Beyond Classical Mixing in The Belt. [PDF]

Zitiervorschau

BEYOND CLASSICAL: MIXING IN THE BELT. AN EXPLORATION OF MUSICAL THEATRE SINGING

by Lauren Elizabeth Rathbun

A Senior Honors Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of The University of Utah In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Honors Degree in Bachelor of Fine Arts

In Musical Theatre

Approved:

^_^Bnan Manterna< D.M. Thesis Faculty Supervisor

Gage Williams, MFA Chair, Department of Theatre

____________________

Sydney Cneek-O’Donnell, PhD Honors Faculty Advisor

Sylvia D. Torti, PhD Dean, Honors College

Lauren Rathbun Copyright © August 2015

ABSTRACT Belt, mix and classical are three terms for distinguishing the different sounds used in musical theatre vocal repertoire. Each requires different techniques regarding resonance space, vowels, laryngeal position, and breath management. For years, there has been a debate among vocal pedagogues questioning the risk of belt and mix singing. Through my journey at the University of Utah in the BFA Musical Theatre Program, I was interested in demystifying the assumptions and questions presented about belt and mix technique, and defining those sounds in my own voice. I documented my personal discoveries gained through private instruction, at-home experimentation, comments from competition judges, and inspiration from peers, to provide a detailed overview of each technique. In this thesis I discuss the varying opinions on each and compare the outside sources with my own experience. In musical theatre, it is vital for the female singer to acquire maximum proficiency in each register to broaden her marketability, overall vocal health, and opportunities in the industry.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT

ii

PREFACE

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

vii

INTRODUCTION

1

MECHANICS

7

MISCONCEPTIONS

17

CURRENT APPLICATION

25

CONCLUSION

32

REFERENCES

35

iii

PREFACE How many tools do you have in your toolbox? It is a lifelong process to acquire the number of skills one needs to be successful in his or her field, and a never-ending one at that. When I was a child, I thought that people were guaranteed success if they mastered a skill in college. I quickly learned that the education one gains from college is the starting point to building a life in the particular field of study, and that diversity within the field often leads to opportunities. One is constantly changing and improving according to alterations in technology, society, personal goals, and competition for jobs. Also, the more knowledge and skills one is willing to tackle, the more opportunities become present. Musical theatre is a complex major to pursue because of its three equally proficient entities required of one performer: acting, dancing, and singing. The ultimate goal while in a BFA program is to acquire enough competence in all three skills to become a “triple threat,” or a performer with equal abilities to act, sing, and dance well. I’ll emphasize -well here, for mediocrity in all three rarely guarantees survival in such a competitive field. As a “triple threat,” one ideally should be able to audition for shows that require brilliance in all three categories. It of course takes a special type of person to have the intellectual capacity for acting, the physique and rhythm for dance, the natural ability for singing, and the work ethic to succeed in all three. However, the achievement is attainable, which is why many pursue the dream. I grew up singing, being asked to audition for Utah Children’s Opera when I was

five (and pretending to forget the lyrics to “Over the Rainbow” in my audition to avoid singing it because I was so nervous) and acting with The Children’s Theatre in Downtown Salt Lake City for a while. In fourth grade I was accepted into The Madeleine Choir School, America’s only European-modeled performance singing and academic academy, in efforts from my parents to develop my “natural talent.” In high school, the musical theatre bug bit me and I decided to pursue the triple­ threat career with a college degree. It was in college where I was exposed to the many layers that lie beneath just the mere abilities to sing, act, and dance. Within each category, there are so many skills and syntax one needs to learn, hone, and create. Musical theatre entails a wide variety of vocal demands, with shows ranging from operettas like Pirates o f Penzance to Golden Age musicals like Oklahoma, to extremely text-heavy shows such as Into the Woods, to rock musicals like American Idiot. Many shows require multiple vocal demands from one singer. In Phantom o f the Opera, Madame Giry has to have a solid “belt” (a music theatre vocal technique) as well as high soprano notes. In She Loves Me, most of Amalia’s songs are in a classical soprano register, but she has to use more speech-dominant sound in the song “Where’s My Shoe?” In the voice area of the Musical Theatre Program (MTP) at the University of Utah, there is a strict curriculum that aims to “build the toolbox” of vocal colors and ability. By the end of the four-year program, students have acquired songs for their audition books from every time period of musical theatre repertoire, starting with Golden

Age through contemporary, as well as classical arias, art songs, and pieces from operas. Belt, mix and classical are three terms for distinguishing the different sounds used in music theatre, each requiring different techniques regarding resonance space, vowels, and breath management. For years, there has been a debate among vocal pedagogues questioning the risk of belt and mix singing. At the University of Utah, MTP students begin their vocal studies singing only classical technique, with Italian art songs and Golden Age repertoire in hopes to establish a healthy foundation upon which to eventually build belt and mix singing. Through my journey at the U, I was particularly interested in demystifying the assumptions and questions presented about belt and mix technique, and finding those sounds in my own voice. I documented my personal discoveries gained through private instruction, at-home experimentation, comments from competition judges, and inspiration from peers to contribute to a capstone that would not only inform and further my personal journey, but educate and hopefully inspire others in their vocal studies. This thesis attempts to demystify the mechanics of classical, mix, and belt in the female voice, defining the key elements used to produce the sounds through the lens of my own personal journey, from teachers who have guided me, articles that informed me, and peers who have inspired me.

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There are so many, countless people who have helped me on my journey. I have to first thank my parents, who have always encouraged me to follow every dream of mine, pursue every talent, and also write this thesis. I owe everything to them. I proudly acknowledge the faculty of the Madeleine Choir School of Salt Lake City, Utah, who not only gave me an immense leg-up in music theory, but also a deep love and appreciation of Classical music, and the voice as an instrument. Thank you for lending me the initial spark to launch my singing career. My continued inspiration, and initial music theatre education I owe to Mr. Steve Pay, who fueled my performing desire and encouraged me to take a leap of faith into a BFA program. Thank you for believing in me. David and Shalee Schmidt have been with me through much of this journey. I can’t thank either of them enough for taking me under their wings as a vocal student, accepting me into the MTP, and challenging and helping me grow every step of the way. Thank you. Many thanks to Shawna Gottfredson, who transformed my voice and showed me the keys to truly unlock the depths and potential of my instrument. Thank you for sharing your magic. And a very special thanks to Dr. Brian Mantemach, my faculty supervisor for this thesis, whose passion for learning and knowledge of the voice constantly inspires me to be a better singer, performer, academic, and person. I can’t thank you enough. vii

I can’t forget to acknowledge the performers in Utah, on Broadway, and in London who unknowingly are much of the reason I continue to do this. In this field, I am inspired daily!

