Vocal Qualities in Music Theater Voice: Perceptions

of Expert Pedagogues
Tracy Bourne and Dianna Kenny, Sydney, Australia

Summary: Objectives/Hypothesis. To gather qualitative descriptions of music theater vocal qualities including
belt, legit, and mix from expert pedagogues to better define this voice type.
Study Design. This is a prospective, semistructured interview.
Methods. Twelve expert teachers from United States, United Kingdom, Asia, and Australia were interviewed by
Skype and asked to identify characteristics of music theater vocal qualities including vocal production, physiology, es-
thetics, pitch range, and pedagogical techniques. Responses were compared with published studies on music theater
voice.
Results. Belt and legit were generally described as distinct sounds with differing physiological and technical require-
ments. Teachers were concerned that belt should be taught safely to minimize vocal health risks. There was consensus
between teachers and published research on the physiology of the glottis and vocal tract; however, teachers were not in
agreement about breathing techniques. Neither were teachers in agreement about the meaning of mix. Most partic-
ipants described belt as heavily weighted, thick folds, thyroarytenoid-dominant, or chest register; however, there was no
consensus on an appropriate term. Belt substyles were named and generally categorized by weightedness or tone color.
Descriptions of male belt were less clear than for female belt.
Conclusions. This survey provides an overview of expert pedagogical perspectives on the characteristics of belt,
legit, and mix qualities in the music theater voice. Although teacher responses are generally in agreement with published
research, there are still many controversial issues and gaps in knowledge and understanding of this vocal technique.
Breathing techniques, vocal range, mix, male belt, and vocal registers require continuing investigation so that we
can learn more about efficient and healthy vocal function in music theater singing.
Key Words: Music theaterVoicePedagogyBeltLegitMix.

INTRODUCTION singing are highly taxing, physically and vocally. Conse-

Music theater is a relatively new performance genre that devel- quently, many singers and pedagogues are concerned about
oped out of opera and popular entertainment in the late 19th and the inherent health risks of music theater singing styles such
early 20th centuries. Until relatively recently, aspiring music as belt.25 More information is needed about how these vocal
theater singers were trained in classical vocal techniques qualities are produced so that singers can be taught efficiently
because contemporary vocal qualities were considered to be un- and safely to a professional standard.
attractive and dangerous.13 However, the prevalence of rock,
pop, and contemporary music theater in the latter decades of
Current physiological and acoustic research
the 20th century led singers and teachers to develop vocal
Typically, music theater vocal qualities are described as belt,
training techniques that met the specific demands of these
legit, and mix by singers, teachers, casting agents, and musical
genres. In the same period, Jo Estill and other voice
directors.22,26,27 The belt sound is commonly produced in
researchers argued that contemporary sounds such as belt and
contemporary repertoire.28,29 In the music theater context, belt
mix were valid in their own right and not inherently
was originally associated with singers such as Ethel Merman
detrimental to the vocal health of the singer.4,5 More recently,
and Celeste Holm and later by Liza Minelli and Patti Lupone
research into Contemporary Classical Music (CCM) has
among others. Belt is often required in auditions for
grown significantly differentiating contemporary and classical
professional Broadway productions.22,30 It has been described
modes of vocal production.621
as bright, ringy, loud, forward, speech-like, and
Contemporary music theater comprises a diverse range of
as a yell.1,3,4,28,30,31 However, other experts have suggested
musical influences, from classical to contemporary, and profes-
that belt need not be loud and that it does not have a yell
sional singers are expected to be competent in all styles.22,23
quality.30,32,33 A review of teachers by Miles and Hollien34 indi-
Terms such as belt, legit, and mix are now commonplace in
cated that nasality is a key perceptual component of the belt
the professional music theater industry, and the demand for
sound and that belt does not have vibrato.4,34 However,
appropriate and flexible training that covers these vocal styles
LeBorgne et al30 argued that in a professional context, nasality
is growing.24 The performance requirements of music theater
is optional and that vibrato can improve the perceived beauty
of a belt sound. Some teachers suggest that there are a number
Accepted for publication March 17, 2015.
of different kinds of belt, rather than one homogenous
From the Sydney Conservatorium of Music, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. quality.33,35,36
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Tracy Bourne, PO Box 337, Bungen-
dore, NSW 2621, Australia. E-mail: tracy.marie.bourne@gmail.com
Belt production is characterized by a relatively high and for-
Journal of Voice, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 128.e1-128.e12 ward tongue position,34,37 a more constricted pharynx, and a
0892-1997/$36.00
2016 The Voice Foundation
higher laryngeal position, as well as a more open mouth shape
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2015.03.008 than for classical vocal production,4,5,12,15,31,3840 although
Tracy Bourne and Dianna Kenny Vocal Qualities in Music Theater
some singers may produce a belt sound with a relatively low
larynx and wide pharyngeal shape.41 Acoustically, the belt
sound demonstrates higher energy in the upper frequencies of
the sound spectrum,42,43 a high first formant frequency (F1)
compared with classical singing,12 and in a study of a single fe-
male singer, a possible tuning of F1 to the second harmonic on
some vowels.7 In studies comparing belt and classical voice pro-
duction, belt had higher closed quotients (CQs) and a greater de-
gree of subglottal pressure4,12,44 even in adolescent singers.20
The term legit is a shortening of the word legitimate, disagreement among experts, indicating gaps in knowledge,
possibly referring to a perception that this classically based
sound is more correct than belt. There is only one published
peer-reviewed study on this quality.7 Expert teachers have
described the sound quality as produced in the female head This study received ethical approval from the Human Research
register with back vowels.26,28,40 Ethics Committee of The University of Sydney.
The mix sound has been compared with belt and classical
singing in two studies. Sundberg et al12 found that for the female
subject of the study, mix was produced with relatively high levels
of energy in the upper frequencies of the spectrum and higher
frequencies of F1 and F2 similar to those for belt. Subglottal
pressure and sound pressure levels (SPL) measures were re-
corded at moderate values for this singer, closer to those of oper-
atic singing. Lovetri et al41 compared laryngeal and pharyngeal
gestures in seven singers, who were asked to produce head, belt,
and mix qualities. Contrary to expectations, comparisons of belt
and mix indicated that laryngeal height did not change for two
subjects and that for four subjects, the larynx actually lowered
for belt. In this study, the laryngeal height for mix was found
to be at the same height as for head register or higher.
Recently, Bourne and Garnier21 compared the physiological
and acoustic qualities of belt and legit in six professional
singers, including two substyles of belt, described as chesty
and twangy according to their perceived timbre and sympa-
thetic vibration by singers. In the study, four pitches were re-
corded at the upper belt range for all singers on two vowels
[e] and []. In belt production, singers generally tuned the first
vocal tract resonance (R1) to the second harmonic (2f0) up to
C5. (Note that vocal resonances are called formants when
they are measured as acoustic peaks in the radiated spectrum.
Bourne and Garnier [2012] were able to directly measure the
resonance frequencies of the vocal tract using a methodology
devised by Epps et al [1997].45 Consequently, these acoustic
peaks are described as vocal resonances.) There were no vocal
tract tunings for legit. R1 and R2 were higher in frequency for
belt than for legit. SPL values were higher and the energy of
the spectrum >1 kHz was greater for belt than for legit. Higher
CQ values were recorded in belt than in legit, as well as a less
symmetrical electroglottogram (EGG) waveform for belt.
There were no significant differences between twangy belt
and chesty belt, except for slightly higher frequencies of R2.
Mix was measured in three singers, with each singer demon-
strating different strategies at the glottis and vocal tract for
achieving a blended sound at the register transition.
