Hi,

I want to start with singing lessons. I have a rather nice voice but not outstanding. The voice has a nice quality because I play the flute but thats about it. Since I want to do more out of it - like getting to know how far I can come with it - I need advice on what I need to consider when searching for a singing teacher, e.g. what kind of singing style, voice development or anything like that are instructed. Every advice certainly is welcome.

Thanks,
Lemontree

In the first instance, don't worry about style - learn technique first. Get your voiced placed and learn to control it, then you can decide what kind of singing you want to do later.

If you can't find a teacher who teaches pure technique without colouring it with their own style tastes, start out from the outset with a teacher who teaches the kind of music you want to sing.

There isn't one style of music that is better than another - it's all about personal preference, so pick the music you love to listen to to sing and see where you go from there.

I have a personal preference for scientific based methods, because the results are tangible and quick and I like the fact that students can fix their own problems without constant dependence on a teacher. That may not be your preference, though.

The main things to bear in mind when checking a teacher is :

1) Can they sing ? (and not 'do you like their voice' - that's not the same thing)
2) Are they conversant with the kind of music you wish to sing ?
3) Are they open minded or do they trot out nonsense such as 'classical music is the basis for all - learn to sing opera and you can sing anything' - if so run away as fast as you can, because what they're really saying is 'I don't know anything about anything other than opera, so I'll teach you that instead of teaching you what you want'. Of course if Opera is what you want, then that's fine !
4) Do you get on with them ?
5) Can you listen to other students of theirs ? Ask questions like how long have they been with them etc and make your own judgement as to whether you think the results are good enough for the time and money invested.

That's about all I can think of off the top of my head - don't be afraid to audition teachers, most of the good ones will happily sing for you and show you how they plan to approach your voice and don't be taken in by singing qualifications - many people have done performance degrees, but this doesn't tell you how they teach - let your own judgement tell you that - equally so, don't dismiss someone just because they don't actively perform, many excellent teachers aren't performers and many are.

All in all, if the teacher you find suits you, takes you where you want with your voice in an efficient and safe manner, and you get on - you've probably got it right !

Enjoy singing.

I would look for a teacher with good qualifications in practical singing. (If they told me that they were an expert in their field I would like some proper evidence.) That would tell you that they can sing. I have never asked a teacher to perform for me before deciding to take lessons with them and know that some would be quite surprised by such a request. I know that I would, especially if the student was a beginner. I would be very pleased if they came to a student event to hear the results of my work but I would explain to them how I teach and leave it to them to decide if we will be happy working together. New students rarely have any ideas about what they want to sing. They just want to sound good and have fun at whatever level they reach. I listen to their voices so don't go in asking to hear theirs; rather expect them to ask you to produce a few notes and see what they think. You will probably work at repertoire alongside technical stuff to increase your musical knowledge etc so I would not go along with ideas that are too fixed. Be open to suggestions that will suit your voice and personality. Good luck. Singing is wonderful for many reasons. Do keep us informed too.

I agree with most of what Petrat has said, but I wouldn't think asking the new teacher to sing for you should be such a problem. I'd rather hear if they can sing than see what qualifications they've got - that doesn't really tell me anything.

I've heard a fair few degree, diploma and grade 8 holders who make a pretty wretched sound or have horribly flawed technique and yet teach because they are 'qualified' to do so.

Hearing them allows you to judge for yourself whether they can sing, so I never mind performing briefly for a student if they ask me.

This may just be a French thing, though.

Agree wholeheartedly with Petrat's suggestion of going to a student event and hearing what the teacher's work does with the voices that come to them -even better if a wide range of styles are being appropriately sung, this suggests that the teacher isn't stuck to one stylistic approach and can apply their knowledge to a wide range of styles and songs.

Hi Rosfrog, I know that you do a lot of your teaching over the internet using Skype or the like.

