A GREAT TEACHER MUST BE A GREAT SINGER

The title says it all. The converse, however, is not true; i.e., a great singer does not necessarily make a great teacher. And when I say a great teacher must be a great singer I do not mean someone who is good or ok. I mean they are fantastic. On a world class level. Or they are at a level which is the minimum you would want to achieve. However, many great singers are not great teachers in fact. They may understand their own voices, but the ability to teach is a whole other talent altogether. It is crucial for any singer striving to achieve the highest level of mastery possible that they must be with a great teacher who is a great singer. They must also not be duped into believing that a great singer can teach them either. I will also add that teachers should not be viewing their students as experiments. They are not there for you to see if you can take them to a high level. If a teacher doesn't really *know* that they can then they should not be using students as guinea pigs. And I know MANY who do this sadly enough.

There is a huge problem with someone trying to teach singers to be on a high level, especially operatically, without being able to sing themselves on a high level. It is *not* possible for such a teacher to claim that they can do such a thing. A great teacher must be able to demonstrate the sounds that a student needs to make. Otherwise it is just a bunch of wordy concepts. And people can use the same words, but mean totally different things.

The fact is that great artists learn by imitation. A great teacher can demonstrate what the student needs to imitate. And that same great teacher can exaggerate in one way or another to get the student to the right sound. If a teacher who cannot demonstrates simply says "sing ah", what *exactly* is the sound of ah that they want?? We can sing ah in a myriad of ways. Sure the teacher can try to guide you with words, but if they lack the ability to demonstrate the differences aurally then it is extremely limited.

I can name many "so called" great teachers who flaunt their training and lineage, but cannot sing one line of an aria at a competent level. Or sing it at all. That is wrong. On the other hand, I also know great singers who cannot teach voice at all. They only confuse students. So what a student must look for in a teacher is first their ability to sing themselves. And secondly the results they have achieved with their teaching. Before and after results should be shown. Otherwise it is all smoke and mirrors. Don't be fooled.

THE NEED FOR VOCAL STAMINA IN BIG SINGING

One of the key elements to being able to sing with a big, full, rich and resonant sound is stamina. It is one thing to make big sounds, but quite another to be able to make these sounds throughout an aria or song; and even more throughout a whole opera or concert. This most vital component is something that is not considered in vocal training today by most teachers, and especially those in universities. This is due to the fact that in those settings the teachers are required to put out singers at such a fast rate that the time needed to really develop a voice is severely curtailed. So they are forced to get singers to learn music to be able to perform in recitals which are required by the schools. This makes it impossible for big voices to thrive. Smaller voices have an easier time with this kind of curtailed process because they are less difficult to train. Bigger voices take much longer and require increased attention.

When a singer with a big voice decides to train they are dealing with developing bigger muscles. Those muscles take longer to develop. Not only do they take longer to develop, but also it takes longer for them to gain stamina. So we have two important components to training:

1) Developing the muscles needed to sing

2) Developing stamina to sustain big singing


A student will often find that in the beginning of their training that they are able to make some big, beautiful and impressive sounds. And they will often talk about how much easier these sounds are to make when they are done correctly. However, the ability to sustain these sounds throughout a musical piece is a whole other can of worms. This is where composers do not make it easy either; and in particular with bigger voices. The repertoire for more dramatic voices contain more low notes, but also many more high notes than the lighter repertoire. The dramatic singer is required to constantly go up and down the scale and also to sustain long, held out lines. This takes incredible stamina. On top of all of that the composers usually write the high note climax at the end of the aria - which only makes sense. This adds to the need for stamina.

Often I will hear young or developing bigger voices (and also smaller voices) make these big, full, rich sounds. However, since they cannot maintain that sound throughout the aria, the high note at the end will suffer. Many teachers and coaches will try to avoid this by lightening the voice so as to make it less taxing on the singer. The problem with this approach is that it skirts dealing with the issue at hand by avoiding it. When that happens the singers never reach their full potential. Instead of engaging the sound fully and gaining the stamina to do so, they are told to lessen the sound. Consequently, we never hear what the voice could have been at its prime development. This is one of the main differences in the singers of the golden age compared to the singers of the current age. The older singers had much bigger, fuller, more beautiful and richer voices. They were able to thrill us with the sheer beauty, power and mastery of their voices. This also included the ability to sing piano, decrescendo and crescendo. If a singer never gets to their full vocal potential then all we hear is the ability to hit notes instead of the ability to thrill.

