COLLEGE CHOIR DIRECTORS’ AND VOICE INSTRUCTORS’ TECHNIQUES FOR CLASSIFYING FEMALE VOICES

Ellen M. Pagan

A Thesis

Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF MUSIC

May 2009

Committee:

Vincent J. Kantorski, Advisor

Mark Munson

© 2009

Ellen Pagan

All Rights Reserved

iii

ABSTRACT

Vincent J. Kantorski, Advisor

The purpose of this study was to determine college choir directors’ and studio voice instructors’ techniques for classifying female voices. Three groups of respondents completed an online survey: college faculty members who were (a) choir directors only, (b) voice instructors only, and (c) both a choir director and a voice instructor. The survey was comprised of four sections. The first three sections consisted of closed ended questions and the fourth section consisted of two open ended questions.

One hundred and thirty-four of the 496 e-mail recipients returned the survey for a response rate of 27%. The state with the highest response rate was Ohio (52.7%), followed by

Michigan (28.7%), and Indiana (18.6%). The respondent group with the highest response rate was voice instructors only (51.9%), followed by respondents who were both a choir director and a voice instructor (24.81%), and choir directors only (23.26%).

The results showed that associate professor was the most common academic rank. The top ranked aspects that respondents consider when classifying female voices are, in descending order: tessitura, vocal timbre, range, vocal health, quality of extreme ranges, voice studio classification, needs of ensemble, former classification, and a student’s voice classification preference. Many (36.92%) choir directors reclassify their female choir students every year, and one fourth (24.73%) of voice instructors reclassify their students every semester. More than one third (37.74%) of choir directors indicated that they moved the reclassified females at the beginning of the next semester. There were 85.71% of voice instructors who immediately recommended new repertoire to their students. Implications for music education included

iv listening to tessitura as the top aspect to consider when classifying a female’s voice and noting immaturity of the voices in the classification process so that the choir director or voice instructor can be aware of the possible need to reclassify the voice as it develops. Suggestions for further research included conducting a case study of several females who are being reclassified in order to closely examine the process of reclassification and writing a handbook for pre-service and novice secondary school choir directors and novice voice instructors that presents classification techniques that can be used by both types of educators.

v

DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to my family, Jeanine and Steve Pagan my parents, Melissa

Giboney my sister, and Steve Pagan my brother, all of whom were my first teachers and have supported me in this project from its inception a year ago to its completion. Their support of my music education throughout my life has been immeasurable, and I appreciate all of their time, energy, and insight over the years.

vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thank you to Dr. Vincent J. Kantorski, first for his exceptional guidance on this project and, second, for all of the lifelong lessons I have learned from him throughout my graduate work at Bowling Green State University. His plethora of musical experiences, expertise in music education, and professional flexibility has made working with him a time I will never forget.

Thank you to Dr. Mark Munson for bringing his expertise in choir and the singing voice to this project as well as for teaching me the importance of high quality repertoire when working with choirs. His research pertaining to the singing voice, extensive knowledge of choral repertoire, and passion for music education have inspired my continued desire to pursue music education and research.

Thank you to all of the college choir directors and voice instructors who gave their valuable time to this project by responding to the survey. Without your input I could not have completed this thesis.

Thank you to my graduate student colleagues Gail Lowther, Janet Fu, Chris

Baumgartner, Sarah Wussow, and Violet Talbot for their assistance in the editing process of this thesis.

Thank you to my current and former choir directors, especially Dr. Marty Hook, my high school choir director, who was the first choir director who emphasized to me how free the voice sounds when it is used in a healthy manner.

Finally, I give the biggest thank you to my family and friends for their guidance throughout my musical and academic career. Without their support I would have never reached this point in my education. A special thanks to Mama, Tim, Melissa, Clark, Boy, Elliott, and my

vii musical families everywhere, especially to Jane and Wally Frank, Sutu Forte, and Jim Poletti.

You are the ones who have supported all of my musical endeavors for the past 21 years.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION...... 1

Need for the Study ...... 2

Purpose of the Study ...... 3

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...... 4

Primary Classification Techniques in the Choral Setting…………………………. 4

Timbre……………………………………………………………………… 4

Range, Tessitura, and Passaggio…………………………………………... 6

Multiple Classification Techniques in the Choral Setting………………………….. 7

Classification Techniques Used in a Solo Voice Setting…………………………… 9

Female-Specific Considerations for Healthy Singing………………………………. 10

CHAPTER III: PROCEDURE...... 13

Respondent Selection and Survey Distribution...... 13

Components of the Survey...... 14

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS...... 15

Closed Ended Questions ...... 16

Respondent Demographics ...... 16

Choir and Studio Demographics ...... 20

Choir Demographics ...... 21

Studio Demographics...... 23

Voice Classification Techniques...... 25

ix

Top Aspect That Respondents Consider When Classifying the

Female Voice ...... 25

Top Three Aspects Respondents Consider When Classifying the

Female Voice ...... 28

Frequency of Reclassifying Female Voices...... 30

Cross Tabs ...... 34

Cross Tab I ...... 34

Respondent Group by Highest Academic Degree Earned ...... 34

Cross Tab II...... 35

Academic Rank by Respondent Group...... 35

Cross Tab III ...... 35

Top Classification Aspect by Respondent Group ...... 35

Cross Tab IV ...... 36

Top Three Classification Aspects by Respondent Group ...... 36

Cross Tab V...... 37

Frequency of Reclassification by Respondent Group...... 37

Cross Tab VI ...... 39

Changing Reclassified Voices to New Choir Section or

Assigning Vocal Repertoire by Respondent Group...... 39

CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION...... 40

Closed Ended Questions ...... 40

Respondent Demographics ...... 40

Choir and Studio Demographics ...... 41

x

Choir Demographics ...... 41

Studio Demographics...... 42

Voice Classification Techniques...... 42

Top Aspect That Respondents Consider When Classifying the

Female Voice ...... 42

Top Three Aspects Respondents Consider When Classifying the

Female Voice ...... 43

Frequency of Reclassifying Female Voices in Choirs and in Studios ...... 43

When Choir Directors Move Reclassified Females or

When Voice Instructors Recommend New Repertoire...... 44

Cross Tabs ...... 44

Cross Tab I ...... 45

Respondent Group by Highest Academic Degree Earned ...... 45

Cross Tab II...... 45

Academic Rank by Respondent Group...... 45

Cross Tab V...... 45

Frequency of Reclassification by Respondent Group...... 45

Cross Tab VI ...... 46

Changing Reclassified Voices to New Choir Section or Assigning

Vocal Repertoire by Respondent Group ...... 46

Open Ended Questions...... 46

Physical Concerns ...... 47

Specific Vocalises ...... 47

xi

Miscellaneous...... 48

Implications for Music Education...... 48

Suggestions for Further Research ...... 49

REFERENCES...... 51

BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………………. 54

APPENDIX A: COVER LETTER...... 56

APPENDIX B: SURVEY ...... 58

APPENDIX C: OPEN ENDED QUESTION RESPONSES………………………………... 72

xii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Gender of Respondents by Group...... 16

2 Years Teaching at the College Level and at Current Institution...... 17

3 Highest Academic Degree Earned ...... 18

4 Current Academic Rank...... 19

5 Type of Institution...... 20

6 Survey Questions Pertaining to Choral Ensembles...... 21

7 Mixed Choirs ...... 22

8 Women’s Choruses and Women’s Ensembles...... 23

9 Number of Voice Instructors and Number of Male and Female Students

They Teach at Different Academic Levels ...... 24

10 Number of Voice Instructors and Number of Female Students

They Teach at Different Academic Levels ...... 25

11 Top Aspect That Respondents Consider When Classifying the Female Voice...... 27

12 Top Aspect That Choir Directors and Voice Instructors Consider When Classifying

the Female Voice...... 28

13 Top Three Aspects Respondents Consider When Classifying

the Female Voice ...... 29

14 Top Three Aspects Choir Directors and Voice Instructors Consider When

Classifying the Female Voice ...... 30

15 Frequency of Reclassifying Female Voices in Choirs ...... 31

16 Frequency of Reclassifying Female Voice Students in a Studio ...... 32

xiii

17 When Choir Directors Move Reclassified Females to Their New Section in Choir 33

18 When Voice Instructors Recommend New Repertoire to Reclassified Females...... 33

19 Respondent Group by Highest Academic Degree Earned ...... 34

20 Academic Rank by Respondent Group...... 35

xiv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Top Aspect That Choir Directors and Voice Instructors Consider When

Classifying the Female Voice ...... 36

2 Top Three Aspects Choir Directors and Voice Instructors Consider When

Classifying the Female Voice ...... 37

3 Frequency of Reclassifying Female Voices in Choirs and Studios by

Respondent Group...... 38

4 When Choir Directors and Voice Instructors Recommend Reclassified

Females to a New Section of Choir or Assign Different Vocal Repertoire ...... 39

1

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

Classifying choir members’ voices within a short amount of time in an audition can be a daunting task for a choir director. In the case of a non-auditioned choir the director may need to classify voices by hearing only several notes. McKinney (1994) stated that “there are four major reasons for shortened vocal careers, and three of them can be avoided: wrong classification, wrong technique, singing too much and too often without proper rest, and health problems”

(p.119). In her opinion, misclassification is an important issue that can possibly end singing careers. González (1990) suggested ways for females to sing in a healthy manner, such as developing an alto’s higher voice range, which causes less strain on her lower register.

Jarvis’s (1987) study was divided into three sections: (a) history of transitional professional singers, (b) survey of college choral directors and voice instructors, and (c) interviews with transitional professional female singers. Jarvis described the emergence of professional female opera singers who had successfully changed voice classification, beginning with Edyth Walker who changed from mezzo-soprano to soprano in 1894. She explained that voice classification transitioning was not typical in the Baroque and Classical eras because the music was often written for specific singers. College choral directors in the United States who responded to Jarvis’s survey indicated that misclassification is a common occurrence. All of the transitional professional singers Jarvis interviewed were misclassified from the beginning of their singing careers. Most of the females who transitioned voice parts did it successfully within a year or two of taking lessons. Jarvis (1987) also found that many of the transitional sopranos, in general, were originally classified as mezzo-sopranos.

After describing all female voice classifications based on timbre, range, and tessitura,

Miller (2000) stated that “some teachers attempt to apply the professional Germanic Fach system

2 to North American college-age singers as though it were the prime aspect of voice pedagogy”

(pp.13-14). She went on to say that “trying to determine the exact Fach for a singer of university age, female or male, mostly represents misdirected emphasis” (p.14).

Both male and female voices can be misclassified, but the female voice, according to

Erickson, Perry, and Handel (2001), is typically misclassified because it can have qualities of both a mezzo-soprano and a soprano. Based upon the results of several recent studies (Erickson

2003, 2004: Erickson, Perry, & Handel 2001), Erickson concluded that a choir director should be able to distinguish various timbres of a female voice. She also considered these results to be important for directors because timbre is one of the traditional aspects of the voice that choral directors use to classify their choirs’ voice parts.

Wolverton (1985) described the characteristics of adolescent male and female singing voices, the relationship among these characteristics, and the process of classifying the voice. By collecting data from high school singers enrolled in choral music ensembles, and from their choral directors, Wolverton found that tessitura is a significant predictor of voice classification for both males and females. He also stated that register change and voice quality were important for predicting a female’s voice classification.

Need for the Study

Voice misclassification of female students between 18 and 25 is an issue that is often overlooked by college choir directors and voice instructors. A compilation and analysis of female voice classification techniques used by current college choir directors and voice instructors would add important practical information to the existing research literature pertaining to misclassification.

3

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to determine college choir directors’ and studio voice instructors’ techniques for classifying female voices. The classification techniques that were investigated pertained to female students age 18-25.

