The Reason In Your Heart

When I meditate, I focus on my heartbeat instead of my breath. To begin with, one can notice one's breath even in a disquieted state, so I find that focusing on it can lead to non-meditative meditation, whereas you have to be pretty quiet to hear your heart. Next, since I cannot consciously control the pace of my heart, I find that tuning into it connects me to a cycle beyond myself, to whatever my heart is synchronized with out there, if anything. Finally, as I tune in to my heart, I learn how to slow it down by effecting the things I can control - my thoughts, my breathing, etc. This is true in life as well. Whether it be habits or preparedness or courtesy or kindness, there are so many things that we can control which benefit the things we cannot control immensely. If you can influence the rhythm of your heart, you can influence the reason in your heart, and the reason in your heart can transform everything you do into pure joy. 

Two Stories

Two Stories. One apocryphal. One not. I will let you discern.

When African hunters want to capture a monkey, they carve a hole in a tree that has an opening just large enough for an average monkey's hand to fit through, and then they hollow it out by adding some additional width and depth. Then they create a trail of salt rocks - like sugar for monkeys - leading up to the tree, and then place a few in the hole as well. An unsuspecting monkey comes along, finds a salt rock and then follows the trail to the tree, eating along the way, whereupon they put their hand in the hole and grab the salt rocks within. The monkey's open hand fits through the hole on the way in, but it's closed fist does not fit through the hole on the way out. At this point, the hunters surprise the monkey, thereby causing him to clench his fist even further, thereby capturing himself.

We trap ourselves by our unwillingness to let go of what we have.
We subvert the whole for the part.

A famous Guru in India gave a Friday night talk at a local community center about finding inner peace and happiness. The talk went into the late hours of the evening. After it concluded, a man from the audience approached the Guru and asked if he could speak with him privately. The Guru replied, "It is very late, and I get up very early, so I don't have much time, but tell me what is on your mind." The man begins, "My life is meaningless. I have nothing in it that brings me joy. I have no reason to live. I suffer every day and have reached the point where I would rather be dead." The Guru reflects for a moment and replies, "I can help you, but our first conversation will be a long one, so I will clear my schedule for you. Come to my house at 5am tomorrow, and we will spend the entire day together." The man replies, "5am? That is too early. I like to sleep in on Saturdays."

We keep ourselves trapped by clinging to our habits and our identities.
Even in the face of urgency.

Dogillusions

When I take Maggie for walks, I do it "hands free", as it were, with a very long leash that I attach to her harness and then let drag on the ground behind her. I give her freedom that is, in fact, merely an illusion of freedom, and I break this illusion in a shocking way when I step on the leash to prevent her from going astray. Eventually, we arrive at a field near my house where I unleash her completely, and where she, upon realizing that the leash is off, begins to run around but not run away. It is unclear if her continued proximity to me has to do with independent good behavior or if she still expects to be snapped back if she gets too far away. In effect, at this point, I am not sure who, between us, is perpetrating the illusion. Well, today I left her in the back yard when we got home, so that I could remove my muddy shoes and then retrieve her from the deck, so that I could wash my muddy dog. When I went out on to the deck, she was gone. I went back through the house to the front door to see if I could intercept her before she got too far, and she was sitting right in front of the door, patiently waiting for me to let her in. Maggie is a lot smarter than I give her credit for. Perhaps we need no illusions between us?

Climate Change

I was recently engaged in a thread regarding climate change, wherein I encountered the following arguments to discount the science and impetus for action that underlies it:

1. Data is being interpreted in a nefarious manner to support ulterior economic and political motives
2. Fluctuations in weather have always been at play, therefore trends in climate can be discounted
3. Irrespective of point numbers 1 and 2 above, almighty God will ensure that, no matter what we do which might influence the climate, everything will work out fine 

I, personally, have no interest in whether or not someone believes that climate change is an issue, but, rather, am interested in whether or not we can embrace a more common sense way to live in better harmony with our environment.

This is tantamount to quitting smoking in the mid 20th century, when there was no hard evidence that smoking caused cancer. To the extent that even a moderately intelligent chimpanzee knows well enough not to pick up a burning stick and heartily breath in its smoke, I find it perplexing that the apex primate would purposefully do just about the same thing ;-)

Still, to take action, one has to be believe that there is a reason, so let's talk about that.

