Why Vocal Performance is the WRONG choice for a MT Career

College Majors Musical Theater Major
1

<p>I have seen so many posts on here that I think this deserves its own topic.</p>

<p>As you read this, you should know that I had a career in professional opera before deciding to teach and focus on only non-classical vocal styles. I'm not going to go over board with the science behind all of my points, but I can if asked.</p>

<p>1st: Why you will annoy the faculty of a VP program:</p>

<p>If you are going to study VP at a school with a good vp program, you will be studying with singers who had classical singing careers and are passionate about the music. If you are passionate about classical music and walk into a job expecting to teach classical music, that is what you expect to do. When a student walks in and says "I'm getting a classical degree but I really want to do musical theater" it sucks the life blood and soul out of the teacher. The teacher translates that statement into "I don't really want to be here or sing this music, but it seemed like my next best option." If you are a teacher who is a specialist and wants to teach others to be the same, the last thing you want to spend your day doing is teaching someone who sees you as their "next best option." If your child is studying French, German, and Italian but doesn't really want to, they will show up to their lessons poorly prepared. Yes, maybe they've done that in high school already, but in college, the student is expected to show up and understand the intricacies of the language, the nuances of the pronunciation, and the historical/musicological context in which it was composed. If the student does not pursue that work with the same passion as a MT pursues Jason Robert Brown - it is irritating.</p>

<p>2nd: The vocal training does not align with MT</p>

<p>Yes, this statement is controversial. Yes, there are excellent classical voice teachers out there (I am very lucky to teach at a school full of them) but there are MANY more out there who are not good with teaching classically let alone applying that classical to MT or other styles. The excellent teachers understand much of what I am going to summarize below and apply it to their work in some form, but most do not - even at the top music conservatories for VP (see 1st comment - its not their passion so they don't put time into figuring it out.)</p>

<p>Differences (These are based on Scientific Research, not opinion)</p>

<p>Vocal Fold Function: There are two muscles that are active when singing. The two muscles help change pitch, but also help adjust how tightly the folds press together, which changes the resulting tone quality. In opera, men tend to use more of the pressing together muscle than is necessary for modern MT and women are trained to not use the pressing together muscle for opera when it is very necessary for MT. This is very simplified.</p>

<p>Resonance: Opera singers learn how to resonante their voices in a very specific way that allows the voice to be heard over the orchestra. That resonance has been proven through research to be very different that what is used in non-classical styles. In order to learn the appropriate operatic resonance, the singer must build muscle memory that allows the larynx to lower, the throat to open, and the uvula to lift. All of these habits directly conflict with the adjustments needed to sing non-classical styles. A teacher who knows the difference between classical and MT will help the student learn to adjust between the two - however most do not.</p>

<p>Vocal Power: The vocal power in MT comes from a microphone. The vocal power in opera comes from resonance - no microphone. Learning to sing at operatic volumes can be detrimental if the teacher never teaches the student how to back off and sing on a mic. Since opera singers almost never do this, very few know how to teach it.</p>

<p>Vocal Style: Stylings in classical music are VERY different from musical theatre, especially considering that over half of MT is based on rock music.</p>

<p>Acting: Operatic music was mainly written before Stanislavsky's work with actor's. The solo vocal numbers in these shows were written to display vocal beauty and a little bit of drama. Musical Theatre numbers written after Stanislavsky's influence are in most cases written to show either equal parts of voice and acting or to make acting the most important with the voice as a tool to heighten the emotion.</p>

<p>Posture: Posture is really only an issue if there is tension. If the body is free and relaxed then the singer can move and sing. However, in opera that is not so much the case. Good posture aligns the throat for optimal resonance. Finding the optimal resonance is of vital importance if its you against the orchestra, but for an MT, its useless. And to make things worse, if chin down posture is used when belting (if the student doesn't need it) it pushes the larynx down, makes the voice darker, which makes most singers push and squeeze to get the voice bright again. A MT oriented teacher understands the necessary adjustments and trains their singer to make those adjustments as needed and based on the style. Rigid posture also affects acting - in opera not a big deal, in MT its a big problem.</p>

