Voice and Speech Review

ISSN: 2326-8263 (Print) 2326-8271 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rvsr20

Reflections on contemporary commercial singing:

an insiders perspective

Irene Bartlett

To cite this article: Irene Bartlett (2014) Reflections on contemporary commercial singing: an
insiders perspective, Voice and Speech Review, 8:1, 27-35, DOI: 10.1080/23268263.2013.829711

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23268263.2013.829711

Published online: 16 Jan 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1053

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rvsr20

Download by: [187.59.192.177] Date: 27 March 2017, At: 06:31

Voice and Speech Review, 2014
Vol. 8, No. 1, 2735, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23268263.2013.829711

Reections on contemporary commercial singing: an insiders

perspective
Irene Bartlett*

Vocal Pedagogy, Queensland Conservatorium, Grifth University, Brisbane, Australia

To date, few studies have incorporated singers of contemporary commercial music

styles (CCM singers) into their participant samples. When CCM singers have had
some small representation, the researchers typically have been from outside the CCM
areas of voice, and reports have featured either laboratory-based testing of small
participant samples or investigation of symptomology from patients seeking treatment
in voice clinics. For the most part, this etic (outsider) reporting lacks consideration
of the real world performance contexts and environmental conditions of professional
contemporary gig singers (PCGS) work-life. What follows here are reections that
have evolved from my lifelong career as both PCGS and teacher of CCM
singing styles. Additionally, the self-reports of 102 PCGS in Australia present an
insider view of the real world from the lived experiences of this important, yet
under-researched, group of professional voice users.

Introduction
Today, more than at any time in the past, singers dominate the recorded music industry.
Most are not singers of classical repertoire; they belong to the eld of contemporary
commercial music (CCM) that encompasses a wide range of non-classical vocal styles,
including pop, rock, country, R&B, dance, rap, jazz, musical theatre, and numerous
associated sub-styles (Bartlett 2011; LoVetri 2002). These are professional singers
within the CCM industry who create a market for their music through the development
of specic stage personae, where their vocal individuality and style innovation
determines their career success and longevity. They have high public prole, high
marketability and public appeal, and earn many millions of dollars collectively through
concert performances, recordings, public appearances, and product endorsements
(Bartlett 2010; LoVetri 2008). They are regarded highly by their public and much is
known about their lifestyles from media reports; yet, very little empirical information
exists about them as professional voice users.
Along with the phenomenal success of contemporary commercial recorded music,
commercial live music performance has ourished. This area of CCM industry is
populated generally by professional contemporary gig singers (PCGS); that is, singers
who earn their income through regular performances of CCM styles in local, national,
and sometimes international contexts, either emulating the star recording artists in
cover bands, or performing their original music in various band combinations in a
range of live music commercial venues (e.g. pubs, clubs, hotel function rooms, and
open-air settings). Whether working as self-accompanied solo artists, as lead or back-up

*Email: i.bartlett@grifth.edu.au

2013 Voice and Speech Trainers Association

28 I. Bartlett

singers in band line-ups, in concert and theatre productions, or as street performers at

theme parks, these singer/performers are regularly engaged in a range of physical activi-
ties other than those of actual singing and speaking (Bartlett 2010). In addition to the
frequency and duration of their performances, they are required to dance to, or at least
move in time with, the rhythm of the repertoire while simultaneously employing a range
of stylistic vocal effects to deliver an authentic performance in each style (Bartlett 2010;
Radinoff 2006). As gig protocol demands, these singers may also be required to set up
musical instruments and sound gear both prior to, and after, each performance. These
are very different performance challenges to those experienced by classical singers.
PCGS are engaged in a complex array of orchestrated relationships in each and
every performance. As the lead singer, they front the band acting as a conduit between
the instrumentalists and the audience while managing a range of complex activities. For
example, jazz singers are expected to engage their audience as they hold a musical con-
versation with other instrumentalists through simultaneous improvization of rhythm,
phrasing, and interpretation of the music and lyrics through the chord progression rather
than the melody (Wilson 2003). Singers in cover bands face similar but different
challenges as they satisfy their audiences with a carbon copy of the visual and sound
production of the original recording artists they emulate. In addition to a lead singing
role, PCGS may be expected to double as back-up singers and/or to play an instrument
as they interact with other members of the band (Bartlett 2010).
In spite of their signicant number and high public visibility, PCGS continue to be
overlooked or excluded from research studies and their distinct pedagogical needs go
unaddressed by those pedagogues who dominate the singing voice literature (Bartlett
2011; Lobdell 2006; Williams 2003). What follows is my emic (insider) view of the
CCM eld, informed by the results of my ongoing research of PCGS as a population.

