How did you learn to sing?

[Supercreep]

I'm going to go ahead and apologize for my tone ahead of time. I don't mean to sound personally dismissive. However, every time someone pops on this board asking about singing, they receive a bunch downright misled, ignorant ideas about vocal pedagogy.

Read the whole thread. When you're pointing your finger you've got three pointing back at you.

"Untrained voices are so much better." <Sarcasm> Right </Sarcasm>

Who is making this argument?

I think that the comparisons often made in these arguments are a little misguided. Taking the example of Leonard Cohen — I'm borrowing the example from Supercreep — who I believe to have reasonable technique, compared with that of say, Dylan, Cohen's technique isn't poor, his voice just happens to broach the nether regions humanly audible pitch. I think it's a rather dishonest argument to compare the delivery of a singer-songwriter who is intimately associated with his own work, to that of the same song by a highly trained vocalist. It takes two vocalists at completely divergent ends of the spectrum and compares them. Further, whether or not a particular trained vocalist could make an engaging version of a particular untrained singer-songwriter's composition is rather inconsequential to the question of whether or not an individual is well-served by vocal training. Besides, if we are going to consider particulars, Cohen's "Hallelujah" is an easy counter-example — both of the Wainright and Buckley versions are more engaging, both by more technically adept singers. Infrequently in these conversations do we ever discuss technically proficient singers. Consider Pat Stump of Fall Out Boy — very well developed technique. Could he have written the same melodies, expressed the same ideas, without that technical freedom?

Whenever these discussions crop up, responses make it seem like studying voice will rob you of your voices natural expression. The evidence? Dozens of untrained singers with gripping natural voices. Please, someone find me a recording of a person who sounded like Kurt Cobain and lost his natural voice due to vocal instruction. Show me a before and after recording of someone who attended vocal instruction and sounded worse in the latter. Comparing someone like Cobain to Josh Groban doesn't make sense, unless Groban sounded like Cobain before all those scales.

Fascinating. However, my post was in response to this inane assertion:

Sang in school and church choirs since I was eight. Have not had enough personal voice training/lessons, in my own opinion, but have had some.

Gonna get strong with you folks: 99% of the time, those with formal training are going to be better than those who are self-taught- IN ALL AREAS. This goes double with voice. Too many bad habits can be formed being self-taught.

And to put a sharper point on it: none of you fit in that last 1 percent.

The point I'm making, again, is that it is vitally important to understand your strengths and limitations as a vocalist. Don't waste time trying to do something you can't do well. Instead, focus on a delivery and a style that suits your capability. Should Cohen strive to sound like Pat Stump? Should Cohen try to learn to snap across eighteen notes in a single downward phrase? I mean, he could just take lessons, right?

Remember - "potential" just means you haven't done shit yet. "Capability" is a better guide.

Yes, there are wonderful, emotionally brilliant voices possessed by singers who have not studied seriously. But, to say we should just embrace our current abilities because of these singers is limiting and silly.

Agreed. The problem is that nobody is making this argument.

End of story

 

[azraelswings]

Read the whole thread. When you're pointing your finger you've got three pointing back at you.

Uh-Huh. The text of mine which you cite is a statement made to make clear that I am not "pointing fingers." Thus, why I avoided quoting any previous posts in this thread. I do not, will not, criticize people. I will however, criticize ideas. Also, in the same text, I make it clear that my post was in response not just to this thread, but to previous discussions on the board.

Who is making this argument?

Again, the purpose of my post was first and foremost to clear up general misconceptions. Misconceptions that were, in fact, evident in this thread:

The vast majority of voices I like to listen to aren't trained: they might have had the odd bit of tutoring at some stage but are, essentially, natural or brutally forced.
Trained, coached, developed voices end up doing Idol & becoming cabaret/all round entertainers it they're lucky.
Seriously though - training in diction, breathing, projection etc may well extend a singer's career options or longevity but they don't substitute for a natural voice with expression, passion and some level of savvy for the needs of recording (consistency, lips smaking etc as mentioned by supercreep) it. These days Caruso may not have had IT. Groban has a trained sounding voice but is not the choice (and he makes bad choices too).
Piaf was as rough as guts, she did acquire some polish (but I think that was imbided). Leonard Cohen just is, could you imagine a trained Elvis Costello or Kurt ennunciating his syllables just so?

Summarized, the above means: training results in clear diction and an homogenized, unnaturally smooth tone that limits a singer to pop, A. Idol pipe dreams, and night club entertainment.

