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
majors who were proficient in the singing style referred to as belting. Two specified vocalizes and six short excerpts from
the belting repertoire were used for rating purposes. The raters were asked to judge the belters on a set of seven perceptual parameters (loudness, vibrato, ring, timbre, focus, nasality, and registration breaks), and then report an overall score
for these student belters. The four highest and lowest average scores were used to establish the elite and average student
belters. A correlation analysis and linear regression analysis provided insight regarding which perceptual judgments
correlated most highly with the elite and average scores. The present study found the perceptual ratings of vibrato
and ring to be most highly correlated to the elite student belter. In addition, vibrato and ring were found to highly correlate 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 audiences to a new and exciting sound over 60 years ago. Unlike the
ingénues of the past, belting (in the music theater arena) was
considered emotionally edgy and verging on the brink of sounding out of control. It is this unique quality which so many singers
have attempted to emulate in the last 60 years, with sometimes
detrimental and career-jeopardizing effects. From a pedagogical
standpoint, the term belting has often been associated with an
unhealthy use of the vocal mechanism, and many classically
based singing teachers find this style of singing offensive.1–4
However, unlike the extensive literature base on the classical
voice, a consensus on the perceptual parameters of the belt voice
has not been adequately established.
Miles and Hollien5 suggested that it is difficult to experiment
on belting because it lacks a clear definition. These authors further suggested that it would not be possible to formulate a reasonable definition until at least some relevant objective data
became available.5 Semantic confusion resulting from a lack
of perceptual definitions for chest, belt, pop, and mixed singing
(which may or may not be synonymous) is evident in the few
studies that have examined the belt voice.3
In their attempt to define this method of singing, Miles and
Hollien5 attempted to describe perceptual characteristics of
the belt voice based on a historical literature review and a survey
of 24 voice teachers, laryngologists, and phoneticians. These
authors concluded that belting is a type of singing which requires four vocal characteristics to be present simultaneously:
(1) unusual loudness, (2) heavy phonation, (3) little to no vibrato, and (4) a high level of nasality.1 A challenge to objecAccepted for publication February 17, 2009.
This research was presented at the 31st Annual Symposium: Care of the Professional
Voice; June 5–9, 2002; Philadelphia, PA.
From the *The Blaine Block Institute for Voice Analysis and Rehabilitation, Dayton,
Ohio; yThe University of Cincinnati, Department of Communication Sciences and
Disorder, Cincinnati, Ohio; zThe University of Kentucky, Division of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Lexington, Kentucky; and the xUniversity of Kentucky College of
Public Health, Department of Biostatistics, Lexington, Kentucky.
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Wendy DeLeo LeBorgne, The Blaine
Block Institute for Voice Analysis and Rehabilitation, 369 West First Street, Suite 408,
Dayton, OH 45402. E-mail: [email protected]
Journal of Voice, Vol. 24, No. 6, pp. 678-689
0892-1997/$36.00
Ó 2010 The Voice Foundation
doi:10.1016/j.jvoice.2009.02.004
tively evaluate this definition was given by these authors at
the conclusion of their article.
The characteristics of the belt voice described by Miles and
Hollien5 have been widely expanded by other authors to include: extension of the chest voice beyond the typical frequency
range, limited dynamic range, high level of physical effort (increased laryngeal muscular tension), vocal breaks, more precise
articulation than classical singing, open vowels, bright quality,
more forward placement than classical singing, brassy, twangy,
articulatory clarity/text-based emphasis, lateral or bell-shaped
lip spread, and diaphragmatic breath support.2–19 Much of
this descriptive terminology requires further explanation and
scientific evaluation, as limited research exists in defining these
terms perceptually.
Establishing accepted perceptual terms to describe the characteristics of the elite belt voice may enable the voice scientist to objectify these terms from acoustic, aerodynamic, and temporal
perspectives. Current research documenting acoustic observations of the belt voice is limited in both the number of subjects
and the consistency of information reported. Preliminary acoustic
measures of the belt voice suggest findings unique to this type of
vocal production.3,11,12,16,17,20 There is no denying that the belt
voice has established itself as a vocal quality that is desired in
the professional arena. As such, belting deserves investigation
into its unique production and perceptual output.
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE/RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The purpose of the present study was to define specific perceptual
markers of the aesthetically pleasing elite student belt voice using
suggested parameters by Miles and Hollien5 and other researchers/teachers of the belt voice. Before objectively evaluating
the belt voice, one must first be able to identify the unique perceptual qualities that define this style of singing. Therefore, this investigation attempted to define the elite student belt voice based
on a given set of perceptual guidelines. Those singers who possessed the desired qualities were selected, and compared with
those who did not. The following questions were posed to both
the raters (casting directors) and the participants (belters):
1. Does the perceived average vocal loudness during song
differ between the elite belt voice and average belt voice?
