. D’Arona was student of Francesco Lamperti.

I ask you: How much has changed since 1898?

My answer? Not much! Voice teachers, now belonging to many organizations, online and otherwise, can still be found to argue, pontificate, and one-up each other (you won’t find me in an online forum for this reason). As it is, the first voice teacher organization (NATS) was formed in 1906 to enact standards, then summarily blew apart by 1909. (NATS became NYSTA in 1917. The organization we know as NATS was formed in 1944.) That said, we do live in a time of collegiality, an organization like SECO having guidelines and agreements which ensure that members treat each other with respect and utmost courtesy.

A great deal of “factology” is being served to the public. Hello! You can’t turn around without a voice teacher branding themselves as teaching from an “evidence” or “fact-based” perspective.

What’s not the same?

Voices aren’t “placed” anymore. This terminology and understanding are dead, dead, dead. Use it in an online forum, and you risk being mocked.

Another difference?

Voice teaching today is student-centered. Voice teachers serve the client and make a great show of it: it’s all about the student’s needs, desires, wants, and aspirations. In crass terms, this is called “following the money.” This makes sense when you consider the overarching desire within the culture to sing in popular styles rather than classically; while voice teaching at the college level is still rooted in classical vocal training, the culture at large has moved on. Classical voice teachers don’t have the status they once did—deserved or not.

While tempted to say that the more things change, the more they stay the same, I will bite my tongue. And don’t ask me about the greed for reputation.