4

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This review of literature is comprised of four sections: (a) primary classification techniques in the choral setting, (b) multiple classification techniques in the choral setting, (c) classification techniques used in a solo voice setting, and (d) female-specific considerations for healthy singing.

Primary Classification Techniques in the Choral Setting

Timbre

Choral pedagogues typically teach one classification technique, which focuses on timbre, for high school singers and older. Litante (1959) promoted classifying a voice based on timbre first and range second. A voice’s timbre should compare to an orchestral instrument, the smaller the instrument the higher the voice. Due to the inability to see singers’ vocal cords without invasive instruments, choral directors must determine the timbre of a voice based upon their aural perception of it. In addition, Litante compared the timbre of a voice to its range. Checking the range can ensure that the singer can produce the pitches in her line of music. Litante stated that misclassification frequently occurs when a teacher bases the classification solely on range rather than on timbre.

Timbre is the first aspect of the voice that Thomas (1971) listens to when classifying members of a choir. Specifically, he listens for the strength and placement of the tone. He stated that too big of a voice, such as a dramatic soprano, may overpower the choir. He also recommended that choir directors classify altos by listening for the development of the light head register, which is often non-existent in true altos. However, placing some women who have a lighter tone in the alto section can help unify the section by balancing the women who have a darker tone. In some instances having several heavy voices in the alto section can give much

5 needed strength to the section; because of this these singers should not be overlooked. Thomas

(1971) also recommended listening to a singer’s range as a second part of the classification process. Much like Litante (1959), listening to a singer’s range can ensure that her voice produces the needed pitches.

Lamb (1974) suggested several things the director should listen for when classifying the female voice, such as the soprano timbre which is a “lyric voice, light and bell-like” (p.9) but the alto timbre has a “heavier quality than soprano, more mellowness” (p.9). When dividing the soprano section and the alto section into a four part divisi, the second sopranos should have a slightly heavier sound than the first sopranos. Lamb preferred that a second alto be classified by her ability to sing below middle C with an ease to the voice and without pressing. Often in high school choirs the female altos are asked to sing the tenor lines. Lamb cautioned against using this technique because female singers could hurt their voices if they sing in that range too often. He also stated that it is important for choir directors to reclassify young voices every year or even every semester in order to keep them in a healthy singing range.

Marquart (2005) explained that the reason why choral singers are given a voice part right away is so they will know what line to sing. She did not consider early classification to be a good idea because “unfortunately, it often misleads people into categorizing their voices unnecessarily, prematurely or inaccurately” (p.15). Marquart described the timbre of each classification of all of the voices in a choir and in the professional opera setting. Whereas the classifications of a soprano in a choir are limited to one classification there are several classifications of professional sopranos. Marquart promoted a ringing timbre that, as the singers progress in training, becomes darker and more dramatic.

6

Erickson (2003, 2004) and Erickson, Perry, and Handel (2001) supported timbre as the primary aspect of classifying the female voice. Specifically, Erickson, Perry, and Handel investigated whether timbre can be differentiated from the associated pitch differences. They used two sopranos with different timbre of voices with multiple listeners in this study. Each trial consisted of three pitches sung by two people. In each trial the listener was to distinguish which vowel each performer sang. The subject was permitted to listen to the sung pitches as many times as they wanted. Through various combinations of pitches and timbres, the study concluded that an experienced listener can distinguish a variance in timbre if the sung pitches were less than an octave apart. Marquart (2005) recommended forming timbre “templates” in order to accurately classify a voice based on timbre. A template is specific to each director. For example, some directors associate voice timbres with reed instruments rather than with flutes.

Range, Tessitura, and Passaggio

Range, tessitura, and passaggio are often linked in classification techniques; however, they are not synonymous. Range is the highest and lowest notes a singer can sing, tessitura is the highest and lowest pitches that a singer can sing for a longer period of time, and passaggio is the place in the voice where the registers shift. Emmons and Chase (2006) recommended classifying female voices by using tessitura as the primary classification technique, and classifying all females as mezzo-sopranos for as long as possible. This allows students to alternate the parts they sing based upon the tessituras of their voices and the piece to be sung. This classification technique is more common for high school singers, but can also be used to classify young college-age females who may be starting their vocal training. The choir director’s initial classification should be changed when the female voice settles in a range that is easily classified based on their tessitura (Emmons & Chase, 2006).

7

Hylton (1995) and Emmons and Chase (2006) promoted tessitura as the first thing choral directors should listen to when classifying a singer’s voice. Even when these authors described the use of timbre in the classification process, it regarded the timbre of various parts of the voice’s range. Hylton described her classification techniques as follows: “listen for the part of the student’s range that sounds fullest and is produced with the most freedom” (1995, p.28). She suggested that the choir director should find the student’s range before listening for the timbre of the voice, and that he or she should ask for a student’s previous classification. Sometimes this information can give insight to the director about how the voice has changed and about various aspects of the singer’s vocal experiences.

Hammar (1984) suggested using the passaggi as the basis for classification. His reasoning was that there are rarely auditions when the singers allow their voices total freedom.

Passaggi do not change with nervous tension and consequently is a way to classify voices without taking nerves into consideration. He recommended altos passaggi between A4 and B4, mezzo-sopranos between C5 and D5, and sopranos between E4 and F4. After the description for all of the passaggi of each voice type, Hammar stated that timbre must be taken into account with women whose passaggi can be the same between classifications.

Multiple Classification Techniques in the Choral Setting

Lamble (2004) and Hammar (1984) used passaggio to classify voices. Lamble listened for two distinct registers, head voice and chest voice. According to Lamble female singers have a distinct flip from head to chest voice, which determines their voice classification. The richer the sound the more likely the student should sing alto. Females should sing soprano if their head voices are light and pure. If the singer never voices a blatant passaggio flip she should be encouraged to sing in both the soprano and alto sections. Often this occurs by instructing her to

8 sing alto on half of the pieces and soprano on the other pieces. This technique allows female singers to discover their head voice and strengthen it. A new classification can be made when the head voice and the chest voice are at equal strength. Lamble’s (2004) reliance on the timbre of the voice in head and chest registers set this technique apart from Hammar’s (1984), which relied solely on the passaggio placement. His technique distinguished each voice classification based on where the passaggio lies in the voice.

Wolverton (1985) investigated variables that were the best predictors of voice classification in adolescent students’ singing voices and found that the significant variable was tessitura. The tessitura was determined in this study by listening to each male and female student sing America in whatever key they were most comfortable, which became the basis of his or her classification. Wolverton also said that females should be classified based upon the following:

(a) her voice quality, (b) her register change, and (c) the information she provides the director about her most comfortable singing tessitura. The students in Wolverton’s (1985) study often had opinions about what part they preferred to sing. Hylton’s (1995) belief that a director should ask the student about previous classifications and musical training supported the results of

Wolverton’s (1985) study.

Michelson (1994) identified several factors that should be taken into account during the classification process. He listened for “tone quality, range, volume, flexibility, solo potential, speaking voice” (p.21) and also took into account a singer’s pitch memory, sight-reading ability, and previous music experience. The female-specific point that Michelson made was that a female high school singer should sing soprano if she has a reasonable high A. Otherwise, all other components of the classification process should be considered equally when classifying the voices of a high school choir.

9

Smith and Sataloff (2000) based their classification techniques on the singer’s range, timbre, and musicianship. Their 2000 book, Choral Pedagogy, begins with an explanation of the

Fach system that is used to describe the classification of opera singers. Smith and Sataloff stated that choir members should not be classified the same way as singers are in a studio setting, and they described amateur altos as “soprano voices with a lack of ability or confidence in the upper range. Some are singers with a true devotion to singing harmony” (p.136). This “devotion to singing harmony” shows that a singer is involved in her own voice classification. The first aspect of the voice that Smith and Sataloff suggested choral directors listen to is range, which is not an objective classification technique with women. Because most women have similar ranges, choral directors should ask them if they feel comfortable singing in the higher register on a regular basis. Timbre was the second aspect of the voice taken into consideration in order to balance the choir’s sound as a whole. If there are too many bright sopranos they may overpower the altos, and so several bright altos would be a better balance. The third part that

Smith considered was the musicianship of the amateur singer. Often training can distinguish a classification based on where that singer can properly navigate extreme ranges.

Classification Techniques Used in a Solo Voice Setting

Jarvis (1987) surveyed college choral directors and voice instructors and also interviewed professional female singers. She found that all of the female singers in her study were misclassified from the beginning of their careers due to their well-developed low range and/or music reading ability. Choir directors and voice instructors who responded to the survey and the professional singers who were interviewed believed that females should be classified when they can sing in a healthy manner in the middle of their range. Based upon the results of her study,

Jarvis (1987) encouraged choral directors and voice instructors to use many aspects of the female

10 voice including range, tessitura, register transition, vocal color, speaking voice, physical dimension, and personality type to classify their students.

Miller (2000) classified female singers as follows: eight categories of sopranos, two categories of mezzo-sopranos, and one contralto category. She also described the typical register shifts for sopranos, mezzo-sopranos, and contralto. Standard characteristics and register shifts of each voice category provided an objective way to classify a female’s voice much like the Fach system does. Miller made it clear that using the Fach system and classifying a voice are often done prematurely and set singers mentally into one voice type’s repertoire. Even at the college level most singers are not vocally mature enough to sing only one voice classification’s repertoire.

McKinney (1994) addressed many aspects of the singing voice and provided a guide for voice teachers and choir directors to use when classifying the female voice. He included a quick four-to-six step process that choir directors can use to classify the voice based on the student’s range, tessitura, timbre, faults of tone quality, blend, vibrato, intonation, and sight-reading ability. He encouraged choir directors and voice instructors to use all of these aspects of the voice to classify their students’ voices.

Female-Specific Considerations for Healthy Singing

Sabol (1992) conducted an experiment that analyzed the purpose of vocal exercises that have been used since the 17th century. She studied the effects of isometric-isotonic vocal function exercises on the voice. Her results showed isometric exercises as “strengthening and fine-tuning the coordination of the respiratory and laryngeal mechanisms” (p.1). Through five measurements

(fundamental frequency, jitter, flow volume, flow rate, and maximum phonation time) at three pitch levels (comfortable, high, and low), the experimental subjects in her study improved in

11 three post-test measures that revealed an increase in glottal function, which promoted a healthier way of singing.

González (1990) recommended a technique that choir directors can use to promote female church choir members to sing in a healthy manner. He noticed that many of the female altos in church choirs were classified altos because they could read music, or because they never developed their high range. He promoted teaching altos to use their high range at least in warm- ups and having some altos and sopranos switch parts either during services or from one service to another. According to González this gives a mezzo-soprano who is singing alto a break from her low register and allows her to use her high register. He suggested that tenors should sing the alto line if it is too low for the women, and that the altos should either sing their line an octave higher or sing the soprano line.

Bauman (1992) addressed the vocalist’s overall voice usage in both a solo setting and in a choir. He warned singers about vocal fatigue, which can be caused by singing too much too often or by singing incorrectly. Some choral literature has extreme tessituras, which can result in vocal fatigue if rehearsals are very long. In addition to vocal fatigue having a negative impact on vocal health, the singer’s physical health and everyday habits can also cause vocal problems. Bauman gave the example of attending loud sporting events at which individual fans must raise their voices to be heard over the crowd. The singer’s health has negative effects on the voice because any type of illness that befalls a singer can change how the voice resonates, or can cause drowsiness or loss of breath control. Poor vocal habits could be developed by singing in extreme ranges, which is why Bauman (1992) cautioned directors to have altos sing the tenor line.

Females often sing in their low voice with a chesty tone that inevitably will cause them to lose proper singing technique.