Do your online pupils get the opportunity to hear you perform? For example, are there any recordings of you on Youtube or suchlike they can listen to?

I'd be interested to hear you, to hear how your technical approach creates a different sound in the different genres you sing.

Great thinking Katman!

How would a novice singer, or indeed any novice instrumentalist judge what is good or bad though? If a parent was to hear three piano teachers playing Maple Leaf Rag, Fur Elise and something by Hindermith on what would they base their judgement?

I usually sing for students as and when they ask, actually.

I am in the process of recording an album with the musical I sing in - perhaps I could put some of that online.

Although better again would be to put up some recordings of how different configurations sound in the same song - perhaps sing it in different ways.

You've given me an idea... !

How many singers have you heard through gritted teeth that even your more senior students wax lyrical about?
Likewise, when I see what I think is a good dancer in a show, my dancing friends can pull them to pieces.

Certainly they can't know whether it's technically sound or not, but they can tell if it's in tune and is a good sound to listen to (even if they don't personally like the style).

I'd rather a lay public appreciated my voice and got enjoyment from my singing, even if a panel of voice teachers thought it not up to their standards - at least I'd rather that than the other way round...


As a side note :
I know that younger students listen to some music which might not fit into the classical voice view of the world, but that doesn't mean it's bad or less technically challenging and just because we may not understand the techniques that go into these kinds of music doesn't mean we should disparage it as wrong or poor technique. I think it's our job to learn about it - constantly keep our knowledge up to date.

Generally, even if a student is listening to something like Death metal, they rarely listen to a bad singer - a lot
of modern singers are singing at a very high technical level, even if it doesn't sound 'right' to the classical ear.

A lot of the current female RnB and Pop singers get a lot of stick from the classical school because what they're doing is 'wrong' - only it isn't - most of them are actually very good or they wouldn't last as long as they do.

If the artist is making a living, not hurting their voice and has a following, I think that's great - well done them. If our students tastes start to change, maybe it's time we changed, or updated, a little too.

Anyhow, I don't expect any of you to agree with this, but I just wanted to put my point of view forward. I respect that you might see it differently.

Perhaps on the fact that I could still manage Maple Leaf Rag and Fur Elise if I hadn't touched a piano for ten years (and I have never felt the slightest desire to play Ludus Tonalis or anything else by Hindemith). So the mere ability to play the first two tolerably is no demonstration of exceptional ability, and choosing to play the third is a demonstration of misguided taste.

They should really ask to hear a Bach Prelude and Fugue, a Chopin etude, and a classical sonata by Haydn or Mozart (no accident that that is the standard format for a conservatoire audition!)

But your post raises an interesting question. If the average person can't tell the difference between an easy piece and a difficult one, nor between a piece adequately played and really well played, why am I spending 3 or 4 hours a day on getting better at this piano playing lark? I might just as well learn lots of popular repertoire.

As for singing, I'd like to be able to sing well - to sing Fields of Gold as beautifully as Eva Cassidy for example.

I can recognize a beautiful sound and tell a musical performance from a bad one but although I can tell you within half a dozen notes whether a pianist is good or not, and whether that is because of or despite their technique, with singing I haven't a clue.

It was a very tongue-in-cheek remark and I just wanted to make the point that someone wanting to learn to sing or play would gain very little by asking the pontential teacher to perform to them before deciding to book in for lessons or not.
If the teacher has the right pieces of paper, and I do not consider a grade eight pass to be the right bit to have before setting oneself up as a teacher, it will have been an expert who decided that they were fit to teach.
How many would-be pianists would be impressed by Hindermith, and yet that player might be the best choice by far? Most piano players could bash out Fur Fleas and it could well impress prospective students in the same way that I could warble Mimi's aria or a bit of Carmen. It would tell a new pupil very little about me or my teaching methods.
By the way I think that Hindermith was a musical genius and that Bach would have loved him.

Quite, although many of the bits of paper being touted around by 'teachers' are mere performance degrees. How has anyone decided they are apt to teach in this case?