Although recent research on the music theater voice has
improved our understanding of vocal function in this style, there
are still many unanswered questions. Few studies compare qual-
ities across a range of singers. Only two studies7,21 have
128.e2
compared legit voice with other qualities, and only three
studies have described the mix voice.12,21,41
This study investigates the degree of consensus about appro-
priate teaching strategies for music theater singers by gathering
together the experiences, knowledge, and teaching practice of
twelve expert music theater pedagogues. This information
will provide a context for further objective studies in this field
by identifying issues of relevance to the professional music the-
ater industry, illuminating areas of concern, agreement and
and suggesting potential areas of future inquiry.
METHOD
Participants
Twelve international music theater voice pedagogues (five men
and seven women) were interviewed; four from Australia, six
from the United States of America, one from the United
Kingdom, and one from Asia. All taught professional music
theater performers (Broadway, West End, Professional Austra-
lian Industry) and/or advanced tertiary students. All partici-
pants had between 21 and 38 years of teaching experience
and had undertaken formal vocal education. Most had
completed an undergraduate degree in voice; T3 had completed
Masters in voice, T4 had completed a formal degree in piano,
T9 completed 1 year of college, and T10 had completed
advanced certificates in music training through private institu-
tions (ie, L.Mus.A, T.Mus.A. from the Australian Music Exam-
inations Board). All taught music theater singing and at least
one other vocal style. All teachers taught both male and female
students; seven teachers had more females, two teachers had
equal numbers of male and female students, one teacher had
more male students, and the remaining teachers did not respond
to the question. Participants studios were predominantly
comprised professional singers or full-time voice students at
tertiary institutions. One teacher (T7) primarily taught children
from the International to Local Community categories accord-
ing to Bunch Taxonomy of Singers.46
Interview protocol
A semistructured interview was conducted with the twelve par-
ticipants focusing on perceived differences between classical
and music theater vocal production, descriptions of music the-
ater vocal qualities, vocal function, style, and pedagogical ap-
proaches to the training of music theater singers. This style of
interview was appropriate to the aims of this exploratory study;
open-ended comments and discussion from subjects facilitated
the collection of a broad range of data relevant to the area of in-
quiry. Interviews varied from 30 to 90 minutes in duration and
were conducted by phone or Skype. Each interview was re-
corded, transcribed, and returned to participants for checking
and approval. Transcripts were coded and analyzed in relation
to themes drawn from recent research on music theater voice.
Discussion themes and questions for the interview were
drawn from a literature review of published research on the
128.e3
music theater voice, as well as articles by and for specialist
CCM and music theater singing teachers. In the interview, par-
ticipants were asked to describe music theater qualities
including belt, legit, and mix and to compare these sounds
with classical vocal qualities. They were then asked questions
about dynamic range, constriction, twang, singers formant,
and vibrato for these styles; to describe differences between
good and bad music theater singing in all music theater to crescendo and decrescendo (T8). An open, free, sup-
styles; to identify the usual pitch range for belt and legit singing
for male and female singers; and to name professionals who
sang belt or legit to a high level. Participants were asked to
define, in general terms, the physiological characteristics of
belt, legit, and mix qualities, including laryngeal height, breath
function and breath support, the effect of subglottal pressure,
vocal registration, and pharyngeal shape (including constric-
tion/retraction/open throat).
RESULTS
Describing the belt sound
Teachers described the general sound of belt in broad terms
covering vocal production, musical style, esthetics, and
emotional attitude (Table 1).
Eight of the teachers identified more than one type of belt
sound, whereas only four suggested that there was a generic
belt sound. Table 2 lists all the terms that teachers gave for belt
subcategories and groups them according to common themes.
Belt types as described by the participants can be divided
into two subcategories; the perceived weight of the sound
(heavy, mixed, and light) or the tonal color of the sound
(bright, creamy, nasal, speech, and brassy).
TABLE 1.
Descriptions of Belt by Expert Teachers, Grouped
According to Common Themes
Weight Strong, heavy, effortful, strenuous, thick,
more treble, less bass, thin vowels, chesty
Volume Intensity, full sound, energizing, loud and
only loud, lots of energy and presence,
aggressive, high level of physical energy
Color Brassy, twangy, edgy, straight, cutting,
bright, may be the brightest quality,
projection, chiaro-dominant, ringy,
natural spin, twang
Line Speech quality, calling yelling, speaking on
pitches, loud speaking, open yell on pitch,
conversational, somewhat aggressive
use of thyroarytenoidwhich is all about
speech, shout quality
Space Tight, open, free supported, connected,
wide open and splatty, narrow
placement, space
Emotional Passionate attitude, venting, outpouring,
attitude heightened, emotionally driven, exciting,
high larynx; whiny, plaintive, annoying,
low larynx; sexy, romantic, mature
Esthetics Not ugly
Journal of Voice, Vol. 30, No. 1, 2016
Belt technique
Healthy belt technique was described as effortless (T5), with
less pressured adduction (T8), not rigid or overly
squeezed (T9), and not overloaded, no protuberances, no
jitter, no interference (T1). Other positive descriptions
included the ability to sing with variable volume (T9),
good dynamic control, not always loud (T1), and the ability
ported sound was considered desirable (T5), as was belting
as an extension of calling or yelling to someone at a distance
(T2). T8 cited suppleness, and flow phonation as indicators
of healthy technique, whereas T9 described healthy belt as a
sound that was not rigid (or) overly squeezed.
Unhealthy belt singing included forcing pressure up from a
depressed position (T2), any constriction at all (T4), A lot
of air pushing behind the vocal folds (T5), pressed phona-
tion (T6), cords that are too thick and stiff, (with) a great
deal of hyper adduction and excessive pressure (T8), shout-
ing and constriction (T10), and so much pressure (that) I see
veins popping and people turning colors (T11).
Descriptions of esthetically attractive belt singing included
belt with a little bit of thyroid tilt, a little bit of sweetness
(T4), some warmth, not excessively twangy, no excessively
higher overtones and nothing else to it (T12). Belt singing
that was stylistically appropriate was exciting to listen to
(T11), exciting and emotional (T1), with a high placed, for-
ward sound (T2), a natural spin (T8), and expressive of
emotion; the most important ingredient (T9). Belt singing
that was stylistically inappropriate occurred when the sound
quality distracts us from what is being said (T10) or was so
twangy and (has) no space in it that we dont even want to listen
to it . it actually expresses nothing and it does not communi-
cate with me at all (T12).
Ten of the teachers agreed that vibrato was part of the belt
sound. Only one teacher (T2) said that belt had no vibrato,
although two other teachers said that it depended on the type
of belt; pure belt (T5) and full on belt had no vibrato,
but belt mix did (T12, T5), generally at the ends of phrases.
T10 described belt as having little or no vibrato on a long note
or otherwise a gradual onset of vibrato. Teachers T1 and T11
agreed that vibrato was difficult to produce in belt. Most teach-
ers agreed that belt is sung with less vibrato than legit.
Seven of the teachers stated that belt is always loud (T2, T4,
T6, T7, T10, T11, and T12). Three of these teachers (T4, T7,
and T9) stated that when you reduce volume on belt, you change
the vocal quality to a mix. However, T1 and T3 argued that
belt may not always be loud:
People who are doing a good job with belting can actually
bring their belt down to a reasonably quiet level. (T1)
I can adjust the volume without changing the timbre. Just the
one volume is boring. (T3)
Although belting tends, in my experience, to be loud, it doesnt
need to be loud as much as it needs to be intense. (T10)
I always stress (to my students) that I dont want you to think
that youve got to be loud, because youre going to be loud
anyway. (T12)
Tracy Bourne and Dianna Kenny Vocal Qualities in Music Theater 128.e4

TABLE 2.
