Vocal coach

A vocal coach is a singing teacher. Simply put, the term "vocal coach" refers to the singing teacher in a pop-rock environment, where rather than teaching technique, they teach technique applied to songs and style

So the singing teacher. The usual useless anglicism.

Thanks for the clarification Thallo

I agree with Thallo, even though I am a pianist and not a singer. However, I have accompanied many singers and studied the principles of Vocal Technique with Stefano Ginevra, Director (I do not know currently) at the time of the Istituto di Studi Vocali di Cremona. Vocal technique, the Maestro used to say, is one and only one... the mode changes. That is, it is a matter of style that is adapted to the environment of the piece. Now I believe that very often, and I would like Thallo to confirm this for me, all of this gets confused. I hear people say: "..I teach modern Singing...." but what does that mean? First of all, I believe it is indispensable to acquire breath technique, to know how to breathe, how the diaphragm lowers and how it does not rise back up on its own. I also hear people say: "diaphragmatic breathing"..I even heard it on a Pavarotti teaching record!!!!! As far as I understand, the diaphragm descends but rises only and only thanks to the abdominal and intercostal muscles that constantly and progressively compress precisely the stored breath. It seems to me that this is how it is... I repeat, Maestro Thallo will confirm for me. I have also discovered during this long period of experience with singers that many, even professionals, do not sing "on the breath," as they say. With, at times, consequent disorders and pathologies of the larynx and the cords (nodules, etc..). It seems to me to understand that then the mode of opening allows the voice to be colored differently and to be timbred by exploiting the oral and nasal cavities. There is a "world" behind it, which one should know, because, after all, we all possess this instrument (the voice), even if many of us use it only for speaking (with a breathing that is also not conscious). In short, all this because I would like to say that THE singing teacher is fundamental and the coaches we see on television work on a singer who is already trained. I believe it is precisely just a stylistic direction (which, if not closely following healthy fundamental principles, could also be misleading).

And yet I disagree, PianoExpert :-)

My specific comment on style was obviously due to the fact that in the pop-rock world, style is more fundamental than technique.

But regarding technical issues, there are gigantic differences. Singing teachers who claim that technique is one single thing and should only be slightly adapted to various styles are, generally, old-generation teachers, European, and coming from a classical background... pop and rock are entire galaxies. If one wants to acquire professionalism in these fields, one must detach the subject from a vocal teaching system conceived and built upon the operatic world.

In short, a modern singing teacher MUST teach different things compared to an opera singing teacher, and do so in different ways. The study of resonances, for example, is different. Not lesser, but different. I don't know, being a tenor myself, I had an almost absolute prohibition against using falsetto during my singing lessons, because one of the major technical problems in the setting of a tenor voice is the register transition in the high range. A pop or rock singer, on the other hand, should focus heavily on falsetto, which is THE BASIS of high notes in those genres.

The breathing taught in singing classes is not "the" breathing, in the sense that every singing class has a different method, not only because every teacher teaches differently but also because there EXIST different ways to take and manage breath. They are all legitimate and, often, have different historical traditions and different applicability. I don't know, the majority of Italian opera singers use so-called low diaphragmatic breathing, which is a sort of respiratory vulgate that is very often taught even by modern singing teachers. In reality, opera singers specializing in agility repertoire or early Baroque singing prefer high costal breathing, which has very different modes of execution and teaching, and aims to significantly change the sonic output.

Now, in "modern" singing, breathing, in my opinion, is secondary. Those who think that vocal teaching revolves entirely around breathing are mistaken and, often, have dealt with poorly prepared instructors. It is true that the study of breathing is important, and there are situations, repertoires, and learning moments where adopting a certain type of breathing rather than another makes a difference. But we are talking about very niche situations, specific to opera singing. It is useless for a rock singer to have the breath control of a contralto, but it is fundamental for a contralto to study breath control for much of their repertoire.

The reality is that in Italy and more generally in "continental" Europe, we have taken our operatic teaching tradition and adapted it out of pure convenience to... non-operatic singing.