12

Monahan (2006) approached vocal health in a way that was similar to Bauman (1992) by describing lifestyle choices that could be detrimental to vocal health. Most of his suggestions are typical recommendations for a healthy lifestyle, such as limiting alcohol use and refraining from tobacco use. He mentioned the female-specific health concern of singing while menstruating.

Often during the menses excess fluids can hinder the voice. The severity of this effect changes from person to person and can often be avoided by the use of a mild diuretic. Monahan warned that a diuretic can be too drying for the voice and recommended that the singer discuss this option with a physician.

Giardiniere (1991) studied voice matching as a means to affect the choral sound, using

Weston Noble’s voice matching techniques. His study found that, by moving the standing arrangement of a choir, which creates a unified choral sound, the individual singers could sing as they would in a solo situation. Giardiniere also found that Weston Noble’s technique for voice matching created a noticeable difference that received favorable responses from choral directors at an Iowa Choral Directors Association conference.

13

CHAPTER III: PROCEDURE

Respondent Selection and Survey Distribution

The purpose of this study was to determine college choir directors’ and studio voice instructors’ techniques for classifying female voices. The classification techniques that were investigated pertained to female students age 18-25. A list of college choir directors and voice instructors in Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio was acquired from the College Music Society’s

Directory of Music Faculties in Colleges and Universities, U. S. and Canada, 2007-2008 Edition

(retrieved September 24, 2008). My search of the Directory identified 146 colleges, universities, and conservatories with music programs: 38 in Indiana, 50 in Michigan, and 58 in Ohio. A total of 638 choir directors and voice instructors taught at these institutions, 196 in Indiana, 168 in

Michigan, and 274 in Ohio. The Directory provided e-mail addresses for only 92 of the 638 choir directors and voice instructors. I attempted to acquire the e-mail addresses of the remaining 546 choir directors and voice instructors from the websites of the 146 institutions where they taught.

However, only 435 of the 546 e-mail addresses were available on these websites. Taking these

435 e-mail addresses and adding them to the 92 e-mail addresses from the Directory resulted in

527 e-mail addresses of potential respondents.

I sent an e-mail containing a survey cover letter (See Appendix A) to these 527 college choir directors and voice instructors. The cover letter asked for their participation in the study, assured their anonymity, and contained a hyperlink to the survey (See Appendix B) on surveymonkey.com. On October 14, 2008 I sent the 527 cover letter e-mails. However, 22 of the e-mails were undeliverable due to the choir director or voice instructor retiring, being on sabbatical, or because the incorrect e-mail address was posted on the institution’s website. On

October 27, 2008 I sent a second e-mail that contained the cover letter and hyperlink to the

14 survey to 505 potential respondents as a reminder to complete the survey. Nine of these 505 e- mails were undeliverable. Consequently, the survey was sent to 496 choir directors and voice instructors.

Components of the Survey

Three groups of respondents completed the online survey: college faculty members who were (a) choir directors only, (b) voice instructors only, and (c) both a choir director and a voice instructor. Depending upon which of these three groups the respondent was in, he or she was directed to the appropriate section of the survey. The survey was comprised of four sections. The first three sections consisted of closed ended questions and the fourth section consisted of two open ended questions. The first section requested demographics of the respondent, such as how many years he or she had taught at the college level, the type of institution where he or she currently teaches, and his or her highest degree earned. The second section asked for the specifics of the respondents’ choirs and studios such as how many females are in each ensemble or studio, the primary education level of students in each choir or studio, and the voicing make- up of the choirs. The third section pertained to voice classification techniques, in particular what the choir director or voice instructor considers when classifying the female student, such as voice timbre, range, and former classification. The fourth section asked for rehearsal techniques and suggested exercises to promote vocal health.

15

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS

The results chapter of this thesis is divided into four sections. The first three sections report the data from each part of the closed ended questions in the survey: respondent demographics, choir and studio demographics, and female voice classification techniques. The fourth section reports cross tab data, which are divided into the following six parts: (a) respondent group by highest degree earned, (b) respondent group by their academic rank at their current institution, (c) top aspect that choir directors and voice instructors consider when classifying the female voice, (d) top three aspects that choir directors and voice instructors consider when classifying the female voice, (e) frequency of reclassifying female voices in choirs and in studios, and (f) when choir directors and voice instructors recommend reclassified females to a new choir section or assign different vocal repertoire.

One hundred and thirty-four of the 496 e-mail recipients returned the survey for a response rate of 27%. One hundred and twelve respondents completed the survey; 22 respondents partially completed the survey. The responses of the partially completed surveys were included in the data analysis of this study because they contained important information for individual questions. There are three respondent groups referred to in this study: (a) choir directors only, (b) voice instructors only and (c) individuals who were both a choir director and a voice instructor. However, some responses are broken into two groups (i.e., choir directors and voice instructors) rather than three groups because of the respondents who were both a choir director and a voice instructor. Specifically, the respondents who were both a choir director and a voice instructor were required to answer some questions twice, once in their role as a choir director and once in their role as a voice instructor.

16

Closed Ended Questions

Respondent Demographics

A total of 130 respondents indicated their gender; 44.6% were male and 55.4% were female. Among the choir directors, 56.7% were male and 43.3% were female. Among the voice instructors, 40.3% were male and 59.7% were female. Fifty percent of the respondents who were both a choir director and a voice instructor were male and fifty percent were female. Of the 130 respondents who answered this question, 129 indicated if they were a choir director only, a voice instructor only, or both a choir director and a voice instructor (See Table 1). The 130th individual responded “no” to whether he or she was a choir director only and “no” to whether she was a voice instructor only, but did not respond to whether she was both a choir director and a voice instructor.

Table 1

Gender of Respondents by Group

Respondent Group Male Respondents Female Respondents Total Respondents n % n % n % respondents respondents respondents

Choir Only 17 13.18 13 10.10 30 23.26

Voice Only 27 20.93 40 31.01 67 51.94

Both Choir & Voice 16 12.40 16 12.40 32 24.81

Total 60 46.51 69 53.41 129 100.01

Note. The total percent of respondents does not equal 100% due to rounding procedures.

Question 2 asked respondents to indicate the state in which they teach. Of the 129 who answered this question, 68 (52.7%) teach in Ohio, 37 (28.7%) teach in Michigan, and 24 (18.6%)

17 teach in Indiana. The response rates for individual states were 31.19% for Ohio, 26.81% for

Michigan, and 17.14% for Indiana.

Question 3 asked choir directors and voice instructors to indicate how many years they have taught at the college level and how many years they have taught at their current college, university, or conservatory. One hundred thirty-one respondents indicated how many years they have taught at the college level. One hundred twenty-four respondents indicated how many years they have taught at their current institution (See Table 2).

Table 2

Years Teaching at the College Level and at Current Institution ______Years at the College Level Years at Current Institution (n = respondents) (n = respondents)

Number of years n % of n % of respondents respondents 1-9 32 24.43 58 46.77

10-19 39 29.77 36 29.03

20-29 40 30.53 23 18.54

30-39 17 12.98 7 5.65

40-46 3 2.29 - -

Total 131 100.00 124 99.99

Note. The total percent of respondents does not equal 100% due to rounding procedures.

Question 4 asked respondents to indicate their highest academic degree. One hundred thirty respondents answered this question. The Masters degree (44.62 %, n=58) was listed most often, followed by the DMA (32.31% n = 42) and Ph.D. (14.62%, n =19) degrees (See Table 3).

18

Table 3

Highest Academic Degree Earned

Highest Degree N %

Masters 58 44.62

DMA 42 32.31

Ph.D. 19 14.62

Other 6 4.62

Bachelors 5 3.85

Total 130 100.02

Note. The total percentage does not equal 100% due to rounding procedures.

Question 5 pertained to a respondent’s current academic rank. One hundred thirty-one respondents answered this question (See Table 4). Associate professor was listed most often

(29.01%, n=38), followed by professor (22.14 %, n=29), and adjunct professor (19.85%, n=26).

19

Table 4

Current Academic Rank

Academic Rank n %

Professor Emeritus 1 0.76

Professor 29 22.14

Associate Professor 38 29.01

Assistant Professor 17 12.98

Lecturer 7 5.34

Instructor 8 6.11

Adjunct Professor 26 19.85

Othera 5 3.82

Total 131 100.01

Note. The total percentage does not equal 100% due to rounding procedures. a. Other (n =5): Distinguished Visiting Professor, Associate Faculty (7/8 time), Director of Choral

Activities, Adjunct Instructor, Senior Lecturer

Question 6 asked respondents to identify the type of institution where they teach. One hundred thirty-one respondents answered this question. However, one of these respondents indicated that she taught at both a public university and a public college. Consequently, the total number of responses was 132. The institution listed most often was public university (38.63%, n= 51), followed by private college (25%, n=33) and private university (23.48%, n= 31) (See

Table 5).

Questions 7, 8, and 9 directed respondents to the appropriate remainder of the survey based upon one of three classifications: choir director only, voice instructor only, or both a choir

20 director and a voice instructor. Of the 133 respondents who answered these questions 32 (24.1%) were choir directors only, 68 (51.1%) were voice instructors only, and 33 (24.8%) were both a choir director and a voice instructor.

Table 5

Type of Institution

Type of Institution n %

Public University 51 38.63

Private College 33 25.00

Private University 31 23.48

Community College 8 6.06

Private Conservatory 6 4.55

Public Conservatory 2 1.52

Public College 1 0.76

Total 132 100.00

Choir and Studio Demographics

For Questions 10 through 35, the even numbered questions requested the make-up of each choir that a choir director conducts, and the odd numbered questions requested the primary academic level of each of those choirs. For example, Question 10 asked for the make-up of a mixed large works choir, and Question 11 asked for the primary academic level of the singers in that choir (See Table 6).

21

Table 6

Survey Questions Pertaining to Choral Ensembles

Survey Question Numbers Choral Ensemble

10-11 Mixed Large Works Choir

12-13 Mixed Choir

14-15 Mixed Chamber Choir

16-17 Women’s Chorus

18-19 Women’s Ensemble

20-21 Men’s Chorus a

22-23 Men’s Ensemble

24-25 Mixed Vocal Jazz Ensemble

26-27 Mixed Show Choir

28-29 Mixed Early Vocal Ensemble

30-31 Mixed Gospel Choir

32-33 Mixed Opera Chorus

34-35 Other Choir a Men’s Chorus and Men’s Ensemble were included in this survey to determine the total number of choirs taught by a choir director regardless of the singers’ genders.

Choir Demographics

Respondents were asked to provide the make-up of each mixed choir that they conducted, such as how many sopranos and altos are in the mixed choir. The mean number of females relative to the mean number of males in each type of mixed choir was recorded in order to demonstrate that mixed vocal ensembles typically have more females than males, as was the case

22 in this study. Table 7 lists the number of choirs, not the number of choir directors who responded to the questions; some choir directors conducted more than one choir. Data for three ensembles were not included in this study because three respondents provided single gendered information about their choirs even though the questions called for the number of female and male singers in mixed choirs. Specifically, one opera chorus and one mixed chamber ensemble had male singers only, and one early music ensemble had female singers only.

Table 7

Mixed Choirs

Ensemble n Choir Size Female Singers Male Singers (N=78) (Mean) (Mean) (Mean) Mixed Choir 25 58 35 24

Mixed Chamber 23 26 14 11 Choir

Mixed Large 9 150 87 51 Works Choir

Vocal Jazz 8 14 8 6 Ensemble

Show Choir 5 15 8 7

Opera Chorus 3 25 14 11

Early Music 2 15 10 6 Ensemble

Any Other Choir 2 15 10 6

Gospel Choir 1 60 40 20

The choir directors of 75 mixed ensembles, from the 78 ensembles included in Table 7, listed the primary academic level of the students in those ensembles. Thirty-eight (50.67%)

23 choirs were comprised primarily of undergraduate music majors, 35 (46.67%) of undergraduate non-music majors, and two (2.67%) of graduate music majors. The graduate level ensembles were one mixed choir, and one opera chorus.

