QUESTIONING THE LOMONACO EXPERIMENT

In Part One of this series "BREAKING DOWN THE LOMONACO TECHNIQUE" I outlined the key elements of the method as explained by its most infamous advocate Jeremiah Silver. In that article, I gave an endorsement of the ideals which the approach strives to achieve and also stated that the basic technical tenets of the method are sound. However, praise requires the same burden of proof as criticism and so it stands to reason that this second instalment should ask the difficult questions. 

Every technique has downsides even though studios do not tend to publicise them. This is understandable, because to do so would be bad publicity. Remember that teaching singing has always been a business, and businesses do not normally act against their own self-interests.  For these reasons it behoves students to understand both the up and downsides of what a studio offers them.  

 

THERE IS NO PERFECT WAY TO SING

Today we have become acculturated to look for the perfect option. Perhaps this is largely due to a world full of marketing, one which has no shortage of people who claim to offer us the perfect solution for our needs. As a result we tend to believe that products only have upsides. The perfect pill, the perfect job and the perfect spouse are all things which most young people believe exist but never seem to be able to find. Vocal techniques are not exempt from this list with each having its own pros and cons. This realisation is what has caused a culture of protectionism within singing today. Teachers intrinsically understand that if the technique does not offer a lot it will generally not be dangerous. Resultingly 95% of teachers advocate for a technique which will neither harm anyone nor fill an opera house. An example of this obsession with safety is the popularity of David Jones whose teachings are so intent on avoiding danger that they cannot even be considered operatic. 

I am not an advocate for this kind of protectionism because it has nothing to do with historic opera. Real operatic singing is extraordinary because it is extreme, and this is what makes it so special. The LoMonaco tribe understand this which is why they promote an extreme technique. This is a noble virtue but also has risks attached, because extreme techniques come with extreme dangers. In the interest of fairness it’s important to keep these facts in mind during what I believe is a thorough but reasonable line of questioning.

 

FINDING FAULT 

Today almost everyone thinks about singing in terms of right and wrong. All too often people believe they are correct and everyone else is wrong. The current day LoMonaco tribe are guilty of this and it is my first criticism of them. Jeremy Silver was behind the conception of THIS IS OPERA! which despite its value contained this dogmatic element. Ironically, Jerry Hadley, who is held up as the example by these people, expressed the opposite view. In an interview which is linked here Hadley demonstrates the belief that there is more benefit from being "discerning" than just finding fault with everything. It is clear that what Hadley is advocating is that we ask ourselves why people make the choices they do and then assess both the positive and negative outcomes of those choices. This kind of wisdom has been found wanting from both the LoMonaco crew and their detractors, both of whom have been guilty of not listening to opposing arguments, and digressing to infantile ad hominem attacks. One voice which has risen above the anti-intellectualism is Jack Livigni's. 

In content published on the MOS Mediterranean Opera channel, Mr Livigni clearly demonstrates his preference for a discerning analysis over mindless criticism. With statesmanlike poise, Mr Livigni, who is an ambassador for many prestigious institutions, did not deem it necessary to mention anyone by name, rather he tastefully spoke about a cultural trend within vocal pedagogy and made reference to YouTube videos which talk about "manly" singing. During this commentary, he observes that these videos advocate taking a very chest dominant phonation into the upper regions of the voice. He goes on to explain that this approach due to its "thickness" creates a constriction which he describes as a "pinching”. The distinguished tenor then explains that in order to phonate with this constriction, a higher level of subglottic pressure is required. He goes on to explain that this increase in subglottic pressure is essential in order to overcome a now higher level of resistance. He also states that a phonation produced in this way is related to a “grunt”. 

These observations are extremely interesting because while his terminology is different, Livigni is describing what the LoMonaco tribe refer to as the Valsalva manoeuvre. Livigni, who clearly understands both sides of the argument, explains that one of the ways people attempt to overcome this problem is via an increase in the amount of airflow in the emission. He goes on to explain that some schools of singing in their attempts to implement this chest dominance advocate for large amounts of airflow in order to vibrate the vocal folds, which due to the degree of contraction in the thyroarytenoid muscle, are vibrating with increased mass.  

He states:

"A lot of these people who do that push as much air as they can, they open the cords and push air to try to overcome the thickness."

