Some systems of teaching singing are based upon holding onto the muscles in the throat deliberately while singing. This makes people feel in control and gives them a sense that they can “make” their throats do what they want. Why anyone would want to sing this way is a mystery to me, but I think that people who don’t have natural talent or coordination who decide to force themselves to sing, regardless, can end up sort of singing decently enough to fool a few people. If they happen to end up in a position where they are asked to teach, they will teach from the mess they have in their own throats and think that what they do is what others should also do. Some of them have even developed “methods” of training. : /

Amazingly, I have heard some pretty famous people in voice pedagogy and voice science sing in public and let me tell you, some of the singing was scarily bad. People who had tons of information and education stood up in front of their peers and sang with squeezed, pressed, swallowed, overblown, unwieldy, just plain ugly sounds and seemed to have no notion that this was the case. Seems to me, if you are sane at all, that doing that would only be possible if you were (a) in denial about how bad things were or (b) had nothing to go by other than this kind of singing as being your only experience.

I was blessed to be born to two people who sang nicely and sang at home and had an aunt who was a professional singer in New Orleans on Bourbon Street in one of the big supper clubs back when there were supper clubs. I had a nice voice as a child and could easily match pitch and sing sweetly by the time I was 7. This blessed memory guided me back to sanity when, as a result of some really rotten training, I nearly lost my voice and my ability to sing. When it got so hard to make a sound that I was literally choking and had a vibrato about two feet wide, I had that memory of making effortless sweet sounds back there to prod me into reality. People who have no such memory, however, would think that effort and struggle were part of singing and that making whatever kind of sounds they made was just part of the process of “training the voice to be professional” or something like that.

Last year I watched someone who is teaching at a university sing for a classical master class. The master teacher was a very beloved artist, one of the greats of her day, who sang internationally for several decades and who has only retired from performing very recently. The vocalist in this master class sang so badly that it was embarrassing to think that she had been chosen as a candidate for the master teacher at all, but there she was. The teacher graciously treated her like nothing was amiss, going past her vocal production to talk about the music and the character’s behavior. Still, I couldn’t help but think of the vocalist teaching young students, believing that doing what she was doing in her own singing was what should be taught to others.

I really don’t know. Maybe some people just don’t hear or feel the difference. Maybe they think they sound like a great opera star or a pop diva. Who can know? I wonder how it is that no one of the teachers who work with such students tells them – you know, something is wrong here with the way your throat is working. Do they all think that “this is just the way her voice is”……not very pretty, not very warm, not very steady…….etc.? Do they not know that all voices can be balanced through functional training and when they do, they sound just fine. I guess not. What else could be an explanation.

If you are holding onto your throat in the idea that this is what you should do in order to sound “professional” or “classical” or “operatic” or “in control”, PLEASE let go of that idea. Please know that you can let go of holding on and when you do, I promise you that you will not only sound much better, and feel much better, but you will be able to express your own truth and that is what heals us all. Let go of holding on!

 

It is necessary to have a system of teaching that is both clear and fluid. (Chiarofluido?)

Rigid systems or methods have a set way of teaching and individuals are not allowed to vary from the set principles in any way. There is “one right way” and that way is the “best”. Things have to fall in line with the system or they are “wrong.”

The other way is that everything is chaotic. Each moment, things are made up, randomly, without any regard to what was previously done or what will follow. There is no order, no form and no consistency, in the name of “freedom” and “spontaneity”. Setting things into a framework would be discouraged or even frowned upon.

Such systems do not work. Sooner or later they break down or the people adhering to them end up locked in a box or just plain lost.

Sadly, there are plenty of people teaching singing who think one of these approaches is best.

Not everyone is there, thankfully, and that has always been so. Most people pick and choose what works for a student but with some sense of order or a goal of some kind in the back of their mind. This is the safest way to work, and the most practical, since we are all so different.

