My daughter enjoys singing and both her violin and school teachers have commented on her ability to sing well.
Looking at the syllabus many of the lighter show songs are already part of her daily routine. She doesn't have lessons as tbh I couldn't afford more fees. My hubby teaches woodwind and can help with breathing technique. She is also due to start a really good choir next year when in y3.


1. Is it essential for her to have lessons?
2.can anybody suggest a particular range to keep to.
3. Is age 7 is too young to sing?

Thank you in anticipation of a response

Children's voices are interesting as their vocal folds do not reach fully across their voice-box. For this reason alone any training needs to be done with care and it is best done by someone who speifically works with children's voices so understands the instrument.

The biggest problem with the way many of today's children sing is that they try to sing too low too much of the time. I can not tell you what your daughter's natural lowest note is because I have not heard her. It is likely to be around middle C give or take a tone or two in either direction. It is important that she recognises this is her lowest note and is not forced to attempt lower. She will have a middle natural sounding range up to around E or F an eleventh or twelveth higher, then will go into her head voice. She may not have much head voice at the age of 7 - a tone at most. This will grow as she gets closer to the age of transition. It is again important she keeps things comfortable, but is encouraged to access these head notes or she will store up problems in the future.

If she is singing regularly, then it is probably a good idea to have lessons. This needs to be from a singer who understands children's voices. They require a different approach to adults, and in my experience not every teacher who works in the standard theatre schools knows what they are doing. Of course there are some exceptions. Look for people who are members of either the Musicians Union or the ISM, and if they are not members of ATOS or the BVM have been taught by members of either organisation.

I have taught many children of this age with great success. Children's voices need to sound like children. If you feel someone is trying to get their voice to be too big too soon - run!

I am replying as the completely unmusical mother of a musical daughter who started singing lessons when she was 7 and already learning the cello. She continued until she was about 13, has had a year off (though still does lots of choral singing) and is now nagging to start lessons again.

We started lessons because she was keen, always singing around the house, and we thought it would help with her cello playing. Lessons were easily available at school. I certainly have few regrets about any of it. She loved, and still loves, to sing, and I'm sure the lessons were very beneficial for her general musicianship. Also, I'm sure she did her voice no harm, though I worried about this plenty after I started reading these boards! However, after 6 years of lessons I wasn't convinced she'd learnt much about how to sing either. Now it's perfectly possible that she'd learnt more than I realise. It's also possible that her teacher was not great. However, I think it's possibly also the case that because of the care that is taken with young voices it's sometimes difficult for non-musical non-singers like me to discern just what our children are getting from the lessons voice-wise. I have often wondered if my money was really well spent, or whether I should have just encouraged her to sing in choirs, while saving up for "serious" lessons when she was older. So.. just a warning that if you are as deaf as me you may not see (I mean hear!) the benefits of lessons at once (or at all!)

It's probably true that in my daughter's case having lessons and an encouraging teacher gave her the confidence to do things she might not otherwise have countenanced - auditioning for certain choirs, singing occasional solos etc.

Thank you for your responses they were very clear. I had singing lessons many years ago but didn't start until 14 as the teacher refused until then. I can see what you mean about not pushing the voice too much.

I didn't mean to sound mean when I said I didn't want to pay for more lessons, I guess it's frustrating for singing teachers when parents think they can do it themselves. As my daughter also has dancing lessons and violin lessons that cost me a fortune, I will have to save up for singing lessons.

It is nice to hear other children learning at a young age, my daughter likewise sings round the house almost drivin us to distraction. I will see how the choir evolves next year and see if I can get some lessons or tips from the teacher their.

Many thanks again

No.

Not really without hearing her, although young voices are best kept in their natural treble range and shouldn't sing too low for too long. What is regarded as "low" individually, and what is "high" is hard to tell though without knowing her voice. A general tip is: Have her not sing along to mature singers too often. Ranges of most pop- and musical theatre songs, unless specifically tailored to children's voices, are usually too low for that age-group.

No, but it is imho too young for 1-2-1 lessons. I don't take them on any younger than 9/10, and even then I knock some of them back because it wouldn't make sense (yet).
Real vocal technique that encompasses all a singer should learn is best left for maturer voices. Some can go "full throttle" when they are 13/14, the majority is at least 16 though, and some even need longer than this before the voice can take it. There are really no hard and fast rules, so it would not be professional to give advice on a hunch.

Children of ANY age can learn musicianship through singing though, but I don't feel that 1-2-1 lesson are necessary for this, and your money would be better spent on musicianship classes, choirs, Kodaly etc, where the child learns music through song and keeps their voice fairly natural. Just my opinion though.

As for your partner being a woodwind-teacher: That's not bad and can help with certain aspects. Just make sure that he is aware of the fact that with any woodwind instrument, the "valve" is outside the body - this is not the case with singing, where the vocal folds take on the valving function. So an airflow that is appropriate for a woodwind instrument can (doesn't have to!) be too strong for voice, especially a very young one. It's a bigger problem with brass instruments though, although it can be an issue with woodwind players as well. It's usually easily adjusted though, you just have to be aware of it.

Totally agree. She would benefit so much from Kodaly training and/or a top-notch choir.

Thank You so much for the advice, she is due to start a really good choir in september. By good, I mean the teacher/ Master is apparentely so enthusiastic towards kids and good musicianship.