viii

INTRODUCTION Imagine yourself in the second row of Wicked on Broadway, blown away by Elphaba’s last held note in “Defying Gravity” You may have noticed a difference between the sound she’s making on her last held note as she ascends into smoke on her broomstick, versus the warmer sound of an opera singer. That’s because Elphaba and the opera singer are using two different singing techniques used in musical theatre: belt and classical. Since the seventeenth century, classical singing has carried the esteemed reputation of being the most proper way to present a song in civilized society (Edwin,’’Belt is Legit,” 213). It wasn’t until the twentieth century when Broadway stars like Ethel Merman, Judy Garland, Patti Lupone, and others popularized a new and “outrageous” way to use the vocal cords. Since then, there has been an ongoing debate among vocal pedagogues about the legitimacy of belting, since the quality strays heavily from classical. In recent years, vocal pedagogues have vigorously explored both styles of singing through scopes, electroglottographs, vocal dosimeters, acoustic analysis through programs like VoceVista, and through interviews of singers to properly define what is happening in the voice during the different sounds. Several terms exist in the realm of “non-classical” sounds. In addition to “belting” are the terms: mix, mix/belt, chest mix, head mix, pure belt, light belt, healthy belt, chest belt, power belt, pop belt, rock belt, twangy belt, high belt... the list goes on! (LoVetri, 7). All represent the varying sounds among the speech-like, text-driven approach through the middle register. For the purpose of simplicity in this paper, I will

only use the terms belt, mix, and occasionally “head-dominant mix” or chest-dominant mix,” in contrast with “classical.” Belt voice lacks a singular definition. The word itself is derived from the slang term for “wallop,” meaning “delivering a hard blow.” It is “speech-like or yell-like in character” (Popeil, 77) and used in much of today’s musical theatre. It requires a higher sub-glottic pressure than classical singing, increased lung pressure, and “represents an extension the chest register upward in frequency beyond the expected modal voice range into the range that characterizes falsetto” (Leibowitz, 162). Musical theatre examples of women belting include Ethel Merman singing “Everything’s Coming Up Roses” from Gypsy, Idina Menzel’s singing “Defying Gravity” from Wicked, and songs from rock contemporary musical theatre such as American Idiot or Rock o f Ages. “Quite simply, belt singing sounds like someone’s speaking voice, and classical doesn’t” (Popeil, 77). Before the invention of microphones, performers struggled to compete with the loud brass bands of the Jazz Age. Belt singing “grew out of the need to produce intense un-amplified vocal sound to large audiences and over considerably large background instrumental accompaniments” (Titze,’’Source-Voice,” 561). The technique was first introduced during an operatic “revolution, ” however. In 1830, the French tenor Gilbert Duprez introduced a high C in chest voice on the opera stage. Leading up to Duprez’s time, tenors sang high notes with a light, mixed (chest and falsetto mix) production. In the late 1800’s, composers such as Puccini and Wagner started to prefer a more “robust tenor and baritone sound that contained more of the modal (male speaking) register at high pitches” (562). This same revolution for females occurred about a century later

when music theatre singers such as Ethel Merman were searching for a sound that would fill a large house with the evolving “Jazz Age” without amplification, and where the text could be easily understood. The quality was better suited to match jazz instruments, and was a “portrayal of stronger and self-determined characters” (562). The classical world scorned belt singing at first due to the “unnatural” extension of using chest voice for singing notes in the head voice register. Belt was immediately condemned as “low brow, commercial, and somewhat the bastard child of authentic singing” (Edwin, “Belt is Legit,” 213). “Belt” has a much broader definition now, and is used as a noun, adjective, and verb in the music theatre community. A “belter” describes someone able to sing in this vocal quality, who is often “identified with it” (LoVetri, 4). A “belt song” refers to a song meant to be sung using belt technique (determined through research of the era in which it was written, the context of the show, and analysis of the character who sings it). “Belt” refers to the general sounds accepted by the definition, of which there are many. Two individual voices can produce totally different sounds using the same technique, but can be identified through recognizable qualities, which will be discussed in the “Mechanics” section of this paper. The term “legit” appeared as a nickname for classical singing in the early 1900’s to distinguish the “elite” way of singing from the newly introduced belt technique. Italian classical technique is often referred to as “bel canto,” which refers to the period of time in Italy starting in about the mid-1700s where certain qualities such as: vibrato on every note, lifted soft palate in the mouth, and a resonant backspace to create open,

organic vowels became widely accepted around the world as a healthy way to produce the desired operatic sound (Miller, 150). It is considered by many to be the standard classical approach. One of the objectives of bel canto singers is “the development of a vocal scale that [is] pure, unbroken, and uninterrupted” (150).

As author and voice

pedagogue Scott McCoy observed in his study of classical, bel canto-originated sound, “The throat is relaxed to its maximum circumference to produce a warmly resonant sound” (McCoy, 546). Beautiful quality of sound is prized above all else. “Mix” is a term used through the middle voice (in females) from about an F4 to a G5 that allows seamless blending of the head and chest voices throughout the middle range. It is an acoustic strategy that “enables sustainably lower pressure levels” (Bozeman, 70) in the voice because a singer learns how to mix head tones into her chest production, making a belt sound that is more realistic to produce eight times a week (the amount of performances shows have on Broadway). My voice teacher Brian Manternach describes mix as an “adjustment of the percentages” of head and chest voice, according to the desired timbre (color/tone) for the song or specific note. The growing popularity of mix and belt singing over the twentieth century is linked with the evolution and growth of musical theatre as an art form in the United States. Show Boat in 1927 was the first theatre piece to integrate song and dialogue to tell a serious storyline, and Oklahoma was the first to introduce dance as well. In both of these shows, the text of the song was key in understanding the feelings of the characters, which contributed to the plot. In musical theatre, the songs are used as catalysts for the storyline, characters’ feelings, and to present the morals of the story rather than to display

the vocal abilities of the singer. As opposed to opera, “vocal beauty is not the primary goal,” but rather, “emotional expressivity and story telling” (Balog, 402). With the advent of rock n’ roll, musical writers started to experiment with the societal music trends, and storytelling became a more important factor. Having a more speech-like singing quality shifted the focus to the text, and as an added benefit, singers were able to compete with the sounds from the accompanying brass bands, and eventually, rock bands that were dominating musical theatre repertoire. Acting is the most essential ability to possess for a successful career in music theatre. Since theatre is about storytelling, “pretty sounds” only go so far as giving one a solid base to build upon in interpreting a song. It is this base, however, that is necessary for a singer to have control of in order to fully invest in the character and commit to the text. My voice teacher Shawna Gottfredson refers to it as “submitting yourself’ to the character; fully investing in the story of the song once the technique is settled. By knowing how to produce the various sounds with ease and consistency, one has the freedom to sing anything from Oklahoma/ to Chicago to Memphis the Musical. And when correct vocal navigation is attained, the text interpretation can build upon that, and a song becomes a work of art. In my studies at the University of Utah, I have explored classical, mix, and belt in my own voice. I began school as a soprano, strongest in open-throated head and chest voices, then half way through college, I discovered ease in raising my chest voice above my passaggio to unlock a significant belt sound, as well as improving flexibility and specificity in my mix voice. My senior vocal recital, entitled “On My Way,” included a

collection of songs in these different techniques, and I leave college with a commitment to this life-long process of learning and developing the many aspects of my voice. I am eager to explore the misconceptions about belt and mix singing, define the basic mechanics of the voice and the evolution of that knowledge, and examine the current applicability of being well-versed in the varying styles, and how these “tools” contribute to a successful career in musical theatre.

