Various Posts

If you are not taught to meditate in some formal way, you may not know the concept of “emptiness”. The idea is that if you calm your mind, eventually (believe it or not), it ceases thinking, sometimes for long stretches of time. You can be very awake, very aware, and not thinking in your mind at all.

For most people in Western society, just trying that for a few seconds is impossible. The idea that we are not what we think is foreign to us. The intellect is regarded as “it”, and “reason” as the highest achievement of the “mind”. But total human beings are more than thinking machines. They are more than thoughts followed by more thoughts. At the level of “beingness” there is a keen sense of being alive, being totally aware of what is happening in each moment, that is more vital, more powerful, more real than words can express. In fact, at the level of emptiness that is truly profound, what happens is that you fill up with something that absolutely cannot be described in words.

It is from this vantage point that one can look at thinking and at the mind as if from the outside. The mind is thinking or it is quiet. I observe my mind having thoughts. I am not my thoughts and my thoughts are not me. Most people cannot comprehend this sentence as being meaningful, which is a shame.

The arts, when lived as an expression of the fullness of humanity, express in a non-linear manner that which cannot be expressed through words in an intellectually rational discourse. They step outside that which is purely objective and capture that which is more broadly communicative than any other activity. The commonality of being a person in a body living through time in a life is universal, regardless of the country, the era or the family in which one is born. The uniqueness of being a person in a body living through time in a life is dynamic, not only from one person to another but from one moment to another. No two moments are ever the same nor can they be recaptured. It is through the arts that we are given the opportunity to be in touch with the eternal and the concrete, with the unchanging and the ephemeral. Are the pyramids in Egypt less compelling to us than the mystery of the Grand Canyon, are the skyscrapers of the world less spectacular than the streams of a mountain forest? Only art can allow us to contemplate such questions and perhaps respond with more art of our own.

In a society which regards the cheap and the crass as art, and which has sacrificed the opportunity for the average person to be exposed to art in schools and in public life in order to “save money”, we have created and continue to create the opposite state of mind of that which we seek. Abundance, or prosperity (in terms of monetary gain) is a state of mind, a condition of being. Abundance says that the only “lack” in the universe is caused by greed, by selfishness, by sloth, avarice, deception, and hatred. Truly, all of whatever is needed in order to simply live and live simply exists. It is only when some individuals are successful at hoarding much more than they need in order to assuage their egos that things begin to deteriorate. Not to value art is not to value life itself. Not to appreciate and understand what the arts teach us and why it is important is to trivialize that which makes us finer human beings. Not to desire to know the greatest and grandest of those artists who have illuminated the human condition, in all its messy glory, is not to desire to know who you are as a person. There can be no greater poverty than this, and we are blind to it all.

In order to be full of gratitude when viewing the “Pietá” or hearing “The Rites of Spring” or playing “Stardust” on the piano, we have to first understand how to be empty. It is from this point that we become that which we are grateful for, and take it into our souls as an expansion of our knowledge and identity of ‘self”.

To contemplate art is to contemplate life. To contemplate life is to contemplate the self. To contemplate the self is to lose the self and become empty.

Competitions require judges. We have them now on TV every night. Who gets to be a judge and why? Who is judging the judges?

If you are a member of NATS, you might be asked to judge one of their local competitions. You may or may not have expertise, they don’t ask. If you are available and a member, you qualify. No kidding. If you have expertise in one or more kinds of singing and that’s something you have shared with your colleagues, you might be regarded as a potentially “good” judge, but the people making that assessment could be very wrong. Some professional singers have limited knowledge of vocal technique, or wrong-headed ideas about it, and rigid ideas about performing and none of those criteria are mentioned as being part of judging whether or not the person should be a judge. A roll of the dice.

If you want other scary scenarios, read my previous posts about competitions.

