Various Posts

Years ago the late Anita Roddick, founder of The Body Shop, came out clearly as being “against animal testing.” At the time, that was a radical thing for a company selling cosmetics and toiletries to do. Nevertheless, it became a battle cry and made The Body Shop stand out for a long time in a crowded field of similar businesses.

I hereby today, in this blog post, declare that am I against direct manipulation of the structures within the throat while attempting to sing. I am against it in every style, under all circumstances and for all reasons. It is a mistake. Further more, I have been against this for all the decades of my teaching. This is not a new conclusion on my part.

Vocal development is precipitated by vocal stimulation which begins in the mind as a desire to sing a pitch at a certain level of loudness or intensity on a sustained vowel for a specific amount of time using a specific type of vocal quality. The movements provoked by the exercise as a stimulus are spontaneous and occur as a response to exercise. The singer often doesn’t know exactly what will come out until it does. Often there is surprise.

Currently we are in an epidemic of vocal manipulation. Making odd and unnecessary movements of the vocal folds, the larynx and the throat is part of many popular methods of singing training and consumers (voice students) are oblivious to the negative effects such maneuvers have on their overall vocal responsiveness and well-being. Yes, you can, after a fashion, force your throat to do something it has no business doing and you can get used to it and even manage it well enough, but you cannot say such training has no cost. It is painfully costly.

Further, if you regard the throat and body as being “stupid” and in need of force in order for it “do what you want it to do” you can justify treating both badly. Over time, the movements of free vocal production will go away, making manipulation the only possible response to a stimulus to sing a specific tone. That is just awful.

The popular idea that the larynx must always remain down in classical singing is unfortunate. The larynx rides low in the throat because the throat is relaxed. Keeping the larynx down restricts natural movement and makes singing harder. In the end, you lose soft tones, high notes and soft high notes (both together). Bad choice? Just ask the throat of the vocalist.

Another one is that the larynx has to come up for belting. Well, maybe, but the less the better. And should anyone do that deliberately? Absolutely not.

What about singing in any particular place, adjustment or configuration just because you can? Does it help you express music? being alive? communicate something? Unless you are doing it as a “character” probably not.

Manipulation is what’s left when you can’t get your throat to do something you would like it to do so you make it happen. That is a bad idea but it is a very very easy and common thing to do. It makes for bad teaching, bad singing and no honest, unique sounds coming from a human being’s throat. If you are trying to imitate someone else’s voice or style and you have to force your voice to copy that model, you are making a mistake. If you are paying money for someone to teach you how to do that, stop. You are wasting both your time and your money, and, in a way, your life.

If your throat is giving you trouble, something is wrong. Singing should not be ridiculously hard. If it is, something is wrong. Even if it sounds impressive or important or “beautiful,” it’s still wrong. Trust your body. It has no reason to lie to you.

Perception is all we have. Points of view, based on what we are exposed to, what we conclude from that exposure and how we regard all of it. This is what we have while we are alive in a body. We take in the world through the 5 physical senses. Some people notice or rely upon one sense more predominantly than another. The connecting ingredient in all this is language. If you cannot put words to what you are experiencing it is difficult to categorize it in a conscious manner.

Singing is an auditory, kinesthetic and visual experience. We hear sound, we feel sound, we feel movement in the body while we make sound, we have a visual feedback on the outside of the body (in the mirror or on video) and we have a mental image of how we think of it. The mental parameters of singing are personal. Which is the most important aspect of mental categorization? It is different for each singer.

If you experience singing as bone vibration, is that the best way? What if someone else doesn’t experience singing like that? Is that wrong? Could he still be a good vocalist? What if you vividly hear sound but someone else doesn’t get much from listening? Who is better off? And what about the singer who sees the music very clearly in her mind but works with a person who never visualizes sound or singing at all. All of these are potential scenarios for trouble between two people who want to try working together.

Taking in the point of view of the singer is vital if you are a teacher. If you want to communicate something and draw out that which is best from your student, you have to understand how we process information. Insisting that students learn to do what you do, exactly as you do it, in exactly the same way that you learned it or that you determine to be important isn’t good teaching. It is, however, popular teaching. No wonder the profession sometimes seems chaotic.

