I'd be interested to hear some views on this. DA1 (nearly 12) is a chorister with (IMO) a lot of potential. He's been asked to do a solo with a local choir run by a singing teacher. She is working with him to get him up to scratch on this solo, and has said he could really do with regular lessons. I don't have a problem with this at all, I trust this teacher and she certainly knows her stuff (and maybe in this case more to the point has the knack of dealing with DS!). However, the other half is sceptical about lessons for the long term saying what would our son get out of it?

All opinions happily received - I am not really sure myself why I think that it would be such a good idea, but I think it's because I see a potential that isn't being reached that could be reached with a bit of help.

Singing lessons for your son sound a good idea, and at the age of 12, probably a good thing to start now, although there will be a gap (probably) while his voice changes. But singing in general will help with all other music making.

Our daughter began singing lessons at about that age, intending to keep it as a hobby "and not do any exams or anything". However, she's now a choral scholar at Cambridge, and the other instruments have been left to one side a bit, so I'm a firm believer in letting some-one have a go, and just seeing what comes out of it. And in your case, particularly as singing teacher has the knack of dealing with your son!! (I'm sure he's an angel really!! )

I suppose the basic question is does he want to learn to sing? If yes, then he'll get something out of lessons.

Seer_Green makes the best point. Does he want to?

Having established he does, do bear in mind that his voice could go through transition at any point from now to sixteen. Current wisdom is to sing through transition. You then need to find a singing teacher who understand the various stages of transition and how to set music and technical exercises to fit the voice at each range.

The singing teacher's guru on this subject is a vocal practioner called John Cooksey, based in the USA. If anyone does not mention Cooksey's stages of male vocal transition then run a mile as this has become the standard work on the subject. They may not mention them, but if they go blank you really have found a bad egg who does not know what they are doing.

Progress may be slow until the voice settles then take of at an exponential rate at that stage. The Cooksey stages are as relevant for Contemporary Singers as they are for Classical Training of any flavour. This describes the physiological and approximate range changes that occur during male voice transition and nothing in relation to how technique hangs on top.

You may also want to look at choral programmes such as the National Youth Choir who have excellent Singing Staff working with them.

Girls voices also go through similar transitional phases but they are not as dramatic as with young men. I am in the process of finding out quite how dramatic they are with one particular young man at present as MatthewD's voice is nearing the end of Transition having enterred it relatively early.

Daughter found a very good singing teacher from her National Youth Choir days.

well he DOES sing... so it would be a Good Thing if he did it right ;-)

Yes, but I still say that if the lessons are to be successful/productive, he needs to want to do them - to me, there's a difference between singing and having singing lessons.

So far you've said that he sings at the moment, and you've said that it would be a good thing if he did that right - fine - but, does he want to have singing lessons? I'm not trying to be difficult here, but I do think this is a pretty important question.

It is an important question.
I like singing and was in a local choir for about 25 years but didn't get on with singing lessons.

I agree with Seer Green. What's his opinion on having lessons?

I think it depends on the child. If the child wants to learn to sing properly then lessons would be worthwhile but if not then it would be a waste of time and money. How many threads have been started by frustrated teachers who are trying to teach students who are having lessons because mummy/granny/uncle Bob want them to and the child has no interest?

How can he know how he feels about lessons until he has one or two? He clearly likes to sing. So, I'd give it a shot. ( My daughter had a year off lessons at 14 (after 6 years!) and is really excited about starting again in September - but I am otherwise completely unqualified to comment!).

I kind of agree with that, but I still don't think it's the same as wanting to do them in the first place (or even wanting to try them). If he wants to try a few, then fine - lots of teachers will offer consultation lessons which ought to give a taster of what a lesson might be like.

I still think that there has to be a desire to learn. Many years experience doing this has taught me that the difference between enjoying singing and having singing lessons is greater than one might expect. As sbhoa says, just because one enjoys singing, it doesn't mean one will enjoy singing lessons - I know that sounds ridiculous, but it really is important for singers - after all, singing is part of 'you'.

I absolutely agree.

A lot of people have completely wrong ideas of what a singing lesson is like (not saying they are the same with every teacher anyway). They sort of expect to walk in and sing their favourite songs, it's more like looking for the opportunity to sing (or even be accompanied) than anything else. That's of course legitimate, but not every teacher wants to teach like that, and above all: The student will not learn an awful lot. I can always tell when people had lessons before whether they were taught by what I call a song teacher, or a singing teacher, and that's really a difference. Everyone with good musical understanding can be a song teacher, but not everyone has the skills to be a singing teacher.

