Hello singers,

I was wondering how you can tell whether a voice is a soprano, alto or whatever? Or whether it's not even the voice itself but what you do with it. I was doing some aural practice with a friend of a friend who is a very experienced musician (although not a singer), and she said something about me having a contralto voice. I was quite surprised by this as I thought contralto voices were rare (and also rich and velvety - unlike mine...). Just curious as to whether it's the range that defines the kind of voice, and if yes, what those ranges are. Thank you!

Hi VM,

the range of the voice is what generally categorises singers, Sopranos can sing highest, followed by mezzos, then contraltos. Men are countertenor, tenor, baritone and then bass in that order.

However, many singers, especially trained ones can cross traditional range boundaries. What really defines a singer as an alto is where the singer is comfortable singing, and what the timbre and tone quality sound like. In a typical choir, altos are not truly rare, it's just that most sopranos don't want to sing anything but "the tune"

I would add that an untrained, young or inexperienced singer may simply not have discovered his or her full range, so I would be a wee bit cautious of labelling yourself as yet, viola-mad.

It may be that your friend-of-a-friend found that you were more comfortable at the moment singing around a contralto-ish sort of range (approx F below middle C to D / E near the top of the treble stave), but your potential may be higher than this, especially if your voice is light rather than 'plummy'. I sang alto in my teens, partly because I had a limited range (and yes, also because I could sight read, stetenorve!) and it was only later I found I could sing up to A or B.

On the other hand you may not yet have discovered your full tone either.
Your friend-o-a-f may have heard something in the quality of your voice that you're not aware of.
Treat your voice gently if you are still young - and keep options open.

I would strongly insist that the difference lies principally in timbre and voice colour - a well trained alto should have a high C in her voice - she may not use it but it ought to be there.

Too many teachers classify students by their range which leads to tenors singing baritone because their first teacher was incapable of showing them how to sing their high range, or sopranos trying to sing alto because they can't reach the high notes - but being frustrated because they don't have the right sound for an alto.

If you've got a singing teacher, let them classify you - if you haven't and you really want to know, try taking some lessons with a competent teacher - but you should be aware that classifying your voice won't happen immediately - you'll need to work on things a bit first!

Wow, thanks folks for your informative replies. My voice is definitely untrained, having never had a singing lesson in my life. I don't really know how to use it properly so I don't even know what my voice's range is, let alone its natural timbre. I'm probably too self-conscious to take singing lessons (I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling naked and vulnerable without my instrument), I was just curious really. So thank you, you have answered my question as far as it can be answered without having lessons!

PS:
Does 33 count as still young?

Can I ask what are the qualities of the voice that would classify it as an alto or whatever?

I've always sang as an alto in everything and am definitely more comfortable in my lower range! I must admit that I haven't given it a lot of thought.

All this is very interesting. I'm not a trained singer but I sing alto in choirs and am very comfortable singing around the middle C position (and can get down to C below quite easily!). However by changing the quality of my voice I can sing up to high E quite comfortably, and have sometimes wondered if I'm truly an alto.

I had a recent male piano student who wanted to join a choir and asked me what his voice range was. In my ignorance I just played notes up and down the piano to see how high/low he could & couldn't sing, and diagnosed him as bass/baritone. He was really uncomfortable in his choir however and started having singing lessons. He's now in the tenors and proudly told me he was able to hit increasingly high notes comfortably. All of which just shows I should stick to teaching keyboard!

first thing i would recommend to all beginning singers: stop categorising yourself too early. sing what feels comfortable and work from there. you only need the voicetype in classical music anyway - contemporary music usually works a different part of your voice, so labelling yourself as high or low is usually more than enough.

as for the more advanced or professional voice: operatic altos need a safe high A, better a B, sopranos at least a high C and very often it is better to have an E or even F, depending on your fach. still: the high notes a female singer should have are almost identical between high and low voices, and your range alone doesn't say anything about your voicetype. neither does timbre, because it is very often either chosen (light/dark), down to the shape of your pharynx, or a sign for a still undeveloped voice - if the voice isn't free, it can sound very light and bright and still not be a soprano.

sorry rosfrog, this time we disagree many singers have been ruined by the timbre-approach: you will find true sopranos with a very dark, heavy colour (wagnerian springs to mind), and you will also find very light altos who are e.g. very suited to ancient music or oratorio. especially the latter are often wrongly classified as mezzi or even sopranos because they usually have a good range since they instinctively know how to thin their cords - better than many a heavy, slightly clumsy soprano who starts out with a shorter range.

what you need to watch out for is the comfort zone and certain pivotal points - again, especially the former can be deceiving in a voice that is untrained and only feels comfortable in a lower range because there is no knowledge yet about how to access the higher notes.
if you are a true alto you should not feel uncomfortable singing between low G and an octave up for a longer time - exhausting for a mezzo, who is usually most comfortable between E and E - which will feel too low for a true soprano, who shouldn't have any trouble with singing above the stave for longer periods of time an doesn't usually feel the mezzo's need to relax again in her medium-lower range. again: trained voices

Well Mezzo, we can't agree on everything !

