Posts Placeholder

Watched the PBS show tonight curated by Renee Fleming. All kinds of singers, students, scientists, teachers. Very nice line-up of experts and performers, showing the wide range of singing styles and vocalists we have here in the USA.

This show reflects the real world. It is about where we are now. There was no attempt to turn the CCM songs into opera arias, and the CCM artists were honored for their own integrity.

Brava to Maestra Fleming for getting this to happen, to Kennedy Center for hosting it and to PBS for bringing it to the public. Every voice department in every college and conservatory should be made to watch this show because it is an accurate reflection of the present moment. It is not some ivory tower presentation of viewing CCM styles as being “less than”. The classical singers presented did a fine job alongside their CCM colleagues and all the panels, although edited for the show, were interesting and presented excellent information.

All I have to say is, “It’s about time,” and “more, please!”

I know quite a few people who teach singing who do not know what “free singing” means.

Would it be so that if you can make a sound, it is automatically freely made? As long as it comes out of your throat, isn’t it OK however you do it? If you express it, isn’t it free?

Many people would think so.

Others believe that you should “do something” in order to sing. You should squeeze your inner throat muscles, or hold your larynx down, or keep your jaw down, or never move your head, or sing in one position or place, or push hard on your abdominal muscles all the time. None of these things is conducive to free singing.

Some people think that the only authentic sound is an untrained sound. Sometimes, in a few cases, a person can sing authentically, freely and optimally, but mostly that’s not what happens. Others believe that “free” sound isn’t that important and a little squeezing and constricting here and there is OK, or maybe even a good thing.

There are people who are stuck somewhere in their throats and still sing. They don’t know they are stuck. They believe that what they feel is what others should feel and teach from that place. They might possibly imagine what free singing is and maybe even what it sounds like but since they have never experienced it, they can’t know what it’s like. They might even believe it is impossible.

Free singing allows for easy movement of both the vocal apparatus (all of it) and the body (inhalation/exhalation). It releases deeply felt emotion without effort. It is not effortful to do, even in difficult songs. Free singing is possible in any pitch range, in any style and in any kind of voice. No one has the “one right way” to sing freely, but many people believe they have exactly that. They are wrong.

All of the good classical pedagogues from times past agreed that unless the sound is freely made, it is useless. I agree. If you do not know whether or not you are singing freely, you should find out. There are criteria about how to ascertain that (which I won’t give here) but you don’t have to guess. Be wary of teachers who have big words to throw around and fancy concepts to discuss but who don’t sound good when they sing. Be wary of people who “have trouble with high notes” or “can’t sing softly” and who also claim to be expert vocalists and teachers. While everyone has strengths and weaknesses, that’s different than being unable to do something that should be an easy task (not extreme, that is something else) and is not available.

The only way to raise the bar in singing teaching is to raise the standards of what has to be known and demonstrated. The only way to make the profession a serious one is to have clear criteria about what singing teachers need to know and how they need to demonstrate what they know, both in description and in demonstration. As I have said before, a profession with no standards (and singing teaching has NONE) is not very professional.

Freedom F I R S T. If you don’t sing freely, find out why.

 

Is a doctoral degree the equivalent of life experience? Is it better than life experience? Can you learn in a university what you cannot learn  or have not learned in life?

If you are in a profession like singing, which involves doing something very specific, can you learn that in classes and from books? If you are trying to find out how human beings sing should you be required to know things that are helpful, information-wise, but do not help you make better sounds?

What happens if you have many degrees from prestigious universities or conservatories but your colleagues think you “can’t sing”? Does that matter at all? [It certainly happens. I have seen it more times than I care to mention.]

To me, it matters a lot. I think having a terminal degree is great but I have seen over and over people who have doctoral degrees in singing (or pedagogy, or a related field) who cannot sing well and don’t teach well either. Are they to be excused from demonstrating good singing because they passed specific requirements at a university?

I wonder, given that obtaining a doctorate takes anywhere from 3 to 5 years, maybe even more, and that you have to present yourself and your work to multiple people while working towards the degree, when you are given a document for reasons that do not have anything to do with excellence but with expedience, is that useful?