If you go to larger vocal competitions where bigger financial prizes are offered, you might have judges who are not singers at all. You could have conductors, agents, managers, composers, producers, and all sorts of other people who are involved with various parts of the music industry. Some of them might know about singing from life experience but that’s not the same as knowing singing. I know about tennis (I know how it’s played and how its scored and I know who some of the famous players are. I know about the strategy of playing and the challenges of the game.) I have never played tennis, and I haven’t even been to a professional tennis tournament. Would you want me to judge a competition of tennis players, deciding who had the “best” swing or serve, evaluating how quickly the player returned the ball that was so close to the net, keeping track of how many of the serves were effective? I hope not. Yet, in singing, we have musicians (pianists, composers and conductors who may not have ever been singers or studied singing, and producers who maybe are instrumental musicians or engineers, or agents or managers who maybe business people or lawyers), deciding who is the “best” singer. What kind of criteria do they use? Anybody’s guess.

If you are a judge of anything, it implies that you have a wide breadth of knowledge and experience in your field and that you are judging whatever it is in a way that is balanced and fair. It’s up to you, however, to decide what balanced and fair is. It’s no wonder that most competitions are frustrating for all but the winners.

I have some suggestions for the people who would judge singing.

Come to the competition empty. Do not bring any previous event with you into the room. Do not bring your pre-conceived ideas about what is “good” or “great” or “terrific” with you either. Bring your intellectual knowledge of music, of repertoire, of performing, but hold it in reserve. Sit quietly and open your heart. Listen. Really listen with no judgement. Look. Open yourself to receive what is being given to you. Do not try to fit it into your mental constructs about what “should” or “should not” be happening. Instead, let yourself be guided entirely by your heart. Without that, you are not judging fairly and in a balanced manner, you are projecting your past onto the person standing in front of you who is giving you their all. Breathe and be still. Let go and allow yourself to be touched by the singer and the music he or she is singing. Only when the song is over, go into your “judge” mode and then write only constructive, empowering comments. Be clear and do not write “voice teacher jargon” about “spinning the breath from the abdomen” or some such. Empty yourself again if there is a second selection or a third. Do this for every contestant and for every song. When it is over, let your mind wander over the people you have heard and see who has left an impression. Contemplate why this is so.

Judging this way is challenging. It is so much easier to be “smart” and to come in as “an expert” to show your colleagues “how much you know”. It can be frightening, lest you look dumb or uneducated or inexperienced. But if you are going to trust your own deep wisdom, you have to get out of your “thinking mind” and get into the part of you that is wiser than words. You have to sink into the part of you that experiences directly. If you can’t do that, or maybe do not even know what that means, you should recuse yourself from judging, as all you are capable of doing is projecting onto the poor hapless contestant your ideas about the past and your beliefs about yourself.

All of us who are of a certain age have seen “The Wizard of Oz” many times. The shot of Judy Garland standing outside her aunt and uncle’s farm singing “Somewhere Over The Rainbow” in her sweet young voice is deeply etched in my ears and mind. This truly free, unpressured natural sound more or less doesn’t exist any more and that’s a shame. Yes, there are lots of soft breathy characterless voices out there and also an entire army of belters who can wail with seemingly endless power and stamina, but where are the Judy Garlands? Where is that sound…….not a belt, surely; not a classical head sound (contrast it with Deanna Durbin, Garland’s contemporary who was a true soprano), and yet very distinctive in its own way.

The emotional honesty in the voice, the directness of its power in this kind of singing is unlike anything else. You cannot get it by sampling, overdubbing, multi-tracking or any other kind of technological maneuver. You cannot manufacture such musical communication because it arises out of a melding of voice and body that is inexorably united. Garland was her voice and it showed all the many ups and downs she went through as she lived her tumultuous life. By the time she was in her 40s, it was, like Judy, sounding tired.

I miss this kind of singing. If it’s out there, I can’t find it. Perhaps you can help me. Is there anyone singing in an authentic sound, a unique, personal sound, that is honestly filled with emotion and heart that isn’t manipulated or bland? Help!!

For decades, I have advocated that we can sing in a number of vocal qualities without issue. I have stated and written about the ability for the voice to sing all over the map and remain healthy. I have also stated that some qualities do better with classical singing than others. There are boundaries. You cannot sing all sounds equally well in all styles at a professional level. This statement is based on over 40 years of teaching and 50 years of singing. It is life experience, not science, behind the statement.

