Singing / Vocal Lessons - Does it help you improve your TL?

[Jiwon]

This is a very interesting topic indeed. There are some people who believe that you really cannot fix an accent, and that non-native accent should not be seen as a symbol of lazy language learning. However, I have always felt that this conception is due to the fact that there are some aspects of pronunciation and phonology which is underrepresented. As I see it, the system of "pronunciation" or the aural elements of a language consisted of much more than phonemes systematized according to their places of articulation.

To explain my musical background: I've been singing in choirs for more than 13 years, worked as a section leader and/or student conductor in high school and college, and now I am back to being the leader of tenors in an international choir in Seoul. I also play the euphonium and viola in amateur ensembles, although I am not as great an instrumentalist as a chorister.

Now, when I learn a language, I pay special attention not only to the rhythm but also to intonation patterns of any given language - even the ones that are not tonal. I try my best to emulate them - and the way I see it is very similar to how I would try to emulate singing styles as dictated by my conductor, or how my tenors try to emulate my phrasing during my sectionals. While I am not really a fan of shadowing, I guess for people who are not sure how this works, it would be helpful to engage in some hardcore shadowing sessions. Repeat the audio phrases you hear until you sound similar to the audio files, not only to you but also to native speakers. It doesn't start out perfect, but the more you practise, the closer you get. I mean, as they say in music, practice does make you perfect.

As a vocalist, there is one other aspect of pronunciation that I recognize, which is even less talked about. For the lack of a better expression, I call it the 'place of vocation' as opposed to 'place of articulation'. We may pronounce every single phoneme 'correctly', and in the 'correct' intonation and rhythm, but still come off sounding very 'foreign'. I believe this is because every language has a standard place of vocation, and if your vocation is off-place, you do sound very 'exotic'.

Then what is this place of vocation? I really don't know whether I can describe it justly in words, because it is a very aural/vocal concept. It has to do with where your voice appears to gather, materialize or centre around. In many East Asian languages, people speak in a relatively 'forward' manner. The place of vocation is very much in the front, near the teeth, and sometimes even in front of the lips. This gives them the very distinctive "Asian" accent, which many carry into other languages they learn. In contrast, English is a language that speaks very deeply, more so with British English than American English. When I speak to some English speakers, I 'hear' that they are talking inwards, with the place of vocation deep in the vocal cavity, sometimes even down their throats.

Now this is my hypothesis: each language has a spectrum of acceptable places of vocation, depending on the speaker's gender, age and regional background. Out of my languages, English has the deepest place of vocation, while followed by German, Hindi, and lastly Korean with the forward-most place of vocation. When a person speaks within the acceptable range, they can pass off sounding 'native'. It is when they cross the line that they sound very 'alien' - just as when an Asian person speaks English with the place of vocation in the front.

[Jiwon]

I think we need to clarify something here: articulation in singing isn't the same as articulation in speech. When using proper singing techniques, you don't even produce the sounds of the language the same way all the time, because with singing, you have to sometimes change the sound so to make certain passages more musical or to produce a better vocal quality. This is a pretty intricate technique that many singers need to be trained in, as it's not something most people can intuit. I can do it myself to some extent, as I was trained to do it for the choirs I have been in, but I'm not an expert on it, so I'll refrain from trying to explain in it more detail. Ideally, a teacher with knowledge of how to sing in that particular language would guide a singer through what changes are needed and appropriate. But suffice to say, learning to sing in another language will not end up with you having any kind of accent, because you are learning to sing, not speak. They are really two different things. Two different skills, two different activities that even use different parts of your brain

What you are pointing out is that the art of diction in singing is different from ordinary speech, and I don't think drp9341 has even claimed that singing can help you learn the correct diction of your target language. He is precisely pointing out the fact that there are two separate skills involved in 'correct pronunciation'. One is articulation, which linguistic literature often discusses, but he also recognizes that there seems to be a rather musical skill related to rhythm and intonation.

As for developing a native-like accent, this just has never been a big part of my goals, but from my own experience with language learning, the best method for improving your accent as a self-learner seems to be shadowing audio of speech, and not singing. Or maybe get an accent coach, if you're someone who can afford that.

I have always felt that shadowing or emulating a native speaker was a very "musical" exercise rather than a linguistic one. When we try to approach pronunciation linguistically, we try to logically analyze and explain, so that we can pull aspects of pronunciation to parts and reassemble correct pronunciation from this parts. But a more musical approach treats the vocal expressions like musical phrases, an example of which a teacher may demonstrate, and the student be expected to repeat and emulate exactly as it was shown. Some analysis is helpful to understand why the student fails in certain places, but in the end, we ought to produce something similar, if not the same as the teacher's example - not take it apart and make something new.

[garyb]

I guess I'm preaching to the choir then!

How's the DVD, would you recommend it?

Sorry, forgot to reply to this until now!

I'd say yes, but with caveats. One common criticism, which I agree with, is that it's very padded out with interviews with her clients that mostly don't add much value and just feel like an advertisement for her services. As I said it doesn't actually go into much detail about harsh vocal techniques and is rather focused on the foundations of good and safe voice use, but that indicates that a good foundation is the most important part. Even at that, it's no substitute for real lessons, especially for somebody without singing experience. Her clients are mostly touring singers who just need to fine-tune their technique and/or improve their support to avoid damage, and that's reflected in the DVD.

There is a second edition that supposedly goes into more detail about the harsh vocals themselves, although apparently has the same problem with all the interviews. I've not watched it but probably will sooner or later. Some people say however that there are better and more up-to-date resources online, including Youtube videos.

Overall it seems a bit like the Duolingo of metal vocals: it's the first resource everyone mentions, and useful in combination with others but only gets you so far on its own. I really think that taking proper lessons and using resources like the DVD just to complement them is the best way, so I can have someone check my technique, but not many teach it and even many good singers just "do it naturally" and can't explain it. I have a friend and language exchange partner who does, but she's in a different country and we both believe that in-person lessons are better than Skype. A friend has recommended talking to the singer of a local band who apparently knows his stuff, which I will once I'm better.