<p>Vowels and the tongue: Foreign language vowels require a different positioning of the tongue than conversational American vowels. Classical singing then requires the singer to learn how to keep the tongue stable and make only slight adjustments vowel to vowel in order to smooth out the language and sing legato. If that muscle memory creeps over into musical theatre singing, it can end up sounding really bad.</p>

<p>There are plenty of other differences. But you need to recognize that opera is an old artform and musical theatre is a new one. You wouldn't study only 1980s computer programming in college if you wanted to work for Microsoft would you? Should doctors go back and only study civil war style amputations and bleeding for four years before looking into modern medicine? Should a lawyer study only pre-constitution law for four years before studying the modern system? No.</p>

<p>If you want to be a classical singer, then by all means - Study classical voice. Fall in love with opera, learn about the rich history of the music, and bring life to it with every part of your being when singing in public. But if you want to sing musical theatre, study musical theatre or acting. Do not go back in time 200 years and think that you will come out of college four years later ready to go.</p>

<p>Are there exceptions to the rule? Sure, my guess would be about 1% of the industry. On the other hand, many of the big name MT schools are sending students out with work upon graduation while most vocal performance students are looking for a place to get their masters before getting their doctorate and beginning their performing career around age 30.</p>

<p>They are two completely different worlds, 20-30 years ago they were a lot closer, but times have changed.</p>

<p>VT</p>

<p>(Please excuse any mistakes, ran out of time to go back and edit.)</p>

2

<p>None of this is my area of expertise at all except for what I picked up when D got into it so I’m appreciative of the technical information. Very useful to know. There apparently is some debate over it but the sources I trust the most take the same position you do.</p>

3

<p>Glad to hear you are getting similar information from others. As for those who disagree, ask them scientifically what they see as the issues and if the have any articles from the literature from the last 10 years. You will likely notice the discussion will end pretty quick. There were some early research papers that were confusing but recent work with NYC professional belters from belting teachers have shown vocal fold closure numbers that are lower and “safer” than opera singers! There are some fascinating papers being presented at the Voice Foundation Symposium in Philadelphia each summer as well. Things have definitely changed in many ways.</p>

4

<p>VoiceTeacher, I agree with many of things that you say. However, the title of this thread implies that students and teachers can’t be great at both MT singing and classical singing. I know several teachers and many students who are exceptions to that, and I think it’s important that be stated here. If you are one of those students who is passionate about both MT and classical voice and gifted in both - and I personally meet at least a few handfuls of these every year, meaning there are even more of you out there than that! - there are programs that will allow you to continue to truly grow in both MT and opera realms: OCU, Northwestern (Voice), and NYU Steinhardt. Not every teacher at each of these schools works on belting and other MT vocal techniques with students, but there are teachers at each who are knowledgeable about both the true classical voice world and musical theatre belting and mixing. More importantly, if you aren’t ready to decide which path you want to pursue yet - MT or classical voice - it makes sense for you to choose a program which allows you to explore and continue to develop in both. If you are 1% of the industry - and I think you are more than that when you are 18 and deciding which of your passions will ultimately dominate - it’s still important that you are considered here.</p>

<p>Belting and mixing is the topic nearest and dearest to my heart, and I am lucky to get to see it from both an MT expectations perspective (as a coach) and from a laryngological perspective (as an voice pathologist at a major voice center). I have presented at the Voice Foundation and am well acquainted with all of the most current literature from not only the Journal of Voice but also the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America and also the Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research (the big 3 when it comes to peer-reviewed papers on the topic at hand). There is still a tremendous amount of disagreement, or at least uncertainty, in the most current literature about belting and especially about mixing as compared to legit singing. Certainly there are differences - no doubt about that - but it’s not true that some people can’t switch between singing realms with great success. </p>

<p>Building a career in one realm or the other is a different story. You DO have to pick a focus eventually, because there are different paths to success and networks for each. However, you do not need to be ready right out of the undergrad gate to be a successful MT performer - often the MT’s with the biggest, most mature voices don’t work right away b/c they are too young to play the MT roles they can really sing, at least in big markets (NYC, Chicago, etc). As for pursuing a voice performance career - many people do not decide to do that until after undergrad, and a BM in voice performance is not always a prerequisite, as long as you can demonstrate mastery of the literature. </p>

