<p>I am really posting a question for a friend of mine (honestly, my son could never hit the notes I am asking about.:)) My friend's daughter is 13 and is singing songs that are really stretching her vocal range. Her voice teacher has her singing a song now that has a number of high D's and is very proud of the fact that the girl is hitting them. Her mother has now talked with someone in the music department at a local University who told her that her daughter's voice could suffer damage by trying to push it that high at such a young age. I am familiar with the risks of pushing the belt, something her voice teacher would never do, but not with pushing the head voice of a soprano. Ideas anyone?</p>
<p>Thanks for the suggestions. I appreciate them all and look forward to more. I'll be downloading these from musicmatch to pick one. thanks again.</p>
<p>You know, I never had any formal vocal training growing up, and I always pushed myself vocally. I pushed my soprano range, I pushed my belt range, and I pushed my belt mix range. Now I'm 22 and making $60/hour to sing professionally and $200 for every commercial logo song I do. I can belt mix up to the A below high C (really, this is not an exaggeration) and my soprano (which was never my strong point) has always been around a high B or C, depending on how much I've been working on it in any given period of time.</p>
<p>I recently met a girl who is lauded in her high school for being an incredible operatic singer. I was excitedly talking to her about singing, and she revealed that she cannot sing with vibrato. She is 17, and her voice teacher has told her that she is too young to develop vibrato safely!!! From my experience, if you can't do vibrato at 17, it is very hard to learn it later. I was singing with vibrato at age 10!</p>
<p>There seems to be an epidemic of voice professionals who underestimate the resiliency of young vocal cords. I am convinced that if I hadn't pushed my range when I was younger, it would be as good as it is now. I had to work to belt an E when I was 15 (I wanted to sing "I Still Believe", Ellen's part, from Miss Saigon) and I worked on it until I could. It never hurt my voice, not even temporarily.</p>
<p>Singing in head voice really shouldn't have many negative effects, if any, so long as the vocalist is properly warmed up. Sometimes I think that the damage caused to vocal chords with younger singers is most often from not warming up and belting an octave higher than they could even dream of.
For an aspiring singer, it really is VERY difficult to resist the temptation to just jump into a screaming belt while listening to a favorite CD like Rent or Wicked.</p>
<p>Since head voice is a mix with light resonance and falsetto (speaking with male terms anyway) I don't see the harm in stretching it a little bit at a time after a good warm up. This is just in my humble opinion as a student.</p>
<p>Actually, it is possible to do a great deal of harm if one regularly "stretches" any part of the voice (including head - which is not produced the same way for men and women) beyond its current comfortable limits. A LITTLE "playing" like that is ok, but without CAREFUL guidance, the way many young singers (and older, untrained or poorly-trained singers) "stretch" is by squeezing their laryngeal and other muscles to get these higher sounds out. (Solid breath support and RELAXATION of the face, neck, throat and tongue musculature, the OPPOSITE of squeezing, are what are required!) It may not even FEEL like squeezing if you aren't VERY trained AND experienced in knowing the sensations of your own voice - but squeezing it is, and over time, the damage caused by that squeezing builds up, leading to many degrees of vocal trouble. The big problem I see all the time is that young singers with naturally big ranges and gifted voices CAN push out those belt and legit notes (yes, you can push a legit/head voice, too!) without really having solid technique and not feel vocal strain. (Again, controlled diaphragmatic breathing and relaxation of the face, throat, neck, and tongue muscles - or vocal tract - are what I mean by solid technique.) BUT - the damage WILL eventually show up - I see patients with that story ALL the time - poor technique but really good voices, have pushed or squeezed their sound out for their whole lives without knowing it - and then boom, one day they notice their range is "suddenly" greatly decreased. You CANNOT know at age 18 or 22 or 25 what your singing is "doing" to your voice for the LONG TERM. Again, this post comes directly from my cumulative experience with patients. </p>