I know of a specific instance where the doctoral dissertation presented “research” that was absolutely bogus. The document contained statements like “the ear is an organ” and “faulty breathing causes nodules”. The “protocol” for the research consisted of 3 subjects listening to pre-recorded examples on an iPod and then “correcting themselves” in terms of how they practiced singing. There were only 3 participants, all college students. Their self-proclaimed evaluations stated either that they “improved” in their singing or they “did not” improve. That’s it. The doctoral dissertation was about this and only this. The “examples” were based on the work of a French voice doctor who has a following here in the USA but no one at this university was a scholar in the doctor’s work.

No one checked on the frequency range that you hear on earbuds, no one checked on the made-up examples (created by the doctoral candidate) the students heard, and the larger work upon which this was based is, in the first place, considered questionable by the scientific community at large. Nevertheless, the mentor of this student, who was a “beloved” professor who had been teaching at the university for decades was retiring and no one wanted to give the student a “hard time” lest the professor be upset at the end of her tenure.

REALLY?

There is, out there somewhere, Dr. X, who presented a document to get her doctorate to a committee who knew nothing about acoustics, scientific evaluation of data, or the doctor’s work upon which the dissertation was based.

I only bumped into this document by accident, but when I saw it, I was astounded, as I happen to be familiar with that doctor’s work upon which the doctoral student happened to be basing her study and it had little to nothing to do with what he discovered. When I queried, “How can you judge this person’s research on Dr. Y’s work, when none of you here are experts in his work, or even know about it?” I was ignored. The politics were more important that anything else.

So, if someone were to apply for a job and that someone can really sing, and sing well, and the person was also experienced in performing since she had had a long and prestigious career, but does not have a doctorate, she would not be hired at a conservatory that requires a doctoral degree, even though the person applying who does have one might have done her doctoral work on something that is virtual worthless or in a way that was absolutely unfounded.

There’s something wrong in a community (at large) when life experience — successful, long-term life experience — and the ability to communicate effectively about a skill that is also an art is regarded as being less important and having less significance than a piece of paper. I say, shame on everyone who supports that attitude.

If you are an encyclopedia of vocal pedagogy and voice science information but your singing is awful, and your doctorate is in applied voice and you are going to teach singers, you should have been denied the document until and unless your singing got better. The courses you took might be sufficient if all you will teach is those courses but once you have to work with a student who is looking to you to help them sound wonderful, sing freely and be happy as an accomplished vocalist, you need to sound very good while you sing and be able to convey that effectively to others. Period.

I know, yet another rant about something which isn’t going to change any time soon. Still, I have to say it.

What, exactly, is “classical” singing technique?

If you put 15 high-level classical singing teachers from universities or conservatories in a room and asked them what elements classical singing must have, the only things they would all agree upon would be that the inhalation had to be “low” and that “resonance” had to be enhanced. They would not agree on the details of anything else. If you asked about repertoire, they would not agree as to what way to approach repertoire or what kind of repertoire is best. In fact, they wouldn’t agree on anything except “breath support” and “resonance” as ideas.

That doesn’t stop the singing teachers of the world from talking about “classical training” as if it were a something. They also talk about the magic imparted by learning to sing foreign language art songs even if what you want to sing is “Stand By Your Man” or “I Love Rock and Roll”.

Classical singers still want to insist that all singing is the same and that you might “change the vowels” when you change styles. That is simply not true. If you want to sing all styles of music and sound like a classical singer while doing so, I suppose that all you have to do is change “the vowels” but if you want to change the rest of the sound, you had better understand registration, vocal quality and a bunch of other things like sliding pitches on purpose and making vocal noises for effect.

The attitude that vocal training makes all singing better is true if considered from a functional place but much vocal training is still not really functional (except by accident) and does not take into consideration that training has to go in the direction of the music being sung, even if you have to train the voice several different ways to do several different kinds of music. Classical sounds do not “elevate” other styles of music that don’t ask for them. Classical vocal production is not “better” than some other kind of vocal production as long as the sounds made are stylistically and musically viable and vocally healthy.

Understanding voice science does not automatically make you a good singer or a good teacher. You can understand voice science well enough to write articles or even books and still not sing well or teach someone else to sing well. You can have numerous graduate or doctoral degrees and still fail at both singing and teaching. What matters is the DOING. What matters is how well you sing, what criteria you have for your singing and whether or not you can convey that information to someone else clearly and easily.

There is an epidemic of breathy, soft singing in jazz (and some other styles), often without vibrato. The assumption is that this kind of sound is somehow “sexy” or intimate or appealing.

