The Twelve Days of Singing

On the first day of singing my true love gave to me: My heart's song to sing out gayly.

On the second day of singing my true love gave to me: Two dulcet tones, and my heart's song to sing out gayly.

On the third day of singing my true love gave to me: Three high notes, two dulcet tones and my heart's song to sing out gayly.

On the fourth day of singing my true love gave to me: Four lovely "ah's", three high notes, two dulcet tones and my heart's song to sing out gayly.

On the fifth day of singing my true love gave to me: FIVE GOOD DEEP BREATHS, four lovely "ah's", three high notes, two dulcet tones and my heart's song to sing out gayly.

On the six day of singing my true love gave to me: Six tenors yelping, FIVE GOOD DEEP BREATHS, four lovely "ah's", three high notes, two dulcet tones and my heart's song to sing out gayly.

On the seventh day of singing my true love gave to me: Seven hefty mezzos, six tenors yelping, FIVE GOOD DEEP BREATHS, four lovely "ah's", three high notes, two dulcet tones and my heart's song to sing out gayly.

On the eighth day of singing my true love gave to me: Eight jazz cats scatting, seven hefty mezzos, six tenors yelping, FIVE GOOD DEEP BREATHS, four lovely "ah's", three high notes, two dulcet tones and my heart's song to sing out gayly.

On the ninth day of singing my true love gave to me: Nine crooners sighing, eight jazz cats scatting, seven hefty mezzos, six tenors yelping, FIVE GOOD DEEP BREATHS, four lovely "ah's", three high notes, two dulcet tones and my heart's song to sing out gayly.

On the tenth day of singing my true love gave to me: Ten fancy phrases, nine crooners sighing, eight jazz cats scatting, seven hefty mezzos, six tenors yelping, FIVE GOOD DEEP BREATHS, four lovely "ah's", three high notes, two dulcet tones and my heart's song to sing out gayly.

On the eleventh day of singing my true love gave to me: Eleven growling basses, ten fancy phrases, nine crooners sighing, eight rockers screaming, seven hefty mezzos, six tenors yelping, FIVE GOOD DEEP BREATHS, four lovely "ah's", three high notes, two dulcet tones and my heart's song to sing out gayly.

On the twelveth day of singing my true love gave to me: Twelve rockers screaming, eleven growling basses, ten fancy phrases, nine crooners sighing, eight rockers screaming, seven hefty mezzos, six tenors yelping, FIVE GOOD DEEP BREATHS, four lovely "ah's", three high notes, two dulcet tones and my heart's song to sing out gayly.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO ALL!!!

(Feel free to copy this and send it around or sing it yourself at your holiday party!)

The Consequences of Telling the Truth

Recently I posted a blurb which caused so much trouble I took it down. That's the trouble with the truth.....it can be very unpopular.

Most people put up with things because of fear. They are afraid of looking bad, afraid of being judged negatively by others, afraid of rocking the boat, causing trouble, making enemies, throwing stones.......on and on. If, however, what is being stated is true, then perhaps the price of truth is to cause trouble, rock the boat, make enemies (if necessary) and throw stones in order to get people's attention. If you take a stand, then someone will come to knock you down just because you have. If you don't take a stand, and most people do not, then things happen that shouldn't happen. The list of events that start that way and is long and is thousands of years old. What if more people had opposed Hitler? What if the protests against the war in Vietnam had happened BEFORE we went there?

Those who have a stake in a situation that shouldn't be, or those who are most at risk, often do not speak up because others are involved who may be dependent upon them. If you are a parent who is supporting a child and speaking up might cost you your job, you will probably just put up and shut up. If you are a spouse suporting a sick husband or wife, you, too would look the other way at something that you know shouldn't be happening, unless you have another job waiting for you.

After many years being very active in his Laborer's union, my father was elected Treasurer when I was about 12. It took him a long time to get the books from the previous Treasurer but he finally did. With no formal financial training, he laboriously poured over the accounts that he and his fellow workers had paid into with their wages and finally concluded that more than $5,000 had been embezzled from the union by the previous Treasurer (this was in the 50s, so that was a lot of money). When he brought this to the attention of the elected union officials, they actually told him to keep quiet. The Treasurer had a lot of friends, he was a "nice guy" and the union bosses felt that the ensuing notoriety would be "bad" for the union. The man got away with the theft, my father made lots of enemies, and he was forced to quit his post, and never again went to a union meeting. He was extremely disillusioned, but I was proud of him.

