vocal technique controversies
Regina Tan
variant theories of vocal technique/production/pedagogy and has
collected/summarized the competing views without endorsing one or the other.
I am a very experienced musician, recently started voice lessons, and I am
interested in finding sources wherein I can study the opinions of the
different schools of thought. Is there a good history of vocal pedagogy? Is
there a good summary of competing theories of vocal production which
presents all sides? Unfortunately in a very brief initial investigation I
have already encountered diametrically opposed interpretations of the same
primary sources with respect to more than one essential aspect of the art. I
am 'way too much of a newbie to evaluate the arguments presented. Is there
any hope?
It would be very much appreciated if you could cc your reply to my email
address, as I often miss posts to newsgroups.
Thanks.
Argeneld at zazie...@hotmail.com
Evelyn Vogt Gamble (Divamanque)
Regina Tan wrote:
>
> I am hoping that someone somewhere sometime has researched the widely
> variant theories of vocal technique/production/pedagogy and has
> collected/summarized the competing views without endorsing one or the other.
> I am a very experienced musician, recently started voice lessons, and I am
> interested in finding sources wherein I can study the opinions of the
> different schools of thought. Is there a good history of vocal pedagogy? Is
> there a good summary of competing theories of vocal production which
> presents all sides? Unfortunately in a very brief initial investigation I
> have already encountered diametrically opposed interpretations of the same
> primary sources with respect to more than one essential aspect of the art. I
> am 'way too much of a newbie to evaluate the arguments presented. Is there
> any hope?
Probably not much! Despite William Venard's studies on the
physical mechanics of the voice, singing remains very much a
subjective thing. We may know what the vocal instrument
should be doing in performance, but I can almost guarantee
that if you THINK about the physical mechanics of it while
you're singing, the results will not be very pleasing (if
you succeed in making any sound at all). Because the
instrument is part of the performer, the teacher cannot
simply demonstrate (on the student's instrument) the
"correct" way of doing something. After studying voice for
most of my life, I reached the conclusion that most teachers
are in agreement about the way the "end product" should
sound, but have various ideas of how to achieve it - some of
them worked for me, some didn't. Because so much of
teaching voice deals with analogy - "It should feel as
though ...." - the best teachers are those who can adapt
their terminology to fit the individual student. Despite the
spamming Mr. Ken B. Lane, there is no one "method" that
works for all voices. Consequently any really effective
teacher uses whatever seems to achieve the desired result in
each individual student, rather than trying to force all of
them into the same mould.
If you'll pardon the observation, I think you are wasting
time with an exercise in futility, if you hope that studying
methodology will help you find the teacher who is right for
you. (Certainly no amount of "book learning" can substitute
for the actual doing - but if you're an experienced
instrumentalist, you already know that.) ....That's
assuming you want to sing, not do a doctoral dissertation on
the subject of vocal pedagogy.
Max Freischutz
I tend to agree with Evelyn, though I think that teachers and students
who are familiar with various concepts of voice teaching, even though
those notions may be opposed to one another, have a better chance of
coaxing the right sound out.
It is helpful to understand the anatomy of the mouth and larynx, if to
no other end than helping the student feel confident that the entire
process is not really so mysterious. But I doubt that, during a
lesson, constant naming of the little bits of hidden flesh will
accomplish much.
In the end, not only do you have to respect your teacher, but your
teacher has to like you and your voice, and you both have to like the
repertoire. And be careful of a teacher who says the same things to
every student. A lot of teaching voice is helping to balance the
student's singing. Since we go to different extremes, we need
different corrections.
Max F.
Karen Mercedes
Any voice teacher who gives a name other than "bel canto" to the
"methodology" or "technique" he or she espouses should be approached with
EXTREME suspicion.
"Ya gotta have a gimmick" may be true for performers, but it is a HUGE red
flag when it comes to voice teachers.
Karen Mercedes
http://www.radix.net/~dalila/index.html
______________________________________
I will sing with the spirit, and I
will sing with the understanding also.