<p>I think the most important message we can convey here is that each student’s instrument is truly different, with different marketabilities, and they should be treated as such when making school decisions. Not everyone is going to be great at or passionate about pop-rock MT - and while the NYC industry is certainly driven by that now, regional theatres and NYC will probably always have a need for singers who are more legit, when they are really amazing legit singers! And some people can take very classical backgrounds and end up great rockers or belters, given flexibility of training and a musicality that allows accurate style shifts.</p>

5

<p>p.s. I use the terms “opera” and “classical” interchangeably in the above post, and they are not really interchangeable (as “classical” also encompasses art song, oratorio, etc.). However, a VP degree provides foundational training for these and for opera as well.</p>

6

<p>I wonder how all of this affects admissions. Is it bad to sound like Kristen Chenoweth?</p>

7

<p>While not entirely the full topic of this thread, I will just pick up on something CoachC mentions about SOME voice teachers. I realize some just train classical voice and some focus on MT voice. But there ARE some who do BOTH. My daughter’s voice teacher for the five years prior to going away to college, here in Vermont, did just that. He also was on the faculty of a MT program in NYC (commuted back and forth each week). He has a PhD in the field. While teaching my D vocal technique, she worked on MT repertoire when working on actual songs. However, this voice teacher’s specialties have ranged from opera to pop and rock, and Broadway to country. His students have performed at the Metropolitan Opera, City Opera and many European opera houses, and in hundreds of Broadway shows. His students have won the Oscar Hammerstein, MAC, Emmy and Tony awards.</p>

<p>Then, her private voice teacher in college (she was in a BFA program for MT), studied and performed opera, but my D worked on MT repertoire with her, as she was, after all, the voice teacher for the MT students. Her own bio includes opera, musical theater, and cabaret performance.</p>

<p>What I tell my advisees who are pursuing MT, is to make sure their voice teacher is able to also teach MT singing and repertoire, even if they also train the legit classical voice as well. There are some teachers who teach both. Of course, there are some voice teachers who only focus on classical voice and are not familiar with MT rep or don’t teach belt voice.</p>

<p>I’m just discussing the point about PRIVATE voice teachers (one on one lessons) and not PROGRAMS in VP vs MT, which is more the topic of the thread I realize. Just picking up on something CoachC wrote that I agree with.</p>

8

<p>Thanks for clarifying, Susievt and CoachC! We without this background have to really research who we pick as coaches and be really careful to keep in mind all these important distinctions you mention because it’s obvious that someone could for example claim to be able to teach both operatic and MT styles and actually not be qualified to do that and end up letting the student damage their voice…so pick your coaches and singing instructors carefully. There is so much conflicting information and so much information that isn’t really conflicting but just expanding on the good information…and it’s important because damage can happen.</p>

<p>(and I will say from personal experience you can’t go wrong with CoachC…)</p>

9

<p>"I wonder how all of this affects admissions. Is it bad to sound like Kristen Chenoweth? "
You probably know this but she went to one of the programs CoachC specifically mentioned, OCU. ~We visited that school but my D did not want to do a BM degree, which is what their MT program is there - definitely a more classically oriented program, so it was obviously a good fit for Chenowith.</p>

<p>I’m totally not the expert on this (which is why I just found myself one and relied on her, lol) but I would assume the answer on that is that it is not bad to sound like Chenowith, but not everyone has that ability.</p>

10

<p>Good points CoachC. I AGREE with what you say IF they have an interest in both. However, if they are not as passionate about classical music as MT, I still think its wrong to go VP. If you are not passionate about what you are studying, you won’t dedicate the time necessary to really master the subject - math, science, English, or singing. I do hear students from “classical” voice teachers who sing contemporary MT well, its just rare. You name several schools, but NASM claims there are around 396 vocal performance programs in this country while Classical Singer at one point had a list of close to 1000 schools offering classical voice training. NATS claims 7,000 singing teacher members. So anyway you look at it, the number of places that are offering both is a very small percentage BUT it thrills me to be told I’m wrong and that schools ARE offering both. I am sincerely excited to hear that - I think that format should be the future and pure operatic training should be specialist training at the graduate level. If we can move towards that model, I think there are thousands of students who would benefit. </p>

