If any of you have studied anything to a high level, you’ll know just how deceptively complex almost any given subject can be. This seems self-evident for subjects like quantum physics, philosophy, economics, brain surgery, microcomputers, etc. Even their subject titles require some explanation to most lay-people, and almost every word used within that subject requires deep understanding and definitions to put everything together.
The Learning Paradigm
With such subjects, we enter into a mental paradigm where we accept that complete knowledge of all elements is not possible. This paradigm directs helps us appreciate the vastness and nuance of the subject, and directs our learning. It also typically keeps us humble and always open to further insight.
Viewing subjects in this way usually helps us see the multi-faceted nature of such subjects, and not to assume anything. This further helps us to grasp that we need to study from experts, undergo apprenticeships, and spend many years in training to acquire requisite skills to get our understanding right.
One key thing to note: in such subjects we accept that often what may initially seem like an obvious and sensible question to ask, may in fact reveal a thought process that shows one does not (and sometimes cannot!) fully grasp the nuances of the subject at hand.
Simple subjects
What many don’t appreciate, is that there are very few truly “simple” subjects out there where the above is not true. Almost every subject carries with it superficial layers of simplicity, masking deep complexities under the surface.
The assumed simplicity of a subject often tends to leads people with even a little knowledge to believe they know far more than they actually do (Dunning Kruger: Why a little knowledge is a dangerous thing).
Oversimplification
A lesser talked about aspect of this, is that people buy into an oversimplified paradigm that something is 100% knowable. If they can feel it, touch it, experience it for themselves, then they must be able figure it out themselves… so how complex can it be?
Some even buy into the idea that they can do this off their own back. Maybe a few Youtube videos and pop-culture books, and they’ve got it sussed. I’ve had uncountable calls with self-study singers telling me “how solid their vocal technique is“, and they really “just need me just to polish up a few things” for them. For the reasons given above, I am sympathetic to people who believe good singing and technique is that easily digested, but I can confirm it really isn’t as simple as they think.
As a result of this complexity, many ask questions even in the sessions that are only natural, but unavoidably gloss over hidden complexities of singing and voice-building. Here are three of the most common questions I get asked, which I’ve tried to “answer” each question in such a way so as to reveal the sprawling complexities hidden underneath the question.
1. “What is my range?“
While this seems like a straight-forward enough question, it’s really multi-faceted. When we talk about range, rarely are we interested in just what the absolute lowest-to-highest notes someone can grunt/squeak are.
If we want to get more precise and say “what range do I sound best over?“, this introduces a high level of subjectivity. Firstly, what is the song in question? We need context. Secondly, someone may sound decent over a particular range, but from a technical stand-point they would be better singing over a narrower range.
This would be temporary, in order to establish technique, to then increase the range. But this response tends to cause frustration if singers feel they can sing higher, but are being told not to. An oversimplified view of things leads to a false idea that we can have it all now, or with less work than is necessary. Building an instrument takes time and daily effort.
There are also drawbacks to defining someone’s range without context. Singers may then put songs where a particular melody is (on paper) within that range, but it sounds/feels bad. It can also cause singers to put themselves in a box, either out of ego or frustration. Voices develop over time, so labels are meant to be transient than definitive
2. “What kind of voice do I have?“
a.k.a
“But I’ll be able to hit this note eventually, right?“
This is the natural kind of question that follows the above brief discussion, particularly when we discuss temporarily putting songs in a different key to accommodate technical/range development. The answer: it depends… on a load more questions:
What is the note in question? Where is it located in your voice? Which song are you trying to sing that note in? What style is it? How heavy is your voice? How light is your voice? How old are you? How young are you?
When it comes to study: What is the current state of development of your voice? How regularly am I seeing the client to work on their voice? How often is the client working on their voice? How correctly is the client working on their voice? What is their personality like? What feels like their voice to them?
Even if they can hit the note, how comfortable or “like them” does it feel?
Some of these are definable, some of them are variable, some are out of my control, some are out of their control… and some of them are utterly unknowable.
3. “Should this feel like chest voice or head voice?”
This is typically asked when doing a vocal exercise that feels like something wants to shift or change. The unhelpful but truthful answer is more along the lines of “just do it, don’t try and make anything happen“.
This may seem like a non-answer, but if we are trying to build a voice that automates the changes, we can’t let the student manipulate their way through their voice. Let’s return to the question and its built-in flaws.
Chest voice could be viewed as a sensation of sound, or it could be viewed as the natural range that sensation is attributed to. Head voice is the same. So when someone says “is this meant to be in chest voice?“, it isn’t immediately clear whether they are talking about the range, or the sensation. Already we are in vague territory.
Compounding this, because we navigate our voices by feel, this is all we have to go on. The challenge during development is that with technical development of the voice, there are actually a variety of different sensations all going off at once. These form an amalgam by which we arrive at a given “feeling”. Despite all this, we can modify all of these sensations gradually through training. One vowel on one note can feel like it’s in head voice, another vowel on the same note can feel like chest.
Really what we are aiming for is to ALWAYS be in our own voice. This is inherently qualitative, objectively unmeasureable, but also verifiable based on how emotionally connected to our own voices. Put simply, over time we can train the voice so we never really feel like we are leaving our own voice, irrespective of the range we are singing in. It just takes time.
Final thoughts
Great singing should sound easy, and conceal the complexities underneath. As such, don’t underestimate how much work goes into understanding or building a voice to be proud of. It isn’t easy, and would take many lifetimes to truly master.
Despite the above, don’t be afraid to ask questions, just be prepared for a more nuanced answer than you were perhaps expecting!