<aside> 🧩
Combined page (2026-10-21). Original draft first; 1 variant draft appended below under a “Variant:” heading — The Science and Nonsense of Voice Training. Edit down to one post before setting Ready to Publish.
</aside>
Upon reflection, I realize that the most important thing my graduate school voice teacher ever said to me was during my very first lesson. He asked me, "Piero, why did you decide to get a degree in voice pedagogy?" I responded by saying that I believed understanding the science behind singing would greatly enhance my teaching abilities. He smiled and replied, "That may be true, but there have been centuries of amazing singing before any of the science we know today." It's important to note that my voice teacher was passionate about the science and believed it was important to know. However, his point was that knowing the science does not automatically make someone a good voice teacher or singer.
There are issues surrounding voice science, not the science itself per se, but the way it is used. Let's consider this. There is scientific research that presents belting as bad, while other research states that belting is okay. Academic papers discuss belting as a natural way of producing voice sounds, while others argue that it is completely unnatural. Both sides back up their claims with scientific evidence. So, what's the problem? Well, I believe that much of the available science is excellent. However, in many cases, people search for science that supports their own position instead of using science to truly understand the situation. This is not unique to singing. However, singing is something that humans can do without relying on science. Nonetheless, there are significant aspects of singing where scientific tools are needed to investigate phonation at the level desired by scientists and researchers. Therefore, it is crucial to recognize that much of the scholarly research conducted is a combination of data and anecdotal information. We should consider the fact that major institutions involved in teaching singing have changed their stance on numerous topics over the past 50 years. While I strongly encourage you to learn from and utilize scientific knowledge to understand how your voice works and potentially improve it, I want to emphasize the importance of focusing more on the science itself and less on the opinions derived from it. Especially when those scientific opinions claim to have discovered the absolute truth.
<aside> 🧩
Merged from Working Materials page “The Science and Nonsense of Voice Training: Debunking the Bullsh*t” (388 words) on 2026-10-21. Text below is verbatim; the source page was marked Archived / Duplicate? = Delete.
</aside>
[intro music]
Julius: Welcome to another episode of Soapbox Rants: Challenging the Status Quo in Voice Training. I'm your host, Julius, and today, we're gonna talk about the science behind singing! (sarcastically) Oh, boy, I can't wait!
You know, my graduate school voice teacher asked me once, "Piero, why did you decide to get a degree in voice pedagogy?" I told him I thought understanding the science behind singing would help me with my teaching. He just smiled and said, "Well, there's been a lot of amazing singing that happened for hundreds of years before any of the science we know now." Thanks, Captain Obvious!
But you know what? He's right. There's too much reliance on science, and not enough common sense. People cherry-pick scientific studies to support their own opinions, rather than using science to better understand the human voice. And let's not even start on the nonsensical terminology we use in voice training.
You've got terms like "chest voice" and "head voice" that have no connection to reality. Are there two separate voices? Do I have a tiny opera singer in my chest? And don't get me started on "falsetto" – it literally means "fake little voice." How did we end up with such ridiculous terms? Well, blame people who don't know the science and make up explanations to fit their own narrative.
And have you ever tried to describe someone's singing voice? We use words like "bright," "dark," or "shrill." It's like trying to describe a freaking rainbow to a blind person!
The problem with our clumsy vocabulary is that it makes communication in voice training a freaking nightmare. Before you can even start teaching someone, you have to agree on a set of words, like some secret language. And that's not even considering how different vocal techniques can feel in each person's body.
So, what's the moral of the story? Learn the science, sure, but don't let it cloud your judgement. Focus on the actual singing and the sensations in your body, not some scientific mumbo jumbo. And for crying out loud, can we please come up with better terminology?
That's it for today's episode of Soapbox Rants: Challenging the Status Quo in Voice Training. I'm Julius, and I'll see you next time when we tackle the absurdity of singing competitions. Good night!
[outro music]