With regard to point number 1 (nefarious data interpretation), it is a non-starter, because the very premise would indicate that whether data is being interpreted in favor of climate change or against it, the interpreting party has some nefarious, ulterior motive. Therefore, it makes no sense to debate the issue, because I could just as well assume that the man on the street has an ulterior motive, just like NASA and the bulk of the scientific community.

With regard to point number 2 (weather vs climate), equating the weather to the climate is like equating one's neighborhood to the country, which can lead someone living in an upscale neighborhood to conclude that there is no opioid epidemic, or someone living in an impoverished inner city neighborhood to conclude that the entire country is ravaged by an opioid epidemic.

Local versus global points of reference can very easily lead one to miss the global trends, which is the key distinction in climatology. Of course, in order to see trends, one has to leverage data, and to the extent that point number 1 invalidates the interpretation of data, point number 2 seems irrelevant.

With regard to point number 3 (God), if we need not worry about climate change, or, perhaps, any other natural or man made phenomenon, because God will guide us through to a favorable conclusion, then why have vaccines or antibiotics or chemotherapy? Why have pollution controls in factories or catalytic converters on cars? Why have seat belts or smoke alarms or seismic wave detectors?

If there is a God, then he (I use the word loosely) bestowed us with faculties so that we can better take care of and navigate through the world he created for us. To abandon the reason he gave us as unnecessary because of some paternalistic notion is foolish. As you might guess, I am not a biblical scholar, but I have read quite a few quotations pertaining to personal responsibility.

With that, let us consider climate change in the vein of Pascal's Wager.

This proof, put forward by Blaise Pascal in the 1600s, postulates that, in the absence of clear evidence for the existence of God, or not, one would be better served believing than not believing, because the penalty for believing in error is very low, and the penalty for not believing in error is very high.

In our case, it is even more universal, because, in the case of Pascal's Wager, one member of a single-exclusive-deity religion can opt to believe but still not be inoculated from the perspective of a member of a different single-exclusive-deity religion, i.e. because the other fellow believes in the wrong God, as it were.

You can debate whether or not the penalty for investing in Green technology and divesting from Grey/Brown technology is too high, but to the extent that advances in technology continually make the cost of being green lower and lower, I think any such debate loses merit over time.

The fundamental question here, for me, is: Can we endeavor to foster better harmony with our environment without having to agree on the facts of climate change?

You Make Your Own Luck, Or Not

I have never been so arrogant as to think that all of my planning, hard work and skill in achieving a particular objective was derived from anything other than good luck. Nor have I ever been so apathetic as to think that all of my planning, hard work and skill in an unsuccessful pursuit of an objective was derived from bad luck. To be sure, through diligence and tenacity, we make our own luck, but, in the final analysis, we still have to be very lucky, whether it be some factor from the distant past, such as where we were born, our parents, our teachers, our friends, our partners, or some contemporary factor, such as a new acquaintance or 'lucky break' at precisely the right moment. By that same token, through our actions, we also make our own bad luck, and though we can reason that chance plays a part in either good or bad luck, I contend that we should always lean towards being excessively grateful for anything we accomplish, and thoughtfully introspective for everything we try and fail to do.

Who are you again?

There is a not-so-famous quote from [I think but cannot verify] C.S. Lewis that goes something like "the man who gets on the train is not the same man who gets off the train", which describes how our journeys transform us. This is not so noticeable in our every day acquaintances, such is the transparent nature of incremental change, but it is noticeable in our infrequent acquaintances, including the closest of family and friends that, through circumstance, have become distant and infrequent. On several occasions, I've been struck with the notion that the person I just spent time with is 'not that person anymore'. Of course, they are still who they are, but, from a relative perspective, where I am the observer, they are no longer who they were, and I don't recognize them anymore. This can, of course, be a very sad realization for the attachments of the past, but also a happy one for the entanglements of the past, if the transformation opens up the possibility to reconnect without the baggage. Turning the observation inward, there is probably no more transparent transformation than the one that we undergo and observe, but it bears witnessing nonetheless, and, perhaps, the realization that 'I am not that person anymore' can be liberating, especially if one has not yet mastered living in the present, or, alternatively, motivating, if one has lost a redeemable quality that they covet. In either case, recognizing when someone has transformed, or when you have transformed, to a degree sufficient to say that they or you are 'not the same person anymore' is useful, in terms of engaging old people in new ways, and helping them understand who you are, beyond the framework of who you were. Who are you again?