Wendy DeLeo LeBorgne, et al
679
The Broadway Belt Voice
2. Does the perceived presence and use of vibrato differ between elite belters and average belters during song?
3. Does the perception of a ring in the voice differ between
elite belters and average belters during song?
4. Do expert listeners perceive a difference in timbre
between elite and average belt voices during song?
5. Does the perceived tone focus differ between elite and
average belters during song?
6. Do expert listeners perceive a difference in the average
degree of nasality between the elite belt voice and the
average belt voice during song?
7. Does the perception of a noticeable passaggio differ between the elite belt voice and the average belt voice?
METHODS
Subjects
Twenty female student belters participated in this study. Subjects
ranged in age from 18 to 25 years, with a mean of 20.5 years (standard deviation [SD]: 1.91). Belters were defined as singers who
primarily perform in the musical theater style known as belting.
Singers participating in this study were enrolled in a musical theater curriculum at the university level and had been performing or
studying the belt style for at least 1 year, with a mean of 6.7 years
of training (SD: 3.44, range: 1.5–13). Subjects were recruited
from the University of Cincinnati, College Conservatory of Music
and Wright State University, Music Theatre Division. The subjects included in this study were all undergraduate students pursuing a bachelor of fine arts (BFA) in musical theater. Unlike vocal
performance degrees, which typically offer education as high as
Doctoral Degree, there are few schools that offer higher than
a Bachelors Degree in musical theater. Additionally, information
obtained from department administration and dialogue with the
participants indicated that musical theater students from these institutions generally have professional experience on enrollment
and/or acquire professional employment within 1 year of graduation. Currently, the University of Cincinnati, College Conservatory of Music has five musical theater graduates in leading roles in
five different Broadway shows.
All subjects completed a questionnaire regarding current vocal health (Appendix A) and personal perception of belting
(Appendix B). Subjects who reported a past history of vocal
problems were included in this study. However, if the subject
reported that they were currently experiencing any of the following problems, they were excluded from the study: significant excess breathiness in singing voice; significant
hoarseness of singing voice; and/or significant pain with singing. Furthermore, if the subject reported that her vocal status
would prevent her from auditioning or performing at the time
of the study, she was eliminated. Subjects were selected without
reference to information regarding nicotine use and others obtained via the questionnaire described in Appendix A. This information was obtained solely for informational purposes.
After the explanation of the study, each subject signed an informed consent form. Subjects participating in this study committed to a 20- to 25-minute audio-recording session. No
subject was aware that the study was designed to compare perceptual characteristics of elite and average student belters.
Procedures
Audio Recording of Subjects. All subjects performed segments of the following belt songs in the original key: ‘‘I’m the
Greatest 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 vocalizes
found in Figure 1. The first vocalize was completed on the
pitches A3, F4, and E5. The second vocalizes spanned the range
D4–A5. The range of notes for the second vocalize required the
singers to traverse the typically reported passaggio of the female
voice. All subjects were provided with music and vocalizes 1
week before the recording session.
All recording sessions took place in a sound-treated room
with the ambient noise level not exceeding 55 decibel (db)
sound pressure level (SPL) (range: 50–55 dBSPL). A mouthto-microphone distance of 30 cm was the designated recording
distance using a mounted microphone. The microphone height
and distance were adjusted for each subject so that the center of
the microphone was 30 cm directly in front of each subject’s
mouth. The apparatus used to mount the microphone may be
seen in Figure 2. The apparatus included a snare drum carrier
(with the drum and bottom mounting removed), a pinewood
2 3 4 measured at 12 in a boom-style microphone stand, and
a TOA condenser Microphone (model KY, TOA Corp. Ltd.,
Surrey, UK). The total weight of the drum carrier apparatus
was 5.7 lb. All singers maintained a comfortable stance during
the vocalizes and song trials.
The TOA condenser microphone was used for recording all
singing tasks. Microphone specifications included: a gold-vaporized diaphragm with a thickness of 2 mm, a smooth frequency response from 20 to 20 000 Hz, low noise, and low
distortion, marketed for digital recordings. The microphone
was patched into a Mackie MicroSeries 1202-VLZ 12-channel
mic/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 was
patched to a Sony 670 DAT recorder (Sony Corp., Park Ridge,
NJ). After the completion of all audio recordings, the DAT recordings were randomized and recorded onto high-quality cassette tapes for rating purposes.
FIGURE 1. Vocalizes performed by all subjects.
680
Journal of Voice, Vol. 24, No. 6, 2010
FIGURE 2. Microphone apparatus.