<p>So whaddaya do? Get a GREAT teacher who UNDERSTANDS and can CLEARLY COMMUNICATE bel canto ("good singing") technique to you - and play and have fun with your wonderful voices, but not TOO much!!! And please, gifted singers of CC, do NOT automatically read this and brush it off b/c you say "Oh, that's not me - I don't sound strained." Chances are, you will NOT be able to "hear" the strain in the way a voice therapist can - many "expert" voice teachers cannot hear it either - which is why they don't identify and fix it. And usually the most gifted singers are among those at greatest risk for vocal trouble, b/c they CAN push their voices for a LONG time and feel NO effects - they seem to have "cords of steel." But NO ONE has vocal folds that are impervious to damage - so take care of those voices!!!</p>
<p>Wow - just after posting my previous message, I caught something in samia's post that I MUST respond to directly:</p>
<p>"There seems to be an epidemic of voice professionals who underestimate the resiliency of young vocal cords."</p>
<p>Samia, you sound like a very gifted singer, but that was truly a reckless statement to make unless you yourself have medical training AND A CLINICAL CERTIFICATION or A MEDICAL DEGREE in the specialty area of voice. Having entered the field of MEDICAL voice (I will receive a Master's degree in Speech Language Pathology and am currently immersed in clinical rotations) AFTER having been a trained singer, I can tell you that you CANNOT imagine the wealth of factual MEDICAL, physiologic information that most singers do NOT have - or "have" INCORRECTLY. So much of what is said here on CC is impassioned but SUBJECTIVE - but medical FACTS about the voice and its functioning ARE NOT SUBJECTIVE. While it is TRUE that as the vocal folds age, they often lose elasticity, causing their vibration to be less efficient and producing a stereotypically "shaky" elderly person's voice (the same aging process which happens with many other muscles in our bodies AND our ear drums) - the INVERSE, that "young" vocal folds are much more "resilient" and therefore IMMUNE TO ABUSE (and in that, I include pressed or pushed singing) is NOT true. Or rather, it is true in only one extremely harmful way - yes, one MAY be "resilient" when she is 22 or 25, but just like many professional dancers, that same singer will eventually (and I am talking by her 30's) go from resilient to nearly "crippled" vocally if she stresses her cords on a regular basis.</p>
<p>Coach C,</p>
<p>Can you give us your best advice about what is the appropriate age, or age range, to begin voice training? Whenever I read about kids studying with self described "great" teachers at the age of twelve (and regularly pushing out high D's?, no less) it gives me pause. </p>
<p>While my D sang in school chorus and choir from about 8th grade on, we were counselled very seriously not to let her start voice training until age 16 at the EARLIEST. When the time came, we called a well respected local teacher to see if she was acccepting any new students and she at first said my D was younger (then 16 and a half) than she usually liked to start working with students but said she would listen to her and make a recommendation. After having my D vocalize and doing some breathing exercises with her (she laughed when she realized that as a dancer, my D would have to learn to breathe in a totally different manner than she breathes for dance) she told us that my daughter's voice was "mature" enough to begin study and she would accept her as a student. They worked on vocal exercises and on VERY simple material at first, mostly on solos that my D had been given in choir, and progressed from there. She has proven to be a perfect match for my D and they still get together for lessons when my D is home. We are so grateful to have found her and to have gotten the advice we did. But I wonder if there is more than one school of thought on this issue. What is your opinion?
