Singing Teachers In The North West Options

[Dugazon]

Woah, that's a lot to read ...

First of all - I am with rosfrog here on the matter that we are NOT talking about "Classical vs. Pop" (why does it always need to be turned into this?). What we are talking about is more something like "traditional singing tuition vs. modern singing tuition".

I think that rosfrog's first, rather long post on p. 2 of this thread was probably also at least partly fuelled by the remark that "the tried and tested methods of classical training are the best way forward". With all due repect: No, they are not. They are (provided being taught by a good teacher!) if someone wants to learn classical singing. I don't want to go into too much detail now about what these "tried and tested methods are". Just so much:

There are only a handful of singing teachers on this board, so views here are not all-inclusive and do certainly not give an accurate impression of what singing tuition can be, should be or shouldn't be. However: Whenever there were threads in the past about the physiological aspects of singing, hardly any of the teachers take part in these discussions. This is probably down to 3 reasons:

1. They are not interested in discussing it. Perfectly valid, no one should be forced into their preferences on a Forum. If it is the Forums Cafe to relax instead, alright.
2. They don't know enough about it to take part. No problem either, provided this is an incentive to do some research and PD.
3. They know something about it but don't want to share their views because of some non-understandable elitist attitude or the "secret of the singing teacher that shouldn't be destroyed". I hope this isn't the case.

Whatever the reason might be, it somewhat mirrors singing tuition "out there in the real world". I am convinced there are fantastic singing teachers all over the country and also in this Forum - whenever it comes down to the physiological side of things, it gets very quiet though. I have to admit that I didn't really expect answers to some of the questions I asked for exactly the 3 reasons I just named. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

Please don't get me wrong here - all the teachers who are willing to discuss their views, no matter if I agree or not, have my highest respect. Don't turn this into an argument between "Classical vs. Pop" or "trained vs. untrained" though, rosfrog is completely right on this - this is not what it is about.

I am in the somewhat lucky (?) position to have postgraduated in classical singing AND to have studied contemporary singing techniques, so I am quite neutral on musical preferences (although I mainly worked in the field of Musical Theatre the last years - this hasn't always been the case though - after I graduated, I have almost exclusively performed classical music). What I am not neutral about though is some of the more "traditional" teaching styles that are still out there. I am with rosfrog again on this one: I don't tell my students about cartilages, larynx/pharynx and so on (unless they want to know it), but I know about it - as do a lot of teachers who exclusively teach classical. I would still say they have a modern approach then. However, there are also teachers (in all styles) who don't know about it. They might still be fantastic singers because they do things right intuitively. When they teach, they will get their students into trouble though. This is why it is ESSENTIAL for a singing teacher to have a modern approach - all the more since we have the chance these days to do scientific research unlike some hundreds of years ago. Why would I still teach things that are scientifically PROVEN to be wrong? Why are there still so many teachers out there who teach the Lehmann-concept (even if they might not even know it under this name)?

To teach classical singing is very strongly based on a sound-ideal. This is no problem as long as I know HOW this sound is physically created. I cannot create it by having people sing endless scales on ah-eh-ee-oh-oo. I should rather show them how to adjust their instrument properly, and this doesn't work, like some people here seem to imply if they respond to rosfrog's posts, by torturing them with scientific vocabulary. It happens by making them create sounds they can relate to because they are natural and at the same time adjusting larynx, pharynx etc. in the right way.

The same applies to modern music. I don't tell someone who wants to belt to "tilt this and squeeze that" - I make them create sounds they naturally possess, and the instrument adjusts iteself if done and shown properly.
Just because classical singers don't LIKE the sound, it does not make it potentially harmful! Modern singing is not about a voice without breaks - you sometimes even want them for stylistic reasons. If you are a classical singer, you don't have to like this, but please don't tell people it is unhealthy or "not right". It is just not your ideal sound.

The human voice can create ALL possible sounds in a healthy way, it is able and I would even say made to belt, scream, shout, grunt etc. Classical singing can be very unhealthy if done wrongly, so can contemporary singing. If someone wants to sing heavy rock, it can be done in a safe way. Some people might have a natural talent for it, others need to work harder, but in principle, everyone can sing in any way they like - it is a stylistic choice, not more, not less. Classical singing is only a part of what the human voice can do. If that's the part you like most and feel most comfortable in, that's fine. However, it has nothing to do with a teaching approach - this can be traditional, unscientific and image-based in both styles, and it can be modern and well-researched in both styles.

