Hi,
I’m studying classical singing in a conservatory of music for only less than 2 years and am a soprano (I’m not yet sure which type). When I vocalize, I usually go up to A and sometimes B below the high C. But the thing is, I can also reach the whistle register from that very same A up to the high G but i don’t include it yet in the vocalization because it is a completely different feeling, one that is very light and effortless. It sounds thin and it doesn’t have body like that of my lower registers but I can easily produce vibrato with it. I haven’t told my teacher about this whistle register yet because I’m afraid that she would torture me to reach it with the same quality or thickness as that of my lower registers during a lesson. That’s what I’m not sure about–how do I make that whistle sound one with that of the lower registers? What specific types of vocal exercises could I use to smooth out the passaggio in this particular area? I really hope you could help me.
Thanks a lot.
————————————————————————–
Thanks for writing with your question. The first thing I would say is it all depends on the nature of how you are producing the whistle register. Often when people are able to produce this part of the range it can be used as a guide to the rest of the voice. I would suggest trying downward slides starting high in the whistle range and taking it all the way down to your lowest note. If the voice does not crack then that means you are in line and it is beneficial. If the tone cracks at some point that means the registers are out of line with each other because of misalignment in the vocal tract and this needs to be fixed before the exercise is worthwhile. This is often the case when we feel like we are singing out of the mouth. It is critical that we use all three pharyngeal areas for resonance to allow the voice the greatest flexibility and freedom. We use a little “oo” vowel to exercise this resonance coordination. Because the mouth opening is so small the tone is not allowed to escape and has the opportunity to resonate in the naso-pharynx in the head. This conditions the tone and makes it vibrant and full while being very easy. It is singing in the position of whistling. It takes some getting used to. Once we have the feel of singing in the upper resonator we can sing all vowels while keeping the resonance position.
Hi everyone! I am not a singer, but I am really a fan of whistle notes. I know the risks but I am not afraid since again I am not a singer I just really wanna learn how to whistle. I learned whistling through inhale phonation? But I don’t know how to do it exhaling? Can somebody teach me how to do it?
No problem, Dinko. She is a good example to discuss because she is very popular with young singers.
@Beatrice…no, I didn’t mean at that scream-like sound she does near the end. But when she says she used to warm up and let her voice there in this room. And then she is shown singing a descending scale. I though that was it, because when I bring the very high whistle sound way down and don’t allow it to go louder it starts to sound somehow like that. But yes, her sound is breathy, as Michael noted.
I am aware about the “loudness” in her case, that is why I’ve put it under quote. I am quite aware how schocking it can be when a dramatic voice sings forte 3 meters away from you and you suddenly stop hearing, but feel like your eardrums will explode, or with a true dramatic bass, and I had the fortune to hear a very old one very recently, just causes this feeling as electricity or a sort of earthquake passes over you from the ground and you feel a sort of tremble. Maybe the expression wasn’t well enough up there. I can notice on myself when I sing a note and feel buzzing all around the face and teeth and ears, but can’t seem to hear myself almost at all, but people from the other room can hear me, even though I was only humming.
And to answer your question…for now I only sing choral music. But plan to study classical (interessted in Lied and Oratorium, not that much Opera), when I am able to afford it once.
Very recently, I’ve read a text in which a teacher wrote how there is no “wrong” exercises. There are just exercises either wrongly done, or done at the wrong period of vocal development. I guess the same is with this. You had a luck to have a teacher which was aware of that.
@Michael…Thanks for the comment. Sorry for turning this to a Mariah topic on the end, but I found her an interessting example, because she is so much associated with this term and seems to be a huge idol for singers. Interestingly despite everything, she does seem to be more musical than many other rivals of hers which allowed her to do some very interessting both singing and music back then when the voice was still good and commercial music wasn’t what it is today. A shame actually.
I also watched this video. Thanks, Dinko. I have long said that Mariah Carey destroyed her voice, even though everyone thought she was so great. She definitely was an exciting singer. I enjoyed her early hits. But I also noticed by the late 90s she was already singing a lower tessitura and not as vocally explosive. Many critics called this increased artistry and maturity, but I called it vocal decline.
