Uncategorized

If the human voice is capable of all kinds of sounds, and has a wide range of pitches and volumes (as sitting at any playground for a couple of hours will prove to you), then what happens to that ability and why do some people exhibit so much more of that than others when they outgrow childhood?

Let’s take a look at the average American (but could be almost any nationality) kid. Runs, jumps, plays, falls down, cries, gets up, laughs, makes faces and turns into various imaginary animals, monsters, aliens, grown-ups, and alternate selves, yells, screams, giggles, grunts, roars, gurgles, yodels and does who knows what else with voice and body. Then the child gets “self-conscious” and stops because adulthood looms. Correct behavior encroaches (at various ages) and spontaneity subsides. Vocal expression also shrinks, unless the child is doing some kind of singing, in which case it might survive a bit more.

If, however, you go to performances or listen to music written by today’s living composers who deliberately do things with the voice that are “not-traditional”, you find out that there are a lot of people out there, some with advanced degrees even, who think the human voice doesn’t have to shrink or fit in a box. In fact, you find that many vocal artists wouldn’t begin to entertain the notion that you have to confine yourself in any way in order to be considered “good”.

This blog entry is inspired by having just attended the 4 hour marathon retrospective of Meredith Monk today at the Whitney Museum. It took a look back at Meredith’s performances, the first one being done there was in 1971. There was an entire new generation of young vocalists up there with some of the other “senior” artists and they were all having a ball. A few are operatically trained, some are dancers, and some are musicians, and all of them all singing really wild, inventive, and YES, vocally taxing stuff, but NO ONE lost their voice and no one was being vocally damaged, since Meredith herself is very careful about how she sings and what she asks, respectfully, others to sing. You might think, at first hearing if you were not familiar with her style, or this kind of music generally, that going abruptly from one register to another or from one pitch range to another, or one volume to another, or making gutteral, nasal, glottal, unsteady, unpleasant sounds would automatically be “harmful” but if you did have that thought, it would be WRONG. The performers who sing with Ms. Monk are very talented, highly trained, intelligent and mostly New York artists who are mostly self-employed free-lancers. They are not going to ruin their throats for Ms. Monk or anyone else, as they would be out of work for quite a while, and maybe could get injured seriously enough to be out of work as a singer forever. Since I have been Ms. Monk’s voice coach for nearly 30 years, I know how careful these singers are with their voices even though what they sing sounds like they aren’t being careful at all.

Beware. And if you are a singer, or a teacher of singing, and you think that singing outside a certain set of parameters will harm you in some way, think again. Singing anything shouldn’t prevent you from doing something else. If how you sing is based on fear of harming or losing your voice/technique/high notes/control/expressiveness,etc., I will suggest that you don’t have much depth in your singing to begin with, and it wouldn’t be nearly as a big loss as you imagine if you were to let it go. Think about that.

How do you know that you aren’t any good if all you do is stay at home and sing for your students? How do you know if you never sounded any good in the first place, especially if you didn’t really have much of a career? How do you know you sound good if you have never actually given the topic any thought at all? How do you know if the reason you don’t sound good is that your throat is tied in a knot that you don’t feel and you think you are just fine? I’m talking ALL kinds of singing styles here, not just CCM.

I recently attended a conference at which one on the attendees mentioned that she was a chair of a voice department in a college. That would have been fine but her speaking voice sounded like something between Yogi Bear and Bart Simpson. Can this person sing freely? Can Superman land on your roof? I can only cringe to think how this effects not only the other teachers in her department under her, but all of her students and theirs. Your perception of how you sound is affected by how you feel what you hear or, said in reverse: BY HOW YOU HEAR WHAT YOU FEEL. If squashed sound is what you do, and you have sung in front of others that way, and you are oblivious, you will hear really free singing as being “wrong”. Yikes!!!!

No kidding. A colleague of mine, now deceased, once told me Leontyne Price “couldn’t sing”. Yikes and Yikes!!!!! I never heard this colleague sing, but I can only imagine.