1 Corinthians 14:15
David Newman
<Pine.GSO.4.43.02070...@saltmine.radix.net>,
Karen Mercedes <dal...@radix.net> wrote:
> I believe a good rule of thumb to follow is this:
>
> Any voice teacher who gives a name other than "bel canto" to the
> "methodology" or "technique" he or she espouses should be approached with
> EXTREME suspicion.
>
> "Ya gotta have a gimmick" may be true for performers, but it is a HUGE red
> flag when it comes to voice teachers.
There is just cause for Karen's concern - the world is full of quacks
masquerading as voice teachers. Some of them use fancy names for their
self styled techniques. However, many of them also claim they teach
"bel canto". (Which simply means "beautiful singing".)
And in fact, even traditional "bel canto" technique can have it's flaws.
I recently read the book "How To Sing" by Lilli Lehmann, and found much
to disagree with from both a factual and a pedagogical perspective.
However, I also found some valuable exercises therein, which I proceeded
to incorporate into my teaching.
There are also many wonderful teachers in the world using many different
techniques, including "bel canto". Some may work better for certain
kinds of singing than others.
I recommend Richard Miller's book "The Structure of Singing" to you as a
resource in which you will find both an explanation of (fairly) current
consensus as to the function of the voice and a discussion of various
schools of thought and methodologies of teaching.
The Vennard book is also a valuable resource, but keep in mind that
technology has grown with leaps and bounds since that book was written,
and our understanding of vocal function has also developed.
Some random thoughts:
"Harshaw" technique has many fans throughout the US. Margaret Harshaw
was a teacher at Indiana University, and had many famous singers come
out of her studio. Many of them went on to teach "her" technique. (I
believe she simply claimed to teach "bel canto.") Her technique appears
to work very well for some people, especially singers with very large
voices. However, a problem I've noticed in many students of this
technique is a tendency to push and/or to sing flat.
Seth Riggs trademarked his technique as "Speech level singing". Most of
his technique centers around a subset of traditional "bel canto"
technique, with the primary difference being that his main focus is on
the stability of the larynx and the aquisition of a large range. This
seems to be an effective technique for many pop singers. It has
apparently been effective for opera singers as well. I believe there
are some elements to this technique which would be particularly useful
to any singer who is struggling with their upper range. However, it
does not seem as useful to someone trying to develop a classical
aesthetic in their sound. Also, listen to Seth Rigg's speaking voice,
and you may hear the apparent results of vocal damage, which could be a
bad sign.
"Alexander" technique, while not a complete vocal technique in itself,
is used by many teachers of singing, though it was originally developed
to support the speaking voice. It is principally a technique of posture
and body alignment. Many people swear by it. I personally find most of
it to be basic common sense.
While she doesn't seem to have "named" her technique, I enjoyed the
approach taken by Carolyn Sloan in her book "Finding Your Voice". While
it sometimes gets a bit too new-agey for my taste, the principles she
espouses seem sound.
There are many techniques of breathing. All of them seem to work for
some people. I believe that whether they work or don't work depends
simply on whether they provide adequate control over the breath capacity
and pressure. The vocal folds don't care whether the abs are out or in.
As far as the breathing apparatus is concerned, they simply respond to
air flow and pressure.
Whatever technique you pursue, it should offer you the tools you need to
produce the kinds of sounds you want in a way that is healthy and
sustainable for you and your body. Your teacher should be able to
assess whether you are capable of acheiving your vocal goals with the
technique, and be able to offer you some aesthetic guidance along the
way.
--
David Newman, Baritone
www.newmannotes.com
Karen Mercedes
and the "Buckingham technique". I have friends who've studied with
Buckingham himself, and with some of his "disciples", and Buckingham's
approach sounds very much like your description of Harshaw's, and also
seems to work best with very large voices.