The etic/emic dilemma

From an anthropological perspective, an etic account comes from an outsider, or
observer from outside the culture; an emic or insider account comes from a person
within the culture (Pike 1990; Goodenough 1980; Harris 1976). These perspectives are
qualitatively different with respect to the locus of connectionthat is, why and how
something is done by a group, what is said about a group, and by whom (be it the
experiencer or the commentator).
For the most part, etic reporting is in reality observer-commentary, useful and help-
ful in description and relatively objective, though lacking the power of emic accounts of
what underlies what is being observed. The predominantly etic views of the CCM eld
found in the literature lack insight into and limit consideration of the real world
performance contexts and environmental conditions of PCGS work-life. This limitation
is exacerbated where laboratory-based testing and clinical observations are the source of
academic literature, rather than observation of live performance and commentary from
CCM singers themselves.
I claim insider knowledge through my enduring career as a teacher of CCM styles
in both private studio and university environments (30 years collectively) and my
extensive experience as a professional contemporary gig singer performing across the
range of CCM styles (47 years continuing). Throughout this lengthy teaching and per-
formance career, I have maintained a healthy and robust speaking and singing voice
while also experiencing an ongoing and signicant increase in vocal range and stamina.
My continuing vocal health and reliable vocal production stand in contradiction to
 Voice and Speech Review 29

commonly held views such as: CCM styles are damaging to the vocal instrument, CCM
styles cannot be sustained throughout an enduring performance career, and voices
necessarily deteriorate with age, particularly where performance involves non-classical
singing styles. Such views are not supported by grounded research but appear
to stem from a literature where small-sample studies of treatment-seeking singers,
laboratory-based research of individual singers, or opinion-based, anecdotal reports from
commentators outside the CCM eld predominate.
Against a background of study in anatomy and physiology of the voice, I continue to
explore the great wealth of information on singing provided by classically oriented peda-
gogues and researchers. As both studio teacher and university lecturer in Vocal Pedagogy
(a team-delivered program with a classical voice colleague) and Jazz/Contemporary
Voice, I have worked to integrate my pedagogical involvement with PCGS, observations
of live CCM performance environments, and my own performance experiences as an
investigation of the impact of voice problems for this signicant professional voice-user
group. This research interest led me to collaborative interactions with speech pathologists
and an associated group of medical colleagues (otolaryngologists) who, through their
voice clinic practices, had an ongoing involvement with singers.
Conversations held within voice team interactions revealed that some of their
previous collaborations with classically trained voice teachers had proven unsatisfactory
in terms of long-term improvement for professional singers of CCM styles. From an
emic standpoint, I can report that CCM singers will reject technical work that produces
a trained vocal production (e.g. legato line, developed vibrato, open vowels, and even
tone) as they strive for individuality in tone and voice quality. I can only hypothesize
that while the classically back-grounded teachers had much to offer, they may have
lacked empathy for and kinesthetic experience of the specic environments and style
demands that are basic to PCGS performance work; that is, long-duration singing over
amplied instruments (34 h for a typical gig performance), continuous background
noise (food and drink preparation, high-volume conversation, and communication
between patrons and staff), and the style-driven need for a thyroarytenoid-dominant
vocal production and strongly rhythmic, speech-like phrasing. As Sullivan (1989) and
LoVetri (2008) suggest, the CCM singers options would have been to adapt the
proffered classical techniques as best as they could or to reject them and return to their
habitual voice production