Belt Subcategories Named and Described by Teachers, Grouped According to Common Qualities
Theme Belt Subcategories Description
Vocal weight Heavy Liza Minelli*
Strong weight
Thick
Pure An open yell on pitch. Needs very little breath with the folds in a longer closed phase
Mix Easy balanced sound
Lighter weight
Belt-mix Pretty. Also sometimes called mix.
Faux When you have got a fairly well balanced amount of twang to what would be a legit
voice
Head-mix Perhaps describes some chest voice involvement, but a much more head
voice-dominant sound and a much brighter sound
Vocal color Nasal
Speech
Contemporary The singer Eden Espinoza* is a good example of this quality
Bright
Ringy Kristin Chenowith* is the archetype for this quality
Twangy
Forward
Brassy
Traditional Wide open and splatty; ie, Ethel Merman*
New York City Loud, brassy sound
Trumpet-like
Warm Where the back of the mouth and throat (velopharyngeal port) is slightly more
dropped than lifted
* Exemplar provided by authors so that readers can hear the sound described.

Most of the teachers argued that nasality was not an inherent
quality of the belt sound (T1, T3, T4, T5, T7, T8, T9, T11, and
T12), although three of these teachers stated that nasality may
be useful for vocal characterization (T1, T5, and T12). T6 sug-
gested that nasality can be confused with twang, which T4, T5,
and T6 described as a different quality.
It should be noted that although twang is a term that appears
in the research, four US participants did not use this term for
music theater vocal styles.
In America, we have a tendency to talk about brightness,
brilliance. The word twang we usually associate, frankly,
with country music. If you wanted to translate it, twang
would mean a predominance of chiaro, higher frequencies,
more bite in the voice. (T7)
Others, particularly Australian teachers, used the word
twang freely. T10 stated that twang helps the sound sit
higher and further forward in the way it feels and the way it
sounds and T12 suggested that twang helps get focus in the
sound; in classical too. T1 and T5 argued that twang was a use-
ful tool for negotiating register transitions in the female belt
voice.
Male belt
Most teachers agreed that men can belt but did not recognize
belt in men as clearly as they did for female belters.
People find it difficult at times to hear when men are belting
and theres a difference in registration. You can often tell that
theyve been belting because of the way that they get out of
the sound at the offset, at the very end of the sound. (T1)
There were others who did not use the term belt for men:
There is [no] such a thing as a belt range for men. When men
call themselves belters, they just basically mean, in my view,
that they are spreading their vowels and pushing through the
passaggio. . For women it really is a different usage of the
instrument. (T8)
I really dont tend to use the word belting and men. Its their
dynamic range and its whatever acting intention they put on
it that heightens it or not. (T2)
Some teachers argued that the belt range for men was more
limited than for women, and generally in their upper pitch
range.
Belting in the male voice is a little trickier, since men live
in chest register naturally . You find high belt men in
rock, gospel and R & B, but somehow the energy of the
sound isnt quite the same as it was back in the 30s
when Al Jolson got on his knee and sang to those Vaude-
ville audiences. It isnt that there are no males who belt or
mix, its more like there is less register categorization of
the male voice, especially on Broadway. You dont see ads
for men belters (T9).
128.e5 Journal of Voice, Vol. 30, No. 1, 2016

I think belt notes tend to start just below where a guy might
slip into his falsetto. So it is much further up in the range for a
man. (T6)
(For) the men that I teach, (belt) seems to be (in) a similar
range to the girls. (T10)
T11 said that she teaches belt differently to men than to
women:
I dont necessarily tell them that they are belting. It seems to
make more sense to them if they think of it in a really wide,
pop style. So for them its really still just widening the
vowels and thinking up a little higher and let it go really
almost more into that mixy place, but theyre going to
add a little more weight to it.
T4 suggested that operatic tenors are actually belting when
they reach high C but are masking it with a more pronounced
vibrato and other stylistic effects.
Vocal range
There was a range of opinions about belt range for male and fe-
male singers (Figures 1 and 2). T6 felt that belt was generally
only used for a few notes in a song. Teachers T7 and T8
stated that there is no usual range for belt, whereas T11
suggested that the female belt range can vary. T5 noted that
some of the contemporary repertoire requires women to belt
up to very high pitches; I dont believe that most women are
capable of that. T6 argued that the belt sound changes as the
pitch rises:
Ive found some singers can go onto belting really quite high,
and others dont seem to be able to. It certainly gets thinner
and smaller as you go higher, and then whether we can really
classify that as belt is another matter, because the voice sci-
ence definition for belt is more than 50% closed phase, and I
dont know whether the gospel screamer is really producing
that on the top A.
T12 stated that once women reached a pitch of F5, their belt
became a mixed belt with a finer sensation to it, adding vowel sounds so that the vowels are clear, and its clear what the
that to give the sound the impression of a full belt, the singer
just needed to take the vibrato out and to add more twang
to their chest to match it.
T3 stated that the belt sound gets thinner as the pitch
rises, but
.if you still feel like the sound is shooting straight out of
your mouth, then I believe that it is still in the realm of
belting. If you can sound like youre talking way up there,
then to me its belting.
T4 argued that the belt sound did not retain its characteristic
qualities once the pitch went below G4.
Legit
Legit was described by T4, T6, and T7 as a warm sound with
oscuro influence, whereas T9 and T11 suggested that legit
was a bright, projected sound with ring. Legit was described
as having a lyrical quality (T2 and T6) and a speech-like or
conversational quality (T5, T7, and T10) with an emphasis on
word clarity and space (T8), although T11 argued that the sound
was characterized by a narrow placement.
Healthy legit technique was produced without vocal
trauma (T4), good dynamic control, (and) good air use
(T1). T2 stated that the sound should be properly placed,
(with) a sense of balance and T11 suggested the sound should
have ring and ease of production. T8 preferred legit produc-
tion that demonstrated firmly adducted vocal cords. T9
described good legit as a sound that was as close as possible
to natural production as can be managed, and T10 added to
this consonants that are articulated in the right place and in
the right manner . (and) a supported sound.
T12 considered legit to be attractive when it had spacious-
ness and ring. T6 did not like the sound of legit with unsta-
ble, over-wide vibrato or tremolo, poor diction, over-dark
sound due to low larynx, hooty falsetto-like production and
T8 disliked a hooty, (and) dark sound with no clarity, as
well as an excessively high laryngeal position, which created
an unstable and bright sound without richness or color. T8
described a legit without enough chest voice in it as
unconnected.
Good legit style included good text clarity (T1), basically
speech (T5), a connected sound (T8), and correctly shaped
words are (T10). T9 added that legit should have
An even and unobtrusive vibrato. I dont want to hear a big
wobble vibrato. And I also do not want to hear distortion in
any way. I dont want to hear muddy vowel sounds, or unin-
telligible pronunciation on moderate pitches.

FIGURE 1. Vocal range for male belters as described by expert music theater voice teachers. The straight line indicates the usual pitch range for
male belters, the dotted line indicates the pitch range that some singers can demonstrate, and the dotted arrow indicates an approximate pitch that
may extend beyond the nominated pitch. Teacher participant T8 did not indicate any pitches because he believed that men do not belt.
Tracy Bourne and Dianna Kenny Vocal Qualities in Music Theater 128.e6

FIGURE 2. Vocal range for female belters as described by expert music theater voice teachers. The straight line indicates the usual pitch range for
female belters, the dotted line indicates the pitch range that some singers can demonstrate, and the dotted arrow indicates an approximate pitch that
may extend beyond the nominated pitch. Teacher participant T8 did not indicate any pitches because he did not think there was a usual pitch range for
female belt.