Bea mentioned false fold function. David Jones talked about that a lot when I worked with him. It is the norm for whistle register even in classical singing. The fundamental flaw is the excessive breath flow involved which requires the assistance of the larger muscles of the throat to help control the wild air pressure. A true super high register involves a decrease of air flow because of the shrinking of the glottis.
The name whistle register is a mis-nomer because it implies it is produced by air-flow like a whistle is. My feeling the name is more correctly thought of as a description of the shrinking/puckering of the glottis in a similar fashion as the lips do when whistling. This is how I conceptualize the adjustment involved as pitch rises to the extreme high range.
Getting back to Mariah, she sang both her high voice and belt voice with excess breath. This is the reason for her vocal decline. I don’t think it had much affect on her popularity. But it certainly did on her vocal health and longevity. And unfortunately she has been a huge influence on young singers for the last 20+ years.
I feel there is no reason why a singer can’t sing in the style of Mariah Carey but with a healthy function. All they have to do is keep the purity of the voice and not allow the intrusion of the leaking breath to dilute the vibration and destroy the balance of the phonation. But it takes a high level of coordination and skill to do so.
I listened to the promo clip of Mariah Carey from 1990. Yes, in a place near the end she does do really high whistle singing. But it is NOT brought down into the voice at all. She does it, then drops instantly down into her regular voice. The two sounds are not actually connected. What she sounds like when singing like this is more the use of the false cord function (which I have heard often in students who are singing pop; they don’t have to actually blend it with anything, so getting this super high whistle for certain notes, then just dropping out to their regular voice doesn’t cause any musical problems for the music they sing; it does cause problems if you ask them to actually take that sound, the Mariah sound, and take it SLOWLY down the scale; I say slowly because anyone can quickly sing up or down a scale and miss half the notes square on and give the impression they are doing what they should; but ask them to do the same thing SLOWLY, and in no time flat you can hear all the holes in the voice, all the falling in and out of function, and all the bumps and burps that the voice will do because it isn’t functioning in alignment). Mariah’s voice is NOT equalized at all in the classical sense of how the voice is to be equalized. There are moments when she does do (in some rehearsal) little weak whines from a “BREATHY” upper whistle sound, to her regular voice. But that is not a real whistle sound either, as it is more than evident the amount of breath actually passing through the folds. When she does the “tea kettle routine” she is NOT relaxed at all. Her face reveals just how much effort she is putting into things. But that strained face is acceptable in modern singing as “emoting emotion.”
In my view, I don’t see anything she does as beneficial to the voice at all. It is something created for show, to make her singing stand apart, to give that special something pop music needs. And to be able to brag about her huge range, which she did often at the beginning of her career, and in fact was one of the selling features of her artistry.
And it must be made clear, her “loud” singing is not all that loud. Very few modern singers know how to sing at all using the singer formant, which is not required when singing with a microphone. Her “loud” is really not all that different from when a person talks loud, almost shouting, at another person. And believe me, that loud cannot compete in any way with a really full, ringing, developed free operatic voice. Without a mike, it won’t even carry over an orchestra pit, and definitely not over an orchestra.
This is where, for me, we cause all sorts of confusion. Pop music doesn’t require any volume. Even singing at a conversational whisper is heard everywhere. And that is because the voice is enlarged electronically. We never see them without their mikes. I have listened to many really famous singers of pop music, and you would be surprised at how little voice there really is when there is no mike. Those little high whispering delicate decorative notes (which are seldom more than a very small incomplete turn) aren’t even audible in the recording studio without the use of the mike.
Although the concepts of support, breath control, and balanced function are the same in pop and classical singing, the end achievements don’t relate. When a person is not attempting to actually achieve the singers formant, that real ring that give the voice the ability to really carry and fill a theatre, they can do many and sometimes unusual things with their voices and sound. They can make little useless whimps and wallows seem like musical expression because the mikes are doing all the real work. When they lash out in volume, they seldom have any real volume, if you remove the mike. They sound no different from someone talking loudly (but not shouting).
