Perceptual Findings on the Broadway Belt Voice

*Wendy DeLeo LeBorgne, †Linda Lee, ‡Joseph C. Stemple, and §Heather Bush, *Dayton, Ohio, yCincinnati, Ohio, and

zxLexington, Kentucky

Summary: The present study required raters (casting directors) to evaluate the belt voice quality of 20 musical theater

AccepThis r

Voice; JuFrom

Ohio; yTDisorderences anPublic H

AddreBlock InDayton,

Journa0892-1� 201doi:10

majors who were proficient in the singing style referred to as belting. Two specified vocalizes and six short excerpts fromthe belting repertoire were used for rating purposes. The raters were asked to judge the belters on a set of seven percep-tual parameters (loudness, vibrato, ring, timbre, focus, nasality, and registration breaks), and then report an overall scorefor these student belters. The four highest and lowest average scores were used to establish the elite and average studentbelters. A correlation analysis and linear regression analysis provided insight regarding which perceptual judgmentscorrelated most highly with the elite and average scores. The present study found the perceptual ratings of vibratoand ring to be most highly correlated to the elite student belter. In addition, vibrato and ring were found to highly cor-relate with perceived loudness.Key Words: Belting–Perceptual judgments–Singing voice–Aesthetics–Vocal beauty.

INTRODUCTION

The term belting evolved after singers, including Ethel Merman,Barbara Streisand, and Patti LuPone introduced Broadway audi-ences to a new and exciting sound over 60 years ago. Unlike theingenues of the past, belting (in the music theater arena) wasconsidered emotionally edgy and verging on the brink of sound-ing out of control. It is this unique quality which so many singershave attempted to emulate in the last 60 years, with sometimesdetrimental and career-jeopardizing effects. From a pedagogicalstandpoint, the term belting has often been associated with anunhealthy use of the vocal mechanism, and many classicallybased singing teachers find this style of singing offensive.1–4

However, unlike the extensive literature base on the classicalvoice, a consensus on the perceptual parameters of the belt voicehas not been adequately established.

Miles and Hollien5 suggested that it is difficult to experimenton belting because it lacks a clear definition. These authors fur-ther suggested that it would not be possible to formulate a rea-sonable definition until at least some relevant objective databecame available.5 Semantic confusion resulting from a lackof perceptual definitions for chest, belt, pop, and mixed singing(which may or may not be synonymous) is evident in the fewstudies that have examined the belt voice.3

In their attempt to define this method of singing, Miles andHollien5 attempted to describe perceptual characteristics ofthe belt voice based on a historical literature review and a surveyof 24 voice teachers, laryngologists, and phoneticians. Theseauthors concluded that belting is a type of singing which re-quires four vocal characteristics to be present simultaneously:(1) unusual loudness, (2) heavy phonation, (3) little to no vi-brato, and (4) a high level of nasality.1 A challenge to objec-

ted for publication February 17, 2009.esearch was presented at the 31st Annual Symposium: Care of the Professionalne 5–9, 2002; Philadelphia, PA.the *The Blaine Block Institute for Voice Analysis and Rehabilitation, Dayton,he University of Cincinnati, Department of Communication Sciences and

, Cincinnati, Ohio; zThe University of Kentucky, Division of Communication Sci-d Disorders, Lexington, Kentucky; and the xUniversity of Kentucky College ofealth, Department of Biostatistics, Lexington, Kentucky.ss correspondence and reprint requests to Wendy DeLeo LeBorgne, The Blainestitute for Voice Analysis and Rehabilitation, 369 West First Street, Suite 408,OH 45402. E-mail: wleborgne@dhns.netl of Voice, Vol. 24, No. 6, pp. 678-689997/$36.00

0 The Voice Foundation.1016/j.jvoice.2009.02.004

tively evaluate this definition was given by these authors atthe conclusion of their article.

The characteristics of the belt voice described by Miles andHollien5 have been widely expanded by other authors to in-clude: extension of the chest voice beyond the typical frequencyrange, limited dynamic range, high level of physical effort (in-creased laryngeal muscular tension), vocal breaks, more precisearticulation than classical singing, open vowels, bright quality,more forward placement than classical singing, brassy, twangy,articulatory clarity/text-based emphasis, lateral or bell-shapedlip spread, and diaphragmatic breath support.2–19 Much ofthis descriptive terminology requires further explanation andscientific evaluation, as limited research exists in defining theseterms perceptually.

Establishing accepted perceptual terms to describe the charac-teristics of the elite belt voice may enable the voice scientist to ob-jectify these terms from acoustic, aerodynamic, and temporalperspectives. Current research documenting acoustic observa-tions of the belt voice is limited in both the number of subjectsand the consistency of information reported. Preliminary acousticmeasures of the belt voice suggest findings unique to this type ofvocal production.3,11,12,16,17,20 There is no denying that the beltvoice has established itself as a vocal quality that is desired inthe professional arena. As such, belting deserves investigationinto its unique production and perceptual output.

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE/RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The purpose of the present study was to define specific perceptualmarkers of the aesthetically pleasing elite student belt voice usingsuggested parameters by Miles and Hollien5 and other re-searchers/teachers of the belt voice. Before objectively evaluatingthe belt voice, one must first be able to identify the unique percep-tual qualities that define this style of singing. Therefore, this in-vestigation attempted to define the elite student belt voice basedon a given set of perceptual guidelines. Those singers who pos-sessed the desired qualities were selected, and compared withthose who did not. The following questions were posed to boththe raters (casting directors) and the participants (belters):

1. Does the perceived average vocal loudness during songdiffer between the elite belt voice and average belt voice?

Wendy DeLeo LeBorgne, et al The Broadway Belt Voice 679

2. Does the perceived presence and use of vibrato differ be-tween elite belters and average belters during song?

3. Does the perception of a ring in the voice differ betweenelite belters and average belters during song?

4. Do expert listeners perceive a difference in timbrebetween elite and average belt voices during song?

5. Does the perceived tone focus differ between elite andaverage belters during song?

6. Do expert listeners perceive a difference in the averagedegree of nasality between the elite belt voice and theaverage belt voice during song?