Incidentally, (as well as my grade 8, in case that remark was aimed my way, which I'm sure it wasn't ) - I hold a doctorate in the domain of applied vocal anatomy and phonology, which one may say was more than enough to teach - but that doesn't prove I'm a good teacher, or that I know how to teach.

Equally, many diploma level singers sound dreadful too - are they still be apt to teach because they have the 'right' bit of paper ?

I've realised that bits of paper don't prove this at all, even more so when they're axed towards performance, so I don't count on doing any more exams. On a monthly basis, I pick up students who have had various forms of 'good pedigree' training by people with lots of bits of paper - but no actual knowledge of how the voice works. It's desperate to hear the results of years of work and realise that it all has to be put right.

Rather than flourish papers about, I'd rather do the right thing by my students and keep my knowledge up to date by reading as much current research as I can, conducting research myself (I'm currently working with several voice doctors in France on a project about vocal fold function in rock singing) and attending ongoing training workshops. I understand, however, that other teachers may prefer to rest on their papery laurels - that's fine, too, as long as they're happy and their students are happy.

Like Mad Tom says - one can judge whether a performance is musical and pleasant to hear or not and if it isn't, irrespective of the reams of 'right' bits of paper being shoved under my nose, I'd rather find a different teacher.

No, It wasn't aimed at you Rosfrog but an answer to a comment of yours earlier. I am rather proud of my teachers bits of paper and keep up with current ideas and trends although I certainly don't accept them all with blind faith.

I still maintain that a non singer asking a teacher to perform would be of no help at all. Go to any festival and listen to comments from parents about how wrong the adjucators have been in their choices just because the competitors have nice voices and have made pleasant sounds. Technique, quality of choice of programme, technical accuracy, musicallity and sense of style don't come in to it at all. They know what they like and they know who should have won!!!!!

You've put that very well, Petrat. I, too, am proud of my teaching bit of paper, likewise my performing bits of paper, because I feel that my teaching is of a better quality because I can better demonstrate what I am after.

My point about pieces of paper is, and always has been, that those who take the exams are studying their craft to a higher standard, improving their own practical skills, and, if they are good teachers (a different matter and not under duscussion here), their teaching becomes more effective as a result. I know mine has, not least because of the more frequent consultations with my mentor, herself an excellent singer (with an international career with major opera companies) and teacher (former head of department at a main conservatoire), and still working in the midst of current ideas and trends, which I would not get to hear about where I live. My practical ability and knowledge of repertoire and styles has increased exponentially since I first started teaching because I have bothered to continue studying. I'm still studying. I still have so much to learn.

Those that cannot find the time to pursue studies to diploma level are effectively saying they haven't got the time to do the necessary work - so how can they improve (they haven't got the time to do so), or pass the knowledge/ability on to students? I know money is another issue - but the result is the same, no matter what the reason. At post grade 8 level it is not enough just to keep practicing. Guidance from someone much better than you is essential since diploma level is much more skilled than grade 8. Singing cannot be self-evaluated.

Disclaimer - I am NOT having a pop at you, Rosfrog, (you know my opinion about your skills), just discussing this generally.

Paper laurels are not bad ones to rest on. There are bad eggs in every basket. But somewhere down the line, a professional has said that this person can sing/teach to a certain standard. Remember that a licentiate level diploma is a standard expected of someone having studied for three years at a conservatoire. There is the option to continue training afterwards. I don't know of a professional singer in my field (classical) who has reached the top of their career without further training.

Of course, there is the argument that you don't have to be a wonderful singer to teach (the same argument is levelled at instrumentalists sometimes). But if you can't DO it, how can you explain to someone HOW to do it - because if you knew how to do it you would surely be able to do it? That's a question I've often pondered, because if you listen to enough teachers' students as I have over the years, you soon realise that they all have the teacher's habits and abilities. If the teacher's top notes are iffy, then so are the students', I've found. And yes, some of these teachers are diploma holders - but how much worse would they have been without the study to get them THAT far??

