Looking for "informal" or "non-classical" voice lessons in area (Raleigh: house, theatre)

[joey2000]

Basically I have no interest in the standard or typical lessons spent singing scales or doing breathing exercises etc. I can do that on my own. Also I have no aspirations of becoming the next Sinatra etc etc. I'm simply someone with a modest voice who enjoys singing, has a general clue about music, but would like to learn more about timings, phrasings, that kind of thing. If there is such a teacher willing to take this approach, they are well hidden. Thx

[tony23]

Originally Posted by bill545

If there is such a teacher willing to take this approach, they are well hidden. Thx

There's probably a good reason for that. You're basically saying you want to learn to sing, without learning the basics. Try the same request with other subjects:

Basically I have no interest in the standard or typical lessons spent practicing punches or doing conditioning exercises etc. I can do that on my own. Also I have no aspirations of becoming the next Bruce Lee etc etc. I'm simply someone reasonably fit who enjoys karate, has a general clue about martial arts, but would like to learn more about timing, combinations, that kind of thing.

There are good reasons that teachers teach the basics that you're asking to skip.

If you REALLY must, then you might find something suitable at a community college or recreation center - they'll still do those basics, but you'll get a bit more of what you're looking for.

[flyingpiggy]

Syzmanski Studios is where everyone with talent is, IMO . There's no teacher who will teach you the way you want (without learning how to breathe properly -- which goes right along with phrasing, which you DO want to learn), but the Syzmanski classes are very individually tailored and the people are very nice.

[joey2000]

Originally Posted by tony23

There's probably a good reason for that. You're basically saying you want to learn to sing, without learning the basics.

You miss the point; maybe I didn't explain very well.

Been there/done that. I get the basics. To follow your analogy, I do/have done the punch practice and exercise. You seem to have mistaken me for some little kid trying to slide his veggies to the dog and get right to dessert. Sorry, wrong. PS and oh btw I have known some damn good singers who were never taught the so-called basics but either learned on their own and/or had enough talent or smarts to be good or instinctive enough that they didn't need such teaching. Similarly, I've also known accomplished musicians who couldn't read a lick of sheet music. God forbid everything isn't done according to Hoyle. Frankly any teacher who thinks you must take this "classically trained" path to be any good is at best short-sighted and needs to think again.

Further, any teacher who thinks they must teach ONLY that and disregard the rest is a poor teacher and has no doubt driven many such kids away from any interest in getting better. This isn't mathmatics or boot camp we're talking about and shouldn't be approached as such. Sure some work is involved, but it should also be FUN at least to some extent - esp since many (most?) of those interested are not aspiring to greatness anyway. I abhor teachers who take a purist attitude and/or hope each student might be some great virtuoso they discover. If they are unwilling to at least spend some time on the finer and more "fun" points ALONG with the basics, they should do potential students everywhere a favor and quit teaching.

If nothing else you think there'd be at least a few non-purists out there who have a clue and willing to take my money for the sake of blaspheming by daring to jump past "classical" training and into the good stuff. oh well

[joey2000]

Originally Posted by flyingpiggy

Syzmanski Studios is where everyone with talent is, IMO . There's no teacher who will teach you the way you want (without learning how to breathe properly -- which goes right along with phrasing, which you DO want to learn), but the Syzmanski classes are very individually tailored and the people are very nice.

Thanks - PS I know phrasing too, just want to learn more, or at least have someone call me on it when I goof . Can't hurt to call!

[Francois]

Alison Lawrence is a local voice teacher who's done tons of community theatre, and coaches many, many local theatre folks for their auditions, so she's all about "just singing", not trying to become Placido Domingo. I think her practice is called The Singer's Art? Located at Quail Corners office plaza.

[leighbhe]

Originally Posted by bill545

You miss the point; maybe I didn't explain very well.

