e larynx, each part of which is labeled with a Greek word sometimes
longer than the thing itself. It then proceeds to tell the unction of
each muscle and cartilage and the part it plays in tone production. Now
if this is scientific, and if science is exact knowledge, and this exact
knowledge is the basis of scientific voice teaching, then every one who
has a perfect knowledge of these facts about the voice, must in the
eternal and invariable nature of facts be a perfect voice teacher, and
every one of these perfect voice teachers must teach in exactly the same
way and produce exactly the same results. Does history support this
argument? Quite the reverse.

There is a science of acoustics, and in this science one may learn all
about tones, vibrating bodies, vibrating strings, vibrating cavities,
simple, compound and complex vibrations. Will this knowledge make him a
scientific voice teacher? When he has learned all of this he has not yet
begun to prepare for voice teaching. There is no record of a great voice
teacher having been trained in a physics laboratory.

It is possible to analyze a tone and learn how fundamental and upper
partials are combined and how these combinations affect quality. Does
this constitute scientific voice production? This knowledge may all be
gained from the various hand books on acoustics. Has any one the
hardihood to assert that such knowledge prepares one for the responsible
work of training voices? One may know all of this and still be as
ignorant of voice training as a Hottentot is of Calvinism.

Further, who shall decide which particular combination of fundamental
and upper partials constitutes the perfect singing tone? If a tone is
produced and we say, there is the perfect tone, all it proves is that it
corresponds to our mental concept of tone. It satisfies our ear, which
is another term for our taste.

Can a tone be disagreeable and still be scientifically produced? One
combination of fundamental and overtones is, strictly speaking, just as
scientific as another combination. The flute tone with its two overtones
is just as scientific as the string tone with its six or eight. A tone
is pleasant or disagreeable according as it corresponds to a mental
demand. Even the most hardened scientist would not call a tone which
offends his ear scientific. Therefore he must first produce, or have
produced the tone that satisfies his ear. The question then naturally
arises--when he has secured the