We are now faced with a situation in which most new shows on Broadway that are financially successful are rock shows. There are different kinds of rock shows but the ones that are not rock based, like “Light in the Piazza” do not last long and do not receive the kind of critical and audience acclaim that the other shows do. “Spiderman: Turn Off The Dark” was the most maligned show in recent decades. Virtually every review of this show was awful. Yet, it is now the top grosser every week on Broadway, due to two things: it is full of bells and whistles (spectacle and tech) and rock music written by a known composer and his collaborator.

You can see this an an example of where Broadway is at this time. Commercial success has very little to do with the “old” values people like me were raised to know and understand. Shows without glitz, shows that have only actors who sing and dance, with no special effects, don’t do well unless the leading characters are played by stars. At the moment, “How To Succeed In Business” is starring Beau Bridges and Nick Jonas, both famous from other places than Broadway. Without the celebrities, the show might have closed in December. Shows like “Chicago” have a reputation for putting celebrities in leading roles regardless of whether or not they can sing, dance or act. We went to see “Chicago” 15 years ago with friends from Connecticut neither of whom had the least bit of knowledge about music, theater, acting or singing. My friend leaned over to me and said (of Melanie Griffith), “She isn’t very good, is she?” Says it all. Doesn’t matter a bit, however, as the show is going strong with road companies all over. The very famous Christie Brinkley is now Roxie Hart I think in Boston. She is certainly known for her singing, dancing and acting!!!!! Well, maybe acting up.

On Tuesday, I saw an Off-Broadway show with four performers. It’s about being parents and the book was decent. It had lots of cute/funny moments. The performers were all in their 30s and were stellar. Really excellent. There was no set to speak of (static setup) and no real costumes (just street clothes of various kinds), and the three piece combo was behind the set. The pianist was conductor, and there was a bass player and a drummer. Pretty simple. The show isn’t doing too well, as it is aimed at the group of people who are busy taking care of the kids and who therefore do not have time or money to go to the theater.

The music, however, was pretty much awful. Banal, un-tuneful, and written by people who have NO CLUE about singing, singers or anything that you could call melodic structure. For the unschooled folks in the audience, I suppose it was no worse than many other shows, but for a trained and experienced musician/vocalist, it was agonizing. The songs had no real center, the lyrics were moving the plot forward but in a very haphazard way. Sometimes the tunes started out like they might actually communicate something but by the end, they all had that “hook” that is supposed to be necessary, and the thrust of the song went out the window in order to serve the formula. The pitch range was all over the place for all four performers but the women (as per usual) had the worst of it, in that they were being asked to belt up to Fs and Gs and also sing mix and, in one case, sing in a kind of “legit” sound. Above the staff, you couldn’t understand any of the lyrics (not surprising) even though it was amplified. The point of writing the music this way was that there was no point. It certainly did not make the songs more compelling. It didn’t make them memorable (the opposite, actually). It didn’t help make the performers sound good. It didn’t allow them to sing where their voices would have been comfortable. And, why, please tell me, would people who are in various stages of parenthood be screaming out loud rock lyrics to tell you about their experiences, especially when they were at the playground, in the kid’s school, or at the gym.

This is just CHEAP composing. The lyrics are convenient, not special. The music is generic and forgettable. The match between the two is haphazard. The lack of knowledge on both the part of the lyricist and the composer about voices, about harmony, about music beyond rock and roll literally screams in your face. Why bother to learn about any of those things when you are already geniuses? I mean, they made it to Broadway, right? Doesn’t that make them really good?

Given the fact that we have decimated music education in the public schools for four decades now, the average person knowns nothing of real music. They can’t tell good from bad from last night’s leftovers. They might think the music in this show is “nice” or “good” and maybe think the show is “fun”. It might make money on the road over the next few years because it will be inexpensive to produce (see above) and because it isn’t “off-color” (no swearing or lewd behaviors, although there is one song about having married sex).