Perceptual rating of belters
A panel of three expert judges trained in the belt style of singing
(casting directors for musical theater productions) independently
rated an audiotape of each singer’s song and vocalize productions. Each of the musical theater-casting directors had over 10
years of experience casting musical theater productions. All
judges listened to the same tapes using an AIWA CD carry component 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 explanation and audio examples of the rating parameters. After the
completion of the training tape, each judge was asked to rate
a practice singer on the given parameters. If any questions arose
following the practice trial of ratings, the judges were able to inquire about the rating definitions only at that time. The author
was present for all judges’ ratings.
The perceptual judging was completed in a quiet conference
room with no interruptions. The first portion of the rating was
a perceptual judgment of noticeable voice breaks during the vocalizes (Appendix C). On completion of the first portion of the ratings, each judge was instructed to take a 10-minute break. The
second portion of the ratings included the rating of the song segments by each subject using the rating scale in Appendix C. The
rating scale (Appendix C) was based on perceptual parameters of
the belt voice identified by the Miles and Hollien5 survey.
To determine the highest-rated (elite) and lowest-rated (average) student belters, the three judges rated all 20 student belters
on seven perceptual measures (Appendix C) in their overall
song performance. These ratings were based on an equal-interval
11-point scale with 0 being too little, 5 being appropriate, and 10
representing excessive. Finally, an overall score was given to each
subject based on the judge’s willingness to hire that particular
singer for a belt role based solely on the vocal quality of the singer.
In addition to rating subjects, each rater completed a questionnaire on his or her perception of the belt voice before and
after their ratings of all subjects (Appendix B). The information
obtained in Appendix B for both subjects and raters was solely
for 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 three
judges. The four singers with the highest overall scores were considered elite student belters, whereas the four singers with the
lowest overall scores were considered average student belters.
Further investigation into the rankings by the judges revealed
that subjects 6, 12, and 17 were consistently ranked as most elite
by all three judges, whereas subjects 5, 8, 10, and 20 were rated as
the most average belters by all of them. These results demonstrated that the judges unanimously chose the singers who would
be most aesthetically appropriate in a belt role and who would not.
Further statistical analysis aimed to look at the reliability between the judges’ ratings of all 20 belters. Kappa statistics did
not yield good correlations between the judges. These findings
indicate that although each judge underwent training related to
perceptual parameters and all of them were consistent in choosing the most elite and average belters, they were not able to
agree on what specific parameters constituted a good or bad performance. Further correlation measures between judges showed
that judges 1 and 2 correlated most strongly on their ratings of
intensity, vibrato, and ring, and judge 3 did not correlate well
with 1 or 2 on any perceptual parameter except vibrato.
Linear regressions were performed for each of the judges individually and then as a combined group. Results are discussed
later. Finally a cluster analysis was used in an attempt to further
Wendy DeLeo LeBorgne, et al
681
The Broadway Belt Voice
TABLE 1.
The Type and Amount (in Number of 8-oz Glasses) of Fluid Consumption for Each Subject (S) Per Day
Elite
Beverage
Water per day
Coffee per day
Alcohol per month
Soda per day
Juice per day
Average
S2
S6
S12
S17
S5
S8
S10
S20
8
0
0
1
1
8
0.5
3–4
1
1
2–4
0
2–3
0–1
1
8
<1
4
1
1
2
0
0
1
2
4–5
0
0
<1
1
4
0
0
0
2
8
0
8
0
1
differentiate the perceptual parameters of the elite and average
belters. Whisker plots revealed elite belters tend to rate higher
in the areas of ring, timbre, and focus and intensity.
posed to the subjects regarding their personal opinions on belting were directly related to the parameters on which they were
rated.
Subject characteristics
No subject in the elite group reported any difficulty with either
the speaking or singing voice, based on the 11 questions regarding vocal status. One subject in the average group reported that
she often did not know what would come out when speaking or
singing and another subject in the average group reported that
she had trouble talking on the phone on a regular basis. Subjects
in the average group reported no other problems. Hydration
among both groups was moderate. The results of hydration reported by the subjects can be found in Table 1.
None of the subjects in either group reported any present or
past history of smoking or recreational drug use. Two of the
subjects in the average group reported that they were currently
taking prescription medication. One subject was on synthroid
for hypothyroidism and had been on the medication since 12
years of age. One subject reported that she was currently taking
Prilosec (Astra Zeneca) for reflux disease. She reported that in
addition to the Prilosec, she currently follows through with all
dietary and lifestyle recommendations for reflux. None of the
two subjects on medication reported adverse effects of the medication with respect to the voice.