I'd say that the weight is a choice, too and the timbre and sound colour of the voice without modification of pharyngeal spaces should be taken into account.

Doesn't matter though - a bit of disagreement is interesting and fun!

I'd totallyg agree that singers try to categorise themselves too early, though.

Okay, let's take that as a starting point for a discussion then (sorry to hijack the thread, but who knows, maybe it'll even help ).

Let's assume a certain pharyngeal shape (no matter if in the region of throat, mouth or towards the nose) is, in its unmodified and true form, distinctive to an alto or soprano. It would then mean that the alto chooses (at some later point) whether she turns into a dramatic or more lyric voice, since the weight is merely a choice in your opinion. We are NOT talking about the ability to carry over an orchestra here - even the tiniest soubrette should be able to do this due to the formants she activates. Still, this soubrette will not in a hundred years be able to make the choice if she can sing Isolde - she won't, unless she wants to do herself harm. The heaviness/weight of an instrument is IMO not a choice - it is physiological. You can of course train a smaller voice to open up and use the right formants - it will still not turn them into a weighty or dramatic voice. Otherwise every voice on the planet could/would be Wagnerian.

I think the pharynx determines timbre and therefore your Fach (lighter or heavier, lyric or dramatic), but not your voicetype (soprano, mezzo or alto), which IMO is still down to the structure of your cords.

Over to you, and everyone else

[quote name='Mezzo1974' date='Oct 21 2009, 12:19 PM' post='886414']
[quote name='rosfrog' post='886357' date='Oct 21 2009, 11:11 AM']
Let's assume a certain pharyngeal shape (no matter if in the region of throat, mouth or towards the nose) is, in its unmodified and true form, distinctive to an alto or soprano. It would then mean that the alto chooses (at some later point) whether she turns into a dramatic or more lyric voice, since the weight is merely a choice in your opinion....

The heaviness/weight of an instrument is IMO not a choice - it is physiological....
You can of course train a smaller voice to open up and use the right formants - it will still not turn them into a weighty or dramatic voice. Otherwise every voice on the planet could/would be Wagnerian.

I think the pharynx determines timbre and therefore your Fach (lighter or heavier, lyric or dramatic), but not your voicetype (soprano, mezzo or alto), which IMO is still down to the structure of your cords.
[/quote]

The only exception that I'd take to what you're advancing is that to assume that vocal fold physiology is what makes a voice type assumes that there are, broadly, only four types of vocal folds physiology - which we know is not the case.

ENT doctors speak of soprano larynges and pharynges rather than vocal folds and are usually able to identify them from images - which don't make the vocal fold depth or thickness apparent. There isn't any way of reliably measuring vocal fold vibrational depth at the current time.

This suggests that it's physiological, certainly - but that the difference is not in vocal fold physiology, but rather larynx and pharynx physiology - altos may have a wider laryngeal vestibule and a slightly longer and wider pharynx etc.

In my model, I classify these elements as being timbre related so voice type is determined by timbre as far as I'm concerned.

I do also believe that singing Wagner, for example, is not down to vocal fold physiology either, but muscular strength required for the anchoring of such thick fold qualities in the higher ranges - the thickness of the folds in the lower register should be maintainable in the higher register if the anchoring is right - there is also some evidence of a kind of belt voice being used by these singers to maintain longer closed phases - they certainly twang more.

I'd wager (and this is largely what I hear when I listen to them) that those singers are the ones using speech and belt (perhaps gillyanne's howling belt) rather than cry and twang - and therefore require the anchoring muscles to be in tip-top shape - if a person doesn't have those muscles up to par, they won't be able to get the power required (I agree about the formanting and that we're not talking about projection) - look at a wagnerian singer's neck !

