I just had to think of this when I was answering in the other thread:

How many of you came across different "belting-classifications" during their tuition/professional work?

In castings/auditions, you very often come across two different classifications:

1. Pop-Belt/Mix(Belt)/Fake Belt (the latter is something you don't read that often, but it IMHO means the same)
2. Full Belt/Strong Belt/Broadway-Belt

In case someone wonders what I mean and needs examples (of course all of these singers don't/didn't belt all the time!):
1. sounds like Beyonce (most of the time)
2. sounds like Judy Garland, Liza Minelli (pretty obvious why they sound so similar )

I can do both, but I feel much more comfortable with Pop-Belt (not necessarily Beyonce-style though ), because I like the sound more, I find it more authentic (strictly speaking for myself, it has mainly to do with something I would possibly call "vocal identity").

The terminology is, as mostly in singing, misleading. The difference, again as I see it, is mainly cartilage adjustment (with/without tilt), onset (which has probably the most similarities in both techniques) and formant-tuning (more/less Twang), although full Belt is sung with more mass than fake Belt is.

Ideas, discussion anyone?

Great topic, Mezzo !

I'd agree with you - when people ask me about belting I usually identify two kinds too.

Because I use natural sounds to describe laryngeal configurations, I'd say that the most used type is a blend of Speech, Cry and lots of Twang - with the twang becoming more important and the speech less, the higher we go. Beyoncé, Mariah Carey, Anastacia etc

The second type I'd call a blend of Call and Twang - the Call set up tilting back the cricoid to thicken and shorten and the twang to give brilliance and cut.

I use both too and tend to choose based on what I'm doing - if I want a warm sound I'll use the first one, because it's possible with a low laryngeal position so I can darken it quite a lot whilst the twang will still make it slice through.

If I want sheer power and that unmistakable belt sound for a musical number, I'll use number two every time - even though it's brighter and harsher sounding, it's just got what it takes to give that shiver that good belting gives.

Interestingly a colleague of mine is researching heavily into true belt at the moment (as defined by type 2) and it would appear that the laryngeal set up for belt is based heavily on the voice we naturally use to cry out for danger ('Fire!' or 'The Wolves will eat the babies!') and so the research appears to be showing a peak of adrenalin in both the singer AND the listener - which I think is probably responsible in large part for the shiver factor - and if you want that shiver, type one just can't fake it.

On the whole, though, Mezzo - given the choice, I'd side with you - I prefer the sound of the first type, but if the song dictates it, then I love the sound of the second type too!

For examples for those who are interested, defying gravity is a great song to listen to on you tube - Kerry Ellis is using type 2 at the end and Shoshana Bean is using type one - there's no comparison in my opinion - Shoshana's version just sounds too easy - there's no drama. Interestingly Alexia Khadime varies between types 1 and 2 and also, on the middle notes, pure twang set up - I don't know why, but I do know that it's really good to listen to!

The problem I see with the word Belting, is (like chest, head etc) it's been bandied about by so many people to mean so many different things - some schools of though think that belting is Twang, others think it is Speech with Twang - in classical circles, people often think they're belting if they use a lot of 'chest voice' hihg up (no dear, that's shouting...) - that's one of the main reasons I'm careful about the use of this term now - I prefer to use the natural sound road, then the student can create a convincing blend to mirror what sound they want.

If we define true belt as Type 2 - then our Pavarotti was a great exponent of it - listen to his version of Caruso - the highest notes are in belt rather than the usual operatic approach - fascinating. As one would expect, he belts fabulously.

Not sure if this is off topic. but

If you don't like chest and head what terminology would you use.

Well, the thing is - I feel that chest and head are confusing.

Firstly a register and a sound production are not the same thing. Yet most teachers use Chest and Head as both registers and as sounds. They expect you to use 'chest production' in between this note and that note - which means that the sound and the register are confused. If chest is a register, then even a thin, flute like sound used in that register is chest - if it's a sound, then it should be possible to use it in the top part of the voice.

I also have a problem with reductionism - if we leave the idea of registers aside and look simply at the production of sound, chest and head implies that there are two ways to produce each note - a chesty way and a heady way. This is not in accord with how the larynx actually works - modern teachers identify usually at least four laryngeal configurations as a base to work from (a configuration being a set up in the chords and pharnynx that produces a specific sound type) and research tells us that there are as many as seven basic configurations.