If you think singing is no big deal you will have trouble with someone who thinks it is very important. If you believe that singing training is a hindrance to personal authenticity and you are working with someone who holds that vocal training is the only way to develop your instrument to its maximum, you will have trouble. If you assume that singing will take care of itself and then get into trouble you may find that you need to find someone who will teach you to pay attention to how you sing, and when and what, in order to get out of that dilemma.

Most people don’t do a lot of soul-searching when it comes to teaching singing, they just leave the topic alone until and unless they have a reason to examine it. If you intend to be a professional singer (or a high level amateur) or if you are going to teach someone to sing, you can’t afford to not know your point(s) of view about singing. Don’t be asleep.

 

Have you ever heard someone say, “I don’t know much about wine, but I know what I like.” That can be said about many things.

Experts are supposed to be people with highly cultivated tastes, developed over long years of immersion and study, exposure and experimentation, such that they end up knowing a great deal about a topic. Since we only have so much time in a day or a lifetime, the focus of such expertise is often confined to one area — like wine — and can become both broad-based and deep. An expert could tell by smelling and tasting wine its vintage, its bottler, its age, its components and its complexity.

I wonder, then, when I am in the world of voice, why so many people who teach do not have any such breadth or depth. They display blatant ignorance by their attitudes and actions and see fit to teach in public or write in various publications. Surely, they do not know that they do not know, or why would they expose themselves as being so lacking in expertise? Sadly, this can also be said about other voice disciplines. I have repeatedly seen doctors assume they know about singing because they have gone to a few classical master classes, or speech language pathologists who assume they know about singing because they have worked on speech with singers, or singing teachers who teach belting even though they have never made a belt sound or even attempted to make one.

If science does not recognize the artistic value of singing (and I do not think it does) and if people only look at objective data (formants, harmonics, sub-glottic pressure, vocal fold vibration patterns, sound pressure level, etc.) and disregard the quality of the singing as artistic expression, how is that helpful? It’s like judging a car only by the engine without looking at the interior and exterior design. Is a Mercedes the same as a Land Rover? They are both expensive cars.

Recently, a specific method of singing has had “research” published in a science journal. The “research” was bought and paid for by the teacher whose method it was. She participated in the study while it took place, she paid two scientists to do the measurements, she choose the students herself, and she decided that the words she has made up meant something to others who have not worked with her. Of course, that is nonsense. They are meaningful only to her and her students. Nevertheless, she can now claim that her method is “scientifically proven” and that’s a sad thing for all of us. That this article was published as “science” was, in my mind, disgraceful, as it proves only that what she says she teaches, she teaches. There is absolutely no consideration by the peer reviewers as to the market validity of the sounds the singers in the study made nor the use of those sounds in the marketplace, nor of the usefulness of the premises she has “researched” to others who do not study with her. The study was clearly meant to serve as a marketing tool for her own work. If that’s science, then science is in trouble.

In a wrong-headed attempt to be “fair” sometimes people refuse to commit to something they know to be true because they don’t want to compromise their (seemingly) unbiased stance. If, however, you are an expert and you know what’s good and what’s bad, and you refuse to endorse what’s good  in public, in order to (supposedly) protect your own reputation, you are a fraud. You have no courage or integrity and you do not add to the well-being of the people who seek knowledge in order to protect themselves from harm. If you stay silent, knowing full well that one person, approach or direction is a better one, then by that silence you tacitly endorse all who are less well-qualified. You empower the weaker choice. If you know and do not say you know, you are part of the problem.

In the 1980s, the saying here in NYC was “silence = death” — a slogan created by Act Up during the AIDS epidemic to remind citizens to protest until scientists took AIDS very seriously. They did, and finally, after much protesting, science took notice and did something. That’s why now a diagnosis of HIV/AIDS is not an automatic death sentence.

If you are an expert in voice, if you know what is helpful and what is not, or even what is potentially harmful and you do not say anything either in person or in writing, you are complicit in keeping innocent people in a position where they can be victimized by those with the slickest marketing and the weakest real skills. That’s not ethical.