Young singers and older singers alike need not forget the importance of vocal stamina. If you are making big, free sounds, but you just lack the ability to sustain them to the end of an aria do not give up on them. Remember that it takes time to build up your muscular stamina. Athletes and artist athletes such as ballet dancers know the need for stamina. And singes,r being athletic artists themselves, also need to remember this fact. Stick to developing your muscles and stamina so that you can achieve your ultimate potential. There is nothing more thrilling than that.

THE LINEAGE OF A TECHNIQUE: Which teachers are qualified to continue the work?

Dr. Tom LoMonaco taught many students and produced many great, world class singers. I was lucky in that he chose to ask me to "continue the work" as he put it. He told students to come to me when he was retired. He also sent some students to me while he was still teaching. This was approaching almost a decade of studying with him. One student he sent to me was a bass baritone from Israel. As I trained this student I was also discussing with Tom what I was doing with him and what I thought his technical obstacles were. Tom agreed with my analysis and knew that I was secure enough in the technique for him to approve me as teacher. It was a test. This is one of the keys to verifying the ability of a student to teach others what you have taught them. Tom would also ask me questions about some of his students; and what I thought their technical issues were and how I would approach them. And not only their technical issues, but also the psychological issues which may block the student from progressing. The psychology of a singer was extremely important to Tom and he stressed this work as well.

I, myself, have not produced any such teachers as of yet. I do not recommend any students as teachers at this point who are on the level to take a voice to its full potential. There have been and are some students who can teach beginning students, but only up to a point. I hope to produce great teachers also, but no one can claim the whole technique until I feel confident that they actually know it and can correctly teach it. Basic knowledge is one thing. Complete knowledge is another. Teaching beginning singers with no previous issues is not that difficult, but teachers of the method who are still learning themselves will only be able take these students so far. At that point they need to accept those limitations and move the students on to a more advanced teacher. This is only responsible and it is in the *students* best interest. It is, after all, about the student and their own singing.

Unfortunately, with all teaching, there are those who will claim to know the method of a teacher. And they try to ride on the teacher's successes in order to build up their own studio. All of this without having been approved as a teacher of the method. Having seen this time and time again with my own teacher I would advise singers to beware. *ONLY* go to teachers of the method that are recommended by the teacher who is training those beginning teachers. As teachers become more advanced the main teacher can recommend that they teach more advanced pupils. This is the only way to protect the integrity of the technique and teaching. And I know my teacher agreed.

It takes many, many years to learn a technique in full; to be able to teach advanced singers and singers with a plethora of vocal issues. One must learn the physiology coupled with the right acoustical knowledge to be able to analyze a student's vocal issues. Singers generally have different issues. They can have similarities, but also many different physiological or psychological issues. If a teacher does not properly know how to discern those issues so as to prescribe a specific process to be carried out on that particular singer then the results can be limited or damaging. I have witnessed students of mine, who are beginning teachers, as they do many correct things, but also are causing some other issues to arise that they are not aware of. And those issues can become problems later on even though they might be developing *some* things correctly. This is where a more comprehensive knowledge is vitally important. Moreover, I have seen my beginning teachers students improve tremendously to a point and then basically stay at that level for long period of time. This is also do to a lack of complete knowledge of the technique. Beginning students should be continuing to progress greatly, especially due to the fact that they are not coming in with previous issues that need to be undone first.

Many times when developing a voice one may go through long periods of doing the same exercises. This is to develop certain muscles that are weak. More importantly, students who come in with vocal problems due to bad teaching will have to first undo the wrong training. Those voices, even more than voices who have never been touched, need a lot of physical attention. That means the teacher may often have to physically get up and show the students things to do. Or they may have to do physical manipulations. This includes head positions to affect the larynx or to break tensions, breathing, posture and even manipulations in the larynx itself. Just as a physical therapist may do. A learning teacher must be shown how to do this things and what they accomplish by a master teacher (I have not shown any students who are training to teach these things so that they can implement them). And during this process the singer will often sound better, but could also sound strange for a while. Once those muscles have been developed, and only after they have been developed to the degree they need to be, does a teacher move on to the next step. The *knowledge* and *experience* of the teacher is crucial at this point. They have to have had seen the results of such work, knowing how it turns out in the end to be able to trust this process. If a teacher becomes impatient it will be detrimental to the student. Furthermore, a teacher who is not quite sure about this whole process and what needs to be done first - and what should follow - could actually harm a students voice. Certain things you do with one student you would not do with another student. Or it could cause their issues to become worse. That is why a comprehensive knowledge of the approach must be guided by a master teacher over years of training.