When comparing Jack Livigni's explanation of “what these people do" with Jeremy Silver's own description of the LoMonaco Technique, we find that they are surprisingly similar. In an interview conducted by Daniel Formica in his popular podcast “Real Singers on Singing”, Mr Silver made the following remarks about the LoMonaco Technique:

"And he [Thomas LoMonaco] discovered the Valsalva manoeuvre and how it’s bad in singing, you know? When the throat closes? When you grunt, when you cough, you know? So he figured that out, how the cords need to vibrate freely through the release of the air, and breathing is as important to hold open the throat to be able to do that, and you know he really advanced the science." 

I am certain Mr Silver unintentionally misspoke when he said Thomas LoMonaco discovered the Valsalva manoeuvre, as it is well known the term’s derivation comes from Antonio Maria Valsalva, a 17th century anatomist who died almost 200 years before Mr LoMonaco was born. The term is actually a medical procedure that originally was used to test the openness of the Eustachian tube and most people have inadvertently self-performed this procedure during activities like scuba diving or while flying in an aeroplane. How applicable this term is to singing is highly debatable, but of importance is the fact that both Livigni and Silver describe its presence in phonation as a "grunt". Another common viewpoint which the two express is that there is a utilisation of increased airflow amongst those who attempt to sing this way, and that the increased airflow is part of the solution which these people are employing to overcome this problem.

Livigni describes it as:  

"They open the cords and "push" air to try to overcome the thickness."

Silver describes it as:

"The cords need to vibrate freely through the "release" of the air and breathing is important to hold the throat open." 

When comparing these two statements it is immediately recognisable that while the words being used are very different, the action being described is the same. Livigni is giving a critical description and Silver is giving an apologist’s description. In spite of where they stand on the matter both their statements are describing an “increase in airflow" to overcome resistance in phonation.

There is nothing controversial about this because dramatic techniques are in general based upon a greater engagement of the chest voice throughout the entire range. Jack Livigni is well aware of this as his own father was a student of Arturo Melocchi, which gave him rare insights into the Italian dramatic approach. I have spoken before about Mr Livigni's rich cultural heritage which should be recognised as a valuable resource in understanding historical approaches in an accurate way. Simply put, Jack Livigni is one of the few people alive today who has a meaningful connection to both the best lyrical and dramatic Italian approaches of the past. This type of connection is precisely what Jerry Hadley was referring to when he described people who were "close to the source". As one of the few people who understands both approaches, Mr Livigni is also positioned to understand the limitations of each. Personally, I give great consideration to explanations offered by people with this kind of pedigree and I am always curious as to the reasons behind the decisions they make.  

During his various comments on this matter, Mr Livigni clearly expresses a concern regarding the “extra airflow" required within this cultural trend. In addition to expressing concern he goes on to outline the major downsides inherent to such an approach. I have taken the liberty of reformulating his explanations into three main points. 

1) Problems with high notes.

2)  Problems with vocal stamina.

3)  Problems with projection. 

I highly recommend listening to Mr Livigni's actual statements which begin at the 15 minute mark of a webinar which is linked here. When reviewing Livigni's list of symptoms a striking realisation occurs, which is that the symptoms he described can be identified in the before and after comparisons published by the Silver and Sirianni studios. 

• These before and after comparisons rarely include students singing in the upper limits of their range. This likely indicates problems with high notes which is the first symptom on the list.

• Next is the fact that these before and afters typically show students singing only one phrase at a time. This likely indicates problems relating to stamina which is the second symptom on the list.

• Finally these before and afters typically involve singers overwhelming a microphone in very small spaces. There have also been instances where Jeremy Silver has manipulated recordings presumably to mislead the intended audience. This is likely an indication of problems with projection which is the final symptom on the list.

It is important to recognise that Livigni attributes these problems with a higher level of airflow in the emission and it is also well known that singing with minimal airflow has long been an ideal within historic schools of singing. In fact, it's this very ideal which is connected to the legendary candle test which we are led to believe was used by old school singers to measure the amount of "air escape" in their tone. But did the great singers of the past really do this? According to the following quote by Manuel Patricio Garcia, they did. He states:

"The waste of air can be verified by placing a lighted match before the mouth. The brighter sound does not stir the flame while the veiled one does."  

What this illustrates is that the position Livigni is advocating indeed has a historical basis and there are a multitude of other quotes which support his view. One such account is from a book co-authored by Caruso and Tetrazzini. They state:

"If the singer gives much of himself as well as of his voice to the public he should still hold his breath supply in, so to speak, as he would guard the capital from which comes his income. Failure should thus be impossible if there is always a reserve to draw on." 