Been there/done that. I get the basics. To follow your analogy, I do/have done the punch practice and exercise. You seem to have mistaken me for some little kid trying to slide his veggies to the dog and get right to dessert. Sorry, wrong. PS and oh btw I have known some damn good singers who were never taught the so-called basics but either learned on their own and/or had enough talent or smarts to be good or instinctive enough that they didn't need such teaching. Similarly, I've also known accomplished musicians who couldn't read a lick of sheet music. God forbid everything isn't done according to Hoyle. Frankly any teacher who thinks you must take this "classically trained" path to be any good is at best short-sighted and needs to think again.

Further, any teacher who thinks they must teach ONLY that and disregard the rest is a poor teacher and has no doubt driven many such kids away from any interest in getting better. This isn't mathmatics or boot camp we're talking about and shouldn't be approached as such. Sure some work is involved, but it should also be FUN at least to some extent - esp since many (most?) of those interested are not aspiring to greatness anyway. I abhor teachers who take a purist attitude and/or hope each student might be some great virtuoso they discover. If they are unwilling to at least spend some time on the finer and more "fun" points ALONG with the basics, they should do potential students everywhere a favor and quit teaching.

If nothing else you think there'd be at least a few non-purists out there who have a clue and willing to take my money for the sake of blaspheming by daring to jump past "classical" training and into the good stuff. oh well

My daughter is in voice lessons, but I feel like her teacher definitely plans her lessons based on what her students would like. She works out of Gotta Dance in wake forest, her name is Jenny Dameron. PM me if you more questions, she is very kind and a very good teacher.

Leigh

[WordWrangler]

Also might try asking over at Exploris on Falls of the Neuse up near The Raleighwood. Angela Adkins over there is what I would call a fun teacher.

And stop being angry-sounding. You asked, people are trying to be helpful. singing is fun, darnit.

[thelark]

You sound like you would be an absolute joy to teach!

[tony23]

Originally Posted by bill545

You miss the point; maybe I didn't explain very well.

Probably not.

Been there/done that. I get the basics. To follow your analogy, I do/have done the punch practice and exercise.

The way you came across is that you did the punch practice and exercise by watching kung fu movies, rather than by being trained.

Sorry, wrong. PS and oh btw I have known some damn good singers who were never taught the so-called basics but either learned on their own and/or had enough talent or smarts to be good or instinctive enough that they didn't need such teaching. Similarly, I've also known accomplished musicians who couldn't read a lick of sheet music. God forbid everything isn't done according to Hoyle. Frankly any teacher who thinks you must take this "classically trained" path to be any good is at best short-sighted and needs to think again.

If you're that good, then you don't need the instruction. If you need instruction, then you're not that good.

I've known many talented musicians. I have yet to see ANY who haven't benefited from proper training.

Further, any teacher who thinks they must teach ONLY that and disregard the rest is a poor teacher and has no doubt driven many such kids away from any interest in getting better.

Who said anything about teaching ONLY the basics?

And, just a note - to keep with my karate analogy - in a GOOD karate class, you CONTINUE practicing the basics, even after getting your black belt. Again, there is a very good reason for this.

If nothing else you think there'd be at least a few non-purists out there who have a clue and willing to take my money for the sake of blaspheming by daring to jump past "classical" training and into the good stuff. oh well

You'd think there'd be a few non-purists out there who have a clue and are willing to take your money .. by daring to jump past building a foundation for your house and getting into the good stuff like the pretty turret and spiral staircase.

Like I said, there's a good reason for training that way. The basics that you don't want to bother with are the foundation of good form. And even if you KNOW the basics, you can screw up your voice permanently. Take a look at Geddy Lee, who has had to give up singing in certain ranges or risk never being able to sing again.

If you REALLY know the basics, as you claim, then a good teacher won't need to spend much time actually teaching them. But you WILL spend time working on them - as anyone serious about singing should.

Please note that I DID offer a couple suggestions that might suit your desires a bit better. You're not going to find much that doesn't spend ANY time on basics, but you can find classes that will spend minimal time.

If you don't like those options, join a church choir, or post an ad on Craigslist asking for someone to teach you according to those requirements. I'm sure if you're really determined, you'll find someone who will accomodate you.