It is, however, a very slow way to work, as it takes a very long time to recognize patterns, tendencies and issues that come up over and over in a variety of singers who fall into several general categories. Addressing these things repetitively, over a length of time, one begins to recognize that there are certain kinds of behaviors that are typical of (a) untrained singers, (b) singers who “over do” and (c) singers who don’t “do much”, as well as those who have a history of pathology and those who have other issues like poor intonation, lack of coordination and musical illiteracy. Usually, a teacher is doing his or her best, but it takes a long time to recognize your own foibles, too, and the kinds of things you don’t notice, forget, or are just not very good at yourself (which we all unconsciously avoid).

A good system has flexible boundaries but clear guidelines. It has a structure but that structure is adjustable. It prevents the teacher from getting lost and the student from floundering. It allows the teacher to communicate well with others about their students but doesn’t make for all teachers being the same in a “cookie cutter” way. It sets up patterns and explains tendencies and gives remedies for attending to them but not without a degree of creativity to find new solutions to old problems all the time.

If you don’t want to waste years figuring things out on your own, alone, go study a system of teaching singing. Doesn’t have to be mine, as there are plenty out there, but measure the criteria on what I have suggested above.

 

If you were being stared at, scrutinized, and told to do things you either had never done or were new to doing, would you feel really safe? Would you wonder if maybe, you might be “doing it wrong” or “not be good enough”? Would you think that maybe the person looking at you and listening to you was deciding how awful you sounded or how dumb you were? Would that make you feel secure and happy? If you ignored the person listening, who was supposed to be smarter and wiser than you, how intelligent would that be on your part, particularly if the person who was doing the evaluation was also going to be paid a lot of your money? Would paying no attention to the listener/watcher be a good idea, even if it made you feel less nervous? Wouldn’t that put you between a rock and a hard place?

What if, after a while, the teacher began to tell you that you were “closing up your throat” because you were afraid? What if you noticed that, indeed, your throat seemed to close up when you tried to sing high notes or loud sounds? What if you thought that this was because you were unable to “let go” and “just sing”? Would this make you less nervous? Would it make you feel like you understood how to make the “correct” sounds? What if, also, the teacher was telling you that you didn’t quite “get” what s/he was teaching and that, if you could just stop being self-conscious and nervous, things would get better and you would somehow “be free” to sing. Would you know that the throat closes when it is out of balance and that it is the TEACHER’S job to fix that imbalance? Would you know that you can find a physical balance in your instrument so the throat remains open while you discover what that feels like without struggling at all?

What if you tried to tell the teacher that “something felt wrong” only to be told that this was not true. What if you tried to formulate a decent question based on how you were experiencing the singing only to be told that you were being “fussy”, “a worry-wart” or that your concerns would just go away if you kept practicing or learning songs, except that they didn’t go away at all. What if you were asked to sing music you didn’t like or found incredibly difficult only to be told not to worry about that and do it anyway? Would any of this make you feel happy and free about singing? What if you were in a class with others who did not seem to have those problems? Would you relax more, thinking about getting up to perform in front of others who were not having those issues?

Maybe you would convince yourself that you were OK. Maybe you would find your courage to go on anyway. Maybe you would see the light at the end of the long tunnel and keep on keeping on and maybe, just maybe, in time, you would find a way to sing that was decent enough to get you out into the world and get you some work. But if you did not, would you go on anyway? What would your confidence be based upon? What would hold up your desire to be yourself, making music, staying healthy?

Where in the process would the teacher be asking him/herself if the problems in the lesson had anything to do with how the teaching was taking place? [You have to have a very secure teacher to query herself about why things aren’t working.]

What about being told “you are……..” followed by some critical evaluation like “holding onto your jaw” or “making a fake vibrato” or “pushing on your throat” when you don’t have any such deliberate desire or notions. Those two words, “YOU ARE”, are deadly, because we need to be told what we don’t know, but we don’t need someone else to tell us how to experience our own subjective reality.

The process of learning to sing is delicate for many people and folks with big, loud, bombastic voices and bodies don’t always understand that. The process of learning a new skill can be much more confusing than simple for some singers , and there is nothing wrong with those who have to strive to sing well.

If you are feeling discouraged about your singing, take heart. Almost every singer I’ve ever known has had times when the process of being a singer was both difficult and frustrating, but the people who push through such troubles are the ones you want to hear. They understand the value of what they have because they have fought to have it.