When reviewing these historic quotations it is quite ironic that the dumbed-down content of THIS IS OPERA! (which constantly promotes “release" of the air) actually advocates the opposite. The fact is that Caruso and Tetrazzini would have had no idea what "release" was and if it were explained to them would not have approved because they were clearly advocates of cantare sul fiato.  Similarly, claims that Corelli, Del Monaco or Tebaldi sang with release are also untrue. In this regard, THIS IS OPERA! is guilty of false advertising because the people held up as the example are actually doing the opposite to the ideas being sold. The truth is that Thomas LoMonaco and his students sang with release and their results are the only real example of what this approach achieves. This may be upsetting to those who jumped on the THIS IS OPERA! train, but they need to come to terms with the truth which is that:   

"Vocal techniques are not trains and it is foolish to jump on board without understanding where they have actually come from." 

This truism applies to the THIS IS OPERA! train, the Swedish Italian train as well as the next clever marketing strategy to pull up at the platform. What all these "trains" have in common is they claim their techniques are based in Italian traditions when in reality they are all products of post-World War II American innovation.

 

WHAT IS CANTARE SUL FIATO? 

Unlike the invented terminology of THIS IS OPERA!, cantare sul fiato is a historic concept. Translating into English as "singing on the breath", it describes singing which is supported by the breath but without any additional airflow in the tone. Naturally some of the compressed breath must escape as a by-product of phonation, but in cantare sul fiato the amount of air which escapes is minimal. 

The opposite term is known as cantare col fiato which translates into English as "singing with the breath". In a col fiato emission there is additional breath being "released" within the tone. Due to the fact that the LoMonaco Technique advocates for the release of the breath into the emission, a very strong argument could be made that the technique is actually constructed upon cantare col fiato. This is a point of significance because the great historic traditions uniformly state that the voice must be constructed upon cantare sul fiato. These traditions also state that cantare col fiato is only to be used in rare moments as an expressive device.

 

IS THE LOMONACO APPROACH WRONG?

I will not state the approach is wrong as that would not be discerning on my part. I will say the technique is a departure from historic traditions and that many informed people of the past and present such as Garcia, Caruso, Tetrazzini and Livigni have expressed concerns about singing in this way. The fact is that high airflow rates can result in turbulence at the level of phonation which irritates the vocal folds. Another consideration is that high airflow in the emission can make it difficult to maintain efficient contact in phonation. This latter point is particularly relevant for the upper limits of the range. The important thing to recognise is that the advocacy of "high air flow" in the emission defines the LoMonaco Technique as an anomaly.

 

WHERE DID THIS ANOMALY STEM FROM?

The LoMonaco Technique has a number of interesting innovations which are not found in other schools of singing. Many of these innovations are related to the Valsalva manoeuvre which has already been discussed. The Valsalva manoeuvre involves a specific type of closure of the epiglottic sphincter. Voice teachers have been aware of this for centuries and claims that Thomas LoMonaco discovered it within the context of singing are tenuous to be kind. What Thomas LoMonaco was the first person to do was base a technique around this idea and it’s very fair to say that the LoMonaco tribe considers the Valsalva manoeuvre to be the vocal equivalent of anathema. It is also true that the eradication of all forms of constrictive tensions are a basic tenet of their beliefs and it is this vocal paradigm which has given rise to terminology such as the "release" of the air. When reviewing all of this information it is not difficult to understand how this foundational concept manifested into a culture which expresses an affinity for "high air flow" in the vocal emission.  

 

DON'T THROW THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATHWATER

This is not pseudoscience because despite being an anomaly, the innovations and exercises developed by Thomas LoMonaco are the products of intelligent thinking. What LoMonaco advocates is physiologically sound. Therefore, it would be unwise to dismiss these innovations as nonsense. A more intelligent approach would be to try to understand what were the aims behind them, and to assess the results of their application. I strongly believe these innovations are valuable, on the strict proviso that both the positive and negative consequences of their application are fully understood and utilised with balance. One of the exercises which he developed to get more air into the emission consists of moaning on a schwa. This exercise, which is performed on an exaggerated expiratory phonation, is one which I believe offers great value, particularly in instances where the singer is inclined to over-adduct. Everybody could benefit from understanding this innovation and it can achieve positive results when utilised in a balanced way. The problem arises when balance is lost, which is what has occurred in the Silver and Sirianni studios who present the belief that if a little release is good then more must be better. This tendency of taking a vocal ideal to an extreme is actually a phenomenon of common occurrence within vocal pedagogy.  