It would be SO nice to go to a rock musical that had some semblance of depth to it. Perhaps the revised Andrew Lloyd Webber “JC Superstar” will meet that need. When he came on the scene, people looked at Lloyd Webber’s shows as being pretty banal and badly written, but comparing them to what we have today, he and Mr. Rice seem more like traditionalists who were at least in the ballpark than radical rockers who changed the world. I really disliked “Cats” when it first came out but after “Rent”, ten years later, it seemed almost symphonic.

I LIKE rock music. I liked Elvis when I was 5 and the Beatles when I was 14. Although I don’t know every single present moment rocker, when I hear people like Beyonce or Christina Aguilera, I am often impressed. I am not writing from some elitist point of view, disdaining the music as a style. I am writing because I actually care about rock music, about Broadway, about singers and about the audience. They all deserve better than most of what they get, but don’t think for a minute that it is going to get any better any time soon. In fact, expect the opposite. Music without rhyme or reason will go forth to make money because of PR and marketing. That’s all that matters. We are all caught between a rock and a hard place.

Very few singing teachers understand the gag reflex. It is one of the strongest reflexes in your body and it is a core ingredient of behavior of the throat.

Functional training provokes movement in the vocal mechanism. If it does not, then it isn’t really functional training at the deepest level. If you want someone to sing in a better way than they do naturally, you must provoke change in the way the throat works. It isn’t the student who does this, it is the teacher.

The constrictor muscles which swallow thousands of times a day work best for singing when they are not engaged. If they are active, we perceive the sound as being “swallowed”, “muffled”, “throaty”, “back too far”, etc. It is a kind of Kermit the Frog vocal production, but we also heard it in Yogi Bear and back before Yogi, in Mortimer Snerd (find him on Google!) Cher sang that way for years, and others have managed to get by with some kind of constriction, but, ideally the sound should be produced without it so that it is free.

If you are working to teach someone to belt effectively and not just yell or shout, you are sooner or later going to encounter the swallowing muscles and the gag reflex. The belt sound raises the larynx and puts pressure on the vocal folds. The goal of training should be to minimize constriction not cause it. The compression on the folds coupled with the reflex for the throat to tighten because of that pressure runs right into the swallowing muscles. That behavior will put the student in a situation where anxiety comes up. It is a biological anxiousness. If you are about to choke, you get nervous.

Still, most people don’t acknowledge this fear. They think they are neurotic or silly and ignore it. Unfortunately, in the studios of most teachers, students are often chastised for “not being committed” to the sound or the text or the meaning. They are told “You are afraid of xxxxxxxxxx!” (the high note, to breathe, the emotion, the text…..pick one). In point of fact, the body is reacting, not the mind. The body is gearing up to avoid choking.

We cannot control the gag mechanism. If you get something stuck in your throat, you will cough hard as the body tries to expel it. If you don’t get rid of it, you could choke to death. I think that is a valid reason to be anxious, don’t you ? You cannot override the body’s primary directive: get the oxygen in and the carbon dioxide out. The body will go to great lengths to be sure this happens. If the larynx comes up very high through constriction, the head will come up and thrust forward to keep the airway open. Belters with no technique can actually end up singing looking straight up to the ceiling. Happens all the time. Keeping the head in a level position while belting requires a certain amount of technical savvy.

Teachers who do not understand this will either criticize the student, work on “breath support” and “resonance” to solve the problems (not very helpful), or force the student to push through, causing vocal fatigue or even damage. Conversely, the teacher, in order not to push the student, could instruct her to “back off” and that will temporarily eliminate the problem but the voice will never get fuller or stronger and the belt sound will always lead to a big crack at the top of the range. When you understand this reaction, you will be able to guide the student through the “scary place” in a way that works. They MUST go through it if they are to sing with emotional freedom and authenticity but going through it can be quite unpleasant (as the sound isn’t lovely and the feeling is frightening. It should not be harmful, however, in any way). That’s why a teacher is very necessary.

The fight/flight mechanism is connected to this reflex. It operates when we are frightened. We breathe very shallowly or even hold our breaths. The hands and feet get cold and clammy, and the circulation goes to the core. The throat closes. We essentially freeze like a deer in headlights. Since performing can be very frightening, learning to adjust to the fear so that the throat does not close involves encountering the swallowing muscles and the gag reflex. You must learn, through diligent practice, to slow down the rate of inhalation/exhalation, lowering the heart rate, and harness the emotion through directed action.