It's rather evident that, "The majority of the voices I like to listen aren't trained", and, "Untrained voices are so much better" (when read as a statement of opinion) are reasonably equivalent phrases.

Also, the above somehow implies that expression, passion, and recording techniques are absent from vocal training. Or, in its mention of Cobain and Costello, that vocal training will somehow prevent one from singing idiosyncratically.

I've got a good-sized "following" (just friends that regularly come see me play) that always tells me *not* to take formal lessons, because the teacher will try to change my voice. I really don't want to change my voice at all, but I know (even though my friends don't realize it) that I can definitely stand to be more consistent... note-wise.

Summarized, Buddy's friends think, "Your voice is awesome, and better then what I think a voice teacher will change your voice into." Again, equivalent to the idea that the untrained voice is, somehow, better.

The natural sound of someone's voice, without taking into account any artifice or technique, can be a viscerally gripping experience.

Do I really need to spell out the likeness?

Fascinating. However, my post was in response to this inane assertion:

Being that I only borrowed the example of Cohen to make a general statement about arguments typical in these discussions, and did not address or seek to address your discussion of him, I have no choice but to read the above as an attempt to dismiss the quoted text without answering the ideas therein.

The point I'm making, again, is that it is vitally important to understand your strengths and limitations as a vocalist.

Per se, this statement is sound. (I would edit it to read current strengths and limitations...) In fact, its crucial in the development of any skill to understand strengths and weaknesses, so that you can respectively maximize and minimize them. Thus the value of an experienced teacher with a like mind to your artistic goals. My problem with this arises when its read in conjunction with what follows:

Don't waste time trying to do something you can't do well.

Possibly the single most idiotic answer to any question of developing musical skill. Limiting, discouraging, ill-informed, poorly reasoned trash. In performance, one should naturally stick within the realm of what they can do at that time. That does not mean one should simply find a niche and not explore expanding their ability.

Instead, focus on a delivery and a style that suits your capability.

Sound advice regarding performance choices, not for the development of ability. And, to fulfill your advice would demand exploration, as any vocal training is filled with.

Should Cohen strive to sound like Pat Stump?

Of course not. This stands as another example of dishonest argument made with respect to the development of technique—Vocal training would not seek to make Cohen sound like anyone else. The goal of vocal training is to explore an individuals voice, not to make it sound like anyone else's. Your advice it to make the most of what you've got. Vocal training seeks to maximize, not alter, what you have.

Should Cohen try to learn to snap across eighteen notes in a single downward phrase? I mean, he could just take lessons, right?

Again, a dishonest rhetorical device. It depends on the idea that vocal training will encourage someone to sing in such a fashion, which is simply untrue. Unless of course the student's preferred style calls for it, as in the case of, say, a coloratura soprano.

Vocal training seeks to develop the freedom to choose your mode of expression. It does not demand that one sing in a particular way. Such is the asinine belief I am trying desperately hard to clear up.

Remember - "potential" just means you haven't done shit yet. "Capability" is a better guide.

To repeat, your ability should be a guide to how you perform. It should not limit you from exploring your potential.

Agreed. The problem is that nobody is making this argument.

As I made clear above, my post was aimed at clearing up general, common misconception. However, when one enters a conversation about learning to sing, and states anything to the effect of, "untrained voices can be awesome", it implies that one should not pursue training unless they want to sound like what the speaker perceives a trained voice to sound like.

Childish silliness that adds nothing to discussion.

The post I am responding to tries to take a well-reasoned and expressed argument and dismiss it as irrelevant because it does not answer particular posts in the thread.

 

[gecko zzed]

I have to say that I'm with you on this one, azraelswings. I kind of enjoy the arguments that rustle the pages of this forum, and for the most part, I can see valid points on either side. Quite often, the arguments run at cross purposes, each party pushing an idea that is not being contested by the other, though they think they are.

In this case, I think your ideas are being contested, not so much because there is a genuine debate, but more for the purpose of scoring points. As an illustration, why was my earlier post not attacked when I made essentially the same points as you? If there is a flaw in your argument, then there is a flaw in mine, but mine remains unscathed. That suggests to me that I'm witnessing not an attack on a particular point of view (otherwise my statements would also have been challenged), but an attack on a particular person (because only yours have been challenged).