There is still the point of creating the strength in the voice. That comes only by using it with strength (and I don’t mean pushing it or forcing it to sing super loudly; but the volume required is what in the past was called FULL VOICE; you weren’t whispering to yourself, you were not singing pianissimo, but you were not singing fortissimo either; yet, the voice had great volume, presence, ring, and power). It is like weight lifting. If you only lift 2 pounds all the time, yes, you will improve, but only to the two pound level. As soon as you have to lift 230 lbs, you are not even remotely able to. The voice is no different. If it is only exercises in the most delicate way, it never develops the strength of muscles to take on heavy work.
That is where I have seen the greatest issues with people who really think this whistle tone training does them all that much good. Yes, they are great doing it, even keep the larynx low, and can effortlessly slide from the heights to the depths. But as soon as they have to actually use the voice, really make it do the work it is required to do to sing opera, their voices crash and burn. They don’t know what to do. They can’t figure out how to keep that effortless production and have it be supported while it creates a sound that produces the ring necessary to actually be heard in the theatre, and most especially over an orchestra. I saw no example in what Mariah Carey did that would demonstrate to anyone how to use that small infantile breathy slide down and unite it with a real full bodied sound. If we listen to her carefully, and it is the same for most all pop singers, she only sings really full or loud notes in one part of her range. It is NEVER done in any other part of her range, and that part is in exact alignment with her speaking voice. She sings loudly only where she naturally can shout, if she had to.
When I was taught, yes, the small OO was used. We did this small head voice to remove weight. As I said, I had a huge voice and it was natural to use it full weighted all the way to the top, which was not good. My teacher had me doing many ligher head voice exercises. But they had all the support needed as if I were singing a huge fortissimo in a great Wagnerian scene. Yes, I did these exercises on my own, and I did go well beyond my upper range, and yes, those super high notes (and they were connected to my real range because I entered them VERY SLOWLY from below with scales, and I descended very slowly with scales) did sound sort of different, but were connected. They even could sound VERY PENETRATING and full. When I showed this to my teacher, she said I was doing things correctly, but then stated: “It is nice you can access that part of your voice, but remember, like a rubber band, stretch it too far in either direction or in both directions and you create a hole, which can turn into a real break; once this happens, it cannot be repaired.”
With her, the little head voice was NEVER a rushing of wind, and in fact, she made me stand near a mirrow to make sure I was NOT allowing breath to pass through. My support muscles had to do the work, not the throat.
Within just a couple of weeks, these light heady notes grew into something really ringing. No, they were not as large as my full-voiced sound, but they were ringing and carried well. At this point I understood what Birgit Nilsson said: “It is by having a large small voice we attain a really large full voice.” This small light sound, what Michael calls nearly a whimpering, a child-like sound, of itself developed into a huge ringing sound. No effort of breath created it. Then as I sang in my full voice, I felt confident that the high notes would sound full like normal, but without strain or pushing or any of those negatives that were natural for a large voiced person to do. If Michael feels it necessary, I would write an article on WHY a huge dramatic voice often will push for volume on high notes. The voice doesn’t need to at all. Nor is it really a psychological thing of feeling the need to really blast the sound as some teachers think. It is a perception of ones sound by how it feels in a large space, and how on high notes that feeling of hugeness disappears making the singer feel little to no sound is coming out, when in reality tidal waves of sound are rushing forth cutting through and rushing over the orchestra. These exercises got me to the point I could TRUST that vocal ring and not think I had to create it with more breath, or more muscular power (I seldom used much breath to sing fortissimo, but I would use more muscle, lots more muscle, which is not needed or wanted). It also gave me a clear picture of what is often said, but seldom understood: “Drinking back while singing.” But nothing I saw or heard Mariah Carey do would have helped me to attain what I did. Of course it works for her perfectly because that is all that is needed to sing what she sings (and she does it wonderfully well, or she did; but even her voice has not passed the test of time, which to me is the real test of technique and vocal function — it should last well into old age and be at a singer’s command).
