so... is it possible to teach oneself to sing in tune?

i don't have any intention of becoming "a singer", and i'm not particularly concerned about expanding my range or the quality of my voice (i'm definitely not going to be doing opera or musical theatre ;-), but now and then i find myself in a situation where it would be nice if i could manage a basic song with the notes in roughly the right place.

(unfortunately i can't really afford private tuition on top of everything else--and it doesn't seem worth it for something that i wouldn't use all that often.)

Hey River !

The answer is really - it depends.

Are you aware it's out of tune when you sing off key? If so, it's highly likely that it's a technique based issue and will be quite easily solved with some simple deconstriction exercises.

If you're not aware it's off key until someone tells you, then you're likely to need a fair bit of ear training to set things right.

The first situation is easier to fix than the second, and both really require specialist help to see fast results.

If you're not bothered about progressing particularly quickly, then nothing is stopping you from having a go on your own. If it's ear training you want, then look at interval based exercises and solfa. If it's technique you want then look at any self learning programme that is based on actual research rather than received ideas. I'd recommend, if you want to self teach, that programmes such as Singing for the stars, The singer's advantage, Singing Success or Complete Vocal Technique are probably the best way forward - they are in no way as good as having lessons with a competent teacher and you won't progress as quickly, but if you truly want to do it on your own, at least these programmes are based on hard scientific, medically-supported research so you know what they're telling you is true.

So my advice is as always, you're better off with a teacher, but if you're definite on wanting to go it alone, choose your route (ear training or technique) and then pick your approach. Others may well claim you can't do anything without a teacher - I don't hold with this opinion, sure it's going to be WAY less effective, but I'd rather encourage people to sing under any circumstances that tell them they can't if they're not having lessons.

Good luck !

Allan

I would invest in a good voice recorder to objectively hear what you are doing - this will effect a great improvement

Good advice from Tony, too - you don't hear your voice inside as it sounds outside - the difference can be quite startling.

In combination with a good self teaching programme, you should do well with this.

If you'd have asked this question a term ago I would have answered - yes of course you can, I owe the vocalists a serious apology here as I fear I may have underestimated their instrument even been a bit dismissive, so really sorry - you now have my utmost, and I mean utmost respect.

I believe it is possible to teach yourself to sing in tune and to practice different songs working on different interval techniques and all of the 'being able to sing all the right notes in the right order and the right time' thing and gradually improve the difficulty of the pieces, enjoying singing with choirs and feeling comfortable with the level of the pieces, so to learn the mechanics of singing different pieces. However my daughter has been having singing lessons and yes it was only ever just for fun, a third instrument which was never intended to be as serious as the other two, not even with the intention of doing much work at home (I know I'm going to get slaughtered here, really sorry don't be too harsh on me) although she's always singing anyway - never shuts up actually, but the difference in the tone quality of her voice and the ways she can manipulate her voice now dynamically has seriously startled me, for the first few weeks actually I didn't like it, but I suppose it's like the first time you try to do a harmonic on a violin, it sounds awful until you get the touch perfect. Now I am very impressed and I'm not sure it would be possible to self teach what she has achieved.

So as Rosfrog says, possible but less effective.

What a lovely post, Digby! Yes, real live singing teachers can do so much more that a teach yourself course! I have no faith in these courses, or in internet lessons either.
It is possible to practise singing intervals etc correctly alone, but it really isn't advisable or safe to use a recorded course as a method of learning to use your voice.
I am glad that your daughter has achieved so much from what started out as a fun, third instrument. Great stuff!

I agree entirely.

Get a real, live, qualified music teacher if you can, even if you can only afford the occasional lesson. There's no substitute.

Oh, thank you

I don't expect you have much experience of them, either, do you?

Internet based lessons seem good enough for international recording artists, and for several record labels and opera houses - at least the ones I work with. Perhaps they just haven't seen the light like you yet. Or maybe they're not prepared to let technophobia stand in the way of superb results.