PCGSin their own words

In the course of my research, the opinion of Walsh, Tobin, and Graue (1993) that
as researchers, we have measured people, but we have not listened to them, (465)
resounded with me. It gave voice to my concerns about the relative absence of emic
reports in the literature of singing voice and highlighted the narrowness of research
which tests and observes, but neglects to investigate the impact of singers own beliefs
and practices. I did not want the participants in my inquiry to be positioned as objects
to be studied in the positivist sense (Zuber-Skerrit 2008); rather, it was important for
the study to accurately record the singers own real life experiences. I was interested
to hear what PCGS themselves had to say about their performance work-life and to
investigate the ways in which they managed their ongoing vocal health. These
deliberations led to the development of a self-report survey questionnaire, where 102
Australian PCGS were able to document their lived experiences (Georgi 1985).
30 I. Bartlett

Fifty-nine female and 43 male PCGS participated in the study. Through their
self-reports, they provided information-rich data including: demographic description of
(a) age and gender, (b) performance career durations and training histories, (c) styles of
singing performancecurrent and past (e.g. pop, rock, country, etc.), and (d) frequency/
duration of performances and rehearsals and environmental conditions in which these
occurred (e.g. types of venues). It is beyond the scope of this article to report the results
of all aspects of the study; however, what follows is a snapshot of the performance lives
of PCGS as a population.
The participants ages ranged from 19 to 61 years. On average, they rst sang pub-
licly at 12 years of age with 85% having done so at 16 years or younger. Typically,
their rst professional engagement occurred when they were 18 years old with 85%
having performed professionally at, or before the age of 23 years. The majority reported
continuous performances since their rst paid work. For some, this represented an
ongoing performance career of between 20 and 35 years.
Both male and female participants reported singing across a wide range of CCM
styles in their current and past gig performances with heavy representation in pop, rock,
R&B, and dance/funk. The predominance of pop and rock styles in PCGS perfor-
mances was not unexpected as participants generally were singing within a range of
professional gig cover bands. As an insider, I know that the success of these gig bands
is dependent on audience appeal and on meeting a general public preference for covers
(i.e. the live performance of a named artists recording). The singer is considered the
front man and is expected to accurately reproduce specic characteristics of the
recording artists style embellishments and elements of idiosyncratic vocal production.
The collected data conrmed that PCGS sing frequently and for long durations in
their gig performances. Participants reported gig performances of 36 hours duration
with an average of four hours per gig/session (a performance call of four h is the
Australian standard); the majority worked 25 gigs/sessions per week on average in a
wide range of performance venues, including pubs, clubs, bistros, restaurants, large and
small hotel function rooms, and open-air venues. Fifty-eight percent of participants
reported that they played an instrument sometimes, often, or all the time while singing
in their gig performances. In addition to their playing, participants in this group were
spending 75% of their time as lead singer and 25% as back-up singer on average.
When factored alongside the frequency and duration of their singing performances,
non-performance voice use such as the frequency and duration of participants rehearsal
involvement and on the gig and after the gig social interactions added signicantly to
PCGS overall vocal load. All participants reported regular involvement in some form
of rehearsal, be it full band, solo instrument, or unaccompanied, and in a range of
formatswith the full band (on average 2.55 times per month), with a solo instrument
(on average 5.26 times per month), and unaccompanied (on average 7.71 times per
month). They reported the average duration of their band rehearsals to be 2.4 h, the
average length of rehearsal with a solo instrument as 1.33 h, and the average length of
unaccompanied rehearsal to be 0.85 h. While I am mindful that, regardless of genre and
style, all professional singers may experience excessive voice use, for PCGS this is an
accepted and expected work-life reality.
As an insider I can report that PCGS rarely have the opportunity to work in
performance environments where entertainment is the primary focus. PCGS in the study
reported that they often needed to raise their singing and speaking voice levels in order
to monitor their vocal output against the din of background noise common to CCM
venues. Most often, their singing was produced in poor acoustic spaces over amplied
 Voice and Speech Review 31

instruments in a background of continuous white noise where loud conversation

between patrons and hospitality staff and the noise created in food and drink preparation
typies their performance environments.

