Working Toward a Common Vocabulary: Reconciling the
Terminology of Teachers of Singing, Voice Scientists, and
Speech-Language Pathologists
Matthew Hoch and Mary J. Sandage, Auburn, Alabama
Agreement on vocal terminology is vital for the continued merger
of voice pedagogy and voice science. Currently, conflicting ter-
minologies abound, particularly among the following groups:
classical singing teachers, theater voice and contemporary com-
mercial music (CCM) pedagogues, speech-language pathologists,
voice scientists, choral directors, and the performance commu-
nity at large. By examining the vocabulary of five aspects of vocal
technique—vocal loudness/intensity, breath management, the sing-
er’s formant/ring, vibrato, and registration—we can engage in
discussion that works toward mutual understanding and uniform
language. Discussion draws upon physiology and pedagogical
literature from the disciplines of speech-language pathology,
acoustic science, laryngeal biomechanics, and performance voice
pedagogy. In this editorial, the most commonly used terminol-
ogy across these five areas is presented with common terminology
for each category proposed for use by practitioners across all
vocal disciplines. Vocabulary that is free from disciplinary bias
is essential as we work toward a common 21st-century voice ped-
agogy, one that is interdisciplinary by its very nature.
AREA #1: LOUDNESS/INTENSITY
The terms “vocal loudness” and “vocal intensity” are used some-
what interchangeably by voice teachers and speech-language
pathologists alike. In the case of the speech-language patholo-
gist, “loudness” may be the term used with a client, whereas actual
change in perceived loudness in voice therapy may be described
objectively in the clinical documentation as vocal intensity. The
term loudness in voice science is confined to the auditory-
perceptual evaluation of what is objectively measured as vocal
intensity measured in decibel sound pressure level (db SPL). For
the singing teacher, the use of the term vocal intensity may not
clearly communicate a change in perceived loudness. Singing teach-
ers associate loudness with resonance, brighter vowel choices, and
also registration. A chest/belt will always sound louder to a singer
or singing teacher regardless of the decibel (dB) reading. Voice
scientists, on the other hand, quantify changes in perceived loud-
ness purely in terms of dB SPL. Additionally, the word “amplitude”
has been used to refer to changes in dB SPL. Amplitude is prob-
lematic in a larger sense, however, because many singing teachers
use the term to describe the extent of pitch variation (Hz) in the
singer’s vibrato.
From the Department of Music, 101 Goodwin Hall, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama
36849.
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Matthew Hoch, Auburn University, Auburn,
Alabama. E-mail: mhoch@auburn.edu
Journal of Voice, Vol. 31, No. 6, pp. 647–648
0892-1997
© 2017 The Voice Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2016.12.014
Vocal power is another construct that is used to refer to loud-
ness; however, this term is also problematic because a
physiological construct for power has not yet been described.
Recently, in an effort to standardize clinical voice assessment
procedures, it has been proposed that the term “sound level”
should be used instead of vocal intensity when describing an ob-
jective change in dB SPL. This is an attractive term to consider
given that it does not have the broader or more varied mean-
ings associated with intensity and amplitude. The authors suggest
the adoption of the term sound level as the common nomencla-
ture to describe changes in dB SPL.
AREA #2: BREATH MANAGEMENT
Voice teachers commonly teach “balanced breathing” via the
Italian term appoggio—from appoggiare (“to lean on”). The
Italian breath management technique is advocated by Richard
Miller in his classic 1977 study, English, French, German, and
Italian Techniques of Singing: A Study in National Tonal Pref-
erences and How They Relate to Functional Efficiency.1 In this
seminal work, Miller also discusses alternative German, French,
and English breath management techniques, none of which is
as universally embraced as appoggio in contemporary prac-
tice. Ingo Titze, in his 1994 book Principles of Voice Production,
introduces two distinct breath strategies for singers—“pear-
shape-up” and “pear-shape-down”—but he stops short of
advocating for one approach over the other.2
Many speech-language pathologists and choral music direc-
tors refer to diaphragmatic breathing and give the direction to
“breathe from the diaphragm.” The authors feel that this in-
struction is not particularly helpful, however, as it does not offer
a specific breath strategy. As one of the two primary muscles
of inspiration, one has no other option but to breathe from his
or her diaphragm. In a very real sense, all breathing is diaphrag-
matic. “Respiratory kinematics” is another phrase that is largely
confined to the speech science world and not commonly used
by voice behavioralists.
Appoggio is physiologically specific for teachers of singing;
however, it is not recognized or understood by most voice sci-
entists, choral conductors, or speech-language pathologists.
Diaphragmatic breathing is also problematic for the reasons men-
tioned above, in addition to not directly addressing the specific
physiological phenomenon of breathing for singing. The authors
therefore advocate for use of the term breath coordination as an
effective and descriptive English-language and behavioralist trans-
lation of the Italian term appoggio.