That would be because international opera stars have all had proper training in the first instance from real live singing teachers and, dare I say it, conservatoires. Their teachers would have been properly qualified. Maybe later on they might benefit from an odd internet lesson from someone who knows what they are doing, but their core training would still be paramount - otherwise they would not be singing in opera houses in the first place.

In certain cases, yes. Some core training is excellent.

However, I have a fair few of said well trained singers who are currently having voice repair lessons with me.

There's good and bad in person lessons and good and bad internet ones.

ros - i think it's a little of both (or possibly a lot ;-). i can usually tell when i'm off key, but i find it hard to correct; and sometimes i'll start on a note which harmonises, but is actually wrong. i also find it difficult to pitch to a chord, e.g. if someone is playing guitar backing. (it's the same with the fiddle; i've been working on improvisation/accompaniment with my teacher, and i find it hard to adjust to a chord change without looking at the new fingering to see what the chord is.) i also tend to underestimate intervals, so if the melody goes up a fifth, i'll end up with something like a third, and have to correct myself.

i don't know if it makes a difference, but i rarely have a score to sing from; usually just lyrics and a chord progression.

one thing i've noticed with my speaking voice is that if i record it, it sounds much lower pitched than i hear it in my head. i haven't tried recording myself singing, but if it happens there too, it's quite possible i'm completely off and don't realise it...

yes, i understand a teach-yourself course is no substitute for an actual teacher. i'll think about that, but i don't think it's something that'll be possible in the near future.

River, if you're not averse to learning online, I would highly recommend a lesson in Kodaly with Cyrilla - she's brilliant.

Alternately, there's a great book called 'sight sing any melody instantly' by mark phillips, which may be useful - it's about 'feeling' which note is the tonic, fifth, third etc, (for example, he asks you to imagine you're going to sing 'jingle bells' to find the third against a chord - there's a little more to it than that, but that's the jist of it).

If you're not really interested in developing your voice per se and are looking for ways to sing more in tune, these two suggestions (especially the first one) will be very helpful. Scorn will no doubt be poured on internet classes, but Cyrilla is a wonderful teacher and you will have a fair few lightbulb moments with her - the great thing is that it will be applicable to your fiddle playing too.

Good luck with it however you decide to proceed !

I'm certainly no technophobe, and it's pretty obvious to me (and to most, I would think) that tuition over the internet is no substitute for a real, live teacher. If one were to do a poll on the forums asking pupils across all instruments and disciplines whether they'd rather have lessons across the internet or, instead, lessons with a real, live, qualified teacher in the same room with them, I doubt you'd find many who would choose the former. It really is a no-brainer, in my opinion.

Well, I think that a good internet lesson is better than no lesson at all for some people. Remember that there are parts of the country where there just aren't any singing teachers, or where, for one reason or another, they are inaccessible to some pupils (travelling a long distance, disability etc.). I don't have any experience of internet lessons; I would rather have a live teacher, but as I say, for one reason or another, internet teaching may be very useful, and thus, better than nothing.

I see where you're coming from, David, but think it much better that a singing pupil might manage an occasional lesson with a proper teacher in the real world than trying lessons on the internet or self-studying. I'm sure this will be much more beneficial, and pose less of a risk of picking up bad habits.

It's also much easier in the real world to interact with the teacher, and to see if they're any good - for example, by hearing them sing and seeing evidence of qualifications, etc. I was googling this evening and came across a website of one person who was offering online singing tuition. The claims he made on the website about his miraculous qualities as a singing teacher were, quite frankly, ludicrous. He was also charging an incredibly high fee for his 'services'. It was quite apparent to me that he was little more than a conman and a charlatan, and without any singing or teaching qualifications whatsoever. However, I could see how he could take in others who were less experienced. There are a lot of falsehoods stated on the internet.

So, my advice would be to find a good, qualified singing teacher in the real world and have some tuition with them, even if it's only on a very occasional basis.

Well, the fact that one person didn't meet your standards doesn't mean that all internet tuition is bad any more than it means that all live tuition is good.

Clearly if you can visit a teacher who is good and truly understands the voice, rather than teaching outdated disproven rubbish as many do, then this is the best way forward.