Vocal Tips

Introduction

I am, by no means, a professional singer, nor a professional voice coach, but I do have a certain kind of OCD affinity for singing, and I have studied with opera, jazz and regular (for lack of a better word) voice coaches, so I figured I would share a brief synopsis of what I know so far. 

Philosophy:

No one can teach you how to sing. You can only teach yourself, with a few hints from others. If you can effectively and comfortably sing a song without any ill effects, carry on. 

By that same token, no one can teach you how to breathe either ;-) You already instinctively know how to breathe, or else you would not be reading this right now (wink).

This natural, instinctive ability to breathe and sing is evidenced by the fact that a small baby can cry all day (some of us know this all too well) without losing their voice, and each and every one of us, no matter what age, would surely and naturally hit an incredible high note if were were to fall off a cliff! 

That being said, there are some nice to know nuances that can help you steer clear of the typical under-breath that comes from a lack of confidence, or over-breath that comes from nerves.

As for vocal position, i.e. to go through the range from chest to mixed to head voice, that is a bit more complicated, but, for the most part, one learns this by trying to follow along with scales in a safe place ('safe' meaning, away from prying ears, so that you can experiment without constraints), and continually building an internal compass for how to navigate through notes, and, ultimately songs. 

Much like scales, each song is, indeed, a journey that one has to navigate through. 

As you continue to grow, maintain a personal, unified theory of singing, in terms of the fundamentals to be mindful of. As you add more songs requiring different skills to perform, you should never have to ditch everything you know, but you should never beat your head against the wall based on what you think you know either. Even the great Beniamino Gigli, when asked when he finally mastered the voice responded: "I have not" (in Italian, of course). Your task as a singer is to keep developing an understanding and a mental model that works across every song, without being unrealistic or disappointed in *your voice*.  

Fundamentals:

Smile, as the single most important thing you can do to make sure that you are in the right physiological position to sing. A harder note should prompt a stronger smile. Really good singers are able to create the interior effects of a pronounced smile without having to actually smile on the exterior, so I would not necessarily look for evidence of this advice on the faces of your favorite singers, but, rather, would invite you to try it and see if the difference in head space becomes evident, after which time you might be able to make the association of a smile and its effects, and then figure out the effects without the smile.

In operatic singing, this 'smile effect' is called 'covering the song'.

Always sing in mixed mode, meaning: Direct your voice towards your palate from the back of your throat.  Avoid trying to force resonance out of just the head or chest. If a key is too high or too low, then modify the song, because you cannot modify your voice into an unnatural key. This technique is transparent in a trained singer, but you will clearly hear this kind of ill-advised forcing of head or chest space from your local karaoke scene or cover bands, or from singers that should have retired long ago. 

Understand proper breath control. More appropriately, understand that the breath powers the voice. In some ways, our 'voice' (i.e. vocal cords) are doing little more than flapping in the wind ;-) You need to take in enough breath, and you need to let it out with enough consistency to allow the vibrations to do their thing. There is no additional engineering required, and any technique that attempts to over-engineer this phenomenon (e.g. sing from your heels, sing through the top of your head) is more likely to lead to misguided dynamics than the simple zen of 'doing without doing' by letting your body work as designed. 

You already know how to handle your breath when you are talking, because our brains have an incredible ability to maintain the right level of air support for conversation, but as soon as you attempt a song that requires a bit of unnatural planning (e.g. Across the Universe from the Beatles) you will go beyond this natural ability, and if you don't have a few rules of thumb to follow, you may not fare too well. 

For operatic singing, constrained full breaths are the norm, but there are certain high notes that call for singing on a near-empty lung, as you want to have a small thread of air at a very high velocity to hit notes in the high (tenor) A, B, C region. This is where I think trained opera singers defy imagination, because they are doing something that is completely counter-intuitive and unnatural to produce incredible notes. 

If you go home and try to approximate this without understanding the physicality of what they are doing, you will hurt yourself, and, perhaps, prompt your neighbors to call the police. But if you were to try and swell into an approximation (i.e. from quite to loud), you might start to develop an understanding, but your neighbors might still call the police. A rule of thumb here is: never try to shout your way into a note.  