I also know of someone else who is in charge of a voice department at a college who tried out working with CCM techniques on her own, interpreting information she had obtained in a workshop, and got into trouble. Instead of concluding that perhaps she had misunderstood what she heard and seen at the course, or that she had applied it incorrectly working alone, she decided the information was at fault, it was dangerous, and therefore, every single student in her department would absolutely be in danger if they tried to sing in a belt sound. She found support from her classical colleagues (all of whom are teaching music theater) who agreed that their students were BABIES and had to handled with kid gloves. It couldn’t possibly have had anything to do with HER, of course.

I have encountered wobbling jaws, rigid head positions, singers with over-straightened necks, tightly squeezed throats, heavy pressed phonation, depressed larynges, and all manner of other abberations in teachers who are at a college somewhere. These are classical singers who often have masters degrees in voice and some of them have doctoral degrees. They sound BAD. BAD. Did I say BAD? Yes, BAD. You cannot have a sound that is out of balance function freely or with emotional authenticity, and that is what beautiful singing demands. You must conclude, then, that the singers don’t know they are stuck, or they think being stuck is correct and good, or they think that it is BETTER technically, for some specific reason. They probably think that free singing is just a metaphor. (I have actually been asked by someone who has taught at a college for 20 years, “How do you know if the sound is free?”) Are you surprised when I tell you that she had lots of vocal problems? Didn’t think so.

A free sound MOVES. The vocal organs move (the larynx is a sinoval joint that has to be able to rock back and forth). And, although in classical singing the idea that the larynx MUST remain low at all times has gained in popularity, in fact, the larynx needs to be “dynamic” [William Vennard] or “engaged” [Cornelius Reid] in order for the mechanism to work properly. Garcia and Lamperti knew that, way back in the 1800s. A freely produced sound is neither breathy nor tight but there is a range of both that is acceptable and still healthy. A free voice produces undistorted vowels, allows for clear articulation, dynamic (intensity) variation, steady vibrato (or control over a straight tone), and is EXPRESSIVE (assuming the artist has something to say………a big assumption.)

The same holds true for classical and CCM vocal production, but the dominant register behavior is opposite, and other parameters adjust accordingly.

If it is dangerous to have scientists who think they know what a belt sound is researching it, when in point of fact they have a skewed auditory picture of it, and can’t sing it, then it is twice as dangerous to have people who are LOUSY singers writing vocal pedagogy articles and making decisions about voice training anywhere. We can’t stop that or do anything about it, but at least it can be stated here that these conditions exist and that they have an impact on singers. Perhaps knowing that is enough to give moral support to those on the receiving end of the behavior, opinions, ideals and decisions of such individuals. If so, then this was worth the writing.

We all know the value of a label. What’s worth more, a Cadillac or a Lincoln? A Ralph Lauren or a Donna Karan? A Rolex watch or one made by Movado?

If we are talking about sound, the label matters, maybe more than for a watch, except how do you label a sound? You can’t weigh it, you can’t see it or feel it, it has no smell. We don’t understand much about the relationship between hearing and sound making except that there is one and if it goes away, speaking gets much harder and singing probably gets impossible unless you lose your hearing in mid-life. Are you hearing what I hear in the same way I hear it? Probably not. How can I know how something sounds to you when I can hardly label it clearly to myself? (I know, be psychic!!)

There are only a very few words in English that describe vocal sound and nothing else: hoarse, breathy, raspy, and throaty are some examples. Additional words that describe voiced sound come from the other four senses or from descriptions of the personality. Warm, sweet, clear, powerful, squeezed, harsh, flowing, etc. Those words are endless but not very precise or telling. If we get into describing specific types of vocal sound, ones that have only certain characteristics, we are in even choppier waters. Belting is a kind of sound, but what kind? When is a sound a belt and when it is not? How is this decided? What kinds of words are used to describe a belt sound? Want to enter a quagmire? Door’s open, com’ on in.