Over to you, friends!

Hi Petrat - and so you should be proud of your teacher bits of paper ! You worked hard to get them. I have no problem with qualified teachers - my gripe is and has always been with people touting performance qualifications as proof of being a good teacher. I still think that one can judge whether a sound is musical or not, but I agree that technically, a new student cannot hear if the technique is good - however, if it is and the sound is still rotten, then I'd still leg it! We've heard some pretty rotten sounding singers who are qualified already on this board... - anyhow, that's not the point, I just wanted to point out clearly that I agree that you should be proud of your teaching qualifications and that I wasn't putting them down in any way. (There's a further bit of the message later on for you too).



I know you're not having a go AnnC - and I agree with pretty much everything you've said - you have to be able to show the student as well, but it isn't enough to be able to show, you have to know how to explain as well - it's a balance thing I suppose.

I'm always amazed at how many teachers will just refute anything new on the basis that 'we've always done it this way and it works' - that's an argument you could use about bullfighting - tradition, yes, but we don't necessarily want to encourage it! Evidently I'm not talking about anyone on this board, I'm just saying that - particularly in France - many classical teachers are closed into the idea that there is only classical and the old way is the right way - but it's a way that, if applied with little pedagogy, actually fails most people. A good teacher teaching any way will get results, but there are so many bad ones out there calling themselves teachers too and using the traditional argument to back up the fact that people study for years with them and get nowhere.

We agree rarely on the matter of singing, simply because I'm from a different school of thought than most of the teachers on this board - but what I think is great is that we can all disagree and agree and talk about it for hours without ever really reaching a conclusion - it shows that we can all still learn from each other.

So if ever it comes across as if I'm having a go at you, Petrat, AnnC etc - that's not the case at all, I'm talking about the pastiche naff classical teachers who tell people to sing through the back of their head without understanding what they're trying to achieve or how it might go wrong. Results speak for themselves and you both clearly get them with your students.

As it stands, I'm particularly grateful to both of you for encouraging me to take the plunge and start teaching - I wouldn't be doing it without their initial advice.

Even if we see things differently - that's a good thing, right?

Woah, this has gone a little off-topic. But never mind.

Thanks for the suggestions in the beginning of the thread. Has anyone of you still some other input?

As for the discussion of whether or not someone can teach or perform. That was one of the things, why I started this thread. A friend of mine is a tenor at the Staatsoper. He never had any singing lessons but was taken on by the music conservatory nonetheless, because of his outstanding voice. He learned any technique and such there. Because of this, I don't think, he would be able to actually teach anything concerning the voice, as he never really had to "work it out" for himself since he never had any difficulties he had to overcome first before moving on to a higher level of achievement. Besides the fact that his voice does not have its full potential yet. So, maybe I should rephrase my earlier question: How can I find out, if a teacher has "worked it out for oneself" or if he acts on pure talent?

Are there any techniques, and if so, what is the differrence? Should I try them all or does one technique contradict another?

And sorry, that I took so long to read and answer. I am drowning in work at the moment.

I don't think that this is necessarily the case. If he has an aptitude for teaching this would include the ability to work out how he does things.
There are plenty of things on the piano that I never had to be taught but it doesn't prevent me from working out how to help others who do have difficulties in those areas.

In some ways it is easier to work out the hows and whys on an instrument such as the piano because you can see what is going on as you play. With singing you can't of course.
Lemontree, I would imagine that your friend had a lot of experience of singing even though he may not have had any formal one to one lessons too. Was he a choir member perhaps. Some choir masters train their singers very well and it would be my guess that this had been so in his case. I would imagine that he passed the exams at the conservatory also? This would show that his technique was sound. You might be quite surprised at how much he could teach you about basics now.
To return to an earlier point about pupils asking their teachers to perform to them before signing up for lessons: One writer in a post about choosing a music college talked about hearing singers at Trinity College of Music and not being impressed by them. There will have been well above grade eight level and perhaps some of their best students. I f this young lady could not appreciate their voices or techniques what hope would a beginner singer have in knowing right from wrong?

