This is not my own commentary. The following commentary is taken from Richard Miller’s book, “Solutions for Singers”. He is a well respected teacher and author of several professional books regarding singing pedagogy and practices. I highly suggest his books for college students however younger singers will find them too technical for use (sorry!). I thought many of you would enjoy this part of the book though:

“Voice teachers at universities and conservatories of music mostly have the luxury of concentrating on standard classical voice literature. Their nonacademic colleagues wield spades and shovels in the trenches of the real world of pop vocalism. Hats off to those who can do the latter while recognizing the need to safeguard the vocal health of their charges. A number of classically trained students (several from my own studio, including one of the group mentioned above) have gone on to successful careers in musical comedy and to what may be termed “the Broadway Sound”. Good breath management and the ability to sustain and to move the voice, to play with resonance balances, and to produce understandable diction are essential elements of every vocal idiom.

 A chief task for the teacher of pop idioms is to determine the extent to which so-called chest voice can be carried into the high ranges without violating a basic principle of voice production: as the fundamental pitch is raised, the vocal folds elongate and their mass diminishes. In some pop techniques, even those advocated by purported specialists in pop training, this principle is abandoned, producing clear register violations. For this reason, the laryngologist finds a large part of his or her performance clientele represented by both male and female pop artists. Avoidance of extreme register violation can be accomplished by “mixture” exercises in midrange. Degrees of nasality may reduce the temptation to achieve projection through vocal fold tensing, and apparently is not unwelcome in many popular idioms.

Microphone technique is essential to most pop styles, particularly when the singer competes with a loud band and is surrounded by noise. Knowledgeable pop artists insist on sound levels that remain competitively low. The pop singer often performs under adverse circumstances, including noisy and smoke-filled halls. They are also at the mercy of choreographers and designers who have little concern for the long-range health of the artist, and who make demands that the human voice cannot meet without undergoing fatigue. When the goal for individuality in a pop artist’s sound is based on pathologic dysfunction, there is little any teacher can do except to urge its abandonment and to recommend recuperative voice therapy. A teacher can point out alternative choices, but lucrative rewards may weigh against their being adopted.

Unfortunately, there are some teachers of pop idioms who, like some of their classical colleagues, have little information on diagnosing vocal problems or prescribing solutions. Their instruction ends up advocating styles that other pop artists have developed for their particular vocal instruments. While disclaiming any authority in teaching pop styles, I suggest that healthy vocalism is appropriate to every singing style, and that whatever might militate against it should be discarded, after which there ought to be a reexamination of functional vocalism in the light of the instrumental potentials of the human voice. That cannot be done if a teacher or coat lacks specific information on the acoustic and physiologic workings of the voice as an instrument. Uninformed instruction is harmful for any style of singing.”

Please login or register to add comments