Not better or worse, but different

There are marked differences in performance conditions and vocal production for CCM
and classical singers. As early as 1988, Estill reported her observations of these
differences (Estill 1988) and, in a much-cited journal article, Schutte and Miller (1993)
identied the major elements of vocal production inherent in both classical and non-
classical styles, nding the most obvious difference to be in the production of vocal tone.
Voice science research clearly states that the speech-based, forward, bright voice
quality that typies CCM singing is very different from the vocal production of classical
singers in terms of coordination of the laryngeal musculature, acoustic set up, breath
management, and most importantly registration, especially for female singers, where
CCM keys are set typically in the lower octave over a range of F3C5 and up to Eb5
(Bartlett 2010). Additionally, a neutral to higher larynx position, narrowed pharynx,
high back of tongue position, and personalized phrasing is accompanied by a speech-
like articulation, consonant-driven vocal production with voicing of diphthongs as in
speech (rather than pure vowels). In keeping with this speech-driven vocal production,
CCM singers employ limited or no vibrato and a specic acoustic set up (presence of
the raised second formant in the absence of the singers formant). In the past, these
differences in vocal production have been viewed as aesthetically inferior by classically
oriented commentators (Edwin 2002) and differences in technique have been considered
to be vocally damaging, and therefore regarded as awed by classically back-grounded
pedagogues (Spivey 2008).
As previously reported (Bartlett 2010), in addition to the dening elements of style
and sub-style (i.e. thyroarytenoid-dominant speech production, speech phrasing, and a
bright, forward resonance), the vocal production of CCM singers often requires a
complex layering of effects: growl, glottal onsets, and scream, particularly for rock
singing; soft onset, yell, and vocal fry, particularly for pop singing; yodeling, crying,
and riding an American r, particularly for country singing; breathy onset, glottal
stroke, and scat, particularly for jazz singing; character voice, belt, legit (modied
classical), and pop/rock elements, particularly for music theatre singing (Bartlett 2010;
Phyland, et al. 1999; Radinoff 2006; Wilson 2003). Any or all of these vocal elements
and effects can cross over style boundaries to be employed by a CCM singer in a single
performance. Some authors have reected on the hybrid nature of popular music and
the crossover of style boundaries (Hall 1997), while ongoing studies in the eld of
voice science (Bjorkner 2008; Bjorkner et al. 2006; Burns 1986; Radinoff 2006; Thalen
and Sundberg 2001) describe a distinctive vocal production that is identiably different
from that of classical singers.
For example, and in view of these differences, it is most unlikely that a traditional
classical training model will equip singers to manage mainstream CCM performance
styles, such as rock, pop, R&B, country, and jazz; or, the CCM style repertoire that
underpins the story in many of todays modern musical theatre productions (e.g. We Will
Rock You, Rent, Hairspray, or The Book of Mormon). As early as 1997, Robert Edwin
was offering teachers similar cautionary advice (Edwin 1997):

But, teachers of singing, dont send your students off to New York City to audition for
Rent armed with songs from Carousel or South Pacic. The sentimentality may be similar,
32 I. Bartlett

but the music, as mentioned before, is most decidedly not. Your singers need to be
equipped with pop/rock voices and style, and pop/rock repertoire gleaned from shows such
as Hair, Tommy, Godspell, Blood Brothers, Jekyll and Hyde, Starlight Express, and Fame,
or from current pop-and-rock artists such as Melissa Etheridge, Bruce Springsteen, Sheryl
Crow, and Luther Vandross (59).

In addition to tessitura and registration differences, articulation, breath ow, and abdom-
inal support needed for CCM repertoire is effectively different from that of classical
singing and will also vary according to the particular CCM style being sung. In view of
these primary differences, the relevance of traditional classical technique(s) becomes
highly questionable when imposed on singers of CCM styles. Some authors continue to
plainly and strenuously challenge the view that traditional classical training is sufcient
for singing success in any style or genre. For example:

If classical vocal training is good for every kind of vocal sound, why dont opera singers
get hired to sing in Rent, or Hairspray or Suessical, sounding like opera singers? Is
everyone completely deaf? Dont they know the difference between the sounds of a
classical singer and a pop/rock singer? (http://somaticvoicework.com/the-great-divide/)

Singing voice pedagogythe times they are a-changing, or are they?