Although all responses acknowledged that legit was more students regardless of vocal quality (Table 4), whereas three
lyrical than belt, T5 considered legit that was too sung, too teachers taught different support techniques for belt and legit
classical to be stylistically inappropriate. (Table 5).
Teachers considered the range of legit singing to be similar to Five teachers stated that they specifically taught a lower
classical singing. T6 stated that legit could be in potentially belly inhalation and expanded rib posture for both belt
any range with the option to use chest at the lower end. T7 and legit. T8 argued that although there are different pres-
stated that legit range depended on voice type, and T1 listed sures for each vocal style, low breathing accommodates
the usual vocal ranges in more detail: any change in pressure.
In order for the cords to close that rapidly, its very
(1)Bass: Bottom C2/D2top E4 useful to have the lower belly completely relaxed when
(2)Baritone: E2G4/G4# one takes the breath . and then the pumping action,
(3)Tenor: C3C5 the sudden action of the lower belly, really helps the
(4)Contraltos: C3/D3C5 speed, increases the speed quotient of the vocal cord
(5)Mezzos: E3/F3E5/F5 closure. (T3)
. I think some people breathe higher with belting simply
T11 suggested that the upper range limit of legit for women because theres a higher energy level and they feel, I think,
can be D#6 in legit, E5 for tenors, and A4 for baritones. T7 erroneously that they have to tighten up their throat. I
stated that female singers can sing up to E6 in legit. T2 sug- think that leads to unhealthy belting and inefficient
gested some women can sing up to F6, whereas T10 states that belting. (T7)
the range varies hugely; I aim for: F3 to Bflat 5. Men the
same, but an octave lower. However, T3 suggested that legit
may be more limited than the classical range;
TABLE 3.
Women rarely go below G3 (and dont) usually go (up) to Names of Singers Who Were Nominated by More Than
high Cs. In operetta youre still going to the high F like in One Participant as Great Belt or Legit Singers
Phantom of the Opera. Men just dont get very rangy at
all, and dont use much of their upper range in any of those Great Belt Singers Great Legit Singers
styles, because its considered too feminine. Barbara Streisand 8 Julie Andrews 5
Linda Eder 6 Barbara Cook 4
Ethel Merman 4 Brian Stokes Mitchell 4
Great belt and legit singers Idina Menzel 4 Kristin Chenowith 4
Participants were asked to name professional music theater *Kristin Chenowith 3 Anthony Warlow 4
singers who were able to produce great belt or legit singing. Re- Aretha Franklin 3 Audra McDonald 3
sponses included singers from popular and music theater gen- Kelly Clarkson 2 Marin Mazzie 2
res, with more female singers named than male. Table 3 lists Christina Aguilera 2 Liz Calloway 2
the names of singers who were mentioned by more than one Bernadette Peters 2 John Raitt 2
participant for each category. Four singers (Kristin Chenowoth, *Audra McDonald 2 Rebecca Luker 2
*Marin Mazzie 2
Audra McDonald, Marin Mazzi and Liz Calloway) were named
*Liz Calloway 2
as great singers in both belt and legit styles.
John Farnham 2
George Michael 2
Physiology Notes: The second and fourth columns list the number of teachers who
Breath. Seven teachers stated that they taught the same kind nominated each singer.
* Denotes singers who were nominated as great singers in both styles.
of breathing/support technique to all their music theater
128.e7 Journal of Voice, Vol. 30, No. 1, 2016

dynamic (T1) or flexible (T5) and able to rise and fall

TABLE 4.
Descriptions of Breath Support Taught as a
as it needs to (T11) and that the position changed depending
Comprehensive Technique for Belt and Legit on the type of belt sound (T3); Traditional belting is high lar-
ynx . if I lower it (the larynx) I will sound sexier, more
T2 Natural function that the teacher unblocks; romantic, more mature. T7 stated that I think an overly
psychological and physical
high larynx can be very debilitating and certainly an overly low-
T3 Abdominal and chest up, ribs expanded, back
ered larynx can be devastating. T10 felt that the larynx was
and side ribs expanded and held
T5 Janice Chapmans Diamond neutral below C4 and then rises as the pitch ascends.
T7 Lower belly, energized rib cage T2 stated that she does not like to talk about laryngeal posi-
T8 Low breath tion with her students. T8 stated that he never specifically asked
T10 Low breath and low support his students to sing with a high larynx but conceded that it was
T11 Breath as low as possible and back expansion possible that the larynx was higher for belt than for classical
singing. T12 also avoided referring to laryngeal height during
T10 encouraged her students to breathe low for all singing lessons because he has found that singers tended to respond
styles; however, she was not confident that they always by depressing the larynx with the tongue root. T5 stated that
managed to achieve this while belting. I have completely gone away from saying anything about
By contrast, three teachers (T1, T6, and T9) encouraged their what the larynx does . we havent got control over those
students to breathe higher for belt than they would for legit. things, you cant feel that muscle pulling your larynx up.
All thats going to do is cause constriction.
The breath is being stopped more in the speech-based qual-
ities. And if you tried to produce that flow from the abdom- T4 used the term thyroid tilt to describe differences between
inal muscle, it doesnt work; you start to go into overload and vocal qualities at the larynx; belt has little tilt, whereas legit was
people get vocally tired. (T6) more tilted, and classical the most tilted. T3 described a range
of vertical laryngeal positions that she calls laryngeal lean, that
enable her to access higher belt sounds;
Subglottal pressure
Five teachers (T1, T4, T7, T8, and T11) stated that subglottal As I go higher (from a low note), I start to feel the lean, .
pressure was higher in belt than for legit. Two teachers (T5 and then if I continue with a speech-like or yell-like sound
and T9) thought that belt used less air during phonation, to the top of my range, I will just be increasing the lean
whereas T3 described belt as a sound that required a breath sensation.
holding sensation. T10 described belt as requiring an ener-
gised rush of air. Tongue
Four teachers (T1, T6, T10, and T11) referred to tongue shape
Vocal fold closure/contact during the interview, stating that the tongue is relatively high in
Nine teachers (T1, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, and T11) stated that belt the mouth for belt compared with classical. T10 said that the
had a longer vocal fold closure; T3 stated that belt has a closed tongue also tends to be more forward in the mouth for belt in
phase of over 50% of the vocal fold cycle, and T4 suggested that comparison with other vocal qualities, whereas T11 said that
the closed phase can be up to 70%. Participants T6 and T10 the back of the tongue is higher for music theater qualities
described the vocal folds as thick during belt phonation. than for classical, especially in belt. T9 said that legit has
more freedom in the back of the tongue, whereas T6 claimed
Laryngeal position that the tongue was further forward and higher in the mouth
Seven pedagogues (T3, T4, T6, T7, T9, T11, and T12) stated for legit than for classical singing.
that the larynx is higher for belt than for other singing styles,
although T1 and T9 added that they had seen belters with low Mouth/jaw
set/lowered larynxes. Teachers described the larynx as more Both T7 and T10 described the belt mouth shape as more east-
west or horizontal, with the teeth more visible. T7 also
described belt as having lateral vowels compared with the
TABLE 5.