What appeals to us in a voice is its richness or character. We like harmonics. Soft breathy singing has little of that in it. It’s hard to recognize one voice from another.

Think about it: when, in life, do people use a soft breathy voice? In the bedroom (OK), in a theater while watching the show, when telling a secret, when they are sick. The many other circumstances in life cause us to respond with a wide range of sounds, all of which can be part of singing when dealt with properly. People who have only soft breathy sound to offer often get boring very quickly, unless they have a very powerful message to convey that might supersede their sound. If, however, we are moved by the uniqueness of each individual’s voice, that uniqueness disappears when the sound is always only breathy and soft.

Vibrato, too, has gotten a bad reputation. It’s as if musicians think of it as something phony or put on. Nothing could be further from the truth. In a well-balanced, freely produced sound, in a person who has the capacity to sing vigorously, vibrato arises by itself (even if the person starts out without one) and is a reflection of the dynamism of the sound. Most people can learn to keep it out (sing a straight tone) without any negative repercussions. Suppressing it, however, is a way to stiffen the vocal muscles and over time, that does have some negative consequences, particularly in terms of freedom and expressivity.

Just as it isn’t necessary to bellow at the loudest volumes all the time, neither is it a good idea to choose to sing at a low volume without any clarity of tone all the time. Neither shows the voice off to its best advantage and neither will help the vocalist communicate best. If you are someone who sings in a soft, light breathy sound as your “signature sound” you should question why you are content with only that. There is much more available, so don’t be a pseudo singer!

Some people are simply not willing to work on their own singing even though they teach. They are not willing to put in the time and effort to confront their ability to make music from their throats and bodies. They do not want to stick with the process to own what happens as they are in the midst of it, but they feel just fine teaching other people to do what they themselves won’t do. I have a problem with that.

I have encountered quite a few people who are “vocal whiz kids” who have read every voice book, every science book, every pedagogy article and who can quote many of them from memory. They are lousy singers, though, and you have to wonder why. Sometimes there is an emotional reason about their singing that they cannot or will not face. Sometimes, there was a technical problem that was never solved and, unfortunately, that forced the person to stop singing. If, however, there was no biological reason to stop, what is the excuse?

If you teach a physical skill and you do not own that skill yourself, you are not a good role model. In fact, if your singing is poor, you may be a terrible role model. Since much of singing has to do with hearing something, if you are a student and you don’t have something to listen to that is worth repeating, how are you to grasp what it is that you are being asked to do? Description in words alone isn’t particularly useful.

It’s interesting to me that over the decades in a few cases I have guided a vocalist to sing sounds that he or she has been seeking “all their lives”. They experience in lessons that they can sing the music that has eluded them for their entire professional lives, and sing it with emotional freedom and vocal ease. In more than a few cases, after having broken through barriers that may be decades old, instead of rejoicing and moving forward to use the new-found vocal joy in a career, they often stop seeing me and simply disappear. In one case, a man who had a powerful dramatic classical tenor voice, and was a highly skilled musician and communicative singer, stopped after reaching musical goals he had pursued for his entire life. He returned after six months with his voice shrunken by half and with the core of it gone. He had deconstructed the sound that he had been waiting to find since he was young and came back sounding more like a high school vocalist. I was stunned. He doesn’t perform, but there he is teaching at a university. Really?

When you are young, you must work to create a voice and a technique to guide it. When you are in your middle years, you must work to maintain it in the midst of career demands. When you are older, you have to work to keep what you have or fight the deterioration that inevitably occurs from aging. There is no time to “rest on your laurels”.

If you teaching singing in any form — if you are a choral conductor, a singer/songwriter, or someone in theater who deals with musicals — and you are not willing to invest time, energy and money into your own voice, you should sit yourself down and take a good long look at that. Whether or not you like to admit it, your attitude about your  voice communicates the message “my singing isn’t worth my own time or commitment” and what is the student to do with that?

Some singing teachers “warm up” if they have to sing. They assume that they are “good enough” and don’t have to work on their singing extensively, because “it is what it is”. I have heard so many of those folks perform and I am often surprised at what “good enough” is to them. It usually isn’t the same thing to me!

If you do not have the willingness to work on your voice, or solve your vocal problems, or sing music very well, and you think you can teach others, I invite you to question those assumptions. I invite you to address unfinished business, get help, get back on the path, and face yourself. There is no place to run, no place to hide.