Some may choose to study over the internet because they can't get that good a teacher in the area they live in.

If you can choose between an excellent live and an excellent internet teacher, then obviously it's a no brainer - take the live option every time! If the choice is between an excellent internet teacher and a less competent, outdated, closed-minded live teacher - then I'd pick the internet option.

It's all about getting the best you possibly can from your options - you owe that to your voice and if you're lucky enough to have a great teacher on tap - brilliant! Go for it.

I think it's also worth pointing out that many people may also choose internet lessons for other reasons - I accompany several recording artists whilst they're on tour / in the studio, so physical lessons aren't a possibility for them. Also, some students may wish to check a teacher's results before travelling a long way to see them - the internet provides a way to check a person's abilites and see if they're worth travelling a few hundred miles to see.

It's definitely horses for courses. In the case of having an excellent, well researched teacher nearby and online, then the choice is easy, obviously, but it's not always that easy for students and having a mediocre teacher nearby is not, in my opinion, better than having an excellent one who can work with you online.

Rosfrog, you have hit upon what is surely a problem for almost every new student when they look for a teacher of voice. How to tell the good from the bad! It seems that anyone may set themselves up with an impressive website, call themselves an expert and con the general public out of their hard-earned cash. I am not suggesting that this happens often but the system is wide open to abuse is it not? They may post videos of their students there for us to hear and admire but how do we know that these are genuine?
When I teach I want to both see the student from all angles and hear exactly what sounds they are making and I am not sure that either of these things are really possible from a webcam.
I would much sooner travel a long distance to see a teacher than rely on a webcam. As a student I did travel to London often for top quality lessons. I gained a huge amount from these lessons and was glad to have the opportunity of them. I am not at all sure that I would have made the same progress if I had taken an internet lesson every fortnight.
What I have noticed about several of the teachers that I have been able to check out who offer internet lessons is the prices that they ask. I don’t know if a percentage of this fee goes to an agency or not but they are much higher than I would pay from a top London tutor in a face to face lesson. They don’t have the same expenses as regular tutors surely? I know that studio equipment is pricey but surely not as much as heating, lighting and upkeep of a London studio? Most will have received years of training and this is not cheap either.
What did you mean by the phrase “outdated, disproven rubbish”? I am almost certain that if a teacher based any teaching on poor methods they would very soon be abandoned by their students and they would not be recommending others to take lessons. Most new students come by word-of-mouth and a tutor who didn’t get decent results would soon be out of a job anyway. On what facts do you base your statement that many teachers are incompetent, outdated and closed minded and teaching such disproven rubbish? There will be good and bad teachers everywhere in all subjects of course, but to imply that lots of us teach in such ways is rather insulting to our profession.

Why do recording artists need lessons whilst on tour, unless there is a fundamental problem in the first place? Have they even had lessons before embarking on their career? When you listen to older singers of popular music there is much evidence of vocal misuse. When you see them live in tribute concerts, some of the "best" ones of their era really struggle to hit the notes with pained expressions on their faces.
Yet many classical singers are still singing well in public in their 60s and 70s. No doubt down to that old-fashioned, out-moded, unresearched, closed-minded method of teaching given by so many who have had illustrious careers themselves, or who have been taught by them.
I'm trying to get an idea of how you actually operate - what you offer, so please bear with me.
How do you hear the true voice over the internet or down the phone? So much depends on the quality of the microphone and speakers at both ends, surely. How do you observe posture for instance? You can tell them what to do, but how do you be sure they are doing it correctly? They may THINK they are, but an observer can see differently and can, if necessary, physically correct them. A live person can also demonstrate - a lot of people relate to that more than explanations. Some people can't digest a vast amount of words.
Can you accompany over the internet or phone? Are you both following the same piece of music to be able to discuss phrasing, tonal colour in relation to the text, translation issues, nuances, facial expression, creating an actor's space around them, working with an accompanist (after all performing lieder is very much a duet between piano and singer, not just a singer being accompanied)? Or maybe internet/phone lessons can't/don't cover offer the whole package that live teachers do. Perhaps they only deal with voice production issues and leave the student to work everything else out for themselves. Of course, correct, safe voice production is paramount, but it is not the whole. Do you try and stimulate interest in trying out new repertoire/genres, expand students' repertoire and therefore teach different styles, e.g.French, German, Italian song, Baroque, Classical, Romantic. Do you coach languages? I know you have experience of jazz, belt, etc. - do you coach improvisation?I think that you once stated that there was no need for lessons to go on for years, because there should be a noticable difference very rapidly. But how do you achieve all of the above in a few lessons?
Could you enlighten us teachers inexperienced in what you so frequently state is better than what we do, as to what you actually do in an internet lesson, please? Maybe then you could win us over - I'm sure we're not as closed minded as you may think.