So, with that in mind, the situation about which I wrote in my missing post is true and not bringing it to light is a mistake. It is thus: There is a college vocal music program that is operating under very restricted thinking, firing those who do not go along with the "party line". They refer to the college students as "babies". They do not teach belting because they think it is harmful, and they do not teach "to the marketplace", in spite of the fact that this is professed to be a professional training program preparing people to go straight to Broadway. They insist that they are going to make Broadway come around to THEIR standards and the price for this entire arrangement in terms of tuition is at the very high end of what colleges cost. The students have been on the receiving end of profanity by some teachers and have also been told not to question their instructors. Faculty that have their own ideas about singing or acting are quickly fired. If any of this is mentioned, the parties involved get angry. I solicited responses from anyone in any program anywhere that operates under such out-of-balance conditions and did hear from a few people. That solicitation is made again now.

Because the profession in general has no set standards, because we do not yet agree that belting is just another way to use the voice and should be healthy when done correctly, because we do not yet certify singing teachers and require that they actually be able to sing what they teach and sing it well, because we do not openly criticize things that are just plain wrong -- we are complicit in their continuing to go on, and continuing to cause innocent singers (students) to become, at best, confused, and at worst, injured. Because we are afraid to speak up and speak out, we are part of the problem.

I have no one to answer to except myself. I do not depend on anyone other than myself for financial support, and no one is relying upon me for financial support. Therefore, I believe I have a moral duty to discuss situations that exist in vocal education that need to see the light of day and are made known to me by reliable sources. The opportunity is then made available for others to discuss these issues represented by these situations with the hope that everyone everywhere will look at them. No, it won't change the specific scenario mentioned (at least in a direct way), but it may make it harder for other circumstances of similar nature to develop because people (students and teachers alike) will be alerted beforehand.

I have taken a stand with my work. I have an obligation to uphold this stand. Others may disagree with me, as that is their right, but I will speak the truth and take the consequences of so doing.

Swiss Cheese

A student arrived recently with a degree in music theater freshly planted under her belt. Lovely young woman, lovely voice, very musical and expressive with a song.

She was missing a whole bunch of ingredients in her vocal technique that should have been there. Why would that be? Was she just a dumb bunny, someone who couldn't understand her teachers? Was she was recalcitrant, thinking she knew it all, didn't need to learn anything from anyone? Was it that she just didn't have a "world class" voice? Maybe she was just not talented enough, vocally speaking. Perhaps she was distracted in her studies, didn't apply herself, had no motivation?

Or maybe the people who set up the program didn't know or bother to find out what a well trained singing voice does so that training could be offered to the students. Maybe THEY don't know what a professional caliber voice is, how it should function and what it should be able to do....regardless of whether the vocalist is truly talented or just average......since function has nothing to do with talent, it has to do with being alive and having vocal folds. Maybe, too, the people who were willing to take her money for four years didn't think it was all that important for a person getting a degree in MUSIC theater to understand how to sing. Maybe they thought that acting was enough to do the job or that classical vocal training (of all kinds) would somehow magically get the most out of a young throat. Maybe the whole degree is just about learning lots of songs.

What about taking the student and fixing several technical inadequacies in ONE lesson? Could that prove that it was not the student who was at the root of the technical lacks? What about asking "did you learn anything about this" or "anything about that" and being told honestly and without rancor, "no". Basic information that was never given at all. Is this something that should be blamed upon the student?

The schools are very willing to accommodate the enormous number of kids who want to be in music theater programs because these programs make money. There must be at least 10 new programs opening in colleges every year. How they spring up, overnight, and who runs them, is a mystery, but it does seem that someone decides to get things started because it's possible, and the thought process ends there.

If you are someone who wants to go into a music theater degree program, beware. If you are someone who is being asked to teach at one, beware. If you are someone who is in charge of one, beware a whole lot, like your life depended on it. And, if you are someone who has never tread the boards in a professional calibre music theater production and you are being asked to teach music theater songs, beware, too.

If you send out a young vocalist with a degree that provides training that is shot full of holes, like Swiss Cheese, remember: you have to look at yourself every day in the mirror.

The Point Is Singing Very Well

I am very strongly committed to the idea that singing teachers should sing well in whatever style they teach. That this takes commitment, dedication and desire is a given. That the standards of the singing are measured by those other than the teacher, meaning the teacher stands up in public and, from time to time, actually sings, is also a given.

What the world does not need is people who are sort of OK teaching other people to be not quite OK and calling that education of any sort. If we are dealing with something that can only be learned by a transference from one person to another, then the stakes are greater than normal. Guess what, that is how singing lessons have always worked. One person to another, one lesson at a time.