The sound most teachers refer to as Chest appears to be what modern research refers to as 'speech quality', and the head 'cry quality' - where then is twang quality ? Sigh quality ? Belt quality ? Speech with cry ? Cry with speech ? All of these are different sounds that are used in singing and which will not be possible if we only teach two.

For example, Oasis, Anastacia and Aretha Franklin would all be 'chest voice singers' according to traditional terminology (some may say belt, but again the term is used without people really knowing what it means) - I believe that to be misrepresentative and somewhat dangerous.

Oasis certainly tend to sing in speech quality (the classical chest) - but they also use twang.
Anastacia does not sing in speech quality at all, but mostly in twang and sigh.
Aretha Franklin uses almost exclusively speech with cry, twang and belt.

So we group these many different productions into one category - not only is this pure misinformation, it means that singers who try to produce Anastacia's sound, for example, using what they have been told is 'chest voice' (and hey, that's what Anastacia uses too - so I'll just have a go...) will hurt themselves very badly if not careful.

When the teacher is presented with the failure and the question 'why doesn't my voice sound like hers' the responsibility is always thrown back on the student 'oh, that's just your voice - her chest sounds different to yours'. Which is teacher speak for 'I don't know how to teach it to you, so I'll pretend that you're limited rather than I'.

With my students I seperate registers and sounds.

We talk about the low register, the middle register and the high register (you can add on the pulse and very high register too if you want, but the three usually do the job) - these are the actual existing registers defined by vocal fold mechanics and cartilage placements (the three major different things the larynx has to do to produce sounds at different pitches muscularly).

Then we define the seven basic sounds with natural sounds, we speak of : speech voice, cry voice, twang voice, sigh voice, calling voice etc...

This enables a much more accurate description of what one hears other artists doing, and therefore much more precise reconstruction in one's own voice :

Oasis sing in chest voice - becomes : Oasis use speech in the low and middle registers and twang in the high register.

Anastacia sings in chest voice - becomes : Anastacia uses twang in all registers with sigh voice for effect and breaks.

Aretha Franklin sings in chest voice - becomes : Aretha Franklin uses speech and cry in the low and middle registers, calling voice and twang in the high registers.

It gives the student a tool to sit down and analyse a song - what is my favorite artist doing HERE on this note, on this word - and how can I recreate it in my own voice.

Registers and Productions are different phenomena (registers are primarily physiological - the CT space opens and closes and different muscles control phonation at different pitches - whereas productions are acoustic phenomena - a certain sound is produced - irrespective of where we do it.) and I feel that for clarity of use and for vocal health sake, we should make that clear.

I'm not saying my vocabulary is the best - although it is fairly standard among industry vocal coaches - but I feel a vocab that seperates the sounds from the place in the voice, and covers all the sounds we can make - is better than one that sticks everything in two boxes.

The sheer number of questions we get about belting, or producing different sounds on this site alone makes that clear (I'm trying to belt, but I can't take my chest voice into my head voice...' - I don't know what that means, but I can show you how to sing in calling voice in the high part if you like. That will feel different from speech voice in the low part, mind - because it is !)

Just my two cents, of course.

From a student's point of view:

I used the terms chest and head for years with singing teachers and in music rehearsals and, to be honest, I could never really have explained what they meant if pushed. Possibly: chest in lower and louder, head is higher and quieter.

Using the terms Rosfrog has explained in the post above gives the student and the teacher a common vocabulary and a sort of short hand for describing so many more ways of using the voice. It means for me that I am beginning to understand what I am actually doing with my voice for the first time, that my practice (sp?) between lessons is much more focussed and when I am asked at the beginning of the lesson, 'how have you been getting on?' I am able to properly discuss any problems and issues (of which there are usually many!!!) which is clearly much more helpful.

I also think that it means that when you hit a problem you have a 'tool-kit' of things to try, rather than just 'use your head voice' or whatever. It means that I am using parts of my voice I never had before and can do things I never could, and I can talk about how I'm doing it.

I certainly takes a bit of getting your head round the terminology and it's a bit overwhelming at first because it seems very complex (and I am not a scientific sort!!) but ultimately it's much, much more helpful.