Having said that: If the desire to sing is there, it certainly is one of the prerequisites . Just be prepared that learning singing technique can be pretty much the same as learning any other instrument: At times technical and frustrating. A lot of people who "just want to sing" are not prepared to start something from scratch they already do on a daily basis. And that's the big difference to learning another instrument

Especially with kids, I would say: If they ASK for singing lessons, give it a shot. Also try to find a teacher who is good in dealing with that particular age group.

Totally agree with Dugazon.

I really don't want anyone to think that us singing teachers are trying to put people off or be unhelpful (as we were accused of on another thread not so long ago). It's just that experience tells us that people often view singing lessons differently to other lessons, and this can often lead to confusion and people not getting what they hoped. It's probably why we are so careful to make sure that prospective pupils/parents fully understand this.

So, we're not trying to be discouraging, but we probably approach this sort of question in the same way we would if a prospective pupil/parent enquired

I completely agree! (gosh that's novel!) It is not that I want to talk myself out of a job when dealing with this age range, but more a case that I'd like the young people, especially if they are male, to have a realistic expectation of what is going to happen over the next few years, and just how frustrating the one step forward three backwards can be. The reward, however is that once things settle down is it is like a rocket taking off!

I definately agree with this. My daughter had a year of "singing lessons" which she won as a bursary in a local festival. These were really song lessons, she learned no technique apart from not to breathe in the middle of a phrase and to warm up before she started. She learned more with our current teacher in just one or two lessons than she did with the previous teacher in a year.

This sounds like my daughter's previous teacher - except that she didn't even do the warm up bit... Really hoping things will improve with the new teacher in September. Since the new teacher doesn't play piano I'm hopeful there'll be more focus on the actual singing technique.

On the other hand, it is always impressed upon us (non-singing parents) that children should not be doing too much technique-wise too soon - so it's hard for us to know when the teacher is getting it right or wrong in terms of the song teaching/singing teaching thing.

Seer Green, Dugazon and co., I hear what you are saying, and take your point. Most of the instrumental teachers on here would throw up their hands in horror at the thought of someone teaching themself an instrument, because of the bad habits that would inevitably be picked up en route. This lad will continue to sing regardless - but this isn't a worry?

Having re-read the original post, though, I think that Dulcet seems to know what she's looking for, and says that the teacher knows her stuff. When I replied earlier I was writing on that basis.

Maybe we've been blessed with singing teachers, but daughter has never had one who has just taught "songs", but always an appropriate amount of technique for her age.

I find this very difficult because I feel that it's somehow putting a kind of moral obligation onto teachers which says if you don't teach this pupil, they might carry on singing and damage their voice. I think that's a responsibility too far. My concern is that the pupils I take on want to learn to sing. If someone wants to carry on singing but not have lessons, I don't feel a moral obligation towards them to ensure they don't learn bad habits.

It was certainly not my intention at all to put anyone on the spot. I suppose reading back through my post it could be interpreted as you have done. However, you forget that I approach this from a position of almost complete ignorance. I merely seek to establish the respects in which singing (and its teaching) can be regarded as analogous to other instruments, and those in which it cannot. All I was asking was why singing is a special case as regards continuing to use ones instrument untutored.

I may be wrong here but isn't singing on a very basic level a natural thing like talking?
Is it when you start trying to sing in anything other than your 'natural' voice that there are potential problems.
Yes, you do get 'warnings' about bad habits but people can still get pleasure form learning an instrument without a teacher and some are happy just doing this regardless of potential bad habits. Some people are quite happy with what they play and are never going to be interested enough to want to have what's accepted as good technique.

I can't entirely see why the question of whether or not people should learn on their own has arisen - my basic question is still do they want to learn to sing.

Sorry if I have taken things off topic. I was really using the term "learn" or "teach yourself" rather loosely, but I had in mind that Dulcet's son is already singing rather a lot, I think, and so, in a sense, is "teaching" himself. In particular, I had in mind her comment:

"well he DOES sing... so it would be a Good Thing if he did it right ;-)"

to which, of course, you already replied.

I think I will never understand singing - and especially singing teachers - so I will bow out now as the discussion is becoming circular.

I don't think singing teachers are a different breed

It's so difficult to explain though!

