proper/improper singing?

it's pretty impossible to coach yourself because it's really hard to hear the technique problems in yourself thta someone else will hear in you.

when you sing, you're hearing yourself through the vibrations your inner ear, not from the outside vibrations (which is what someone else would hear).

i can usually tell if someone has had extensive coaching, but that's just me. for instance, if you gave me 10 people and said one of them had had lessons for 5 years, i would almost definitele be able to tell you which one it was. that being said, some people just have extraordinary natural technique and sound like they've had lessons when really they haven't.

a lot of time people who don't take voice lessons can damage their voices, but then again, so do people who DO take lessons. (think charlotte church) if an instructor is teaching you improper technique or pushing your voice too hard at a young age (that happens a lot with kids with "stage parents" or kids who start heavy performing really young), you might even be worse off that if you never had the lessons in the first place.

so basically, it's good to get lessons - but just make sure your teacher knows what they're doing. and don't start lessons too young or do extensive belting ALL the time, because then you could really hurt yourself.

---

You can't always tell if someone has had vocal lessons, considering I have been asked who my teacher was on several occasions and I don't take lessons (that is about to change, however).

Singers who frequently sing the improper way (belting improperly - this is a biggie, thanks Wicked!, etc) damage their voices slowly but surely.

It is hard to coach yourself because, as Sporti said, you do not hear things that professionals can in yourself.

---

That's a good question. I'm a recent graduate of Indiana University, where some people will spend up to SEVEN YEARS (or more) in hardcore training (undergrad then grad) to achieve "vocal perfection" or whatever, and I've always found it ironic that some will spend so much time in training when there are people like Carollee Carmello who never took voice lessons and yet have achieved more success than most performers ever will. What's the deal?

Here's my spin. Some people naturally--physiologically--have proper placement and don't need to be taught it, while others (for example, myself) don't and had to be trained to do it properly. Breathing is also something that needs to be taught, but it's probably the easiest and quickest thing to learn. Then, as for "stregthening" of the voice, and widening of the vocal range--well, some people just naturally have very strong voices and/or large vocal ranges.

So, what this all comes down to is that most people need at least a little bit of training to reach basic technical proficiency, while others need more (I'd say the average professional musical theater singer should have at least three years of training).

However, some people, despite having perfect placement, proper breathing, strong voices, and large ranges, may still be doing things to hurt themselves. I think that most of the time this comes from forcing the sound, which usually involves muscle tension in the throat (something that can be either psychological or physiological, the latter being much harder to correct). This can also be caused by improper breathing or failure to properly lift the soft palate.

SO...if someone isn't hurting themselves necessarily but still doesn't have "proper" technique, does it matter? In the professional world, yes, as most musical theater directors, (stage, musical, and casting) will know enough about the art form to be able to identify improper technique. Many audience members with vocal training would know the difference as well. And as for the average person who doesn't know what "proper" singing is? Well, they'll probably enjoy the singing even more if it's "technically correct," because proper technique usually just makes your voice sound better.

The bottom line is, in the arts, training isn't "necessary" per se, but one cannot reach one's full potential without it.

Thanks for reading.

Updated On: 8/16/05 at 01:34 AM

Eh, I never thought Charlotte Church was that good to begin with.

She had a pretty voice, and potential.

There is also a difference between vocal training and vocal coaching. Training tends to be for more of a "legit" sound, or at least to give you the basics on breathing, placement, etc. so techniques can be applied to a variety of musical styles.

IMHO...
Some examples of terrific (and trained) singers who know just what to do with different kinds of music:
Kristin Chenoweth
Jennifer Laura Thompson
Howard McGillin
Audra McDonald
Chuck Cooper
Alice Ripley
Liz McCartney
Sarah Uriarte Berry (think of PIAZZA and TABOO)

Some examples of singers who could use more training:
Idina Menzel (I cringe with every screamed note)
Terrance Mann (major pitch problems -- something even training can't help)
Michael Crawford (where do I begin?)

Oh, and leave Charlotte Church alone! (Not that I'm a big fan.) Any young singer who can bring classical music into the lives of other young (and not so young) people who may not have appreciated such music before is welcome in my book. I'd much rather have her influencing people than the likes of Britney Spears. And she's only 19. Her voice is still changing and maturing. The comment about her not being able to sing anymore is ludicrous. She's a very smart person, and very well trained. As a result, she is building stamina and technique that will last her a lifetime.

---

Bottom line: if you're getting sore throats after you sing or your voice sounds hoarse for several days at a time, something's wrong.

Get thee to a teacher. There's no glory in never taking voice lessons.

To add onto what Touchme was saying, I hate it when singers are so married to "proper technique" that their singing becomes mechanical--or worse, generic.

Training is important, but one has to also develop their own style at the same time, know what I mean?