7. Does the perception of a noticeable passaggio differ be-tween the elite belt voice and the average belt voice?

FIGURE 1. Vocalizes performed by all subjects.

METHODS

Subjects

Twenty female student belters participated in this study. Subjectsranged in age from 18 to 25 years, with a mean of 20.5 years (stan-dard deviation [SD]: 1.91). Belters were defined as singers whoprimarily perform in the musical theater style known as belting.Singers participating in this study were enrolled in a musical the-ater curriculum at the university level and had been performing orstudying the belt style for at least 1 year, with a mean of 6.7 yearsof training (SD: 3.44, range: 1.5–13). Subjects were recruitedfrom the University of Cincinnati, College Conservatory of Musicand Wright State University, Music Theatre Division. The sub-jects included in this study were all undergraduate students pursu-ing a bachelor of fine arts (BFA) in musical theater. Unlike vocalperformance degrees, which typically offer education as high asDoctoral Degree, there are few schools that offer higher thana Bachelors Degree in musical theater. Additionally, informationobtained from department administration and dialogue with theparticipants indicated that musical theater students from these in-stitutions generally have professional experience on enrollmentand/or acquire professional employment within 1 year of gradu-ation. Currently, the University of Cincinnati, College Conserva-tory of Music has five musical theater graduates in leading roles infive different Broadway shows.

All subjects completed a questionnaire regarding current vo-cal health (Appendix A) and personal perception of belting(Appendix B). Subjects who reported a past history of vocalproblems were included in this study. However, if the subjectreported that they were currently experiencing any of the fol-lowing problems, they were excluded from the study: signifi-cant excess breathiness in singing voice; significanthoarseness of singing voice; and/or significant pain with sing-ing. Furthermore, if the subject reported that her vocal statuswould prevent her from auditioning or performing at the timeof the study, she was eliminated. Subjects were selected withoutreference to information regarding nicotine use and others ob-tained via the questionnaire described in Appendix A. This in-formation was obtained solely for informational purposes.

After the explanation of the study, each subject signed an in-formed consent form. Subjects participating in this study com-mitted to a 20- to 25-minute audio-recording session. No

subject was aware that the study was designed to compare per-ceptual characteristics of elite and average student belters.

Procedures

Audio Recording of Subjects. All subjects performed seg-ments of the following belt songs in the original key: ‘‘I’m theGreatest Star’’ (m. 135–145); ‘‘I Got the Sun in the Morning’’(m. 21–28); ‘‘Someone Like You’’ (m. 25–35); ‘‘Rose’s Turn’’(m. 94–113); ‘‘I’ll Be Seeing You’’ (m. 42–52); ‘‘Cabaret’’ (m.9–28). Finally, each subject was asked to perform the vocalizesfound in Figure 1. The first vocalize was completed on thepitches A3, F4, and E5. The second vocalizes spanned the rangeD4–A5. The range of notes for the second vocalize required thesingers to traverse the typically reported passaggio of the femalevoice. All subjects were provided with music and vocalizes 1week before the recording session.

All recording sessions took place in a sound-treated roomwith the ambient noise level not exceeding 55 decibel (db)sound pressure level (SPL) (range: 50–55 dBSPL). A mouth-to-microphone distance of 30 cm was the designated recordingdistance using a mounted microphone. The microphone heightand distance were adjusted for each subject so that the center ofthe microphone was 30 cm directly in front of each subject’smouth. The apparatus used to mount the microphone may beseen in Figure 2. The apparatus included a snare drum carrier(with the drum and bottom mounting removed), a pinewood2 3 4 measured at 12 in a boom-style microphone stand, anda TOA condenser Microphone (model KY, TOA Corp. Ltd.,Surrey, UK). The total weight of the drum carrier apparatuswas 5.7 lb. All singers maintained a comfortable stance duringthe vocalizes and song trials.

The TOA condenser microphone was used for recording allsinging tasks. Microphone specifications included: a gold-va-porized diaphragm with a thickness of 2 mm, a smooth fre-quency response from 20 to 20 000 Hz, low noise, and lowdistortion, marketed for digital recordings. The microphonewas patched into a Mackie MicroSeries 1202-VLZ 12-channelmic/line mixer (Loud Technologies, Inc., Woodinville, WA).All settings on the mixer board were the same for all subjects.No vocal or intensity enhancements were made. The mixer waspatched to a Sony 670 DAT recorder (Sony Corp., Park Ridge,NJ). After the completion of all audio recordings, the DAT re-cordings were randomized and recorded onto high-quality cas-sette tapes for rating purposes.

FIGURE 2. Microphone apparatus.

Journal of Voice, Vol. 24, No. 6, 2010680

Perceptual rating of belters

A panel of three expert judges trained in the belt style of singing(casting directors for musical theater productions) independentlyrated an audiotape of each singer’s song and vocalize produc-tions. Each of the musical theater-casting directors had over 10years of experience casting musical theater productions. Alljudges listened to the same tapes using an AIWA CD carry com-ponent system (Model CA-DW635, Sony Corp., Park Ridge, NJ)at the same intensity setting. Before rating the 20 student belters,each judge listened to a training tape that provided verbal expla-nation and audio examples of the rating parameters. After thecompletion of the training tape, each judge was asked to ratea practice singer on the given parameters. If any questions arosefollowing the practice trial of ratings, the judges were able to in-quire about the rating definitions only at that time. The authorwas present for all judges’ ratings.

The perceptual judging was completed in a quiet conferenceroom with no interruptions. The first portion of the rating wasa perceptual judgment of noticeable voice breaks during the vo-calizes (Appendix C). On completion of the first portion of the rat-ings, each judge was instructed to take a 10-minute break. Thesecond portion of the ratings included the rating of the song seg-ments by each subject using the rating scale in Appendix C. Therating scale (Appendix C) was based on perceptual parameters ofthe belt voice identified by the Miles and Hollien5 survey.

To determine the highest-rated (elite) and lowest-rated (aver-age) student belters, the three judges rated all 20 student belterson seven perceptual measures (Appendix C) in their overallsong performance. These ratings were based on an equal-interval11-point scale with 0 being too little, 5 being appropriate, and 10representing excessive. Finally, an overall score was given to eachsubject based on the judge’s willingness to hire that particularsinger for a belt role based solely on the vocal quality of the singer.