Ah yes, but if they didn't sound nice, then perhaps it doesn't matter how technically good they were

If they are technically very good, how can they not sound nice? Unless it is purely a subjective dislike of the voice itself?

Well that's kind of my point, actually... what does that tell us?

Either we have to assume that the person in question didn't personally like ANY of the voice she heard and allowed that to colour her opinion (possible, but unlikely , especially as she said she wasn't impressed by them, rather than she didn't like them, which implies she was expecting a better quality of voice to her ears), or that they genuinely weren't very impressive, in which case either their technique was poor, or they didn't sing so well inspite of their great technique.

If a diploma holder makes an unpleasant sound to listen to, do we assume that their technique is poor? If so, why have they a diploma? Or do we assume that their technique is great and that our mortal ears just aren't refined enough to appreciate the finer qualities of their sound - only vocal experts 'get' it - in which case their career will be very short lived as it's not the vocal experts who judge in the real, money earning world - it's the public. They're the ones who buy or don't buy.

I agree, AnnC that if someone's technique is good, they should make a nice sound - which brings me back nicely to the point that anyone with ears can judge a singer as pleasant to listen to or not. Certainly good sound doesn't necessarily indicate perfect technique, but the reverse almost always indicates poor technique - therefore we CAN judge - if it sound rubbish, then it probably isn't very good technically.

Well, I don't know...In the world of opera the vocal experts who write critiques in the opera magazines could certainly make or break a career. Opera houses/companies themselves have voice experts to make sure everyone remains tip top.

I know you don't particularly rate opera, but the longevity of opera voices seems to be much longer than other genres. They maintain their quality for longer. What does that tell you?
It's true that some people with grade 8s don't have the vocal technique of others. But then grades are often examined by non-specialists. Once you get into the field of diplomas, the majority, if not all, are examined by specialists, and are much harder to get - as it should be.
We often get this "is a diploma worth it?" discussion - but I haven't yet seen anyone WITH a diploma condemn the idea, or the value their achievements. It's usually students (who, arguably, are not experienced enough to tell - your teacher may be great, inspiring etc., but how much better could they be?), or non-diploma holders who hold this view.

This bit is not levelled at anyone in particular, just generally speaking.
As I said before, it's the studying to that level which made me a better teacher. Having the theoretical knowledge is one thing, but I don't believe that you can be effective as a teacher if you can't DO it. After all - if you know HOW (theory), then you should be able to DO. So why not take a diploma to verify it to the students you hope to attract? Unless you are afraid that you actually CAN'T do it, and someone (an expert) will spot it?

Rosfrog - so far it is only you that has suggested that diploma holders have made an unpleasant sound. Has anyone else had this experience? I haven't.

And this is where I really do differ with you Rosfrog. The general public can be so easily fooled that a voice or a performance is good if the presentation is right. Just look in the pop charts or the so-called talent shows on television at the moment.

I repeat that a beginner singer would not know good from bad if he or she asked a potential teacher to sing. Have you been to any festivals recently? There are always mutterings from parents and audience members who know that the adjudicator got it wrong. They almost always haven't but they look for many other things than intonation and a nice sound.

I don't think that we are ever going to meet middle on this point though. Why not prove that you know your stuff too and take a diploma in 2009? I for one would sponsor you if you were to raise money for your favourite charity.

I have, and not only once. And hereby I don't mean the "taste-factor" - I completely agree that even a technically well trained voice might not be to everyone's taste (too "operatic", too "un-classical", too "contemporary", too "edgy" - these are all classifications purely down to taste).
But that's not what I mean ...