Ad hominem arguments are prevalent in political circles: discredit the person making a statement and you discredit the statement (or so it is hoped), but in the end, it backfires on the arguer, and it is not an approach I would recommend. Having said that, I could easily imagine that what I've just written could be construed as being the same, i.e. an attack on a person. I hope not, because I am only being critical of a style of debating.

But, just so that it is quite clear where I stand, I'll repeat my earlier assertion: I can't think of any human endeavour that does not benefit from specialist training, and I can't think of any reason why that would not include singing.

 

[Supercreep]

Possibly the single most idiotic answer to any question of developing musical skill. Limiting, discouraging, ill-informed, poorly reasoned trash.

That's some strong talk, azraelswings. Keep it civil. You want to trade insults, let's do it in the Cave, where I will fucking dismantle your know-nothing ass piece by piece.

Keep in mind that when I was 24 I thought I knew everything too.

In performance, one should naturally stick within the realm of what they can do at that time. That does not mean one should simply find a niche and not explore expanding their ability.

Again, you are arguing against a point nobody is making. This is a straw-man argument.

"Exploring the expansion of your ability" is a noble pursuit. Unfortunately, ability is a term that denotes limitations. Finding out what those limitations are is laudable. Vocal training does not remove all limitations. I don't think I am discouraging anyone from taking vocal lessons, just cautioning people to keep their expectations in line with reality. Sorry if you find reality limiting and discouraging. It is contrafactual that vocal lessons are a sky's-the-limit panacea of unrealized vocal talent. Lessons develop existing talent. Lessons do not create talent.

This stands as another example of dishonest argument made with respect to the development of technique—Vocal training would not seek to make Cohen sound like anyone else.

Really? What if he wanted to sing like Christina Aguilera? Couldn't he just take fucking lessons?

The goal of vocal training is to explore an individuals voice, not to make it sound like anyone else's. Your advice it to make the most of what you've got. Vocal training seeks to maximize, not alter, what you have

You don't realize you are just reiterating what I've said? Maximize your talent. Play to your strengths.

Again, a dishonest rhetorical device. It depends on the idea that vocal training will encourage someone to sing in such a fashion, which is simply untrue. Unless of course the student's preferred style calls for it, as in the case of, say, a coloratura soprano.

What if your student's preferred style is one that he sucks at?

Vocal training seeks to develop the freedom to choose your mode of expression.

What does that even mean? Are you writing a fucking brochure or something?

To repeat, your ability should be a guide to how you perform. It should not limit you from exploring your potential.

Potential just means you ain't done shit. Nobody is arguing against "exploring your potential".

 

[Supercreep]

Azraelswings

I just waded through all of your posts here on HR.

I must say, you are an supercillious and passionately opinionated proponent of vocal coaching.

However, I notice that not a single one of your posts is in the MP3 clinic, and that you don't provide any links to any of your material.

Would you kindly direct us simpletons to a song of yours where we can hear the fruits of your vocal training?

It's most likely that you are a fantastic singer, and that your vocal prowess will make my untrained vocal meanderings seem marginal by way of comparison.

But for the "show me" types, would you mind posting a link to something that gives us an idea of your capabilities?

 

[gecko zzed]

But for the "show me" types, would you mind posting a link to something that gives us an idea of your capabilities?

I'm not sure that we would get much benefit from this.

Hearing a voice that has had training doesn't reveal the improvement that the training has made. We have no idea of what it was like before!

What would be useful is hearing a 'before' and 'after', and some indication of what happened between.

In the early seventies I and many friends were just starting out making music. We were all very green amateurs, learning as we went and not being very good at pretty much anything (even though we had immense fun).

Some twenty years later, I caught up with one of those friends who was performing somewhere. Well . . . there was a huge difference in his singing over the twenty years. It was the same voice, with its idiosyncratic gravelness; the same intensity, the same mournful desperation . . . but so much more in control, and so much more able to touch the audience.

I observed to him that his voice had improved a lot (somewhat sickly because mine hadn't) and he said that he had taken vocal lessons. I was floored: he was a rebellious anti-authoritarian who would before have been scornful of anything so effete as singing lessons. But it sure worked for him.

However, an anecdote doesn't constitute evidence. But it makes a whole heap of sense to me. And when I became involved in theatre, my daughter helped me with some breathing exercises and other stuff. I then found I was able to sing a line without hurting my throat, straining my jaw, running out of breath or drifting off pitch, and that benefit accrued after only a short while. So, again, it makes sense.

 

[Whatmysay]

Sustainability and flexibility

I think a voice can be a couple of different stages and will benefit from some training no matter where they are.