If we do not come up with labels based on acoustics and physiology, then how do we know we are talking about the same phenomenon? We don’t. But, in order to gather information that can be measured, someone has to make the sound, saying, in effect, “This is the sound and it is because I say so”. Whew!

When talking about any kind of vocal sound, sung or spoken, and describing vocal quality with words, we are bound to have issues of communication because our language has few and poor descriptive words and because our awareness of vocal sound doesn’t have to be that acute in order to live and be understood. If we complicate matters by saying “I am going to sing in this sound a lot” or “I am going to teach someone else to sing it” and we can barely describe it or understand how it gets produced, can there be anything as a result that is not just plain confused?

I have dealt with the entire situation for 37 years. It may be, and I emphasize, MAY be, that things are getting better in the vocal community of teachers, researchers and singers, but not at the speed of sound, or even the speed of a car in Times Square at rush hour. We have to keep trying, though, as just because it is difficult, it is an important topic to address. It’s just that sometimes, I get tired. Want to take over? Volunteers welcome.

We know that there is more than one way to belt. If, however, the scientists that look at singing don’t go along with that, the research they do won’t help us. I see that as a BIG problem.

Having just returned from the PAS 4 Conference in San Antonio (that’s Physiology and Acoustics of the Singing Voice #4), I encountered a number of well-known voice science researchers who were going to argue with me about what belting is and is not. This argument was based upon their own knowledge, of course, not of making the sound commercially in a piece of music in front of an audience or audiences, but of making it on their own, in a lab situation, without verification from anyone else. How is this any different that the classical teachers, working on belting, who think they know or assume they know, but have never actually worked on this sound with any other EXPERT to actually get verification that they DO know? Not different.

This is not good for all kinds of reasons. The first reason is that we all, including me, hang on voice science to help us out of 200 years of subjective misunderstanding of vocal production and other ensuing confusion. What has been published on belting is largely the result of the research of just a few people, (that includes the work I have published) working with just a few subjects, many of whom were used as subjects just because they were locally available to researchers.

If the science that is submitted has to be evaluated by other scientists as to its accuracy and credibility, but the singing being researched as a part of the same project DOES NOT GET REVIEWED AT ALL, can that be useful? As a subject of voice research on belting I, at least, had sung one entire musical show in a professional quality production as a belter, but some of the subjects in other research may not have sung in any professional calibre performance at all. Nevertheless, the research was given credence because of the science and not the sound itself and published. Seems like a conflict to me.

This is made worse when the scientists take the sound into consideration and the sound is the wrong sound, or is misunderstood by the researcher. The information they collect gets published and only makes things worse. Adds to the confusion rather than to clarity. How do you tell an important scientist, “Excuse me, Big Dr. Professor Science Person, the sound you think is belting, isn’t?” How do you tell him (usually it is a male) “You sound awful, sir, and no one who gets paid money would sing like that unless they were in trouble, so please don’t use yourself as a baseline model for this sound.” How do you explain “You are studying something from a confused place to begin with, so how is that going to guide you in your research?” Answer is, you don’t. I know. I tried. I continue to try. Hasn’t worked yet.

Yes, my opinion on belting is just mine, but I truly feel it is representative of the sound for all the reasons I have stated and stated and restated on this blog in the past. I work with people who are out there being asked to make this sound (or versions of it) for a living and if they were not able to do that, they would be out of work and so would I. I know whereof I speak and sing. I don’t for a minute pretend to understand the deep inner workings of voice science research and am always quick and willing to be corrected by the scientists, but they, unfortunately, are NOT willing to be corrected by me, who, at this point, is one of the senior teachers of CCM in the world. If not me, or my colleagues, then whom?

We recently attended Young Frankenstein for the second time, as it is closing soon and we wanted to see it again. You have to be a true Mel Brooks fan to find it funny, but I am, and I do, and I was delighted to hear and see it once more. Sutton Foster didn’t sound very good when we heard her as Elizabeth, shortly after it opened, but her current replacement, Michele Ragusa, was far better in this role of Dr. Frankenstein’s fiancee. Here was not only a good comedienne, actress and dancer but someone who was a wonderful vocalist as well. She epitomized the use of the voice in the best possible way that it can be used in traditional music theater style.