Any rate, this is all my opinion based on what I learned and experienced. You may not agree with it, Dinko. That is fine. I may not be approaching this topic from the same place you are. I am not even sure what sot of music you sing, and that will make a really big difference in desired results. Michael, you may think all this muddies the waters. I really don’t intend it to do so. Yet, I have never seen anyone really move forward in their singing when they take the time to perfect this “squeaking.” It doesn’t seem to work the voice to its fullest potential, even though it may work more of the natural range of the voice. Again, I think this is because no one really knows how to use this function very well. And that let’s us all know just how confusing this entire topic really can be. I am so glad my teacher NEVER talked about Whistle registers or Cuperto when I was studying. To achieve what Mariah did would have tied my throat in knots.
This was a very informative post…thanks to Michael and Beatrice!
I am quite sure that singers such as Mariah Carey have also played a great role in popularizing “whistle register” as well (both among the popular and classical singers – and I’ve heard some classical sopranos who worship her) and caused many to believe this was the goal in singing. In fact I never knew this was called like that, until I have read it in an artcle which was talking something about her voice, because in my language the term for this smallest part of head voice is actually “birds register” and is usually refered to as something only coloraturas use in singing, but other voices don’t really sing in it, just use it for practise to get to the other parts of the voice trough it.
Mariah, at least to my knowledge, was one of the first singers, if not the only one in the 90’s who made use of this part of the voice in actual songs which have reached a huge audience. And probably stayed the only one till now who has managed to do this very musically as well, at least in her earlier career. Because she was regarded as one of the best singers at the time, who besides being able to “belt out” could also sing in this very high range, it can be many started thinking that mastering this will allow them to sing like her, or that doing this will make them good singers. In fact, many do believe, both classical and popular singers that having an effortless c”’ even if you’re a male will allow you to sing everything bellow it freely. And I can only confirm what Beatrice wrote, that I have sung in a choir where there were some solo singers who had mastered this high squeeky tone, plus the connected scale to “perfection” but had otherwise very big, dark, unsteady and wobbly voices, which I would put miles away from being balanced or effortless.
Among the more popular classical singers who had this, Adelaide Negri first comes to mind. Her long glissando scale in the end of that famous Hamlet aria is an absolute wow. I would have aplauded her just for being able to slide trough her voice on these quarter tones so precise and effortles trough a few octaves, because it really does sound fascinating. The problem with her always showed itself when the note had to be sustained, and it’s when all this mastery of this small voice simply got lost, especially later in her career when she became impossible to listen to. Suposedly, she has the whistle-like high G even today, even though the singing overall is unlistenable.
Interestingly about Mariah Carey back then, something not many people are aware of is that she also used it as a training tool. There was a TV promo on her in the early 90’s where she was shown warming up and one could see that what she did is she would start singing in the small head voice higher and then carry this small tone on fast descending triola to the bottom of the range. And she seemed to have mastered this small tone to perfection. What probably also as a result had that she was able to take it to the very extremes of the voice, what made her famous on the end. I remember this, because I’ve tried immitating her approach some years back thinking I might find a solution to my vocal problem, but much later, not too long ago, I found out that the sound I am bringing down isn’t the most purest smalles part of voice I could get and the one she was using. It’s only after I’ve found this thing which is best described like a very silent effortless sobbing/moaning combined with a yawn (though not a concious yawn, the larynx lowers by itself when I produce this sound) that I’ve began to see how this might be of use. And while it seems the easiest to just slide this small voice way up high (when it starts to get this whistle-like quality), the real difficulty appears in trying to bring this down to the very bottom of the voice, and in the middle and low it doesn’t sound anything like a whistle, just a very very small head tone, and doing this is what brought me the most benefit personally.
It’s probably the only short video of Mariah warming up I’ve seen, but stays interesting for this matter. I am not sure if it’s something she did instinctivly back then, or if she was thaught this concept by her mother who is an opera singer herself (mezzosoprano), but it did probably provide a good tool for allowing her to do many things with the voice in that part of her career which were quite impressive, and probably to survive all the high belting she has done back then. I’m sure such practise took a lot of weight of her voice and made it sound and look so easy. Not sure what has happened with her later, or why she feel out of it. But I think that detail was interesting, because it showed that despit being famous for this “loud” sort of singing, she in fact in daily practise used this cuperto, whistle voice or how ever one might call it, and interstingly not by exercising it in the extremes of the voice, but by taking it down to the bottom of the voice trough fast scales. I can’t tell, but it might be that it is the very thing what allowed her to sing high in a manner which seemed so extremely effortless, something unseen among the singers in her genre. At leats in this very early 90’s period when she first started.