<p>Obviously I am not a big fan of “classical” training for MT. However, I do sometimes wonder if half the problem is students do not want to be singing the classical rep they are assigned so they don’t practice and don’t improve. That is why I personally never teach classical rep to any student unless they ask and I encourage other teachers not to either. Why beat our heads against the wall teaching Schubert to someone who could care less? It stinks for everyone involved.</p>

<p>The other problem is “classical technique” means nothing. Richard Miller has a great book on Schools of Singing. Basically there are a variety of “schools of singing” I’d venture to say 90% of teachers do not know which school they teach, yet many of them think “classical” is universal. “Bel Canto” does not exist. It literally means “Good Singing”. Well if we use that term then I think we could call Michael Crawford “Bel Canto” but probably zero to none of the “Bel Canto” teachers would agree. The other problem is they all refer to dead teachers and singers as the masters of “Bel Canto” and we have no way to know what they sounded like, for all we know they sounded like dying cats when they sang. The only recordings that exist (I may be wrong on this) are wax cylinder recordings or other recordings where the singer was singing into an acoustic horn device. Well, acoustic horns have resonance of their own, meaning that the voice was altered by the horn as it is was being recorded. There are some great YouTube recordings of modern pop/rock singers making recordings on acoustic horns and its pretty obvious they sound very different.</p>

<p>On the science side, I agree there is a lot that needs to be done with MT and pop/rock, but I think if we really work at the lit that’s out there, a lot is pretty obvious. Lowered larynx uniformly lowers formants while raised larynx uniformly raises formants. Classical singers have lower formant frequencies compared to MT singers. To me that then becomes pretty clear: Lowered larynx takes the formants lower and makes it harder to get the higher formants that “make” the MT sound. If we teach that, then how do MT singers get the MT sound? They have not choice but constricting the vocal tract or pushing the vocal folds together harder to create more harmonics from the source in an attempt to boost the upper frequencies in their voice. The other option, which I can’t stand, is to let the voice come out of the nose and say “well belting IS nasal at times”. MAYBE at times, but nasal is not a belting technique. Should the larynx shoot up behind the nose as an alternate to the low larynx position? No. But the lowered larynx approach that is taught in many classical studios is in direct conflict with what the research shows MTs need. </p>

<p>There was also a recent article in the Journal of Voice “Laryngeal Muscle Activity and Vocal Fold Adduction During Chest, Chestmix, Headmix, and Head Registers in Females” (Karen Ann Kochis-Jennings, Eileen M. Finnegan, Henry T. Hoffman, and Sanyukta Jaiswal) which shows that MT uses a different coordination of the Cricothyroid and Thyroarytenoid muscles than legit singing. I like to compare this to sports: If I want to develop a client to be an excellent fast ball pitcher in baseball does it make sense to train them for four years as an underhand softball pitcher? Yes, you are training to throw a ball in both sports, but the muscle strength and coordination for overhand and underhand are different. Training the muscles of the voice is the same. </p>

<p>Breathing is another issue. Breathing low into the abdominal cavity induces tracheal pull which ends up pulling the vocal folds slightly apart (called abduction - which brings in more “head voice” into the sound). If you pull apart the folds when they are supposed to be coming together to carry the chest up for a belt, you are teaching something that is counterproductive. All things in moderation, but its a consideration most “classical” teachers do not understand. There was also an interesting article in the NATS journal in Nov. 2009: “Breathing for Singers: A Comparative Analysis of Body Types and Breathing Tendencies.” by Jennifer Griffith Cowgill that showed similarities in lung function between three different breathing types preferred by specific body types. Applying this research in my own studio I have found it to be very accurate and the truth to me seems to be that dancers and thin singers (most MTs) need to approach breathing for singing VERY differently than the traditional opera singer who needs to go to the gym a little more often than the listening library (I am one of those so I can say that :).</p>