Sometimes people who profess to be experts aren’t. They really cannot tell the difference between one way and another or they can tell but they do not trust their own perceptions. That’s sad. If you know someone is advocating doing something in the throat that is unnecessary, like retracting the false folds (which I find a stunningly useless concept), and you think that’s not much different than working to make a more accurate sound while leaving the throat to its own devices, then you are not actually an expert. If all you can say is “I  don’t know much about voice but I know what I like,” then please do not call yourself an expert at all.

The professions of teaching singing, and that of speech science or voice medicine cannot and will not be raised to a higher general level if those who are in a position as experts to stand for something of real quality refuse to do so. If you refuse to endorse a method you know to be good, one that you have thoroughly investigated, in order to appear “unbiased,” and if seeming to be “objective” is more important than the needs and goals of your patients, clients and students, ask yourself why that should be so. Take a stand. Speak up. Share your knowledge. Have some courage! Question everything until you have an answer you can stand behind. Then, share that answer boldly and without apology. Anything less is beneath us all.

 

 

Why do so many people teach manipulation as a way to learn to control the voice? How is it that people do not even know that they are pushing and forcing when they sing and in many cases are being taught to do that as part of learning vocal skills? Why are we living in a time when loud for loud’s sake is the most common way people sing followed by incredibly soft, noisy or breathy singing? These modes don’t communicate anything. How is it that all vocalists are encouraged to sound alike instead of finding a unique way to sing?

Why do composers get away with writing for singers without a gram of knowledge of what a human voice does and does not do? Why do they get accolades and commissions when they really have no interest in writing to allow the voices of individual singers to be at their best?

So much of our present moment music is influenced by rock and pop, including rap and other percussive styles. Listening to a 1950s musical is jarring in that it lets one remember what it was like when singing was beautiful and was deeply connected to the human condition. That kind of singing is almost totally gone.

Sentimentality is considered by most educated musicians and artists as something to be avoided. That’s too bad, as “sentiment” is another word for feelings of tenderness, sadness, or nostalgia. It is related to sentience which connotes, in modern Western philosophy, the ability to experience sensations. In Eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that requires respect and care. I think vocal music could use a little bit more simple human “sentiment” through a willingness to experience sentimentality, and a little less electronic distortion, exaggeration and harshness.

I have recently been shopping, hearing music in the background. Repetitive, simplistic, numbing, machine-like with a heavy thumping base. Working in an environment like that, particularly if the music is loud, is harmful to your psychological and mental well-being.

I am no prude. I am not against any music or musical form, but mindless, dull music, written to lull people into a state of catatonic stupor is not a good thing and someone (many someones) need to discuss that. Music has emotional implications and carries the power to effect people at a deeper-than-conscious level. Regardless of the style, music written without regard to emotions or to the throat and voice of the singer is of limited value. It could even be harmful.

Manipulation is a cheap trick. It produces instant results and long-term problems. It is a way for teachers to look good in the moment without being held accountable in the future. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean that you should do it. In fact, discernment is absolutely necessary and you can’t get that in a hot-minute or even a luke warm week!

Question everything. Why not? Questions are a way to probe and test, to dig deeper and seek answers. Do not accept anyone’s word for something until you have looked into what they do, how they do it and why. It’s your voice, your body and your artistry. Don’t sell them out to make a Faustian bargain!

If you want to squeeze your throat to get instant “results” or if you want to sit on your larynx to “always keep it low”, ask yourself why you would want to do that. If you want to make your voice do something it really doesn’t want to do and if you make awkward movements and ugly sounds in order to force it past it’s comfort zone, ask yourself why you would want to do that. If you think you are limited and you need to do extreme stuff to go past those limitations, ask yourself why. WHY?

 

 

My dear friend and colleague, Eve Zanni, coined this phrase, “mugging the mentors.” When I heard it, I laughed out loud. There are so many people in this world who think they are entitled to anything they want. We used to call that being spoiled.

Yes, some people are grateful and very willing to say so. They humbly acknowledge the person who offered guidance and support. That’s a great exchange.

In my diverse and varied career, I must say that I have helped a long list of people who wanted to be teachers of singing who were just starting out. Sometimes they were looking for a letter of recommendation (or several over a period of years), or help with a book, website content, a thesis, an article, a dissertation or research. I have been interviewed countless times for various people’s needs in their own career building. I have passed on information about job opportunities and had people be successfully hired all over the country and the world, based in some part upon my connections.