In 2008, the American Academy of Teachers of Singing considered it important to
encourage their membership to adopt an expansion into a systematic practical approach
to teaching genres included in CCM and other non classical singing (7). The paper
stated that techniques for CCM styles have not been clearly dened nor seriously
addressed in traditional voice pedagogy texts, and recognized that the prevailing one
size ts all classical training approach to singing technique is no longer valid:

Though many singers perform successfully in both classical and CCM styles, the vocal
techniques required to produce those styles are not likely to be interchangeable. Vocal
techniques had been developed that served a variety of vocal literature including opera, ora-
torio, national and international art songs, as well as certain sacred and secular music
Unfortunately, techniques for singing other genres such as folk, gospel, blues, jazz, pop,
and rock, which fall under a new heading called CCM, have been neither clearly dened
nor seriously addressed in traditional voice pedagogy texts. While it is true that all singers
must breathe, phonate, resonate, and articulate, they do not necessarily approach these tech-
nical elements in the same manner. Recent acoustic, physiologic, and pedagogic research
challenges the widely held belief that classically based voice techniques alone can serve the
worlds diversity of singing styles. (American Academy of Teachers of Singing 2008, 10)

This was a benchmark statement, as The Academy (est. 1922) is recognized as having
held a conservative view on the teaching of singing and had previously taken a very
different stance, where they recommended that voice teachers make the student aware
of the vocal damage inherent in pop/rock singing (American Academy 1986).
In his regular column in the Journal of Singing, Edwin (2000) commented that [in
his view] teachers of singing remained reluctant to move away from their traditional
ideas of registration, tone, and voice quality and were either excluding singers of
non-classical styles from their studios or giving them a technique inappropriate for
CCM style performance. LoVetri and Weekly (2003) offered an insight into the
classical is best attitude of some teachers. Their data were collected through a survey
completed by both US and internationally based attendees at a NATS Winter Workshop.
In discussing their ndings, the authors reported that The most interesting data of this
 Voice and Speech Review 33

research are that there are a signicant number (19%) of people teaching CCM/MT who
have no professional experience and no training at all related to it. And, It would
seem reasonable to assume, based on the data from the survey, that the largest body of
candidates are those with expertise in a related eld, such as opera (214).
The LoVetri and Weekly ndings are signicant, as many teachers now incorporate
CCM repertoire in their teaching foliosmost probably in response to a growing
student demand. Without professional experience and/or training in CCM, it is highly
likely that they will perpetuate the one size ts all model by imposing traditional
classical training techniques on their CCM-oriented singer/students.
Recently, I attended two international voice conferences where classical repertoire
and pedagogy presentations dominated both programs with only some small presentation
of CCM styles. At one of the conferences, I listened with interest to audience members
conversations during and after a performance of musical theatre repertoire. The prevail-
ing view of the teachers around me appeared to be that classical training would greatly
improve the musical theatre singers vocal production in terms of volume and core
strength. It was apparent that these comments did not come from practitioners within
the CCM eld but rather from etic commentators who appeared to lack personal
experience and knowledge of the unique demands of CCM performance styles. They
overlooked or were unaware of the fact that the young musical theatre performers were
using an appropriate, style-related low registration, and a genre-appropriate tone produc-
tion which, without the assistance of live sound reinforcement (microphones), could not
carry into the expansive, high-ceiling ballroom as had the traditional high register,
vowel-dominant vocal production of classical singers the evening before. For speech
quality singing to be produced at sustainable volumes in this type of venue, the musical
theatre singers needed live sound reinforcementthis was not made available to them.
On my return to the southern hemisphere, I conducted a series of workshops (in
New Zealand and Australia) presenting an overview of technique and training strategies
for CCM singers. During a session on vocal health, an audience member asked me if I
agreed that, traditional classical training is the only reliable foundation for vocal
longevity regardless of genre [classical or CCM]. From the nodding of heads around
the room, it appeared that this was not a view held by only one of the teachers present.
A robust discussion ensued, but the one size ts all argument was brought to account
during a later master class session where it became clear to the audience that those
singers with specic classical training were unable to produce the style-appropriate,
speech quality production required for their chosen CCM repertoire.