Descriptions of Breath Support Taught as Distinct
taller vowels of classical sounds. T3 described the chin as
Techniques for Belt and Legit higher with a protruding jaw for belt, compared with a jaw
that pivots downward for classical. Four teachers did not
Teacher Belt Legit refer to the mouth, tongue, or jaw at all during the interview
T1 Higher set breath Lower set breathincluding (T4, T5, T9, and T12).
back and groin
T6 Breath is stopped More line and breath in Vocal tract
more by speech phrase All teachers except T8, T10, and T11 acknowledged that belt
quality required some pharyngeal constriction. Teachers T1, T4, T6,
T9 Higher subglottal Lower subglottal pressure
and T12 described this constriction as a tightening of the arye-
pressure
piglottic sphincter or epilaryngeal area. Four teachers (T2, T5,
Tracy Bourne and Dianna Kenny Vocal Qualities in Music Theater
T6, and T10) specifically taught a feeling of space in the throat
for belt (also referred to as open throat or retraction of
false vocal folds), although they acknowledged that constric-
tion was part of the belt sound. T4 stated that although the
pharynx was tighter, other studies indicate a pharyngeal
widening and a lengthening in belt. T8 taught open throat
in all styles, including spaciousness in belt, although the
belting one often hears on Broadway lacks it. T9 does not
like to talk about constriction or open throat with his students;
instead he focuses on vowel shapes that are appropriate to the
sound and style.
T4 referred to the tilting of the cricoid cartilage as a func-
tional characteristic of belt singing;
When the cricoid cartilage moves on the cricothyroid joint, it
has the capability of shortening the vocal folds on higher fre-
quencies and allows them to operate with greater mass
because they are thicker.
However, two other teachers dismissed this theory:
I dont think Estill is right about the relationship of the thy-
roid and the cricoid cartilage. But the hyoid bone does push
forward and this affects the thyroid cartilage by stabilising it
horizontally. That may result in the cricoid cartilage seem-
ingly further back. (T3)
We know that there isnt anything to tilt, although theres
a possibility that there is a vocal tract change, which
could be the thyroid cartilage being pulled back and
that could be the adjustment. I think there is some kind
of adjustment and I dont think weve really pinned it
down yet. (T6)
Vocal registers
The management of registration in music theater singing was
a key concern for all teachers. Ten of the twelve teachers
agreed that belt occurs in a lower or heavier register than
classical or legit singing (T1, T2, T5, T6, T7, T8, T9, T10,
T11, and T12). They used a range of terms to describe this
heavier register such as thyroarytenoid (TA)-dominant vocal
folds, shorter dominant folds, or chest register. T1 and T3
described legit as thin folds or heady sound, whereas T2
stated that legit used both registers where necessary (T2).
Other teachers argued that legit was cricothyroid (CT)-domi-
nant for women and TA-dominant for men (T5 and T7),
although T7 felt that women can sing legit in a TA-
dominant sound. Register use in legit was considered to be
similar to classical singing with T8 stating that opera singers
use a balance of TA and CT, and T10 suggesting that clas-
sical singing required more CT-dominant production than
legit or belt for women.
The relationship between belt and chest voice/register raised
some strong reactions from many of the participants. Four teach-
ers stated that belt was not chest voice (T4, T6, T7, and T12).
If I were to define chest register, I might define it as what we
use when we are not belting (T4).
I think there is a basic difference between chest and belt. The
similarity is that the cords are thicker for both. But, the dif-
128.e8
ference is for the chest, the larynx is lower and for belt, the
larynx is higher. So if you start trying to push a low larynx or
the shout quality up, that is when you get to a certain spot and
you can not go any higher and the voice disintegrates into air
(T12).
T2 took this argument further, suggesting that to raise this
register higher in pitch or past the break could be vocally
damaging. By contrast, T9 held the opposite view, specifically
defining belt as a chest register/TA-dominant quality taken up
to the passaggio in the voice.
If you have a functionally normal voice, which,
for me, means you have two developed registers, .
then belting is carrying that chesty sound up above
where you would traditionally break (E/F/G above
middle C) at a loud volume. Now that presupposes
that the chest register is not locked into a low larynx
adjustment where the larynx remains not just stable but
fixed.
T2 and T7 suggested that singers should mix head register/
CT into the belt sound to lighten the effort of the vocal folds. T1
and T10 suggested that adding mix or twang to an ascending
belt sound could assist in easing vocal tension.
Mix
Mix voice was generally described as mixing TA/thick vocal
fold with CT/thin fold vocal function (T1, T2, T5, T6, T7,
T9, T10, T11, and T12). However, T6 stated that
From a voice science point of view, theres big question mark
over it (mix voice) being a mix of registers . If Im talking
about a chest-mix, for me that would be a chest mode of vi-
bration at the vocal folds and that something is being
adjusted so that mode can be taken a little bit higher in pitch,
even as far as up to C5 safely. I dont consider then, that Im
belting. Im only belting when I get beyond that point. The
volume levels are very different, for example. And the effort
levels are very different, and the muscular effort levels in the
body.
Some teachers avoided using the term mix:
I dont use the word mix even though its employed a lot in
the profession, for this simple reason: All good singing is a
mix, so to me its a redundant term. (T8)
I dont use the word mix. I still dont know what mixing is. I
find that the word mix is used a lot and it means different
things to different people. (T3)
I tend not to use the word because it is indefinite. What are
you mixing? (T4)
However T9 defended it as a term used frequency in the New
York music theater profession:
In most audition notices you would be asked to sing songs
that showed legit, mix and belt qualities, which are asked
for by name.
Others describe mix as a variation of belt:
Especially in Broadway terms we talk about the word mix
as being a variation of the belt. If somebody wants a belt,
128.e9
they are looking for a loud, brassy sound. If they want
something prettier with that kind of esthetic, they talk
about a belt mix, or just leave off the word belt and they
will say mix. Some people are inclined to use the word
head-mix, which perhaps describes some chest voice
involvement, but a much more head voice dominant sound
and a much brighter sound. (T7)
If were talking about mix belt, for me thats your belt
default position, which is not the full on belt . For me a
mixed belt sound is much more like a legit sound just
with a lot of twang in it. When you go to the belt, some peo-
ple just cannot do that full on shout, so if they use a mix and
take the vibrato out, for me, I think that can pass as belt.
(T12)
DISCUSSION
Descriptive qualities
Participants descriptions of belt suggest that it is loud and
bright, that it is heavier than legit, essentially speech-like,
open, and emotionally heightened. Legit singing is considered
to be generally warm, projected, lyrical and speech-like, with
space. Mix is described as a bright, projected sound with narrow
placement, but only by two participants.
All music theater vocal qualities were described as speech-
like, indicating the necessity of textual comprehension in this
style. In the context of performance, a music theater singer
will be influenced by the prosody (rhythm, intonation, and
stress) of the language and the musical elements of the song.
Not every word of a phrase will have equal stress, loudness,
or quality.
Vocal health was a key issue for teachers when describing
good and bad music theater sounds. Teachers agreed mance season,49 whereas two additional studies suggest that
that production of the belt sound should aim to be effortless,
despite the high vocal energy and the heavily weighted sound
that is characteristic of this quality. Indeed, healthy belt
singing is described in similar terms to healthy singing in
any style; a sense of vocal freedom and openness, no exces-
sive tension or constriction, good flow phonation, and good
dynamic control.
Style was also important in assessing quality, particularly in
relation to appropriateness of energy, and in balancing an
attractive sound with clarity of the lyric. Esthetics were gener-
ally of less interest to most teachers, although a few agreed that
they preferred warmth in a belt sound and no hootiness or
excessive darkness in a legit sound.
These descriptions and preferences are supported by similar
observations in the literature. Vocal health is of considerable
concern to many practitioners, despite a paucity of published
research on what constitutes safe belting.