In addition to completing the questionnaire on vocal health,
each subject completed a questionnaire on belting (Appendix
B). The results of this questionnaire were for the purposes of
discussion only and can be found in Appendix D. The questions
Analysis of vocal attributes
Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were calculated for perceived loudness, vibrato, ring, timbre, focus, and
nasality. The correlation coefficients can be found in Table 2.
The overall score was significantly correlated to two of the perceived vocal attributes. Ring was highly correlated to overall
score (r ¼ 0.943) as was vibrato (r ¼ 0.887). Ring and vibrato
were highly correlated to each other (r ¼ 0.946). Finally, loudness and ring showed a moderate correlation (r ¼ 0.724), and
loudness and vibrato showed a moderate correlation
(r ¼ 0.776).
The results of the linear regression for each of the judges indicate that judge 1 found vibrato and ring to be most consistent
with the elite belter. These results are shown in Table 3. Table 4
indicates that judge 2 had more difficulty identifying which perceptual characteristics corresponded to the elite belter. It appears that ring, focus, and nasality are the most likely
perceptual correlates for judge 3. Finally, Table 5 shows intensity, vibrato, and timbre as the most important perceptual characteristics for judge 3’s ranking of elite belters. When all three
judges were combined in the regression analysis (Table 6), vibrato, ring, and nasality were most highly associated with the
elite belt voice.
Whisker plots (Figure 3) for the elite and average belters indicated ring, timbre, and focus to be the most distinguishing
TABLE 2.
Correlation Coefficients: Overall Score as They Relate to Perceptual Score
OS
T
F
L
N
R
V
OS
T
F
L
N
R
V
1.00
0.543
1.00
0.459
0.309
1.00
0.513
0.250
0.473
1.00
0.394
0.015
0.152
0.685
1.00
0.943*
0.345
0.565
0.724y
0.587
1.00
0.887*
0.337
0.336
0.776y
0.705
0.946*
1.00
Abbreviations: OS, overall score; T, timbre; F, focus; L, loudness; N, nasality; R, ring; V, vibrato.
* Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
y
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
682
Journal of Voice, Vol. 24, No. 6, 2010
TABLE 3.
Judge 1 Regression Analysis
Parameter Estimates
Variable
Label
DF
Parameter Estimate
Standard Error
t Value
Pr > jtj
Intercept
rintensity
rvibrato
rring
rtimbre
rfocus
rnasality
Intercept
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2.06174
1.65258
3.79287
2.87161
0.00047593
0.64626
6.24459
22.95965
1.43894
1.44442
1.58350
2.22929
2.04268
2.59338
0.09
1.15
2.63
1.81
0.00
0.32
2.41
0.9298
0.2715
0.0210
0.0929
0.9998
0.7567
0.0316
Abbreviations: DF, degrees of freedom; Pr, prevalence ratio.
characteristics for elite belters. Within these plots, all 20 subjects are included, with the middle group representing the belters who did not fall in either the elite or average group. Within
the whisker plots, the scores have been recoded to differentiate
the groups more easily. Within the original scale set forth for the
judges, 5 was the best possible score for each perceptual characteristic, 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 8
as a 3; 3 and 7 as a 4; 4 and 6 as 5; and 5 as 6.
the elite belt voice. Loudness also showed a strong correlation
to ring and vibrato, perhaps influencing the overall perception
of the elite student belt sound. Although the correlational analyses did not find statistical significance regarding timbre, focus/
clarity, nasality, or registration in defining the elite student belt
voice, perceptions reported by singers and raters are provided
for informational purposes.
Perceptual judgments of loudness
Miles and Hollien5 reported that the most frequent perceptual
reference to belting included the term loudness. When raters
and singers in the present study were asked to define belting
with respect to loudness, all three judges reported that it ‘‘tends
to be loud.’’ The singers were divided on this issue. Three of the
singers reported belting as being loud and five reported that not
all belting was loud. The opinion of the latter singers can be
found in the work of Schutte and Miller.17 These authors suggested that belting reflects speech-like characteristics. As
such, variation in vocal intensity may be found in belt singing.
A position statement by Mary Saunders, distributed at the National Association of Teachers of Singing (NATS) 2001 winter
workshop on belting, describes the relationship between speech
and song as it relates to increased and decreased vocal intensity
reflective of the emotional state of a character:
DISCUSSION
Attempts to define the perceptual characteristics of the belt
voice are limited to one earlier study.5 Miles and Hollien5 reviewed the limited literature that defined characteristics of belting, including surveys of voice teachers and other voice
professionals. They concluded that there were four recurring
perceptual judgments of belting (loud, heavy phonation, little
to no vibrato, high degree of nasality). The authors challenged
other researchers to investigate their findings.