Umm...could we stop the rosfrog-bashing, please???

For what it's worth - I would never have dreamed of teaching over the internet until I was persuaded into it! Of course it's not ideal and can never be a permanent substitute for an up-close-and-personal lesson - but it IS better than nothing and it is surprising just how much you CAN do.

Rosfrog is a specialist in his field (as we all are) and clearly many people value his knowledge and expertise, both in person and over the internet.

I feel very sad that certain forum members construe his offers of (unpaid) help as 'advertising' - hmmm, not just sad, but also . It seems that the unpleasantness and sniping on these forums is not, as I had hoped, diminishing .

Back to the OP - river, I would heartily recommend that you get some Kodály/solfa training. Solfa is incredibly helpful with both basic pitching and with understanding/hearing intervals, chords and so on.

But I'd better not offer my own personal help, had I? Or I too will be accused of 'advertising'...

Is not talking about teaching methods as being outdated, old fashioned and rubbish just a little classical bashing though?

It seems that both AnnC and I am interested in finding out how much may be done with internet teaching. Hence we ask for some answers.

What is wrong with that may I ask?

To answer your points -

Since Rosfrog is so vehement about his methods being better than ours, this may be construed as classical teacher bashing. I am just asking about his methods to find our more about them to make my own mind up.

If we are all specialists in our fields, why try and steer people away from us? You are bound to stir up resentment if you do that.

Re advertising or not - Where does this come from? Why point the finger at forumites? Since offers such as these are common ways of stimulating new business - first one free, charge thereafter - I assume that the administrators think this is advertising and act accordingly.

No, probably best not to offer your own help. Rosfrog is the only forumite that I have seen do this on a regular basis and clearly the administrators feel that this is contravening forum rules.

This is my last post on this thread, but I want to answer Ann's questions, so :

I think you're trying to see how you would teach using your approach via internet - and you feel this would be difficult because your approach is based on how the sound sounds, rather than how it is produced. That's fine - I respect that.

However, that's not a barrier for physiological based teaching - I'm setting up a process and creating the sound I want by calibrating the elements involved in producing it - the sound quality needs to be good enough for me to hear the position of cartilages and muscle structures - this can be done even over mobile phone at a push. I prefer in person lessons, but Skype is perfectly fine as a substitute as long as the internet connection is fast enough. For the record, I started skype lessons because people who lived far away had been referred to me and didn't want to study with anyone else. Some people do come from very far away (costa rica being the furthest to date - although more usually from the south of France and the UK) for intensive sessions - but Skype is a great alternative.

In a typical lesson, I would ask the student to sing so I can evaluate what I feel needs fixing, then I'd ask them why they aren't happy with what they're doing at the moment (answers may be - it feels like I'm working to hard, or 'I want more resonance' or 'I need more agility' - anything really) - then I fix the thing that's holding them back from achieving their goal with physiological exercises. I adjust the input, rather than the output. If we put the right ingredients in, the right product comes out - but just because something looking like the right product is produced, that doesn't mean the right ingredients are being used - hence I focus on the ingredients to be sure that we get the product AND the saftey.

I'm not saying that this way is the best - but that I chose it because of the various approaches to singing on offer, it sat well with me and gave the most consistent, healthy results in the fastest way.

I do offer language coaching if people need it (as former linguistics professor, this is relatively easy for me) - although I work with very few beginners - simply because my studio is full of professionals and demanding amateurs who have encountered vocal problems and need them to be fixed.