<p>IF you really want to do both, then by all means you should be cross training. In general, MTs should cross train regardless to keep the voice healthy. But there is a big difference between cross-training in MT rep (Legit to Contemporary) than cross training from Italian to French to German to English Art Song to Legit Musical Theatre to Contemporary Musical Theatre to Rock. Can it be done? Yes - like you mention CoachC, I am one of those singers/teachers who can sing all of those styles and have done so professionally even though I was classically trained. However, I taught myself how to sing the other styles. My classical training (from VERY well known classical teachers) made my singing of those styles worse, not better. I spent numerous hours, hundreds if not thousands, in a practice room and working with my wife to undo my classical training and get my MT and Pop/Rock sound back. Now I can interchange easily, but it took years to get to that point and by then I was too old to go start over and hit the pavement for MT.</p>

<p>As far as regional theatre’s doing “legit” - I think that is very debatable any more. I am currently working on finalizing a survey that will be circulating this summer to classify the vocal styles required in last years Broadway season as well as the seasons that were cast at this year’s UPTA. Here are the preliminary results from my research team for the most recent UPTA auditions (mind you they are only OUR opinions) but we expect very similar formal results:</p>

<p>Listed as: Type: Productions/ % of Ttl.
Traditional Belt Shows: 8 / 9.41%
Country Shows: 24 / 28.24%
Golden Age/Legit: 25 / 29.41%
Newer Legit Shows: 3 / 3.53%
Pop/Rock Shows: 25 / 29.41%</p>

<p>Total Shows 85 </p>

<p>Production Stats by Vocal Requriements<br>
Shows Requiring “Legit Voice” 32.94%
MT Shows Requiring “Non-Legit Vocal Production” 9.41%
Shows Requiring "Non-MT Vocal Production (pop/rock/country/etc.)<br>
57.65%
Total # of Shows requiring “non-legit” technique 67.06%</p>

<p>This list of shows cast at UPTA (theme parks have been excluded [if included they would raise the number of pop/rock] and Christmas shows have been excluded [many use original music and are impossible to classify without hearing])</p>

<p>Traditional Belt Shows
Anything Goes (2 productions); Cabaret; Chicago (2 productions); Cole Porter’s Nymph Earrant; Gypsy; Vaudeville Spectacular</p>

<p>Golden Age/Legit
Babes in Toyland; Cinderella; Damn Yankees (2 Prod.); Fiddler on the Roof (national tour); Guys and Dolls (2 Prod.); Kiss Me, Kate; My Fair Lady (2 Prod.) My Favorite Things: The Music of Rodgers and Hammerstein; Of Thee I Sing; Oklahoma!; On Broadway 1954; Plain and Fancy; South Pacific (national tour); State Fair; The Music Man; The Sound of Music (2 Prod.); The Wizard of Oz (regional – 2 Prod.); The Wizard of Oz (national tour); Willie Wonka; </p>

<p>Contemporary Legit
1776; Cats (national tour); The Light in the Piazza; Voca People (off-Broadway)</p>

<p>Pop/Rock Musicals (including those with a heavy pop/rock influence)
13: The Musical; All Shook Up (2 Prod.); Five Guys Named Moe; Forever Plaid; Gem Tones; Grease; Hairspray; High School Musical; Happy Days (a new musical); Rock the Jukebox; Sisters of Swing: The Story of the Andrews Sisters; Smokey Joe’s Caf</p>

11

<p>Chenoweth is an exception, not the rule. </p>

<p>In case you do not read my whole long post: There are over 7,000 voice teachers in NATS. Things are changing and some parts of the country are better than others, but every time I am in a room with a lot of middle aged to older aged NATS teachers, those who teach happily teacher contemporary MT are the exception and not the rule. Those who teach it well are rare and those who teach both well are rare and often not members of NATS. Sad, but we are all trying to change it slowly but surely. Its just a little irritating that musical theatre has been vibrant in this country since the 1920s and we are still fighting this “to train classically or not” battle 90 years later.</p>

<p>VT</p>

<p>P.S. If any of you know where I teach, I am proud to say my colleagues are the exceptions, not the rules. I would gladly recommend them to ANYONE for MT or pop/rock - then again I’m at an MT school where the voice faculty teach both, so being able to teach both is kind of a pre-requisite for employment.</p>

