There are no frets on the vocal folds to change their length, nor are there any reels or turnbuckles that one can control directly to change their tension, so the only way one can sing a particular pitch is to hear it clearly, either from an outside source or in one's "mind's ear," and then try to duplicate the sound with one's voice. This, of course, is the same way we learn to speak in the first place: hear, then imitate. Hopefully, the "semi-voluntary" muscles involved will make the desired adjustments and the tone produced will duplicate the desired pitch. Rather like shooting from the hip; at first you miss a lot, but accuracy improves with practice.

The same holds true for almost all aspects of the vocal mechanism. Both Edna Bianchi and the second voice teacher I studied with, George Hotchkiss Street (Pure and Easy Tone Production : Fundamental Principles of Singing; I didn't know at the time that he'd written any books, and I wish I could get my hands on a copy of this!) stressed that one cannot control the voice directly in the same way one can, say, flex one's biceps muscles, and any attempt to do so will invariably a) not work, and b) produce counterproductive tension. The only way one can get at it is indirectly, and this means that the teacher has to try to communicate with the pupil through metaphor and imagery. A lot of it on the part of both teacher and pupil is trial-and-error.

It's the choice of the metaphor/imagery that can be the stumbling block. An image that a teacher uses may quickly convey what the teacher is trying to get at to one pupil, but could sound physically impossible ("Sing from your stomach") or downright silly to a second pupil. Such images are, of necessity, a bit fuzzy around the edges.

Re: Placement. To convey the idea, Mrs. B. had me hum, and take note of the way I could feel the vibrations around my nose and forehead (the "mask"). Then she had me sing vowels preceded by nasal consonants—"m" and "n"—that produced the same sensations. So when Mrs. B. told me to place the tone in the mask, I knew what she meant and I could duplicate it. What my throat and surrounding muscles were doing, I don't know, but I know I had to keep my throat as relaxed as possible or the tone dropped out of the mask. She did keep telling me to smile as I sang, or at least, lift my upper lip above my teeth. I'm not sure, but assessing the sensations in my mouth and throat when I do this, I think it tends to open the throat and lift the soft palate, perhaps increasing the opening into the nasal passages.

She was quite emphatic, however, that when she referred to "nasal resonance" (the by-product of of "placing the voice" or "singing in the mask"), she did not mean that it should sound "nasal," or as she put it, "nosey."

If I place the tone in the mask, as she taught, I produce a singing tone. If I don't, I'm simply shouting. As I said above, I can feel the difference, and I can hear the difference, both directly (echoing back) and when I record and play back. And others can hear it too.

I know full well, of course, that my voice—my vocal mechanism—is in my throat, not in my "mask." It is the tone, which, by some trick of thought, affects those semi-voluntary muscles that allow it to go (or be "placed") in the mask.

As to falsetto and head voice being the same thing:

I can do an easy octave jump by singing a note in what I consider my "normal" voice and then popping it into falsetto—the same thing a person does when he yodels. In fact, with a little practice, I could probably yodel up a storm, but that's just not my thing! But my yodel-break is clean and definite, and there is a clear and distinct difference in quality between my normal voice and my falsetto.

I've seen photographs of the vocal folds (taken with a laryngoscope or similar device) singing in the various "registers," and there is a distinct difference between what happens in "normal" singing tones and falsetto. In falsetto, the folds clamp tight together on either end, leaving an oval opening about midway. Comparing what are identified as "head tones" with falsetto tones, there is a distinct difference between both the sound produced and the position of the folds.

And about everything I've heard or read about the voice, although often disagreeing about the nature or registers, what they consist of, and how many there are, agree that head voice and falsetto are two distinctly different things.

So at this point, I'm highly skeptical of Reid's contention that head voice and falsetto are the same thing. This would mean that on the many records I have of Richard Dyer-Bennet, and the times I have heard him in person, he is singing almost exclusively in falsetto. Granted, Dyer-Bennet's voice was not as powerful as most operatic tenors, but I have never heard the kind of power he could muster when he wanted to (for example, his recording of Lonesome Valley, Dyer-Bennet Records No. 1) coming out of someone singing in falsetto, nor have I ever heard a countertenor (which some folks claim Dyer-Bennet was, but having heard several and knowing two personally, I strenuously disagree) who had the power he did when he wanted to use it.

I also have problems with the idea that the break or transition between chest voice and head voice/falsetto occurs on or about E above middle C for both male and female voices. This would mean (according to Reid) that female singers, especially sopranos, sing almost exclusively in falsetto. When compared with the evidence of my own ears (Natalie Dusay, Renée Fleming, Cecilia Bartoli, Marilyn Horne), I find this very hard to accept.

But I'm open to being persuaded if the evidence is compelling enough.

Don Firth