Because your voice is part of 'you', you use it. You might sing around the house, to the radio, in choirs or at church. Making the transition between doing those 'informal' things to having lessons, which is obviously more 'formal' requires careful thought.

To a certain extent, the same model doesn't apply to other instruments; you don't usually buy a trumpet and then play it around the house informally - if you do play, it's likely to be because you are teaching yourself to play - the trumpet isn't part of 'you'. How many people do you know who play their trumpet along to the radio, or in the shower Therefore, the transition to having lessons is perhaps more obvious.

But in general, I'd still say that the most important thing is that if someone is going to have lessons, regardless of the instrument, they need to want to do it. Singing teachers are probably more aware of this because we see the divide that exists between the everyday kind of singing (the thing which most people have been doing in one way or another since they were born), and singing lessons.

He enjoyed his first lesson... although surprised that it was 40 minutes warming up and 15 minutes rehearsing the piece ;-) But there was a very clear step up from just one lesson.

Long-term, we'll see... he'll be getting coaching for this particular solo for the next few weeks and we'll make a decision after that.

To clarify, he's been singing in the church choir for 4 years now and the youngsters do get pretty good group training in their own sessions - the Voice for Life programme is followed closely, warmups and vocal exercises are taken very seriously and the D of M and the Young Choir director work hard to check that there are no horrors occurring. (whilst not professional singers, they both have lessons from very good teachers).

His voice is naturally quite good, but there's definitely more there, if you see what I mean, and he is very much like me in that he holds a LOT of tension. One-on-one tuition is definitely the best way to address that issue. Does he want to improve? Is he prepared to work? Yes and sort of... at the moment, because he saw how much he could achieve with all that focus, he's very motivated, so I do feel that by capitalising on that now there'll be more chance of him continuing to want to improve.

I suppose I was really asking what to avoid! he is small for his age so there is a fair chance of another 3 years of trebledom...

I always have sung, but have enjoyed it SO MUCH MORE since starting lessons last autumn!
Takes all sorts ;-)

Glad he enjoyed it Dulcet.

Maybe it was the teachers concerned who prompted both these results!

Dulcet - I'm glad your son enjoyed his first lesson. I doubt it was 40 minutes warming up - I would have thought it was the teacher exploring the voice, seeing and hearing what he does naturally, making the odd correction here and there, introducing some technique and generally getting him to relax in front of her, etc. My initial lessons cover far more exercises than subsequent ones for those reasons.
Well done to him for coping with an hour long lesson. I usually only have my more advanced students for that length of time. I hope he continues to have fun with his singing.

FWIW, I adore singing and do it every day of my life - but I've had probably half a dozen singing lessons in total and I didn't enjoy the experience AT ALL. At one point I had a couple of lessons from the Hungarian tutor who was also teaching my mother (on a summer school). I remember the time she got so frustrated with me that she exclaimed, 'Why can't you be more like your mother?' (who was 72 at the time).

Dulcet - glad your son enjoyed his lesson.

My daughters started singing lessons recently. Both had sung regularly in a children's choir, and less regularly at church, but last September they both had to leave the choir they had sung in since the age of 5 because of a change to the time of their piano lessons.

The original plan was that the younger one (11) would have 3 x 20 minute lessons in the run up to last year's church carol service in which she was due to sing the solo first verse of "Once in Royal". I knew she could sing it in tune, but her voice was very breathy and it sounded a bit feeble. As for your son, the very first lesson made a huge difference, as did the other two. That gave her a lot of confidence. The solo went well and she was also complimented on her singing when she auditioned for a music scholarship in January. She enjoyed the whole experience so much that we agreed she would carry on after Christmas and extend the lesson to a regular 30 minute slot.

The older one (14 now, but 13 at the time) noticed how much the younger one had improved, and in the new year we agreed that she would have lessons for a six month period as part of the skill element of her Duke of Edinburgh award. She made slower progress than the younger one, as she had a very awkward few notes (A-C above middle C) that she could hardly sing at all. She is also much more self-conscious and doesn't like performing at the best of times. However, she started to make huge amounts of progress in the Summer. She took grade 2 in July. Her piano teacher (who accompanied her) came out of the exam amazed at how well she had sung and we were delighted with the results (139 for her and 131 for the younger one who also took grade 2). Needless to say, I'm not going to be allowed to get away with the planned 6 months of lessons as she wants to carry on with them.