If you do not understand this, read “Psyche and Soma” by Cornelius Reid. Then find a teacher who does and work with that person until you have worked through this “anxious” behavior yourself. Walk the talk.

In literature, a writer has “a voice”. It means that he or she has a way of writing that is distinctive and recognizable. Although I haven’t read many novels since high school, preferring to read non-fiction most of the time, I know that certain famous writers’ styles are so unique that fans would know who was doing the writing without being given the name.

The idea of “having a voice” is strong in our society which supports (at least in theory) the rights of the individual. We are protected by the first amendment (in theory) to “free speech” and to “voice our opinions”. People are encouraged to “speak out” or “speak up” or to “have a say”.

As a child if you were told, “Children should be seen and not heard,” (that was a familiar idea in past generations), you were also being told, “Keep quiet. We are not interested in anything you have to say.” That message certainly says, “You have no voice”. If you spoke up about something and were punished for doing so, that message says “It’s better to keep some things to yourself.” If you were saying something loudly and repeatedly and it was just ignored, that message teaches you to conclude “no matter how strong my voice is, it’s powerless.” If you lived in a home where people were doing something “objectionable” and you were asked to keep it a secret, that message teaches you that “to tell the truth to the world is going to have a cost.”

In some households, children are expected to always be quiet. I once worked with someone who had been told by his father that his breathing was too loud and he had learned to nearly hold his breath to contain the noise which eventually caught up with his vocal health. I have seen people who lived with others who were rage-aholics. If you have a parent who screams and fights with the family, you will learn to dread loud voices and powerful vocal expressions. If you live in a household where you have no one to talk to who actually hears what you have to say or asks you for your opinion, you will feel unacknowledged.

On the other hand, if you were a child singer and you got a lot of attention for singing, you could conclude that the only time you are valuable in the world is when you sing. That would be a scary way to live. If you were someone who had to speak up on behalf of others you might keep that habit and always speak for others and that could make you a bossy control freak.

It goes on but I hope you can see my point. Being heard, being listened to, being responded to after you have spoken, is a crucial element of feeling validated and accepted. If you don’t “voice your opinion” because you think it doesn’t matter or that you have no opinion to voice, that’s not a position of positive power. If you don’t understand how to have “a voice” in your life in a way that matters, you will be unable to “speak up” on your own behalf in situations where that would be a good thing.

If you want to say something to someone else and you can’t (for any reason at all), that uncommunicated message will stay stuck in your mind and your throat until you express it. If you get “all choked up” with emotions you can’t express, or if you “can’t spit out the words” when something powerful happens to you, consider the long term effects of that situation. If you get “a lump in your throat” when you feel an urge to cry, but don’t actually let yourself cry, you have to recognize what that does to the muscles in your throat.

If your voice sounds bad to you and that makes you embarrassed or ashamed, if you would like your voice to do something beyond what it currently does, if you have been criticized for having a voice that doesn’t meet other people’s expectations, you can end up with a very bad “vocal image” of yourself that could be hard to change. That can have a profound effect on your self-esteem and your ability to function in the world.

You have a right to have the best, most wonderful voice in the world. You have a right for it to sound good, even great. You have a right to have it do what you want it to do without explanation or apology. You have a right to sing, to make music, and to use your voice creativity. You deserve being heard and listened to. You deserve having the authority to speak clearly and sing strongly. You have permission to make a “loud noise” and “let loose a joyful noise”. You have permission to enjoy your voice in all its real and metaphorical manifestations.

Do not allow your voice to be silenced. Do not allow others to take your voice away. Do not let others speak for you without your express permission. Speak up for yourself. Speak out for things that matter to you. Speak straightforwardly and with passion.

In order to take yourself more seriously, do not lie. Do not diminish your own truth. Keep your word, keep your agreements, keep your promises. If you cannot, communicate that and take responsibility about mending the fence. If you want your voice to be all that it can be, respect how it is produced in your body, put in the time to keep it in shape, and remember how important it is to honor it at all times.