So I'd summarise that a singer's voice type is, for me, scientifically determined by the shape of their larynx and pharynx, rather than the weight of their folds and that their fach is largely a matter of choice and physical health. I'd support this by saying that this is the approch voice doctors use when looking at larynges, that vocal fold physiology can't vary hugely and that we have no accurate way to measure the thickness - therefore no proof that this is what is at work - whilst we can measure other elements and use them to tell one voice type from another. I would give the proviso that in order to classify a voice this way, one has to be able to tell the 'true timbre / colour' from that which the singer may be doing unconsciously - which may be responsible for mis classification from the timbre people.

I'm open to other theories, though!

I can live with that, especially the larynx part for voicetype. I would add the question though if it is possible that the larynx-structure influences the cords? Not being able to measure it (yet) does not necessarily mean it isn't there (although it also doesn't mean that it is )
However, I can see why we are treading on thin ice here - I think there are only 2mm or so difference between the cords of basses and sopranos (at least that's what I was taught in vocal anatomy once, although I can't quite remember exactly), so it is hardly breathtaking. Still, do we know how many milli- or micrometres would be necessary to make a difference?
EDIT: Nah, looked it up again: 7mm - still, hardly a lot


Agree only to a certain extent - we quickly get into the direction here where we could assume that having a smaller, lyric voice means that your anchoring is bad, you just don't support right and your voice is therefore somewhat inferior. Only spinning the thread further of course


That is certainly true for a Tristan, but not for an Isolde, although I accept that a male singer might perceive this differently


... and their bone structure (or better the cavities hidden underneath).


Sadly the case, speaking out of own experience (I was deemed a 'lazy' soprano for half of my student's life - by a teacher who only hears and creates sopranos). And that's exactly the reason why it is so dangerous in the hands of someone who is maybe not an ENT specialist or something similar - I would stay clear of it and use other measures

This is a cracking thread for singers! In some ways, it's easier for instrumentalists, as in "I play the flute, or I play the viola". Whereas for vocalists, we are categorised according to received wisdom regarding what the book says our voice ranges are.

Take me for example. I am a tenor, I think like a tenor, I act like a tenor, if invited to sing with a choir, I join the tenor ranks, I am often invited to sing the tenor solos in Messiah, Stainer's Crucifiction, Olivet etc. But I can sing the bass parts if necessary, but to do so I have to make certain adjustments in the placing of the voice. I can't explain how I do this (unlike Mezzo and Rosfrog) but I can do it, and demonstrate to singers how to do it.

Similarly, my wife is a soprano, and often takes soprano solos at church or with our 4 part a cappella group. But she can sing along with the altos, and on more than occasion has given a "tenor" lead in a church anthem when I haven't been there (at the correct pitch) to help out!

It all goes back to what was said before - sing the line with which you are most comfortable!

Interesting points mezzo! I'm not sure I'd agree that female wagnerian singers aren't using a fair bit of speech though - there's definite medial compression going on in most of the wagnerian voices I've heard - certainly the men might use more belt, but I think that the howling belt I mentioned can be thickened and thinned - unlike traditional belt - so thick, high notes in the female voice are certainly possible in this quality.

I'm not suggesting that not singer Wagner makes a person's anchoring bad (I don't sing Wagner and I have anchoring of steel ) or their voice weak - just that in order to create that sound, huge amounts of especially powerful anchoring are needed. It can certainly be created through fold action alone - but not for long (perhaps the basis of the myth that Wagnerian singers only last ten years). I don't believe that not making that sound all the time makes a voice inferior either - I don't buy into the 'loud singing is good singing' school and frequently tell shrieking sopranos that they are not trying to win a volume competition (I'm not suggesting that Mezzo thinks this way, just in case anyone reads it that way - Mezzo's got it going on where vocal knowledge is concerned!)

I don't subscribe to bone structure having any effect on the voice, though - sinuses, bones etc aren't able to resonate in any way that is other than sympathetic and can bring nothing to the final sound (titze, sundberg, vennard and lindsley have all written about this) - so I'm not convinced that it helps. I think it's more muscular - stronger muscles in the large anchoring areas make a difference to the amount of thickness the voice can carry (I often spend ages with spindly French guys saying - No, if you want THAT sound on THAT note - then you're going to have to build some muscle - go to the gym!)

I'd totally agree with you about the laryngeal side of things - differences in the larynx certainly are visible and measureable, making different voice types visible - but you're right, that doesn't mean that the folds aren't different (or that they are) - I'm just a 'until it's proven and upheld scientifically, it's not making it's way into my teaching practise' kind of guy - if they satisfactorily demonstrate that fold physiology is different in specific ways for these different voice types, then I'll happily adopt that view too - until then, I'm sticking to what I know!

