我的high C crack了。”一定是剛才support 不夠…..唉吔，我唱歌前忘了吃牛扒(前香港演藝學院聲樂系系主任聶明康先生跟我說他認識一個唱歌前一定要吃牛扒，否則唱不了的歌唱家)，所以沒有力氣去support 了…..不是不是，剛才指揮/伴奏沒有給我足夠時間去凖備個高音….”相信很多唱歌的朋友也曾有以上的心路歴程。其實，在哲學上是可以證明，一個觀察到的現象背後可以有無限的理論。[註1] 換句話說，一個”後果” (effect) 可以有無限個原因(cause)。
上一段從後果出發，如果從原因出發呢？一個人可以說”因為我用了這技巧唱了n個美麗的high C, 所以從此打後我所有的high C 都會美麗”? 這情況有點似以前的歐洲人:他們在歐洲看過n隻白天鵝後，就認為所有的天鵝都是白的，誰不知後來有人在澳洲發現了黑天鵝。這在哲學上稱為”歸納法的問題” (the problem of inductive reasoning)。這”歸納法的問題”更為影響歌唱家，因為對歌唱家來說，身體就是樂器而身體很容易受不同因素環境，例如疾病和時差等。一個歌唱家在維也納唱了n個美麗的high C，然後在三藩市的(n + 1)個high C會同等漂亮嗎？一個紥實的技巧可以戰勝這”歸納法的問題”，或是不可能的嗎？請參考以下句子:
-雖然他病了，但他紥實的技巧仍令他唱出美麗的聲音
-雖然他有紥實的技巧，但他的病令他唱不了。
第一句，很明顯地，說明一個歌唱家技巧有多厲害。第二句呢？第二句有自相矛盾嗎？
無論如何，從哲學上的因果關係來看歌唱技巧是很令人着迷的。除了用原因和結果來看之外，有些哲學家如Elizabeth Anscombe (1919 – 2001) 提出了一個新的想法: 與其說A 導致B，我們可否説A 決定 B ? [註2]決定和導致的差別可以用以下的例子來説明: 在星巴克的餐牌上有caramel macchiato和mocha frappuccino等。你決定去飲caramel macchiato，但可能背後沒有甚麼東西導致你去飮caramel macchiato。用”決定”而不用”導致”是一個對因果關係新的想法。
看畢全文後，你認為歌唱技巧是:
A) 一個去決定自己發出甚麼聲音的方法
B) 當唱得不好時，一個自我診斷，找出原因的方法[果-> 因]
C) 一套要做的東西，若我要把歌唱好[因-> 果]
[English Version]
I cracked my high C. “It must be due to my lack of support….oh yea, I forgot to have a steak before I sing (Mr. Michael Rippon, the former head of the vocal department at the HKAPA, once told me that he knew a singer who must have beef before he sings or otherwise, he would sound terrible), that is why I have no strength to support myself…..no no no no, the conductor/pianist did not give me enough time to prepare for this phrase……” the thought process outlined here, I believe, is familiar to a lot of singers. In fact, in philosophy, it can be demonstrated that “any observation is consistent with an infinite number of theories.”[1]In other words, an effect can have an infinite amount of causes.
The paragraph above starts from the effect. How about from the cause? Can one say “because I have used this vocal technique to produce n beautiful high Cs, all my high Cs henceforth will be beautiful?” This scenario is analogous to those Europeans concluding that all swans are white after seeing n white swans – only to discover that there are black swans in Australia. This is called “the problem of inductive reasoning” in philosophy. “The problem of inductive reasoning” plagues singers all the more because in singing, our body is our instrument and our bodily condition can fluctuate easily, e.g. sickness, jetlag. After producing n beautiful high Cs in Vienna, will the (n + 1) high C in San Francisco be glorious as well? Will a solid vocal technique beat “the problem of inductive reasoning”? Or the latter will persist? Consider the following sentences:
- In spite of his sickness, his solid vocal technique allows him to sing beautifully.
- In spite of his solid vocal technique, his sickness renders him unable to sing.
The singer in the first sentence above, undoubtedly, has a solid vocal technique; is the second sentence an oxymoron?
At any rate, vocal technique is a fascinating topic to investigate from the causality viewpoint. In philosophy, besides using the terms cause and effect, some philosophers like Elizabeth Anscombe (1919 – 2001) are proposing something new: instead of saying A causes B, they say A determines B.[2]The difference between these two verbs can be illustrated by the following imaginary scenario: you are in front of a Starbucks menu on which there are caramel macchiato, mocha frappuccino etc. You are determined to have caramel macchiato, yet there may be nothing to cause you to have that. Therefore, by saying A determines B instead of A causes B, philosophers completely overhaul the entire discussion of causality.
To sum up today’s discussions, which of the following definitions of vocal technique will suit you?
Vocal technique is:
- a way to determine my sound (out of many possible types of sound)
- a checklist for self-diagnosis when I know I don’t sound good [looking back from the effect]
- the set of things I have to do if I want to sound good [looking ahead from the cause].
[1]David Brian Huron, Sweet Anticipation: Music and the Psychology of Expectation(Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2006), 60.
[2]Roger Scruton, Modern Philosophy: An Introduction and Survey(London: Bloomsbury Reader, 2012), 179.