The present study responded to the Miles and Hollien challenge, and required raters to evaluate the belt voice quality of
20 musical theater majors who were proficient in the singing
style referred to as belting. The raters in the present study
were asked to judge the student belters on a set of seven perceptual parameters (loudness, vibrato, ring, timbre, focus, nasality,
and registration breaks) and then report an overall score for these
student belters. A correlational analysis revealed ring and vibrato to be the most deciding perceived events to characterize
The musical theater singing voice is an acoustical and emotional extension of the speaking voice and, while something
similar might be said of the operatic singing voice, I would
argue that opera seeks to transcend speaking. But musical
TABLE 4.
Judge 2 Regression Analysis
Parameter Estimates
Variable
Label
DF
Parameter Estimate
Standard Error
t Value
Pr > jtj
Intercept
rintensity
rvibrato
rring
rtimbre
rfocus
rnasality
Intercept
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6.45423
3.06620
1.34416
4.97655
1.21834
5.23331
4.01262
21.92165
2.39814
1.78460
2.95677
2.33778
3.50026
2.60410
0.29
1.28
0.75
1.68
0.52
1.50
1.54
0.7731
0.2234
0.4648
0.1162
0.6110
0.1588
0.1473
Abbreviations: DF, degrees of freedom; Pr, prevalence ratio.
Wendy DeLeo LeBorgne, et al
683
The Broadway Belt Voice
TABLE 5.
Judge 3 Regression Analysis
Parameter Estimates
Variable
Label
DF
Parameter Estimate
Standard Error
t Value
Pr > jtj
Intercept
rintensity
rvibrato
rring
rtimbre
rfocus
rnasality
Intercept
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6.89404
5.33837
3.83493
0.08351
4.40484
0.26163
1.36716
3.18919
1.08749
0.90533
1.05236
1.21929
1.08749
0.90035
2.16
4.91
4.24
0.08
3.61
0.24
1.52
0.0499
0.0003
0.0010
0.9380
0.0032
0.8136
0.1528
Abbreviations: DF, degrees of freedom; Pr, prevalence ratio.
theater is a vernacular forum and owes its credibility to its
ability to touch the prosaic. So it is important that its singing
voice, rather than transcend the spoken, amplify and extend
it without distorting or transfiguring it. The musical theater
song’s classical first cousin is the soliloquy not the aria
(handout).
In the present study, perceived loudness did not correlate with
the overall score of the student belters. Rather, findings reflect
that the perceived ring and vibrato correlated greatly with the
overall score of the elite singer. However, perceived loudness
showed a moderate correlation to both ring and vibrato. This
finding indicates that the student belter’s use of ring and vibrato
may result in an increased perception of loudness. There are no
reports in the previous literature on belting, which indicate expected intensity levels, vibrato rates, or consistency of the singer’s formant for comparison.
Perceptual judgments of vibrato
The opinions regarding the use of vibrato in belting by raters
and singers provide an interesting basis for discussion. All
singers and raters believed that belting uses vibrato; however,
the reported nature and use of the vibrato varied. Several singers
and one judge felt that the use of vibrato in belting was no different than what is used in classical singing. The literature reports a high correlation of a consistent, even vibrato, with
overall vocal beauty in the classical singer.21 One judge and
TABLE 6.
Judge 1, 2, and 3 Combined Regression Analysis Based
on Overall Score
Parameter Estimates
Variable
DF
Parameter
Estimate
Standard
Error
t Value
Pr > jtj
Intercept
rintensity
rvibrato
rring
rtimbre
rfocus
rnasality
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10.42935
2.31804
3.32350
5.70476
0.61575
0.28590
6.56929
13.18523
2.29255
1.63747
2.06676
2.92805
2.64768
2.20460
0.79
1.01
2.03
2.76
0.21
0.11
2.98
0.4431
0.3304
0.0634
0.0162
0.8367
0.9157
0.0106
Abbreviations: DF, degrees of freedom; Pr, prevalence ratio.
four singers felt that the use of vibrato in belting was different
from classical singing. The judge who reported that he did not
feel vibrato used in belting was different from the classical
singer qualified his answer by stating that the use of vibrato
in belting was a stylistic choice and that there was a wide range
of acceptable vibrato. Further comments by singers and judges
in the present study regarding the vibrato use in belting may be
found in Appendix D.
