The Age of Misinformation

I loved my college years. I wouldn’t say they were the “best years of my life,” which we’re often told they should be. But I do get nostalgic about that time of my young adulthood. 

One thing I absolutely do not miss, however, is just how many hours I had to spend in the library to complete assignments, especially research papers. Forgive the "back in my day" recollection, but I can tell you tales about using card catalogs, writing first drafts of papers by hand, and waiting weeks for books to come in via inter-library loan only to finally get them and realize they weren't the sources I needed after all. Today, having so much information immediately available on my laptop allows me to be more efficient, thorough, and prolific. It has completely transformed academia. 

But this accessibility has a cost. When so much information is available, we can’t always tell which sources we can trust. This is exacerbated by the fact that some people create content that is deliberately misleading or even blatantly false. Sure, I don't have to spend hours walking the stacks in the library, but I do have to do a fair amount of fact-checking to verify the accuracy of what I find online. 

Of course, there is plenty of misinformation in the voice world. One recent online conversation was sparked by Dr. Ian Howell of the Boston Conservatory and the Embodied Music Lab. He brought up how voice teachers sometimes post before/after videos of their students, often from lessons or masterclass settings. One concern Howell articulated is that sometimes the instruction that gets a social-media-worthy result actually moves a student away from sustainable singing. In other words, the singer makes a big impressive sound, but it's not necessarily the kind of singing they would be able to use in the long run. Another concern he has is that edited videos that only show quick clips and highlights misrepresent the process of how real skills are built. It can give viewers the impression that vocal study is just about discovering breakthrough moments rather than the actual slow, steady progress that leads toward authentic learning. 

Yet another concern is that these videos could easily be faked (and some on the thread admitted to having witnessed people staging before/after videos). A teacher could easily record a student making an impressive sound, then go back and ask the student to sing it again with an obvious flaw, and then reverse the order when the video is posted. I know, it’s shocking to think that anyone would be so flagrantly dishonest (and on THE INTERNET, of all places!). Even so, when most of the process and the context is removed, it leaves the viewer in the dark about what really happened during the lesson. 

Still another concern has to do with privacy. I’m sure most teachers ask their students for permission before posting videos of their singing (at least, I hope they do). Even so, when there are inherent power dynamics at play, as can occur in any teacher-student relationship, there can easily be an unspoken pressure on the student to agree to have their video posted publicly, even if they would really prefer it not be. 

Consider this circumstance: a 17-year-old student is in a before/after video that gets a lot of views. Five years later, the now 22-year-old singer is auditioning for professional theatre jobs. A casting agent searches the internet to learn more about that singer and finds the before/after video. How would that singer feel if potential employers were watching a before video displaying their less-than-ideal singing? I wouldn't expect that situation to be forefront in the mind of a 17-year-old, but it's something their teachers should have the foresight to consider before posting a video of them. 

I encountered a second issue this week when I read an article—that had been shared by a reputable organization—that was full of misinformation, inaccuracies, and potentially harmful directions. Some claims were probably just a matter of opinion, like the extent to which “diaphragmatic breathing” plays a role in certain kinds of singing. Some advice was simply banal and, therefore, not at all useful, like, “To learn how to sing, you should improve your technique.” Um, yeah. Duh. But other claims and advice had the potential to create problems, like singing through a straw while pushing out a lot of air at the same time. Please don’t do this. 

When I come across these situations, I always want to know why someone would share something so ridiculous. One reason I keep coming back to is that the creator wants to appear like an expert. Maybe it gives them notoriety, clicks, money, something that justifies posting incorrect or unvetted information. Or maybe they've received bad information themselves and they're just resharing what they've been told. I understand that the Internet and social media are tools. Anyone running a private voice studio is essentially running a small business, so they have to find a way to promote their services. In addition, they have to be able to demonstrate what makes them unique and more worth your time (and money) than the other voice teachers who are just a couple of swipes away. But I refuse to believe that resorting to unethical practices, like being intentionally deceptive or dishonest, is the best way to go. 

How, then, can we be better consumers of these media? Is there any way to really know what’s true and what’s a load of crap? One solution is to get your information from a lot of different sources. As effective (and convenient) as social media can be, if that is your only source of vocal information (or information on politics, nutrition, etc.), then you’re almost certainly not getting the full story. Instead, read articles. Read books. Attend workshops in person. Look for long-form videos that show a more complete process rather than an edited-down version that only shows the highlights. Once you start to find authors or creators (I refuse to use the absurd term “influencer”) whose ideas resonate with you, look for other things they have contributed. Look up their background to see where they trained, who they learned from, and how they acquired their perspectives. In the academic realms, you can look for information that has been peer-reviewed, which means a number of other professionals in the field have gone over their work before it was made available. TikTok is not peer-reviewed. 