This period of training is dangerous for the teacher and student for a couple of reasons. First, the student must trust that the process will work even through difficult times or maybe not sounding "beautiful" for a while. Secondly, other teachers or coaches who do not understand the whole process may attempt to make the singer doubt the process and the ability of the teacher. Oddly enough - and quite transparently enough - this is *always* coupled with the those teachers/coaches trying to take the student for themselves. The more they can plant doubt in the student's mind the more easily they can take the student into their own studio. It is a very underhanded and undignified thing to do, but it happens all the time. This is when it is paramount for the student to stick to their guns and stay on track. Do not listen to teachers with only basic training or results; and for sure do not listen to teachers with poor results. Only trust those teachers with the actual experience of taking voices to their full potential; and that includes recovering damaged voices. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of all the above points. Having seen many students with world class potential fall victim to these traps it has become clear to me that singers need to be aware of these things.

It is such a tragedy to see unqualified teachers attempting to take on more than they are capable of. It is selfish and disregards the best interest of the singers being taught. Anyone who is interested in a particular technique please inquire with the teacher of the method as to which of their students might be qualified to teach. To whatever degree. Never forget this importance. No one would go to a cancer specialist who has not been trained and qualified. It should be the same when looking for a teacher. The last thing I will say is never, ever trust a teacher who claims to have learned a whole technique in just a short time. It takes many, many years of training and experience. If someone does claim this be sure to run the other way.

CAN A WOMAN TEACH A MALE VOICE?

This is a very tricky question. Mainly due the the fact that people tend to become very sensitive with anything that seems to involve a "battle of the sexes". I assure you, however, this has nothing to do with those issues. This is going to be a blog on the practicality and reality of women teaching men; and in particular the classical male voice.

It is important to point out some facts regarding the classical male and classical female singing voices. First, men sing in chest voice for their whole range. Women sing in headvoice for most of their range, except for the lower notes below F#4. secondly, the male voice develops, generally, a heavier instrument during puberty. You will notice that the thyroid cartilage increases in size and also the voice lowers considerably as the vocal folds thicken. Therefore their voices are heavier and deeper than a woman's voice. Chest voice is when the thyroarytenoid muscles is dominantly active. Headvoice has less thyroarytneoid and the cricothyroids are more dominant. Headvoice is therefore a lighter sound than chest voice.

Since men sing in full chest all the way up to their highest notes, they also must master what is called the "covered" voice. This makes it possible for the chest voice to stay dominant all the way up. This voice is what Corelli, Pavarotti etc. described as being crucial for the high notes. Women do not sing in this covered voice. So they have no practical way of understanding what it is and how it works. They can understand this voice intellectually, but they cannot and do not sing in this voice. This makes it a very difficult endeavor to teach it. This is why the greatest male singers in history were taught by other men. Pavarotti, Gigli, Caruso, Di Stefano, Volker, Mardones, Ruffo, Siepi, Del Monaco, Corelli and so on. In fact, I cannot name a single great male singer of the Golden Age who was vocally developed and trained by a woman. And this is due the the reasons I described above.

On the other hand, a man can teach a woman to sing with great success. The reason being is that a man sings in chest voice and headvoice. Therefore, it is easy for him to understand both voices intellectually as practically. And male teachers have taught some of the greatest female singers in history. Since women do not "cover" in the way men do, it does not work the other way around. Unfortunately. It would be great if it was possible, but I firmly believe that it is not possible. At least not on a very high level. However, I do believe that women can certainly teach men how to sing to a degree. They can teach them how the breathing works, what chest voice is, how to get core to the sound, what vibrato is and what headvoice is etc. They might even be able to teach, to a degree, some of the "covered" voice in that they could get them to sing EE or OO higher in their range. There is much more to it than that though. You have to move to the other vowels, it is a process getting to them, you have to learn how to sing mezza voci sometimes covered, sometimes you must exaggerate the cover in areas and so on.

None of this is to dissuade women from teaching men at all. I think they can do a very good job up to the point where the covered needs to be worked on. So perhaps younger male singers can learn the best from a female singer, but eventually the covered voice will have to be worked on and mastered. This will take working with a skilled male teacher who can sing in the covered chest voice, has developed that voice himself, and knows technically how to do it. This is also not a put down to women, but rather a reality. There are many things a woman can do that a man cannot do. Or things she can understand more than a man because she can do them. It is what it is. That is what makes us different.

BEFORE AND AFTER RECORDINGS: THE ONLY WAY TO JUDGE A TEACHER'S METHODS!!!!