Being a classical singer does not automatically mean having the right teaching apporach - I think this kicked the whole discussion off really, because it WAS said that "conservatoire teachers won't harm a voice", and it WAS said that "classical is the best way forward". Some people complain about "classical teacher bashing", but I think in reality, it is sometimes rather the other way round, and well-trained, modern singers still don't get very much respect in the classical world. Most good Pop, Rock and RnB-singers couldn't even do what they do if they didn't have excellent vocal training ...

So, all in all, being someone who sings and teaches both (but not in the traditional way (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) ), I would rather think that a bit more open-mindedness would do good on both sides. And I have to admit that the most groundbreaking scientific research about the human voice has not been done by mainly classical singers over the last few years. I am not bashing classical teachers and singers here, because I count myself as one (and a contemporary one as well (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) ). However, I think that the "traditionalists" would be well advised to not let years of research and proven results pass them by - for both their own and their students' sakes ...

*even more to read now* (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blush.gif)

[freda_bloogs]

Again, I'm in the neutral category: classical training but have only ever really performed rock/pop.

I really enjoyed my classical lessons and I don't hesistate to recommend my teacher. I would be very surprised if it turned out that she didn't know the physiology of how the voice works. I do, however, have an interest in this kind of thing and I think it's good to know, especially if you're a phonetics/phonology student or you're an educator.

The problem I have with my lessons is that I would not be able to teach singing. Right now, I do not have a great understanding of what's going on in my body. I like to think that when I'm learning something, I want to learn it to such a level of comprehension that I'd be able to pass on my knowledge without a problem.

What I don't understand is why there has to be almost a competition between the two camps. Surely any singer - not just singing teachers, not singers from a particular school or style - any singer would want to take on board our modern scientific knowledge in order to further themselves to greater success.

If you're a "classical" teacher, what's stopping you from looking into this? I get the impression that it's just a "my methods obviously work and I make enough money to put dinner on the table" attitude. Maybe it's just me, but when I don't know something, I look it up. As a result, I've spent countless hours scouring the internet for all sorts of random stuff - it all aids revision procrastination and answering questions when I eventually get on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

For the record, I really don't think that anyone should've taken offence from any post. It's a recommendation thread.

[petrat]

I have not read all of the posts in this thread for the reason that HG gave earlier.

I would like to say that I have trawled through lots of threads here today and am at a loss to find many of a technical nature. There are some, and I have responded to several of them. I haven't tried to blind anyone by science though or written in a "Look how much I know" manner. If a question had been answered already I have not added an "I agree, aren't you clever and just the best teacher in the world for knowing that" response either. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)
Grade eight isn't a teaching qualification but the final of the grade exams of course. The real knowledge about knowing how to teach one's subject comes with further study and that often leads to a diploma of one sort or another, or several.
It certainly hasn't become a competition between two camps; There are good and bad teachers in all branches of singing as with so many other things.
I passed the comment that I was not impressed with the website of the teacher that was recommended. That is my opinion. I know what I read and heard there and it would not have appealed to me had I been looking for a teacher.
I don't know any colleagues who do not keep up with new trends in the world of singing and of teaching. Many will not be relevant to us and some we will disagree with. That is our choice.
And now I am going to take a break from this forum for a while. That is my choice too!

[Holz Gedeckt]

...I'll have a lot less drivel to read through eh - don't fancy blocking me yourself, do you?

Yes, I've considered blocking you - and may yet - for precisely that reason....

[AnnC]

I have not read all of the posts in this thread for the reason that HG gave earlier.

I would like to say that I have trawled through lots of threads here today and am at a loss to find many of a technical nature. There are some, and I have responded to several of them. I haven't tried to blind anyone by science though or written in a "Look how much I know" manner. If a question had been answered already I have not added an "I agree, aren't you clever and just the best teacher in the world for knowing that" response either. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)
Grade eight isn't a teaching qualification but the final of the grade exams of course. The real knowledge about knowing how to teach one's subject comes with further study and that often leads to a diploma of one sort or another, or several.
It certainly hasn't become a competition between two camps; There are good and bad teachers in all branches of singing as with so many other things.
I passed the comment that I was not impressed with the website of the teacher that was recommended. That is my opinion. I know what I read and heard there and it would not have appealed to me had I been looking for a teacher.
I don't know any colleagues who do not keep up with new trends in the world of singing and of teaching. Many will not be relevant to us and some we will disagree with. That is our choice.
And now I am going to take a break from this forum for a while. That is my choice too!

And, agreeing with everything you have said in this post, that is my choice too.