Can you explain what Kodaly is please as I haven't a clue.

I'll send you a PM.

You do often hear "young voices shouldn't be trained. They should be allowed to develop naturally. It's wrong to force young voices"

Three sentences there, all of which hit my "bzz" reflex.
First, what is "developing naturally"? If you do nothing at all, children will still sing, and quite likely they'll imitate the wrong role models. So their "natural development" could be setting them back

Second, training isn't necessarily the inculcating of inappropriate habits. It's really the gradual building up of good and beneficial habits. Taking the voice as it is now and steering it away from the dangerous edges.

As for "forcing", well d'oh! When is it OK to "force" anything in a young person (though some might say intensive ballet at a young age is forcing - I don't know enough about it to comment) - do we refuse to teach the piano or the violin to children becasue their hands shouldn't be "forced"? Any teaching which takes the form of forcing should be avoided (probably?!?!?) but to equate all voice teaching with forcing is ignorant and insulting (no, Dugazon, that's not you, I do know that's not what you're saying)

Musicianship classes, instrumental work, choirs, they're all good. But in some cases, if the child is mature enough (the child, not the voice) the 1-to-1 lesson can be of benefit on top of this becasue, simply, in a choir the teacher cannot hear the finer detail of individual voices, and there are certain aspects of diction and phrasing which can put the bloom on a solo performance which might not be brought out in a choir where the singer probably shouldn't be an "individual"

They do need good models. That's one of the reasons why I gave up teaching in primary school and don't teach voice (which was my first instrument) at home any more - I can no longer demonstrate - anything more than an octave above middle C I could only do very loudly, and the A had a habit of disappearing at the slightest hint of vocal ill-health (that's not the soprano A, by the way, that would be mostly superflous to requirements in school, it was the A above middle). Sadly, vocal abuse doesn't always consist of fundamentally bad technique; as often as not it's just singing when you shouldn't, and that causes you to compensate and makes it worse - but we can't all afford not to.

Dugazon has said, keep it natural. I have said I want children to sound like children. Linda has said there is a problem that some people equate training with forcing and this is not necessarily the case. Well clearly it is not as both Dugazon and I advocate work with children that keeps their voices sounding childlike and natural.

I said be careful with developing too much big breath control in a young child as their body can not take it. The vocal folds only reach part of the way across the voice box. There is also a problem that if diaphramatic breathing is taught incorrectly that children under the age of 9 or 10 (co-incidentely the age Dugazon will start them) that they could develp a diaphramatic hernia. I choose at this age to talk about breathing as "filling the large balloons called your lungs in your chest, then squeezing the air out like toothpaste using your sit up muscles."

The advantage in starting younger is it can help with the development of speech and language and if you have a compulsive singer it can prevent oversinging as you as a teacher can set upper time-limits for practice and advise over bad practise such as belting pop songs into a hairbrush in front of a mirror.

(Again this isn't a dig at dugazon, it is just that this isn't the best thing for a seven year old to do)

How do you prevent the breath from just getting pressed out, though? They need to be able to keep it balanced.

Two ideas, I'm sure the first is no problem, I wonder if you can see any trouble with the second.

My dialogue in class: "WHat is breathing in? Where does the air go?"
"Into your lungs"
"How does it get there?"
Unsure.
"OK. Here are two statements, tell me which is true. ONE: the air goes into your lungs and that makes them bigger. TWO: You make your lungs bigger and the air goes into them"
The majority, but not all, vote for A. I get out a plastic file pocket, still flat.
"How much air in that?"
"None"
I then open up the file pocket with my hand.
"How much air in it now?"
"Lots" They then all vote for B.

"You lot have been making your lungs bigger to let the air in all day, and you didn't even have to think about it. But let's try to make them a bit biggerer" And we work with chests, ribs, tummies, backs, everything in fact except shoulders. And pulling up from underneath. To start with they think the biggest breath they can take is the one that requires the most physical exertion, that is, tummies right in, shoulders up and a constipated look on their faces. And of course it all falls out on the first note

The other thing I invented several years ago with a very good 11-year-old, and it was for feeling the support in the lower abs. Although we had been considering the diaphragm, this one concentrated on the rib expansion.
I asked her to imagine there was a cable with a hook on the end, hooked into her ribs on each side, and the other end was attached to a nearby wall, so that when she breahed in, her ribcage was not going to collapse.

Now she had to sing a long string of light, quick la-la-la-las. Ordinarily, when the breath had started to flow out, so the pressure in her lungs is less, because "Mother Nature doesn't believe in vacuums (you should see her carpets, ugh)" if she's relaxed her ribs will go in. However, her ribs are chained to the wall and can't go in. So the only way the pressure can be maintained is from underneath, and the lower abdominals sill spontaneously contract. I discovered this by accident myself, and it was a weird sensation at first.

It's the start of the sensations needed for this delicate balancing act. I'm almost afraid to use the term "support" because I think it can lead to overexertion in all muscles concerned.

It certainly helped this girl, but then she was physically at least averagely mature. And we were working one-to-one

Gosh, I haven't thiought about that one for years! I've burgered up my own larynx and can't demonstrate any more, so I don't do ANY voice teaching any more, but I sometimes miss being able to.