In addition to rating subjects, each rater completed a ques-tionnaire on his or her perception of the belt voice before andafter their ratings of all subjects (Appendix B). The informationobtained in Appendix B for both subjects and raters was solelyfor the purpose of interpretation of results of this study.

STATISTICAL ANALYSES AND RESULTS

Judges’ ratings

The overall scores for each singer were averaged across the threejudges. The four singers with the highest overall scores were con-sidered elite student belters, whereas the four singers with thelowest overall scores were considered average student belters.Further investigation into the rankings by the judges revealedthat subjects 6, 12, and 17 were consistently ranked as most eliteby all three judges, whereas subjects 5, 8, 10, and 20 were rated asthe most average belters by all of them. These results demon-strated that the judges unanimously chose the singers who wouldbe most aesthetically appropriate in a belt role and whowould not.

Further statistical analysis aimed to look at the reliability be-tween the judges’ ratings of all 20 belters. Kappa statistics didnot yield good correlations between the judges. These findingsindicate that although each judge underwent training related toperceptual parameters and all of them were consistent in choos-ing the most elite and average belters, they were not able toagree on what specific parameters constituted a good or bad per-formance. Further correlation measures between judges showedthat judges 1 and 2 correlated most strongly on their ratings ofintensity, vibrato, and ring, and judge 3 did not correlate wellwith 1 or 2 on any perceptual parameter except vibrato.

Linear regressions were performed for each of the judges in-dividually and then as a combined group. Results are discussedlater. Finally a cluster analysis was used in an attempt to further

TABLE 1.

The Type and Amount (in Number of 8-oz Glasses) of Fluid Consumption for Each Subject (S) Per Day

Beverage

Elite Average

S2 S6 S12 S17 S5 S8 S10 S20

Water per day 8 8 2–4 8 2 4–5 4 8

Coffee per day 0 0.5 0 <1 0 0 0 0

Alcohol per month 0 3–4 2–3 4 0 0 0 8

Soda per day 1 1 0–1 1 1 <1 0 0

Juice per day 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1

Wendy DeLeo LeBorgne, et al The Broadway Belt Voice 681

differentiate the perceptual parameters of the elite and averagebelters. Whisker plots revealed elite belters tend to rate higherin the areas of ring, timbre, and focus and intensity.

Subject characteristics

No subject in the elite group reported any difficulty with eitherthe speaking or singing voice, based on the 11 questions regard-ing vocal status. One subject in the average group reported thatshe often did not know what would come out when speaking orsinging and another subject in the average group reported thatshe had trouble talking on the phone on a regular basis. Subjectsin the average group reported no other problems. Hydrationamong both groups was moderate. The results of hydration re-ported by the subjects can be found in Table 1.

None of the subjects in either group reported any present orpast history of smoking or recreational drug use. Two of thesubjects in the average group reported that they were currentlytaking prescription medication. One subject was on synthroidfor hypothyroidism and had been on the medication since 12years of age. One subject reported that she was currently takingPrilosec (Astra Zeneca) for reflux disease. She reported that inaddition to the Prilosec, she currently follows through with alldietary and lifestyle recommendations for reflux. None of thetwo subjects on medication reported adverse effects of the med-ication with respect to the voice.

In addition to completing the questionnaire on vocal health,each subject completed a questionnaire on belting (AppendixB). The results of this questionnaire were for the purposes ofdiscussion only and can be found in Appendix D. The questions

TABLE 2.

Correlation Coefficients: Overall Score as They Relate to Percep

OS T F

OS 1.00 �0.543 0.459 0.

T 1.00 0.309 0.

F 1.00 0.

L 1.

N

R

V

Abbreviations: OS, overall score; T, timbre; F, focus; L, loudness; N, nasality; R, ri

* Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).y Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).

posed to the subjects regarding their personal opinions on belt-ing were directly related to the parameters on which they wererated.

Analysis of vocal attributes

Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were calcu-lated for perceived loudness, vibrato, ring, timbre, focus, andnasality. The correlation coefficients can be found in Table 2.The overall score was significantly correlated to two of the per-ceived vocal attributes. Ring was highly correlated to overallscore (r¼ 0.943) as was vibrato (r¼ 0.887). Ring and vibratowere highly correlated to each other (r¼ 0.946). Finally, loud-ness and ring showed a moderate correlation (r¼ 0.724), andloudness and vibrato showed a moderate correlation(r¼ 0.776).

The results of the linear regression for each of the judges in-dicate that judge 1 found vibrato and ring to be most consistentwith the elite belter. These results are shown in Table 3. Table 4indicates that judge 2 had more difficulty identifying which per-ceptual characteristics corresponded to the elite belter. It ap-pears that ring, focus, and nasality are the most likelyperceptual correlates for judge 3. Finally, Table 5 shows inten-sity, vibrato, and timbre as the most important perceptual char-acteristics for judge 3’s ranking of elite belters. When all threejudges were combined in the regression analysis (Table 6), vi-brato, ring, and nasality were most highly associated with theelite belt voice.

Whisker plots (Figure 3) for the elite and average belters in-dicated ring, timbre, and focus to be the most distinguishing

tual Score

L N R V

513 0.394 0.943* 0.887*

250 �0.015 �0.345 �0.337

473 0.152 0.565 0.336

00 0.685 0.724y 0.776y1.00 0.587 0.705

1.00 0.946*

1.00

ng; V, vibrato.

TABLE 3.

Judge 1 Regression Analysis

Variable

Parameter Estimates

Label DF Parameter Estimate Standard Error t Value Pr > jtjIntercept Intercept 1 �2.06174 22.95965 �0.09 0.9298

rintensity 1 1.65258 1.43894 1.15 0.2715

rvibrato 1 3.79287 1.44442 2.63 0.0210

rring 1 2.87161 1.58350 1.81 0.0929

rtimbre 1 0.00047593 2.22929 0.00 0.9998

rfocus 1 0.64626 2.04268 0.32 0.7567

rnasality 1 6.24459 2.59338 2.41 0.0316

Abbreviations: DF, degrees of freedom; Pr, prevalence ratio.