 

CONFRONTING THE TRUTH

An important fact that needs to be accepted is that in departing from historical traditions Thomas LoMonaco's actions were experimental. Accordingly, suggestions being made that the technique has its basis in the Golden Age of Singing are false. The fact is that Stanley, despite being a student of Garcia, was not a traditionalist. In reality Stanley was highly experimental and much of what he claimed to discover actually turned out to be incorrect. Then we have Thomas LoMonaco who did correct many of Stanley's mistakes, but was also highly experimental. In view of these facts an unfortunate contradiction arises, because we cannot claim to be experimental on the one hand while being a traditionalist on the other. Due to the fact these traits have mutual exclusivity, any logical person must be willing to concede that if Thomas LoMonaco was "making discoveries" as Jeremy Silver claims, then he could not have also been teaching a traditional technique. Based on these facts this whole chapter of vocal pedagogy should stop being thought of as a historic Italian technique and start being recognised for the New York-based experiment that it was. 

 

THE LOMONACO EXPERIMENT

I am not against intelligent innovation which is why I gave this technique a favourable review in part one of this series. However, I always approach innovation with caution. This is because innovations are dangerous to the extent which they have not been tried and tested. The lack of heuristic assessment means that anyone who attempts to apply innovations is gambling. In this regard, those who learned from Thomas LoMonaco were to an extent vocal guinea pigs. These statements are not intended to demean those who were involved, rather I suggest that respect should be given to them, because they displayed courage and calculated risk-taking. Two phenomenal singers that did take on these risks were Jerry Hadley and Neil Shicoff, both of whom ultimately abandoned the experiment, a fact which leads us to the all-important question of why did they leave? 

In the very early days of this experiment there were not enough results available to reasonably evaluate its success. Decades later that has all changed and enough singers have taken part for us to confidently evaluate the outcomes. Experiments provide insights into cause and effect by demonstrating what outcome occurs when a particular factor is manipulated. In addition to identifying the factor which Thomas LoMonaco manipulated, this article has presented a cultural frame of reference which was used to formulate the following list of hypotheses. 

1) Do professional singers who have learned the LoMonaco Technique either abandon the experiment or have premature endings to their careers?

2) Do the singers that implement the LoMonaco Technique have restrictions to the top of their range, for example does the technique produce B flat tenors? 

3) Does the LoMonaco Technique create a parabola effect in performance, creating short-term benefits but then turning for the worse after a period of time?  

4) Does the LoMonaco Technique produce voices which sound big in a small room while not being projective in large venues?

5) Does the LoMonaco Technique create difficulty with stamina? 

6) Do students who learn the LoMonaco Technique from the beginning of their studies become incapable of singing with simpatico? 

The Loggione will return with its findings in the third instalment of this series titled “EXAMINING THE LOMONACO RESULTS”.  

Until then I encourage you to do your own research and begin to decide if the results support, refute or validate the list of hypotheses. You are also invited to contribute to the debate in the comment section below. 

 

ADDENDA

1) This series is directed predominantly towards the teachings of Thomas LoMonaco, Craig Sirianni and Jeremy Silver. It is acknowledged that differences exist within their individual approaches. However, their teachings exhibit enough commonality, at least from an ideological perspective, to be discussed collectively. Moreover, both Mr Silver and Mr Sirianni market their teachings as the technique of Thomas LoMonaco thereby identifying as same. 

2) After the publication of Part One of this series titled "BREAKING DOWN THE LOMONACO TECHNIQUE" both Craig Sirianni and Jeremy Silver were contacted for comment. Neither has elected to respond. Should they choose to do so, the Loggione blogsite, which advocates for the free interchange of ideas, will attach links in these articles allowing readers direct access to any statements which they would like to make.

3) The Loggione wishes to make it clear that Mr Sirianni was not involved in THIS IS OPERA! in any way. It should also be noted that Mr Sirianni has publicly denounced these videos and made claims that the late Thomas LoMonaco also would not have approved.

4) The Loggione wishes to make it known that it has no affiliations with MOS Mediterranean Opera or Jack Livigni. The inclusion of Mr Livigni's statements in the article makes the discussion more topical because while he represents a historical point of view he is also a contemporary voice who has spoken out against the cultural trend being discussed. 

5) In all instances other than direct quotes where the intellectual positions of third parties are summarised, the Loggione always encourages readers to go to the source. For this reason the sources are provided via hyperlinks. 

 

ARTICLE LIST

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

PATRON'S CORNER

Copyright Brett Goulding 2021