In summary, I'd say both have benefited enormously from their singing lessons. Both enjoy them and both are keen to continue with them. The teacher is great and it probably helped that they knew her already. Both are keen to sing at school this year which I am very pleased about now that they have no other regular choir (the older one had given up choir after year 7 but will now join again and might even be brave enough to audition for the year 10/11 chamber choir). I must say it was also nice to have the least stressful exams they have ever had (for me as well as them)! In particular, not having any scales to practise was a blessed relief - especially for the younger one who took grade 5 piano on the same day and therefore had more than enough scales to learn for that!

That's an encouraging post! Of course it is slightly different for boys, which was I suppose my main reason for posting, but still, it's good to see how quickly improvement can come. DS1 has now had his second lesson and also had a 1-1 rehearsal with our church DofM in preparation for the Dean's medal, and no two ways about it he has come on a lot. I rather doubt you'll notice on Saturday, though... still a bit wobbly, had another phone call today.

I'm glad your son had a good lesson Dulcet.

There is evidence over the range that is suitable for children to use at various ages. As long as they are enjoying their singing and singing in their specific comfortable range then that is fine.

I harp on about this time and again because I have colleagues who have told me what happens when they pick up children as teenagers who have overused their bottom notes and not got any flexibility in their top notes over the importance of exploring the whole range in comfort and in a manner that is fun.

I'm not the only one who has experience of teenagers who have huge 'breaks' where they should have smooth transitions between ranges. Their vocal apparatus is not as robust as an adult's. This is where the trained singing teacher comes in, and it is important.

If I attempted to teach the violin, hands would be thrown up in horror, but every one thinks they know about singing don't they?

I'd be interested to know more about this. What does the evidence say are sensible ranges for 14 and 12 yr old girls?

It's not so much about how old they are, more about what stage of vocal development they are in - some voices change early, some late, so it's much more important to actually listen to the voice first. It's virtually impossible to say what stage a 12 year old girl is in without hearing and seeing her (and maybe even knowing a couple of other things ). If she's developing late, her voice could still be unchanged (although that seems to become more and more unlikely), or she could be already in stage 3 or 4.

I wrote a pretty lengthy post about mutation in girls' voices this once: http://www.abrsm.org/forum/index.php?showt...hl=young+voices

Generally speaking (!), unchanged female voices usually should be kept in a central range between D and D, with obvious changes depending on the individual: Some can safely be taken to F and beyond, some shouldn't.

When the voice changes, the female range can become much less for a while, it will sound breathy and unstable and drops (albeit not as dramatically as in boys). The most difficult stage is usually roundabout stage 3 (time of the first period in girls), where everything higher than A/B can (not must!) become a struggle - again, this is individual, some have more, some less problems. That's why these are really just house-numbers, and no one can say: "That's the ideal range for a 12 or 14 year old girl" - it depends on the individual girl

Thanks Dugazon. I've read your very interesting previous post.

In this case, although I said 12, she is actually 11 for another month and physically is completely undeveloped.

Neither daughter has done any "high impact singing" with their teacher (if I understand what you mean by that term). I am very keen to ensure the girls sing only stuff that is appropriate to their ages (words as well as music) and the teacher very much shares that attitude.

They don't have a lesson for another couple of weeks, but I'll ask the teacher what stage she thinks they are. Based on what you've said here and in the earlier post, I'm assuming 1 going into 2 for the younger one and still in 3 for the just 14 yr old.

Yes thanks Dugazon! The fact you stressed that this is very dependent on the individual is the thing most people don't get! They also don't get the fact that transition happens to girls as well as boys.

Even as an undeveloped female voice I sang up to an A or B but had not notes below middle C and trying to push me lower would have been a bad thing.

6-7 year old boys often have little control of their undeveloped voice at all, then suddenly within a month they have a fifth, then an octave, and then just before transition quite a wide range.

Whether after transition they decide to follow the legit/classical route or use more contemporary techniques, as long as their teacher can hear when things don't sound right and observe tell-tale signs of strain before they get ingrained then as young singers they can look forward to a long and happy time enjoying their singing.

However to ask what should a 12 -14 year old be singing when transition could well be starting is as silly as asking Dugazon to sing Lyric Coloratura Solos out of her range without transposing them first, then giving me Belter Standards that suit her and expect me to perform them in her favourite keys. We are our voices and she is a mezzo and I have a high Soprano voice. You would expect us to excel at different things, just as you would expect some twelve year old girls to sing higher than others, and some to have wider ranges than others.