Her mid-range was clear and solid and went easily to a secure high open belt or to a balanced head mix and her high voice was a solid undistorted head register legit sound. All of this was smooth and easy. All her words were clear, she had no distortion of any kind. The tone was warm and bright but always in service of what she was singing. Sutton had problems when I heard her. The part sounded too high for her and she sounded thin and scrawny, as if she had tried to lighten her voice unsuccessfully. Since she was so wonderful in her three previous roles on Broadway, I was disappointed.

Ms. Ragusa, on the other hand, not only looked more comfortable, but sang the bejabbers out of her silly songs. “Please Don’t Touch Me” is one of those pieces that will die after the show closes, but while it lasts on the boards it’s just plain Mel Brooks goofy and fun. She was hilarious in “Deep Love” which is probably only going to be around as part of this show, since it is a joke on the plot, but she really makes the most of every word and note.

In short, every now and then someone turns up on Broadway who does exactly what I am talking about when I teach and I have nothing to do with her, with her training or with anything she is doing. She doesn’t know me and I don’t know her. She does represent quintissential Broadway singing, then and now, in the best of all possible vocal ways. I wish you could all go hear her before January 4 when YF goes the way of all shows………..into history. It would be worth the price just to see and hear what the real deal is.

Using interpretation to improve technique falls into the same category as using songs to develop technique. It’s not the best choice. If a singer has very little awareness of what’s going on while he or she is making sound, the only adjustments that will be made to the song in terms of what it means will be variations in dynamics and phrasing, unless the person is going to re-arrange the notes and rhythms as well. Other more powerful shifts will only be possible if the instrument has been programed to respond in ways that are acquired deliberately. That means that interpretation alone cannot really do the job that vocal exercises do. They cannot replace the physicality of singing or the awareness thereof.

On the other hand, compelling storytelling is powerful. Someone who is vividly feeling any emotion, and who has a strong desire to communicate with others is always going to be interesting, no matter how she sounds. That’s why we respond to CCM singers who have less than great vocal behaviors……they immediately grab our attention if they are totally involved with the story or the music or both.

Those who are quiet by nature or who are taught that being demonstrative is somehow unacceptable or even rude have a much harder time with this than those who are gregarious or who grow up in a free-flowing emotionally open environment. Someone who is easily able to be emotional, but not out of control, and who is willing to feel those emotions passing through the body and voice moment to moment is bound to be a more compelling communicator than someone who is inhibited or who tells the story only through the intellectual understanding of the words.

The meeting of body, mind and heart wherein the “body” part is a combination of voice and breath, is probably the most powerful communication tool we have as human beings. Looking for each part of this three-way equation is a personal journey, but a worthy one. How our minds work to interpret the world through our senses is a very significant thing to understand. How our bodies respond to the demand from the brain to make sound is also unique in each moment, but both of these experiences work best when we know how to feel deeply and when we love what we are doing. The courage to share comes from the love and trust that are born of the melding of the three partners. Some people come by all three of these ingredients naturally, with little training and effort. Those who do not (most of us) work towards developing, expanding and expressing each aspect until the singer, the song and the message become one. How beautiful!

How do you put art into a box and write about it in words? Singing is an alive, in the moment event. When you are doing it or when you are listening to it, in each second, there it is. You can’t stare at it, hold it, feel its weight, plant it, put it in the sun, and watch it grow. It is ephemeral, transitory and invisible, but when you are in its presence, it can be more magical than any other expression human beings make. It’s not for nothing that only educated people have an interest in Rembrandt, or Balanchine, or Mozart, but millions of regular folks related to Elvis, Ella and Luciano.