Questions 16 and 18 asked for the make-up of women’s choruses and women’s ensembles, respectively (See Table 8). The sopranos are comprised of sopranos I and II and altos are comprised of altos I and II.

Table 8

Women’s Choruses and Women’s Ensembles

Ensemble n Choir Size Sopranos Altos (N=22) (Mean) (Mean) (Mean) Women’s Chorus 20 40 21 18

Women’s 2 13 8 5 Ensemble

There were 22 women only ensembles. The choir directors of 19 of them listed the primary academic level of the students in those ensembles. Seventeen (89.47%) of the 19 ensembles were comprised primarily of undergraduate non-music majors, and two (10.53%) of them were comprised primarily of undergraduate music majors. Both of the Women’s Ensembles were comprised primarily of undergraduate non-music majors.

Studio Demographics

Question 41 asked studio instructors how many male and female students were in their studio and to indicate the academic level of those students. Each voice instructor taught students at more than one academic level, and consequently gave more than one response to Question 41.

Because of these multiple responses, the 64 voice instructors generated 156 responses. For example, 25 voice instructors taught one to five students, regardless of gender, who were

24 undergraduate non-music majors (See Table 9). Question 41 also asked voice instructors to indicate how many female students were in their studio, and for the academic level of those students. For example, 30 voice instructors taught one to five female students who were undergraduate non-music majors (See Table 10).

Table 9

Number of Voice Instructors and Number of Male and Female Students They Teach at Different Academic Levels Number of Voice Instructors Number of Students Academic Level 25 1-5 UNM

24 1-5 UM

23 1-5 GM

20 6-10 UNM

18 6-10 UM

1 6-10 GM

22 11-15 UM

7 11-15 UNM

9 16-20 UM

2 16-20 UNM

1 16-20 GM

4 20+ UM

1 20+ UNM Note. UNM = undergraduate non-music majors, UM = undergraduate music majors, GM = graduate music majors

25

Table 10 Number of Voice Instructors and Number of Female Students They Teach at Different Academic

Levels

Number of Voice Instructors Number of Female Students Academic Level

30 1-5 UNM

26 1-5 UM

21 1-5 GM

28 6-10 UM

10 6-10 UNM

12 11-15 UM

5 11-15 UNM

2 16-20 UM

1 16-20 UNM

1 20+ UM

Note. UNM = undergraduate non-music majors, UM = undergraduate music majors, GM = graduate music majors

Voice Classification Techniques

Top Aspect That Respondents Consider When Classifying the Female Voice

Question 36 asked choir directors to rank the top three aspects of the female voice they consider when classifying their choirs. Question 42 asked voice instructors to rank the top three

26 aspects of the female voice they consider when classifying students in their studio. Tables 11 and

12 are closely related and should be considered as a pair. A total of 113 respondents answered

Questions 36 and 42. These respondents included 54 choir directors and 82 voice instructors. The

23 respondents who were both a choir director and a voice instructor answered these questions once in their role as a choir director and once in their role as a voice instructor. Table 11 shows that, overall, the top aspect the respondents consider when classifying the female voice is tessitura. Table 12 shows that the top aspect of the female voice that choir directors (n=54) consider when classifying the female voice is range. However, the top aspect of the female voice that voice instructors (n=82) consider when classifying the female voice is tessitura. No respondents ranked speaking voice, sight-reading ability, or personality as the top aspect they consider when classifying the female voice, even though these three options were included in the list of aspects.

27

Table 11

Top Aspect That Respondents Consider When Classifying the Female Voice

Aspect of the Female Voice Responses % n Tessitura 40 29.4

Vocal Timbre 36 26.5

Range 34 25.0

Vocal Health 13 9.6

Quality of Extreme Ranges 6 4.4

Voice Studio Classification 4 2.9

Needs of Ensemble 1 0.7

Former Classification 1 0.7

Student’s Desire 1 0.7

Total 136 99.9

Note. The total percentage does not equal 100% due to rounding procedures.

28

Table 12

Top Aspect That Choir Directors and Voice Instructors Consider When Classifying the Female

Voice

Aspect of Female Voice Choir Voice Directors Instructors n % n %

Range 16 29.63 18 21.95

Vocal Timbre 14 25.93 22 26.83

Tessitura 13 24.07 27 32.93

Vocal Health 4 7.41 9 10.96

Voice Studio Classification 3 5.56 1 1.22

Quality of Extreme Ranges 2 3.70 4 4.88

Needs of Ensemble 1 1.85 - -

Former Classification 1 1.85 - -

Student’s Desire - - 1 1.22

Totals 54 100 82 99.99

Note. The total percentage does not equal 100% due to rounding procedures.

Top Three Aspects Respondents Consider When Classifying the Female Voice

Question 36 asked choir directors to rank the top three aspects of the female voice they consider when classifying their choirs. Question 42 asked voice instructors to rank the top three aspects of the female voice they consider when classifying students in their studio. Tables 13 and

14 are closely related and should be considered as a pair. A total of 113 respondents answered

Questions 36 and 42. These respondents included 54 choir directors and 82 voice instructors who collectively gave 136 responses. The 23 respondents who were both a choir director and a voice

29 instructor answered these questions once in their role as a choir director and once in their role as a voice instructor. Each response included three aspects and therefore the total number of responses was 408 (113 respondents x 3 responses = 408). Table 13 shows that, overall, vocal timbre was ranked as a first, second, or third aspect 105 times, and range was ranked as a first, second, or third aspect 92 times. Table 14 shows that choir directors ranked vocal timbre as a first, second, or third aspect 44 times, and voice instructors ranked vocal timbre as a first, second, or third aspect 61 times.

Table 13 Top Three Aspects Respondents Consider When Classifying the Female Voice Aspect of Female Voice n %

Vocal Timbre 105 25.7

Range 92 22.5

Tessitura 74 18.1

Quality of Extreme Ranges 45 11.0

Vocal Health 28 6.8

Needs of Ensemble 16 3.9

Sight-Reading Ability 12 2.9

Student’s Desire 11 2.7

Voice Studio Classification 10 2.5

Personality 7 1.7

Speaking Voice 5 1.2

Former Classification 3 0.7

Total 408 99.7

Note. The total percentage does not equal 100% due to rounding procedures.

30

Table 14

Top Three Aspects Choir Directors and Voice Instructors Consider When Classifying the Female

Voice

Choir Directors Voice Instructors

n % n %

Vocal Timbre 44 27.67 61 24.5

Range 31 19.50 61 24.5

Tessitura 22 13.84 52 20.88

Quality of Extreme Ranges 16 10.06 29 11.65

Needs of the Ensemble 16 10.06 - -

Sight-Reading Ability 11 6.92 1 0.40

Voice Studio Classification 9 5.66 1 0.40

Vocal Health 6 3.77 22 8.84

Personality 2 1.26 5 2.01

Student’s Desire 1 0.63 10 4.02

Former Classification 1 0.63 2 0.80

Speaking Voice - - 5 2.01

Totals 159 100 249 100.01

Note. The total percentage does not equal 100% due to rounding procedures.

Frequency of Reclassifying Female Voices

Tables 15 and 16 are closely related and should be considered as a pair. Question 37 asked choir directors to indicate how often each female’s voice is reclassified for choir. Each director could answer more than one option for this question. Because of this, there were 65

31 responses given by 53 choir directors. Twenty-four (36.92%) choir directors indicated that they reclassify female voices at the beginning of every year, and 18 (27.69%) indicated that they reclassify female voices every semester (See Table 15). Question 43 asked voice instructors how often each female’s voice is reclassified in a studio. Each instructor could answer more than one option for this question. Because of this, there were 93 responses given by 58 voice instructors.

Sixteen studio instructors (17.2%) reclassified their female students at the beginning of every year, and 23 (24.73%) reclassified their students every semester (See Table 16). The 33 “other” responses fell into two categories: (a) not classifying students because their voices had not yet matured or (b) the voice instructors continuously reclassify their students’ voices in lessons.

Examples of these “other” responses are: “I avoid classifying voices in private study. My students are still young and too impressed by classification,” and “It's a continuous, ongoing discussion as vocal technique develops.”

Table 15

Frequency of Reclassifying Female Voices in Choirs

Frequency of Reclassifying Responses % of responses (n=65) Every School Year 24 36.92

Every Semester 18 27.69

Upon Request 18 27.69

Never - -

Other 5 7.69

Total 65a. 99.99 a. Each director could answer more than one option for this question. Because of this, there were 65 responses given by 53 choir directors.

32

Table 16

Frequency of Reclassifying Female Voice Students in a Studio

Frequency of Reclassifying Responses % of responses (n=93) Every School Year 16 17.20

Every Semester 23 24.73

Upon Request 15 16.13

Never 6 6.45

Other 33 35.48

Total 93 a 99.99 a Each instructor could answer more than one option for this question. Because of this, there were 93 responses given by 58 voice instructors. Question 38 asked choir directors how soon a reclassified female sang a different part in choir. Question 44 asked studio instructors how soon they suggested new repertoire to their reclassified female students. Tables 17 and 18 are closely related and should be considered as a pair. The two different actions that the respondents did to reclassified females (i.e., choir directors moving females to a different section and voice instructors recommending new repertoire) are considered similar actions in these tables because in both cases the women would be singing new music in a different tessitura of their voice. Thirty (56.6%) of the 53 choir directors moved the reclassified female students immediately (See Table 17). Seventy-two

(85.71%) of the 84 voice instructors said they recommended new repertoire immediately for their reclassified female students (See Table 18).

33

Table 17

When Choir Directors Move Reclassified Females to Their New Section In Choir

When Moved Choir Directors % of respondents

(n=53)

Immediately 30 56.60

Following Semester 20 37.74

Following Year 3 5.66

Never - -

Total 53 100

Table 18

When Voice Instructors Recommend New Repertoire to Reclassified Females

When Recommended New Voice Instructors % of responses

Repertoire (n=84)

Immediately 72 85.71

Following Semester 11 13.10

Following Year - -

Never 1 1.19

Total 84 100

34

Cross Tabs

The cross tabs section has six parts: (a) respondent group by highest degree earned, (b) respondent group by their academic rank at their current institution, (c) top aspect that choir directors and voice instructors consider when classifying the female voice, (d) top three aspects that choir directors and voice instructors consider when classifying the female voice, (e) frequency of reclassifying female voices in choirs and in studios, and (f) when choir directors and voice instructors recommend reclassified females to a new choir section or vocal repertoire.

Cross Tab I

Respondent Group by Highest Academic Degree Earned

Table 19 shows a cross tab between respondent group and highest degree earned. There were 25 choral director only respondents who had earned doctorate degrees, 15 DMA and 10

Ph.D. There were 22 voice instructors only who had earned doctorate degrees, 17 DMA and 5

Ph.D.

Table 19

Respondent Group by Highest Academic Degree Earned

Doctorate (n = 61) Respondent Group DMA Ph.D. Masters Bachelors Other

Choral Directors 15 10 5 - 1

Voice Instructors 17 5 36 4 5

Both 10 3 17 1 -

Total 42 19a 58 5 6 a There was one respondent with a Ph.D. who did not indicate his respondent group.

35

Cross Tab II

Academic Rank by Respondent Group

Table 20 shows a cross tab between academic rank and respondent group. Fourteen choir directors only and 17 voice instructors only were associate professors.

Table 20

Academic Rank by Respondent Group

Academic Rank Choir Director Only Voice Instructor Only Both (n=31) (n=67) (n=32) Professor Emeritus - 1 -

Professor 10 11 7

Associate Professor 14 17 6

Assistant Professor 4 8 5

Lecturer 2 4 1

Instructor - 7 2

Adjunct Professor 1 16 9

Other - 3 2

Total 31 67 32

Note. One Associate Professor did not indicate her respondent group.