Journal of Voice, Vol. 24, No. 6, 2010682

characteristics for elite belters. Within these plots, all 20 sub-jects are included, with the middle group representing the bel-ters who did not fall in either the elite or average group. Withinthe whisker plots, the scores have been recoded to differentiatethe groups more easily. Within the original scale set forth for thejudges, 5 was the best possible score for each perceptual char-acteristic, with 0 and 10 representing the extremes. Therefore,scores of 10 and 0 were recoded as 1; 1 and 9 as a 2; 2 and 8as a 3; 3 and 7 as a 4; 4 and 6 as 5; and 5 as 6.

DISCUSSION

Attempts to define the perceptual characteristics of the beltvoice are limited to one earlier study.5 Miles and Hollien5 re-viewed the limited literature that defined characteristics of belt-ing, including surveys of voice teachers and other voiceprofessionals. They concluded that there were four recurringperceptual judgments of belting (loud, heavy phonation, littleto no vibrato, high degree of nasality). The authors challengedother researchers to investigate their findings.

The present study responded to the Miles and Hollien chal-lenge, and required raters to evaluate the belt voice quality of20 musical theater majors who were proficient in the singingstyle referred to as belting. The raters in the present studywere asked to judge the student belters on a set of seven percep-tual parameters (loudness, vibrato, ring, timbre, focus, nasality,and registration breaks) and then report an overall score for thesestudent belters. A correlational analysis revealed ring and vi-brato to be the most deciding perceived events to characterize

TABLE 4.

Judge 2 Regression Analysis

Variable

Para

Label DF Parameter Estim

Intercept Intercept 1 �6.45423

rintensity 1 3.06620

rvibrato 1 1.34416

rring 1 4.97655

rtimbre 1 �1.21834

rfocus 1 5.23331

rnasality 1 4.01262

Abbreviations: DF, degrees of freedom; Pr, prevalence ratio.

the elite belt voice. Loudness also showed a strong correlationto ring and vibrato, perhaps influencing the overall perceptionof the elite student belt sound. Although the correlational anal-yses did not find statistical significance regarding timbre, focus/clarity, nasality, or registration in defining the elite student beltvoice, perceptions reported by singers and raters are providedfor informational purposes.

Perceptual judgments of loudness

Miles and Hollien5 reported that the most frequent perceptualreference to belting included the term loudness. When ratersand singers in the present study were asked to define beltingwith respect to loudness, all three judges reported that it ‘‘tendsto be loud.’’ The singers were divided on this issue. Three of thesingers reported belting as being loud and five reported that notall belting was loud. The opinion of the latter singers can befound in the work of Schutte and Miller.17 These authors sug-gested that belting reflects speech-like characteristics. Assuch, variation in vocal intensity may be found in belt singing.A position statement by Mary Saunders, distributed at the Na-tional Association of Teachers of Singing (NATS) 2001 winterworkshop on belting, describes the relationship between speechand song as it relates to increased and decreased vocal intensityreflective of the emotional state of a character:

me

ate

The musical theater singing voice is an acoustical and emo-tional extension of the speaking voice and, while somethingsimilar might be said of the operatic singing voice, I wouldargue that opera seeks to transcend speaking. But musical

ter Estimates

Standard Error t Value Pr > jtj21.92165 �0.29 0.7731

2.39814 1.28 0.2234

1.78460 0.75 0.4648

2.95677 1.68 0.1162

2.33778 �0.52 0.6110

3.50026 1.50 0.1588

2.60410 1.54 0.1473

TABLE 5.

Judge 3 Regression Analysis

Variable

Parameter Estimates

Label DF Parameter Estimate Standard Error t Value Pr > jtjIntercept Intercept 1 6.89404 3.18919 2.16 0.0499

rintensity 1 5.33837 1.08749 4.91 0.0003

rvibrato 1 3.83493 0.90533 4.24 0.0010

rring 1 0.08351 1.05236 0.08 0.9380

rtimbre 1 4.40484 1.21929 3.61 0.0032

rfocus 1 �0.26163 1.08749 �0.24 0.8136

rnasality 1 1.36716 0.90035 1.52 0.1528

Abbreviations: DF, degrees of freedom; Pr, prevalence ratio.

TA

Ju

on

Va

Int

rin

rvi

rri

rtim

rfo

rna

Ab

Wendy DeLeo LeBorgne, et al The Broadway Belt Voice 683

theater is a vernacular forum and owes its credibility to itsability to touch the prosaic. So it is important that its singingvoice, rather than transcend the spoken, amplify and extendit without distorting or transfiguring it. The musical theatersong’s classical first cousin is the soliloquy not the aria(handout).

In the present study, perceived loudness did not correlate withthe overall score of the student belters. Rather, findings reflectthat the perceived ring and vibrato correlated greatly with theoverall score of the elite singer. However, perceived loudnessshowed a moderate correlation to both ring and vibrato. Thisfinding indicates that the student belter’s use of ring and vibratomay result in an increased perception of loudness. There are noreports in the previous literature on belting, which indicate ex-pected intensity levels, vibrato rates, or consistency of the sing-er’s formant for comparison.

Perceptual judgments of vibrato

The opinions regarding the use of vibrato in belting by ratersand singers provide an interesting basis for discussion. Allsingers and raters believed that belting uses vibrato; however,the reported nature and use of the vibrato varied. Several singersand one judge felt that the use of vibrato in belting was no dif-ferent than what is used in classical singing. The literature re-ports a high correlation of a consistent, even vibrato, withoverall vocal beauty in the classical singer.21 One judge and

BLE 6.

dge 1, 2, and 3 Combined Regression Analysis Based

Overall Score

riable

Parameter Estimates

DF

Parameter

Estimate

Standard

Error t Value Pr > jtjercept 1 �10.42935 13.18523 �0.79 0.4431

tensity 1 2.31804 2.29255 1.01 0.3304

brato 1 3.32350 1.63747 2.03 0.0634

ng 1 5.70476 2.06676 2.76 0.0162

bre 1 �0.61575 2.92805 �0.21 0.8367

cus 1 0.28590 2.64768 0.11 0.9157

sality 1 6.56929 2.20460 2.98 0.0106

breviations: DF, degrees of freedom; Pr, prevalence ratio.

four singers felt that the use of vibrato in belting was differentfrom classical singing. The judge who reported that he did notfeel vibrato used in belting was different from the classicalsinger qualified his answer by stating that the use of vibratoin belting was a stylistic choice and that there was a wide rangeof acceptable vibrato. Further comments by singers and judgesin the present study regarding the vibrato use in belting may befound in Appendix D.