Conclusion
To achieve success within the CCM industry, PCGS have to develop tone and timbre
that is individual to their music style. But, as cover singers, they also need the ability to
mimic idiosyncratic tone and style elements of the star performers with the high degree
of accuracy that is expected by CCM audiences. This extends the scope of technique to
include a wide variety of style-related sounds, some of which may appear raw and
undisciplined to listeners with a classical aesthetic. However, any such aesthetically
based tension may be reduced where listeners know and accept that CCM singers are
not striving for beauty of sound in the traditional sense. With such acceptance, listeners
may better enjoy performances as PCGS speak their stories through conversational
phrasing and style-appropriate regional accents, employing style-related vocal effects
while maintaining the integrity of the music.
34 I. Bartlett

The lyrics of CCM repertoire often are highly personal and related to everyday
experiences. Therefore, CCM singers are expected to deliver the intention of the text
with a natural speech mode (lower register), using conversational phrasing, articulation
of diphthongs, and speech-modied vowels as they manage breath, pitch, and music line
while singing articulated rhythm patterns. As with the functional elements of voice
production, these style elements are very different from the Italian vowel-based legato
line, even tone, upper register production that are expected and valued in classical
singing (Bartlett 2010).
As insider reports and scientic evidence continue to support assertions that the
functional requirements for CCM singing are very different from classical singing
function, the ongoing application of a classical aesthetic to a systematic, objective study
of CCM styles has been recognized increasingly for the contention it involves (Bartlett
2010; LoVetri 2006; Lebon 1986; The American Academy of Teachers of Singing
2008). However, a consequence of this is that there are encouraging signs that research-
ers and pedagogues are beginning to address the challenges posed by an audience and
singer/student demand in a changing landscape of music preference. While neither
group has yet addressed the needs of CCM singers as comprehensively as they have
those of classical singers, there does appear to be a positive setting aside of style and
genre preference in favor of a more informed reporting. Research with CCM singers
rather than about them might further accelerate this development by bringing to focus
the real world demands of CCM music styles, gig environments, and vocal health issues
faced by this signicant and talented group of performers.

Notes on contributor
Irene Bartlett DMA is Coordinator of Contemporary Voice and Vocal
Pedagogy, Lecturer in Jazz Voice at the Queensland Conservatorium, Grifth
University, where her teaching and research centers on the development of
technique, vocal health, and performance longevity for singers of CCM vocal
styles. She is a past master teacher for the Australian National Association of
Teachers of Singing. Her students (past and present) are recipients of presti-
gious national and international performance, recording industry, and academic
awards. In addition to her pedagogical work, she has an enduring career as a
professional contemporary vocalist.

References
Bartlett, I. 2010. One Size Doesnt Fit All: Tailored Training for Contemporary Commercial
Singers. In Perspectives on Teaching Singing: Australian Vocal Pedagogues Sing Their
Stories, edited by S. D. Harrison, 227243. Brisbane: Australian Academic Press.
Bartlett, I. 2011. Sing Out Loud, Sing Out Long A Prole of Professional Contemporary Sing-
ers in the Australian Context. Published doctoral thesis, Grifth University, Brisbane.
Bjorkner, E. 2008. Musical Theatre and Opera Singing Why So Different? A Study of
Subglottal Pressure, Voice Source, and Formant Frequency Characteristics. Journal of Voice
29 (5): 533540.
Bjorkner, E., J. Sundberg, T. Cleveland, and E. Stone. 2006. Voice Source Differences between
Registers for Female Musical Theater Singers. Journal of Voice 20 (2): 187197.
Burns, P. 1986. Acoustical Analysis of the Underlying Voice Differences between Two Groups
of Professional Singers: Opera and Country and Western. The Laryngoscope 96 (5):
549554.
Edwin, R. 1997. Renting La Boheme. Journal of Singing 54 (1): 5960.
Edwin, R. 2000. Apples and Oranges: Belting Revisited. Journal of Singing 57 (2): 4344.
 Voice and Speech Review 35