1. Plain improvement of sound (breath usually and ear training for pitch)

2. Good voice that needs to develop new ranges, qualities and/or control

3. A flexible voice that needs to develop sustainability in the face of performance/recording demands

These are not strictly sequential steps; sustainability and flexibility should be constantly developed in parallel.

Gecko's anecdote is a great example of what must have been a good singing teacher - someone who identifies the 'character' of a voice and gives the singer the capacity to just do more of the same, more often.

In general most of the 'idiosyncratic' quality of a voice comes from the articulation, cranial cavities (mouth/nose) shape and size, and the quality of friction on vocal chords. The richness of tone tends to come from how we support our voice and use our body (from the neck down) to resonate.

So much richness can be discovered in a voice without effecting its overall character, that working on our voice (with a teacher, on-line, from a book) will always be of benefit.

This is not a doctrine I'm preaching; however if you are considering a career as a singer/songwriter and you can get over the fear that training your voice will 'steal its soul', then it will lengthen and enrich your working life. And that can not be bad

 

[SEDstar]

okay...

I cant sing... but my opinion is valid none the less...

This observational anecdotes.... but...

1) As a young man of what, 20 or so? (half a lifetime ago... sheesh, where does the time go? I am beginning to suspect it has somethign to do wioth that calendar thingy...LMAO)

anyhoo, I found out fairly early in a relationship my old lady could "sing". But, she wouldn't sing in front of me. She was embarrassed. She knew I listened to a lot of progressive metal, and in general poked fun at opera and classical. I think the phrase I used was I called opera "warbling", as in bird tweets, LMAO. You know, the high trills the women do? LMAO, anyhoo, SHE could sing some opera, and was embarrassed now to sing for me.

Oh, I'd catch a snippet here or there where she'd be singing along to the radio idly, not really trying, but would always shut up when she caught my footsteps. Her mother told me while waiting for her, how she could sing like a songbird. Well... mom's always think that, dont they? Still... many of the kids in chorus in High School weren't real good, and... her just being in chorus wasnt exactly a ringing endoresement.

But, I was definitely intrigued. It became a "quest" to get her to sing...

So, her mom agreed that if I came over on a day I did NOT normally be ther when she got home from school, I could be sitting in the living room quietly, and she would "corral her" at the kitchen, and could get her to sing and really "project" for her.

I sat down and waited. With baited breath, I waited. This had been built up too much... When I HEARD her do something called "think of me" all the way thru, acapella... the mom could see me, and was smirking... she KNEW what was going thru my head... it literally dropped my jaw open... it was powerful, it was all precise glassy notes... I was floored.

She almost died of embarrassment when I came around the corner, tho (?) but after that, I could coax her into singing now and then. I knew she was taking "vocal lessons" with a bent towards singing opera-style vocals... what I didn't know was that she had only had like 4 lessons under her belt... it was mostly god given talent, and her singing along to opera tapes growing up.

She proceded to take lessons for the couple years I was with her... but dropped singing altogether when she hit college and we drifted apart. I DID get to see a tape of her singing the lead in her school play, and it was fairly impressive. Apparently, it ruffled some feathers a senior wouldnt sing lead that year, but... I heard the comparisons were like night and day.

the only thing I ever noticed about her vocal lessons for a couple years, was that she was being slowly caxed up in pitch. She wanted to hit something called "E above high C" or some such thing... she was all excited when her coach said she hit it and held it, and said she could finally sing the piece she wanted to sing for me... "angel of music". (she had tried the piece aggressively before vocals, and almost lost her voice, LMAO, I had always thought she had a throat infection the first week knew her, LMAO)

I became a fan of "phantom", and even after we driftd apart, I still went to see the cast when they came to our city, and I re-bought the cassetts on CD. ht got me into phantom before it was quite so "mainstream".


here, you wouldnt really see the coaching doing a lot, at least not for quite some time. I gave her Laura Branigan cassettes so she could practice to them, she called laura "the pop opera lady". SHE introduced ME to Queensryche... I already liked good metal, and didnt know anyone in metal could SING like that...lol



maybe the only other serious singer I knew was a local singer. He had been in chorus all thru junior and high school, but... it wasnt too impressive... at first. Here I am comparing "lessons" to "being in chorus for years". BUT, I heard a cassette of him in high school... "shoo-wee", you know? LMAO... no natural talent... but, he WORKED at it. Constantly... it was nerve wracking to hang out with him. he had to BUST into the vocals of any song you put on the radio for ten seconds...LMAO

over a period of a couple years, he was learning to play guitar, and was working on singing stuff like "name" and stuff. By the time he could play credible rhythm guitar, he had gotten his voice up to somethign resembling "pretty okay".