Listen to others, hear what they have to say. Take in what others are saying and how they are expressing their opinions. Let yourself notice the speaking and singing voices of others. Be careful of what you tell yourself in your mind and what you write on paper to others. Think before you make sound. Once it’s out, you can’t make it go back.

Own your voice. Own what it is, how it is made, and where it goes (both inside your mind and out in the world). Speak truthfully but with compassion. Sing with open heartedness and abandon.

Honor your voice because if you do, it will serve you with honor.

The term Contemporary Commercial Music was created in 2000 to stop the use of the term “non-classical”. It was created to draw all the CCM styles together as a genre equal to but different from classical styles.

To clarify: Classical music includes opera, operetta, art song (recital), chamber music, oratorio, early music, and orchestral music solos.

CCM styles include: music theater, jazz, rock, pop, gospel, R&B, country, folk, rap and alternative (and maybe other styles).

It isn’t a perfect term and some people don’t like it. OK. But there was nothing better and it was time for something.

The differentiation was necessary because the two genres come from different roots, they have different requirements, they have different musical parameters, they are sung in different vocal qualities and they have different professional criteria.

The term has been VERY effective, worldwide, in getting people to think of CCM styles in this specific way. The term has allowed researchers to see these styles as being equal to classical styles for scientific study. It has allowed vocal pedagogues to study CCM styles to consider the differences in comparison to classical styles. It has allowed the CCM styles to garner the respect they deserve, ending the “second-class” status that has plagued them since their inception in the world of academia. It has done a great deal of good and caused no problems or issues whatsoever.

NEVERTHELESS, we now have people coming up with NEW terms to describe these styles. Someone in Australia is calling them “Popular Commercial Music” and someone in looking to create a degree in Popular Music Studies. My question is WHY? If I could I would put the word in 50 point bold in red. WHY? What good does this do? How does it serve the betterment of the profession? What would you want to do that except to say that your term is better? Is it? Really, can’t we agree to agree and just get on with why the term was created in the first place?

People are afraid that if they use the term Contemporary Commercial Music that they are somehow endorsing me and my work. Heaven forbid! The term does not belong to me, to my work or to any aspect of my work. The term belongs to the musical marketplace and to the world. It is there to serve singers, teachers, researchers and educators. It is not “LoVetri’s Contemporary Commercial Music”. Really, people, don’t you care more about the music and the fact that it is no longer a “non” something than who made up the term?

In the not so distant past when you went to an office you had to fill out forms which made you choose from the following two categories: white and non-white. Nice. Good luck for you if you were not in the preferred ethnic group. We also had classical and non-classical styles of music. It implied there was “the real music” (classical) and the other stuff that was NOTHING. NON. NOT. Guess what? Those of us who dealt with “non-classical” music didn’t exactly like that term. Now it is finally going away yet, there are people who are afraid to use it less they give it further credibility– because they don’t want to give me credibility. What nonsense!!!!!!

If you are someone who doesn’t want to use the term Contemporary Commercial Music, then don’t. But understand that not using the term keeps you stuck in the 19th century, it continues the mentality that classical music is still the real deal and it holds us all back from looking at the deeper issues that allow disrespect for our own American styles in the halls of academia to continue. I am not seeking your endorsement or approval. CCM and Jeanie LoVetri are separate and distinct entities and have always been so.

We all have busy lives. Some people have lives that are so busy, they don’t get much sleep. They are pressed from morning till late at night with all manner of busy-ness.

I am one of those people. I am the first to admit that I am very bad manager of my own time and energy. I always think I have more time than I actually have, and because I am interested in so many things, I am easily distracted and can find myself swimming in more than one project at a time. I am the kind of person who starts a new book before finishing the old one. Bad habits all.

Nevertheless, somehow I mostly get things done. I have given up sleep, neglected having a glamorous hairstyle, stopped much attention to my diet, etc., in order to keep going. Since I am and always have been self-employed, no one is forcing me to write (here or anywhere else), to publish, to do research (which I pay for out of my own pocket), to travel (mostly that is a money-losing endeavor), or to attend conferences (which I pay for). I could just stay home, teach private singing lessons, and have a much easier life. I could see my wonderful husband more, spend more time with my friends (who are very patient with me and my life), and maybe take better care of myself overall. I am always striving to change this equation so that it is in better balance, but I don’t do very well. I take full responsibility for these behaviors, knowing they are not optimal, and I work always to keep being better at staying in balance.