Now I do know that people who no longer sing well can teach wonderfully, especially if they were good once upon a time. I also know that some people who don't sing might be good at explaining to someone what to do when she sings, but a verbal explanation is NEVER going to substitute for an out loud example. We learn to sing by listening, just as we once learned to talk when we were very young, and that is the core attribute of the process that matters. Sure, listening to someone sound bad doesn't mean the student will also sound bad, but it surely doesn't make it easier to assume she will sound good, either.

My last teacher was a tenor. I learned a lot from him before I finally left, never to have another singing teacher again. (I've had lots of coaches, though). Many years after I no longer studied with him, I had occasion to hear him sing a recital of Shubert's "Winterreise" and nearly fell out of my chair as I realized that I had internalized this man's throat constriction for nearly 20 years without having any idea that I had done so. It was only after I worked out my own technical bugs that I was able to recognize his sound as having served as an example for my own, and although I made no effort whatsoever to copy or imitate him, nor did he ever ask me to do so, I had done exactly that, just by hearing him in my lessons for 7 years.

Too many teachers are just plain lazy about their own singing. Too many others never really found the resources to sing well in the first place, but then, somehow, they felt it was just fine to teach what they actually hardly understood themselves. (What gaul!) The people who turned to teaching because they were tired of having to deal with all that a singing career entails at least bring to the profession something in the form of valid experience and the credibility that goes with having been hired for a number of years, having made some kind of vocal music. The only exception I would make here would be the case of someone who is an older teacher who has had health problems. I might cut someone in this situation a little slack. There are, however, a number of octogenarians out there these days who are singing and sounding great, including Tony Bennett and Sheila Jordon, so it isn't age per se that's the issue, but the overall shape of the person and their instrument.

So, if you are student, and your teacher sounds odd, you should ask yourself why. If their method wasn't good enough to help them sound good, how is it going to help you? If you are so young as to have no basis to evaluate their singing in terms of its quality, then go find someone who is knowledgeable and ask that person to have a listen. If the teacher cannot do what you want to learn, don't study with that person. If the person is a tenor with no high notes and you need help with your high notes, stop! No matter what they tell you, if they don't do what they want to teach you to do, I repeat, (and you can consider this a yell), DO NOT STUDY WITH THAT PERSON. If you are someone with tension issues, and the person teaching you has a tight constricted sound, you are NOT going to get rid of that sound until you leave and find someone who has a relaxed vocal production and knows it. LET THE BUYER BEWARE.

The point is the teacher should be singing very well.

Don't buy a car from someone who doesn't drive!!!!!!!!!

Doctors, Speech Language Pathologists and US

Those of us who have taken the time and spent the money to learn about working with injured voices by re-training them after illness, injury or surgery appreciate the MDs who trust us and refer people to us and Speech Language Pathologists who understand how to work as partners alongside us when working with vocalists.

There are not too many MDs who bother to find out how singing and singers function and who understand the need for re-training to avoid re-injury, but there are a few who have also sought out such knowledge, and are leading their profession towards greater interaction. Speech Language Pathology is important, too, but, again not all SLPs realize that treating the speaking voice is only part of what needs to happen if the person had problems singing that were caused by vocal production. Some SLPs have singing experience and are working to bridge the two professions - speech and song -- with their expertise.

It is very possible to have normal vocal folds and dysfunctional vocal behavior. Medicine isn't going to help such a situation, and if the singer loses the top of his or her range, or has trouble matching pitch, or has less stamina, surgery isn't the answer and sometimes speech work isn't enough. The only real answer here is a team approach.....medical doctor first, followed by qualified speech pathologist with expertise in voice issues (that's a speciality), and then work with a singing teacher who is trained to help someone recover from vocal function issues.

The conference "Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation of the Performance Voice" (mvp2009.blogspot.com/), in October in Michigan at the University of Michigan Medical School is just such a conference. It brings together medical doctors, speech language pathologists, singing teachers and researchers as well as performers, to help them learn from each other how they work and why. It is important that we continue to work with each other so there is greater trust and understanding as patients can only benefit from having guides who have correct information, correctly applied.

Singing teachers who have expertise in re-training injured voices need to press MDs to learn more about what they have to offer. Singing teachers need to find speech language pathologists who will also work with them to be sure that a singer not only has healthy speech but professional level singing as well.

If you are a singing teacher, you might sign up for The New York Singing Teachers' Association Professional Development Program (www.nyst.org) and learn what you need to know. If you are a SLP, you might try taking singing lessons, and if you are a doctor, you might also learn to sing. Cross training is the best way to know what's expected in each area.

The 21st Century is going to demand that all of us understand a lot more about each discipline. Please reach out and interact with your sister professions.

Going Slow

If you think you want to learn to sing by "taking a few lessons" then go ahead. You might find a bit of information helpful, as long as you are a pretty good singer in the first place and as long as you are only going to sing at church.