Cross Tab III

Top Classification Aspect by Respondent Group

Figure 1 shows that choir directors ranked range as the top aspect they consider when classifying the female voice. However, voice instructors ranked tessitura as the top aspect they consider when classifying the female voice.

36

Figure 1

Top Aspect That Choir Directors and Voice Instructors Consider When Classifying the Female

Voice

34 32.93 32

30 29.63

28 Choir Directors 26.83 of Responses Voice Instructors 26 25.93 Percent 24 24.07

22 21.95

20 Range Vocal Timbre Tessitura

Aspect of the Female Voice ______

Cross Tab IV

Top Three Classification Aspects by Respondent Group

Figure 2 shows that choir directors ranked vocal timbre as one of the top three aspects they consider when classifying the female voice. However, voice instructors ranked vocal timbre and range equally as one of the top three aspects they consider when classifying the female voice.

37

Figure 2

Top Three Aspects Choir Directors and Voice Instructors Consider When Classifying the Female

Voice

30

28 27.67 26 24.5

24 24.5

22 20.88 Choir Directors 20 19.5 Voice Instructors 18

16 Percent or Respondents 14 13.84

12

10 Vocal Timbre Range Tessitura

Aspect of the Female Voice

______

Cross Tab V

Frequency of Reclassification by Respondent Group

Figure 3 shows that more choir directors than voice instructors reclassified female voices yearly. However, more voice instructors than choir directors indicated “other” as their response.

For example, some instructors stated that they do not classify students either because their voices

38 have not yet matured or because the voice instructors continuously reclassify their students’ voices in lessons.

Figure 3

Frequency of Reclassifying Female Voices in Choirs and Studios by Respondent Group

40 36.92 35 35.48

30 27.69

27.69 25 24.73 Choir Directors 20 Voice Instructors 17.2 15 16.13 Percent of Responses 10 7.69 6.45 5 0 0 Every Every Upon Never Other Year Semester Request

Frequency of Reclassification ______

39

Cross Tab VI

Changing Reclassified Voices to New Choir Section or Assigning Vocal Repertoire by

Respondent Group

Figure 4 shows that a very high percentage (85.71%) of voice instructors recommend new repertoire to reclassified females immediately whereas only 56.6% of choir directors move their reclassified females to a new section immediately.

Figure 4

When Choir Directors and Voice Instructors Recommend Reclassified Females to a New Section of Choir or Assign Different Vocal Repertoire

90 85.71 80

70

60 56.6 50 Choir Director Voice Instructor 40 37.74 30 Percent of Respondents

20 13.1 10 5.66 0 1.19 0 0 Immediately Following Following Never Semester Year

When a Change in Section or Literature Occurs ______

40

CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION

This chapter consists of four sections. The first is a discussion of responses to several closed ended questions in the survey. The results of several cross tab comparisons are discussed in the second section. The third section is a discussion of selected responses to the open ended questions. The fourth section presents implications for music education and suggestions for further research.

Closed Ended Questions

Respondent Demographics

A total of 130 respondents indicated their gender; 44.6% were male and 55.4% were female. Among the choir directors, 56.7% were male and 43.3% were female. Among the voice instructors, 40.3% were male and 59.7% were female. Fifty percent of the respondents who were both a choir director and a voice instructor were male and 50% were female. It is noteworthy that there was a substantial difference in the percentage of choir directors only who were female compared to the percentage of voice instructors only who were female. Specifically, the percentage of choir directors only who were female was 43%. In contrast, a considerably higher percentage (59.7%) of voice instructors only were female.

Respondents were asked to indicate the state in which they teach (Question 2). Of the 129 respondents, slightly more than half (52.7%) were from Ohio, nearly a third (28.7%) were from

Michigan, and a sixth (18.6%) were from Indiana. The response rates for individual states were

31.19% for Ohio, 26.81% for Michigan, and 17.14% for Indiana. One could speculate that the higher interest shown by Ohio respondents was due to this study's being conducted in Ohio.

Question 3 asked respondents to indicate how many years they had taught at the college level, and how many years they had taught at their current institution. Responses to this question

41 showed a large difference between the respondents who had taught at the college level for 20-29 years (30.53%) and those who had taught for 30-39 years (12.98%). This substantial decrease in the 30-39 range is likely due to educators' retiring. There was a very high percentage (46.77%) of respondents who had taught at their current institution for 1-9 years. This may be due to college faculty sometimes moving to a different institution prior to receiving tenure.

The results indicating a respondent’s highest degree earned (Question 4) showed that almost half (46.93%) have Doctorate degrees; 68.9% of these have a DMA degree and 31.1% have a Ph.D. degree. The terminal degree for performance and conducting faculty is typically the

DMA. Consequently, it was not surprising that such a high percentage of choir directors and voice instructors have the DMA degree.

In terms of respondents' academic rank, associate professor was listed most often

(29.01%), followed by professor (22.14 %), and adjunct professor (19.85%). Seventy-one percent of the associate professors had taught at their current institution for 6-15 years. This is not surprising because associate professors would have received tenure during those years and may therefore be less transient than untenured faculty.

Choir and Studio Demographics

Choir Demographics

The choir directors of 78 mixed ensembles listed the gender make-up of their choirs.

There were more females than males in every one of these ensembles. It was not surprising that there are fewer males than females in these ensembles because more women than men sing in choirs.

These mixed ensemble choir directors were also asked to indicate the primary academic level of the students in their ensembles. Half (50.67%) of the students were undergraduate music

42 majors, 46.67% were undergraduate non-music majors, and 2.67% were graduate music majors.

A great majority (89.47%) of the women’s choruses and ensembles were comprised of undergraduate non-music majors. The large number of non-music majors in choirs and ensembles, especially women’s choruses and ensembles, presents the choir directors with the need for an accurate classification technique. Non-music majors often cannot tell if they have been misclassified, and their vocal health can depend on where they were originally placed in the choir.

Studio Demographics

Voice instructors were asked to indicate the primary academic level of their students

(Question 41). Many of these voice instructors indicated that they teach a mix of undergraduate music majors and undergraduate non-music majors. This suggests that voice instructors may need to be patient when teaching undergraduate music majors and undergraduate non-music majors who may not have much experience making music with their voice, and also be flexible in their instructional techniques. For example, a voice instructor may need to be aware of the physical tension shown by a non-music major due to his or her inexperience.

Voice Classification Techniques

Top Aspect That Respondents Consider When Classifying the Female Voice

Choir directors were asked to rank the top three aspects they consider when classifying female voices in their choirs (Question 36). Voice instructors were asked to list the top three aspects of the voice they consider when classifying female voices in their studio (Question 42).

Whereas tessitura was ranked as the top aspect of the female voice that respondents overall consider during the classification process, choir directors identified range as the top aspect, and voice instructors identified tessitura as the top aspect. It is noteworthy that both tessitura and

43 range are objective measures of the voice. Choir directors and voice instructors can identify a singer’s range faster than they can identify the tessitura. This may be the reason why choir directors ranked range as their top aspect since they usually classify voices in auditions that may be only several minutes long. Tessitura is an aspect that can take longer to identify. Typically, voice instructors will use one or more lessons to classify a singer’s voice, which is considerably longer than choir directors have to classify the female voice.

Top Three Aspects Respondents Consider When Classifying the Female Voice

A list of the top three aspects respondents ranked was also compiled from Questions 36 and 42. Vocal timbre was listed most often as one of the top three choices for classifying the female voice, followed by range and tessitura. This is interesting because the top aspects, range

(choir directors) and tessitura (voice instructors), were objective classification aspects whereas vocal timbre is a subjective classification aspect.

Frequency of Reclassifying Female Voices in Choirs and in Studios

Choir directors were asked to indicate how often they reclassify female voices for choir

(Question 37). Similarly, voice instructors were asked to indicate how often they reclassify female voices in their studio (Question 43). More than one third (36.92%) of choir directors reclassify their female choir students every year. This is not surprising because choirs often change their membership every year. One fourth (24.73%) of voice instructors reclassify their students every semester. This is also not surprising because voice instructors often introduce new repertoire to their students at the beginning of every semester. Interestingly, 35.48% of voice instructor responses were “other.” The explanations they gave for their responses can be categorized as follows: (a) not classifying female students because their voices had not yet matured and (b) the voice instructors continuously reclassify their students’ voices in lessons.

44

When Choir Directors Move Reclassified Females or

When Voice Instructors Recommend New Repertoire

In Question 38, choir directors indicated when they move reclassified female choir students to a new section of the choir. More than one third (37.74%) of the choir directors indicated that they move reclassified females at the beginning of the next semester. As was the case with the frequency of reclassifying female voices, this was not surprising because college choirs typically start new repertoire each semester.

Studio instructors were asked when they suggested new repertoire for their reclassified females (Question 44). Not surprisingly, a very high percentage of voice instructors (85.71%) immediately recommend new repertoire to their students. By recommending new repertoire the music will lie in a different part of the student’s voice and be healthier for the student. However, there was one voice instructor who stated that he never recommended new repertoire to his musical theater students because “musical theatre singers must sing all types of music so

‘classifications’ are not particularly useful.”

Cross Tabs

This section contains a discussion of cross tabs one, two, five, and six. Cross tabs three and four presented the top three aspects that choir directors and voice instructors consider when classifying the female voice and are shown in Tables 11 and 12 (cross tab 3) and Tables 13 and

14 (cross tab 4), respectively. Data presented in those tables were discussed earlier in this chapter.

45

Cross Tab I

Respondent Group by Highest Academic Degree Earned

A cross tab comparison between respondent group and highest academic degree earned showed that 36 voice instructors held Master degrees. Although the Masters was the highest degree earned by many respondents, several of those respondents indicated that they had acquired additional graduate credits, including some who had completed all doctoral requirements except for writing the dissertation.

Cross Tab II

Academic Rank by Respondent Group

This cross tab between respondent group and academic rank at their current institution showed that 16 adjunct professors were voice instructors only and that one adjunct professor was a choir director only. It was not surprising to see so many more adjunct professors who were voice instructors than choir directors. Because adjunct professors are part-time voice instructors and teach only one student at a time they can be rather flexible with their weekly teaching schedule. In contrast, choir directors, who are typically full time faculty members, teach large groups of students at regularly scheduled times each week.

Cross Tab V

Frequency of Reclassification by Respondent Group

This cross tab compared respondent groups with how often female voices are reclassified and is a compilation of data found in Tables 15 and 16. Choir directors indicated that they reclassify the female voice upon request more often (27.69%) than voice instructors (16.13%).

This is not surprising because it is less likely that a choir director will recognize a single

46 student’s voice, unless the student specifically requests for a reclassification, whereas voice instructors informally reclassify during each lesson.

Cross Tab VI

Changing Reclassified Voices to New Choir Section or Assigning Vocal Repertoire by

Respondent Group

This cross tab was between respondent groups and when they move reclassified females to a new section of the choir, or recommend new repertoire to reclassified females (Tables 17 and 18). Most of the voice instructors (85.71%) recommend new repertoire to reclassified students immediately, whereas only 56.6% of choir directors move reclassified females to a new section immediately. This could be because many college choirs start new repertoire each semester, and it would be very intrusive to the balance of the choir to move singers to different sections when the music is first presented.

Open Ended Questions

Question 39 asked choir directors to indicate female-specific rehearsal techniques they use to promote healthy singing in their choir(s). Question 45 asked voice instructors to provide female-specific vocal techniques they recommend to their female students to promote healthy singing. These responses can be found in Appendix C, which is divided into two sections: responses by choir directors and responses by voice instructors. The respondents who were both a choir director and a voice instructor were required to answer the open ended questions twice, once in their role as a choir director and once in their role as a voice instructor. Responses to the open ended questions were grouped into three categories: (a) physical concerns, (b) specific vocalises, and (c) miscellaneous.