The literature on belting reports that little to no vibrato is an es-sential characteristic of belting.5 Results of the present study arein contrast to Miles and Hollien’s findings. Rather, the presentstudy reports that the use of vibrato in belting may be more similarto the use of vibrato in jazz singing (which is also considered non-traditional music). Jazz is reported to mix straight tones with vi-brato by altering the rate and amplitude of the vibrato.22 Anobjective analysis into vibrato use in the belt voice is warranted.

Perceptual judgments of ring

Debate about the presence of a singer’s formant in the belt voiceis ongoing.2,11,12,17 The lyrics of musical theater songs are re-quired to be understood on the first hearing, because they areessential for plot advancement and emotional content. There-fore, it has been postulated that the formants that define thevowels (F1–F2) and the subsequent higher formants are para-mount for text comprehension, whereas the ability for the voiceto ring may be of secondary concern in belters.2,12,13 Althoughprofessional classical singers typically cultivate and promotetraining of the singer’s formant, allowing them to be heardover an orchestra without amplification, the reported lack ofa singer’s formant in belting may be the result of body micro-phone use in most professional productions. Interestingly, an ar-ticle in Opera Monthly reported that professional opera singershad difficulty being heard and understood when singing in a spe-cific musical theater production.23

Most of the student belters and judges in the present study be-lieve that belters possess a consistent ring in the voice. Morespecifically, the degree of ring was thought to vary throughoutthe range, and the use of ring is (like vibrato) a stylistic choice.This perceptual judgment lends itself to the possibility that theindividuality of the singer (with respect to the use of vibrato andring) is what makes the voice interesting. This is in direct con-trast to reports on classical singing, where the consistency of thesinger’s formant was reported to be vital to the perception of

BestMiddleWorst

65

70

75

80

Overall_Score

85

90

95

Box width varies with n

BestMiddleWorst

Box width varies with n

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

Intensity

BestMiddleWorst

Box width varies with n

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

Ring

BestMiddleWorst

Box width varies with n

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

Timbre

BestMiddleWorst

Box width varies with n

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

Focus

BestMiddleWorst

Box width varies with n

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

Nasality

BestMiddleWorst

Box width varies with n

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

Vibrato

Analysis of overall_score Analysis of intensity

Analysis of vibrato Analysis of ring

Analysis of timbre

Analysis of nasality

Analysis of focus

FIGURE 3. Whisker plots for elite and average belters based on perceptual parameters.

Journal of Voice, Vol. 24, No. 6, 2010684

vocal beauty.21 Perhaps it is the individuality of the belt tech-nique that makes this style of singing so difficult to quantify.

Perceptual judgments of timbre

The literature reports that belting is often associated witha bright timbre.5,8–10,17,18 The degree of brightness in the sing-ing voice is an aesthetic choice in most cases. Typically, theoperatic voice is considered darker and rounder compared

with the musical theater quality in belting.2,11,12,17 It is alsonoted in the literature that to traverse the passaggio, malesingers in the operatic tradition ‘‘cover’’ (slight darkening oftone) as they ascend in frequency.24 Without ‘‘covering,’’ a no-ticeable break is often noted at the natural passaggio. Belters donot seem to use this strategy as they ascend in frequency; hence,the perception of a bright voice may be justified. All of thesingers and judges in the present study reported that belters

Wendy DeLeo LeBorgne, et al The Broadway Belt Voice 685

needed a bright vocal quality to be considered elite. One singerreported that belters who have found different ‘‘colors’’ in thevoice have voices that are acoustically interesting. These judg-ments are consistent with the findings of Miles and Hollien.5

Perceptual judgments of focus/clarity

A unanimous consensus of both judges and singers that elitebelters maintain a more focused tone than average belters wasreported on the questionnaire. The literature provides two pos-sible definitions of focus/clarity.11,12,14,20,24–26 The first conno-tation of focus refers to the brilliance of a given sound. Forwardfocus/placement is the term associated with the perceived feel-ing a singer experiences for a bright vocal quality. The secondconnotation of the word focus relates to the removal of excessbreathiness from the sound, and is created by the degree of glot-tic closure. Clarification of definitions of focus/clarity was notprovided to either the raters or singers. Therefore, it is unclearas to which definition they were referring in their response.

Perceptual judgments of nasality

Although the degree of nasality in belting has never been eval-uated objectively, the literature on belting reports that one of thecharacteristic perceived parameters of belting is a high degreeof nasality in the tone.1–12,17,18 The judges and raters in thepresent study were divided on this issue. The judges felt thatbelters should not be perceived as ‘‘nasal,’’ but may use strate-gies to produce a forward sound that results in a slightly nasalquality. Some of the singers felt belting is characterized bya bright, but not nasal sound; others felt that nasality was a per-ceived (not actual) event that occurred as a result of attemptingto maintain brightness. Finally, one belter reported that becauseof the nature of the desired brightness, the listener may perceivea sound as nasal, when in actuality, it is not.

Perceptual judgments of registration

It has been hypothesized that belters use laryngeal elevation.This places stress on the thyroarytenoid muscle, and maximalstrain will eventually result in a registration break.5,10,22,27

Six of the eight student belters in the present study reportedthey felt a noticeable registration break. One singer in the elitegroup and one singer in the average group felt they did not havea noticeable break.

IMPLICATIONS

Today’s stars on Broadway can belt high E’s and F’s, and it maybe the emotional commitment they make to that vocal produc-tion which keeps audiences returning for more. Defining this‘‘something’’ which makes the belt voice what it is has poseda problem to voice pedagogues, scientists, and singers for years.Quantifying art rarely provides clear-cut results, and perhaps, itis for this reason many choose not to delve into such research.Consensus on a perceptual definition of the belt voice is closerto being a reality, but semantic differences continue to presenta stumbling block to the scientist.

