There is a famous quotation attributed to the ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle:
“We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.”
As it turns out, Aristotle never said these exact words. In 1926, author Will Durant gave this as a quasi-modernised summation of elements of Aristotle’s teachings.
But whether or not Aristotle said these exact words, this sentiment is very much rooted in his philosophies of actions, habits and virtue.
Many pedagogues and coaches cite this quotation to inspire people to practice, to knuckle down, to cultivate a habit of excellence. I have done and will continue to do the same. Such a message focuses on the second clause of this quote.
But there’s something wonderfully insightful in the first clause also, that we can often miss, especially as it pertains to the very on-trend topic of labels and identity.
“We are what we repeatedly do”.
The Problem with ‘Identity’
I bring this up, because I’ve recently had a lot of conversations – within the context of music and outside of it as well – about identity, especially when it comes to creating labels for oneself.
Worry not, we’re not going into the weeds on this. It’s a huge topic, with many facets, each with far more nuance, psychology and depth than I could possibly bring justice to. Instead, everything that follows is said within the context of voice.
Singers, like every human on earth, want to feel like they have a handle on who they are and what they should be doing – in our case, vocally speaking. They want to figure out who they are, what their voice is capable of, what they are good at, and cultivate artistry.
WHile this is a great goal, this tends to manifest in overly definitive, declarative statements beginning with “I am
As such, often these labels are initially inaccurate, as less experienced singers frantically try to firm up a complete vocal identity for themselves. Labels are also static, whilst we as people are dynamic. We are never just one thing, and no one label ever sums us up fairly, accurately or completely.
Herein lies the danger I want to highlight for you: the danger of clinging so tightly to some label or immutable ‘identity’, such that it one cannot let go of this identity even when it doesn’t fit where one is at.
This can inhibit development massively, but even worse, it can be a huge source of unresolveable anxiety to the singer, especially when events in reality don’t marry up with some internally held standard. Let me share a few examples.
A first example
I once did some work for a performing arts academy. The owner was an ex- musical theatre performer. They described their voice as:
“I am a weighty contralto with a top end belt.”
This all sounds very fancy and nuanced, like they’ve got it all figured out… but in truth, they were basically just yelling.
They weren’t actually a contralto (the lowest pitched female voice, comfortable below even alto parts, and legitimate instances are very rare). They were a fairly standard female voice, but lacked any real technique, ergo a fairly limited shouty range. I’ve talked in other articles about how people can end up misunderstanding their own voice in this regard.
With even a modest amount of training, their range would have opened up dramatically and would easily be singing comfortably in an alto range, perhaps even towards soprano given their musical background.
Another example
I’ve taught many teenage girls just out of puberty, who tell me the following about their voice:
“I don’t sound good on pop, because I am a high range classical voice.”
And honestly, in 99% of cases, no – they aren’t. What’s typically happened is they tried singing pop, it was in tune, but didn’t sound quite right. The assumption follows it must just be that their voice just doesn’t suit that genre. So they try some other genres to see what doesn’t sound so wrong.
They eventually imitate something classical sounding, and their parents/friends will say “hey, you sound good on that!“… and a new label for themselves is formed in their heads.
In reality, young female voices tend to find higher register singing quite accessible. There isn’t much weight at the bottom end of their voices to hold them down. After which, putting on a faux-classical/opera voice tends to be how many young singers imitate those higher ranges. But the truth is, remarkably few voices are built for the demands of classical/operatic singing. It requires not just a lot of training, but very few instruments have the in-built dimensions and genetic/physiological potential to sing that genre well.
In contrast, pop is such a varied genre, that almost every voice can very easily slot into it in some way. In such cases, it just requires a little bit of training and the real voice reveals itself.
People LOVE labels
Naming things is an important part of science and understanding. It enables taxonomy of complex systems, countries, people groups, individuals, personality traits, skills, etc. This is invaluable for better understanding the world and ourselves. The world would be a VERY confusing place without any labels for things!
But the danger of self-labelling is that it is, at best, very hard to do accurately and without bias; and at worst, self-labelling is highly egocentric. So when labels become ends in themselves, and when the label itself has emotional investment for individual, we tend to hit problems.
When something that is meant to just be a accurate descriptor of what we can actually do becomes some critical non-negotiable component of someone’s identity, where their self-value is tied up in such a label, it’s psychologically painful when reality doesn’t line up with how they view themselves.
When labels strike back
I’ve taught plenty of people who cling so tightly to “I am” self-identifying labels (and “I am NOT” statements too), that they psychologically tear themselves apart trying to live up to these labels. They tie themselves up in knots trying to reconcile their thoughts about themselves with reality.
Their identity is often so intertwined with immutable “I am” statements made by their less-informed past selves, that they are completely oblivious to what everything around them NOW is telling them.
Not only is this a very painful and frustrating experience for the singer, but ill-fitting labels by their very nature inhibit self-progression and development. Labels are static, but people are not. By clinging to a label that may have even been true about us once, but is no longer accurate, we find ourselves experiencing dissonance between what we held to be true, and what we are actually experiencing day-to-day.
Labels (not just in relation to voices) should be used in order to accurately describe the state of reality, NOT to try and wrestle reality into line with however we wish the world would view us/hear us.
So what should we do instead?
“The law of nature is, do the thing, and you shall have the power.”
— Ralph Waldo Emerson
Just like the not-Aristotle quote – the emphasis should be on self-development through action, not self-labelling through mere words. Don’t worry about labels. The more nuanced you become as a singer and a person, the less labels tend to fit anyway.
I’ve trained plenty of voices from singing bass, to become baritones, and some onto high tenor range voices. With development voices change, and labels need to match that change as we develop. This also extends to genre, and artistry. It bears repeating: don’t worry about the labels.
As we strive to be better informed, to better ourselves, what you are/are not will reveal itself – that way you don’t need to worry about labels, and can handle them with a ligher touch. It will become very obvious to you and everyone else what you are, without even needing to use nomenclature. Like Emerson says, do the thing, and you’ll have the power.