A survey of expert teachers of CCM and Classical voice by
Ragsdale47 lists the health problems that they consider belt
singers to be at risk of developing
lesions on the cords, polyps, cysts, blood vessels popping,
nodules, fatigue, decreased range, a wobble in the voice,
tough folds, scratching of the cords or larynx, false fold
constriction, polypoid edema, vocal fold hemorrhages, vocal
fold edema and pre-nodular swelling (p.59).
Journal of Voice, Vol. 30, No. 1, 2016
Participants in the Ragsdale study stated that these problems
were most likely to be caused by excessive subglottal pressure,
improper support, tense extrinsic musculature, and a tense
tongue. They were not considered to be inherent to the style;
although, one of the teachers provides a note of caution:
I think we need to state very, very categorically that belting is
definitely a riskier style of singing. That said, we could say
its worth the risk because theres an awful lot of people
who are doing it healthily, but the potential for damage is
certainly greater (Edwin, p. 59).
A laryngologist38 observed the following pathologies of 27
singers seen in a voice clinic over a 3-month period in 1978;
.reddened vibratory margins of the vocal folds, a symmet-
rical, smooth fullness of both vocal folds secondary to edema
in Reinkes space, sometimes a more prominent rounding at
the nodal point of vibration. Other subjects having pro-
gressed beyond these preliminary examples of vocal hyper-
function demonstrated vocal fold polyps, nodes, and in one
instance, a hemorrhagic bleb (ie, a large blister filled with
serous fluid) on the upper surface of the vocal fold which
subsequently diminished in size and extent and became a
think-walled cyst. (p.27)
Of the 27 singers in this study, only seven had undertaken
formal voice training, and this lack of training appeared to
have some bearing on the degree of pathology.
A comparative study of music theater, contemporary, and op-
era singers noted similar rates of vocal injury between groups.48
A later study by the same lead author found that professional
music theater singers commonly experience a range of positive
and negative symptoms as a result of vocal load during a perfor-
singers who work in environments with inadequate acoustic
support may experience voice problems.50,51 Clearly, more
research on the risks and consequences of a professional
singing career in musical theater is needed.
Physiology
Most teachers stated that they taught the same breathing tech-
nique for belt and legit, five of them specifically teaching
abdominal breathing to belters. In a survey of 145 singing
teachers, Weekly and Lovetri52 found that the overwhelming
majority taught the same breathing and support techniques for
classical and belt styles. Ragsdale reported that most teachers
stated that they taught low belly inhalation for both belt
and classical styles.47 There are alternate pedagogical theories
that recommend clavicular breathing to set the larynx high53;
however, this method of breathing may be difficult for the
singer to control and is generally considered unsuitable for
long vocal phrases or very high pitches. It is worth noting
that one of the teachers (T10) encouraged her students to
develop the habit of low breathing with an expectation that,
in the context of performance, their breathing would rise as a
result of higher stress and energy levels. There are no published
studies that measure breathing patterns in music theater styles.
Teachers agreed with most published scientific studies that
belt appears to have a higher subglottal pressure and longer
Tracy Bourne and Dianna Kenny Vocal Qualities in Music Theater
contact phase than classical styles.4,7,12,20 However, there are a
couple of studies that suggest a contrary view; a comparative
study of 20 singers producing belt and legit found that the
mean CQ varied little between styles, with the mean belt CQ
remaining lower than 50%,54 whereas another found that 75%
of belt singers in the study demonstrated CQ values in the
same range as those generally demonstrated by classical
singers.43
Participant opinions related to a high tongue, more horizontal
jaw position, and open mouth shape for belt were supported by
other published studies of teachers and researchers.4,12,14,15,31,38,39
Most participants agreed that the larynx is generally higher
for belt than for classical styles, although T1 and T9 stated
that there were some exceptions to this view. Lovetri et al41
compared laryngeal and pharyngeal behavior for professional
female singers producing head, belt, and mix and found high pitches. This controversy is representative of a larger dis-
that the larynx is likely to be in a more elevated position for belt
than for legit, but that some singers appear to maintain a rela-
tively low larynx position. Four of the seven subjects had a
lower laryngeal position for belt than for mix, whereas two
other singers showed no change.
There was general consensus among participants that belt
required a narrowing of the pharynx to produce the distinctive
brightness of this sound. Although twang is a term that is not
used by many US pedagogues, it is commonly used in Australia
and the United Kingdom and appears to share many physiolog-
ical characteristics with belt; a higher CQ,55,56 higher subglottic
pressure,56 narrowing of the pharyngeal area,19,39,55,57 a more
open mouth,19 higher frequencies of the first two formants,19,56
and a peak of the spectrum at 3000 Hz.39,58
One participant suggested that a tilted cricoid cartilage
was necessary for safe belting; however, two teachers dis-
agreed with this view, whereas the other nine teachers did not
refer to cricoid function at all. Estill4,53 and teachers trained
in this methodology argue that the cricoid cartilage tilts
downward during healthy belting, shortening, and thickening
the vocal folds to facilitate a longer closed phase and a
greater degree of subglottic pressure. However, there appears
to be little physiological evidence for the capacity of the
cricoid cartilage to tilt. The cricoid cartilage is fixed to the
rings of cartilage around the trachea and does not move,
although there is movement at the cricothyroid joint (enabling
posterior and anterior movement of the thyroid cartilage) and
at the cricoarytenoid joint (enabling a synovial movement of
the arytenoid cartilage).59 An experimental MRI study would
need to be done to confirm cricoid tilting, and there do not
appear to be any studies of this kind to date.
Belt substyles
Most participants named more than one type of belt sound,
using a range of terms. The view that belt is made up of a range
of subcategories is shared by other teachers33,35,36 and
researchers.34 A single subject study found that expert listeners
were able to detect differences between belting substyles
(heavy, brassy, ringy, nasal, and speech-like) and that there
were measurable differences at the voice source between the
styles.60 However, in a study of six professional music theater
128.e10
singers, Bourne and Garnier21 found that there were no signif-
icant differences between two belt qualities (twangy and
chesty), except for a higher R2 frequency in twangy belt
compared with chesty belt. A higher R2 frequency can be
related to a higher and more forward tongue position, suggest-
ing that these singers brought the tongue forward for this style.
Registration
Although most teachers agreed that belt is heavier with
thicker vocal folds than legit, there was some controversy
about the relationship between chest register and the belt
sound. Four of the teachers stated that belt was not the same
quality as chest register, whereas another teacher suggested
that belt was defined as chest register taken up to relatively
cussion among the pedagogical and research community. There
appear to be two main arguments regarding chest register and
the CCM belt voice; (1) that belt is characterized by producing
chest register at a higher frequency than would be used for
classical singing,7,42,61 or (2) that belt is produced differently
from chest voice at the larynx and the vocal tract.5,53,6264
It is difficult to find a clear definition for vocal registers when
there are so many different terms used by singing teachers and
voice professionals. In a review of vocal registers, Henrich65
suggests that registers can be defined by (1) distinct laryngeal
behavior, (2) as a series of sounds with a perceptually homog-
enous sound, or by a combination of the two. Laryngeal mech-
anisms can be defined as the vocal fold function underlying the
four vocal registers: vocal fry (M0), chest/modal (M1), head/
falsetto (M2), and whistle/flageolet (M3). Each laryngeal
mechanism has distinct patterns of glottal vibration as observed
by EGG.66 Laryngeal mechanisms M1 and M2 are most
frequently used in speech and singing and underlie chest/
modal and head/falsetto registers, respectively.67 Laryngeal
mechanism M1 is characterized by thicker vocal folds, domi-
nance of the thyroarytenoid muscle, greater vibrational ampli-
tude of the vocal fold, and a contact phase in the range of 30
80% of the vibratory cycle. Laryngeal mechanism M2 has
thinner vocal folds, cricothyroid dominance over the thyroary-
tenoid muscle, the vocal fold vibration has less amplitude, and a
contact phase that is less than 50%. Experimental research on
the laryngeal mechanisms has only been conducted with clas-
sical singers to date; however, there appear to be some similar-
ities between the vocal fold behavior of belt and laryngeal
mechanism M1; that is, a relatively long contact phase and
thicker vocal folds. Furthermore, an overlap range for laryngeal
mechanisms M1 and M2 has been identified in classical singers;
generally between C4 and C5. In practice, this would mean that
a female singer could choose to transition from M1 to M2 low in
her range, producing a more heady or legit sound for most of her
range, or alternately, she may choose to delay the transition
from M1 to M2 until she reaches C5, producing a more
chesty or belt quality up until that frequency. This explana-
tion supports the theory that belt is produced by carrying
chest register to relatively high pitches compared with legit or
classical singing.