Don’t let anyone tell you that you are “hung up” in some way when you are unhappy. Dig a little deeper and make your teacher do the same.

 

 

It seems that the world has not been stopped by the publication of my article in Karen Hall’s NATS Journal of Singing “Independent Studio” column wherein I stated that “there is no such thing as classical training”. I expected backlash (which is perhaps yet to come) because I haven’t yet been so bold, although I have had the idea for decades.

In a profession that has no national standards, and certainly no local standards, about what teachers of singing are supposed to know, to teach or to do in terms of conduct, it is amazing that we had any kind of “professionalism” at all. The  choices open to a student when I was young in the 60s were: go to a classical conservatory or university to study this repertoire, go to drama school, or go get a degree in Speech Language Pathology. It was also possible, of course, not to get a degree at all, or to get a specialized degree. I don’t think there were any jazz vocal programs back then either. I did not finish the program I started at Manhattan School of Music because it was an awful fit. My teacher there, Uta Graf, a Wagnerian soprano, had no use for me or my voice.

Eventually, some colleges began to offer music theater training, which was and still is a “mixed bag” (a phrase also from the 60s), in that the course materials can run the gamut and there is no “normal” in terms of how the curriculum is structured. It falls to the individuals involved either as teachers or as department chairs. The students take what they have to take and that’s that. There may or may not be “vocal technique” training, and it may or may not be with someone who has music theater experience, and it may or may not be with someone who has tried to learn what he or she did not, from their own life experience, actually encounter. There are so many other factors, but, sadly, there is little agreement about them.

If you presume that a good classical singer can generate a lot of volume and a certain specific acoustic spectrum (“resonance”) and you assume the tone sounds “beautiful” and that there is a steady, but not too obvious, vibrato, and that the consonants are minimally there, and that there is at least two octaves of usable range, then the methods that were used to acquire those skills can be assumed to have worked. What you cannot presume, of course, is that the person who has worked to attain these skills is also expressive, creative, and can understand what is necessary in order to convey the song to the audience. And all of this is separate from having a career as a singer which entails being plucky, facing failure, maintaining body and soul, and having enough money to do whatever is needed without killing yourself (or anyone else!!) getting it.

If the profession is finally willing to separate the training process out from “being an artist” and “learning art songs” to “promote” growth of both the voice and the person, and look at technical training for what it is: a physical coordination over the throat and body such that the singer has easy control over the sound while allowing it to do the job at hand of singing whatever music is being performed, then halleluia! Perhaps we are turning a corner in this respect. Think of what it could mean to students to have teachers who not only understood the mechanism, but also understood how to train it to do whatever job it is required to do in specific styles or songs.

One of the reasons there is so much contentiousness in the teaching of singing is because a lot of people who teach do not know what they are doing and they don’t want to be “found out”, else they lose their livelihoods. Another reason is that there are quite a few people who live in a world called “singing is a mystery” and each person, each lesson is unique, i.e., there is no order to the process in any aspect. Another is that teachers learn one way, and that way becomes a religion and if they find any other point of view, it becomes “blasphemy” and needs to be fought against, lest things get corrupted. Another reason is that teaching singing is regarded as teaching songs, and only songs, and people make the sounds they do and that can’t be changed.

All of these things are very unfortunate. They are out there. They are not going away quickly, no matter what happens. They are, however, GOING AWAY. I consider that a kind of progress. Believe me, I take what I can get when it comes to singing teaching. ‘

If you can help things change, I thank you for that. Keep on keeping on!

Each style has its own group consensus about what it perceives itself to be. It has its own lingo, its own professionalism, its own protocol. The people who inhabit the world of a particular style develop a perspective about it and about how it relates to the outside musical world and the world at large that only they know. You can’t really comprehend  these mini-worlds if you do not inhabit them.