A SINGER WHO IS LOOKING FOR A TEACHER MUST NOT RELY ON LISTENING TO STUDENTS OF THE TEACHER WITHOUT HEARING WHAT THEY SOUNDED LIKE BEFORE STUDYING WITH THAT TEACHER!!!!


Most teachers out there today sound very good on paper. They write lengthy articles which can be very convincing and seem right on track with great teaching and a technique that can bring you to your fullest potential. Their technical jargon is extensive, most of them also using the same terms; e.g. headvoice, chest voice, bel canto, pushing, breathing etc. Singers should be aware, however, that just because a teacher knows all the muscles used in phonation and the breathing does *not* mean that their technical approach can get you to where you could and should be as a singer.


The vocal apparatus and all the muscles used in phonation can be used in many different ways. In other words, multiple variations of the coordination of these muscles can be used to make a sound. Logically there is a most efficient set up and use of these muscles which gives the freest, most resonant and most beautiful sound. The main point is that even though teachers know the muscles and use the physiological terminology does not mean that they are able get those muscles developed and functioning in the best way. In my experience, unless a teacher knows the correct sounds that correspond to function then the knowledge of the muscles is limited. Most teachers now days do not even realize the possibilities of the sounds the human voice can make. They may reference recordings of Flagstad, Nilsson, Tebaldi, Caruso, Pavarotti and so on, but they do not have the acoustical knowledge in the studio, coupled with the right knowledge of how the muscles *must* work in order to get those sounds. Teachers can write many impressive articles, but when one listens to the actual teaching and results of their teaching, their approach is severely lacking and limiting. Singing should be results based.


Having read many of these top teacher's articles it would seem that they would have produced, in decades of teaching, at least one singer on the level of the singers of the past. Singers such as Flagstad, Nilsson Bjorling, since they will often claim to teach the same approach of those singers. The reality is that we hear not a single voice that they have ever produced that is even close to those singers - at least not that I have heard. After all that time teaching?? So what is missing? These teachers seem to know "technique" and physiology on paper, but why the lack of results? Mind you that some of their physiological ideas are wrong; i.e., the tongue position. In fact, Birgit Nilsson expressed very plainly in Jerome Hines' book after being asked if she holds the tip of her tongue behind her bottom teeth a resounding "No!", but still many of them teach students to do so. Having heard many of them teach, having taught many of their former students, it is clear to me that they have no idea of the sound to aim for in the lessons. Their ideas on what the sounds are for chest voice, headvoice, covered voice etc. are all distorted. And because of this the singers are limited to those distortions. For example, if one does not realize that the chest voice development is crucial to strengthening the vocal folds, and the sign of proper chest voice is the voce squillante/core to the sound (ringing overtones) then their approach will not result in proper engagement and development of those muscles. I am a firm believer in results. I also don't claim to be the best teacher in history, but I do expect results from myself - and also other teachers - because a singer's voice is in my hands when they come to me for training. And all aspiring singers should want results. They deserve to know what they are investing in.

So singers *MUST*, and I cannot stress this idea enough, they *MUST* listen to before and after recordings of the teachers being considered. A SINGER WHO IS LOOKING FOR A TEACHER MUST NOT RELY ON LISTENING TO STUDENTS OF THE TEACHER WITHOUT HEARING WHAT THEY SOUNDED LIKE BEFORE STUDYING WITH THAT TEACHER!!!! That is the most important thing to realize. Without that we have no way of knowing if the technique of a teacher actually produces great results. You will notice that none of these teachers ever puts up before and after recordings of their "successful" students. This is due to the *FACT* that most of those students already sounded good when they came in and changed very little. If not even for the worse. And I know of many students who got worse after studying with these "top teachers". I have trained those whose chest voices have been destroyed by their methods. So it behooves us ALL to demand hearing results from these teachers in the form of before and after recordings of their students. There is no other way of determining their teaching abilities. Here are my before and after results. Just some of them as well as my teacher's:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM35lFW0JBQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj2ncfEG5Rk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DebFWSRggQk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTjQhrge4EM

THE VIBRATO

The vibrato is a most necessary part of any great singing voice. Not only is it a means of expression, but it is also a functional part of the vocal mechanism as it frees the voice of constriction and tension. A well managed vibrato can add tremendous emotive affects to a song or an aria. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the mechanics of the vibrato, as well as what can cause it to be negatively impacted.