The literature on belting reports that little to no vibrato is an essential characteristic of belting.5 Results of the present study are
in contrast to Miles and Hollien’s findings. Rather, the present
study reports that the use of vibrato in belting may be more similar
to the use of vibrato in jazz singing (which is also considered nontraditional music). Jazz is reported to mix straight tones with vibrato by altering the rate and amplitude of the vibrato.22 An
objective 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 voice
is ongoing.2,11,12,17 The lyrics of musical theater songs are required to be understood on the first hearing, because they are
essential for plot advancement and emotional content. Therefore, it has been postulated that the formants that define the
vowels (F1–F2) and the subsequent higher formants are paramount for text comprehension, whereas the ability for the voice
to ring may be of secondary concern in belters.2,12,13 Although
professional classical singers typically cultivate and promote
training of the singer’s formant, allowing them to be heard
over an orchestra without amplification, the reported lack of
a singer’s formant in belting may be the result of body microphone use in most professional productions. Interestingly, an article in Opera Monthly reported that professional opera singers
had difficulty being heard and understood when singing in a specific musical theater production.23
Most of the student belters and judges in the present study believe that belters possess a consistent ring in the voice. More
specifically, the degree of ring was thought to vary throughout
the range, and the use of ring is (like vibrato) a stylistic choice.
This perceptual judgment lends itself to the possibility that the
individuality of the singer (with respect to the use of vibrato and
ring) is what makes the voice interesting. This is in direct contrast to reports on classical singing, where the consistency of the
singer’s formant was reported to be vital to the perception of
684
Journal of Voice, Vol. 24, No. 6, 2010
Analysis of overall_score
Analysis of intensity
6.0
90
5.5
Intensity
Overall_Score
95
85
80
75
5.0
4.5
70
4.0
65
Worst
Middle
Box width varies with n
Worst
Middle
Box width varies with n
Best
Analysis of vibrato
Best
Analysis of ring
6.0
6.0
5.5
Ring
Vibrato
5.5
5.0
4.5
5.0
4.0
4.5
3.5
4.0
3.0
Worst
Middle
Box width varies with n
Worst
Middle
Box width varies with n
Best
Analysis of timbre
Analysis of focus
6.0
6.0
5.5
Focus
5.5
Timbre
Best
5.0
4.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
4.0
Worst
Middle
Box width varies with n
Best
Worst
Middle
Box width varies with n
Best
Analysis of nasality
6.0
Nasality
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
Worst
Middle
Box width varies with n
Best
FIGURE 3. Whisker plots for elite and average belters based on perceptual parameters.
vocal beauty.21 Perhaps it is the individuality of the belt technique that makes this style of singing so difficult to quantify.
Perceptual judgments of timbre
The literature reports that belting is often associated with
a bright timbre.5,8–10,17,18 The degree of brightness in the singing voice is an aesthetic choice in most cases. Typically, the
operatic voice is considered darker and rounder compared
with the musical theater quality in belting.2,11,12,17 It is also
noted in the literature that to traverse the passaggio, male
singers in the operatic tradition ‘‘cover’’ (slight darkening of
tone) as they ascend in frequency.24 Without ‘‘covering,’’ a noticeable break is often noted at the natural passaggio. Belters do
not seem to use this strategy as they ascend in frequency; hence,
the perception of a bright voice may be justified. All of the
singers and judges in the present study reported that belters
Wendy DeLeo LeBorgne, et al
The Broadway Belt Voice
needed a bright vocal quality to be considered elite. One singer
reported that belters who have found different ‘‘colors’’ in the
voice have voices that are acoustically interesting. These judgments are consistent with the findings of Miles and Hollien.5
Perceptual judgments of focus/clarity
A unanimous consensus of both judges and singers that elite
belters maintain a more focused tone than average belters was
reported on the questionnaire. The literature provides two possible definitions of focus/clarity.11,12,14,20,24–26 The first connotation of focus refers to the brilliance of a given sound. Forward
focus/placement is the term associated with the perceived feeling a singer experiences for a bright vocal quality. The second
connotation of the word focus relates to the removal of excess
breathiness from the sound, and is created by the degree of glottic closure. Clarification of definitions of focus/clarity was not
provided to either the raters or singers. Therefore, it is unclear
as to which definition they were referring in their response.
Perceptual judgments of nasality
Although the degree of nasality in belting has never been evaluated objectively, the literature on belting reports that one of the
characteristic perceived parameters of belting is a high degree
of nasality in the tone.1–12,17,18 The judges and raters in the
present study were divided on this issue. The judges felt that
belters should not be perceived as ‘‘nasal,’’ but may use strategies to produce a forward sound that results in a slightly nasal
quality. Some of the singers felt belting is characterized by
a bright, but not nasal sound; others felt that nasality was a perceived (not actual) event that occurred as a result of attempting
to maintain brightness. Finally, one belter reported that because
of the nature of the desired brightness, the listener may perceive
a 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 maximal
strain will eventually result in a registration break.5,10,22,27
Six of the eight student belters in the present study reported
they felt a noticeable registration break. One singer in the elite
group and one singer in the average group felt they did not have
a noticeable break.