MECHANICS My collegiate vocal process began with gaining a more in-depth understanding of the larynx: the musculature and air pathways, and studying how phonation technically occurs. Clifton Ware’s book, Basics o f Vocal Pedagogy: The Foundation and Process o f Singing was a significant guide to my comprehension of the vocal mechanism. In chapter four, he breaks down the vocal process into the three basic components that drive the sound: 1. Lungs, which use air pressure to 2. vibrate the vocal folds, which 3. produce sound out of the vocal tract. He emphasizes breath as the first step in using the “vocal organ” (Ware, 54). Later, he dedicates a whole chapter to emphasizing the necessity of “efficient and coordinated respiratory skills” (73). In Kenneth W. Bozeman’s book Practical Vocal Acoustics: Pedagogic Applications fo r Teachers and Singers, a more recent guide through my journey, the “mode of phonation” is described similarly, involving breath pressure, airflow, and glottal (valve) resistance. Bozeman gathers these factors into a “phonation equation: breath pressure/airflow = glottal resistance.” For vocal fold vibration to occur, there needs to be sufficient sub-glottal air pressure, as well as a coordination of several laryngeal muscles. The thyroarytenoid muscle, which we’ll call “TA” for short, forms the body of each vocal fold (Ware, 101). Air flows through this source for a “chest voice” sound. The TA is a vocal fold shortening and thickening muscle, making up the body of the vocal folds (Bozeman, 6). There is a muscle attached to the thyroid cartilage called the cricothyroid muscle (nicknamed “CT”) that tilts the thyroid cartilage forward, hence lengthening the TA muscle, creating the sound called “head voice.”

Robert Edwin, “one of the most successful teachers of belting in the world” (McCoy, 546), performed a study examining TA and CT to find a clearer understanding of belt. Edwin found that “healthy, efficient belting is a result of keeping the TA-CT muscle interaction properly balanced in each individual voice” (Edwin, “What’s Going On,” 72). A narrowed pharynx and more horizontal mouth position for vowels and consonants make possible the bright resonance sound characteristic of belting. He states that “in order to create a healthy, efficient, and artistically credible belt, a voice technique measurably different than that used in classical singing is needed” (Edwin, “Belt is Legit,” 214). In order to create the bright, speech-like sounds with controlled vibrato, one must sing with TA-dominant vocal source. Approaching belt technique from a classical standpoint requires “a shift from tall, round vowels and formal language to the production of bright, narrow vowels and speech-based language” (215). The shift is also accompanied with TA/CT muscular adjustments. Author and voice pedagogue Karen Hall defines the difference between female music theatre and classical singing as simply the use of head and chest register. “In the simplest terms, female music theater singing requires more use of chest register, especially in the middle register (the middle-C octave), while classical singing uses more head register throughout the entire vocal range.” (Hall, 69). I define “belting” in my own voice as a chest voice dominant sound with a yell or call-like quality, energized in the same way as if I were calling out for a taxi cab. I feel a forwardly-focused resonance in the front “mask” of my face, with open, speech-like vowels, and occasional modification to “uh,” “ah,” or “eh” on sustained notes above

about a G4 (above my register break, called the “passaggio”). I define “mixing” in my voice as a usually head-dominant sound with very forward resonance like belting, but with more sensations in my nasal bone and not as wide of a backspace. “Chest-dominant mix” in my voice feels like belting, but with the same resonance sensation in my nasal bone as my head-dominant mix. The sensations and definitions I try to develop for the sounds my voice teachers have identified in my voice as “belt,” “head mix,” and “chest mix” seem to change daily, however! I am in the midst of this seemingly never-ending process of learning and defining my instrument. I have heard conflicting views from three different teachers of mine about whether all “belting” is a mix of head and chest voices, with chest voice just being more dominant, or if true “belting” is the extension of the chest voice above the passaggio, and “mixing” is the conscious addition of head tones on notes throughout the entire middle range. From about a C4 to B5 I can create three different sounds that I would classify as belt, chest mix, and head mix. I hesitate to even make a distinction between “belt” and “chest mix,” because really the only difference I feel is is a narrowing of my pharynx and a more focused sound in the mix version. However, it is possible that what feels like pure chest voice being carried up is actually mixed as well, just with a different pharyngeal space. One song in my repertoire that has allowed me to play with the different sounds is “All to Pieces” from Violet. I can comfortably sing this in (what feels like) pure chest voice, in chest-dominant mix, as well as in head-dominant mix. I am eager to one day observe my instrument during each sound production with Electroglottograph and see what is actually happening in my larynx, and if indeed what feels like pure chest voice is

technically the same as what feels like chest mix. For this particular song, I found that head-dominant mix feels the easiest in terms of effort but doesn’t sound powerful enough to match the blunt and callous personality of the character. Chest belt doesn’t quite match the twangy nature of the song, but chest-mix sounds style-appropriate, and feels realistic to reproduce eight shows a week. These opinions are of course subjective, and in a real production, it would be collaboration or specific direction from the music director as to which sound was best. The decision of which sound to use varies among shows, and depends on many factors. I found Bozeman’s recent book helpful in breaking down the register differences. He states that “though research and conclusions about belting are still evolving,” the typical model is that “belting, acoustically speaking, is a skillful form of what we have defined as the yell... It is powerful, usually clear, high in energy, expressive, and emotionally strong” (Bozeman, 67). He continues to add that “Because of its high energy and potentially higher pressure levels, it also poses higher health risks if unskillfully executed. Yet it is also apparent that those singers who master the skills necessary to this form of vocalism manage to sustain long and healthy careers” (67). He explains the modification to open “ah” and “eh” vowels (as I earlier mentioned finding helpful in sustaining belt notes) to create shapes more compatible with the acoustic requirements of the yell (68). He explains how there is no distinct timbre or separate register for “mix,” but rather it is a term used to describe the area of cooperation between the TA and CT that retains a consistent timbre using an acoustic strategy to “enable sustainably lower

pressure levels” (70). Mix, he states, retains most of the timbre of chest but with less heft, sheer breath force, and airflow. Bozeman notes the unique element for good function in belting is “especially high energization, lower airflow, and somewhat higher pressure level” compared to other styles. He emphasizes the importance of physical energy through upper chest expansion to allow full expansion of the intercostal rib muscles, which, combined with “a sense of whole body involvement and full but unforced commitment to expression” helps diffuse the extra work required of the high energy levels of belting (71). Energy and commitment to the text has been crucial in my journey of learning how to belt. Bozeman lists other factors among a heightened physical energy, such as a lifted soft palate to increase ring, narrowed aryepiglottic sphincter (swallowing muscles), increased vocal fold compression, and a more lateral lip opening than is typical for Western classical timbre (71), but all in conjunction with sufficient breath energy. I have found all these factors crucial for a flexible, pain-free, sustainable belt in my voice. However, not all these adjustments are conscious. In classical singing, the term for the perfect balance of breath to muscle activation is called “appoggio.” This Italian noun translates as “support,” and is identifiable when the singer produces a consistent, balanced tone with evenness throughout the register. To find “appoggio,” I remember my teacher Shawna Gottfredson giving me a pelvic tilt exercise: sitting upright on the edge of the chair, moving the pelvis slowly back, then forward, in coordination with an inhale while tilting, and exhaling on “ooo.” This