And, of course, I have provided instruction in teaching using what I have gathered over the decades to help young teachers or those new to teaching to shorten the path to credibility and success. Much of the information I gathered through personal search and experimentation is not available elsewhere and cannot be purchased in any course other than mine. And, whatever I have done as a mentor, no matter how lengthy or large the project, it is or was always for free.

I have encouraged teachers to read, explore and investigate many sources as that is necessary. If they come to me for assistance or a favor, they do so entirely on their own. It is always their choice.

Sometimes, at the beginning, there was a sense of appreciation, but as time passes often my help is taken for granted. I “should” continue to help them, even years later. They feel completely comfortable taking up my time and providing nothing in return, or worse, deciding that they should stomp on me once they make a name for themselves. They are entitled to it, in their own minds. Now that they are  “big deals” on their own, there isn’t much use for me. They wouldn’t bother to ask me for help in the present moment since they are “far above that” now. And gratitude? Fuhgeddaboudit!

I have helped others do research, present research, publish papers and articles. I have helped them with doctoral dissertations, with writing books and book chapters, and with their own understanding of what they are doing both as pedagogues and authors. I have held hands and been supportive in tricky situations. I have provided career advice and made important introductions to others who were prominent in the various voice disciplines. And, yes, a good deal of this was assimilated and then used with satisfaction by the people on the receiving end. Am I thanked or even acknowledged at all for my contributions once I am no longer needed? Do they treat their other mentors this way? How could they not?

Did I get a copy of the dissertation, the article or the book? Did anyone send me flowers or a big box of fruit? Did I even get a card? Did I get a public acknowledgement of the assistance I provided? Most of the time, no. Are these people better off for what they received from me? Most of the time, yes. Do they thank the others who have done something similar? Probably not.

If you study with me, take my courses, use what you have learned and don’t even mention me or my work in your credentials on your way to being “important”, shame on you! That is a form of stealing. (This applies to all work or help from other experts who are mentors, not just me, and whose experience or generosity may have helped you.)

When you decide you are better than your teacher but you are just half her age, or when you think you can go out into the world as if what you know was deposited in your brain by angels in your sleep, or if you assume you can bury the fact that you asked for assistance and got some, shame on you. If you don’t proudly proclaim the names of those who mentored you, who let you stand on their shoulders, who were there for you when you needed a guide, who gave you the most precious thing we all have — their time — shame on you. You might have ended up with a piece of paper (or several) that put letters after your name, you might have a book or a book chapter or research or be asked to do master classes or workshops, but who got you started? Where would you be had you not met that person or those people?

Some day, maybe, you might be asked to help someone yourself. If they do to you what you did to your own mentors, if they literally mug you, you will be receiving what you dished out. Perhaps your mentees will walk away from you with no gratitude and no acknowledgement for your help. Or perhaps they will steal your work and claim it as their own (the biggest insult). You will see that what goes around comes around and when it does, you should not complain. Perhaps then, you will take some responsibility for your past actions and also have some regrets for your shoddy behavior. Then again, maybe not, since you were just fine with your own actions in the first place.

Remember, wherever you go, there you are. You can run, but you can’t hide. In the end, you can’t escape yourself. Everything stays with you, even if you don’t admit it to yourself, including what was disrespectful, dismissive, or hurtful to another. It will keep eating away at your soul — maybe even your body. That’s a very high price to pay. If it never bothers you, then perhaps you have no conscience, which makes you a sociopath. If you have justified your actions to make yourself feel better, for your own sake, take a deeper look inside!

Many of my professional colleagues who, like me, have been around the block a few times have shared similar experiences. “Mugging the Mentor” didn’t arise in a vacuum. Nevertheless, in spite of being treated badly, we are still always willing to help someone else.

I will do anything reasonable to see someone else move forward, do better, succeed, be happy. I will always tell the truth, be honest, open and caring and observe professional standards. I will state clearly that which I know to be true and behave in as ethical manner as possible. Someone else’s success, if it is based on honest hard work, can only benefit everyone, including me.

I did not use anyone else to be where I am. On the contrary, I have acknowledged every one of the many people who have helped me along the way. I do that with humble gratitude and admiration. If, indeed, it is a “dog eat dog” world, I, for one, am not interested in contributing to that mentality for even 10 seconds.