If you have been in opera, in jazz, in music theater, in rock, in alternative classical, or in folk music (to pick a few examples), you know what people admire and how they are regarded within your own arena and what that has to do with certain ineffable ingredients. True, there are unique, individual aspects to each performer within any given style, but if someone crosses out of their home base style and brings with them the wrong ingredients, they are not well received in the new club. They are not seen as “innovators” but as “imposters” or as “interlopers” who cannot be taken seriously, even if they are famous. Sometimes, they break through to a popular audience (as was the case with Andrea Bocelli, who was rejected by the classical world, mostly, but widely accepted by the public), or Rod Stewart, who made a good crossover into Standards, selling decently enough to put out a second CD even though the jazz world wasn’t so impressed. Ditto with Ms. Fleming’s various efforts at music theater, jazz and rock…….     : <

The only way to understand the importance of these “group mindsets” is to encounter them. If you are going to teach someone, you need to know what they are thinking about and what they want to accomplish with their singing. A jazz vocalist mostly thinks like an instrumentalist, because the training is largely instrumental and musicianship oriented. A music theater singer thinks in terms of emotional truth through a character in a role. A folk artist thinks about telling a story, sticking to a set form of chords and harmony and having good intonation. A classical artist thinks of beauty of tone, resonance, and, in the USA anyway, volume. We also think about languages here because we have to master so many of them. An alternative modern classical vocalist might be thinking of the music, or movement, or a certain kind of sound, or of the rhythm, or all of those in some kind of sequence. A rock singer might not be thinking of anything vocal at all except not getting hoarse at the end of the performance, because so much of rock is physically demanding.

If you do not understand these things and you take what you know and plop it on top of your student as if it didn’t matter, you are not doing them a service. That’s why functional training works with the physical machine before it addresses repertoire and why I strongly say that you should never teach what you yourself can’t sing.

There’s nothing worse than a classical singer turning a rock song into an opera aria because that’s all she can sing and she “likes the song”. Happens all the time. The audience might laugh behind her back, but the vocalist, who may just be making herself look ridiculous, could have no idea.

Enter into each world as a babe, with innocent eyes and ears, and learn from the masters there. It takes time, but you can learn the conventions and then use them to sing and, at some point, to teach. The only mindset to avoid is the one that says “all singing is the same” because “all technique is the same”. FUNCTION is function and remains consistent, but singing is variable and always will be. They are separate but united.

Either you have control over your body and its functions when you sing or you don’t. If the control is fluid and the sound free, that’s all you need. Some people have that with almost no training, some work hard to get there, but either you get there or you don’t.

There are so many people who do not understand how to use their bodies well, and who are encouraged to pay attention to the sound and only the sound, or the music and only the music, or the acting by itself, or some other outside distraction. I am still surprised at the numbers of individuals who sing who can’t control very much of anything. The numbers have not decreased over the decades, even though we have learned more from voice science. I am reminded, though, that very few people read voice science peer reviewed journals and fewer still understand enough of what they are reading to make use of it. I think it would be fair to say that those who sing or teach singing who are highly motivated and interested in vocal function do not account for a large percentage of the profession over all. It’s no wonder, then, that things don’t really change very much.

In order to control your body you have to pay attention to what it does and how it does it. You have to notice what moves and how much. You have to notice how you feel during the movement and if you like it or resist it. You have to be able to feel and move the muscles in your body in a special way – differently than for normal every day life and differently from any activity other than singing. You have to be able to do very specific  things on purpose every time easily and fluidly, and then connect those same things up to the sounds you make as you make them. Every single time.

Being in touch with your body has levels and layers. You can perceive your body but if you do not actually focus your concentration deeply on what it is doing without distraction while it is doing it, the awareness you have could be at best vague or generalized, or at worst completely useless. You may not even know that you are not in touch with your body in this way if you have never encountered deep physiologic change. Perception here is not limited. You can perceive the five senses in myriad ways – but not if you are always being drawn to paying attention to external cues. There is no limit to conscious awareness, it continues to deepen and expand every moment of your life and the lamplight of your conscious choice is what illuminates that expanded state. In other words, what you pay attention to increases and why you pay attention gets clearer, more refined and more detailed. It’s not about “thinking” it’s about perception, and they are not the same.

If, when you sing, you are present in the sound, in your body, and in your emotions, and you are in control of all of them such that you can leave them alone and let them do what they do, you have achieved all that there is to achieve in your singing.

If you have not yet gotten there, don’t give up. If you have, strive to get back. If you are one of the blessed souls who can live there, share what you know with others who would find the same nirvana.

