have a clear, distinct, and precise method that is always certain in its effect, is clear from the single fact that all Italian singers send forth their tone alike. That the English have no settled principle is demonstrated by the converse of the circumstance we have just cited. No two English singers produce the tone alike, nor indeed hardly any two notes of the scale. Those of the English who come nearest to pure tone, have all either been taught by Italians or by the Italian method. The best singing-master England has known during the period we are speaking of was RAUZZINI, of Bath. He has now two scholars before the public, who exemplify the excellence and congruity of his mode of tuition; these are MR. BRAHAM and MR. LACY. They have both matured their study in Italy, but we believe they both retain the same sense of their obligations to RAUZZINI, and both consider all the experience they have since gained only as confirmatory of his principles. Now we will venture to pronounce that the similarity of tone produced by both these singers is complete as to the mechanical process assumed by the organs employed in its formation and emission—that it is the purest tone the human voice can produce, and finally, that it exhibits exactly the difference and only the difference in pitch which distinguishes a bass from a tenor voice. Let it be clearly understood that we are now discussing the formation of pure tones and not the arbitrary modifications which the singer chooses to adopt with a view to the expression of particular emotions or passions. We go to the principle -to the foundation, for the very first foundation of good singing iş the formation of pure tone. By pure tone, we mean that which comes from the chest. The unmixed voce di petto, free from any change in the throat, mouth, or head. MR. BRAHAM and MR. LACY's solmization is of this nature; and when we hear them, we feel by a sort of sympathy which directs us to the spot from whence the tone originally proceeds, that their rule and their execution is the same. When on the contrary, we have heard MR. VAUGHAN and MR. BARTLEMAN, the two finest singers of the English school, we can find no such guide. We rather perceive that the voices are not formed alike nor emitted alike. If MR. BRAHAM gives way to extravagances (as he is too apt to do) which disturb the uniformity and injure the effect, those abberations do not touch the system any more than the change, which for comic effect MR. LACY will give to a passage. These are voluntary violations which do not impair the excellency of the general code of instruction.

The superiority of tone it will be said after all must be estimated by its effects upon the auditor. By this standard we should be content to try it. But as we cannot bring it to such a test in writing, we must endeavour to reason a little upon those effects. After the immediate operation of tone upon the ear, (and which is generally found in the case of Italian voices to exceed that of English,) we should consider that the power of combining uniformity of tone with delicate and polished articulation of words to be most vitally important.

This point MR. BARTLEMAN must instantly give up. Instead of the proper pronunciation of English vowels, he has upon principle bent his language to his tone-and to render the latter uniform he converts i into oi, and by a certain method of opening the mouth, which exhibits the reverse of the Italian bocca ridente, he introduces a combination of vowels into the pronunciation of a and o, of which we can pretend to give no description. MR. BARTLEMAN is sensible of this deviation from the orthopy of his own language, and defends it upon the ground of rendering his tone uniform. The illustration is still more unfortunate in his execution of Italian, for when placed in this predicament, neither his tone nor his pronunciation can be said to bear the least likeness to the native Italians. This matter is now so well understood, that it will not be contended for an instant by any real judges of Italian singing. MR. BRAHAM, on the contrary, has manifested his power to sustain the first character upon the Italian stage, and indeed, we consider that his Italian singing far transcends his English. If more evidence be wanting, MR. LACY has reached the utmost propriety both in singing and pronunciation—so high indeed are his attainments, in this respect, that we have heard the best Italian scholars express their surprise at the perfection he has gained in the pronunciation of that language. His English is alike articulate and pure.

The next attribute of tone is the power of conveying by its deviations various shades of sentiment and passion, and here we again refer to the Italians. Who has ever heard such fine expression as they contrive to impart to their passages, whether of joy, or grief, of rage, or tenderness? what Italian was ever known to transmute his manner of producing tone in the course of the diversifications he employs? If this proof be disputed by the amour propre of our countrymen we may again recus to MR. BRAHAM. What are the effects of his

"Deeper and deeper still?" can any thing be more pathetic or more impassioned than this recitative, (even in spite of his admitted extravagances) or more soothing than the succeeding air? Thus if our instances be justly taken, our principle cannot be erro

neous.

To bring the question before us to a still more complete decision, we may enquire, what are the consequences of this difference of principle, when voices so trained are employed in concert with others? It has always appeared to us, that MR. BARTMEMAN's voice refuses to blend into conformity of tone in a glee. We hear him as distinctly alone as if he were singing by himself. By some this fault has been attributed to his singing too loud. But we shall not do so excellent a singer the injustice to accuse him of so vulgar an error. We attribute it solely to the quality of the tone; and while we give MR. BARTLEMAN the fullest credit for the improvement in bass singing, of which he may truly be considered the author, while he has imparted to it a degree of energy, feeling, lightness, and ele gance, unknown before his time, we must nevertheless believe that he has built upon an erroneous basis in regard to TONE. The gene ral value of his own performance has been materially diminished by this fatal mistake, and the taste of a whole generation, even should the evil extend no further, corrupted by his example,