If the only prayer you ever offer is “thank you,” that would be enough.

We are living in a time when humility is very hard to find. Who wants to be humble when you can be grandiose, arrogant, and self-satisfied? “I’m the greatest,” Ali used to say. He ended up with many people thinking so.

Not too many people think about virtues and vices these days. That’s too bad, as it would be useful for those ideas to get a bit more traction, particularly in the various media. The dictionary says that virtue is “behavior showing high moral standards” and that vice is “immoral or wicked behavior”. Hm. Does anyone understand that? Sometimes it seems like no one does.

What you can get away with. Perception. Surface. Appearance. Spin. Humility isn’t good for publicity purposes, you know? If you want to impress people, put a bit of spin (exaggeration) on whatever it is.

I know a woman who was invited to share a chapter in a book with two of her colleagues. When the book was published she posted on her Facebook page that she was the chapter’s author complete with a photo of the headline of her section of the chapter, with no mention of the other two authors (one of whom had invited her to write in the first place). Audacious? Indeed. It doesn’t stop her from going to church every Sunday.  The “spin” on her being “the author”? Of no consequence (at least to her). Only someone who is incredibly insecure needs to do something like that. It’s just sad.

Humility isn’t concerned with looking good or covering your own behind. It isn’t interested in proving that you are the best ever. In fact, those who have to prove that through some outward demonstration are typically the ones who are at the bottom of the heap. They have little self-esteem.

The most successful artists are often the most self-effacing. Those that brag, boast and flaunt their own wares are pompous fools. There are always people, however, who are impressed with these same fools and who believe that the braggarts are what they claim to be. They take the external appearance to be the whole package. Sadly, millions of people in this country have been taken to the laundry by the person in the Oval office. Time will tell. If there were awards for bragging, he would win hands down.

I have never understood how people can be so easily fooled except to comprehend that they might do some version of the same thing in their own lives. I have never been drawn to anyone who was deeply invested in bragging. It has always been a clear and obvious ploy of someone who was, underneath, frightened, insecure and pitiful.

Perhaps you were not raised with any specific moral point of view. Perhaps you were not ever in an environment where virtues and vices were discussed or evaluated. Maybe no one told you that virtue is a good thing and vices are bad. In fact, maybe you were taught the exact opposite. You might want to evaluate the whole topic, as it could be illuminating to do so.

Singing teachers who are skilled and experienced do not need to claim, “My studio is the best one!!” “I have the only way to learn to sing!” “My approach is new and different and better than all the others!” “I am the best teacher and the only one who really understands the voice.” If ever you encounter such a person on the road, run away. RUN and don’t look back.

In singing, too much independence can be dangerous.

In Europe and in South America (and  in Asia, from what I have read although I haven’t been there) older people are held in greater esteem than they are here in the USA. That’s not really news.

What’s unfortunate, however, is that a newbie with a fancy piece of paper automatically becomes an “expert” equal to those with more experience than the young person has years on earth. Something wrong with that.

Singing is an applied skill. That means you cannot learn to sing by reading a book about it, even the best book. You can’t learn to sing well by reading all the books about singing (and there are many) no matter who wrote them. You can’t learn by attending concerts or listening to recordings (although that can sometimes help) or buying a course online (especially not by that!)  All that you can ever do is sing and try to improve your singing. Some people have no interest in or desire to do that. They sing however they do and as long as they can get by, that’s that.

Others, however, want to do certain things with their voices that they do not have the talent to do with their own resources. Such people often seek out help in some form, typically from a teacher. Finding the right person to assist you can be tricky, but it is possible. If you go looking for the people with multiple degrees, remember,  getting a degree from a school is but a small thing compared to life experience. No matter how many pedagogy courses a teacher  might have had at college or in the conservatory, they do not substitute for life experience as either a teacher or a vocalist. Further, if a teacher has experience singing in one style and the student wants to sing in a different style, the teacher could easily be lost or offer poor advice. And, if the teacher, even if he or she sings well, goes entirely by her own subjective experience of what happens when she sings and tries to convey this to the student, it wouldn’t be a surprise if the student doesn’t understand the teacher at all. Why would they?