If, however, you expect to sing in public, or expect to someday be paid to sing, or have aspirations to be well known as a singer, and you think you can "get by" with a "few lessons", good luck. You might be OK. You might, indeed, have good luck. But if you don't have good luck, you could end up worse off than you were before you took any lessons at all. You could spend a very long time learning a lot of nothing which can have dire results. You might lose the ability you have naturally and even end up with vocal pathology (illness). You could end up hating singing (I've seen that many times).

The only way you could avoid that would be to have information about what good singing is, and why it is good. You would need some musical information, too, like what it means to sing "off-key", and what it means to "perform" for an audience. If you didn't know those things and you didn't even know that this kind of information was available (this is typical) you could waste a lot of money on lessons and spend many years studying before you understood the "lay of the land". Plus, you would still have had to do a lot of work along the way.

The problem is that there is no general book on singing and expectations thereof. How would the average person know or understand the "mysterious" process of? (That's being kind.) There are no general reference books about this topic. Not one.

There a hundreds of books by singers and teachers of singing about the process, each with a singular point of view, but none of them take a generic look at the process in simple human terms. Too bad. We need one.

Opera Versus Functional

The new rule is: all good training for the voice is functional training. No more "classical" training, anywhere.

If you sing classical music (i.e. opera, art song, chamber music, orchestral solos, early music (renaissance, baroque) and oratorio), then you train for that. Singing Verdi is not the same, in any way, as singing John Dowland. Singing Bach will not help you sing Wagner. Let's get that straight once and for all. There is no such thing as "classical training" -- there is training for classical music repertoire which has to be adjusted, not only for the era and style, but for the individual.

And, let's also say that there are many approaches to teaching classical singing, some of which conflict with each other. There are those who say "no chest register" and those who say "use chest register" (although they may call it something else). There are those that say, "breath support is the answer" and "those that say "correct placement is the answer" and there are those that say "keep the belly muscles in" and those that say "push the belly muscles out". There are those that like the tone to be "forward and bright" and those that like "open in the back" or "always keep the larynx low" (which makes the sound fat but sometimes too fat) and those that want to always be in between, wherever that is -- take your pick. There are those who believe that everything is in "singing on the breath", or in "making a legato line" or "spinning out the high notes" or resonating the "masque". There are those who tell you to "soften the consonants" or to "pronounce everything with precise clarity" or find something in between, whatever that is -- take your pick. We have those who say you must not ever really feel anything emotional while you sing, least you upset your throat, and those who say that you should feel everything fully and whatever happens, happens. I could go on.

The idea that there is a kind of generic "classical" training is a myth that exists in two places: colleges and in the minds of the singing teachers who are on their voice faculties.

If we regard training for the voice (and body) as anything which makes the voice stronger, more expressive, more vital, more versatile, more able to stay healthy, more likely to reflect the human condition, then training for both speech and song would each cover everything. Speech training is often more physical than singing training in relation to the use of the body, but speech training does not include things like vibrato, or sustained pitch (in deliberate measures of length and at specific decibel levels), nor does it require precise rhythmic patterns, as does singing. It does not usually address vocal registers directly. It looks at range but not with the specificity that singing demands. It does not ask the performer to make music in any direct way. In a perfect world, singing training would supersede the need for speech training, as full out singing actually asks more from the voice in terms of complexity and demand than does speech, but that is rarely the case.

And, as I have said over and over on this blog, in universities there is a cult of schooling for schooling's sake. This means that people go to school so that they can teach other people, essentially with only that for "experience". Since singing outside of school constitutes real world experience, having little or no professional level real world experience does not qualify someone to be an able singer. Further, singing for a group of other people who have similar backgrounds does not break the pattern. If the entire department of a college is full of mediocre vocalists who could not work as singers in the first place, because they were not good enough, how would anyone ever know what excellent singing really was? How would someone who was a world class vocalist do in such a department? Would everyone be cowed or jealous? Would people recognize the difference in someone who was truly exceptional as being that or would they be unable to comprehend that in any way?

If you have not done surgery but go into medical college to teach it, what would happen? Is that possible? If your singing skills are honed in school and then you stay in school and teach, how do you know if you belong there as a teacher?

It's not impossible. Some really good singers have not had careers and are great teachers and some people with really good careers teach but have no clue what they are doing. There are no pat answers here. It would, however, be a good thing if the entire subject were more open to scrutiny than it is.

Can you tell that today I taught yet another person who had "lots of years of classical training" with "several opera teachers" and exhibited multiple technical problems most of which got immediately better in just one lesson? Why are you not surprised?