On Tuesday evening my husband, Jerry, and I went to see Patti Lupone in Gypsy on Broadway. It was some evening. Even though I was prepared for the show (one of my favorites) and even though we saw Bernadette Peters in this role just a few years ago, nothing could have prepared me for watching and listening to Ms. Lupone up close and personal. (We got tickets at the last minute so we were in the fourth row, center). She is singing in the heaviest chest register imaginable, although every now and then she sings a head tone. Her ability to control her volume is limited. There were plenty of places where the music should have softened that she made quite loud (usually when the notes were high), with the exception of the aforementioned two or three head tones. Her jaw visibly bounces with pressure, but the sound is open and, although pressured, comfortable, and yes, free. A true contradiction. A lot of the time she reminded me of a baritone. (Perhaps you will remember that Luciano’s entire head bounced when he sang high and loud, or that Placido’s tongue retracts in the same situation. Oh well. There you go.) I was amazed that this voice stands up to a no-holds-barred knock-out performance by Ms. Lupone 8 times a week. She must have AMAZING vocal folds! It made poor Bernadette’s performance of Rose look all the more wrong. Bernadette is a fine actress, but she was never a natural belter. She became one over time. Her voice is tightly produced and her body is tiny, thin and petite. She just wasn’t the Mack truck that Rose has to be and no amount of acting can compensate for your own physical embodiment. Patti, on the other hand, is just that and more. You cannot imagine the power she puts into this portrayal and the impact it has in the last song particularly. “Rose’s Turn” is Patti’s Turn and you want to hold on to that moment forever, but, that is impossible. It becomes oh so fast just a memory.

The chest register, the driving force in this voice, her energy that just won’t quit is representatively masculine (as in anima/animus). A woman with all the male aspects of her soul gloriously riding on the surface for all to see and hear.

THEN

We went last night to the Metropolitan Museum of Art to hear the accapella mens’ choral group “Chanticleer” in their Christmas Concert. I was invited by one of the members who had worked with me briefly to be his guest. I came prepared, also, to this concert, (with Jerry) as I knew what style of music they would sing in front of the Medieval Tree and Holiday Creche. The 12 men came out in their white ties and began singing “Veni, Veni Emanual” which we all know well. About halfway through the concert they performed some pieces by an Armenian composer that I had never heard and which went right through my heart and started me to sobbing. Honestly, it was some of the most gorgeous singing I have ever heard from any kind of chorus in my whole life. I was just beside myself. Even my retired chemist hubby thought it was truly wonderful. There are sopranos, altos, baritones and basses, but they mix and match parts all over. Throughout they sang in a head dominant production that was warm, light, pure, “spinny”, “floaty” and flawless. At the end they did three spirituals which were more chest dominant and had a great rhythmic feeling. I was just thrilled to be there.

Here, then, was the exact opposite of what we had experienced only the night before. Men singing in head register, bringing out the tender, gentle, soft aspects of their voices. Men being in sync with each other (totally), men being expressive in a subtle, refined manner. These men were singing arrangements that were musically difficult, vocally challenging and artistically distinctive and it was clear that they were having a great time. I would have loved for it to go on and on, but no, it too, of course, is now just in my memory.

Yes, that’s what’s great about New York, and that is why we live here. We were able to go from the sublime to the sublime two nights in a row and hear the best of what singing is even though the performances were 180 degrees away from each other. There is no substitute for hearing the best there is in person. No DVD, no CD, no replication can ever be the same as the live, here it is right now, singing.

Human beings are capable of being unselfish up to and including giving their lives for the sake of others. They are also capable of the most unspeakable atrocities committed without the smallest bit of remorse or sadness. Most people do things unconsciously, meaning they don’t really examine deeply the motives for their behavior or actions. Some people think about or notice what their actions might do or are doing to others, but others are completely oblivious. This is the cause for some of the greatest strife that has ever occurred throughout history.