An expert is not just someone who went to school and got a master’s and then a doctorate. A master, in singing, is someone who can sing in a variety of styles, throughout a wide range of pitches and who is healthy in whatever sounds he makes. A master is someone who can address any student, in any style, from any point of view, and be effective. A master is someone who understands where the vocalist is and where he or she wants to go and knows the most direct path to get there. A master is always also learning. A master never arrives, she is always traveling the path.

I find a great deal of disrespect towards older teachers with decades of life experience on these social media sites. Many of the teachers there think they know everything. Some of them hold advanced degrees and assume that makes them smarter than others. That would be a wrong assumption. As Americans we seem to be compelled to show the world that we are INDEPENDENT! We must think on our own and knock down the “senior citizens” of teaching in order for them to get out-of-the-way so the “new and cool” can take over.  In some places that’s good. Society needs to make room for younger people and new ideas but in singing, the wisdom of the body isn’t going to change much from generation to generation. What changes is the demands made upon the voice and the type of music written that creates those demands.

Sometimes, as in the case of an applied skill like singing, older and wiser makes sense. In fact, it makes the most sense.

The key is always, how does any expert who teaches sound when they sing, what kinds of music do they sing, and how do they communicate to others about what that process should be? The ability to understand science (as I keep saying) does not mean you can either sing or teach, it might mean that you can explain, but maybe not. Pedagogy is only useful if you have lived long enough to establish that you know that you know.

Some of the discussion that takes place on the social media websites devoted to various topics of singing and the teaching thereof is astounding in its profound ignorance. Many of these individuals have read nothing, understand little or have sparse life experience, yet they will put forth their point of view alongside that of others (sometimes of their own mentors) with impunity. Those who “know the right way” are the worst offenders. There is no such thing.

In the really old days, there were apprentices and they stayed with the Master Teacher for years before they were ready to go out on their own. Today we have a NATS Master Teacher Intern Program that lasts only 9 days. It is an excellent program, but it’s just 9 days. And, yes, I have been a Master Teacher in that program twice.

Before you decide to teach singing, remember that you need to think seriously about going out on your own as an “expert” teacher. You are taking someone’s throat in your hands and in so doing you are also taking their mind and their heart. Learn to be humble, grateful to your own teachers and be willing to listen to those who are “wise with age”. Most of all, respect those that have come before you and who generously offer their life experience to guide you. It isn’t something you can get in a college program.

 

I have been, since 1978, a strong advocate for voice science research. It’s application to vocal pedagogy has been a very strong ingredient in helping us all understand how the voice works and what the mechanism does when it is functioning optimally. My own work rests on knowledge of voice science, vocal health and medicine and vocal use in healthy singing.

Sadly, voice science has utterly failed to make sure that voice science concepts are applied in a viable manner to actual singing and training for singing. This is profoundly disturbing, especially since there is no resolution to this issue.

I am aware,  keenly aware, that there are people who teach singing who went into a lab and “researched” themselves, wrote the research up, had it published, and went on to use it as a tool to market their brand. Think about that. Read that sentence again. One would hope that these teachers sang well, that they had long life experience singing a certain way in the music marketplace. One would hope that the premises of the person originating the method had been examined by those who were NOT part of his or her own studio. These would all be false assumptions.

At no time did anyone who vetted this research examine whether or not the person who did the self-research was a good vocalist in any style, and none of what was studied by anyone was compared to accepted vocal pedagogy by singing experts. Please tell me what good it does if crazy people have the money and time to go into a voice lab, stick a scope into their own throats and make terrible sounds, call them singing, and write about it afterwards. Explain to me how it is that these same people should then go into the world and say, “My method is proven by scientific research.” How is this different from the soda companies hiring researchers to “prove” that sugar isn’t so bad for you after all. There are many examples of “scientists for hire” who have been paid to prove that a certain thing was true, even if it wasn’t. Singing methods have not been immune to this kind of pseudo science. It has been around for decades and continues to the present moment.