Thanks!</p>
<p>CoachC, I have to apologize. I truly didn't mean to sound irresponsible in my last post. That statement was mostly directed at the story about the voice teacher who wouldn't let her 17-year-old student sing with vibrato, to the point where the student literally couldn't sing with vibrato. She doesn't know how to. I find that very strange. Is there a medical reason why voice teachers should discourage the use of vibrato in high school students? I've seen that a lot, and I have never understood it. In my experience, singing without vibrato producing a strained sound with limited breath support coming straight from the throat. This poor girl considers herself a singer, but she can ONLY sing staccato opera and art songs.</p>
<p>I made a huge mistake in assuming the development of good technique. There is definitely a huge problem if a young singer is pushing or straining their cords in a way that could produce long-term damage. I guess I'm probably just really lucky. In high school, I didn't have the option of having a good voice teacher (I lived on a military base in Korea, and there was no one who knew what they were doing), but I did read a lot about singing and how to do it right. I knew all about using the diaphragm and relaxing the next and face from reading so many Internet sites about it! :) The only area I really need help in (and I only realized it recently) is my belt. My belt mix is fine, and it sounds like a belt, but I know it's not, ya know? So I'm waiting to get back to school so I can find someone to help with my true belt technique. Lately, on higher notes, it's been getting a weird scratchy quality right at the top of the tone that I can't control or get rid of without just going to a belt mix. Any advice? I've stopped belting entirely in favor of mixing for the time being.</p>
<p>I'm so sorry for making a statement that could have been harmful to people.</p>
<p>I'm curious to see CoachC's response - but while we're waiting for her to chime in.... the "old" conventional wisdom was to start voice lessons around age 16. And many teachers still subscribe to that, based on what they were taught. However, the current school of thought is at least a year into puberty (which is hitting earlier and earlier). And, some excellent people are taking kids younger than that, the thought being that the basics of proper technizue -breath, free relaxed tone, etc. can be taught younger, and better that kids who are singing tons and doing shows get training, rather than risk them blowing their voices. </p>
<p>Of equal concern to the age is what the teacher's background is. Anyone can give private lessons - there are no "requirements" to teach music lessons. I know people who may be great "natural" singers, and have tons of students, who have absolutely no training. So, my biggest suggestion would be to carefully check the background and training of the teacher. Ask questions - if they are qualified, they won't mind in the least.</p>
<p>I have another question, CoachC! :)</p>
<p>I'm a voice-over artist in Seoul, Korea right now, making money to go back to school, and I record 6-8 hours a day, in addition to a live performance every other week or so, AND practicing audition material in my free time. It's no surprise that I have been having a lot of problems with vocal fatigue. I have tried to cut down my working hours, but there is always an emergency last-minute job or three other actresses get sick and I have to make up all of their work. Right now, their are three top girls at my agency - one is pregnant and throwing up every morning, one has been on vacation for the last 6 weeks and won't be back till the end of October, and the other is me. I'm dying!</p>
<p>Just to give you an idea of what I already do to combat this, I do a full vocal and physical warm-up every morning, with "pick-up" warm-ups throughout the day if I have a long lunch break or something. I also do yoga regularly and drink TONS of water. I sometimes have problems with acid reflux, so I avoid foods that can trigger that.</p>
<p>Most of my work is reading and narrating, with a healthy amount of singing thrown in. The singing is mostly for educational material for kids - so they never want me to sound like a legit singer, and a lot of times they want me to sound like an 8-year-old. That's where things get hard. Two hours of doing a character voice while belting kids' songs can be awfully tiring for the cords.</p>
<p>I rarely lose my voice completely, but if I've had a really busy week, my high range is definitely limited come Saturday & Sunday. It comes back with only one day of rest, but this is still extremely worrisome. Should I cut back on the amount of work I do? What do you think?</p>
<p>..without being a certified teacher, i think it all depends on the maturity level of the student and the teacher. </p>
<p>I myself started lessons extremely young, 10 infact. However, I was lucky enough to have a teacher who didnt even sing anything with me for the first 6 months of lessons. I also at the age of 12 began studing the McClowsky technique that pretty much prevented any damage that could be done from my developing musical theatre obsession. </p>