47

Physical Concerns

There were several responses that focused on the physical concerns of singers. Some choir directors described how they arranged singers so they would not have to alter their solo voice for choir, while other choir directors simply recommended drinking plenty of water and getting a sufficient amount of sleep. Both of these suggestions can contribute to healthy singing; the first promotes a tension free choir experience, and the second emphasizes the necessity of maintaining a healthy lifestyle. One respondent suggested eliminating register shifts by coordinating breath management and strengthening laryngeal muscle function. This is healthy for singers because it is easier for breath to flow through the vocal folds when vocalists strengthen and unify their different registers. Another respondent stated that, “attention to good vocal habits in warm-ups and rehearsals: posture, breath management, absence of tension.” These are excellent suggestions because posture and breath management are both physical habits that are necessary for tension free vocal production. Tension was addressed in the open ended responses by a large number of choir directors and voice instructors perhaps because it is often a problem for singer’s vocal health.

Specific Vocalises

Many respondents gave either specific places in the voice in which vocalises are intended for, or they gave specific vocalises. One respondent provided an example of where in the voice singers should vocalize: “all singers [should] vocalize the extremes of their ranges. Singer placement is crucial so that all singers can use their full instruments without compromise.”

However, women often do not use their whole instrument, or they use it improperly, because of a lack of warm-ups and cool-downs in certain registers. The vocalise most recommended by respondents was “sirens, vocalizing from top down, head voice influencing lower range.” This is

48 a typical warm-up for females because it works over her breaks and lightens the tone. Another recommended vocalise was “lip trill; whine; [v] on arpeggio for upper ranges; minimize ‘high’/

‘low’ concept of pitch as much as feasible.” If singers can minimize their perception of high pitch and low pitch they usually do not attack high or low notes in an unhealthy manner.

Miscellaneous

Two respondents referred to the menstruation cycle. One said that “they [female singers] are encouraged to ‘mark’ rather than sing full out in the upper parts of their ranges during parts of their menstrual cycles if they feel they are experiencing water retention (this can affect the vocal folds as well, making it harder to hit the higher notes; pushing to sing at this time can engage negative compensatory behaviors).” The other respondent suggested that choir directors and voice instructors “be sensitive to cyclical physiology of female singers.” This is a physical concern that may not be taken into consideration by many choir directors or voice instructors, but it can have negative effects on singers.

Several other respondents suggested that choir directors should vary the pace and literature of a rehearsal. This is especially important for women in choirs because choir music often has females sing in the extremes of their ranges. Drilling in these extreme ranges could be detrimental to the singers’ voices.

Implications for Music Education

Based upon the results of this study, the following points may be useful for college level choir directors and voice instructors of female students age 18-25 to consider:

1. When the primary academic level of students in a choir or studio is undergraduate non- music majors, immaturity in the voices should be noted in the classification process so that the

49 choir director or voice instructor can be aware of the possible need to reclassify the voice as it develops.

2. As reported in this study, tessitura is the top aspect to consider when classifying a female’s voice, but range and vocal timbre may also need to be taken into consideration.

3. Voice instructors may want to consider reclassifying female voices every semester and adjust repertoire accordingly immediately after reclassification.

4. It may be useful for choir directors to reclassify female voices as often as possible and to move the singer soon after being reclassified.

5. Classification of an immature vocalist (i.e., a college student who is approximately 18 years old and has had no formal voice training) in a studio may not be needed until the voice matures.

6. Classification of an immature vocalist (i.e., a college student who is approximately 18 years old and has had no formal voice training) may need to be tentative in case a reclassification needs to occur.

Suggestions for Further Research

Based upon the results of this study, the following research pertaining to reclassifying female voices of singers age 18-25 seems warranted:

1. To replicate this study with a larger sample of choir directors and voice instructors either in the same states as those included in this study or in other states.

2. To conduct a case study of several females who are being reclassified in order to closely examine the process of reclassification.

3. To compare college choral and voice method books for their descriptions of female voice classification techniques.

50

4. To write a handbook for pre-service and novice secondary school choir directors and novice voice instructors that presents classification techniques that can be used by both types of educators.

5. To investigate the effects of the female menstrual cycle on her vocal health.

51

REFERENCES

Bauman, J. M. (1992). Choral and solo singing: A discussion of difficulties and differences.

(Masters document, Bowling Green State University, 1992).

College Music Society. (2008). Directory of Music Faculties in Colleges and Universities, U. S.

and Canada, 2007-2008 Edition. Retrieved September 24, 2008, from

http://www.music.org/cgi-bin/showpage.pl?tmpl=/infoserv/facdir/facdirhome&h=63

Emmons, S., & Chase, C. (2006). Prescriptions for choral excellence: Tone, text, dynamic

leadership. New York: Oxford.

Erickson, M. L. (2004). The interaction of formant frequency and pitch in the perception of

voice category and jaw opening in female singers. Journal of Voice, 18, 24-37.

Erickson, M. L. (2003). Dissimilarity and the classification of female singing voices: A

preliminary study. Journal of Voice, 17, 195-206.

Erickson, M. L., Perry, S., & Handel, S. (2001). Discrimination functions: Can they be used to

classify singing voices? Journal of Voice, 15, 492-502.

Giardiniere, D. C. (1991). Voice matching: A perceptual study of vocal matches, their affect on

choral sound, and procedures of inquiry conducted by Weston Noble. (Doctoral

Dissertation, New York University, 1991).

González, M. M. (1990). The choir corner: The care and feeding of the female alto. The

American Organist, 24, 92-94.

Hammar, R. A. (1984). Progmatic choral procedures. Netuchen, NJ: Scarecrow.

Hylton, J. B. (1995). Comprehensive choral music education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-

Hall.

52

Jarvis, P. J. (1987). The mature female voice in transition (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State

University, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts International, A 49/03, 375.

Lamb, G. H. (1974). Choral techniques. Dubuque, IA: WM. C. Brown.

Lamble, W. (2004). A handbook for beginning choral educators. Bloomington, IN: Indiana

University Press.

Litante, J. (1959). A natural approach to singing: A comprehensive guide to natural voice-

development musicianship, interpretation, repertoire and program-building. Dubuque,

IA: Wm C. Brown.

Marquart, L. (2005). The right way to sing. NY: Allworth.

McKinney, J. C. (1994). The diagnosis & correction of vocal faults: A manual for teachers of

singing & for choir directors. Long Grove, IL: Waveland.

Michelson, S. K. (1994). Getting started with high school choir. Reston, VA: Music Educators

National Conference.

Miller, R. (2000). Training soprano voices. New York: Oxford.

Monahan, B. (2006). The singer’s companion: A guide to improving your voice and

performance. Popton Plains, NJ: Limelight Editions.

Sabol, J. W. (1992). The value of vocal function exercises in the practice regimen of

singers. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Cincinnati, 1992). Dissertation

Abstracts International, DAI-B 54/01, 200.

Smith, B., & Sataloff, R. T. (2000). Choral pedagogy. San Diego, CA: Singular.

Thomas, K. (1971) The choral conductor: The technique of choral conduction in theory and

practice.(English adaptation by Alfred Mann and William H. Reese) New York:

Associated Music.

53

Wolverton, V. D. (1985). Classifying adolescent singing voices (Doctoral dissertation,

University of Iowa, 1985).

54

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Apfelstadt, H. (2005). [Review of the dissertation The female singing voice from childhood

through adolescence by G. H. Toole]. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music

Education, 163, 81-84.

Blades-Zeller, E. (2002). A spectrum of voices: Prominent American voice teachers discuss

the teaching of singing. Lanham MD: Scarecrow.

Chinn, B. J. (1997). Vocal self-identification, singing style, and singing range in relationship to

a measure of cultural mistrust in African-American adolescent females. Journal of

Research in Music Education, 45, 636-649.

Decker, H. A., & Herford, J. (Eds.). (1988). Choral conducting symposium (2nd ed.). Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ekholm, E. (2000). The effect of singing mode and seating arrangement on choral blend and

overall choral sound. Journal of Research in Music Education, 48, 123-135.

Fuchs, V. (1964). The art of singing and voice technique. New York: London House &

Maxwell.

Henry, J. M. (1989). Differences and ambiguities in the subclassification of the low male voice:

A study of role assignments for basses, bass-baritones and baritones in productions by

selected American opera companies active during 1986 (Doctoral Dissertation,

University of Missouri-Kansas City, 1989). Dissertation Abstracts International, A

50/10, 3101.

Kagen, S. (1950). On studying singing. New York: Dover.

Miller, R. (2004). Solutions for singers: Tools for performers and teachers. New York:

Oxford.

55

Rossing, T. D., Sundberg, J., & Ternström, S. (1985). Voice timbre in solo and choir singing: Is

there a difference? Journal of Research in Singing and Applied Vocal Pedagogy 8(2), p.

1-8.

Slusher, H. D. (1991). A comparison of the perspectives of college choral directors, voice

teachers, and voice students concerning solo and choral singing. Unpublished Master

Thesis, The Ohio State University.

Ware, C. (2004). Adventures in singing: A process for exploring, discovering, and developing

vocal potential (Rev. ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

56

APPENIDIX A:

COVER LETTER

57

October 6, 2008

Dear Choral Director or Voice Instructor:

As a masters graduate student in the College of Musical Arts at Bowling Green State University, I am conducting my thesis research on aspects of the female voice that college choral directors and voice instructors listen for when classifying voices of female students age 18-25. In this survey, you will be asked to provide anonymous information about yourself, demographics of your institution, and techniques you use when classifying your female students’ voices.

There are no known risks or benefits to you by participating in this study. Your identity will remain anonymous; no request will be made for your name or any other information that would reveal your identity during the course of this study. All information you provide in the survey will remain confidential. Data will be kept on a password protected website and results will be reported in a summary format. Participation in this study is voluntary, and by completing the survey you consent to the use of the information you provide. The decision to participate in this study will have no impact on the relationship you may have with Bowling Green State University. It should take approximately 10 minutes for you to complete the survey. You are free to withdraw from this research project at any time. You can access the survey online by selecting this hyperlink: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=AT0DjvAJ2loxxRlOvrwqWw_3d_3d

In order to proceed with my research in a timely manner, I request that you please complete the online survey no later than October 27, 2008.

Please feel free to contact my advisor Dr. Vincent Kantorski ([email protected]) or me ([email protected]) if you have any questions about this research project. You may also contact the Chair of the Human Subjects Review Board here at Bowling Green State University ([email protected]) with questions about your rights as a research participant.

Thank you very much for participating in this research project. The information you provide will contribute substantially to a deeper understanding of what college choral directors and voice instructors listen for when classifying their college age female students.

Sincerely, Ellen M. Pagan Graduate Student College of Musical Arts Bowling Green State University

58

APPENDIX B:

SURVEY

59

Voice Classification of Female Singers Age 18-25

Demographics

1. Gender of instructor

○ Male ○ Female

2. What state do you teach in?

○ Indiana ○ Michigan ○ Ohio

3. How many years have you been teaching at the college level?

Total ______At your current institution ______

4. What is your highest degree earned? (Pull Down)

○ Bachelors ○ Masters ○ DMA ○ PhD

Other (please specify)

______

5. What is your academic rank at your current institution?

○ Adjunct Professor ○ Lecturer ○ Instructor ○ Assistant Professor ○ Associate Professor ○ Professor ○ Professor Emeritus Other (please specify)

60

6. What kind of institution do you currently teach?

(Please check all that apply)

□ Community College □ Public College □ Public University □ Private College □ Private University □ Public Conservatory □ Private Conservatory

The following question pertains to your position at your institution.