These vocal problems may occur because of a lack of training, or they may be because of previous poor training - classical or otherwise. I also work with health authorities and various speech and language therapists as well as a team of ENT specialists - we research new ways to produce and protect the voice.

I rarely advise on rep because the people I happen to deal with already have a rep they are specialised in, although from time to time, I will advise my amateur students on rep.

As for tone and nuance - I'm all about those. I want to know what the student is aiming to achieve vocally and not managing - then I can fix it and help them make their voice as powerful, beautiful and rich as it can possibly be.

I feel the confusion and arguing stems from us not being clear about what we do - I make it clear that I specialise in high intensity voicing (incidentally I teach classical artists as well as jazz, rock, metal etc, so I do wish we'd stop making the comparison of Opera versus Pop - we've done this many times and it has no relation to what I'm teaching at all - what we're really comparing is physiologically, medically confirmed teaching, versus traditional classical teaching) - but many of the classical teachers on the board simply refer to themselves as teachers of singing.

Well, classical voice isn't 'singing' - no more than jazz or rock is. It's a style. It's not better, or more healthy - it's just a sound, an idiom of the singing voice if you will and I wish we could stop pretending it's superior to other forms of music making.

If we could be clearer about what we teach, then we could each remain in our area of expertise and offer advice without stepping on each other's toes. Singing is much more than one style - belt is just as important as classical legit, as is heavy metal saturation and they all require specialist techniques - hence my constant clarity on what I'm specialised in. I feel the student should know what we can and cannot teach them, then they can make an informed choice.

I feel it's misleading to say 'I teach singing' when what you actually mean is 'I teach classical singing' - many classical teachers however say they teach singing, which causes people to go to them and not get the kind of tuition they wanted - this is where my problem lies with the classical system. I have always said, and will continue to say, that I love classical singing and Opera in particular - it's a special thrill for me when it's correctly produced too - it's very intense singing and I'm all about intensity in voice use.

I have no doubt, Ann, from the quality of your advice on the forums that you are an excellent teacher of classical voice - that's your area of expertise - high intensity voicing (whatever the genre) and safe vocal production is mine. I feel we could complement each other nicely if we started being honest about what we're good at and stopped sniping at each other (I'm including myself in that too).

I also want it be clear that I'm responding to your questions out of courtesy, rather than out of some sense of wanting approval - whether or not you're 'convinced' about the validity of my methods is irrelevant to me and my students, just as my opinion is, and should be, irrelevant to you and yours.

To respond to the question about artists in studio and on tour - many of them have had previous training and in the middle of a tour lose their voice etc - their management contacts me to 'chaperone' them for the rest of the tour via skype. In studio I'm on call for classical and other artists - this has nothing to do with their level and everything to do with being as efficient as possible and limiting the number of takes in studio.

As for advertising - just for the record, there is currently a three month wait to even get a consultation lesson with me and no regular slots available at all thereafter - so let me publically say, I'm not even THINKING about recruiting new students and any offers of help I've previously given we're given out of a real desire to help people who were stuck. I'm sorry that I can no longer help those people due to people increasingly finding kindess 'suspect'.

That's my last words on this - I hope it's clearer now. I'm going to let you all get on with handing out advice on what you're good at and step out quietly for a while.

Allan

i hold a strong disbelief in the fact that the mods skim-read each and every thread for its advertising-potential. i do believe however that some people are very keen to use the "report"-button. it's their right - if it's necessary is another thing ...

if i may try to get a word of reason in here: i cannot imagine to teach online myself, although i looked into it in the past. for me, the cons outweigh the pros. this is a very personal choice though. i know of first-class singers who do offer online lessons though, and it works. even araiza does it with his students. usually they also take face-to-face consultations every now and again, and i am under the impression that advanced students profit more than beginners - i might be wrong on that one though.