Of course, this takes time and effort. And social media is incredibly alluring with its constant offer of tips, tricks, and hacks that promise instant success. But learning doesn’t work that way. I encourage you to dig deeper, look for more substantive sources, and practice a healthy skepticism when confronted with anything promising quick fixes. After all, a wise man once said, “Slowly is the fastest way to get to where you want to be.” 

How you encountered confusing or odd voice-related information online? How has your practice been going? 

Now go practice. 

Advice from André De Shields

André De Shields is nothing short of a legend. In his nearly 60-year career, the actor, singer, dancer, director, and choreographer has won a Tony, a Grammy, and a Primetime Emmy, among other awards. On Broadway, he was in the original productions of The Full Monty, The Wiz, and Hadestown, where he originated the role of Hermes. Most recently, he appeared as Old Deuteronomy in Cats: The Jellicle Ball, a role that earned him another Tony nomination. 

Earlier this year, in an interview on National Public Radio, he offered some career advice that seems in line with our early-semester discussion on goals. And when someone like André De Shields offers advice, I figure it's in all of our best interests to pay attention. 

In his 2019 Tony Award acceptance speech, he said, "Slowly is the fastest way to get to where you want to be." NPR's Steve Inskeep asked him to expand on that idea. De Shields said, 

"Most people misunderstand that and say 'Slowly is the quickest way to get to where you want to go.' That is not what I said and it's certainly not what I meant. Now, because I am 80, I remember when 'fast' meant 'dependable,' meant 'secure'...[as in 'stand fast']...That's what I'm talking about when I say slowly is the fastest (surest) way to get where you want to be—not 'go.' That's a New York interpretation of it, because if you're not constantly in action you must not belong here, that kind of thing." 

I appreciate how intentional De Shields is about his words (an unsurprising trait for such a successful theatre artist). There are layers of wisdom in what he says that would seem to apply to all aspects of life, including singing training. So let's take a closer look. 

First of all, he advocates that we work slowly. I take that to mean that real progress doesn't happen immediately or on a short timetable. Rather, it is cultivated over many thoughtful hours, days, and years ("...not for just an hour, not for just a day, not for just a year..."). So we should make intentional choices as we go through the process of getting where we want to be, but we should also be patient with ourselves along the way. 

Second, De Shields says that slowly is the fastest way, as in the most dependable way. This seems to say that there are other ways to get where we want to be, some of which may actually be quicker than working slowly and purposefully. I suppose some people haphazardly or accidentally end up where they want to be. But the most dependable way, the most reliable way, the most responsible way (both words listed as synonyms for "dependable" at Thesaurus.com), is to work slowly—in other words, deliberately or gradually (Thanks again, Thesauraus.com.). 

Third, he makes a distinction between where we want to "be" and where we want to "go." Once again, brilliant word choice. One of the definitions for the word "be" is "to exist or live" (Dictionary.com). But another definition is "to belong." So, working toward where you want to "be" could mean working toward where you want to live, exist, and belong. That goes along with what De Shields calls the "New York interpretation" of his words, which falsely implies that if you aren't constantly in action then you must not belong. 

The other distinction worth noting on "be" versus "go" is that the first word lives in the present and the second is concerned with the future. If we are always focused on where we want to go at some point down the road, we may miss the opportunity to fully be, exist, and belong where we are. Since nothing in the future is guaranteed, focusing more on where (and who) we want to be now feels like a better plan than expending all our energy on trying to get somewhere else (or be someone else) at some later time. 

So what does that mean for setting goals? How can I make a three- to five-year plan, as we discussed in the last blog, if my focus is on being in the present? 

For starters, the word "be" is still a verb, meaning it can still be intentional and active rather than static. "Being" the best singer I can means that I will do something today that supports being the best singer I already am. That includes exercises and practice sessions that are designed to build skills, develop artistic capabilities, and simply enjoy what I am capable of doing today. Of course, it also has the added benefit of contributing to future growth, even if our focus is in the now. Imagine where you will eventually be in three to five years if you can commit to the slow, daily, dependable work of building where you want to be now. 

How has it been working on your goals these first few weeks? What have you noticed? Do you need to make any adjustments to your original goals? 

Now go practice.