Based on the limited findings of the present study, bothteachers and singers should continue to work toward traininga voice in which the use of vibrato is consistent. The placement

of the tone should be slightly brighter and more forward thanthe typical classical sound. Despite the use of personal amplifi-cation on the musical theater stage, a ring in the voice is desired.The correlational findings from this study suggest that if thering of the voice and vibrato are optimal, the overall vocal in-tensity may be perceived as loud. If, in fact, the belter can attaina perceived desired vocal intensity by optimally using her vi-brato and resonance, she may be preserving the laryngeal mech-anism. This theory warrants further investigation.

Because the nature of belting appears to be based out ofspeech, and speech-like inflections, the voice teacher and voicepathologist must ensure that his or her singers are making opti-mal use of the speaking voice. Specifically, belters need to beable to support the speaking voice with adequate breath and in-flection. As such, training appropriate breathing techniques,phonation strategies, and resonance within the speaking voiceis the first step in maintaining a healthy belt voice. Balancingthe three subsystems of voice (respiration, phonation, and res-onance) will enable the belter to experiment and use dynamiccontrol and timbre choices.

Vocal health in the belter continues to be a source of debate.Although classical singers may also cause laryngeal traumafrom inappropriate sound production, if belters do use a longerclosed phase of the vibratory cycle in conjunction with in-creased amplitude of vibration, then these singers may theoret-ically be placed in a high-risk category for potential vocalinjury.20 It is hypothesized that repeated impact during vocalfold vibration may cause injury to the basement membranezone (BMZ). Titze22 reports, ‘‘The effective impact seems tobe cumulative, based on the number of collisions per unittime’’ (p. 49). Additionally, in a study examining the effectsof vibration on the BMZ, Gray28 reported cellular abnormalitiesin both canine and human larynges.

The voice teacher and voice pathologist must remember thatit is often the unique voice that gets hired. It is interesting tonote that two of the average student belters in the present studywere recently hired for professional work and signed withagencies in New York. This further supports the fact that it isnot just the voice quality of these performers that makes themmarketable, but rather the entire package they offer. This pack-age may include physical attributes specific to a role, and otherskills, such as the ability to dance and act. It becomes the job ofthe voice teacher/pathologist to teach them how to use the vocalmechanism in the healthiest manner possible, striving toachieve a sound that is hired in the Broadway houses.

Voice pedagogues, singers, and scientists who are most inti-mately involved in the belt voice need to continue to work to-ward defining some basic terminologies associated with thisvoice type. Perhaps the next step is to evaluate perceptual char-acteristics of the original great belters based on original cast re-cordings, and compare them with the great belters of today. Theaesthetics related to belting may have changed with time, whichmay help explain why some vocal teachers and coaches havediffering opinions of optimal quality. Perhaps, there are veryfew commonalities among these singers, and it is simply theshear uniqueness of a voice, a look, or particular talent thatgot them where they are. Further objective analyses by voice

Journal of Voice, Vol. 24, No. 6, 2010686

scientists into the belt voice among professional musical theaterperformers (Actors Equity Association) and established Broad-way artists are warranted to yield the true definition of the de-sired vocal parameters.

REFERENCES1. Edwin R. Belt yourself. J Sing. 2004;60:285–287.

2. McCoy S. A classical pedagogue explores belting. J Sing. 2007;67:

545–547.

3. Popeil L. The multiplicity of belting. J Sing. 2007;64:77–80.

4. Spivey N. Music theater singing . let’s talk. Part 2: examining the debate

of belting. J Sing. 2008;64:607–614.

5. Miles B, Hollien H. Whither belting? J Voice. 1990;4:64–70.

6. Colla R. To belt correctly or not to belt that should be the question. NATS J.

1989;49:39–40.

7. Doscher B. The Functional Unity of the Singing Voice. (2nd ed.) Lanham,

MD: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.; 1994.

8. Edwin R. Belting 101. J Sing. 1998;55:53–55.

9. Edwin R. Belting 101, part two. J Sing. 1998;55:61–62.

10. Estill J. Belting and classic voice quality: some physiological differences.

Med Probl Perform Art. 1988;3:37–43.

11. Stone E, 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;17:283–297.

12. Bjorkner E. Musical theater and opera singing—why so different? A study

of subglottal pressure, voice source, and formant frequency characterizs-

tics. J Voice. 2008;22:533–540.

13. Henderson L. How to Train Singers. West Nyack, NY: Parker Publishing

Company; 1991.

14. Howell E. Chest voice and belting. Presented at: the Voice Foundation 22nd

Symposium: Care of the Professional Voice; 1993, Philadelphia, PA.

15. Leyerle W. Vocal Development Through Organic Imagery. (2nd ed.) Mt.

Morris, NY: Leyerle Publications; 1986.

16. Robison C, Bounous B, Bailey R. Vocal beauty: a study proposing its acous-

tical definition and relevant causes in classical baritones and female belt

singers. NATS J. 1994;51:19–30.

17. Schutte H, Miller D. Belting and pop, nonclassical approaches to the female

middle voice: some preliminary considerations. J Voice. 1993;7:142–150.

18. Sullivan J. How to teach the belt/pop voice. J Res Singing Appl Vocal Ped-

agogy. 1989;13:41–56.

19. Sundberg J, Gramming P, Lovetri J. Comparisons of pharynx, source, for-

mant, and pressure characteristics in operatic and musical theatre singing.

J Voice. 1993;7:301–310.

20. Hoffman-Ruddy B, Lehman J, Crandell C, Ingram D, Sapienza C. Laryng-

ostroboscopic, acoustic, and environmental characteristics of high-risk vo-

cal performers. J Voice. 2001;15:543–552.

21. Ekholm E, Papagiannis G, Chagnon F. Relating objective measurements to

expert evaluation of voice quality in western classical singing: critical per-

ceptual parameters. J Voice. 1998;12:182–196.

22. Titze I. Principles of Voice Production. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice

Hall; 1994.