12

exercise helped me locate the lower pelvic floor muscles that must activate for a deep breath connection essential for locating my appoggio. When my voice teacher started helping me identify “appoggio,” I felt gentle activation from my pelvic floor muscles all the way up through my lower ribcage. To recreate that sensation, I imagine a ribbon attached from the bottom of my body cavity up to my hard palate. I imagine my breath to come from a pool in the bottom of my pelvis, filling up my torso and being released through the mouth (as sound), with sensations of buzz in various resonance spaces in my head and mouth (where this happens depends on which style I am singing). I have to credit this imagery to my voice and text acting coach, Sarah Shippobotham, who really helped me connect with and discover the full range of my breath capacity through imagery and physicalization. In 2009, a study was done asking a group of Broadway casting directors to evaluate the belt voice quality of 20 musical theatre majors who were proficient in belting (LeBorgne et al. 678). Results showed that the casting directors rated those with the most ring and vibrato in the voice as the most “elite” belters. The study concluded that singers should emphasize “training appropriate breathing techniques, phonation strategies, and resonance” to maintain a healthy belt voice (685). It was after finding appoggio that I was able to gain complete control over my breath the highly energized belt sounds. A goal for every singer is to eliminate natural register breaks. Through college, I found this through coordinating my breath while learning to adjust the “percentages” of head and chest voice through the middle range of about C4-E5, while maintaining

laryngeal stability and relaxation. Since the vocal mechanism is suspended in the throat by a series of muscles, it can be moved inside the throat both externally (grabbing with your hands and moving it) and internally (using the muscles to move it up and down). In classical singing, one aims to eliminate extrinsic muscle tension in the larynx. By learning to sing with a stabilized larynx, I discovered and located the resonance sensations in my face and mouth that, through imagery, I used to find the sensation of the passaggio notes and therefore smooth the transition. In voice lessons, I have always been encouraged to create images associated with what I feel. For classical, the resonance sensations happen in the middle of my hard palate and through the top of my skull. Head voice-dominant mix feels very frontal in my mouth, with vibrations in the front of my sinus cavity and corners of my nose. Chest belting feels resonant in the top half of my face, with vibrations covering more surface area of my face than in mix or classical. Associating images with my vocal production has helped me recreate those sounds, and maintain consistency through the passaggios. The Italian classical term for the desired vocal timbre, describing the resonance quality, is “chiaroscuro,” (literally “bright and dark”) which involves focusing higher notes (lighter), and broader for lower sounds (darker). Robert Edwin talks about the vital role of resonance in distinguishing pop sounds from traditional Broadway mix and belt, light, conversational legit, “popera,” and full classical sounds (Edwin, “Pedagogic Pears”). For classical, with a lifted soft palate and open vowels, I feel the resonance through the middle of the hard palate, extending through the top of my skull. Thinking of the sound going “up” helps remind me to keep my palate lifted, as well as to feel

14

vibrancy and lift in the front of my face. A sound too far back, produced by zero forward resonance and sound trapped in the back space, gives me limitations in range and sounds swallowed and feels difficult and dull. In belting, a similar phenomenon occurs. Kenneth Bozeman refers to the belt version of “chiaroscuro” as “chiarochiaro,” since belt is very bright (Bozeman, 69). Easy, legato, painless belting seems to require feeling sensations in more of the sinus cavity than in classical; I feel vibrations in the front third of my mouth behind the teeth and in the nasal cavity, balanced with a lifted soft palate. If the sound is not allowed to vibrate in the front of the mask (face) and somewhat in the nose, the air is trapped in the middle/ back of my mouth, and the yell-quality of belting feels painful and too pressed at the vocal folds. It took me awhile to discover mix because, as a classical singer, I always feared having too much nasality. Learning to belt taught me that the proper amount of nasal resonance is not only a good thing, but is necessary to a healthy sound. While first experimenting with mix, I remember when I finally found the sweet spot of nasal resonance it was while experimenting with “Fine, Fine Line” from Avenue Q. The sensation on the held mixed notes gave me the same excitement I felt when discovering “appoggio.” It is SO exciting to find new sounds! Awareness and mobility of my soft palate was a huge benefit of starting as a classical singer, because I’ve found the soft palate to be another tool in creating healthy head, mix, and belt productions. A lifted palate allows space for air to tumble and “spin” in the back of the mouth: a term used to describe extremely vibrant and free, on-thebreath vibrato. When I am singing an aria or a classical music theatre piece, the sound

15

doesn’t ring, have flexibility, or even tune if my soft palate is not raised. One main vocal exercise I use to find the soft palate is called “soft surprise:” taking an open-mouth inhalation with the sensation of something exciting happening. I feel my facial muscles engage and slightly lift, my lungs immediately fill with air, and my soft palate rise, creating a yawning sensation. The soft palate is crucial for vocal control in several ways. The purpose of the whole palate (hard and soft) is defined by author Barbara M. Doscher as “a resonance articulator.” She states that the height of the soft palate to have “a direct relationship to the acoustic properties of the oral cavity” and “probably influences individual voice characteristics” (Doscher, 117). She also points out that “in the elevated state, it [the soft palate] creates more space in the pharynx and prevents an overly nasal quality” (120). Robert Edwin mentions this role of the soft palate in his article about vocal resonance, saying that to find changes in resonance and vocal fold activity, sometimes one must “mechanically lower the soft palate to get the desired sound” (Edwin, “Pedagogic Pears”). I have found this to be true through voice lessons with Brian Manternach, with whom I have spent ample time observing my soft palate in the mirror and consciously raising and lowering the palate to adjust the nasal quality of my sound. For mix, I have found lowering the soft palate to be beneficial in achieving resonance consistency through the upper head mix register. I recently had the privilege of conducting a Skype interview with Mary SaundersBarton, Head of Voice Instruction for the Bachelor of Fine Arts in Musical Theatre, and Program Head of the MFA in Vocal Pedagogy for Musical Theatre at Penn State

University. In her estimation, the soft palate should always be lifted in mix voice while moving into the narrow zone required for high mix to allow space for the sound. Since then, I have been experimenting with maintaining a lifted palate when going from chestdominant mix voice into the head-mix range. It actually does ease the transition because the muscles inside don’t need to make such a drastic adjustment! In her 2013 article Broadway Bound: Teaching Young Musical Theater Sinters in a College Training Program, she suggests that “Palatal control (isolation of the soft palate from the movement of the larynx) is a key element in acquiring technical proficiency” (SaundersBarton, “Broadway Bound”) The breath is the power source of the vocal mechanism. The resonance works in conjunction with the soft palate to direct the airflow and focus the sound, and the articulators (mouth, tongue, lips, hard palate, and soft palate) create the vowel shapes and consonants to complete the process. It is control and manipulation of the breath, resonators, and articulators which serve as tools for singers to adjust their sound accordingly.