as for the "classical-bashing": i think this conflict would never have escalated so much if people wouldn't take general comments personally. it's true that rosfrog said that a lot of outmoded rubbish gets taught in the classical/more traditional teaching world, and some of the things still being taught are simply scientifically wrong. why feel threatened and offended by it though if you are a good teacher who knows their stuff, like most of you probably do? most of us don't know each other in person, so we can only assume what someone knows about singing by what they write. the methods rosfrog is using are based on scientific research and proven to work, and i knew most of them BEFORE i came across these forums - i am certainly not easily blinded, and i came across a few excellent AND rubbish teachers so far. you might not like the way he writes, but why constantly take his perceptions so personally? where did he ever say that YOUR teaching is rubbish? i rather find that some forumites are constantly making sniping remarks that are much more obviously aimed at other forumites, and in these cases it's rather clear who they are aimed at.

so maybe we should try to focus more on what we can learn from each other than constantly trying to just see the faults?

Yes, that's my interpretation of it too. Rosfrog frequently claims that classical teachers use outmoded knowledge and techniques, but I've yet to be swayed by any of his arguments against established and well-founded methods which are based on decades of experience, and which are proven to work.


That's an interesting and intriguing approach to teaching. I've certainly never thought of vocal nor instrumental teaching as being a way of fixing things. Imagine, for example, a child going for a piano lesson so his teacher can fix his piano playing rather than learning how to play the instrument.

Maybe that's because the voice doesn't compare to any other instrument and sometimes indeed needs fixing of the set-up FIRST before the instrument can be "played". You would fix a broken string before you teach someone to play the violin, wouldn't you?

Not necesarily ALL voices have these problems, but a reasonable amount have, and that's not because they have been taught poorly in the first place (although this does happen of course), but because many people use their singing voices on a daily basis and get into bad habits BEFORE they even take a single lesson. This is not the case with other instruments - I have yet to come across the violin student who has used their violin for years without having a single lesson ...

I think 'sometimes' is the operative word. Far better to teach good technique than to try and apply a 'fix' methinks.

The comparison does stand, in my opinion. Take for example a child who's been bought a keyboard for Christmas, say. I'm sure they don't resist playing it until they start lessons. No, they'll mess around with it and then possibly seek tuition when they realise they want to learn how to play it properly. You don't then fix their technique, you teach them the skills to play it properly. It is the same with the voice. There's so much more to teaching singing than fixing faulty technique, and I'm sure you'd be the first to agree, Mezzo1974.

Hi River,

Are you singing alone, or with a group, if it is currently solo singing can you get together socially with some singing friends and work together on a few songs, the more you practice the easier and more confident the pitching will become. It sounds to me from your post that you are singing in a fairly isolated environment, without a tune to help you so, in the absence of singing lessons of whichever method you prefer, other singers around you will help you to get the confidence, and learn the melodies so that new pieces will be easier in the future. It is also far easier to pitch to another voice than it is to an instrument, particularly one that is playing a harmony note rather than the actual note.

Now I will say, I'm a piano teacher, not a singing teacher and everyone else who has posted on here is far more qualified to offer singing advice, but it seems to me if singing lessons are not an option, make a social event out of it and improve that way.

D x

I don't think so, because the child that's been messing around a bit for a short while isn't to be compared with, let's say, an adult who has been singing "self-taught" for years and has a completely faulty vocal set-up. It is usually much easier to create a seemingly (!) half-decent sound with the voice without proper training than to play a piano-piece without any tuition.

I think however that we just have to agree to disagree on that one



Absolutely, and I think I said this more than once in the past - this doesn't make the "fixing" approach generally invalid though. No one ever said that the work ends when correcting the faulty technique has been finished (as a teacher however you can of course decide where your main field of work is and where you might want to hand over to someone else).
Funny enough, the very admirable work of creating a "complete" singer sometimes cannot really start before the technical problems are solved.

This is where linear learning comes in, as recommended by Paul Harris and Richar Crazier in their book "A Music Teacher's Companion". (ABRSM publication.)

I hope not

In all seriousness though: This approach is of course valid - depending on what level you teach sometimes more, sometimes less ...

Oops! Apologies all round - should be Richard Crozier........unless anyone reading this publication thinks otherwise!