Do you think the average person knows what sophisticated singing is? Since many people thought that Obamacare was different than the Affordable Care Act, I guess not. The folks who think of boxing as a cultural experience are not probably the same ones who enjoy refined vocalism…….although, perhaps, there are a few who have very broad tastes and manage both.

Sophisticated singing – subtle, versatile, unique, detailed — is hard to find even in places where you would expect it to be. Sometimes at the opera house the singing was so awful it was hard not to laugh. Occasionally in a concert performance the singers’ voices were so stereotyped as to be outrightly boring. I’ve been to cabaret performances where the singer was very impressed with his or her own singing, but unfortunately, no one else shared that opinion. I’ve seen a few Broadway shows where the leads were embarrassingly bad but they were famous, and brought in audiences, so you were expected to tolerate that, for the sake of the good of the show overall (or for the sake of the producer’s profit margins). I have heard dreadful over-singing and seen gross over-performing, mostly by people who had no clue what professional expectations are in their particular art. I could go on.

It is much rarer to find sophisticated vocal and musical expression, but it is out there, in both very public places and in small, out-of-the way places you might not even know exist, in the city and outside in small towns.

I know that there are those with sophisticated palates who can tell you what ingredients are in a dish, and in what proportions, just by tasting it, and those who, through smell and taste alone, can name a wine’s grapes, vintner and maybe even age. There are art critics who know the subtle strokes of authenticity of a painter, or the characteristics of an antique vase. Every area of culture has its devotees and experts. There is a great pleasure in being able to recognize and appreciate refined, elegant, delicate and precise execution of anything and to understand what it takes to create such wonderful expressions of life. Those who know singing only from listening to the Top 40 radio stations and seeing things on YouTube or over the web probably don’t know what they are missing or care. I, however, am very glad when I get to see and hear a performance of great beauty, joy and skill, prepared with thought and care and executed with commitment. It’s a very satisfying feeling.

“I can’t make that sound, I will hurt my technique.”

“I can’t make that sound, I will hurt my voice.”

“I can’t make that sound, it will damage my singing.”

“If I make that sound, I will sound too different. I will lose myself.”

“If I sound like that, no one will like my singing.”

 

On and on. All of these statements rest on fear. Fear of losing control, fear of letting go, fear of change, fear of being hurt.

In order to learn something, you have to be willing to admit you do not know. In order to learn something new and different, you have to be willing to go where you have not gone. This will make you feel vulnerable and uncomfortable. If you do not go outside your own “comfort box” you will never grow. Change and growth are painful, but without them, things just stagnate. If you study something that is physical, you have to be willing to challenge yourself to do what you have not done, or do it differently.

And, with a physical skill, you have to be your own monitoring system. Something that feels very difficult could be OK because it is new and challenging or because it is wrong for you or because you are doing it wrong. The only way to know is to stay with it for a while and see how it goes. There are no rules except trial and error and common sense.

No sound, done once, will automatically “hurt” you or your voice. No sound, done correctly, will automatically be damaging. No sound, done carefully, will be harmful to you, if you pay attention to the messages your body is giving you while you do it.

The only thing you need to fear is, yes, that’s right, being afraid. If you are working with a teacher who creates a safe environment in which to explore new things, you will discover them in a way that is fascinating, creative and exciting. If you are working on your own and you go slowly and listen to the messages of your own throat and body, you are not likely to cause yourself any problems. The risks involved in exploring new sounds are well worth the possible results. The fearfulness about not doing anything new is a far greater risk – to your artistry, to your vocal capacities and to your soul.

The only way to sing is fearlessly and the only way to be fearless is to really, truly know your instrument from the inside out.

Have you studied singing only to be completely frustrated? Perhaps several times?

Have you had teachers who left you confused with funny terms and ideas?

Have you left a lesson tired, hoarse or demoralized?

Have you been blamed for failing to improve in a lesson?

Have you been told that your “breath support” and “resonance” were at fault?

Have you struggled to sound like yourself only to be told you need to sound “different”?

Have you ever avoided lessons because you did not want to sound “classical”?