Interesting were also her comments in another video that how she learned to master this part of the voice was by talking in this very weird sort of small high sound, what also probably resulted in much easiness with it, when she managed to have the same effortlessnes with it she has with talking.
For those interested, the clip is on youtube too, it’s called Mariah Carey PROMO 1990, and somewhere after the middle of the video is a very short clip of her warming up in which this can be seen.
Michael, thank you for your comment. I really appreciate that you took the time to discuss this issue in this way. As I said, I only brought up what I did because I have met so many who have treated this “whistle register” as if it is the holy grail of singing. I really hope that this helps those reading understand what is intended by these exercises dealing with the “small head voice.” I can understand that term, and I can see how it worked to advantage in my own training. I had, as I have said many times, a huge voice, a really large Wagnerian voice. With such a huge voice it is very easy to fall into the habit of pushing for high notes, especially in dramatic passages. My teacher insisted that such a huge voice as mine didn’t need to push at all, and in fact, didn’t need to sing loudly, for the notes would carry well of themselves. And she was right. Once I had learned to release the weight off the voice, high notes came of themselves, and even in the most dramatic settings never felt pushed, forced, or strained. Everything felt easy. This is how I understood the “small head voice” and why it was developed and used. It also grows in sound to the point it is quite loud and ringing with great carrying power. But one doesn’t MAKE it do that. It happens as one learns to sing relaxed and without pushing. At least that is my experience.
Thank you so very much for this explanation. I really am glad you took the time to write what you did. I am certain it will help singers understand better what they hear.
Yes, Bea. I agree that there are many examples of senseless vocalizing. Whistle register is one of those terms that I try to refrain from using unless someone brings it up, as this person asking the question did. I never use the term with singers I work with. Same for “Cuperto”. Which is meant to be basically the same thing.
The problem as I see it is the same as has been discussed before. People mean different things by the same term. They do different things and call it the same term. So what are we supposed to think?
Yes, many do these exercises, but I feel they are trying to impose their opinion on the instrument because they think it will solve all of their problems. It is the “Holy Grail” syndrome.
But unfortunately that is a myth.
As I said, I never use either of those terms. All I talk about is the “little head voice”, which is how Allan Lindquest described “cuperto”. Just as you describe in your training and the singer you mention. We are working for the smallest part of the voice, which eliminates the weight. We can then use that to base our “full voice” on to achieve a weightless condition.
It is initially learned not very high. It is more about size and strengthening this small voice than it is about how high you can sing. I treat it as a certain adjustment or condition of the vibration form of the glottis. When done properly it can be used throughout the range, high to low.
I think of it as a natural part of the voice. But the way many work it they forget this important guideline. And not all voices should be able to go to the same range extremes. It should all make sense. A lower voice will not go as high. An attempt to do so will usually cause the voice to be forced out of balance.
The true condition we are looking for is the natural extension of the voice. Not some mythological oddity that is beyond human. It might seem that way for some because so few correctly explore the full range potential of the voice. So when experienced for the first time, since they have never heard anything like it, they don’t know how to categorize it.
Another important point is even if someone does coordinate this little voice correctly into the extreme high range, it is unlikely that they could, or should, sing any music there. If done correctly is is like a physical exercise to develop strength and flexibility. Like calisthenics and stretching.
And it definitely can be over-done. Just because you can whistle a high q above high c, it doesn’t mean you can sing anything. A big reason for this is many, if not most, are accomplishing the so-called whistle register wrong. It is not accomplished by blowing the breath like whistling. That term came about because it described what the listener observed and compared it to. It did not come from what the singer is trying to do. It is actually the opposite. You must never blow on the little voice. It is like speaking in the high range. To do so requires complete breath coordination to the point that it resembles suffocation more than blowing. (not that you are actually doing either)
I would suggest starting by throwing away the name. Then contemplate on what is the natural progression of the voice as pitch is raised. Does the vibration get bigger or smaller? Use other musical instruments to help recognize how pitch and vibrating material interact.