IMPLICATIONS
Today’s stars on Broadway can belt high E’s and F’s, and it may
be the emotional commitment they make to that vocal production which keeps audiences returning for more. Defining this
‘‘something’’ which makes the belt voice what it is has posed
a problem to voice pedagogues, scientists, and singers for years.
Quantifying art rarely provides clear-cut results, and perhaps, it
is for this reason many choose not to delve into such research.
Consensus on a perceptual definition of the belt voice is closer
to being a reality, but semantic differences continue to present
a stumbling block to the scientist.
Based on the limited findings of the present study, both
teachers and singers should continue to work toward training
a voice in which the use of vibrato is consistent. The placement
685
of the tone should be slightly brighter and more forward than
the typical classical sound. Despite the use of personal amplification on the musical theater stage, a ring in the voice is desired.
The correlational findings from this study suggest that if the
ring of the voice and vibrato are optimal, the overall vocal intensity may be perceived as loud. If, in fact, the belter can attain
a perceived desired vocal intensity by optimally using her vibrato and resonance, she may be preserving the laryngeal mechanism. This theory warrants further investigation.
Because the nature of belting appears to be based out of
speech, and speech-like inflections, the voice teacher and voice
pathologist must ensure that his or her singers are making optimal use of the speaking voice. Specifically, belters need to be
able to support the speaking voice with adequate breath and inflection. As such, training appropriate breathing techniques,
phonation strategies, and resonance within the speaking voice
is the first step in maintaining a healthy belt voice. Balancing
the three subsystems of voice (respiration, phonation, and resonance) will enable the belter to experiment and use dynamic
control and timbre choices.
Vocal health in the belter continues to be a source of debate.
Although classical singers may also cause laryngeal trauma
from inappropriate sound production, if belters do use a longer
closed phase of the vibratory cycle in conjunction with increased amplitude of vibration, then these singers may theoretically be placed in a high-risk category for potential vocal
injury.20 It is hypothesized that repeated impact during vocal
fold vibration may cause injury to the basement membrane
zone (BMZ). Titze22 reports, ‘‘The effective impact seems to
be cumulative, based on the number of collisions per unit
time’’ (p. 49). Additionally, in a study examining the effects
of vibration on the BMZ, Gray28 reported cellular abnormalities
in both canine and human larynges.
The voice teacher and voice pathologist must remember that
it is often the unique voice that gets hired. It is interesting to
note that two of the average student belters in the present study
were recently hired for professional work and signed with
agencies in New York. This further supports the fact that it is
not just the voice quality of these performers that makes them
marketable, but rather the entire package they offer. This package may include physical attributes specific to a role, and other
skills, such as the ability to dance and act. It becomes the job of
the voice teacher/pathologist to teach them how to use the vocal
mechanism in the healthiest manner possible, striving to
achieve a sound that is hired in the Broadway houses.
Voice pedagogues, singers, and scientists who are most intimately involved in the belt voice need to continue to work toward defining some basic terminologies associated with this
voice type. Perhaps the next step is to evaluate perceptual characteristics of the original great belters based on original cast recordings, and compare them with the great belters of today. The
aesthetics related to belting may have changed with time, which
may help explain why some vocal teachers and coaches have
differing opinions of optimal quality. Perhaps, there are very
few commonalities among these singers, and it is simply the
shear uniqueness of a voice, a look, or particular talent that
got them where they are. Further objective analyses by voice
686
scientists into the belt voice among professional musical theater
performers (Actors Equity Association) and established Broadway artists are warranted to yield the true definition of the desired vocal parameters.
REFERENCES
1. 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. Björkner E. Musical theater and opera singing—why so different? A study
of subglottal pressure, voice source, and formant frequency characterizstics. 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 acoustical 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 Pedagogy. 1989;13:41–56.
19. Sundberg J, Gramming P, Lovetri J. Comparisons of pharynx, source, formant, 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. Laryngostroboscopic, acoustic, and environmental characteristics of high-risk vocal 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 perceptual 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?). Opera 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. Björkner E, Sundberg J, Cleveland T, Stone E. Voice source difference between 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 Publishing Group; 1991:21–28.
Journal of Voice, Vol. 24, No. 6, 2010
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/No
Do you have trouble speaking loudly or being heard in noisy
situations? Yes/No
Do you run out of air and need to take frequent breaths when
talking? Yes/No
Do you often feel that you do not know what will come out
when speaking or singing? Yes/No
Do you get anxious, frustrated or depressed on a regular basis
because of your voice? Yes/No
Do you have trouble using the telephone on a regular basis?