That is why singing teaching is a bit more specialised than many make out.

Do you think that popular music is affecting the ranges of transitional and pre-transitional girls?

I listen to a lot of children singing and there are some sweet 12 year old girls whose voices match the ranges discussed in Deirdre Trundle's book. These girls seem to like singing show tunes and disney. However, I see a lot of girls the same age or younger who prefer singing along to pop music, Miley Cyrus, Amy Winehouse. All songs which are a lot lower and they seem to be able to sing comfortably between G3 and G4 with a speech quality. If I am to be responsible (which I really want to be!!) do I just let them sing the range they want, given that they are not straining or struggling in any way. Or should I be encouraging them into the C4-C5 range in a much more sweet singing style. Something that they struggle to do and are embarrassed doing!

Of course these girls are just doing a bit of casual extra curricular activity but that doesn't mean I shouldn't understand as best I can what they should and shouldn't be doing. My main objective is to ensure that no one is straining or damaging their voices, I am also aware that time and again Jod, in particular, discusses the need to ensure that upper range is (what's the word... not worked... not maintained... just used?) I'd hate to think I was party to them losing that upper range (although I am adamant no one will be using speech quality up there, or belting) Ideally I'd have them all sounding like sweet little girls but at the end of the day, most of them are anything but!

Does that make sense? I'm not always very clear so please ask for clarification if you need to!

One does not speak in ones upper range, these are sung notes. If before transition a girl has never found them and has got stuck in middle to bottom range she can develop a break rather than a smoothe transition into these higher notes.

It is the cocal equivalent of somebody fitting a syncro-mesh box and suddenly putting a crash-gear box in specifically to access the top notes. Now if she's used to producing a smooth gear change it sounds effort-less, otherwise the is a huge 'break' at the point of the vocal equivalent of the double de-clutch.

I know this is a motoring analogy, however having just driven around the centre of Madeira where due to the gradient on the roads decent hill-starts and smooth gear changes were rather the order of the day somehow I've got the mechanics of driving on my mind!

Get all the transitions between the vocal ranges smooth by making sure the whole voice is gentle used without pain and not over produced, then as the voice does go through transition and more technique is added, these clear boundaries between head, middle and chest voice for legit/classical singing, and legit, twang and chest belt for contemporary techniques can be made smoothly keeping the placing in the correct place for each technique and therefore promoting vocal health.

Most people speak in their chest register using a bit of middle as they get excited. The head voice does not get used unless absolutely terrified!

The change from the use of folk-music to popular music where the melody is sung by a belter does encourage girls to sing too low IMHO. However there is nothing wrong with transposing music to a more appropriate key.

This is definitely something you could raise at SATA.

Hi ExpressYourself!

Essentially, there's nothing wrong with kids using Speech quality, it's the most natural and accessible vocal quality. The thing you DO need to watch is that the range adults naturally use in Speech is not the same as that of kids - and pop songs have the tendency to be written for adult voices. You simply might have to transpose the songs a bit. It's not if they can sing that low (most kids can) -it's if they can sustain in that particular range without straining or getting tired (a lot, albeit not all, can't):

Another thing is indeed learning to use different vocal set-ups and not being stuck in one. A lot of untransposed pop songs willl render a kid's voice inflexible and will indeed make it hard to access lighter qualities later on (happens to adults as well btw, just that their voices can usually take more abuse before lasting damage is done):

Let kids use Speech, just make sure it's THEIR Speech, not an adult's. And mix it up with lighter qualities and teach them how to get a smooth transition so they actually HAVE a choice later on.

One of the things we accuse out younger son of doing is speaking in a whiny voice. This is because he has a high speaking voice, and when he gets excited it goes up very high indeed!

On the other hand, when he is sad, the pitch lowers.

He naturally has a high treble voice.

What he will do when his voice hits transition is anyone's guess.

If he is like his brother MatthewD, then by the time he hits stage 4-5 his emergent voice will still be heading for tenor, but will lack the top end. Matthew may only be 12, but I've tracked stages 1,2,3 and he is now on stage 4 of transition. He is singing throughout his emergent range, making a beautiful sound, and enjoying it.

The music is being kept simple and limited in range to notes he is comfortable singing.

So he's not a treble anymore. Instead we both enjoy working with what he's got, and it is still lovely.

That's the key with children and teenagers work with what you have, and not with what you think you have.