 

 

If you get used to relying on Autotune or the latest version thereof, or on the sound man or the microphone, the monitors, the click track or anything outside of your own body, sooner or later, that is going to be a path to disaster, no matter how famous you are.

If you don’t understand your own voice, or how you make sound, or what the consequences of singing in a certain way (good or bad) are, especially over time — if you don’t know how to take care of your voice when it isn’t in good shape, if you don’t care about how you sound in a public performance, and if you expect others to accommodate your problems by fixing them for you, you are going to fall in a big hole one day and not know how to crawl out.

The lack of respect for the voice and body generally comes from naiveté or blind ignorance. Crashing your voice into a big wall is a tough way to learn about it, but it happens frequently enough. If you do not have people around you who are knowledgeable about vocal health and maintenance or you have them and pay them no attention, you are causing your own problems. Youth is sometimes an excuse for ignoring your own self-care, as it seems to be an endemic problem (feeling invincible), but when you are in your 40s, it seems like you might have learned along the way another response.

Fear of training, which I have written about here a number of times, could keep you from seeking proper instruction about singing and fear of “hearing something bad” could keep you away from the throat specialist, but both of those are poor choices. Singers who don’t know how to be healthy and maintain vocal stability, who expect to manage the demands of a busy career, are kidding  themselves. They are being irresponsible.

If you know someone in this category, show them this post.

Those of you who are familiar with classical singing may remember that when the baritone Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau was new to the scene, he was widely criticized as being boring, flat and uninteresting, and that his voice was “too small” to be operatically viable. Of course, he went on to be one of the most respected singers of the 20th century, in recital and also in opera. He had a highly respected career and was  considered an expert on repertoire and performance, particularly of German lieder (art songs).

If you listen to his early recordings with an educated ear you will hear a great deal of subtlety. He was hardly boring, flat or uninteresting but it is certainly possible to MISS what he was doing if all you were used to hearing was big, broad strokes in loud, powerful singing.

So it is with many things. The small details are surely lost on those who know little or do not have the experience to perceive things at a refined level. If you don’t know much about wine, you either “like it” or “don’t like it”. If you don’t know much about baseball, you wouldn’t know a great hitter from a fabulous closer, or even that there were hitters and closers. If you don’t know art, you might not appreciate someone like Mark Rothko, whose work could appear monotone and, indeed, flat although it is hardly either.

All classical music sounds the same to someone who has never listened to it, and classical singers as well. It takes time to hear a lyric voice from a dramatic one and the style of Handel as being different from that of Puccini. It takes time to hear the difference between two voices of the same weight and color, such that each vocalist’s uniqueness immediately shines out in their sound.

People tend to want to be validated. They want to know that what they do is “right” and “good” and will go out of their way to find agreement with an expert if they like that expert’s presentation or information. I have been approached after teaching or lecturing by other teachers whose work I have seen demonstrated who teach very differently and have different ideas about singing than I do, only to be told by them that they do “exactly the same thing” as me. This is always stunning to hear.

I once watched a colleague who is well-known and very respected present a highly effective master class on music theater which included specific technical advice for many of the singers. After it was over, another colleague (one with only operatic experience), approached me to say it had been “interesting” but that she was disappointed that this master teacher had not done anything “technical”. I wondered if she had been in the same room with me! The master teacher, however, did not discuss “breath support” and “resonance” as much as functional adjustments. If you are not familiar with function, you can miss it entirely, thinking it an unnecessary diversion from the music and interpretation. I was astounded by this, but it was revelatory, in that it was a representation of what’s out there in voice teacher land.

If you are someone who thinks “all singing is the same” and there is only one way to produce sound, you are behind the times. You have to be nearly deaf to think that opera singers sound like rock singers and that the vocal production of the two can be even remotely the same. If you believe that all music should be sung the same way, you are “ear-blind” to stylistic validity and personal expression within a style, and to the variance not only from one singer to the next, but one style to another. If you can’t hear the big differences, you will surely miss the small ones, and that will leave you lost and looking rather foolish if you present yourself as someone who is qualified to teach singing in any style.

If someone is recovering from a vocal pathology or injury and is also a professional singer, they need a very special kind of help. The field as it now exists gives singers some support if they are in need of assistance but it is limited.