12

<br>

<br>

<p>I posted this on another thread but it might belong here as well.</p>

<p>I don’t know exactly how everything works at Northwestern for VP majors, but I do know that currently the Music Department at NU employs at least one voice teacher who is focused solely on MT and pop singing, and she gives private lessons to MT students, presumably including those MTs who are Vocal Performance majors. She is NOT focused on opera or classical music styles.</p>

<p>Also, NU is in the process of hiring two dedicated MT Voice teachers who will work directly for the Theatre Department starting next year. Based on the ad for these jobs that’s currently in Playbill, I gather that these teachers will be dedicated exclusively to teaching singing for MT.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.playbill.com/jobs/find/job_detail/43168.html[/url]”>http://www.playbill.com/jobs/find/job_detail/43168.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Theatre students are also able to study classical voice (by audition), with a different instructor in the Music school. Our D currently has both an MT and a classical voice teacher.</p>

13

<p>I would encourage all students and parents who are trying to decide between MT and VP programs to steer away from the categorical statement that VoiceTeacher makes about choosing MT over VP. In the first place, he is ONE professional vocalizing ONE opinion, and it does sound in subsequent posts like his opinion is, of course, highly influenced by his own training decisions and experience that provided him with what he sees as educational experience that limited his options. VoiceTeacher is a knowledgeable and prolific contributor to CC, and is employed at a university MT program that is providing valuable training to its students, but once again, this is one teacher in one program, and it is up to each future MT/VP student to gain information from all programs being considered, and get that information from the people that run those programs, not from someone who makes sweeping statements across the board.</p>

<p>My daughter is currently a freshman student at NYU Steinhardt’s VP/MT focused BFA program. Her class of 26 students consists of both opera and MT students. She adores her voice teacher and feels that in the 7 months she has worked with him, mainly in classical and legit MT, she has seen major, positive changes in her vocal ability that will stand her in good stead throughout an MT career. She is now beginning work with modern MT selections that will broaden her skills and repertoire. She feels very positive about the healthy training that she is receiving. And, of course, that is what matters most.</p>

<p>After reading the original statement in this thread, I checked in with my daughter’s vocal coach she worked with through MTCA to prepare for her college auditions, particularly to learn a healthy mix and belt. We chose her after doing a 3 state search (west coast) to find a vocal instructor who was legitimately trained in teaching these techniques. This vocal instructor is a graduate of a very prestigious university, has her doctorate in vocal performance, stage direction of Opera and Music History, has music directed and performed in both opera and musical theater internationally, had students with leading roles in both music theater and opera, on Broadway, national and international tours and in world famous opera houses. She currently runs a voice studio in Manhattan and has just been hired as an MT professor of voice in one of the prestigious, and very long running, MT university programs in another state that is high on the list of most CC posters. According to her, vocal instruction can be given so that there are many similarities in coordination that teach a student to sing with good breath support and knowledge of how their body works so that they can be healthy in any situation. She states that there are many teachers who teach very differently for Classical and MT, and that there will always be argument about which is best, but that a good technical foundation should be taught no matter what. Primarily, it is up to the student to find a teacher and process that works best for them, and the best training schools will allow that to happen, with a variety of teachers and training styles. </p>

<p>If you are a parent or student searching for schools to provide you with the best education to set you on an MT career path, PLEASE do not rule out a program because it gives a VP degree instead of an MT one, or is housed in the music department instead of the drama/theater department. If you do, you may be ruling out the opportunity to profit from an experience that will fit your needs and personality perfectly! You will find that there is often quite common experience from department to department when you actually look at each school’s curriculum, despite the title of the program. You will also find major differences, but your decision should be based on that specific curriculum, on the background of the professors, on the feel and location of the school, on a student population you feel comfortable with, on conversation with current students and department chairs, NOT on a degree title! And remember, as is so often posted on CC, there are so many paths to a successful MT professional career, and education leading to it is most influenced by what YOU put in and take from it, not on just what is presented.</p>