I have heard diploma holders up to licentiate level who sound absolutely awful. The point is that these people have somehow achieved this diploma, and I really wonder HOW. Because they don't sound awful merely down to taste - you can just hear that their technique is absolutely poor. If someone's high notes are screechy and thin, I really don't see how on earth they can be awarded a licentiate diploma. Maybe their program was just exceptionally well picked, I really don't know. But that's the danger of diplomas that literally everyone can enter and that are basically awarded or not awarded down to ONE single performance. The adjudicators mostly know nothing about the person and are mostly not even playing the same instrument - something that is simply not the case if you study at Uni or College for several years. This of course does NOT make me think that all diploma holders are bad singers - far from that. But it does mean that especially a diploma that literally everyone can enter does not necessarily make someone a brilliant singer (or teacher). People who studied voice at College or University are not necessarily always perfect either (then again, who is anyway?), but the chance to just "slip through" on a good day are significantly lower ...

As for the teaching: I think that everyone who has a performance diploma or graduated as a performer who wants to teach will probably profit from a teaching course of some sort. I am currently doing one, simply to move forward, get new ideas, learn new things and improve my teaching, which is very performance-based for advanced students (that's why I didn't choose to do one in music, because I feel that at the moment, I would not profit as much from it). But I also very strongly believe that there is something like a "teaching mentality" that you need to possess to be a good and successful teacher, and this is something that, if completely lacking, cannot be learned.

AnnC - I LOVE opera and the operatic sound! It remains one of my favorite styles to sing in and listen to and I train a fair few of the French professionals in the Opera world (last night I was dealing with a pro with no voice who has to go on stage this weekend).

My problem is with the assumption that classical voice is somehow superior. It's not - it's no safer than any other - when it appears so, it's usually because many of the short lived non classical careers are from those who haven't had any training at all. A well trained non classical voice will last just as long as well trained opera voice.

Like Mezzo, I'm not saying that every dip holder sounds bad - but I've heard a fair few that do and the attitude persists, for example, when someone says 'I'd like to do a dip, do you think I'm up for it' and you try to offer help, only to be told 'yes, yes, there are things to improve, but do you think I'll pass?' - it seems the wrong way round to me - which do you really want, the dip or a good, sound voice? People seem frequently more interested in having the dip than actually being able to sing (not all dip candidates, of course, but I have frequently seen this on this board and in the odd person that I've been involved with who takes ABRSM exams). I think it should be 'I can sing well, so I've got a Diploma' rather than 'I've got a Diploma, so obviously I can sing well'.

Mezzo - I agree with everything you've said.

Petrat - you're right, we're on different teams on this one, but like I said before the main thing is that our students end up singing well, regardless of which way we come at it!

As for the Dip - honestly, I don't see the point of it - I'm working as a singer and teacher full time and couldn't fit any more performing or teaching in if I wanted to at the moment, so I use that as a measure of my ability, rather than a diploma. However, I do like the idea of doing it for a charity so perhaps when I've got a break from the show that's sufficiently long enough for me to prepare and research properly, it's something I could consider.

I think this is an interesting argument.

I watched a variety show, on which 3 pop singers were invited to guide three other artistes, who were deemed as "tone-deaf". Two of the pop singers are critically acclaimed veterans, while the third is a considered a teeny-pop newbie who does not give very outstanding performances in terms of singing. Surprisingly, after a few rounds of trials, the teeny-pop newbie was the one who was able to guide the "tone-deaf" artistes to produce more acceptable sounds. The other two veterans simply shook their heads after the first round, and declared the "tone-deaf" artistes "problematic students".

Turns out that the teeny-pop newbie, due to her own inadequacies during live performances, has gone through rigorous corrections during studio recording sessions for her own mistakes in pitching. Hence she is able to empathise with the "tone-deaf" artistes, and suggest ways to improve. She has learned the hard way.