Nice teacher you had there - how do these people still get to teach? It's amazing! I had a guy today whose previous teacher told him that for his high notes he should push down as if he were going to the toilet - erm, constrict much? Not to mention other unpleasant possible side-effects?!

I hate these days when I try to get written work done and end up browsing Forums half of the time. I need more discipline! At least I didn't have any chocolate today

Anywayyyyyy ...



I think speech is certainly used in the lower medium range of female Wagnerian singers, but the higher range is still cry for me, although with a lowered larynx (more sobbing then ), albeit with a slightly higher subglottal pressure than in normal thin-fold and more lyrical singing. At least that's what it feels like, and it's also what many female colleagues describe. I still don't get this 'Opera quality idea', somehow doesn't work for me (the only one to be totally honest). I have to think about that howl belt idea a bit more closely (also too late to try it out at the moment ). The term 'howling' combined with Wagner certainly has comedy value ('kill the wabbit - kill the wabitt!!!!' - anyone remember that Bugs Bunny cartoon?)


I wasn't suggesting you were suggesting I just wanted to make clear what thoughts people could get if we are not careful about the 'everything's possible' approach. A lot is possible, yes, much more than many people believe there is - very often you just have to be confident enough to make 'ugly' sounds at the start and get over the embarrassment barrier - once that line is crossed, improvement usually happens very quickly. Sadly that's also the most difficult thing to do. It is quite astounding how deeply ingrained certain vocal ideas are - don't do this, don't do that, you can't sound like that, that's vulgar, that's unhealthy etc


Not the bones itself, no. Sinuses - not sure, although I would reckon they don't have a massive influence. Oral cavity/jaw-area - I have to look, I had a study somewhere about the shape of the hard palate, and it suggested that a strong convex, deep indentation is typical for bigger, more dramatic voices (statistically, it was quite significant - can be coincidence still, although a strange one - maybe dramatic singers are all just big thumb-suckers ). We could argue of course if you couldn't make up for that gained space by just muffling the sound again with your tongue or your soft palate


Hernia anyone? Lucky guy if he only needed a nappy though

double post

Yes - he was in severe danger of ruining his voice, or at very least his trousers, on stage !

For the speech thing in wagner - now we agree - speech in the lower range in the female voice, yes - cry in the higher range, yes too - except, and it seems with both agree on this, with higher subglottal pressure and more twang, thus thickening the folds from both above and below - which is essentially exactly what howling belt is. I love the word howl too - I hate teaching it to French people because I can't find a suitable French word to get the idea of howl across properly. Pah.

The sinus thing has pretty much been disproven time and time again - Lindsley I believe was the first one to fill sinuses with water and (in some cases) lint and measure the effects on the singing voice before and after - there was none. Since, other researchers have repeated the experience and the evidence is pretty much conclusive (or as conclusive as research can be) - the sinuses have no effect on the tone produced whatever.

I so agree on opera quality - whilst I'm not an Estill teacher, I have studied it and am a HUGE fan of their approach, but this is the one thing that sticks in my side a bit too - what's the deal? Why teach four basic and two mixed? Why decide arbitrarily on the two mixes? Why create opera quality that is so middle of the road? Also, the contradiction between the generally accepted Estill idea that female classical singing is largely cry based and male classical singing largely speech and cry based doesn't hold up that the recipe for opera quality is the same for both men and women !

To my ears it sounds too heavy in the female voice and too caricature in the male voice.

I wonder if she wasn't trying to come up with example recipes for major voice she heard a lot - perhaps if she was reseraching now, she'd have 'rock quality' and 'RnB quality' etc.

I think the system would be even more powerful if they just taught the four basic qualities and let people mix them as they see fit (within the rules, mind). Still - pretty good none the less.

I was reading an article in The Times on Monday about Domingo "returning to his baritone roots" after 50 years of singing tenor parts. Call me a naive string player but until I started reading all of your responses to this thread, I never would have imagined this was possible, or at least not at such a high level. I consider myself enlightened.

Just to add a dreadful joke that made me laugh online today :

conductor 1 : "I hear Domingo is thinking of singing Baritone"
conductor 2 : "I think he should leave the fach alone".

Tee hee. Daft but brightened my day.

So if Domingo is going to take on the baritone parts, it's "move over Henry!" Plus more space for me!

Steve, time for me to retire then? If Domingo wants to take over my role as a chorus member he would be most welcome, particularly if he wants to dress as a big orange bean as I had to do quite recently.

You really do get the "plum" jobs!

I'd be interested to know what I am actually...