The vast majority of humanity lives in a stream of unconsciousness. These folks do not plan one single moment of their lives, but bounce from event to event reacting to those events as they occur. When pleasant things happen, they are OK and when unpleasant things take place, they are not. Frequently, after an unpleasant event, the reaction of some folks is to blame something or someone. We all know that placing blame is a righteous honor in many places. Being a victim garners pity, sometimes a lot of pity from others and righteous indignation in the victim. It can start in childhood but sometimes escalates, rather than diminishes, as people age. That is not the only reaction possible. If there is no blame, there is sometimes, instead, denial. This is another easy behavior tolerated well by societies all over the world. The bad thing wasn’t so bad after all, or maybe never even happened, and whatever it was or might have been, I’m fine and that’s that.

The idea that the world can be divided up into opposing forces is exemplified by the life we live on a day to day basis which can be seen as “duality”. The real world is day/night, water/land, fast/slow, up/down, on and on endlessly. We learn, “this is bad, don’t do it” and “good girl, nice job” almost right from the crib. It takes a certain amount of something special, then, to “wake up” from this world and make a conscious decision to take a look at it. It takes a lot, really, to look at something and say, maybe the world is actually not a series of opposite happenings, maybe everything is relative to my perspective of it. This is, actually, closer to the truth. Day fades into night, water laps onto the beach, hills rise up from the flat land, etc. Even being born takes some amount of time.

“Waking up” to life is a big deal. It requires constant diligence and quite a bit of motivation. It is very easy to “fall asleep” into either blame or denial, and it is very easy to “keep on keeping on” without ever questioning one single thing or probing deeply into the psychological or emotional reactions that seems so automatic in all of us. Most people not only don’t care about “waking up” they may have no clue that is it possible or have ever been around anyone who has that type of thought process and behavior. They may not understand how much choice is available over their own “automatic” reactions to life and the events in it, or even how much their own behavior and thinking can contribute to what shows up in their life experience.

The primary way to become aware of one’s own situation is either to have a startling “awakening” or to begin asking, and answering, questions that start with the word “why”. Probing for answers can be slow, tedious, frustrating, frightening, daunting, exhausting and painful, but NOT probing can be much worse. Only knowing, understanding and then choosing something different can break the patterns that bind. You cannot change what you do not know exists.

When I was young I did as I was told, never questioned anyone in authority, trusting that they knew more than I did. I was taught to do this and commended for it. I was not asked to discriminate, I was not encouraged to evaluate, I was not expected to pay attention, just to follow orders. It took me a LONG time to dismantle this behavior but I had some help. Something “mystical” happened to me when I was only 22 that shook me to the foundations of my soul. It started me on the process of asking questions.

One of the questions was “why is there only one way to learn to sing”? “Why can’t I learn to sing like Connie Francis instead of Joan Sutherland”? This was a question that had no answer except “because this is the way it is”.

Everything I have ever written, said, spoken or taught, about singing has underneath it the awareness that what I am putting forth is my opinion and only my opinion. I always understand that each person is on their own journey and that each of us has the experiences we have to learn from life whatever there is to learn. Each of us has a choice to turn life’s unpleasant experiences into a way to close up, become negative, pass judgement, and blame the outside world, or not. Each of us has a choice to look at what has happened with the possibility that there is something to learn in it, something that may be valuable not only to ourselves but perhaps also to others, or not. Each of us has an opportunity to open up and grow when life doesn’t give us what we would have most liked to have, or not.

I question the way CCM is taught, thought about, dealt with, regarded and approached. I question it most with the teachers and since most teachers are in schools, I question academia. I question the values of various kinds of music and singers to attempt a deeper understanding of the similarities and differences between them. I search for patterns, associations, conflicts, assumptions and philosophies that impact them and the extent of that impact. I choose to do this because I think there is value in it and because it has been my experience that this has been done almost not at all or only in a very limited manner.

This is selfish on my part because it makes me feel that all the confusion, frustration and sadness I experienced while I was trying with all my heart to learn to sing was worthwhile. It takes away some of the disappointment that I wasted so much money and time on empty studying. I could see this as a justification for why I did not have a great famous career as a singer. It has been seen as a way for me to make myself well-known, better than other people, a know-it-all, blowhard, diva queen, and maybe all of that is true.