A Speech Language Pathologist is a licensed professional who works with speech to return it to normal. The voice, indirectly, may be involved, but not always. A lisp, a swallowing problem, a loss of response due to illness may not involve pathology. Sometimes a SLP is also a singer, but most often, at least until very recently, one could assume that the singing was classical. That could mean almost anything. It could mean the individual had training at a university or conservatory. It could mean they had private lessons; it could mean they had had a career singing classical repertoire. There may be, now, some individuals whose backgrounds include CCM styles who are also SLPs, but it seems to be fewer in number.

If someone has had a career in rock, pop, gospel or country music, and encounters a vocal fold problem, and then goes to a laryngologist (a medical doctor with special training in working with the larynx) he would typically be treated with medication or vocal rest first. Then, perhaps simultaneously, but also perhaps, after rest, there could be (but isn’t always) a recommendation to do some work with a Speech Language Pathologist who works with the voice (not all of them do). There would be follow-up appointments but if the vocal fold issues do not resolve within a reasonable length of time, the MD might suggest phonosurgery (an operation on the vocal folds). After the surgery, there would be another period of vocal rest, maybe more speech therapy, and then, maybe (and that is the biggest maybe) a suggestion to work with something called a Singing Voice Specialist. This is NOT a licensed profession. It is typically a singing teacher who has learned to work with a recovering voice to re-train it to function properly, usually when the person has completed work with the SLP and/or MD.

Since this is not an official profession, at least not yet, there are no criteria and it is not really possible to establish what a Singing Voice Specialist needs to know. The other disciplines look to teachers who are affiliated with a conservatory, a college or university and who also have a degree in Speech Language Pathology, as being the “go-to” people. The problem with that is there is no guarantee that through traditional training one would learn to address CCM singers’ needs. The educational system is still largely dominated by classical training and even in those universities where students are getting degrees in music theater or jazz, the training is still, vocally speaking, classical. The issue then becomes, does an opera singer know how to re-train a belter?

Those of you who read this blog regularly know that I strongly believe that you should not teach sounds that you do not make and that listening is simply not enough to know what is going on in another person’s throat. If you don’t make the sound you do not know what the experience of making that sound is. Period. Of course, there are many, many people teaching who have never belted and would never belt, but teach it anyway. I have a problem with that.

If, then, the person going for re-training does not recover his or her signature CCM sound, and the SLP and medical doctor have done all they can, what is the vocalist to do? Whom should she see next for help? Does she give up singing? Does she learn a new style? Does she start to teach because, well, really, what else can you do with your experience?

These are questions that are topical now in the voice care community. They are important and should be discussed. If there are answers, and I believe there are, who should provide them? The vocalist is on her own here. It’s scary to contemplate a search for someone qualified to help, as there are no lists, no guidelines, and no criteria. Nevertheless, there ARE people who can help and have a track record of doing so effectively. If you find yourself in a position of needing this kind of support, don’t give up until you find it.

 

There are a lot of people in this world claiming to be master teachers. Some of them deserve that title by virtue of their life accomplishments but some of them are more like “master artists” rather than master teachers. Just because they have had successful careers as singers, doesn’t mean that they are great teachers.

A master teacher is able to find that which a student needs in a kind, fair and direct manner. He or she is able to target that which is most necessary and address those issues swiftly, but not in a way that is rushed. He or she is confident but not over-confident, secure but not  infallible, and enthusiastic about teaching rather than bored or condescending.

There are all kinds of ways for a teacher to possess mastery but not too many of them are going to show up in someone young. Wisdom more or less implies age, as life experience is worth something. I have heard about younger teachers calling themselves all sorts of fancy things in order to establish their expertise in the world. Doesn’t really hold up to scrutiny.

A master teacher isn’t out to impress anyone. She is out to be helpful in a practical, simple manner. She is out to give assistance in a way that empowers the person she is teaching and illuminates something about their singing or their artistry. She isn’t interested in demonstrating how much she knows, she is interested in discovering how the student can come to know, in any way that works.

Sometimes master teachers are nearly invisible. They are not famous, they don’t have flashy websites, they don’t take out big ads in local papers, they don’t really promote themselves. If you didn’t look you wouldn’t even know they had something to offer. It’s not necessarily so that people who promote themselves in the above ways are fraudulent, but if all you buy is the window dressing, without actually looking for substance, you can be fooled. Be aware, seekers, you have to look for that which shines out from underneath the professional persona.