MISCONCEPTIONS Belt singing took a while to be recognized by voice associations as a teachable singing technique. The classical world long scorned belt singing as an “unnatural” and “harmful” way of using chest voice to hit notes normally sang in the head voice register. Until about the 1980’s, most teachers refused to teach belting, and those who did found a lack of tangible evidence as to was actually going on in the larynx. In Kevin Robison’s book The Actor Sings: Discovering a Musical Voice for the Stage, he states, “For years, classically trained singers have been taught that the chest voice is not a legitimate register for artistic singing. It was, and still is, frequently regarded by some teachers as ‘Broadway’ singing” (Spivey, 607). There was condescending separation between “legitimate singing” and “Broadway.” When belting stormed America in the twentieth century, the launchpad of new “rock musicals” like Hair in 1968, there were many assumptions made by classical vocal pedagogues about the amplified, outrageous sounds they were hearing. NATS journalist Norman Spivey wrote an article compiling many of the statements written about the assumed dangers of belting. He quoted various opinions published in journals, articles, and books ranging from 1969 to 2007, listing the most repeated condemnations of belting as: 1. causing vocal nodes, 2. being the same as chest voice, 3, more strenuous on the throat than classical, 4. causing hoarseness and weak laryngeal muscles, 5. belting is an individual phenomena, not taught, and 6. belt and classical cannot be sung by the same individual (Spivey, 609).

There have been a number studies conducted by universities, representatives of various voice associations, and various pedagogues committed to exploring the subject. The reason for the vast length of this ongoing debate on belting is not just that some classical pedagogues are simply unwilling to change their views, but that research on the belt voice has been just guess work for many years due to lack of technology to see the technicalities in the larynx, as well as the lack of an established technique for belting. Many assumptions have been made on either sides of the argument, advocating or condoning belt singing. Richard Miller, a well-respected singer, professor, and author, has published several books and articles committed to vocal research, “visiting hundreds of voice studios and thousands of lessons from a wide range of pedagogic orientations” (Miller, xv). I have found many valuable insights on vowel modification, vocalises, and the structure of the voice and breathing mechanism in his book The Structure o f Singing: System and Art in Vocal Technique. However, this book as well as Solutions for Singers: Tools for Performers and Teachers provide examples of assumptions made about the female belt voice which caused a springboard for debate. He states: “Belting carried into the middle and upper regions of the range must surely introduce physical conflict. I doubt that this can be done with impunity. A number of teachers who are considered specialists in belting believe that voce mista (mixed voice) can be turned into some form of belt. If that is the case, they probably are no longer maintaining true belt quality” (152).

19

Words such as “must surely,” “I doubt,” and “If that is the case, they probably...” suggest the subjective quality of this statement. Ten years after this book was published, some findings on the belt voice emerged that disproved this assumed theory. We now know that the properly trained belter is at no greater vocal risk than a classical singer. Classical voice pedagogue Scott McCoy conducted a study to see for himself the “dangers of belting” in 2007, when he teamed up with Robert Edwin to observe successful belt singers. The study observed the vocal muscle during head, belt/ mix, and full belt voices in a group of female singers using an electroglottograph (EGG) to find the closed quotient (CQ) during head and chest voices, and to observe laryngeal height adjustments during the different sounds. Among other assumptions, McCoy said he “expected to see obvious physical signs of vocal distress. Once again, I was wrong.” The physical hindrances of neck muscle tightness, improper breathing, and an elevated larynx were “not to be found” in this study. He concluded that they are only found in incorrect belting, just as they are only found in incorrect classical singing (McCoy, 548). A study performed in Stockholm in 2006 examined the sub-glottic pressure and electroglottograph signals in ten professional musical theatre and opera singers (five of each) who sang a sequence of open vowel “pae” syllables starting at maximal vocal loudness, then gradually decreasing vocal loudness, twice at one octave apart (Bjorkner, 533). After measuring both vocal adduction as well as sub-glottal pressure, results implied that the music theatre singers did not use a more pressed phonation mode than the opera singers. Due to the graphed results, there was an assumption of firmer contraction of the vocalis muscle, but that could not be proven. This study did observe

20

that “phonation at low lung volumes tended to increase glottal adduction”m the music theatre singers (537). Thus, insufficient breath energy was linked to increased impact between the vocal folds. With ample breath support, the voices suffered no provable worse effects from belt singing than from classical. Like any controversial subject, varying opinions will always remain among different singing techniques. However, there were several pioneers who, through their own research and use of technology, were the first to clear up the many false assumptions of belting. One such individual was Robert Edwin, “a leading authority on classical contemporary music CCM,” who was the first pedagogue in the NATS Journal of Singing publication dedicated to CCM (nonclassical) vocal pedagogy.” He continues to produce many well-researched, insightful articles as a current editor for the “Popular Song and Music Theatre” section of the NATS Journal of Singing (Edwin, “Biography”). In his 1998 article, “Belting 101,” he established the fact that belting had not only been used for decades, but was a growing skill for music theatre performers to have due to the apparent increase of contemporary music theatre repertoire. He accused the uninformed singer of causing belt to be viewed as an unintelligent form of singing. In his groundbreaking article, he asked readers to change their question from “should belting be considered a legitimate use of the voice?” to “How can we most effectively and efficiently teach the belting style of singing?” (55). He encouraged the NATS community to become educated in the style that was so obviously important to the careers of many students of singing.

Jo Estill was the first major publishing advocate, before Robert Edwin, of not only belt singing, but jazz, opera, twang, speech and falsetto. She was the first to use electromyographic (EMG) and EGG data to observe the closed quotient percentage and muscle activity in both intrinsic and extrinsic muscles in the larynx during belt, speech, and classical. Among many productive conclusions from her 1988 EMG/EGG-employed study was the point that “we should not wait to study the belting voice quality if we are to help the singers who are using it now.” (Estill, 43). Estill used herself as the study subject, using her data to give the world its first ever scientific analysis of a successful belter. She nailed the fact that belt requires a different energy and vocal use than classical. She stated that in view of her data, “it would seem illogical to support that training techniques would be the same, or that what is ‘good’ technique for opera is equally ‘good’ for belting.” Belting certainly gives me different resonance sensations than classical does, as well as a wider expansion of the ribs and the feeling of fully expanding the lungs, rather than imagining a lowered diaphragm (subjective to my experience of course). However, her article argues that “belting is harder for some than others” due to the extra extrinsic muscle engagement and the fact that for some it is “unnatural” to sustain the “unfamiliar posture” (42). To a classically trained singer, belting can certainly feel strange at first—but I have discovered that it is certainly possible! It is true that despite growing evidence supporting the legitimacy of belt technique, unhealthy belting remains common due to the intensity of sound production. Pedagogues Amy Leibowitz and R. J. Baken clarified belt register in “physiological and