I ended up learning to "mix" on his vocal track/guitar track 2-track recordings I made of him to practic on... a couple hundred mixes later, I got something "eh...rough demo..." onto a 3 song CD for him. The strength of my poor mixing skills landed him a real GIG, and he's been fronting the local band for YEARS now. He isnt rich, but... he has a wife, and a couple kids... and a car and a truck... he has one or three all originals he composed and wrote the lyrics and his band performs (the one is their "big original" they are known for...lol)

singing is his DAY JOB, so to speak, money wise... and working construction is his "extra money". SO... here, a comp[lete lack of talent, but with DOGGED persistence, paid off pretty big dividends. This is the OTHER end of the spectrum.

GOD, I would just HATE to have had to hear him singing if he had never been in chorus, LMAO, eh?




practice never hurt ANYone... and lessons will NEVER hurt, and can ONLY help... sometimes less (if your already talented naturally...) or sometimes dramatically (the kid went from being "mildly annnoying" to actually making a small local career out of it...) just from HS chorus and practice/practice/practice...



NOW... there are days I sit here, and feel positively CHEATED thaty my ex who was given a 3, maybe 4 octave range voice "naturally" with some control and ability to hear "pitch" naturally... what would SHE have become if she would have had that guys DOGGED determination, and lessons for years, all stackd on top of her god given ability??

*she'd likely have sounded like Laura Branigan or Celine Dion*, but "life" got in the way of her dreams.... I dont feel cheated she doesnt &^%$ me anymore, LMAO... I feel cheated no one is making the type of female pop vocals i like to hear... big, dramatic, voice... with expressive control and technique, several octave range used effectively... you know, i like to hear "it all" when a lady takes the stage or I pop in her CD.

Britney and Avril just dont "get it" for me... they are punks.



there's no winning a QUALITATIVE argument with QUANTITATIVE arguments... this stuff is all shades of grey...

ME??? I have NO voice, whatsoever. NONE. still... the lady singer I dated taught me to just randomly move my pitch up and down, like poking a stick in the water? she taught me that when I "cross" the singer on the CD, I wont hear the CD momentarily, LMAO.

I still cant sing, but... I have like 10 or 20 songs I really like to "belt in the shower" to, and trust me, its no prize for anyone in the house...LMAO. Its horrible. I have been singing the same 20 songs for the last 20 years... what have I gotten to? eh... on total accident, I can match a gravelly, slow, non moving pitch for a couple seconds here and there...

...wiki teaches to hold your head slightly DOWN, and to try to hold the abdomen tightly. Doing that stuff (mainly head down...lol) allows me to MAYbe get 5 secnds accidentally on pitch with my favorite male singer song, before I "lose it".

I aint taking lessons, I have no talent to WORK with... but if reading an instructional on the internet, can produce instant tiny results... I cant picture a good vocal coach could not improve ANYone...

 

[azraelswings]

That's some strong talk, azraelswings. Keep it civil. You want to trade insults, let's do it in the Cave, where I will fucking dismantle your know-nothing ass piece by piece.

Strong talk it may be, but frankly I don't see a reason to speak weakly. As to my civility, I did not insult you. I called your statement:

Don't waste time trying to do something you can't do well.

for what is was—limiting, discouraging, ill-informed, poorly reasoned, trash. Taken to its logical conclusion, this statement would discourage a person from learning anything that is both new and challenging.

Again, I did not, in intent or act, insult you. As stated in my previous post, I will not insult or criticize people—only ideas. I understand that the distinction is subtle, but I it exists and is apparent here. For an example of insulting a person rather than an idea:

Keep in mind that when I was 24 I thought I knew everything too.

Whether or not they are based on youthful naivete, were my ideas as refutable as you say, they would be so based on their content or expression, rather than my age.

Again, you are arguing against a point nobody is making. This is a straw-man argument.

Incorrect, as evinced by the entirely irreconcilable nature of these statements:

In performance, one should naturally stick within the realm of what they can do at that time. That does not mean one should simply find a niche and not explore expanding their ability.

Don't waste time trying to do something you can't do well.

"Exploring the expansion of your ability" is a noble pursuit. Unfortunately, ability is a term that denotes limitations.

Hence the purpose of expanding them.

