<p>Is it possible for a person with a "bad" singing voice to be vocally coached and to become a decent singer?</p>
<p>All opinions/experiences welcome.</p>
<p>I've been going through a tough time trying to decide what I'd like to do with my life. I believe that I have an innate acting talent that only needs to be further developed, and am possibly considering acting as a viable career path. But it seems that everywhere, to be able to act professionally, one needs to posses an a least mediocre singing voice. My voice is pretty bad. I'm thinking about taking extensive voice lessons to develop it (although I'm off tune, people often mention how "big" and strong it is- i think I just might be tone-deaf) but if the lessons will be a waste, then, why do them? I'm askin here because even the most reputable businesses will twist the truth to make a quick buck.</p>
<p>The main question here is not whether MY voice can be trained, but if you think that singing talent can be learned, or if it is an truly innate skill.</p>
<p>If your singing is often "off tune," that reflects a problem with hearing pitches and accurately matching them with your voice. This is a skill that can be learned, but some people are better at it than others- if it does not come at all naturally to you, that might be a challenge. My advice would be to find a voice teacher and have a "trial period" of lessons and ear training to see what your potential is. Given your description of your abilities, you are unlikely to become a musical theatre star- but you might improve enough to make a difference in a straight acting career. It helps to be motivated- and it sounds like you are! Good luck!</p>
<p>Training and technique can help -- a lot. I recently read an article in a science journal about this ... it posited that most people, with practice, can learn to do almost anything competently, barring any kind of extreme circumstance/disability. Does that mean that any garden variety singer can become Sutton Foster? No, it does not. But it means that, with training in proper technique, a mediocre singer can probably become a competent one.
Princessbell, have you had any voice training in terms of your speaking voice/stage voice? You might look into working with someone trained in the Lessac or Linklater techniques.</p>
<p>NMR, I think I read that same article! :) The key word, though, is <em>competently</em>, and how it's defined. An analogy might be someone learning to hit a baseball. Certainly, anyone, with enough practice, can learn the technique of making contact with a ball when it is pitched. However, that doesn't mean that that person will be able to hit a Randy Johnson fastball. Likewise, with a mediocre singer, training and technique can help make them a 'competent' singer but it takes more than a competent singer to make it in musical theatre.</p>
<p>alwaysamom, we probably did read the same article! (Nice to know other people read that kind of thing, too! :)) I agree that just being competent won't skyrocket a person to success in musical theater. But I will say that, from an audience's point of view, I would far rather watch (on stage) an actor who really acts a song convincingly and has a less perfect voice than I would a brilliant singer who fails to do much acting, if you know what I mean. I've seen more than one really strong actor steal the show from a more perfect singer who was not really able to act well. Of course, the ideal is to be both a really good actor and singer. The truth is, however, that most people are stronger in one area than another.</p>
<p>I encourage you to develop your voice and your ear further. There are a very small percentage of people in the world who are truely tone deaf. The rest, simply need to learn to match pitch. This skill can be taught. yes, some people find this easier than others. I think the baseball analogy is a good one.</p>
<p>I tell my students who consider themselve primarilty actors that they should develop their singing voices. Singing often happens in plays... many Shakespeare plays for example, and there are many different types of musicals... some require stronger singers, some actors, some dancers. </p>
<p>Think of Renee Zelweger (sp?)... she was not a singer before Chicago, and learned to use her singing voice... Same with Nicole Kidman in Moulin Rouge.</p>
<p>Obviously, the more skills you have, the more role for which you can compete. I learned to juggle, play one instrument well and many passably, do a backflip, fall without hurting myself from any angle, ride a horse, and everything else I could think of for that day when a director would say, "Do you know how to ..." and I wouldn't have to lie.</p>