23. Stone E. The emperor’s new voice (can opera singers sing Broadway?). Op-

era Monthly. 1994;November/December:2–5.

24. Hertegard S, Gauffin J, Sundberg J. Open and covered singing as studied by

means of fiberoptics, inverse filtering, and spectral analysis. J Voice.

1990;4:220–230.

25. Vennard W. Singing: The Mechanism and the Technic. New York, NY: Carl

Fischer, Inc.; 1967.

26. McKinney J. The Diagnosis & Correction of Vocal Faults. Nashville, TN:

Genevox Music Group; 1982.

27. Bjorkner E, Sundberg J, Cleveland T, Stone E. Voice source difference be-

tween registers in female musical theater singers. J Voice. 2006;20:

187–197.

28. Gray S. Basement membrane zone injury in vocal nodules. In: Gauffin J,

Hammarberg B, eds. Vocal Fold Physiology. San Diego, CA: Singular Pub-

lishing Group; 1991:21–28.

Appendix A. Subject Questionnaire

Initials ———— Subject #————Age————Years of Formal Vocal Training ————Are you currently experiencing any vocal problems that

would prevent you from auditioning? Yes/NoDo you have trouble speaking loudly or being heard in noisy

situations? Yes/NoDo you run out of air and need to take frequent breaths when

talking? Yes/NoDo you often feel that you do not know what will come out

when speaking or singing? Yes/NoDo you get anxious, frustrated or depressed on a regular basis

because of your voice? Yes/NoDo you have trouble using the telephone on a regular basis?

Yes/NoDo you have to repeat yourself often in order to be under-

stood? Yes/NoDo you feel that you have to strain to speak or sing on a reg-

ular basis? Yes/NoDo you feel that you use an abundant amount of effort to pro-

duce voice? Yes/NoDoes your voice ‘‘give out’’ on you on a regular basis? Yes/NoDoes your voice prevent you from engaging in social situa-

tions? Yes/NoCurrent Medications: ————Smoking History:� Do you presently smoke (cigarettes/cigars/recreational

drugs)? Yes NoB If Yes, How much? ———— How Long? ————� Have you ever smoked on a regular basis in the past?

Yes NoB If Yes, When did you quit?————B How much did you smoke? ———— How Long?

————Hydration: ———— cups of coffee per day ———— cups

of soda per day———— cups of water per day ———— cups of juice per day———— alcoholic beverages per day/week/month/year

(circle one)

Appendix B. Opinions on Belting

1. Do you believe that elite belters have louder voices thanaverage belters?

2. Do you believe that belters use vibrato?If yes, is their use of vibrato different than the classical

singer?In what ways?3. Do belters possess a consistent ring in their voices?4. Do elite belters possess bright voices (excluding nasality)?5. Do elite belters maintain a nasal quality when singing?6. Do elite belters maintain a more focused tone than aver-

age belters?7. Do you feel that you have a noticeable ‘‘break’’/passag-

gio?———— If yes, where does it occur?————

TIMBRE (EXCLUDING NASALITY)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

too dark appropriate too bright

TONE FOCUS

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

too

spread

appropriate too pointed

NASALITY

Wendy DeLeo LeBorgne, et al The Broadway Belt Voice 687

Define Belting in terms of :1) Characteristic sound (bright, dark, twangy, etc)2) Use of Vibrato3) Loudness4) Placement5) Other comments

Appendix C

Judges’ Form—Part 1

ARE THERE AUDIBLE REGISTRATION BREAKS ONANY/EACH OF THE FOLLOWING SUNG SEGMENTS?(CIRCLE YES OR NO FOR EACH SUBJECT)

� Soft-Loud-Soft

A

A

0

too

LOW PITCH MID-PITCH HIGH PITCH

YES NO YES NO YES NO

/

Y

U

0

no

vib

‘‘

0

no

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

denasal appropriate hypernasal

� SCALES

i/ as in eat /a/ as in father /u/ as in food

ES NO YES NO YES NO

1. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT ELITE BELTERS HAVE

LOUDER VOICES THAN AVERAGE BELTERS?

Judge #1 No

Judge #2 Yes

Judge # 3 Yes

Appendix D

Judges’ Form—Part 2. Rate each belter based in the Musi-cal Theater Tradition. Consider ALL SIX SEGMENTS in yourscore.

DO NOT RATE EACH SEGMENT. Rather, give anOVERALL SCORE.

You will hear each subject sing the same six excerpts fromthe following six songs:

I’m the Greatest Star (Funny Girl); I got the Sun in the Morn-ing (Annie Get You Gun); Rose’s Turn (Gypsy); Someone LikeYou (Jeckle & Hyde); I’ll Be Seeing You (Right This Way);Cabaret (Cabaret)

VERAGE VOCAL INTENSITY (PERCEIVED LOUDNESS

CROSS THE ENTIRE PIECE)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

soft appropriate too loud

SE OF VIBRATO

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

rato

appropriate too much

vibrato

RING’’

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

ring appropriate too much

ring

Does this singer demonstrate a noticeable ‘‘break’’?YES NO

*****OVERALL SCORE (BELT STYLE)*******

90–100: Elite (Would definitely hire for a belt role)80–89: Good (Would most likely hire for a belt role)70–79: Fair (Would possibly hire for a belt role)60–69: Poor (Would most likely not hire for a belt role)

Appendix E. Reponses of Judges and Subjects With

Regard to Their Opinions on Belting

#2 EH (elite) Yes

#6 AB (elite) Yes, they have been doing it longer and

know how to do it healthy

#12 MM (elite) Not necessarily

#17 KV (elite) Yes

#5 EW (avg) No

#8 AB (avg) No

#10 AA (avg) No

#20 LM (avg) No

2. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT BELTERS USE VIBRATO? IF

YES, IS THEIR USE OF VIBRATO DIFFERENT THAN THE

CLASSICAL SINGER? IN WHAT WAYS?

Judge #1 Yes. No, it is usually a matter of stylistic

choice as to how much vibrato vs.

straight tone is used. Good belters

vibrato is more overt. Wide range of

acceptable vibrato within the belters

Judge #2 Yes, but not sure is it is different from the

classical singer

3. DO BELTERS POSSESS A CONSISTENT RING IN THEIR

VOICE?

