Voice Teaching Regimens In Conflict

Although formal vocal studies in the Western world before the 20th century focused largely on the operatic voice, they inspired many modern approaches to non-operatic singing instruction as well. It is for this reason that we will spend a little time exploring the operatic singing traditions of old.

Eighteenth century Italy produced some of the most spectacular singers (operatic) of all time—a remarkable accomplishment when we consider that the famous singers and singing teachers of that era did not possess an accurate scientific understanding of how the human voice is biomechanically produced. They lacked, in short, the necessary knowledge that would permit them to base their vocal regimens on sound scientific principles. So how were the very first singing masters able to show their students the way to vocal excellence? It’s reasonable to suggest that they learned how to teach the singing art form in three possible ways: through reflecting on their own experiences as students, singers, and teachers; by observing other singers and teachers; and/or by ingesting the testimonies of other singers and singing teachers. Since all of the early voice masters began as singers, it’s likely that their primary information sources were their own practical experiences as students and artists. Whatever was their principal source of knowledge and information, it’s clear that they also had a particular genius for intuiting the right prescriptions for producing exceptional voices.

Without the discerning gift of genius, however, natural intuition could be a faulty source of knowledge; the proof of this proposition is the history of modern voice teaching. Despite the work of a several great teachers in subsequent generations—and the emergence of a number of exceptional singers along the way—the long tradition of vocal instruction has offered up a bewildering assortment of mutually conflicting ideas, opinions, and techniques from singers and teachers alike. It’s in this historical light that we must pose a question: Why haven’t the celebrated singers and singing teachers over the many centuries of artful singing formed a consensus as to the best way to train a singing voice—any voice, operatic or otherwise?

The issue of effective voice teaching extends well beyond opera singing. Pop, rock, country, R&B, jazz, blues, and gospel, for example, all have their own musical styles with characteristic vocal requirements. As you might expect, the confusion over voice teaching approaches is even greater in non-operatic singing. At least in operatic culture, there is widespread agreement as to what voices should sound like (e.g., romantic, heroic) in the various kinds of operas. On the other hand, it makes little sense to ask how non-operatic, commercial singers should sound since each musical genre—rock, pop, jazz, country—has its own set of vocal qualities that defines it. And even within a particular genre, the rich variety of vocal characteristics that could fall under its heading is varied enough to defy general, intelligible descriptions. What should a typical pop singer sound like, for instance? Or an average rock singer? This line of questioning is ambiguous, at best, and meaningless more often than not, because there are no typical or average sounds that make up the genres of non-operatic, commercial singing.

If this is so, then how should non-operatic singers be trained? For instance, does it make sense to employ the same voice training regimen to both a high-powered rock screamer and a laid-back silky, country crooner? Wouldn’t that mean obliterating the considerable vocal requirements—both aesthetic and technical—between the two genres? As important as these questions may seem to be, we will see that even posing them points to basic misunderstandings about what a vocal style and voice teaching methodology are and what they are not. As I make clear in my other writings, though styles may be different, the method of training should be the same.

Image source: Mihail Zhelezniak/Shutterstock