14

<p>I should also add that D has a friend at UMich who became very interested in Opera while an MT at UMich, so apparently they also offer opportunities for interested students to do at least some crossing over into the Opera world.</p>

15

<p>MomCares - OCU is a wonderful program, but the reason my D didn’t want to go there and get a BM was because…she just didn’t want all the music theory that goes with a BM. It IS an MT degree/program, not a VP degree, even though it is in the school of music, (as is the University of OK’s MT program, though I think it was a BFA not a BM) so the problems with being just not appropriately trained for MT didn’t even occur to us as being a problem there. She just doesn’t like playing the piano all that much. Also we strongly suspected her voice wasn’t suited to crossover like Chenowith. But I do think if you want to do MT, and might also be considering a more VP type of path too, it’s important to work with people and programs who understand the right way to work with crossing over from VP to MT - I suspect there’s a lot of people who work as voice coaches and others out there who don’t really understand how to make that work, unlike the MTCA coaches and programs like OCU, and all the conflicting information/opinions on it out there make it hard for non musical background people to ferret out the distinctions, and that could have pretty bad consequences. There’s a lot of good points made in all the posts above that someone unfamiliar with all this should consider, and keep in mind that the bottom line is, as has been mentioned, that there is no hard and fast rule that applies to every kid. But they should all be carefully considered before decided they do or do not apply to any particular case. I think crossing over is a valid thing but one that can quite easily be done wrong and should be approached with care to do it right.
~I took Voiceteacher’s original post to mean that a strictly VP program with no MT training at all wasn’t the best path to an MT career - not one with a lot of VP background which also has good MT credentials like OCU…which I still think is an important point…</p>

16

<p>I’m not a voice specialist whatsoever. Talking from what I know of my own kid’s experience…her voice teacher who she trained with for the five years prior to college, taught proper voice technique, Bel Canto, etc. She worked on MT songs, but I believe that proper singing technique is a necessary basis for any type of singing. While my D has been trained in proper vocal technique and healthy singing, her forte is the belt voice. She can sing legit, but her strength is belting and she is particularly strong at the contemporary rock/pop/folk/jazz/soul sound, which is found in many musicals today. Even so, she learned proper technique that is the basis of good singing. </p>

<p>It sort of reminds me of her work on piano. She took private piano lessons growing up for 10 years and it was classically based. She did play jazz piano in jazz band in high school too but all her training was in classical piano. She no longer plays classical piano but all that training paid off because she performs regularly on piano now and is paid professionally to perform but it is all rock/pop/folk/jazz. But the proper technique in classical formed the basis. Same with in dance…she no longer dances ballet but did for years and that technique was a great basis for all her jazz, modern, tap, MT dance. </p>

<p>Also, back in high school, I recall in tenth grade, my daughter was the state scholarship winner for Voice and that was singing classical only. In 11th grade, she was the state scholarship winner for Jazz (Vocals). Nobody would describe my daughter today as a classical singer…nope. She is known for her big belt voice and very contemporary sound. But still, I think, all good singers must learn proper technique and so having a basis in classical is a good starting point.</p>

17

<p>In fact that was one of the reasons we decided against SFA. They have a very good music program - but their VP program did not co-ordinate with their theater department, the professors in the department there told me quite frankly they did not teach any thing to do with MT, and if there were any good local coaches in Nacogdoches who were competent to teach the discipline of singing MT in co-ordination with a classic VP program, I could not locate any - and while the acting program puts on one big musical every year, they did not offer any MT singing, MT dancing, or MT acting specific classes. I just did not trust that my daughter, with what we had to work with, would be able to cobble out a solid MT foundation in that particular situation. ~ I do think classical singing techniques which safeguard against vocal damage are good for anyone -and I know nothing of singing but I suspect there are certain elements that apply to both classical and MT and any kind of singing in order to protect the voice - but I think my D would have needed more guidance to make the style change than a school with no actual MT training would have given her.</p>