I recently saw a very long pitch on PBS that touted a way of getting the brain to improve its function. Research was cited to back up this claim (selling books, CDs, courses, etc.). My husband, a research chemist for 41 years, immediately looked online to read the research only to discover that mainstream science has not in any way determined that there is validity to this one doctor’s crusade for his own studies. There are, as yet, no accepted ways to avoid any kind of brain dysfunction, as he claimed, but there it was on PBS!  PBS did not vet this man’s work in any way. Let the buyer beware!

There are at least two very successful methods of singing teaching used internationally that are based on very faulty concepts. They are faulty because they violate the body’s hard-wired need to inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide freely and easily. Squeezing, holding, pushing, pulling, retracting, constricting and all other manner of direct manipulation of the inside of the throat while making sound violates the freedom of the larynx as a joint and will never, ever be useful in any kind of vocal production even though  people can make these gestures and still manage to squawk out a sound anyway.

It is wrong, yes, wrong, for voice science to continue its deliberate refusal to hold responsible those who do “research” with a personal ax to grind. That’s NOT research. Further, the profession of teaching singing is a contributor to this lack of responsibility because it has steadfastly and with vehemence been unwilling to license singing teachers or even provide a modicum of guidance about acceptable professional parameters for teachers.

I ask again and again what good is research if it gives credence to people whose singing is horrid, whose idea of being a singer is severely skewed and who have no clue about whether what they do works with or against the body over time? If all you scrutinize is statistics (and that is all that is scrutinized) how can this contribute to vocal well-being? It cannot!! This is how you end up with books that say you can teach someone to belt by looking for a certain formula of formants to harmonics. Nonsense!

In the end, no one cares. If you purchase a course that tells you the best way to sing is to constrict your aryepiglottic sphincter or retract your false folds or curb your larynx or add edge to your vocal folds, and you think this is just fine, they you are a victim of PT Barnum’s phrase: “There’s a sucker born every minute.” It’s your tough luck that you end up sounding like someone is crushing your  foot while you sing. If you end up with nodules, oh well.

Singing, after all, is no big deal. Any kind of singing is OK as long as you become a star and make a lot of money. All the methods, particularly for CCM styles, are the same, right? The best ones are the ones that use voice research as a selling tool. What kind of science? Who cares?

If you happen to be that unusual person who doesn’t want to go along with all this hooey, and you are also someone who might like to think about something a bit deeper when it comes to singing, if you are interested in singing training and performance that is more authentic and grounded in the real world of making voiced sound, you might want to investigate what else is available in the field of vocal pedagogy.

 

I attended a performance a few nights ago. It was in a small theater, probably an old Vaudeville theater that had been revamped. The show was “Hair” and it was decently done, although it seemed a bit chaotic. The biggest problem was the volume. Although the band was in a space high above the stage in the back, and the performers were miked, I suspected the actors couldn’t hear themselves as they spent the entire evening shouting. It got worse and worse and in Act Two, it was all I could do not to hold my ears.

This problem made it nearly impossible to understand lyrics, it also killed some of the artistic finesse in a few of the songs that help give the show some ups and downs. Just because it was a 60s rock musical doesn’t mean that all the music should be screamed.

It was a first performance. Who knows, maybe it will get better? There are only a few performances scheduled.

I come to events as a singer and singing teacher. My head, my mind if you will, wants to hear singers sing. I do not object outright to actors whose singing isn’t terrific but I do object to pitch issues, unintelligibility, and consistently ugly sounds that do not have to be ugly to convey something unless what is being conveyed is meant to be — ugly. Sometimes it’s as if the people who deal with the music are “voice deaf”. They do not know what a well-trained voice sounds like or how it works, and, what’s worse, they don’t care to learn…….after all they are already in charge without knowing. I’m speaking here, folks, of well-trained pop-rock vocalists, not opera singers or legit music theater voices. There is such a thing as singing any kind of music well. It not only cuts down on the possibility that the vocal folds will be injured or fatigued it actually facilitates the clarity of the text and the impetus of the music to move the drama forward.

The people in the show were, for the most part, professionals. The presentation certainly was meant to be done as professionally as possible. Why, then, pay zero attention to the singing? You can assume that the people in charge didn’t think it was worth paying attention to.

We have lost the idea that singing has parameters having to do with real life. Screaming, in life, is a sign of alarm. If the music isn’t meant to be alarming, why scream? Happiness, joy, exuberance or surprise can be loud, but that loud should sound different than anger, fear, or sadness. These days, you can’t tell anything in a sound because so much of everything is loud for loud’s sake.