7. Respondents to this survey fall into one of three categories: (1) choral director only,

(2) voice instructor only, (3) both a choral director and a voice instructor.

Are you a choral director only?

○ Yes ○ No

If you answered “Yes” then skip to page 60 if “No” then continue to the next question.

8. Are you a voice instructor only?

○Yes ○ No

If you answered “Yes” then skip to page 68 if “No” then continue to the next question.

9. Are you both a choral director and a voice instructor?

○Yes ○ No

61

For the following questions please give the voicing make-up of each choir or vocal ensemble you currently direct at your institution. Please give an approximate number if the exact number is not available.

10. Mixed Large Works Choir (Over 100 singers)

Total singers ____ Soprano ____ Alto ____ Tenor ____ Bass ____

11. What is the primary demographic of this choir?

○Graduate Music Majors ○ Graduate Non-music Majors ○ Undergraduate Music Majors ○ Undergraduate Non-music Majors Other (please specify)

12. Mixed Choir (49-99 singers)

Total singers ____ Soprano ____ Alto ____ Tenor ____ Bass ____

13. What is the primary demographic of this choir?

○Graduate Music Majors ○ Graduate Non-music Majors ○ Undergraduate Music Majors ○ Undergraduate Non-music Majors Other (please specify)

62

14. Mixed Chamber Choir (Over 12-39 singers)

Total singers ____ Soprano ____ Alto ____ Tenor ____ Bass ____

15. What is the primary demographic of this choir?

○Graduate Music Majors ○ Graduate Non-music Majors ○ Undergraduate Music Majors ○ Undergraduate Non-music Majors Other (please specify)

16. Women’s Chorus

Total singers ___ Soprano I ___ Soprano II ___ Alto I ___ Alto II ___

17. What is the primary demographic of this chorus?

○Graduate Music Majors ○ Graduate Non-music Majors ○ Undergraduate Music Majors ○ Undergraduate Non-music Majors Other (please specify)

18. Women’s Ensemble (16 or less singers)

Total singers ___ Soprano I ___ Soprano II ___ Alto I ___ Alto II ___

63

19. What is the primary demographic of this ensemble?

○Graduate Music Majors ○ Graduate Non-music Majors ○ Undergraduate Music Majors ○ Undergraduate Non-music Majors Other (please specify)

20. Men’s Chorus

Total singers ____ Tenor I ____ Tenor II ____ Baritone ____ Bass ____

21. What is the primary demographic of this chorus?

○Graduate Music Majors ○ Graduate Non-music Majors ○ Undergraduate Music Majors ○ Undergraduate Non-music Majors Other (please specify)

22. Men’s Ensemble (16 or less singers)

Total singers ____ Tenor I ____ Tenor II ____ Baritone ____ Bass ____

23. What is the primary demographic of this ensemble?

○Graduate Music Majors ○ Graduate Non-music Majors ○ Undergraduate Music Majors ○ Undergraduate Non-music Majors Other (please specify)

64

24. Vocal Jazz Ensemble

Total singers ____ Soprano ____ Alto ____ Tenor ____ Bass ____

25. What is the primary demographic of this ensemble?

○ Graduate Music Majors ○ Graduate Non-music Majors ○ Undergraduate Music Majors ○ Undergraduate Non-music Majors Other (please specify)

26. Show Choir

Total singers ____ Soprano ____ Alto ____ Tenor ____ Bass ____

27. What is the primary demographic of this choir?

○ Graduate Music Majors ○ Graduate Non-music Majors ○ Undergraduate Music Majors ○ Undergraduate Non-music Majors Other (please specify)

65

28. Early Music Vocal Ensemble

Total singers ____ Soprano ____ Alto ____ Tenor ____ Bass ____

29. What is the primary demographic of this ensemble?

○ Graduate Music Majors ○ Graduate Non-music Majors ○ Undergraduate Music Majors ○ Undergraduate Non-music Majors Other (please specify)

30. Gospel Choir

Total singers ____ Soprano ____ Alto ____ Tenor ____ Bass ____

31. What is the primary demographic of this ensemble?

○ Graduate Music Majors ○ Graduate Non-music Majors ○ Undergraduate Music Majors ○ Undergraduate Non-music Majors Other (please specify)

32. Opera Chorus

Total singers ____ Soprano ____ Alto ____ Tenor ____ Bass ____

66

33. What is the primary demographic of this ensemble?

○ Graduate Music Majors ○ Graduate Non-music Majors ○ Undergraduate Music Majors ○ Undergraduate Non-music Majors Other (please specify)

34. Any other choir

Soprano I ____ Soprano II ____ Alto I ____ Alto II ____ Tenor I ____ Tenor II ____ Baritone ____ Bass ____

35. What is the primary demographic of this ensemble?

○ Graduate Music Majors ○ Graduate Non-music Majors ○ Undergraduate Music Majors ○ Undergraduate Non-music Majors Other (please specify)

67

Female Voice Classification Techniques

The following questions pertain to the females between 18 and 25 in your choir(s) at your institution.

36. Rank the top three aspects you listen for when classifying female voices in your

choir(s), with 1 being the top aspect.

1 2 3

Range ○ ○ ○ Tessitura ○ ○ ○ Vocal Timbre ○ ○ ○ Quality of Extreme Ranges ○ ○ ○ Vocal Health ○ ○ ○ Speaking Voice ○ ○ ○ Sight-reading Ability ○ ○ ○ Needs of Ensemble ○ ○ ○ Former Classification ○ ○ ○ Voice Studio Classification ○ ○ ○ Student’s Desire ○ ○ ○ Personality ○ ○ ○ Other top classification methods (please specify)

37. How often do you reclassify female choir members?

(Please check all that apply) □ Every school year □ Every semester □ Every quarter □ Upon request □ never Other (please specify)

68

38. If you reclassify a female’s voice, when do you move that female to her new section

in the choir?

○ Immediately ○ At the beginning of a semester, trimester, or quarter ○ At the beginning of the next school year ○ Never

Rehearsal Techniques to Promote Healthy Singing

39. What are some female-specific rehearsal techniques you use to promote healthy

singing in your choir?

40. Have you provided all of the requested information about your choir(s)/vocal

ensemble(s)?

○ Yes ○ No

This question was a way to send the respondent to the thank you page on page 13. If the respondent had answered yes to being both a choir director and a voice instructor then they would not have seen this question and should proceed to the next page.

69

The following question pertains to females between 18 and 25 in your studio at your institution.

41. How many students are in your studio? How many female students are in your

studio?

Total students Female students

Total students ______Undergraduate music majors ______Undergraduate non-music majors ______Graduate music majors ______Graduate non-music majors ______Other (please specify)

70

Female Voice Classification Techniques

The following question pertains to females between 18 and 25 in your studio at your institution.

42. Rank the top three aspects you listen for when classifying female voices in your

studio, with 1 being the top aspect.

1 2 3

Range ○ ○ ○ Tessitura ○ ○ ○ Vocal Timbre ○ ○ ○ Quality of Extreme Ranges ○ ○ ○ Vocal Health ○ ○ ○ Speaking Voice ○ ○ ○ Sight-reading Ability ○ ○ ○ Former Classifications ○ ○ ○ Voice Studio Classification ○ ○ ○ Student’s Desire ○ ○ ○ Personality ○ ○ ○ Other (please specify)

43. How often do you classify your female voice students?

(Please check all that apply)

□ Every year □ Every semester, trimester, or quarter □ Upon request □ Never Other (please specify)

44. When you have determined a female student has changed voice classifications, on

average, how soon do you recommend new repertoire to that vocalist?

○ Immediately ○ At the start of the following semester or trimester ○ At the start of the following school year ○ Never

71

Vocal Techniques to Promote Healthy Singing

45. What are some female-specific vocal techniques that you recommend to your female

students to promote healthy singing?

46. Have you provided all of the requested information about your voice studio?

○ Yes ○ No This question directed the respondent to the next page.

Thank You

Thank you very much for completing this survey!

72

APPENDIX C:

OPEN ENDED QUESTION RESPONSES

73

OPEN ENDED QUESTION RESPONSES

This appendix contains choir directors’ and voice instructors’ responses to the survey’s open ended questions. Responses by individuals who were both a choir director and a voice instructor are included in the choir directors’ responses when they answered the question in their role as a choir director and in the voice instructors’ responses when they answered the question in their role as a voice instructor.

Choir directors’ and voice instructors’ responses are presented in three categories: physical concerns, specific vocalises, and miscellaneous. Sometimes more than one respondent gave very similar answers in one of the three categories. To avoid redundancy, I have placed in parentheses the number of respondents who presented essentially the same information.

RESPONSES BY CHOIR DIRECTORS

It should be noted that four choir directors responded that there are not any female- specific rehearsal techniques that they recommend. One responded “I aspire to promote healthy singers of both genders by means of my teaching/rehearsal techniques.”

I. Physical Concerns

• Moving singers so that they are next to singers with whom they share formant and tone characteristics. Asking them to sing a difficult soft passage at forte with no concern about balance or blend and gradually refining the sound until they are comfortable and can achieve the necessary sound. Having them sing a passage one at a time and then gradually adding different voices until they can all find a sound they are comfortable with. Singing especially high or difficult passages on a neutral syllable of their own choosing in order to work on the finesse each singer needs in order to sing it correctly. Focus on the individual needs of each singer and voice first and then move toward the concerns of the group. (2 Respondents)

• Body alignment/posture is a big focus, including not making big moves with the breasts when taking a breath. Keeping the chest high, and not allowing it to collapse in (to better utilize the ribcage, diaphragm, and lower torso in the breathing process). Some descriptors work especially well for women when describing the mood or

74

character of a phrase: tender, gentle releases (rather than calling them cut-offs) is one example that works well for music that requires a lighter touch.

• Lots of work on posture and standing position and vowel formation

• Working the full range, specifically developing alto singing with unnecessary glottal "hits" or chest voice singing. We work on ringing, resonant tone throughout the range. Voice matching is essential for a beautiful soprano sound without vibrato wars. Each female should be able to singing freely in her standing order.

• Singing on vowels, taking breaks with water, massaging vocal bands (all singers do these)

• Proper breathing technique, posture (seated and standing) Singing in moderate ranges (lower octaves, etc. when rehearsing)

• Warm-ups begin with stretching, breathing, and tone development in that order, always, vowel unification, and articulation follow

• I very seldom ask for straight tone singing from women. I choose repertoire that is appropriate for the developing solo voice.

• I work to keep them in their head voice as much as possible to avoid heavy out of tune singing.

• Breath/tone connections support mechanisms head/chest placement strategies (2 respondents)

• Attention to good vocal habits in warm-ups and rehearsals: posture, breath management, absence of tension.

• Good posture, breath support, tone placement, and choral blend

• Build all voices from the bottom up. All of my altos can sing high, all my sopranos can sing low. Warm-ups are the same as I use in the studio - body alignment, purity of vowels, singing with space and the open throat, etc...

• The focus remains consistently on basic fundamentals of production (posture, breathing, placement) and the reduction of tension

• Classical warm ups before each rehearsal physical warm ups - stretches, postural warm ups

• Warm-up of entire range for all voice types forward placed, focused tone and vowel clarity (no covering or blending that promotes throaty unclear enunciation)

75

• Singing w/ the whole body, use of lower abdominals, spacious pharyngeal area, forward resonance

• Good breath support and yawn space. Finding ease in singing top notes, the idea of relaxing down when ascending to higher pitches.

II. Vocalises

• All singers vocalize the extremes of their ranges. Singer placement is crucial so that all singers can use their full instruments without compromise

• Sirens, vocalizing from top down, head voice influencing lower range

• Mostly my techniques are applicable to both men and women, but working for a relaxed vocal production, and more open vowels seems to be necessary with my young female singers. In addition, those who are less experienced often need work on more open vowels particularly in the upper register.