Isn't it also to do with how comfortable you can sing notes, and not just your plain old range itself? (eg., I can sing pretty high but after a certain point it's uncomfortable and difficult)

The lowest note I can sing right now is D, but I don't actually know which octave that's in...lol. The highest one right now is some sort of E...but it's not sounding good. I think it's 3 or so octaves higher than the low D. Meh. I know nothing of technicalities. (actually, the E is 3 octaves higher than that lowest D, and I can do the F above that high E, but it goes into "squeak" mode. My cat ran away. lol)

Not really - perhaps it would be fairer to say that you can base it on comfortable notes that one can sing once one's technique is absolutely perfect.

I know one guy who cannot sing above an E, yet is clearly a tenor. All he needs is some training to open it up!

If you want to know your voice type - best person to ask would be your teacher!

But I don't have a teacher. lol That's why I'm here.

Fair enough to get a few ideas, but in general, it's not possible to learn to sing from advice given in a Forum. I would still suggest to get a teacher, even if it is just for the occasional lesson.

My singing teacher is highly qualified and experienced and had decided I was a MezzoSoprano. I can make a good rich job of the lower notes. And so she helped me go even lower and didn't worry too much about the high notes. Then I went to the AOTOS summer school as a pupil for the students to practice on and Vivien Pike declared that I'm a soprano because my voice breaks at D. She then went on to prove this by showing me how to sing amazingly high and rich and clear. My own teacher (who was sat in the corridor) was stunned. Sadly my new skill lasted only for the duration of the lesson but I know that it can be done. The strange thing was that it was achieved through relaxing rather than trying harder.

Not strange at all, but rather the way it should be.

It is also good to, from time to time, try other teachers or workshops. If they show you what can be achieved with comparably little work (the hard part is of course to turn this into second nature and not having to think about it anymore), it may be time to move on.

I am not suggesting this in your case because I know far too little about you and your teacher. What I would just like to say though is that no matter how well qualified and experienced your own teacher is, it doesn't necessarily have to be the one who brings your voice to its true potential.

The highest qualified teacher I ever had (also the one with the most performer's credits and an impressive operatic career) was the one that almost ruined my voice. I always HAD the high notes and was therefore classed as a soprano, I also need not mention that almost all of her female students were supposedly 'sopranos' (probably because she was one herself). I am a mezzo-soprano though, and my high notes (including high Bs and Cs) only really started to sound good when I was finally allowed to sing in mezzo-tessitura, and not to strain my voice with arias like 'Wie lieblich ist der Boten Schritt', which hasn't got incredibly high notes in it, but is true soprano-tessitura and made me almost choke.

It is sometimes time to move on, and I am always happy to let my own students go if they find they need new input. It is very unhealthy not to do so - most good singers I know had more than one singing teacher in their lives, and certainly not because they were all bad, but because different times in their vocal development required different approaches. You occasionally get the bad one though - and by no means does it have to be the one who is the least qualified.

The advice I would like to give to every singer is: Trust your instincts. If your vocal development is (realistically of course!) not the way it should be and other teachers solve problems or at least have strategies that your own teacher doesn't have, it might be the time to start thinking ...

I absolutely agree with Mezzo here.

I would just add, for Alicia, that your voice doesn't actually break anywhere - the choice in classical is to move from one laryngeal set up to another and different voice types will need to do this in different places. This isn't a physiological reality though - in the typical thin fold setting of the voice used by female classical singers, there is no true break (although certain mechanical things happen as you go up).

Yes, 'break' is a rather unlucky choice of word, although it is alright to use it we keep in mind the voice actually doesn't 'break', but that we basically change 'gear' in way, which includes many things. Think more of a transition zone when you gradually have to change your vocal set-up dependig on desired quality. This doesn't happen ON one note, but rather in a range of notes, and depending on what voicetype and how skilled you are, it will happen in a certain part of your voice, and it will either be almost inaudible, or it will create a nasty 'yodel'. She probably referred to that yodel happening on a certain note, but the problem will already have started below that point, and just because you didn't change the set-up early enough, the sound-quality changed quite dramatically on that note. The higher your voicetype, the later this yodel usually happens ...
Edit: I am mostly talking about the classical voice-ideal here, because of course we can choose to sing in a certain set-up much higher or lower than required for the operatic stage ...

Yeah I'm not certain on my voice either.

My top note is (ledger line) F# but my bottom note is C below middle C. So I'm very high and low!

I find that in well trained voices, more than three octaves is not at all uncommon - so I'd just be happy that you've got a great range and enjoy singing what you want - no need to label things unless you really have to!

hehe thanks

I'm just a worrier!