Judge #1 More so than ‘‘legit’’ singers. But

again it’s a matter of style and

interpretation. Good belters can

modulate the degree of the ring

Judge #2 Not consistent. It tends to be more

present in certain parts of their

range

Judge # 3 Yes

#2 EH (elite) Yes

#6 AB (elite) Not as much as classical singers

#12 MM (elite) They should, if placed healthfully

#17 KV (elite) If they are doing it correctly

#5 EW (avg) Not always

#8 AB (avg) They should

#10 AA (avg) Yes

#20 LM (avg) Yes, but believes that is a ring

rather than ‘‘all ring.’’ It must be

coupled with correct vowel

placement and the ‘‘ring.’’ It

should be specific to you, not

modeled after someone else

5. DO ELITE BELTERS MAINTAIN A NASAL QUALITY

WHEN SINGING?

Judge #1 Not necessarily, there is often a forward

sound that may include nasality. More so

than in purely ‘‘legit’’ singing

Judge #2 Not what I would consider nasal

Judge # 3 Yes & No

#2 EH (elite) Yes

#6 AB (elite) Some think to keep it in their nose, but

most just keep it lower in the body

#12 MM (elite) Some do

#17 KV (elite) To a certain extent

#5 EW (avg) Yes, but they do not do it on purpose it

comes naturally as a result of the sound

production

#8 AB (avg) More bright than nasal

#10 AA (avg) It varies

#20 LM (avg) No. The best belters have good placement

which is sometimes overtly correlated

into nasality

4. DO ELITE BELTERS POSSESS BRIGHT VOICES

(EXCLUDING NASALITY)?

Judge #1 Yes

Judge #2 Yes

Judge # 3 Yes

#2 EH (elite) Yes

#6 AB (elite) Yes, it depends on the person and quality

of the voice

#12 MM (elite) They can

#17 KV (elite) Yes

#5 EW (avg) They can, but not always

#8 AB (avg) Belting should be bright not nasal

#10 AA (avg) Yes

#20 LM (avg) Some do. Feels the best belters are ones

who have found colors (bright and dark)

in their voice.

6. DO ELITE BELTERS MAINTAIN A MORE FOCUSED

TONE THAN AVERAGE BELTERS?

Judge #1 Yes

Judge #2 Yes

Judge # 3 Yes

#2 EH (elite) Yes

#6 AB (elite) Yes

#12 MM (elite) Yes

#17 KV (elite) Yes

#5 EW (avg) Yes

#8 AB (avg) Yes

#10 AA (avg) Yes

#20 LM (avg) Yes

Judge #3 Yes. Their use of vibrato is different from

the classical singer at times. It is wider

than the classical vibrato

#2 EH (elite) Sort of . It is a forward vibrato and adds

spin to the voice

#6 AB (elite) Yes. Yes. It is more in the chest and in the

face

#12 MM (elite) Somewhat, yes. Yes. Use of vibrato is not

as apparent as classical singers

#17 KV (elite) Yes. Yes. Classical singers use a looser,

wider vibrato

#5 EW (avg) Yes. Not too differently. Belters can control

their vibrato more and completely stop it

without stopping support

#8 AB (avg) Yes. Not different than classical singing

#10 AA (avg) Yes. Yes. Belters use vibrato for a source of

power

#20 LM (avg) Yes. N/A

7.DO YOU FEEL THAT YOU HAVE A NOTICEABLE

‘‘BREAK’’/PASSAGGIO? IF SO, WHERE DOES IT OCCUR?

Judge #1 N/A

Judge #2 N/A

Judge # 3 N/A

#2 EH (elite) Yes, C-D

#6 AB (elite) Yes, G-B

#12 MM (elite) Yes, B-C

#17 KV (elite) NO

#5 EW (avg) Yes G

#8 AB (avg) Yes E (high)

#10 AA (avg) Yes (not sure)

#20 LM (avg) No

Journal of Voice, Vol. 24, No. 6, 2010688

Wendy DeLeo LeBorgne, et al The Broadway Belt Voice 689

8. DEFINE BELTING IN TERMS OF CHARACTERISTIC

SOUND (BRIGHT/DARK/TWANGY/ETC); USE OF

VIBRATO; LOUDNESS; PLACEMENT; ANY OTHER

COMMENTS

Judge #1

Bright, pointed, brassy tone. A good belter

is judicious in use and control of the

vibrato, bad belters wobble and push.

Vibrato is used differently depending on

the style of music. Typically they

maintain a dynamically narrower range

of volume, often louder than the

pianissimo legit. Placement is forward

and ‘‘nasally’’ sounding

Judge #2

Bright and open tone. The use of vibrato is

more present towards the end of longer

notes, but relaxed and not fast. Belting

tends to be loud and the placement of

tone is forward focused

Judge #3

Bright with a heavy use of vibrato at times

and increased overall loudness

#2 EH (elite)

Bright tone with very little vibrato, it is

usually loud and has a forward focus

#6 AB (elite)

Dark & deep feeling. The vibrato use is used

to sum up a long note. With respect to

loudness, belting is a way to produce a loud

sound when needed within a song.

Placement is very deep with a relaxed

mouth

#12 MM (elite)

Strong, supported tone with more straight

tones than vibrato. Medium-loud in

dynamics and the placement is in the

‘‘mask’’

#17 KV (elite)

Bright, full tone with a relaxed vibrato.

Normal loudness level with a forward

placement.

#5 EW (avg)

Heavy, but with a light availability as

needed. The vibrato is strong but

completely controlled. The loudness is

controlled and supported. The

placement is out in the lips and as you go

up high the focus moves to the nasal

area, but not into the nose

#8 AB (avg)

Bright sound with consistent use of

vibrato. You are typically louder on

higher notes and the placement is very

forward

#10 AA (avg)

Bright tone with a unique use of vibrato.

Thinks that belters are perceived as

louder, but doesn’t necessarily believe

that they always are. Placement should be

in the cheeks and forward part of the face.

Sometimes belting seems like yelling

#20 LM (avg)

Warm sunlight tones. Vibrato is the result

of continued airflow and the loudness

varies from performer to performer