It will have been anticipated, from what we have said concerning MR. BARTLEMAN'S TONE, that his ELOCUTION cannot have escaped the pernicious effects of this radical error. In respect to the latter, we have indeed rarely, if ever, seen an instance uniting so many excellencies and so many defects. The delicate apprehension and the energy which he conveys into his expression of character, or of sen timent and passion, chastened as it is by a general sense of propriety, can hardly be too much admired, while this vitiated pronunciation of the vowels, and his short manner of utterance in declamatory pas sages, cannot be too severely condemned. Had MR. BARTLE. MAN's power of chest been more confined, had he had less command over his tone, (such as it is) his mode of quitting words and notes would frequently have been intolerably short, rugged, and unfinished, simply from his mode of pronunciation. "u Oo I wam cuome fruom thuau huoloy luand, (softening and melting the u into a new dipthong with vowel) is really no caricature of the system

upon which he equalizes his vowels* in order to produce uniformity of tone. Listen to the effects of a somewhat broader execution of it than his own, in any of those who have made him their model, and it becomes intolerable. Yet such is the real nature of the principle which has reigned so long uncontroverted, and to such an extent does the power to propagate errors which fine talents enjoy sometimes extend, that the defects are even more generally adapted than the perfections of a great artist; and the reason is obvious. The most prominent are the most striking, they catch the ear most readily and certainly, and sink most surely into the memory.

In point of science there are few singers who go beyond the object

*The following observations upon this matter were some time since published in a letter of a provincial journal from a gentleman whose naturally fine taste has been matured during a long course of years by familiar friendship with persons of the highest musical and critical attainments. They throw a good deal of light upon the subject. "SHERIDAN, in his most able investigation of the elementary sounds of the English language, discovered that the letters i and u, in their more common use, were not, as had been supposed, simple vowels, but real dipthongs. For the sake of brevity, I shall confine my observations to the first of these, of which he says: • The sound i is composed of the fallen and slenderest of vowels, a (aw) and e, the first made by the largest, and the last by the smallest aperture of the mouth. Now if we attend to the process in forming this sound, we shall find that the mouth is first opened to the same degree of aperture, and is in the same position as if it were going to sound a (aw), but before the voice can get a passage through the lips, the organs are put in the same position as when e is formed, and a third sound is produced, which is different from both. Now I have always thought that some one of our eminent public singers, (Harrison was the first in whom I heard it exemplified) by an unfortunate misapplication of this theory, introduced the present offensive manner of dissolving this dipthong, which unlike all others, except the u, (to which I shall not now advert) effects, by the union of its elements, something quite different from that which is pro duced by their resolution-as different as white is from the seven prismatic colours. I admit that the sound of i, as explained by SHERIDAN, is incapable of being sustained as a musical sound, since, if you dwell upon the first letter of the dipthong you obtain the offensive sound of aw, and if on the second, the slender sound of e. It may be asked, what then is to be done? I reply, where the expression requires or will admit rapidity of utterance, there to pronounce the words in their ordinary manner; but where a sustained sound is necessary, there let the singer, as the English singer is compelled frequently to do, substitute one sound for another. I will endeavour to give an instance of both. In singing "How vain is man who boasts in fight," it is surely better to articulate the word fight, however unmusical it may be, than fuw-ete, as HARRISON used to do. Or suppose the words to be Cease thy anguish, smile once more,' it is obvious that those of the modern school, if consistent with themselves, would articulate thus: Cease thuw-e anguish, smaw-ele once If they say No, we would substitute some other sound for the i,' I perfectly agree in the propriety of the answer; but then, I ask, why not do the same in all cases where a sustained sound of iis necessary?"

more.

of our memoir either in the knowledge that more particularly appertains to his own department, in a thorough acquaintance with the business of an orchestra, or in the general scope of his musical reading, particularly of the old masters. His singing, however, bears no marks of erudition. He appears studiously to avoid affectation, and we should consider his style of ornamenting to err on the side of plainness rather than as too elaborate or recherché. It may fairly be said that in this as well as in EXECUTION a bass has far less room to sport in than other voice. The space, however, has been lately extended, and the songs of HAYDN and other modern composers afford ampler scope. We are not enamoured either of MR. BARTLEMAN'S mode of executing divisions, which we consider to be too staccato and mechanical, or of his mode of gracing. Almost every thing that deserves the name is modern, and is morcover derived from the Italian school. MR. BARTLEMAN is more of the ancient than the modern, and most of all English-a title which in every thing but vocal art we glory in being able to boast, is the proudest a man can bear. We have bestowed upon MR. BARTLEMAN more minute observation than upon any other performer, for we are happy to admit that he has hitherto not only been the greatest bass singer of his time, but that he has hitherto stood unrivalled and alone. Notwithstanding his talents are splendid, his faults are great, and the consequences of these faults are, if of a magnitude, still more important. While we do him homage we wish to do him and his art equal justice. We have performed our obligations with more than common care, and we intreat that nothing we have said may be interpreted harshly, for we doubly lament that where there is so much to praise, to admire, and to imitate, there should be necessity for any reservation in favor of the general interests of science.

MR. LACY.

We consider MR. LACY to be without question the most legitimate bass singer, the most accomplished in various styles, and altogether the most perfect and finished, that has appeared in this country.And if he has not been heard so frequently as to give his reputation the wide diffusion that his merits entitle him to expect, it is owing to the following causes, which since they very materially effect the