Finding out what those limitations are is laudable.

As is the effort to overcome them.

Vocal training does not remove all limitations.

Again, you are arguing against a point nobody is making. This is a straw-man argument.

I don't think I am discouraging anyone from taking vocal lessons, just cautioning people to keep their expectations in line with reality. Sorry if you find reality limiting and discouraging.

While you may not think you are being discouraging, your statement:

Don't waste time trying to do something you can't do well.

is.

It is contrafactual that vocal lessons are a sky's-the-limit panacea of unrealized vocal talent. Lessons develop existing talent. Lessons do not create talent.

First:

Again, you are arguing against a point nobody is making. This is a straw-man argument.

Second, talent—that is, the latent ability, the knack—is not something most people can ascertain. Most people can listen to Mariah Carey and say, "She's got it." What we can't do is listen to her development. It is a different story when listening to someone who hasn't attained that level of technical, expressive, or artistic success. Someone who has seen many singers develop—ie, an experienced teacher—might be able to ascertain early whether or not "talent" exists, but most people cannot. How you sound now is a poor indication of talent.

Really? What if he wanted to sing like Christina Aguilera? Couldn't he just take fucking lessons?

No. No, no. See my previous responses regarding dishonest arguments in the discussion of voice training. In fact, your rhetorical questions are answered by the next text of mine that you quote.

You don't realize you are just reiterating what I've said? Maximize your talent. Play to your strengths.

You asked if Cohen should try to to sound like Stump. I responded, insisting that vocal training would not seek to make him sound so. The source of our argument, I believe, is your seem to think that lessons seek to alter the natural voice:

The natural sound of someone's voice, without taking into account any artifice or technique, can be a viscerally gripping experience.

The central misconception I am striving to alleviate is that the natural sound of someone's voice and vocal technique are not antithetical.

You say in one place to maximize your talent, and in another not to waste time trying to do something you don't do well.

What if your student's preferred style is one that he sucks at?

Sucks at in what sense and in whose opinion? If they "suck" because their pitch is bad, I would suggest they develop their ear. I'm going to generalize and say that typically, the genre a musician is most passionate about is going to be the one they are best at, if for no other reason that that their passion will naturally gravitate their dedication towards it.

What does that even mean? Are you writing a fucking brochure or something?

It means:

Vocal training seeks to develop the freedom to choose your mode of expression.

That is, in developing your voice, you aim to expand the palette of tonal colors available to you. In a sense, you seek to limit your limitations. To borrow your language, the goal would be to expand the strengths, and minimize the amount of playing to them.

Potential just means you ain't done shit. Nobody is arguing against "exploring your potential".

Except the person who said this:

Don't waste time trying to do something you can't do well.

Regarding this:

I just waded through all of your posts here on HR.

I must say, you are an supercillious and passionately opinionated proponent of vocal coaching.

However, I notice that not a single one of your posts is in the MP3 clinic, and that you don't provide any links to any of your material.

Would you kindly direct us simpletons to a song of yours where we can hear the fruits of your vocal training?

It's most likely that you are a fantastic singer, and that your vocal prowess will make my untrained vocal meanderings seem marginal by way of comparison.

But for the "show me" types, would you mind posting a link to something that gives us an idea of your capabilities?

1. I do not consider you, or anyone on this board, a simpleton.
2. Were this a different situation, in which someone wanted an indication of what an experience such as mine produced, I would certainly provide recordings of my voice. But, I can I have no intention of walking into a bear trap to placate someone who has made clear his wish to "dismantle" my "know-nothing ass piece by piece."
3. What Gecko said.

For the sake of discussion:

I began seriously practicing voice about eighteen months ago. At that time, I was, in all seriousness, with all honesty, next to tone deaf. To quote my teacher's note improvement at recent lesson, "When you first came to me, I could not stop playing piano, you would get pitchy immediately." My range has not expanded at the far ends in that time—it has always extended from an E2 to about Eb5, I can now reach as low as low C on a good day, but its practical worth is limited so I don't practice it much. I previously had no control when I tried to belt phrases. I can now wail up to about G4, its a tricky phenomenon, and seems to depend on where the note is approached from.

My "vocal training", in terms of lessons, has been rather limited. I took them, and continue to take them, when home. (I returned to finish school following my return from OEF.) This would include a summer, a few during the following winter weeks, and possibly a few the following summer. All in all, I would estimate that I've taken no more than two dozen lessons.