One thing I have not let go of, however, in spite of constant reasons why I could, is my commitment to my own singing. I find a way to keep working on repertoire and on vocal technique. Sometimes it is the last thing I want to do. I absolutely would rather do almost anything else than practice, but I make myself sing.

What used to be easy and effortless now takes dedicated work. My throat and my body don’t do what they used to do when I was 30 or 40 or 50, unless I spend the time. If I work at it, eventually everything that was there is still there, but I can take nothing now for granted. If I want to sing, I must make myself sing, even when I would rather watch TV or sleep late. No one cares if I sing or not. Once in a while I am asked to perform (as I did in December of 2011) in public at a concert or at a wedding, but other than that, the only people besides me who hear my voice are my students in lessons and my husband. Why not quit? Why not just say, “It’s too much trouble, now, and I would rather give up and let others do the singing?”

There are many answers to this question, but the one that drives me is that I feel an obligation to myself to sing until I absolutely cannot do so in a way that sounds acceptable. I am not willing to let my singing go downhill without a fight because singing has been the one constant in my life. It has been my joy, my terror, my inspiration, my despair, my comfort, my torment, my teacher and my research subject. It has been there with me through all the stages of my life. To lose singing would be to lose the closest friend I have had, the most ardent companion, the dearest and deepest part of my artistic heart. I’m not ready to say, “I just don’t care any more,” and I hope I never get to that place.

Unfortunately, however, I know many singing teachers who have said exactly that. I know a great many teachers who are younger than I who gave up on their own singing a long time ago. It gets short shrift in their lives. They rarely practice. They never perform. They do not have any real interest in keeping their technical skills at a high level. They do not really care how they sound to their students. They can’t really be bothered with singing, perhaps because they had performing careers that are now over and they feel that without a performing career it isn’t worth the effort. Perhaps they feel sad that they are no longer hired as vocalists. Perhaps they never really loved singing in the first place — they just took up singing because they thought it was easy or they had had some exposure to it in the early part of their lives. Perhaps they are just too tired. I even know one singing teacher who never sings at all for any reason and hasn’t for years. What a pity and how very peculiar!

Nevertheless, whatever their reasons may be, that there are quite a few teachers of singing who do not sing any more always surprises me. If you, as a teacher, do not have the motivation to keep your own voice going in the best way that you can, how can you serve as a role model for your students? What are they to glean from your attitude about the other things you are teaching them? If your voice isn’t doing what it should and you cannot fix it yourself, why wouldn’t you seek the help of others? If you think that you cannot overcome whatever is going on, and you are healthy in both voice and body, then you need new information. As long as you are willing to put in the time, things will get better. In fact, even if you have a voice that has been impaired for any reason, you can sometimes learn to compensate so well that no one will ever know but you that this was the case.

If singing decently is too much trouble for you, you need to take a look at why this should be the case. You need to step up to the plate and deal with yourself and your voice, for the sake of your students if for no other reason. If you choose to stop singing while you are still teaching, you should understand that a great portion of what a student learns from you is found by hearing you sing, not just talking about singing. This should make you ponder whether or not you should be teaching at all. A serious contemplation indeed.

If singing for yourself is too much trouble, perhaps the trouble is not with the singing at all.

I heard years ago that “either you are part of the problem or part of the solution”.

It’s very easy to complain. Most of us complain about something, maybe more than one thing. Complaining is a way of saying “I don’t like this. It’s not right with me.” If all one does is complain, however, nothing really happens. If you want to see what you are complaining about be different, you have to be willing to act.