<p>..i however was also very mature about everything that my teacher told me. I was aware of the rule of thumb (i have always heard that you had to be 13 before voice lessons) and i proceeded with caution. I was never pushed, rather a kind of gentle nudge :-D. The whole topic is very subjective to how early your child developed and whether or not you think she/he is ready. I personally do not believe there is set age that you should start voice or not start. Its all subjective to each person, you have to know your child's abilities. </p>
<p>its also very important to have the right teacher. But thats a little obvious.</p>
<p>I know everyone hates answering questions about songs, but I have to ask. My daughter has an uptempo song from Class Act, and her ballad is "Someone to Watch over Me." What are your thoughts on the ballad? Is it too overdone? She has used it at one audition and no one else appeared to be singing it.</p>
<p>To all - I am not sure which thread to post this in so I copied it into both. I haven't seen much mention of this here, but of great importance. My D, thanks to Mary Anna, has recently learned the value of the lyrical interpretation of the songs that you choose. She has gotten direct feedback from one school indicating that it was her interpretation of the song that turned them off. So she went back to the drawing board to understand better how to act the song as well as sing it. This is an important point that I think we missed because we were so focused on hitting all the right notes. She was also requested by another school to send a CD of her voice as well as a DVD of her performing the songs because they are as interested in how she inteprets her music as how she sounds. This should definitely be considered when choosing your songs.</p>
<p>My son is a strong believer that ACTING your song makes all the difference to be competitive. Many people can hit the right notes, but your delivery and acting of the song is what will help you stand out in the crowd.</p>
<p>Amen Ericsmom...Amen!! :)</p>
<p>NOCCAMOM, I'll copy the reply I wrote you on the other thread since this will now be discussed here too, I guess. In general, it is best not to post and copy to two threads as then we have duplicate discussions. If you can, pick the thread that is most suitable to your topic, OR start a new thread on YOUR specific topic. It might be cumbersome to have this discussion in two places, and if someone comes to read about it here, they are missing the responses to it on the other thread. I believe the forum is designed to NOT have duplicate posts. Just an idea for the future. </p>
<p>Here is what I had written as a response to this same post over on another thread:</p>
<p>NOCCAMOM....this is all very important in musical theater, even more so than vocal performance. It is not just how good you sing. You must ACT the song. Once a student has the vocal part down, the work must happen in the acting of the song. Some call this vocal coaching. </p>
<p>This is something worked on in MT BFA programs. For instance, we observed a class on this very thing on a visit to UMich where one student at a time was coached on acting the song with critiques by the professor and the other students. My D has done workshops on this too. </p>
<p>I believe Mary Anna is your acting coach. I don't know if she helps with this but my daughter took all her college audition songs to the acting coach and sang them a capella JUST to work on the acting of the songs. On one occasion, her acting coach came over to the voice teachers studio and did an acting the songs session so that the voice teacher was playing piano as well. So, her coaching with the acting teacher was not just for her monologues but also for acting her songs. Others, who live in more populated areas, sometimes have a voice teacher (for technique) and a vocal coach for this sort of thing. </p>
<p>In any case ,glad you brought this up because it is about MORE than if you sing well. You have to be able to act and interpret the song because it is musical theater, plus have stage presence. You must make the song believable. </p>
<p>Susan</p>
<p>I'll add on now and say that it is totally understandable why a school would want a DVD, not a CD for a MT major. This is not the same as vocal performance and it is NOT just about how well you sing. It is about musical theater which involves interpretting/acting songs. For example, for the NFAA ARTS Awards for MT, they also require a DVD submission, never a CD. A CD alone would never adequately demonstrate a MT performer's vocal performance.</p>
<p>Ericsmom....your son is SO right! I'll add to that, same thing in the MT dance audition. It is not JUST about being a technically good dancer. Yes, technique is crucial. But PERFORMING the dance is ALSO crucial. Since the dance audition is the one thing kids can observe one another auditioning in...my D has said that she has seen many kids with technique but they do not perform the combination. Something to keep in mind for both the singing and dance portions of a MT audition. </p>