• Always ten minutes of warm up; speaking/chanting text passages in head voice; rehearsing high register phrases down an octave; encouraging singing on the breath and breath support; using natural syllables in the early stages of learning the music; encouraging dynamic levels of mp-mf when learning the music; singing with good postures; alternating sitting and standing during rehearsal; using different physical movement/motions that encourage free of tension sound or more connected sound, etc.

• Various vocalises to take weight out of both the soprano and alto voices in the middle voice, especially thru the passaggio.

• Possibly some high, light cooing exercises to promote head tones, and a high soft palate. My rehearsal techniques are not gender specific.

• Warm-up on vowels different from those used by the men.

• Encourage the use of head-voice quality in mid and upper ranges and avoid heaviness/pushed quality in low range; in warm-up, I like to start with a descending vocalise (e.g., 534231271) on [u], beginning mid-range to establish head-voice quality from the start, move up by a few half-steps, then work down, maintaining the same vocal quality -explore vowel modification and where to shift registers to achieve evenness of sound when singing to and through passaggio

• My approach to singing is one that requires default open vowels (epsilon), Sopranos modify in the upper range, and vibrato is dependant on dynamic and range of music.

76

• W. Vennards's "yawn-sigh" "quack" pitches to obtain forward resonance to help increase volume without throat strain.

• Employ a lot of vocal "sigh" -ing techniques. I listen specifically for soft pallet issues. I encourage a healthy spin in the tone.

• Staccati; quick coloratura warm-ups

• Open vowels in their high range to develop head-tone.

• Emphasis on breath management techniques Vocalises to encourage singing with a relaxed head tone EX. "My mother made me marry a millionaire!" (Spoken in a light, high head tone) Mimic a puppy crying Ah, what a nice baby! (Beginning in a light head tone)

• Buzzes for head voice; if tessitura high, transpose down to work into the voice; vary vocal demands in repertoire.

• Encourage dropped jaw in high range to prevent "spreading" of vowels in upper head voice and whistle register. Have them shout "whee" (as on an amusement park ride) to encourage head register. (Other techniques I use are not female specific).

• Open-throated head voice vocalises such as "fire engines"--slides up and down the register.

III. Miscellaneous

• They are encouraged to "mark" rather than sing full out in the upper parts of their ranges during parts of their menstrual cycles if they feel they are experiencing water retention (this can affect the vocal folds as well, making it harder to hit the higher notes; pushing to sing at this time can engage negative compensatory behaviors)

• 1. Respond to comments & needs expressed by female singers. 2. Avoid "drilling" passages with extreme range 3. Be sensitive to cyclical physiology of female singers

• Good warm-ups; vary pace and literature in rehearsal; cool-downs; constant references to vocal health, issues, techniques, needs • Rotation of voice parts within ensemble understanding of vocal registration issues

77

RESPONSES BY VOICE INSTRUCTORS

It should be noted that ten voice instructors responded that they do not have female- specific techniques and that all of their techniques promote healthy singing.

I. Physical Concerns

• Remaining healthy, drinking water and making sure to warm-up daily and practice daily, work to maintain and extend range, listening to professional recordings, attend live concerts and professional performances.

• It's the same for both genders--good posture, good breath management and healthy living--no smoking, plenty of sleep, a good diet, and adequate exercise. Finding a balanced, vibrant sound evenly up and down the scale.

• Hydration, humming, rest, exercise

• Physical endurance, strength flexibility exercises

• Many female singers' speaking voices are pitched too low and not forward in the mask. We work hard to get them to use proper speaking technique in order to facilitate good singing technique. (3 Respondents)

• Basically: follow your speaking voice, keep it free, keep the air open beneath the tone, keep the focus as high/forward as possible with a high soft palette (and don't let the larynx ride up), all good singing is easy -- NEVER FORCE ANY TONE! and DON'T SING IN CHOIRS -- you can't monitor yourself and most choral directors care only about the overall effect and not the individual singers!

• Big 3 - breath, posture, alignment. Regal posture (queen, diva princess), tall and loose neck, shoulders down and relaxed. Not over-expanding rib cage, but opening rib cage to allow breath to move freely from abdominals. Tucked "buckky," loose knees. Tongue relaxed, "happy surprise" breath, singing at the gesture of inhalation, neck tall, chin level to the floor, keeping a "cathedral ceiling" in their mouths. (2 Respondents)

• Healthy singing is healthy singing regardless of gender. Female singers should put breathing and a sense of support at the top of their technical priorities just like males singers.

• All females must have a solid ringing chest register, then the head register can be developed. So, sometimes my true sopranos sing lower literature for a bit - or at least until the voice is ready to sing high freely.

78

• Understanding and strengthening of vocal registration and vocal fold function to balance entire voice throughout all registers.

• Proper posture (especially open rib cage and level head position) Breathing techniques (steady sustained hiss; hiss/punch; counting; staccato unvoiced pulses.

• Posture, breath support/control, balanced onset, tone placement - forward,

• Vocalizes are important for technical development. Take care of body. Space out practice sessions and not right before or after choir rehearsal.

• Singing with resonance in their head register. Open vowels with relaxed larynx

• Proper coordination of breath and laryngeal muscle function, and vibrancy of every note from lowest note to highest note of singable range. As little vowel modification as necessary and heavy emphasis on proper enunciation (Cantare come si parlare). If one speaks well, one will sing well. Unification of registers to eliminate "shifts" in registers--work toward one unified register from top to bottom. I make sure that sopranos have a healthy command of their low range and altos a healthy command of their highest singable notes with clarity and beauty.

• No belting! No belting! No belting!

II. Vocalises

• 1. "Sirens" - sliding pitches with breath throughout the range. 2. Listening to pitch in the head and not the throat. (3 Respondents)

• I don't teach female-specific techniques, other than eventually working more on agility. All voices need low intercostals expansion and appoggio, with light onset and constant management of the light/heavy mechanisms as one ascends and descends the scale. Women usually find it easier to ascend then young men, but the same techniques are beneficial.

• Appoggio, high-position vowels, healthy vibrancy and onset

• Be certain that the head voice range is focused and healthy before trying to sing in the speech level register or try "belting"

• Few of my techniques are completely specific to the female voice, but I do find that the light mechanism is easier to identify and carry down effectively in young female voices, while "head voice" in men requires more of an approach from below to develop.

79

• Many sighing, sliding exercises using lip trills, closed lip sound (like [ng]) or narrow vowels[I] or [U]

• Exploration and exercising of the extreme ranges--the complete voice

• Support training exercises for head voice development and overall vocal color concept - onset development - agility exercises

• Focus on free head voice ("float"), Octave slides between registers, coloratura exercises, staccato on top, narrowing of vowels in primary passaggio

• Descending exercises from upper middle range, using /u/ and /o/ vowels lip/tongue trills into the highest pitches that can be comfortably reached. (Cuperto exercises)

• Emphasis on head register, bringing the top into the bottom appropriate vowels, particularly for the extremes of their vocal range even, consistent vibrato relaxed, connected breath headier mix in registration

• Be aware of registration events; "give in" to the upper registration when in doubt; vowel modification at the registration events; breath connection/support, etc.

• Use of head register into middle and lower range

• Good low breathing and breath support. Soft palate lifts while relaxing larynx. I vocalize them quite a bit using [i] & [e]. These give good frontal placement and are a good reference point for other vowels.

• Registration, registration, registration. The understanding and implementation of the head register - that is, registering the voice from the top down, being able to "flip over" before they get to the passagio. Understand that some light voices are still carrying middle registration too high, even when it sounds light still. (2 Respondents)

• Singing on an [I] vowel and an [U] vowel

• NG and lip trills specifically traversing passaggio, yawn sigh emphasizing transitional areas of the voice.

• Work in flute or whistle register, regardless of classification; work in chest or modal voice, regardless of classification, Attention to vowel and weight at E-5-F#5, as well as vowel an octave lower.

• I always try to get the voice to spin--have an easy vibrato. I try to get the voice to sing softly through the passaggio. I always try to get my students to phrase beautifully, and be able to sustain easily.

80

• Good breath support. Utilizing the vowels [i] and [u] helps develop proper placement, and soft palette extension.

• Avoid "flipping" from one register to another; strive to balance the voice by incorporating head resonance and chest resonance (rather than chest voice, head voice) in proportions through out the voice so that the lowest note still has some head and the highest note still has some chest resonance.

• Onset exercises breathing exercises of various kinds

• I often work with females to bridge the gap between "head" and "chest" with sliding exercises on "ng." I also have them do messa di voce exercises around middle C, beginning in head voice, crescendo into chest voice, and then decrescendo back into head voice. The goal is to have no hitches; make the transition as smooth as possible. We also do descending 5-note scales in which a successively greater amount of chest voice is added in the "mix" with each successive tone. Full chest voice is never taken above the C# just above middle C. Even though the outward result of the mixtures is an even sound for the listener, it may feel quite different for the singer. For example, the way it MIGHT feel for a student would be: G--head voice F--20% chest/80% head E--55% chest/45% head D--90% chest/10% head middle C--100% chest

• Lip trill; whine; [v] on arpeggio for upper ranges; minimize "high"/"low" concept of pitch as much as feasible

• Vocalize with many melismas

• Appoggio technique taught by Richard Miller and Ana Kaskas

• Finding their comfortable tessitura.

• Depends on classical or commercial orientation. Everyone needs some knowledge about breath support and vocal mechanisms, registers, etc. But preferred sound and genre will determine how much emphasis to place on breath support, quality of vowels, etc. For example, a student focusing on contemporary musical theatre styles will need a bright, brassy forward vowel shape and vocal tract shape to accommodate this, and some training in healthy belt mix technique, which is different from the elongated vocal tract, long-oval shape preferred in classical technique. For both types, I advocate some training in breath support including a "rowing" or "bench-lift" exercise using a prop to start, such as a fake Halloween Styrofoam axe, as they sit in a ready position at the edge of the chair, inhale, and then exhale smoothly pushing the prop as if rowing (e.g., in "Ben Hur"). Then I attach this breathing-mechanism exercise to actual vocalises. Female-specific? Start no lower than G above middle C to avoid too much mix, if you are trying to isolate classical technique. Preferred in classical technique: start in head voice, e-flat at top of staff, with "nee--"exercise coming down 54321234 and switching to bright forward O up on 5 again, coming

81

back down 432to 1. Also octave slide-jumps on 'ooh" and general yawn-sighs starting high and sliding down. Etc. etc., etc.

• Good breath control, well placed vowels, legato singing, Learning to use head voice as low as possible and abandoning the high use of chest, ALWAYS singing with vibrato

• Please, don't speak so low on your voice. Use open o through the passaggio, not [i] or [u] use glissandi to initially access the high voice.

• Lip trills vocalises that work on relaxed tone on the five Latin vowels Relaxation exercises Posture correction, as needed

• Staccati; coloratura passages

• Use of supported chest voice in low range, but without "forcing." Other techniques that were mentioned in the choral rehearsal.

• Stretching range exercises on both ends or range coordinated laryngeal effort Physical health

• Energized breath flow, bel canto portamento technique, sighing in upper register, moving head voice down through passagios to promote healthy register management

III. Miscellaneous

• So many. I incorporate Alexander Technique ideas, and am an Andover Educator trainee which brings forth many body ideas. I give healthy voice user handouts with many have’s and have nots listed on it. It is really important to our success as a team that they know what is going on in/with their bodies/voices.

• Aside from basic, healthy technique, it is essential that the student feel or learn to feel attachment, both vocally and emotionally, to the music.

• It should be stated that my approach does not favor classification of young undergraduates at all but rather consistent and focused works on basic technique with an emphasis son the reduction of tension.