128.e11
Laryngeal mechanisms are not a new way of naming regis-
ters; laryngeal mechanisms simply describe vocal fold function
underlying the registers. It is hoped that research of this kind
may improve our understanding of the physiology of the voice
and move the singing community beyond a centuries old con-
troversy about the definition of vocal registers.
Mix
Nine of the participants agreed that mix is a blend of chest and
head registers or TA-dominant and CT-dominant modes of
vocal fold function. Some suggested that mix was a lighter
version of belt or chest voice, whereas others suggested that it
was legit or head voice with extra twang. Mix may be a
mode of singing that corresponds to healthy speech, with for-
ward placement and uniformity of sound throughout the
midrange.
Although there are no studies of laryngeal mechanisms in the
CCM mix voice, there have been some findings on the classical
voix mixte sound68,69 suggesting a contrary theory; that
voix mixte is produced in either laryngeal mechanism M1
or M2 but never in an intermediary mechanism nor in a
simultaneous blend of both mechanisms. It appears that in
voix mixte, singers modify vocal effort and vocal tract
shape to disguise the transition between mechanisms. Bourne
and Garnier21 recorded EGG, vocal tract resonance fre-
quencies, and the radiated spectrum of three musical theater
singers producing mix voice at the transition frequencies be-
tween M1 and M2. Although they were not able to clearly mea-
sure the laryngeal mechanisms, they did find that each singer
employed different strategies at the glottis and vocal tract to
produce a perceptually blended sound.21
Male belt
Results from Table 4 suggest that most teachers consider the
male belt range to be produced around the area of register tran-
sition from laryngeal mechanism M1 to laryngeal mechanism
M2.61 However, teachers struggled to name or describe exam-
ples of male belters. Only two male belt singers were named
more than once, and they are both pop singers (Table 5).
There are no scientific studies to date of the male music the-
ater belt sound. It could be speculated that the requirement for
textual comprehension has led composers to limit the pitch
range of songs to the middle vocal range, generally below the
pitch range where belt is most pronounced.
CONCLUSIONS
Belt, legit, and mix are considered by expert teachers to be
distinct sounds with different glottal and resonance produc-
tions. Teachers had differing views on how to teach breathing
for belt, and there was some confusion about the male belt
sound, mix voice, and the relationship between chest voice/reg-
ister and belt. In general, the expert teachers did agree that belt
is likely to be produced with a greater effort level, a higher lar-
ynx and tongue, higher subglottal pressure, and a longer closed
phase at the glottis. Teacher responses suggest that there may be
more than one type of belt sound, with variations in weight
and tone color. Teachers generally agreed that belt has a percep-
Journal of Voice, Vol. 30, No. 1, 2016
tually thick or heavy quality that is produced at relatively
high pitches.
The quality of speech-like singing in music theater vocal
styles was a ubiquitous theme among the pedagogues inter-
viewed for this study. Music theater repertoire demands a holis-
tic approach to the performance; character choices affect the
vocal quality, as do the lyrics, dramatic action, and the
emotional demands of the song. Great songs work well because
the melodic and rhythmic contour correlate with the language
as it would be spoken. Music theater vocal qualities do not exist
in isolation from the dramatic demands of the text. However,
identifying the stylistic, physiological, and acoustic properties
of these vocal qualities is essential to developing a safe and
effective pedagogy for a demanding profession.
REFERENCES
1. Stanley D. The Science of Voice. New York: Carl Fischer; 1929.
2. Howell E. Chest Voice-Belting. New York City: Equity News; 1978:14.
3. Osborne C. The Broadway voice part 1: just singin in the pain. High Fidel-
ity. 1979;29:5365.
4. Estill J. Observations about the quality called belting. In: Weinberg B,
Lawrence V, eds. The Ninth Symposium, Care of the Professional Voice.
The Juilliard School. New York City: Voice Foundation; 1980:8288.
5. Estill J. Belting and classic voice quality: some physiological differences.
Med Probl Perform Art. 1988;3:3743.
6. Sundberg J, Thalen M, Alku P, Vilkmann E. Estimating perceived phona-
tory pressedness in singing from flow glottograms. J Voice. 2004;18:5662.
7. Schutte HK, Miller DG. Belting and pop, nonclassical approaches to the fe-
male middle voice: some preliminary conclusions. J Voice. 1993;7:
142150.
8. Thalen M, Sundberg J. Describing different styles of singing: a comparison
of a female singers voice source in Classical, Pop, Jazz and
Blues. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol. 2001;26:8293.
9. Cleveland T, Sundberg J, Stone E. LTAS characteristics of country singers
during speaking and singing. J Voice. 2001;15:5460.
10. Stone RE, Cleveland TF, Sundberg J. Formant frequencies in country
singers speech and song. J Voice. 1999;13:161167.
11. Hoit JD, Jenks CL, Watson P, Cleveland T. Respiratory function during
speaking and singing in professional country singers. J Voice. 1996;10:
3949.
12. Sundberg J, Gramming P, Lovetri J. Comparisons of pharynx, source,
formant, and pressure characteristics in operatic and musical theatre
singing. J Voice. 1993;7:301310.
13. Bjorkner E. Musical theatre and opera singingwhy so different? A study
of subglottal pressure, voice source, and formant frequency characteristics.
J Voice. 2008;22:533540.
14. Stone RE, Cleveland T, Sundberg J, Prokop J. Aerodynamic and acoustical
measures of speech, operatic and Broadway vocal styles in a professional
female singer. J Voice. 2003;17:283297.
15. Titze I, Worley A. Modeling source-filter interaction in belting and high-
pitched operatic male singing. J Acoust Soc Am. 2009;126:15301540.
16. Cleveland T, Stone E, Sundberg J, Iwarsson J. Estimated subglottal pressure
in six professional country singers. J Voice. 1997;11:403409.
17. Doskov D, Ivanov T, Boyanov B. Comparative analysis of singers high
formant in different type of singing voices. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 1995;
47:291295.
18. Sundberg J, Cleveland T, Stone RE, Iwarsson J. Voice source characteristics
in six premier country singers. J Voice. 1999;31:168183.
19. Story B, Titze I, Hoffman E. The relationship of vocal tract shape to three
voice qualities. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001;109:16511667.
20. Barlow C, Lovetri J. Closed quotient and spectral measures of female
adolescent singers in different singing styles. J Voice. 2010;24:314318.
21. Bourne T, Garnier M. Physiological and acoustic characteristics of the fe-
male Music Theatre voice. J Acoust Soc Am. 2012;131:15861594.