Let us begin with an explanation of a proper vibrato action. A proper vibrato action is a fluctuation of pitch around a fundamental note being sung. Since there is a fluctuation in pitch it is important to understand that this fluctuation has a quantifiable oscillation and accent. The peak of the vibrato is about 1/3 above the fundamental pitch and 2/3's below the fundamental pitch. One might think that this would make the singer sound like that are singing out of tune, but this fluctuation also has a certain stress to it. The peak of the vibrato is approximately 5 decibels louder than the trough of the vibrato. As a result, the listener hears the voice centered in the fundamental pitch with the vowel being at its core. It is interesting to note that since there is this pitch oscillation the voice is rarely actually singing on the fundamental as it is going above and below it at all times. Conversely, when one is singing straight-toned the voice is always in the center of the fundamental pitch.


Additionally, the vibrato also has a certain ideal speed to it. This speed is determined by the number of pulses per second are achieved by the peak of the vibrato. Ideally this speed is at 6.2 pulses per second. In order to determine what the proper speed of the vibrato should be a test was done in which all of the greatest singers of the Golden Age of opera were studied. The figure of 6.2 pulses per second was an average of all of these amazing singers. However, there is also a window of acceptability with the speed of the vibrato. A singer can be a bit slower or a bit faster. As well the fluctuation can bit a bit more narrow,or wider, but it must not go past a certain point in either direction or it is no longer a functional, musical action of the singing voice. Instead it becomes an affect rather than an expressive tool.


It must be clearly stated that the vibrato action is semi-reflexive. That means that it will happen on its own, but a singer also be able to control it. This is comparable to blinking - it happens on its own, but you can control it also. Having control over the vibrato action is a vital tool of every singer. A singer should be able to sing straight-toned, speed up the vibrato or slow it down (within the confines of acceptability for expression), as well as make the fluctuation wider or more narrow. In fact, the louder one sings the bigger the vibrato is in amplitude. This kind of control not only is a means of artistic expression, but it also helps free the voice as the singer is able to increase its action when singing louder or higher. With the increase in amplitude the pulses of the vibrato must not slow down too much if at all. Otherwise it will become a wobble.

With the definition of the proper vibrato action comes the plethora of wrong vibrato actions or faulty movements of the voice. These movements are affects of wrong function or tension. There are several different forms of these actions:

1) Tremolo vibrato - is too fast and does not have enough or any fluctuation in pitch. It is entirely a reflexive action do to tension or a wrong connection in the brain signaling the muscles of the larynx. The latter problem is the hardest to fix.

2) Wobble - this is when the vibrato fluctuation is too great and the speed of the pulses is too slow. This is usually do to constrictive tension in the throat.

3) Inverted vibrato - this is when the accent of the fluctuation is skewed. It could be that the singer is accenting the trough too loudly or they are not getting the peak high enough above the pitch etc. this can make the voice sound different or even sharp depending on the issue. Many soprani who take out lower register from their voices end up with this problem.

All of these faulty vibrato issues are due to technical problems in the voice whether it is the wrong breathing coordination, improper vocal registration development or constriction. Knowing how the vibrato works and how to counter these issues is key. Unfortunately the vibrato is a very misunderstood vocal action. Hopefully this information helps singers understand the vibrato action properly. I will be covering more about the vibrato in later blog posts.

A TEACHER'S TECHNIQUE: Recommendations

It has occurred to me recently that one of the most important things when looking for a teacher is their lineage and who they learned from. That seems pretty clear and simple, but it really is not. It does not end there. Not only must a teacher be able to explain who they learned from, but if they claim to teach a certain approach they should have the recommendation of that teacher as someone who is able to teach the approach.

Too many times I have seen singers who become teachers who throw a grab bag of tricks at students which they have learned form the plethora of teachers they had studied with. Some of these teachers they were not with very long and others that they were with may not, necessarily, recommend them as a teacher of the technique they taught.

As a teacher of singing teachers myself, I can honestly tell you that some students who are learning how to teach are more advanced than others. Even though they are learning the same approach. I would recommend some students to teach a certain level of singers, but others I would not recommend. Either due to issues they currently still have or a lack of the full understanding of the process of developing and training a voice as a whole. Let alone repairing voices that come in with major issues due to bad teaching.

I have witnessed many people who studied with people like Franco Corelli, Melocchi, Stanley, my teacher etc. then go on to teach. And most really were not doing things in line with what they were taught. They either didn't fully understand or they added their own things to it. So unless a teacher recommends a student as a teacher of the technique be very wary that they truly know the teaching well enough to train you.