There are normal changes, adjustments, as pitch changes. There is another slight change in the way the voice vibrates when going beyond head voice. Whatever you want to call it doesn’t matter. In fact the name is probably a big reason why people mistreat it. But the voice will make the adjustment when the need arises and the conditions are correct. If not, it won’t.
I guess what I want to ask is for a better explanation of what the “whistle register” is and why bother even learning it or achieving it? The reason I ask that is because anyone who reads this blog can go to YouTube and listen to all types of examples of a “whistle Register” from tons of singers. It is something really stressed in the speech level singer.
If one listens to those examples, one is left thinking that the whistle register is some sort of freak-show achievement. One hears men singing notes well above the Queen of the night’s F that certainly do sound like a whistle or a tea kettle, but serve what purpose?
I myself was never taught any of this to achieve my high notes, and no one I have sang with all these many decades was taught that way either. In fact, as I ask many singers I know if they have even heard of the “whistle register” (or the cuperto) they don’t even know what I am talking about.
If Kirsten Flagstad was taugh that to achieve her high notes, they certainly didn’t become secure, as anything above a high B flat she simply eliminated. When she first started singing, she had secure high notes (but breathy production), later solid production but limited high notes. It wasn’t rare for her to leave out high Cs in Tristan right from the start. And in Walkure she transposed the battle cry down a tone (as did Helen Traubel) quite often, and on the octave jumps she barely touched the high note at all. In Gotterdammerung she didn’t sing any of Brunhidle’s high C’s most of the time. There are recordings of her singing the notes, but she dropped them as often as she sang them.
So, for me, I am confused why anyone needs to learn to produce a sound that basically serves no purpose in the actual singing they will be called on to do.
I guess my misunderstanding (though I fully understand the reason behind developing the sound, and do agree with those principles; it is how it is explained and used now days that leaves me confused) comes from what I have witnessed.
I have seen tons of singing teachers really work on their students to develop this whistle register, even the men, and then listened to voices that are as shattered as glass.
I listened to a student I was to prepare in a masters class. She could literally sing in the depth of Hades (and would make a bass profundo jealous of her powerful lower range) and slide without any breaks at all to notes 75 octaves higher than the mice in Cinderella, with a penetrating quality that could bore a hole in a foot of rock, and make a tea kettle blush with envy. But when she sang a simple Mozart aria from Figaro (the first aria for Cheribino) she struggled for her upper tones all the time, and we all know that aria is not high.
She could and did pass the test of supposedly having a balance production because she could descend from the stars in a far away galaxy without the slightest break at all and evenly descend to the depth without a flaw. But, she couldn’t actually sing.
Also, I met so many voice students attempting to develop what they called the “whistle register” and it was more than obvious they were attempting to give dog whistles a run for their money. But what did it all achieve?
I also found that none of these students use any support at all while singing the whistle register, which left them without any foundation when they had to actually sing.
Because of what I have seen and heard, and what I have seen taught most of my life and career, I am left wondering why one needs to approach the high notes from such an extreme place. All we did was sing in a head voice and carry it down (of course with the lowered larynx).
The other thing I really cannot understand is IF a singer already has a super great high C, D, E and F, why do they need to develop this register? And since so many students I have seen think that the whistle register requires they develop notes well above that, to even an octave above the Queen of the night’s F (this is both men and women achieving that note) I personally believe there is a lot of confusion about what it really is, and it is being judged more by some imagined sound represented by the word “whistle” than by what it is intended to be.
The closest I came to anyone who knew what I was talking about was a singer of great renoun, who talked about the “whinny sigh” where she imagined herself with a childish sounding voice, and sighed that voice to the depths and natural range of the voice, but she stressed that one did not strive to sing super high notes, but have this high child-like sound. To her, it was an exercise to remove the weight off the voice. Support was all the same, and in fact, even stronger, but the sound was small, the mouth was small (but she didn’t use the oo, or if she did, it didn’t sound like it when she demonstrated her sound, however the mouth was more an oo than an o but not as tight as when someone is really whistling). The value of what she was demonstrating I fully understood, and it seemed more logical as one didn’t do the exercise so high that the larynx shot up behind the ears.