Edwin, R. 2002. Belting: bel canto or brutto canto? Journal of Singing 59 (1): 6768.
Estill, J. 1988. Belting and Classic Voice Quality: Some Physiological Differences. Medical
Problems of Performing Artists 3 (1): 3743.
Georgi, A. 1985. Phenomenology and Psychology Research. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University
Press.
Goodenough, W. H. 1980. Description and Comparison in Cultural Anthropology. Cambridge:
Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
Hall, S. 1997. The local and the global: Globalization and ethnicity. In Dangerous Liasons:
Gender, Nation and Postcolonial Perspectives. 4th ed. edited by A. McClintock, A. Mufti,
and E. Shohat, 173178. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Harris, M. 1976. History and Signicance of the Emic/Etic Distinction. Annual Review of
Anthropology 5: 329350.
Lebon, R. L. 1986. The Effects of a Pedagogical Approach Incorporating Videotaped Demonstra-
tions on the Development of Female Vocalists Belted Vocal Technique. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Miami, FL: University of Miami.
Lobdell, M. 2006. An Investigation of the Voice in Live Performance: A Qualitative Analysis of
Voice Use by Bands. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Lafayette, LA: University of Louisiana.
LoVetri, J. 2002. Contemporary Commercial Music: More than One Way to Use the Vocal
Tract. Journal of Singing 58 (3): 249252.
LoVetri, J. 2008. Contemporary Commercial Music. Journal of Voice 22 (3): 260262.
LoVetri, J., and E. M. Weekly. 2003. Contemporary Commercial Music (CCM) Survey: Whos
Teaching What in Non-Classical Music? Journal of Voice 17 (2): 207215.
Phyland, D J, J. Oates, and K M. Greenwood. 1999. Self-Reported Voice Problems among Three
Groups of Professional Singers. Journal of Voice 13 (4): 602611.
Phyland, D. J., J. Oates, and K. M. Greenwood. 2003. Self-reported Voice Problems among three
groups of Professional Singers. Journal of Voice 13 (4): 602611.
Pike, K. L. 1990. On the Emics and Etics of Pike and Harris. In Emics and Etics: The Insider/
Outsider Debate, edited by T. N. Headland, K. L. Pike and M. Harris, 226. Newbury Park:
Sage.
Radinoff, S. L. 2006. Artistic Vocal Styles and Techniques. In The Performers Voice, edited by
M. Benninger and T. Murry, 5159. San Diego: Plural.
Schutte, H. K, and D. G. Miller. 1993. Belting and Pop, Non-classical Approaches to the Female
Middle Voice: Some Preliminary Considerations. Journal of Voice 7 (2): 142150.
Spivey, N. 2008. Music Theatre Singing. lets talk. Part 2: Examining the Debate on Belting.
Journal of Singing 64 (5): 607611.
Sullivan, J. 1989. The Phenomena of the Belt/Pop Voice. Denver: Logos.
Thalen, M., and J. Sundberg. 2001. Describing Different Styles of Singing: A Comparison of
a Female Singers Voice Source in Classical, Pop, Jazz and Blues. Logopedics
Phoniatrics Vocology 26 (2): 8293.
The American Academy of Teachers of Singing. 1986. The Pop Singer and the Voice Teacher.
Journal of Voice 43 (1): 21.
The American Academy of Teachers of Singing. 2008. In Support of Contemporary Commercial
Music (Non-Classical) Voice Pedagogy. Journal of Voice 65 (1): 710.
Walsh, D. J, J. J. Tobin, and M. E. Graue. 1993. The Interpretive Voice: Qualitative Research in
Early Childhood Education. In Handbook of Research on the Education of Young Children,
edited by J. A. Hatch, 464476. Westport: Praeger.
Williams, N. R. 2003. Occupational Groups at Risk of Voice disorders: A Review of the
Literature. Occupational Medicine 53 (7): 456460.
Wilson, P. 2003. Sinful Modern Music: Science and the Contemporary Commercial Singer.
Australian Voice 9: 1216.
Zuber-Skerritt, O. 2008. Evaluating Action Research as Professional Development: A Case
Study in Higher Education. In Evaluating Action Research, edited by E. Piggot-Irvine and
B. J. Barlett, Auckland: New Zealand Research Council.