Strengthening the voice is a separate concern from singing. It is like training in the gym vs playing a sport. A football player does not endeavor to do squats while he is playing the game, but he benefits from them nonetheless. In terms of strengthening the voice, outside of actually singing, I’ve come to rely on these four: (1) Core exercises through the empty lung, which is different than core in the gym. You can do all the sit ups you want, but this will never increase your ability to squeeze. Try this: breath out until you cannot breath out any further, and then breath out as if you were trying to blow out a candle. You will feel a potentially unfamiliar squeeze. It is the same squeeze that your body does naturally when you sneeze, but because you take in a full breath just prior to sneezing, you never feel the kind of maximum, interior squeeze that this kind of empty lung exercise invokes. You should still do core in the gym, for overall support, but it is ***ONLY*** this squeeze that is going to effect your singing. (2) 1/4 second and 1/2 second exercises. This is a hard one to describe in writing, but here goes. If you breath out until you are just about of air, which will naturally drop your voice box a bit, then let your vocal cords get into the same position they would be in if you were holding your breath and then try to squeak, for lack of a better word, in that exact position, then you will have achieved a 1/4 second. The 'squeak' is not meant to be high pitch, but, rather, is meant to be whatever comes out in the position described. Changing pitch comes later, but is not the essential point of this exercise. If you master this, and then move on to more than just a pulse, i.e. a longer note, then you will have achieved a 1/2 second, where 1/2 second could be more like a full second, but you don't want to go much longer than that, so as not to damage your vocal cords. To that end, remember that this is an exercise, not a position to learn for singing, as surely as doing squats on the football field would be ill-advised. (3) Power Scales. You can look this up on the internet, and I am sure that you will find videos and scales for your voice type. (4) Power Falsetto Notes. This is ***NOT*** scales, but, more like hitting an progressively higher sequence of very high notes (i.e. that require one to sing in falsetto) for as long as you can hold the note (say, 5 to 20 seconds). Again, this would necessarily be for singing, unless you want to cover the Bee Gees, but is more about building strength and flexibility to help with mixed mode singing, as well as give you the foundation to hit and hold high notes if/when you need them. 

There are a whole bunch of other fundamentals pertaining to vibrato, etc, but there are plenty of great videos and books out there, and my intention is not to write a book here ;-) Just be weary of the books that spend the first 5 out of 15 chapters extolling the virtues of proper hydration, nutrition and sleep. I view authors of such books to be charlatans of sorts, trying to achieve a certain page count to convey a sense of comprehensiveness and authority that, in reality, probably amounts to no more than this blog.

Tactical Stuff:

Learn the difference between beneficial vs detrimental vocal thrashing, and try to limit thrashing to the evening hours, so you can rest thereafter and let your mind work it out. Thrashing is when you are trying to figure out how to sing a song that should be achievable, but has been problematic. Sometimes you just have to keep trying a song or a section of a song over and over again to figure it out, and this can lead to a certain kind of abuse of your voice, which you can embrace, so long as you learn to differentiate the good kind vs the bad kind of abuse. With that in mind, you should always try to sing songs that are out of reach, not necessarily so you can eventually perform them, but more so to develop new skills while trying to cope with them, which can then be applied to the songs that are attainable. 

Develop your own internal monitor for singing, so that you just do your thing, no matter what. In other words, whether you find yourself with a crappy quiet or crappy loud sound system, you use the same vocal position and support vs trying to modulate on the fly. For this reason, avoid singing in the shower or the car, because either one will impair this internal monitor and lead to bad habits - you might find yourself modifying your style based on the over-feedback of the shower or under-feedback of the car. Best to practice in a room with moderate acoustic feedback and master this in that kind of environment. 

Do not try to match the timbre of another singer’s voice. Go for the note, not the tone. If you can cover Chris Cornell in his key, great, just beware of covering his growl, because that stems from a combination of his vocal qualities and bad choices - he had nodules several times, and, in my opinion, could barely sing before he committed suicide.

Every song has a vocal path, and, outside of memorizing the lyrics, you have to memorize your vocal through a song, so that you have the right amount of breath support, tension, position as you go. It is not as complicated as it sounds. 

Cheers!