My own teacher had me do many exercises singing with a small oo sound but we never took them very high at all, not even to the top of my range. Again, her reasoning was to keep the voice light, and learn to take weight off the sound. When I would then sing in full voice, she would remind me of the feeling of weightlessness I had achieved and get me to NEVER lose that weightlessness in the upper register, as it NEVER was to be pushed. I think the highest I ever went was to a high A, not higher. Nor did she feel I needed to go higher. Rather it was done so that the larynx stayed low (teaching a thing that brings it too high simply defeats all the other exercises to keep it low), but the weight of the middle/chest voice didn’t travel up too high in the voice. But at no time did I work to sound like a teapot or a mouse from Cinderella.
So, please, Michael, give a more involved explanation of what it is, this whistle register, why it should be learned, and is it really like what we hear on YouTube, an attempt to sound like a tea kettle on steroides? It seems now days people are more fixated on high notes than they were in the past. Yes, they loved it when a coloratura sang a wonderful high E or F, but they didn’t expect a singer singing Aida or Brunhilde to sing one. People were satisfied with a really good high C.
There is also a strange stressing of the voice now days on high notes, and it is getting worse, and from my experience (and they could have all been taught incorrectly as well) most all students who learn to produce those super human dog-whistle sounds leave much to be desired in their upper range. All warmth is gone. All color is gone. All quality is gone. But the note is there, shril and penetrating to the extreme.
I am left agreeing with Helen Traubel about high notes in women’s voices (and I quote directly from her own book “Saint Louis Woman” page 267 — she writes this because early in her career she started leaving out High Cs whenever possible; most people though she had a short top, which was not the case, her high Cs were extremely secure, but here in her words is her reason, and I am beginning to agree with her more and more).
“It is possible for now to confess candidly that the top tones of a woman’s voice have always been unpleasing to me. I have never heard a dramtic high C — including my own — which achieved that resonance and fullness that it deserves. After a dramatic soprano hits a high A or thereabouts, everything else has the faintest tinge of being forced. It was this feeling for sound that made me curb my own inclinations to hit the high C in Wagner. Flagstad, who possessed the only other ‘big’ voice that has been compared to mine, always had a cold and stretched range in this regard. In my case, I gradually commenced to develop a psychological block about singing high C’s. … At home, at informal concerts, almost anywhere else, my high C was true and occasionally unstrained — at least, listening with my ear that has nothing to do with ego, I liked it better than any I had heard. I could not say the same on stage. Flagstad was better than I in the higher register in several ways; I think I can take the honors from her in the over-all performance of warmth and dramatic intensity.”
I fully agree with her. It seems our fixation on the super high has produced tons of tenors who can sing the Puritani high F, but whose voices are super bright but have no emotional warmth. They can sing all the notes and be well focused, but they cannot infuse character, emotion, or even purpose in their sound.
We have tons of women who can sing the Queen of the night (where at one time that was a very rare occurance), and who have Fs that can shatter glass, but they have no warmth, not depth, no feeling in the most telling parts of the range and where most of the music is written.
It is almost like everyone wants their sound to compete with Cinderella mice and tea kettles, but have lost all connection to the fact they are HUMAN BEINGS, and their voices must reflect the warmth of the human heart in order to really convey a message. Otherwise they are super notes, but boring performers.
Thanks for listening to me. I hope you can give a really good explanation of this issue, and one that makes clear what SOUND the student should actually be achieving. As I say, I was never taught any singing with super high squeeks to achieve my high notes. I only learned to remove the weight that may make the sound pushed, strained, or muscled and therefore unpleasant to the ear.
It can be a bit of a process to find. But what I have people do is work the voice as small as possible. Use a small, closed “oo” to explore the higher range quietly. You want to feel like you are speaking in a high, light voice. There must be no blowing of the breath. The idea is to make the glottis get smaller. If you blow breath, like whooping, it will stay big. It is more like whimpering than singing. It is very hard to describe in words. Hope this helps.
I just want to know . . what vocalization will I do to find my whistle register ?