Yes/No
Do you have to repeat yourself often in order to be understood? Yes/No
Do you feel that you have to strain to speak or sing on a regular basis? Yes/No
Do you feel that you use an abundant amount of effort to produce voice? Yes/No
Does your voice ‘‘give out’’ on you on a regular basis? Yes/No
Does your voice prevent you from engaging in social situations? Yes/No
Current Medications: ————
Smoking History:
Do you presently smoke (cigarettes/cigars/recreational
drugs)? Yes No
B If Yes, How much? ———— How Long? ————
Have you ever smoked on a regular basis in the past?
Yes No
B 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 than
average 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 average belters?
7. Do you feel that you have a noticeable ‘‘break’’/passaggio?———— If yes, where does it occur?————
Wendy DeLeo LeBorgne, et al
687
The Broadway Belt Voice
Define Belting in terms of :
1) Characteristic sound (bright, dark, twangy, etc)
2) Use of Vibrato
3) Loudness
4) Placement
5) Other comments
TIMBRE (EXCLUDING NASALITY)
0
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10
too dark
appropriate
too bright
TONE FOCUS
Appendix C
Judges’ Form—Part 1
ARE THERE AUDIBLE REGISTRATION BREAKS ON
ANY/EACH OF THE FOLLOWING SUNG SEGMENTS?
(CIRCLE YES OR NO FOR EACH SUBJECT)
0
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10
too
appropriate
too pointed
spread
NASALITY
Soft-Loud-Soft
LOW PITCH
YES NO
MID-PITCH
YES NO
HIGH PITCH
YES NO
SCALES
YES
/i/ as in eat
YES NO
/a/ as in father
YES NO
/u/ as in food
YES NO
Appendix D
Judges’ Form—Part 2. Rate each belter based in the Musical Theater Tradition. Consider ALL SIX SEGMENTS in your
score.
DO NOT RATE EACH SEGMENT. Rather, give an
OVERALL SCORE.
You will hear each subject sing the same six excerpts from
the following six songs:
I’m the Greatest Star (Funny Girl); I got the Sun in the Morning (Annie Get You Gun); Rose’s Turn (Gypsy); Someone Like
You (Jeckle & Hyde); I’ll Be Seeing You (Right This Way);
Cabaret (Cabaret)
AVERAGE VOCAL INTENSITY (PERCEIVED LOUDNESS
ACROSS THE ENTIRE PIECE)
0
too soft
1
2
0
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10
denasal
appropriate
hypernasal
3
4
5
appropriate
6
7
8
9
10
too loud
Does this singer demonstrate a noticeable ‘‘break’’?
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
1. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT ELITE BELTERS HAVE
LOUDER VOICES THAN AVERAGE BELTERS?
Judge #1
No
Judge #2
Yes
Judge # 3
Yes
#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
USE OF VIBRATO
0
no
vibrato
1
2
3
4
5
appropriate
6
7
8
9
10
too much
vibrato
1
2
3
4
5
appropriate
6
7
8
9
10
too much
ring
‘‘RING’’
0
no ring
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
688
Judge #3
#2 EH (elite)
#6 AB (elite)
#12 MM (elite)
#17 KV (elite)
#5 EW (avg)
#8 AB (avg)
#10 AA (avg)
#20 LM (avg)
Journal of Voice, Vol. 24, No. 6, 2010
Yes. Their use of vibrato is different from
the classical singer at times. It is wider
than the classical vibrato
Sort of . It is a forward vibrato and adds
spin to the voice
Yes. Yes. It is more in the chest and in the
face
Somewhat, yes. Yes. Use of vibrato is not
as apparent as classical singers
Yes. Yes. Classical singers use a looser,
wider vibrato
Yes. Not too differently. Belters can control
their vibrato more and completely stop it
without stopping support
Yes. Not different than classical singing
Yes. Yes. Belters use vibrato for a source of
power
Yes. N/A
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
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.
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
6. DO ELITE BELTERS MAINTAIN A MORE FOCUSED
TONE THAN AVERAGE BELTERS?
Judge #1
Judge #2
Judge # 3
#2 EH (elite)
#6 AB (elite)
#12 MM (elite)
#17 KV (elite)
#5 EW (avg)
#8 AB (avg)
#10 AA (avg)
#20 LM (avg)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
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
Wendy DeLeo LeBorgne, et al
689
The Broadway Belt Voice
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)
#17 KV (elite)
#5 EW (avg)
#8 AB (avg)
#10 AA (avg)
#20 LM (avg)
Strong, supported tone with more straight
tones than vibrato. Medium-loud in
dynamics and the placement is in the
‘‘mask’’
Bright, full tone with a relaxed vibrato.
Normal loudness level with a forward
placement.
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
Bright sound with consistent use of
vibrato. You are typically louder on
higher notes and the placement is very
forward
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
Warm sunlight tones. Vibrato is the result
of continued airflow and the loudness
varies from performer to performer