acoustic terms” (Baken, 159) as “requiring a greater effort both at the glottal source and in the vocal tract, increased lung pressure, and raising of the first formant to the frequency of the second harmonic” (160). Doctor of Vocal Performance Barbara Burdick confirmed “the energy needed to produce belt exceeds that of chest voice and head voice.” She also warned, “damage can occur if the belter allows the energy necessary to support the sound to drop” (Burdick, 261). I knew a BFA Musical Theatre student who had developed vocal nodules after years of incorrect belting. She entered college with the issue, and experienced vocal surgery her sophomore year, followed by a year of vocal rest. The danger of vocal damage to the untrained or unaware singer is all too real! Leibowitz and Baken’s study measured the CQ and speed quotient (SQ) of the vocal chords in professional female singers who were working on Broadway for the previous two years. Each had to sing the last four bars of “Maybe This Time” from Cabaret in both belt and classical styles. The women accomplished belt through an increasing driving pressure and vocal fold adjustment as well as altering vocal tract geometry. This was, and still is, another subject of debate about the health risk of belting, as explored in the following study by Ingo R. Titze. One of the basic observations about belting for several years has been the adjustment of the larynx while ascending a scale. Acoustically, there is an advantage to having a raised larynx in belt because formant frequencies increase when the resonance tube is shortened. However it crowds the hyoid bone, the tongue, and the jaw, and can prohibit sound. High laryngeal position in classical singing is a sign of an inexperienced singer because classical technique aims to sing with a neutral throat to eliminate beauty-

23

inhibiting tension. Because a high larynx was (and still is) often observed in belt singers, uninformed singers would try to purposefully raise their larynx in an effort to copy the sound. In his study observing the adjustment of the larynx while belting, Titze found that “the larynx does rise in belt... But reluctantly!” (Titze, 570). Forcing it to raise can cause problems, hence it is the poor technique of the singer doing the damage, not necessarily the overall nature of belting itself. When I look in the mirror while belting and mixing, I notice my larynx adjust slightly, but the extrinsic muscles stay relaxed. As soon as I engage any neck muscles, my voice feels sore and the pitch cracks. I have found the laryngeal height adjustment to be a product of the way the TA is being used in that sound, but it isn’t something I consciously do. Any forced adjustment would lead to discomfort and possible damage. Since the groundbreaking discoveries of Jo Estill and Robert Edwin, voice pedagogues have become increasingly eager to prove belt and mix’s legitimacy, especially as they continue to rise as a growing style demanded on Broadway. Several events in recent years have edged voice pedagogues to find an answer to this ongoing debate. One milestone happened in 2003 when the National Association of Teachers of Singing (NATS)-certified Jeannette LoVetri created the term “Contemporary Commercial Music” (CCM) for nonclassical singing. This inspired the first ever CCM Panel Discussion at The Voice Foundation’s 35thAnnual Symposium in June 2006. It brought together CCM advocates to discuss “significant medical, scientific, pedagogic, and artistic attention to this new hot topic.” The creation of the nickname CCM gave nonclassical singing recognition, rather than just being called “that music other than

classical” (Edwin, “Belt Is Legit,” 213). Since formal recognition of the technique, voice pedagogues have been searching for an answer to this ongoing debate. Through observing Broadway in the twenty-first century, it is clear “there is no denying that the belt voice has established itself as a vocal quality that is desired in the professional arena” (Balog, 405).

25

CURRENT APPLICATION As studies continued to be produced and pedagogical discussions and debates were abundant, pedagogues started recognizing and encouraging the benefit of vocal cross training. In a 2005 article entitled “Contemporary Music Theatre: Louder than Words,” Robert Edwin stressed the necessity of integrating “nonclassical vocal pedagogy and repertoire” into universities. He stated that “Initially, many [music theatre programs] would have to go outside their departments to find experienced and qualified instructors in that area” (292). I was lucky to be provided with instructors who were committed to expanding their knowledge in coordination with the constant renewal of researched facts about belt and mix. In my very first voice lesson with Shawna Gottfredson, she had just attended an out-of-state summer conference that gave new information and exercises for voice instructors teaching belt technique. My supervisor for this thesis, and current teacher Dr. Brian Manternach, keeps a plethora of current and past articles, books, and interviews to keep up with the continuing research on all forms of singing. As stated in Kenneth W. Bozeman’s Practical Vocal Acoustics, “ongoing open and honest collaborations between voice teachers and voice scientists... are needed to advance the pedagogy and art of singing” (Bozeman, xiv). A major idea I have discovered through my vocal journey, and have been reassured of through research, is the benefit of cross training. I noticed through my junior and senior years of college that the more belt exercises I incorporated into my practice sessions, the stronger my classical voice became. By the middle of senior year, I developed a warm-up routine, with guidance from Shawna, that consisted of vocalises in

26

the order of: semi-occluded (e.g. lip buzzes), pure head voice, pure chest voice, then mix. I found the separation of the head and chest voices, along with starting on completely breath-driven semi-occluded sounds, to be the most successful route in navigating all three with ease in every session. If I want to focus one day on just my classical repertoire, I still warm up all areas of my voice because I feel increased flexibility, ease, and a more overtone-brilliant quality in my classical sound. I found comforting reassurance in this warm-up technique while reading Karen Hall’s So You Want to Sing Music Theatre book in the “Registers” section. She emphasizes the importance of developing a music theatre mix voice, “since it has a lighter and more spoken quality than belt singing” and credits Jeannette LoVetri’s unique exercises used to isolate both registers as the “One of the most effective ways for a female music theater singer to learn how to use her head and chest registers in music theatre singing” (Hall, 71). Through strengthening and exploring the various resonances and vowels used in my belt sound, I began to find greater ease in breath, a more vibrant “ping” in my head voice, and the ability to sing golden age repertoire with greater ease. In one particular voice lesson with Shawna, I remember going straight from “Pres Des Remparts De Seville” from the opera Carmen, to “Will You Love Me Tomorrow” by Carole King, then into a head voice-dominant mix song from The Bridges o f Madison County. By implementing Shawna’s dynamic warm-up, I was able to make necessary adjustments for each song’s vowel shapes, resonance sensations, and breath management with great ease.

The same is true for my classical voice having improved my belt. After feeling chiaroscuro and appoggio in my classical warm-up, I can quickly connect to a properly balanced belt. A warm-up in either pure head or pure chest makes it difficult to resist excess laryngeal muscle tension, and hard to find the proper breath strategy. It is the interweaving of all three that has strengthened and proved essential to the heath of my voice as a whole. Mary Saunders-Barton wrote an article in 2013 in the Journal of the New York Singing Teachers’ Association entitled “Broadway Bound,” that glorifies the benefits of cross-training young singers. She explains how her method of choosing repertoire each semester “addresses areas of weakness in the individual student” to reap the benefit of “stretching and opening these young voices early on.” In our recent interview, she provided a couple examples of students who surpassed their expectations of their own abilities after spending time improving their vocal weakness. First was a BFA freshman who entered as strong mixer/belter with no head voice. Mary helped her strengthen the head voice, which opened up the student’s instrument in a way that not only gave her a top range, but greatly improved her already wonderful belt voice. After graduation, she carried roles that would not have been vocally possible without the year of head voice training. A similar transformation happened to a second year MFA student at Penn State, who was a thirty-something year old excellent belter, with very little classical training. After cross training in many classical voice lessons while maintaining her belt ability, she was cast at the university as Mimi in Puccini’s opera La Boheme.