Truthfully, I am not a proponent of using lessons as the sole means to technique or successful singing. I am simply a firm believer that everyone can sing better than they do when they start. I happen to have been fortunate enough to have found an inexpensively priced, encouraging, experienced, and qualified teacher.

To reiterate, the only points I am making are:
1. You are not limited your current abilities.
2. Your tone, pitch control, range of volume, resonance, and support can be improved via exercises that stimulate the development of technique.
3. Vocal technique and teachers do not seek to alter your voice.
4. While certainly not the only option, a teacher that is good fit for you—both personally and stylistically—will likely accelerate your progress.

The misconceptions I am trying to clear up are:
1. Anything that conflicts with items one through three above.
2. Vocal teachers purport to be miracle workers that can make you sing or sound like someone else.

For an example of the perspective of a particular vocal coach, one who has helped many an artist you would not expect to have had "training":

http://www.melissacross.com/melissa_cross_vocal_solution04.php

Honestly, to anyone who disagrees with me, find me someone who can honestly say, "I took lessons with a qualified teacher I enjoyed working with consistently for any significant amount of time (3, 6, 12, 18, 24 months), practiced daily, and have not seen any improvement. I suck just as much as I used to. It was a huge waste of time." Or, anyone who can say, "I sounded so distinct before I took lessons! Like, the bastard love child of Kurt Cobain and James Hetfield! Now I sound like...that mormon guy that lost Idol..."

If someone came to the guitar forum asking how to shred, people would invariably say, "Play slowly with a metronome, build up speed gradually", "learn solos of gradually increasing difficulty", "check out The Advancing Guitarist/Metal Method/Some Book by Yngwie Malmsteen." The real answer is that the real virtuosi—Petrucci, Malmsteem, Satch, Vai—practiced half the day away. Some would argue that such a level of technique is not required or desired of all types of music. That is true. But, to attain it, the answer is the same—dedicated, focused practice in methods that have been demonstrated to work. Why is the answer any different for voice? Somehow, the answer to the instrument question is dedication, but there are always discouraging answers when it comes to voice. There was a day when John Petrucci couldn't fret a note; there was a day when James Labrie didn't know one pitch from another.

With that, I bow out of this thread. I have not made any of my statements with the intent to insult anyone. I did not want this thread to devolve from a useful discussion into a pissing contest. I have limited by discussion to ideas, and been called uncivil. I've been told to keep things civil, and been threatened and sworn at.

What it comes down to—if you want it, not wish for it, but really want it, dedicate yourself. Take the risk of the practice time and do it.

 

[gecko zzed]

I aint taking lessons, I have no talent to WORK with... but if reading an instructional on the internet, can produce instant tiny results... I cant picture a good vocal coach could not improve ANYone...

Within any population, and for just about any attribute we care to measure (intelligence, height, hand-eye coordination, natural singing ability), we observe a normal distribution, the statistical bell curve. Most people are about average, but there is a small proportion at either extreme. A handful of people are seriously short, another handful are seriously tall, but the majority are a bit below average, average, or a bit above average height.

So I can accept that there are a few people who have no singing ability, and a few who are so gifted that it just comes naturally and effortlessly, and vocal coaching would not have dramatic benefit for either group. But they are the rarities. The majority of people are kind of ok; they can sound reasonable when singing if they are pushed to it.

There are many people who assert they can't sing at all (such as our good friend Sedstar . . . of whom I am about to make an example . . . I'm sure he will forgive me), but I expect a large proportion of these are hamstrung by self-limiting assumptions. Sometimes these assumptions have a basis in real life experiences . . . Sedstar warbles a tune when he is six, and mum says "will you cut that racket out!", or he sings while he walks to school, and other kids taunt him: "oooh, who is the sissy boy who sings?"

Sometimes the opportunity to sing has never arisen, and the ability remains unexplored.

In some cases it has been explored, but has been less than rewarding . . . an embarassing experience on stage, or not being able to sound good straight away.

In other cases, the potential to unlock the talent has been thwarted by bad habits. For example, my capacity to be a great guitar finger picker has been marred by me teaching myself, and learning to pick with only thumb and forefinger. I can do reasonable things with just those, but I wonder what I might have achieved had I been properly taught to use all fingers.

As far as sporting ability goes, I am on the lower slope of the bell curve. I have some, but not much, ability. I've played a bit of golf, but not very successfully, and I don't have as much natural rhythm as the more accomplished golfers do. I do recognise, though, that were I to avail myself of golfing tuition and practice hard, I could do reasonably well. But . . . here's the thing . . . I don't want to. My interests lie elsewhere. So, some people could be better singers . . . but are just not inclined to pursue it.