What’s worse, quite a few young people do not know what they are missing. They don’t know what the experience of hearing someone sing well  in a live performance without screaming, particularly one that is acoustic, is. How can they fix things they do not know are wrong or could be better? They can’t and they don’t and they won’t unless somewhere along the way they wake-up.

Education derives from the word “educare” which means ‘lead out’. It is related to educe that means  to bring out (as something latent). If you are not educated by someone who leads you out of the darkness and into the light (in this case of singing) you can be in the darkness and not know you are there. That is a tragedy.

When I taught last April in Chicago, a group of four classical singing teachers attended and on the second day they informed me that the course was “beneath them”. They understood everything in the course already, they told me, and that it should be only for beginners. This was based on the idea that they had heard about “chest and head” for years and what was the big deal with that, anyway?

I’ve run into this before. A quick glance, a decision based on a surface evaluation, and then, a dismissal. I’ve had people come in for one or two lessons and then say, “well, I’ve figured out what this woman has to offer, ” and then walk away. I know a Professor at a very famous music conservatory who sat in my studio for an entire day, furiously writing down every exercise I did. I have had some of her former students since then. She got the exercises all wrong, but that happens frequently. This woman, like many others, never bothered to clarify if she had understood what I was doing and why, or when to apply one exercise versus another. She never had the interest to take a lesson herself or wonder why any of the exercises were necessary in the first place. She got her “few points” and ran away. Of course, she had a Doctoral Degree in classical literature and was teaching students in music theater to belt. Right.

I find this fascinating. Since I have many elite professional singers who have studied with me for 10, 15, 20 or even 30 years, how is it that they haven’t decided that they don’t need any further training? Wouldn’t they, by now, have gotten past the basics? Wouldn’t they have understood what it is I teach?

Registration (the various vocal registers) result due to changes in the behavior of the vocal folds. Balanced registration is the basis for “appropriate” sound in both classical and CCM styles and it makes correct resonance not only possible, it allows it to show up almost without effort. Register balance not only allows the larynx to rest in a comfortable, steady but flexible adjustment, it allows the vowel sounds to be undistorted and the management of the breath and body to be a natural expression. If you think that “chest register” (or whichever of the many other terms to describe this same thing you like best), is just about low notes, or loud sounds in your lowest range, you absolutely do not understand its function. Register balance allows you to expose technical problems and their location in the throat and body. How? How indeed! Maybe it might take a bit more probing to understand that a surface glance isn’t nearly enough.

In fact, misunderstanding registration is the single biggest blind spot classical singers have.  Because of that, they struggle to get the “placement” right, and to get the “breath support” right, without bothering to get the source of the sound situated in such a way as to make both possible in equal measure with little muscular struggle.

Somatic Voicework™ is simple but it is not simplistic. It is accessible but it is not a quick fix. It is based on the body’s function (it needs to breathe in and out as easily as possible) and the throat’s responses to stress, (the fight/flight mechanism) but it is not a series of manipulations you need to do while singing. It’s only “beneath” the people for whom singing is, itself, a surface activity, and who regard singing as something you have to manufacture, not something that arises out of your heart. It is only “too simple” for those who are, themselves, unable to plumb the depths of human expression in the human voice. Those singers don’t get what I do because, in fact, it is over their heads. Or maybe I should say, under their feet, as in “beneath their ability to perceive.”

I once heard a singing teacher say that Leontyne Price, one of the greatest classical sopranos of all time, couldn’t sing. I heard another one say that Dietrich Fischer-Diskau was boring. I have heard others say that Puccini is a hack composer. These are people who consider themselves experts, although I wonder how they decided they deserved to give themselves that designation. My opinion of them is probably best if I don’t mention it here.

No matter who is teaching you, or what they are teaching, if you cannot look below the surface to the long-term value of what is being offered, you are a poor student. No one can decide after a day or two that they have figured out a person, a methodology or an approach to anything. You can’t really even do that after 5 months or two years. The process deepens only if you allow it to.

Be careful what you say. Sometimes it backfires and just makes you look like someone who is clueless.