28

Mary-Saunders Barton has been an extremely influential figure in educating voice pedagogues around the world promoting her adage, “Bel Canto Can Belto.” As many of her students have proven, and as I continue to unlock in my own voice, the classical singer CAN learn to belt healthily, just as the belter can learn classical! A quick look at the resumes of several successful Broadway performers proves that many benefited from vocal versatility. Six-time Tony Award nominee Kelli O’Hara has sung leading classical-voiced roles on Broadway such as in The Light in the Piazza, and also mix/belted her way through shows like The Pajama Game. Kristin Chenoweth received an MFA in Opera Performance, but her vocal elasticity has provided her gigs from You’re a Good Man, Charlie Brown to the title role in the coloratura-crazy Candide. Marin Mazzie recently won the Outer Critics Circle Award for her role as “Helen Sinclair” in Bullets Over Broadway, whose songs are predominantly in chest-mix, and received a Tony Award nomination for her role in Cole Porter’s Kiss Me Kate. Her resume lists everything from Golden-Age roles like Sarah Brown in Guys and Dolls, to Diana Goodman in the contemporary-rock musical Next to Normal. Another benefit of cross-training is how it improves the voice itself, as mentioned earlier. In Robert Edwin’s article, “Belt is Legit,” he emphasizes how working both the TA and CT strengthens the voice and aids in flexibility, coordination, and endurance. When this was written in 2007, there were no universal “belt exercises” for the voice, but rather, vocalises that could be done in classical or belt voice, using triads, scales, and arpeggios, and that simply developed “voice technique in support of belt” (214).

Since Edwin’s article, there are a plethora of mix and belt exercises designed to train the belt voice more specifically than general arpeggios. Mary Saunders-Barton lists many in her Broadway Bound article. One of my favorites of Mary’s that Shawna taught me is “taxi,” sung on a perfect fifth interval from high to low. I find it beneficial to look out the window and actually imagine calling to a taxi cab along the street. Committing to the situation allows my body to make the energized call sound without overthinking and tensing up. Starting in the bottom of my chest voice, I carry the exercise up to about a C5. Instigators such as this and “Damn Cat!,” (in this case, I’m scolding a naughty cat instead of flagging down a taxi) help me find the intention linked with the sound that is ESSENTIAL for success in not just belting, but all musical theatre singing. Perhaps the most obvious reason supporting cross-training of belt and legit in musical theatre is to broaden one’s castability. By observing the eclectic musical variety of shows on Broadway, it is safe to conclude that belt, mix, and classical are all necessary tools for aspiring singers to succeed on the Great White Way. Robert Edwin states, “Broadway, like our universe, continues to expand” (Edwin, “What’s Going On,” 71). It is necessary to be well-versed in both traditional and contemporary Broadway singing styles to be marketable in the growing world of musical theatre. A short visit to Broadwav.com provides proof of the co-existence of classically based musicals such as Phantom o f the Opera with rock music shows such as Hedwig and the Angry Inch. Edwin uses the example of his student’s successful audition for the musical Spiderman: Turn Off the Dark to support the adage that “much like the dancer skilled in ballet, jazz, tap, and hip hop, the singer who has legit and belt vocal skills can show up to many more

30

auditions than the singer fluent in only one style” (72). Auditioning for a show such as Spider-Man with an operetta song will not earn someone a call-back for this rock musical written by Bono and The Edge. It is important for a performer to be versed in as many Broadway sounds as possible to broaden ones opportunities. In casting notices, auditioners are often informed of the vocal requirements, which often say something like: “Must belt to D, must mix to F, must sing legit to A,” or “Must be able to sing a rock belt and a classical legit” for a single role (Lovetri, 6). I once attended a Norwegian Cruise Line audition that asked for two contrasting songs, for which I presented a chest belt and high classical song, and in the audition room was then asked to sing an excerpt of Elle’s high belt/mix at the end of “So Much Better” from Legally Blonde the Musical. One has to be prepared for everything! This increasing importance of well-versed and multi-skilled music theatre performers in this competitive industry has some pedagogues questioning whether singers should stop labeling themselves as a “belter,” “mixer,” or “soprano,” since one so clearly benefits from being versed in all three. In my Skype interview with Mary SaundersBarton, she introduced me to her article entitled “Farewell to Fach,” in which she states: “The voice pedagogy required to meet the demands placed on today’s performers eliminated the concept of fach completely.” (“Vocal Fach” is a term for categorizing voice types. One’s “fach” in music theatre, in simplest terms, is either soprano, mixer or belter.) “All girls belt and sing soprano,” she says, for which there is “absence of a formal pedagogy.” Her instigation of the MFA in Voice Pedagogy for Musical Theatre at Penn State University was built to “address these demands.”

The first graduate of that program was Christy Turnbow. She credits the crosstraining provided by that program for extending her range, bettering her belt technique, helping her acquire a clearer understanding of the relationship between resonance and pharyngeal space, as well as “an exponential improvement in all areas of [her] craft as a singer and a teacher” (next generation article). I have found equivalent results as an undergrad, and am eager to continue expanding my vocal capabilities and knowledge of my instrument. In the words of Mary Saunders-Barton, “Farewell to Fach! This is the next generation of musical theatre singing.”

CONCLUSION Broadway is continually expanding, with the recent Tony award musical winners ranging from the folk sound in Once, to classical in A Gentleman’s Guide to Love and Murder, to contemporary belt in Fun Home. There is no doubt that the more vocal flexibility a music theatre performer has, the more opportunities will become present. For years, the twentieth-century popularized belt technique was belittled and condemned by many classical pedagogues. With the advent of new technology to view the vocal mechanism from a scientific standpoint, opinions of belt began to change and more studies were released presenting results in favor of that vocal production. Whether or not individuals condone it, there is not doubt the technique is, and will continue to be, widely used in the professional industry. Like any physical activity, belting is un-damaging when used correctly, but can be abusive to the uninformed singer. The belt voice can be taught in a healthy manner “if teachers understand the physiology and perceptual differences and learn techniques to produce it” (Burdick, 261). Recent technology such as video fluoroscopy and devices to measure muscle movement in the voice are disproving previous assumptions of belting, and expanding our knowledge of the voice as a whole. Voice pedagogues are utilizing this technology to find that belt singing requires a higher larynx and increased sub-glottic pressure, among other differences from classical singing, but through proper execution, both forms are legitimate. As Robert Edwin points out, it is the uninformed singer who causes belt to be viewed as an unintelligent form of singing. It is essential for female music theatre singers to develop their mix voice production, since the integration of head

33

tones into a chest-dominant production, as well as the ability to produce a head-dominant mix, are crucial to longevity of the belt sound. The timbres of “belting” and “mixing” in my voice sound and feel different, and for the purpose of this paper, they were separated. However I am beginning to find that all belting benefits from being a mixed sound. Through fully understanding and continuing to learn about the mechanics of one’s voice, and finding an instructor who is committed to keeping up to date with the ever growing research, singers can learn how to utilize their voice in a sustainable manner that will carry them through arias, golden age, contemporary music theatre, and beyond. I have identified a few key elements to my own sound productions, including proper breath management, resonance visualization, and soft palate awareness, that, with vowel modifications and commitment to the text of the song, as essential factors in creating a healthy, flexible, and balanced TA/CT sound production. I have found that eliminating the restriction of “I’ve been told I ’m___, therefore I am and will always b e ___” has increased my vocal opportunities. Freshman year of college, I was labeled a “classical soprano” according to where my voice fach seemed to sit, and I limited myself to the repertoire in that range. My decision junior year to build and strengthen my belt voice allowed me to exceeded all previous expectations of my instrument. Allowing myself to sing everything instead of certain things has proved beneficial in my advancement not only as a singer, but as an artist and a person as well. Breaking down the walls “built” around me of assumptions and labels has been nothing short of freeing.