<p>My D has watched auditions from another vantage point. Once in high school, she was asked to sit in for the audition pianist who did not show up at the last minute for Into the Woods auditions. My child herself was auditioning (was cast as Little Red) but played for everyone else's audition, as she can sight read music well. Two days ago, she was asked if she'd accompany the auditions for the student run production of The Full Monty at Tisch and she did and in fact, was now asked to be the pianist for the show. She can readily observe who stands out and who doesn't. The "performance" in a MT audition is paramount. </p>
<p>A coach readying someone for MT auditions would be working on this, not just the vocal technique. Once in a BFA program, you can bet this is a part of the training.</p>
<p>PS, having seen the DVD of your son's production last summer, I can tell you, he has this notion down!</p>
<p>(Sooviet - I copied in both places because there is no clear distinction between the two threads. Thank you for the advice, however.) </p>
<p>I think I mentioned in my first email that d's acting coach was the one responsible for helping with her lyrical interpretation. I have also heard of other kids who's voice teachers handled both. I think this depends on the background of the person. When d was at Cap 21 this past summer their program included "Vocal Performance", "Vocal Tech", and "Acting" as three separate classes with different instructors who all had different backgrounds. I share just so others who many not be as familiar can understand that at the college level there is a clear distinction in the kinds of instruction and development expected. When we visited at the end of the summer it was interesting to see that some kids who were best in Vocal Performance were not in the advanced Vocal Tech classes and vice versa. What we have seen so far in the audition process is that some programs tend to emphasize the vocal tech aspect more than performance and some just the other way around. I think the moral of the story is not to think that you are not a viable candidate or lead just because you don't have the best voice. Having charisma, performance ability,etc., can overcome some good but not outstanding vocals. I am sure we can all think of entertainers who have been hugely successfull on this basis. So it is worth making sure that your training emphasizes all aspects.</p>
<p>NOCCAMom...Oh yes, I think BOTH vocal technique and performance are important. Being able to perform can't really override poor vocal skills. You really need both. Singing really well but not performing won't do it either. You must sing well, no question. But there is a difference between someone who sings well and someone who sings well but ALSO acts/interprets the song AND has stage presence. When admissions is so selective, I believe you need both.</p>
<p>I posted this yesterday on the related thread but also wanted to post here, since this is where this discussion has continued:</p>
<p>I myself coach via the same model UM uses, where acting choices are informed BOTH by lyrical text AND the musical choices made by the composer. In a well-written song, these cannot and SHOULD not be separated. That's why I find UM's MT performance classes so effective, because they are taught jointly by an acting teacher AND a music expert - such a wonderful combo, and so amazing to watch a skilled music director uncover musical subtleties that lie in the "tiniest" details of chord choice, dynamics (as marked in the music), major and minor keys, etc. - translating the musical language into acting choices! I would encourage all of you to seek teachers (or a teaching team) who approach music and acting as EQUALLY important. Often you may need TWO teachers to cover this fully - a coach and a voice teacher - but make sure BOTH understand BOTH sets of demands equally (that your vocal coach knows where in a song "vocal" considerations need to guide acting choices, and vice versa). This requires finding teachers who are knowledgeable about acting, about vocal technique, and about PERFORMANCE PRACTICE specific to MT song literature: in other words, your teachers should know MT well enough to know that girls who don't have strong high belt voices shouldn't sing something like, "Gimme Gimme," for example - AND YOU SHOULDN'T SING THIS ANYWAY, b/c it's too overdone right now - it's just an example. I see SO many MT auditionees who pick a song that should be chosen specifically to show off a certain vocal skill (high belt, soaring legit, nimble coloratura, rock tenor, etc.) but DON'T HAVE THOSE VOCAL SKILLS - and I wonder, "WHO advised this student???" And I also see WONDERFUL singers who have nothing going on acting-wise - and again I wonder, "Who were their teachers???" </p>
<p>Hooo boy - can you tell how passionate I am about song choice and performance? </p>
<p>P.S. I am hearing wonderful things about URINETOWN at CMU (opened last weekend) and COMPANY at UM (opening Thursday)! I think both are sold out at this point, but you never know, for those of you who may be around either school this coming weekend...</p>