So I remain sceptical when people assert that they can't sing. They may not have the superior natural ability that a small proportion of the population has, but they will have something. And where there is something, there is also something that can be coaxed out of its nest into something more. And a really useful way of doing this is through singing lessons.

 

[Supercreep]

Were this a different situation, in which someone wanted an indication of what an experience such as mine produced, I would certainly provide recordings of my voice. But.....

I didn't think so. Have fun exploring your potential, such as it is.

It seems that you are hung up on my admonishment to not "waste time trying to do something you can't do well".

I will rephrase it so that it doesn't stick in your craw: Finding your vocal strengths and focusing your efforts on improving them is perhaps the most productive use of your time.

Better?

 

[Nonninator]

can't learn it..

You can't learn to sing. Either you can kinda...or your are amazing..or you are so so...eaither way all you can learn is ways to improve and expand your natural "born with it" talent. So IMO You CAN NOT "LEARN" to sing.

 

[grimtraveller]

^^^^^^^
Maybe the problem lies in the phrase or notion "learn to sing". I personally think that most people can sing in tune if they determine to do so. And therefore can improve. Lessons can help. Practice definitely does. I don't think anyone should be got at if they take lessons, nor should they be if they don't. I guess my bugbear is with those who recognize their limitations but refuse to move from that place....

 

[bokaasen]

it just felt naturally for me. I've singing since i was 2. I don't like my voice.. but I love to sing

 

[Slashdot]

I grew up singing to the crappy music my Mom listened to; Whitesnake, Bon Jovi (not as crappy), Cinderella, RAT, etc. TERRIBLE music. Great vocalists though.

I didnt sing a real lick for years. Took classical guitar lessons in college and once I graduated and got a real job I started taking singing lessons from an Italian trained Soprano. That got me started. She put me in front of a bunch of people and made me sing a recital with little kids and old people.

Unchained melody and Scarborough fair ...

Then I joined a band and sang harmonies and realize I could sing better than the lead singer, and he was a douche, so I quit that band started my own band.

I started writing my own material, brought on a bunch of great female vocalists and male vocalists and we formed an amazing folk band. I sing most of the lead parts but everyone writes songs and we share lead and harmony, etc.

Singing in that kind of group will really help you find the confidence you need to stand out.

 

[cashcohen]

Singing in the shower. Singing while walking down the street (this gets me some quizzical looks). Singing along with my favorite vocalists. Singing in my head. Singing alone. Singing with friends.

I'd love to take a vocal lesson or two someday....but until me and my budget are on the same page, this will have to wait. For now, it's just me and my vocal cords.

 

[dintymoore]

I guess I could sing naturally to a degree and I was singing backups in bands. Then I was in a band where we tried out a guy for lead singer. I couldn't stand him - reminded me of Tony Orlando, but he was a real hustler and I know he would have got us lots of work. Because of that everyone wanted him in the band... except for me. So I voted him out.

The next day I went to rehearsal and there was a big boom mic setup at my drums and they told me I was the new lead singer.

In the 90's I was in a duo with a guy who is a pro "singer's singer" and we put out 2 CD's and he helped me too.

After that I worked with a lot of real good professional singers and they helped me plenty. For about 3 years I worked on a tour boat and worked with lots of chick singers on a dinner cruise, just me and a chick so I had to sing a lot. We went through 17 chick singers! Most sucked, a few were world class.

A few years ago found out about Seth Riggs and I can't tell you how much that helped.

 

[cashcohen]

A few years ago found out about Seth Riggs and I can't tell you how much that helped.

Dinty, I notice you've mentioned Seth more than once....you sound pretty convinced.

How do you begin to learn his method? Does he sell a virtual course? Can you take personal lessons with him?

I'd love to hear more about this guy.

 

[dintymoore]

Here's his course, they sell it on eBay and in stores:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Singing-for-the-Stars/Seth-Riggs/e/9780882845289

His method is about speech level singing. It really helps you relax and takes the hocus pocus mystery out of how to sing.

 

[cashcohen]

Here's his course, they sell it on eBay and in stores:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Singing-for-the-Stars/Seth-Riggs/e/9780882845289

His method is about speech level singing. It really helps you relax and takes the hocus pocus mystery out of how to sing.

Cheers!

And hey, it's cheap, too!