That is where most people stop. It takes energy to act and many people don’t actually want to expend energy. They want someone else to expend energy. Then, maybe, they might “help”. We have all been asked to donate money, to sign a petition, to send a letter or make a phone call. These days, with the internet, you can do one or more of these things with just the click of a key. It takes a bit more time and effort to go out and stand on a corner collecting signatures, or hand out flyers, or take a survey. It can take a lot of time and effort to go to meetings, or run a meeting, or organize an event. Sometimes, even with a great deal of effort, what you would like to change is so deeply entrenched that you can meet with enormous resistance, even backlash, and with some not so pleasant reaction. In times past, people have been killed standing up for what was right. That is the ultimate sacrifice.

Acting requires a kind of courage. It means that you are willing to put yourself out, go beyond your comfort zone, take some risk and take a position in a public manner. It’s so much easier to stay home and complain.

If you want something to change, you can start by speaking out for that change. You can live as if the change you seek is important to you. That means that you have to live with integrity because if you do not walk the talk then no one will see you as someone who has a right to speak. We don’t like hypocrites. If you want to make something be different, you have to find ways for that difference to show up, to emerge. If you don’t formulate a plan, if you do not have an approach that others can comprehend, you will not be seen as being serious. It’s easy to say, “I stand for change” and then wait for it to happen. It isn’t so easy to write an article that gets published, go to Congress to talk to your representatives, work towards the passing of new legislation, raise money for your cause, get the idea out to many others. Still, we hear every day of single individuals, working alone, who have changed something significant in our society. We also know that two people, such as parents who have lost children, or small groups of people like workers who have been harmed by their employers’ policies, or larger groups of people who see something that is not good in our society and band together to change it, have also made an impact.

If you do not like something, find ways to dig into what’s wrong, write about your findings, attend conferences, seek out people who might agree with you, research the work of others, risk being disliked, judged or even threatened. Take a stand. Do what you feel is best. Hold the example in your own life. Walk the talk.

Then, when you criticize something, people will hear your voice as being one that carries seriousness and weight. They will consider your message more carefully, they will be more willing to join in your cause, crusade or goal. You can do it. You can motivate others to go in a different, better direction. But not if all you do is sit at home and do nothing but complain. Don’t be part of the problem, be part of the solution. Better yet, BE the solution!

We have a resource now that only a few years ago didn’t exist that makes it hard to be unfamiliar with singing. Between iTunes, YouTube, Spotify, and dozens of other sites that have music on them, as well as individual vocalists’ websites and all the various social media that we use, it seems you could hear just about any style from any era since we began making recordings if you were looking.

There is also a huge amount of information about voice training on line, mostly for purchase, but some for free. Just recently someone sent me a website that says your voice is either “passive” or “active” and if it’s passive, you can find the switch to turn it on……..from them. WOW!! Imagine what it’s like to be able to learn to sing in this “magic” way!!!!

There are all sorts of gimmicks in this world, online and off. PT Barnum had it right over a hundred years ago when he said, “There’s a sucker born every minute”.

If you are the kind of person who wants a “get rich quick” scheme (not counting winning the lottery, which is a legitimate way to get rich quick), you might also be looking to “get to sing quick”. Even if you are very talented, like Whitney Houston was, you need training or a mentor and time to learn and develop and gain experience. No one gets to be really great without work, but if you are willing to spend money, someone will tell you that they can “make you famous” if you just buy their materials.

What would be better if you are an aspiring vocalist is to spend time listening to whatever you can find so you educate your ears and your taste. There is so much out there that’s free and useful, particularly things from the past. If you want to be a very good vocalist, listen to everything. Listen to the things you like and the things you do not usually want to hear. Listen to people you have heard about but also find people that you don’t know at all. If you like rock, listen to country. If you like musicals listen to bluegrass. If you like opera listen to jazz. If you are a pop fan listen to old style folk music. Open up your ears, and if you can find videos, open up your eyes, too.

Back in the day when you either heard it on radio or TV, or you bought the sheet music or you bought the record or later the cassette or the CD, you had to build your experience through some consistent approach. Now, if you want, you can listen on the computer, on the phone, on the tablet, on the mp3 player, at home, on the road or even in your pool or at the beach. There really is no reason not to be an “educated listener” and that will help prevent you from being an uneducated consumer of vocal training or instruction.