Have you ever taken lessons and ended up sounding “classical” but not liking it?

Have you ever avoided lessons because you were told you had to learn classical songs before you sang the songs you wanted to sing?

Have you been told that singing styles other than classical will hurt your voice or your technique?

Have you been told that your singing teacher had “the only correct method”?

Have you been told that your singing teacher was “the best teacher”, above all others?

Have you been told that your teacher has “special skills” that other teachers do not have? Have they forced you to call them doctor or professor when they were neither of these?

Does your singing teacher sell only their own merchandize promoting his or her method above all others?

Have you been told that learning to sing can be done in a few lessons if you are talented enough?

Have you given up?

STOP

All of these things are, sadly, not unusual. They are, happily, no longer necessary.

If you have had experience with any of these things, then break free!  Many of these ideas and situations are OLD WIVES TALES and rest on INACCURATE INFORMATION and OUTDATED ATTITUDES, and reflect poor teaching.

Look  —

Are you learning what you want to learn in a lesson – to sing in a more satisfying manner?

Does your singing teacher have a relationship to a noted throat specialist? A Speech Language Pathologist who specializes in working with singers? Has he done voice research? Has he written pedagogical articles that have been published in a peer-reviewed journal?

Does your singing teacher sound good when he or she sings/demonstrates in a lesson?

Can your teacher sound good in the sound you want to use yourself?

Learn easily. Learn well. Learn thoroughly. Learn where you are respected and what you want to learn is what you do learn, without issue. Read. Educate yourself. Look into the process.

And — you can go to: www.ccminstitute.com, www.somaticvoicework.com, www.thevoiceworkshop.com

Share this blog with your friends who want to or already do sing professionally. Make the profession of teaching pay attention by paying attention yourself to the way singing is taught!

It is nearly impossible to ignore an accident. Even if you don’t want to stare, it is hard to take your eyes off something dramatic, unusual, powerful. Someone screaming on the street, a car crumpled in a heap, a powerful explosion’s leftover debris, a swirling mass of flood waters hurtling past, taking things along with it as it churns.

All of public performance, no matter what kind, is about being distinctive, memorable, different, unique. In order to be that you cannot also be nice, ordinary, OK, just fine, acceptable, typical, like the other people. You can’t.

Sweet lovely young people, older singers who have been around for a while, folks who tried to get out into the world and make it but did not, often do not understand that there is more to singing than just standing there and singing the words and the notes. Sure, you might sound OK and feel OK but why should I care unless you have the most amazing, unbelievable voice anyone has every heard and you would sound good reading the phone book.

Clarity in communication is only possible when the singer has something specific to say. You have to know what it is you are communicating or it won’t communicate. It won’t reach out to someone else in a way that is meaningful. It won’t make the person in the audience change their state of mind, their awareness, their emotions.

Emotions run communication whether we want to admit that or not. We remember emotions. Intellectual information might keep us fascinated and, perhaps if it is on a topic we much enjoy, it could keep us engaged, but, if it is just facts for facts sake, forgetting what is being discussed is very easy. We remember emotions! If someone was angry with us, or if we made someone cry, or we laughed so hard we cried, those events are more vivid and easier to recall years later, even if the trigger was something insignificant.

So, if you are singing something ask yourself WHY am I singing this? Not why is the character in the song singing, no. Ask why you are singing the song. What does the song mean to you and why is that important? If it’s not important to you, the audience will agree that what you are singing about isn’t important and you don’t need that, believe me.

Your voice is only special when there is enough of you in it as to be easily and immediately recognizable. If you are singing in an almost whispered sound, I can’t tell if its you or the girl down the block. If you are busy singing every phrase softly and breathily, I don’t want to know if it’s you or the girl down the block, because you have put me to sleep.

Creativity means that you have to sing whatever it is you sing with an idea that it illuminates something about the human condition, shining a spotlight on it, spotlighting it, so that it can be seen for the first time in its depth. Singing like that requires work and there is precious little of it, and even less teaching of it, in this world. Don’t waste your music-making by sounding “good”. Make your songs about your clear intention to reveal the human condition through your art from your deeply personal perspective. Nothing else will do.