Being in Washington, D.C., I've found that most of the teachers in this
area at one time or another studied with the late, great Todd Duncan, who
never "named" his technique, though it appears to have much in common with
the teachings of Richard Miller and other Bel Canto advocates. Only once
or twice have I ever come across Duncan students who later actively
rejected his approach in favour of some destructive "gimmick" (one such
"teacher" - I use the term inaccurately in his case, I fear - in this area
claimed to teach from original 18th Century texts; when I asked whether he
would be so kind as to let me read these texts for myself - or simply SEE
them - you can imagine his waffling; he was also sex-obsessed, and told me
that no woman could sing really well unless she was "wet"; as you can
imagine, I RAN top speed out of his studio and never looked back).
Fortunately, the other Duncan students seem to perpetuate his very healthy
teachings, with their own additions and flourishes, of course, but without
straying from the very sane core.
Sandy Andina
"Stanley Method" (popular in the 1980s, using physical manipulation
techniques to reduce constrictions and nodules and purportedly "build" a
voice more quickly) on singers (esp. mezzos) long-term? I studied with a
Stanley teacher for 5 yrs.back then; though I developed a true vibrato and
larger range fairly rapidly, I noticed a certain "cloudiness" (not a rasp or
roughness, but a loss in clarity) not all that far down in my lower
register, which worsened with fatigue--especially after a lesson or
multi-set gig. At the time, my teacher dismissed it as a "work in progress"
but I also noticed this same quality in other mezzos, altos and spintos he
taught (we all sang together as part of the school's semipro chorale and did
joint recitals of lieder and opera).
I recently began studying with an excellent Speech-Level Singing teacher
(who attributes Riggs' raspy speaking voice to shouting, smoking and other
speech abuses) after I noticed a few critiques (mostly private) of my debut
CD touched on the lack of "edge" to my voice--something I'd long suspected
since resuming my singing career after a long hiatus (during which time I
sang occasionally with bands and often recreationally at home). He is quite
concerned that I might have a bowed vocal fold and urges diagnostic imaging
by the top singing ENT in the country (which my crappy HMO may not cover
unless I use one of *its* ENTs). He does not believe I have any lesions, as
I do have clarity and vibrato in my upper register and have no trouble
speaking (except for the aforementioned fatigue after a lesson or long
session). He also believes acid reflux (for which I've taken
state-of-the-art meds for years now) might also be the culprit--or allergy
or even hypohydration, but he's betting on a bowed cord.
Here's what bothers me. Everything I've read attributes vocal fold
bowing to underuse and aging--typically an elderly patient who doesn't even
talk much. I'm only 51, and though I may not have sung ( practice or gigs)
daily until recently, I certainly have not been anywhere near taciturn. I am
also a lawyer, and talk at least an average amount. If anything, I may have
been misusing my voice by having to shout over the deafening roar of my
teenage son's favorite music to get him to come downstairs, answer the
phone, etc.(occupational hazard of parenthood)--but I first noticed this
decades ago when I was studying Stanley method and had no kids yet. I also
pulled out a recording made 20 yrs. ago (after about a year of study), in
which I notice the same fatigued sound (albeit a bit worse than today) plus
too much "straight tone;" one made 4 years later does exhibit much more
clarity and true vibrato. Oddly, the years I spent singing lead vocal with a
rock band were my strongest and most comfortable vocally--perhaps due to
good monitoring and amplification, plus careful avoidance of destructive
rock vocal mannerisms.
If I do have a bowed vocal fold:
1. Can it be attributed in part to the Stanley Method?
2. Can vocal exercises and good vocal hygiene alone bring greater
clarity and less fatigue; or would I need (gulp!) injections or even
microsurgery?
3. If it is not curable, is there any point to continuing lessons (a
rhetorical question, I know)?
4. Is there documentation of specific vocal problems/types of damage
associated with the Stanley Method (created, ironically, to reduce or
eliminate nodules)?
Please reply backchannel as well as on-list.
--
Sandy
http://www.sandyandina.com