<p>Singing can be important for some roles. As KatMT points out, there are several singing roles in Shakespeare, though many (such as Amiens, for instance) most often go to real singers. Still, Feste sings, Aguecheek sings, Toby Belch sings, Ophelia, etc., and they don't have to be terribly good at it ... just not offensive.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I've seen musical theater change over the years. I think the voices are much better, on average, now than they were during the Golden Age. I think the acting has suffered. Could Rex Harrison get cast in My Fair Lady if it were a new play opening this year? Could Burton get cast in Camelot? Somehow, I doubt it. So, I'm not optimistic about the chances for a non-singer being cast in practically any professional musical anymore, even in dinner theater around the country.</p>
<p>So, if I were you, I'd take the advice here, see a voice teacher, and see if you can begin to hit and hold pitch well enough to get the occasional "legitimate" theater role that requires a competent singing voice. But if you can't do that, don't worry. Outside of New York, most shows are non-musicals. And there are many who feel that the most artistically satisfying theater is being done outside of NY.</p>
<p>I agree that a consultation with a voice teacher is worthwhile, with perhaps even a few lessons. Voice and speech instruction is valuable even to those who are not interested in MT, but only in straight drama. Even in NYC, there are many opportunities for actors doing non-musicals. Typically, in any given season the breakdown on Broadway is about 1/3 straight plays and 2/3 musicals. Off-Broadway houses, however, are generally the reverse of those figures.</p>
<p>Thanks, you all, for all your help! Just to be clear, I am NOT at all interested in a career in musical theatre, but rather, would like to be able to carry a decent tune when a part calls for singing. (like Twelfth Night, for example, which has singing but isn't a musical, or a play with a character who is a singer, etc. Basically what Tarhunt said.) </p>
<p>I do now realize that most theatre isn't musical outside of NYC. I just feel like everywhere (on CC, in school, during auditions) the world is screaming good actor=acting and singing! Even my mother was telling one of her friends what a great actress i was, but how I could never go anywhere because I don't have that great of a voice.</p>
<p>NotMamaRose- I have never thought of training for speaking voice. Honestly, I don't really think I need speaking voice training. I've been told that I have a great speaking voice nearly everywhere (including the ASC!! :)). I do, however take acting lessons, where we do a lot of voice training...</p>
<p>I think I may try singing lessons eventually, but until they are absolutely necessary (or I can pay for them myself and hire the very best), I'll stick to parts with little to no singing, and work more on honing my acting skills!</p>
<p>Believe me, everyone needs voice training for the stage. Like you, I had a very good voice that came with the package on my birthday. But a really, really good vocal coach got me to learn nasality and denasality, how to kill glottal stops, and the like. More importantly, really good voice training will include courses in developing accents, and THAT will be crucial for getting various roles. If you can nail an accent in a cold read, you will give yourself a much better chance of being cast.</p>
<p>You should also know that there are still a few professional stages that are incredibly vocally demanding. There are still unmiked outdoor stages that play before a thousand people or more. They exist, and they're hell on the vocal cords. Believe me, first rate vocal training will help.</p>
<p>My D has both Lessac and Linklater training several times a week as part of the core curriculum at her arts hs's actor training program, and though she always had excellent articulation and resonance, it has made a huge difference, which we really, really noticed last year when she performed in the program at ASC. As Tarhunt said, there still are stages that do not provide actors with mics. It's worth looking into.</p>
<p>Interesting! I'm glad to hear that as well - my projection is certainly a plus point in my favour.
My two cents - unless you are absolutely totally tone deaf, yes I think it's possible to learn to sing and the majority of people could learn to be decent enough singers. Don't really have much evidence for this that's not anecdotal, but I've seen a lot of people who didn't really have a natural voice become good singers with tuition.</p>
<p>I believe that nayone can learn to sing if they want to. Training the voice, just like anything else, takes hard work and practise, but if you put in the time and do the work then I think you will be fine.</p>
<p>My D has a high school friend who had serious pitch issues at her first recital, but at the second year recital showed an astounding improvement. I would never have believed it! I guess that's why it's called training. :)</p>