Text interpretation takes prominence above the sound quality in musical theatre. The greatest benefit from the advent of belt technique and its emergence in the music theatre world was the freedom it gave singers to prioritize text over beauty of tone, since belting began not only as a way to compete with the new brass orchestras, but also as a way to express a greater range of humanity in the character whom the singer was portraying, or the singer herself. If an artist is able to suit her voice appropriately for an individual character, then the intentions, relationships, and objectives come alive, and the singer can maintain longevity in her career. It is the total investment in the text, the “submission of oneself,” to the character’s journey that makes any music theatre performance successful. I have found this commitment crucial in not only performing, but throughout my vocal research and schoolwork. Often the work you put in will open up doors for new discoveries or opportunities. Since starting this thesis, I have changed my mind about many of the assumptions I had about belting and mixing, and have made many new breakthroughs in my mix, belt, and even classical voice. My most recent “voila!” moment was figuring out how to carry a chest-voice dominant sound into a high belt (up to F5). I had a sudden burst of inspiration while singing in my living room and unlocked a vocal quality I NEVER imagined I would produce. I am excited to jump off the cliff into the professional world of musical theatre with a deeper understanding of my own voice, and with groundwork from which to build upon my continued research and vocal discoveries. Once again, in the words of Elphaba, “Nobody... is ever gonna bring me down!”

35

REFERENCES Balog, Julie. Popular Song and Music Theater: A Guide to Evaluating Music Theater Singing for the Classical Teacher. Journal of Singing - The Official Journal of the National Association of Teachers of Singing61. 4 (Mar 2005): 401-406. Bjorkner, Eva. Musical Theater and Opera Singing-- Why So Different? A study of Subglottal Pressure, Voice Source, and Formant Frequency Characteristics. Stockholm, Sweeden. Journal of Voice Vol. 22.5 (December 2006) Bourne, Tracy; Gamier, Maeva; Kenny, Diana. Popular Song and Music Theater - Music Theater Voice: Production, Physiology and Pedagogy. Journal of Singing - The Official Journal of the National Association of Teachers of Singing67. 4 (Mar 2011): 437-444 Bozeman, Kenneth W. Practical Vocal Acoustics: Pedagogic Appliations for Teachers and Singers. New York: Pendragon Press, 2013. Print. Burdick, Barbara. Vocal Techniques for Music Theater: The High School and Undergraduate Singer. Journal of Singing - The Official Journal of the National Association of Teachers of Singing61.3 (Jan 2005): 261-268. Doscher, Barbara M. The Functional Unity of the Singing Voice: Second Edition. London: The Scarecrow Press, Inc, 1994. Print. Edwin, Robert. Popular Song and Music Theater: "Belt Yourself". Journal of Singing The Official Journal of the National Association of Teachers of Singing Vol. 60.3 (Jan 2004): 285-288. —. Popular Song and Music Theater: “Belt Is Legit T Journal of Singing - The Official Journal of the National Association of Teachers of Singing Vol. 64. 2 (Nov 2007): 213-215 —. Popular Song and Music Theater: “What's Going on on Broadway?” Journal of Singing - The Official Journal of the National Association of Teachers of Singing Vol 66. 1 (Sep 2009): 71-73. —. Pedagogic Pears: Exploring Vocal Resonance. Journal of Singing - The National Association of Teahcers of Singing. Vol. 68.2. (Nov/Dec 2011) —. The Bach to Rock Connection: “Belting 101.” Journal of Singing - The Official Journal of the National Association of Teachers of Singing. Vol. 55 (Sept/Oct 1998): 53-55 Estill, Jo. Belting and Classic Voice Quality: Some Physiological Differences. New York: Medical Problems of Performing Arts. March 1988.

36

Hall, Karen. So You Want To Sing Music Theatre: A Guide for Professionals. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2014. Print. Leibowitz, Amy and Baken, R. J. Correlates of the Belt Voice: A Broader Examination. Journal of Voice, 25.2 (March 2011): 159-165 LeBorgne, Wendy DeLeo, Linda Lee, Joseph C. Stemple, Heather Bush. Perceptual Findings on the Broadway Belt Voice. Pennsylvania: Journal of Voice 24.6 (June 2002): 678-689 Lovetri, Jeannette. The Confusion About Belting: A Personal Observation. Journal of the New York Singing Teachers’Association. (Sept-0ct2012): 4-7. Manternach, Brian. Bel Canto Can Belto: Talking Technique with Mary Saunders-Barton. Classical Singer Magazine, March Miller, Richard. The Structure o f Singing: System and Art in Vocal Technique. New York: Schirmer Books, 1996. Print McCoy, Scott .A Classical Pedagogue Explores Belting Journal of Singing - The Official Journal of the National Association of Teachers of Singing63. 5 (May 2007): 545-549. Popeil, Lisa. Popular Song and Musical Theater: The Multiplicity o f Belting. Journal of Singing - The Official Journal of the National Association of Teachers of Singing64. 1 (Sep 2007): 77-80. Saunders-Barton, Mary. Broadway Bound: Teaching Young Musical Theatre Singers in a College Training Program. Journal of the New York Singing Teachers’Association. (March-April 2013) —. Personal Intervi ew. 23 July 2015. Stolk holm study Spivey, Norman. Popular Song and Music Theater: Music Theater Singing ... Let's Talk Part 2: Examining the Debate on Belting. Journal of Singing - The Official Journal of the National Association of Teachers of Singing64. 5 (May 2008): 607-614. Titze, Ingo R; Worley, Albert S; Story, Brad H. Source-Vocal Tract Interaction in Female Operatic Singing and Theater Belting. Journal of Singing - The Official Journal of the National Association of Teachers of Singing 67. 5 (May 2011): 561-572.

37

—. Voice Research and Technology: Belting and a High Larynx Position. Journal of Singing - The Official Journal of the National Association of Teachers of Singing63. 5 (May 2007): 557-558 Tumbow, Christy; Saunders-Barton Mary; Spivey, Norman; Edwin, Robert. Popular Song and Music Theatre: Training the Next Generation of Music Theatre Voice Teachers. National Association of Teachers of Singing. Vol. 71.2, (Nov/Dec 2014): 217-220.

Name of Candidate

Lauren Elizabeth Rathbun

Birth date:

June 15,1993

Birth place:

Salt Lake City, Utah

Address:

1661 Downington Avenue City, State, Zip