[Dugazon]

For the record, I really don't think that anyone should've taken offence from any post. It's a recommendation thread.

Agree - and that's possibly what it should turn into again since I completely fail to understand why everything here has to get so personal again. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)
The unnecessarily cynical comments about people's qualifications, their interest to discuss things in detail etc. probably say more about the writer than the person at the receiving end, so maybe this all just proves a couple of points, I really don't know (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif) *bowsout*

[Cyrilla]

I would just like to commend rosfrog's very considered response to AnnC's post.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[LooneyTunes]

I would just like to commend rosfrog's very considered response to AnnC's post.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I agree. rosfrog's responses in this thread have been very reasoned and considered, dare I say, in the light of a 'hint' of adversity?!

rosfrog hasn't 'bashed' classical training - far from it. He's just presenting an updated, modern approach.

I know very little about singing technique - although I work closely with SLT and ENT so my knowledge of laryngeal anatomy/physiology is pretty sound. If I was looking for a singing teacher, given what I've read on this thread, I'd much rather by taught by someone who is open-minded and up-to-date with singing technique (like rosfrog and Mezzo - you've presented yourselves very well!), than someone who teaches classical for classical's sake.

[petrat]

I had not intended coming back to this forum but make an exception today, after having read the latest posts here.

Rosfrog has not been courteous in everything that he has written. To describe the posts of a well known professional performer and choral conductor amongst others as “drivel” is insulting. To add the question; “Lord, why are singers and singing teachers so precious. It’s tedious” was not respectful either.

Of course we know our subject. we would not have had the successes that we have had without doing so.

We do not teach “classical for classical’s sake” either. We teach it because it is our subject. It is dear to our hearts and it is what we know and love, and teach effectively and well. Our consistent exam results, most at distinction level in my case. ( I cannot speak for AnnC but would think that hers are similar) and our festival successes and music college entrants stand testimony to that.
Of course there is not but one classical method. That was why I used the term in the plural! There are as many styles as there are of modern music. I would expect any vocal coach or teacher to be able to alter their own style to suit the performance of lute songs, different styles of Baroque, including ornamentation of the period and country, to early opera, later works and Art Songs, Victorian parlour songs etc etc etc . There is not one classical style. To talk about being able to teach a student the set up to produce a classical sound is just inaccurate.

As to your quick fixes, we don’t produce them because we see our task as being able to produce all round musicians with a good knowledge or styles and repertoire, to develop sound aural skills, to teach the theory behind the music, performing skills, etc and this does not happen in a few lessons.

This will be my final post here. I feel that you have driven away several teachers who had good and useful advice to offer and the Voice Forum may be the poorer for it.

[Holz Gedeckt]

Very well said, Petrat. I quite agree.

However, I know I speak for a number of people when I say we will be very sorry indeed if you do choose not to post here any longer. Your postings are frequently informative and entertaining, and the forums would be a lesser place without your contribution.

There are very few decent singing teachers posting in Viva Voice, and it would be a great pity to lose one of your experience not just in Viva Voice, but elsewhere on the forums.

Just keep using the blocking facility....

[Miss Ross]

There are very few decent singing teachers posting in Viva Voice

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/blink.gif) Excuse me?! Have you any idea how many people you will just have infuriated with this throwaway remark?

(You know as well as I do, HG, that I am not confronational, but I couldn't read that comment and not reply.)

Just keep using the blocking facility....

Yes, a very good idea.

[Czerny]

I would just like to commend rosfrog's very considered response to AnnC's post.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Does he get a sticker? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

[Holz Gedeckt]

There are very few decent singing teachers posting in Viva Voice

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/blink.gif) Excuse me?! Have you any idea how many people you will just have infuriated with this throwaway remark?

(You know as well as I do, HG, that I am not confronational, but I couldn't read that comment and not reply.)

Sorry, I could have worded that somewhat better, and see it was open to misinterpretation. But, you must admit, there aren't a lot of singing teachers posting in Viva Voice....

I would just like to commend rosfrog's very considered response to AnnC's post.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Does he get a sticker? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

[Miss Ross]

Sorry, I could have worded that somewhat better, and see it was open to misinterpretation. But, you must admit, there aren't a lot of singing teachers posting in Viva Voice....

I agree. It's not one of the most active forums, and there are more students there than teachers. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[freda_bloogs]

I would just like to commend rosfrog's very considered response to AnnC's post.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Does he get a sticker? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

Oh come on (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif) De l'huile sur le feu if I ever did see it.