Tracy Bourne and Dianna Kenny Vocal Qualities in Music Theater
22. Green K, Freeman W, Edwards M, Meyer D. Trends in musical theatre
voice: an analysis of audition requirements for singers. J Voice. 2014;28:
324327.
23. Bourne T, Garnier M, Kenny D. Music theatre voice: production, physi-
ology and pedagogy. J Singing. 2011;67:437444.
24. Delp R. Now that the belt voice has become legitimate. J Singing. 2001;57:
12.
25. Gehling D, Sridharan S, Fritz M, Friedmann DR, Fang Y, Amin MR,
Branski RC. Backstage at Broadway: a demographic study. J Voice.
2014;28:311315.
26. Edwin R. A Broader Broadway. J Singing. 2003;59:431432.
27. Melton J. Singing in Musical Theatre: The Training of Singers and Actors.
New York: Allworth Press; 2007.
28. AATS. American Academy of Teachers of Singing: In Support of Contem-
porary Commercial Music (Nonclassical) Voice Pedagogy. New York City:
An American Academy of Teachers of Singing Paper; 2008:14.
29. Lovetri J. Contemporary commercial music. J Voice. 2008;22:260262.
30. LeBorgne WD, Lee L, Stemple JC, Bush H. Perceptual findings on the
broadway belt voice. J Voice. 2010;24:678689.
31. Edwin R. Belt yourself. J Singing. 2004;60:285288.
32. Edwin R. Belting: bel canto or brutto canto. J Singing. 2002;58:6768.
33. Popeil L. The multiplicity of belting. J Singing. 2007;64:7780.
34. Miles B, Hollien H. Whither belting? J Voice. 1990;4:6470.
35. Lovetri J. Contemporary commercial music: more than one way to use the
vocal tract. J Singing. 2002;58:249252.
36. Deer JD, Rocco. Acting in Musical Theatre: A Comprehensive Course. Mil-
ton Park, Oxon; New York, New York: Routledge; 2008.
37. Burdick B. Vocal techniques for music theater: the high school and under-
graduate singer. J Singing. 2005;61:261268.
38. Lawrence V. Laryngological observations on belting. J Res in Singing.
1979;2:2628.
39. Yanagisawa E, Estill J, Kmucha S, Leder S. The contribution of aryepiglot-
tic constriction to ringing voice qualitya videolaryngoscopic study
with acoustic analysis. J Voice. 1983;3:342350.
40. Balog JE. A guide to evaluating music theater singing for the classical
teacher. J Singing. 2005;61:401406.
41. Lovetri J, Lesh S, Woo P. Preliminary study on the ability of trained singers
to control the intrinsic and extrinsic laryngeal musculature. J Voice. 1999;
13:219226.
42. Bestebreurtje M, Schutte HK. Resonance strategies for the belting style: re-
sults of a single female subject study. J Voice. 2000;14:194204.
43. McCoy S. A classical pedagogue explores belting. J Singing. 2007;64:
545549.
44. Bjorkner E, Sundberg J, Cleveland T, Stone E. Voice source differences be-
tween registers in female musical theatre singers. J Voice. 2006;20:
187197.
45. Epps J, Smith J, Wolfe J. A novel instrument to measure acoustic resonances
of the vocal tract during speech. Meas Sci Technol. 1997;8:11121121.
46. Bunch M, Chapman J. Taxonomy of singers used as subjects in scientific
research. J Voice. 2000;14:363369.
47. Ragsdale FW. Perspectives on Belting and Belting Pedagogy: A Compari-
son of Teachers of Classical Voice Students, Teachers of Nonclassical Voice
Students, and Music Theater Singers [D.M.A.]. United States, Florida: Uni-
versity of Miami; 2004.
128.e12
48. Phyland DJ, Oates J, Greenwood KM. Self-reported voice problems among
three groups of professional singers. J Voice. 1999;13:602611.
49. Phyland DJ, Thibeault SL, Benninger M, Vallance N, Greenwood K,
Smith JA. Perspectives on the impact on vocal function of heavy vocal
load among working professional music theater performers. J Voice.
2013;27:3139.
50. Evans R, Evans R, Carvajal S. A survey of injuries among broadway per-
formers: types of injuries, treatments and perceptions of performers. Med
Probl Perform Art. 1996;11:1519.
51. Hoffman-Ruddy B, Lehman J, Crandell C, Ingram D, Sapienza C. Laryng-
ostroboscopic, acoustic, and environmental characteristics of high-risk per-
formers. J Voice. 2001;15:543552.
52. Weekly EM, LoVetri J. Follow-up Contemporary Commercial Music:
whos teaching what in nonclassical music? J Voice. 2009;23:367375.
53. Kayes G. Singing and the Actor. 2nd ed. London: A & C Black; 2004.
54. Lebowitz A, Baken RJ. Correlates of the belt voice: a broader examination.
J Voice. 2011;25:159165.
55. Titze I, Bergan C, Hunter E, Story B. Source and filter adjustments affecting
the perception of the vocal qualities twang and yawn. Logoped Phoniatr Vo-
col. 2003;28:147155.
56. Sundberg J, Thalen M. What is Twang. J Voice. 2010;24:654660.
57. Titze I. Acoustic interpretation of resonant voice. J Voice. 2001;15:519528.
58. Nawka T, Anders LC, Cebulla M, Zurakowski D. The speakers formant in
male voices. J Voice. 1997;11:422428.
59. Netter F. In: Atlas of Human Anatomy, Vol. 5. St Louis, Missouri: Saunders;
2010.
60. Sundberg J, Thalen M, Popeil L. Substyles of belting: phonatory and reso-
natory characteristics. J Voice. 2012;26:4450.
61. Miller DG. Registers in Singing: Empirical and Systematic Studies in the
Theory of the Singing Voice. Groningen: University of Groningen; 2000.
62. Bevan RV. Belting and Chest Voice: Perceptual Differences and Spectral
Correlates. United States, New York: Columbia University Teachers Col-
lege; 1989.
63. Peckham A. The Contemporary Singer: Elements of Vocal Technique. Bos-
ton, USA: Berklee Press; 2000.
64. Echternach M, Popeil L, Traser L, Wienhausen S, Richter B. Vocal tract
shapes in different singing functions used in musical theatre singinga pi-
lot study. J Voice. 2014;28:653.e651653.e657.
65. Henrich N. Mirroring the voice from Garcia to the present day: some in-
sights into singing voice registers. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol. 2006;31:314.
66. Henrich N, dAlessandro C, Doval B, Castellengo M. On the use of the de-
rivative of electroglottographic signals for characterization of nonpatholog-
ical phonation. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004;115:13211332.
67. Roubeau B, Henrich N, Castellengo M. Laryngeal vibratory mechanisms:
the notion of vocal register revisited. J Voice. 2009;23:425438.
68. Castellengo M, Chuberre B, Henrich N. Is Voix Mixte, the Vocal Tech-
nique Used to Smooth the Transition across the Two Main Laryngeal Mech-
anisms, an Independent Mechanism? Paper presented at: Proceedings of
ISMA. Nara, Japan: International Society of Music Acoustics; 2004.
69. Lamesch S, Expert R, Castellengo M, Henrich N, Chuberre B. Investigating
voix mixte: a scientific challenge towards a renewed vocal pedagogy. In:
Maimets-Volk K, Parncutt R, Marin M, Ross J, eds. Proceedings of the 3rd
Conference on Interdisciplinary Musicology (CIM07). Tallinn, Estonia: Con-
ference on Interdisciplinary Musicology (CIM07); 2007.