AREA #3: SINGER’S FORMANT/RING
Although the “singer’s formant” has become widely studied and
discussed in the voice science world, many singing teachers who
648
do not have a voice science or vocology background are not using
the term in applied practice. And among the voice science-
oriented teachers who use the term, it has only entered their
vocabulary in recent decades. “Ring,” on the other hand, is rou-
tinely used by teachers of singing.
What is the difference between “ring” and “resonance?” Among
singing teachers, this is an important question, as these terms
are often used interchangeably. The authors argue, however, that
there is an important distinction between these two terms. In
speech language pathology and aerodynamic science, reso-
nance often refers to the appropriate use of the soft palate (velum)
for intelligible speech. Nasal resonance predominates for pro-
duction of nasal consonants—[n], [m], and [ŋ]—whereas oral
resonance predominates for all other sounds produced in speech.
This balance is required for intelligible speech, but vocal ring
is not. Further, therapeutically, vocal ring is manipulated through
enhanced vocal resonance to create more optimal vocal fold
closure pattern to remediate vocal pathology.
The authors advocate for use of the term ring because this term
represents the perceptual phenomenon that is present when train-
ing both the speaking voice (resonant voice) and singing voice
for a variety of singing styles, including classical, music theater,
and CCM.
AREA #4: VIBRATO
Vibrato—a regulated variation in pitch—has two primary ele-
ments: the number of cycles per second (cps) and the degree of
pitch variation itself. Among singing teachers and voice scien-
tists, the terminology used for describing these two variables has
often been inconsistent and confusing. For decades, singing teach-
ers used “frequency” to describe the number of cps and
“amplitude” to describe the amount of pitch variation. For
example, a “wide” vibrato was said to have a “greater ampli-
tude” among singing teachers, and a “fast” vibrato was thought
to be one with “increased frequency.” Although this terminol-
ogy is logical on the surface, it has become less convenient in
the scientific, evidence-based era of voice pedagogy, when voice
scientists consistently associate the term “frequency” with pitch
(measured in Hz) and “amplitude” with loudness (measured in
dB)—the latter element being one that is completely indepen-
dent from the phenomenon of vibrato.
The authors advocate for the consistent use of the terms rate
(to describe the number of cps) and extent (to discuss the degree
of pitch variation) to describe the two basic variables of vibrato.
This newer terminology can be used by both singing peda-
gogues and voice scientists without confusion or overlap with
any other terminology. Further, the use of these terms allows for
a more targeted approach to singing habilitation.
Journal of Voice, Vol. 31, No. 6, 2017
AREA #5: REGISTRATION
In recent decades, there has been a move away from the classic
terminology of “head” and “chest” voice to describe the two
primary singing voice registers. The rationale behind this likely
stemmed from an increased focus on physiologically based ap-
proaches to describe voice function, that is, acoustic phenomena
occurring at the laryngeal level. In particular, the focus shifted
to discussion of thyroarytenoid (TA) and cricothyroid (CT) en-
gagement while singing. Recent studies, however, suggest that
these two muscle groups are almost always in balance.3 There-
fore, these terms are misleading and no more evidence-based
than “head” or “chest.” Further, the use of TA and CT as de-
scriptive terminology assumes the ability to isolate muscle
engagement on the part of the singer, which is not
evidence-supported.
Other alternatives have also been introduced as alternatives
to “head” and “chest.” For instance, the “mode” system—0 (fry),
1 (chest), 2 (head), 3 (whistle)—is favored by some European
voice professionals.4 This system, however, has made few inroads
into American practice. In addition, the use of “pulse-model-
loft-whistle” to describe registration is common terminology, with
pulse and modal having specific measureable parameters in acous-
tic science. Few singing teachers, however, have adopted these
terms in their applied studio work.
The authors believe that the newer terminology has intro-
duced confusion and complicated interdisciplinary discussion and
study of singing voice function. Therefore, the authors propose
a return to the historical use of chest/head/mix, a hallmark of
the Italian school of singing for centuries. These terms are mean-
ingful in both the classical and commercial voice habilitation
communities. This simple proposal is also a shift for those who
prefer terms such as “falsetto” (for male head voice function)
and “operatic head voice” (for what is actually a mix). The authors
believe that this streamlined terminology will eliminate the po-
tential for confusion when discussing vocal registration
phenomena with students of singing.
REFERENCES
1. Miller R. English, French, German, and Italian Techniques of Singing: A
Study in National Tonal Preferences and How They Relate to Functional
Efficiency. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press; 1977.
2. Titze IR. Principles of Voice Production. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall; 1994.
3. Kochis-Jennings KA, Finnegan EM, Hoffman HT, et al. Laryngeal muscle
activity and vocal fold adduction during chest, chestmix, headmix, and head
registers in females. J Voice. 2012;26:182–193.
4. McCoy S. Your Voice: An Inside View. 2nd ed. Delaware, OH: Inside View
Press; 2012. In the second edition of his book, McCoy shifted from a TA/CT
nomenclature to this European mode system.