This professional laziness (because it is laziness and a lack of professionalism, given the heavy figures surrounding the vocal teaching business) is paid for especially by the more complex and typical pop-rock genres. Today in Italy, nobody "studies" folk singing; it seems to be a collection of handed-down and enigmatic knowledge... today in Italy there is no true Metal scene, especially in its heaviest and most particular niches. Today in Italy, despite a grandiose tradition, Progressive Rock has completely disappeared, which truly distinguished classical-style vocal technique from avant-garde technique. Today in Italy, Beatboxing, which is seeing powerful development in the rest of the world, has little success and is practically unknown in schools.

Ok Thallo. Thanks. I hope, however, that you agree with being necessarily "on the breath." The other night at Sanremo, Gianna Nannini went out of tune twice on "Bello e impossibile." We are talking about a powerful voice: In my opinion, she wasn't on the breath and her openness wasn't right. Is my evaluation too pretentious? Maybe... totally wrong? I don't know if you heard her. Naturally, the "passaggio" area is a critical point for all singers, I think. There, in my opinion, she didn't find the right proportion between pressure and openness. What do you say? (sorry if I am wasting your time with these clarifications... but I believe they are useful from you for all of us). Bye and thanks

I haven't heard her, but generally intonation problems depend on... intonation :-) if we are talking about singing off-key, often the problem comes from multiple sources. But it is complex to adapt the discussion to Gianna Nannini, because her style allows her to do everything without having to "answer" musical questions of this type. That is, for Nannini to be Nannini, she doesn't have to be in tune and she doesn't have to be precise. That isn't what makes her successful; it's more a matter of timbre and style.

Anyway, regarding pressure and openness. I will give you an explanation that tries to be less technical but more understandable.

I am an opera singer; "my" pressure on the vocal cords, the pressure of the air column that I use, is certainly stronger compared to that of a pop singer. This leads, in common thought, to an increase in those vocal mannerisms typical of operatic singing like vibrato, especially in the high register, and forces me into greater "support," precisely because managing that column of breath is more tiring and risky for intonation. In essence, according to common belief, singing "loud" means increasing the pressure of the breath column and managing, through a series of stratagems like support, the problems that this large mass of breath brings with it.

This idea is not shared by singing schools. The famous bel canto starts from an opposite idea of sound emission. That is, if I logically think of phonation as the sequence of 1) inspiration 2) breath pressure 3) management of the resulting sound, I arrive at the typical technique of the Romantic singer. But if I want to sing a more classical or older repertoire, my thought tends to be 1) pronounce strongly 2) accommodate the rising of the breath 3) fill the resulting costal void. The sequence is reversed; it follows the logic of speech more closely. For example, [the singer] experiences breath not as the beginning of phonation but as something to be replenished when it runs out. Obviously, I am oversimplifying a great deal, but if you think that the beginning of phonation is "up high," on the pronunciation, at the lips' edge, as they used to say, then intonation is no longer a matter of breath pressure but of precision.

I hope I'm not running too far with this reasoning.

Pop and rock singers who have a technique that is a "child" of European operatic teaching tend to experience their voice just like opera singers. That is, as a base sound upon which the vowels and consonants are positioned afterwards. This is the aesthetic idea of singing typical of Italian opera, which has low breathing, support, vibrato, and the idea that higher notes correspond to greater breath pressure as respiratory parallels. Paradoxically, these singers (the pop-rock ones) end up being imprecise with intonation, and if they don't use that entire technical landscape I was talking about (vibrato and support) correctly, they end up singing off-key or producing clumsy and excessive sounds (like Anna Oxa, for example).

Experiencing phonation in reverse, however—lightening everything, decreasing the importance that breath has in this process—leads to being more precise in intonation, more subtle and fine. High voices or those that use a lot of head register often do this. Nek, in his Sanremo performances, was extremely PRECISE with intonation, despite his song being very high and melodically complex, full of leaps. I believe his technique is much "higher," less tied to operatic teaching, and indeed it always seems as if he is speaking; the words are perfectly understood, and the sound is sometimes harsh because the voice is less rounded.

Thank you for the clarifications. Your point is very clear. Bye