18

<p>This is a great post, but Vocal, doesn’t it depend on what sort of MT voice you are developing? Or is this advice mostly for women as opposed to men, particularly baritones? My sons both are baritone and have learned to sing with a supported, classic technique. Both could segue into opera if they were trained (and good enough). Both have sung at All Eastern Choir (best high schools singers in the upper- and mid- East Coast), which tests for proper vocal technique. I totally hear what you’re saying about the differences, but for baritones, doesn’t it depend on the type of musical? For instance, Sondheim, to give one example, uses classic vocal techniques for baritones. My sons can segue into light baritenor if needed, but they use supported, classically trained voices. I ask because we’re debating what’s the best training for my younger son; he is seriously considering vocal training, not as a second choice at all, but because he considers it critical to his professional development. With more training, if he were good enough, he could go into opera if he wanted, or he could go into MT, or wherever, and wouldn’t he be best prepared? One of his mentors, a successful B’way leading performer in his 30s, went this route, and majored in vocal performance both in undergrad and then with a Masters. Thanks for the advice.</p>

19

<p>Christie2: “vocal instruction can be given so that there are many similarities in coordination that teach a student to sing with good breath support and knowledge of how their body works so that they can be healthy in any situation.” ME: Agreed! It doesn’t happen enough though in my opinion and experience. Most “classically” trained MTs I come across scream when they belt, have vibrato that is all over the place, sing with WAY too much legato, and place more importance on vocal beauty than telling the story. I HOPE that my recent experiences are becoming the minority and no longer the majority. But having recently heard the exact same results in five difference states and two different countries this year, I’m very skeptical.</p>

<p>SNAPDRAGONFLY: “I took Voiceteacher’s original post to mean that a strictly VP program with no MT training at all wasn’t the best path to an MT career - not one with a lot of VP background which also has good MT credentials like OCU” ME: Yep that really was the main point. But I also want people to understand why. </p>

<p>SOOZIEVT: There are ALWAYS exceptions to the rule and they tend to be immensely talented people. It sounds like your daughter falls into that category, but I would say there are far more “classical” singers not getting the results you mention.</p>

<p>HOVERINGMOM: Vocally its hard to say with a baritone. I have had several baritones come to me from classical teachers with goat vibratos, woofy darks sounds that make them sound like they are 50, and one young man who was told to never let his tongue touch his teeth, so it flopped around in his mouth and made sounds that are not acceptable for opera or MT. IF you get with a really good baritone teacher, he may be fine.</p>

<p>BUT…The bottom line for me is - WHY RISK IT? If you know MT requires acting, dance, and MT singing. Why would you go to a school that offers classical singing, and little to no dance or acting. EVEN if it offered some acting and dance, your student will enter the world with a fraction of the training of his competition. As a parent that would make me nervous.</p>

<p>The schools mentioned by those who disagree with me have a great reputation for good singing. But I’ve seen maybe 5 mentioned and there are probably more like 500+ out there. SO…I think I can wrap up my comments by saying be careful. You may get lucky, you may not if you go VP. If you go MT, at least you know what you are buying.</p>

<p>MT</p>

20

<p>VT…again, my posts are not about which kind of college program to attend but are just remarking about the point that some vocal technique based on classical singing is a good basic to have to build upon but yes, the training should include the MT voice and of course, the belt voice. It is not as if my D was classically trained and then became a belter later on! My daughter has been a belter from day one! (I mean she played Annie and all that, ha ha) If anything, her voice training has helped her to develop her legit voice. I also mentioned that her voice teacher for the five years prior to college had her work on MT repertoire as her only rep, but it was the technique part of class that was based on proper vocal technique, bel canto, etc. In fact, her voice teacher, who was often asked to speak all over on voice, was asked to do a presentation here in VT at a big theater before an Audra MacDonald concert back when my D was 16 and her last spring before college and he used her in the presentation for the audience to demonstrate the belt voice. I still remember it because she was in recovery from a serious accident and was on crutches and sang, Life is Just a Bowl of Cherries! So, again, her teacher taught MT students a LOT, including those on Broadway, but there is basic vocal technique that all singers should possess and then it was in her lessons that she also worked on MT rep. You would not think of my D as a classical singer in other words. If anything, she is known for her BIG voice. Even one of her college app essays started with: “I have a LOUD voice. All my life I have been told this.” (goes onto how that has meaning both literally and figuratively) :D</p>