Hence it is proven that being a professor does not mean that one can teach. Being able to teach and produce professors does not mean that one is the best in the field either. If you listened to the newbie sing, you would definitely write her off as just another sweet but weak voice. But hey, she could teach!

But of course, there are professors who are great teachers too. Hats off to them, they are the jewels of their fields!

That's my point - as singers we can all help people who have the same challenges as we encountered. The test of a good teacher is to be able to help someone who has DIFFERENT challenges, that we never had to correct in our own learning. Every day we encounter someone with bad habits, bad tone, thin top notes, etc. and we have to be able to pull something out of the bag to help them.
The veterans you cite have clearly not had to do this or not had the training to know how to do this. The newbie could only help because she had experienced the same problems.

Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, I agree! That's what a good teacher should be.
It is better to have one teacher that can help correct ten bad habits, than ten teachers who can only correct one bad habit each

It must be very challenging to be a good teacher. A continuous learning experience too...

I'm always learning!
Also you have to be able to say the same thing in lots of different ways. Not everyone thinks or understands in the same way. I remember two well-respected teachers trying to explain a certain concept to me, both in different ways, but I never "got it" until I went to my present teacher. I find people understand metaphors much more easily than complicated technical language. Some of my students would run a mile I'm sure if I started getting technical. Some, just would never understand - we all have a varying mix of levels of intelligence in students, for instance. But you can achieve the same results by varying the language, vocabulary, etc., you use, and in some cases, it's purely down to demonstration. Sometimes I rack my brain trying to think of yet another way of explaining something - then they say, "Oh! THAT'S what you mean!" and just do what you are after! Yet the first way might have worked for someone else.

Now we're on the same page! I totally agree that teacher who has struggled themselves makes a better teacher, if they've had to correct it, then they can probably help the student correct it quickly and easily too - also as they gain experience from correcting problems they haven't had themselves, they'll also get better at helping new students with those problems - hence my interest in the anatomical approach - you hear the problem, you hear what's in the wrong place and you create an exercise to put it where it should be. Very useful.

I'm with you guys - we'll never learn enough and I hope to still be going 'Ah! That's interesting' just before I close my eyes for the last time!

I am not a singer, but I know immediately if I like the voice I'm listening to or not. If I were ever to contemplate singing lessons (erm, I've had half a dozen of them in my life and did NOT enjoy the experience ), I would certainly not choose to go to someone whose voice I disliked, regardless of how many diplomas they might have.

Yeah, that was what I thought as well. But how do I find out? Do I just take my first 10 lessons in some place and than take a look around what others might have to offer?

My main "instrument" is flute. The first five years I had a horrible teacher and I didn't even knew it until I turned to my new teacher who is just hilariously good. Turned out, he was never really interested in the flute - he teached other instruments as well also he graduated from the conservatory with the flute. When I asked him to teach me ornaments and he didn't even know the sign on the music sheet that was the point when I started to doubt him. After five years! And honestly, me new teacher corrected and improved my playing in one hour more than he did in a year. I still wonder where I would be with that instrument now, if I had been with her all along. I don't want to make the same "mistake" with a singing teacher. But I guess, it just needs a try. Maybe some test lessons with different teachers and see with whom I fell I get along best.

It is difficult, I agree. Test lessons seems a great idea - all singing teachers are NOT equal.

Go with how well you get on with the person and how well you feel they understand your voice and can help you improve it (if you feel a difference at the first lesson, that's a great sign!)

I've just picked up singing lessons again and I think it's important to hear your singing teachers voice. They don't have to give you a full solo but usually you get to hear them sing bits and bobs. With my 2nd teacher I never liked her voice or way of singing and it should've been an indication to me that, although she was probably a very good teacher, she wasn't right for me.

I love singing but also find it very scary and I think having a teacher who you feel comfortable with is really, really important. I guess that's why all the teachers on this board and so successful with very different approaches, as everyone will want something different from their teacher.