But if there is anything unselfish about it, then it is because I would like to give something to other young singers that no one gave to me…….information, guidance, and the right to QUESTION what training they are being given. I would like them to know that it is more than OK to wake up to the “WHY” questions. Why should I sing like this? Why shouldn’t I sing like that? Why should I listen to this teacher? Why should I be feeling this or hearing that? Why is there no answer to my questions when I ask them? Why would this person be an authority on singing when he or she CAN’T SING??

If you read this blog to come away from it questioning me, and then questioning yourself, I have succeeded in my intention. I have perhaps been a seed in your own vocal “awakening”. If you read this blog to see what blowhard LoVetri has to say today that makes her feel important, well, so be it. It probably does and you are probably correct, but I wouldn’t want to be your student.

Until very recently, we did not understand vocal function. Training for singing was based upon observations by people who lived as long ago as a few hundred years and on each individual singing teacher’s personal subjective opinion. This situation is, thankfully, going away, but it is far from gone.

Recent issues of Classical Singer magazine have had 2 articles discussing vocal pedagogy that try to combine singing training with voice science. Both articles contain misconceptions and mistakes. Apparently, Classical Singer does not run the articles past actual voice scientists to see if they are accurate. They wouldn’t be able to get away with this if the general populace of singers and singing teachers absolutely knew vocal function. The average reader, sadly, probably has no idea that the material contains errors. This same thing happened last year when Opera News published an article about belting that was so ridiculous that it set the CCM world back an entire generation. (Oh well, it’s just about belting, so who cares, really).

I’ve encountered more than a few singing teachers who have read a couple of articles, taken a couple of courses, and then simply teach what they THINK they understand, without actually running it past an expert. Some of what goes on in the production of vocal sound isn’t easy to grasp, especially as hard science, and it can take a while for someone to fully digest charts and graphs unless they are inclined to like them. Writing to incorporate something new into something you already know can be dangerous. Those who write should think and think again before allowing themselves to submit something that, once published, will demonstrate exactly how confused, not how knowledgeable, the writer is.

It really is true that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Seems like, in some ways, we had less to worry about when people were talking about the “pink mist in the back of your throat” or “drinking a glass of water” to “make the sound more creamy”, as at least then we knew the information we were being given was pretty much from Mars. Now we get something that sounds like it is REAL except somewhere in there we are still being told that we need a masque in order to sing opera…..so how come the Lone Ranger wasn’t singing at the Met?

If you have a voice and can use it, be thankful. If you have a voice and can sing, be deeply thankful. If you have a voice and can sing well enough to stand up in front of an audience, rejoice in your gratitude. If you sing well enough to do it in front of an audience and get paid, shout out your appreciation from the housetops. And if, by some miracle of miracles, you sing well enough to be paid and become well known for your singing, then find a way to express that gratitude every single day.

There are people in this world who lose the ability to speak through injury and illness. There are people who would give anything to be able to sing “Happy Birthday” to their child but can’t “find the notes” and are embarrassed to try. There are people who sing in the kitchen and the shower but would never sing alone anywhere someone else could hear them. There are people who would love to do a solo at church but are never asked. There are people who would love to be paid to sing at a local bar, coffeehouse, or community theater but are too afraid to try. There are people who get paid to sing but not enough to even cover their own costs of getting to a gig. There are people who are asked to perform in public, who get paid, and who are locally recognized, but can’t get to the next level professionally. There are people who sing who do it for a living, make enough to live well, are recognized but not famous and still have to push hard to keep their careers moving. And there are the few who are famous, who have a following, who make lots of money, and whose voices are recognized immediately by throngs of fans, who worry every day about vocal health, the stress of travel, the need to keep singing well and a million other things.

Whatever state we are in, there are many reasons not to be grateful, but none of them are valid. If you are alive and can sing, even if it is just in your mind, you have great reason to be grateful.

On this day of giving thanks, join me in being grateful for song, for music, and for all of our (internal and out loud) voices. Many blessings to all!