There are approximately seven thousand languages spoken around the world, each with different sounds, vocabularies, and structures. A baby is born with the ability to produce all of these sounds, and their environment will determine the development of their unique voice. As we grow older, language becomes the primary means of expressing our thoughts, but there is an ongoing debate about its impact on our thinking. Some believe that our words reflect reality and shape our perception, assuming that speech is based on thoughts. Others argue that our perception is influenced by the language we use, suggesting that thought depends on language. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis suggests that the structure of our language shapes our thinking, perception, and behavior, leading to differences in how people from different language backgrounds think and act. This is a complex debate, and its relevance lies not in finding an answer, but in acknowledging the existence of the debate itself. The implications of language and vocabulary go beyond definitions, diction, and storytelling.

Moving beyond the debate over perception and expression, we must address the inherent limitations of language. "Putting an idea into words" is inherently reductive. We must remember that while language is a powerful tool for communication, it has its limits. Scholars like Ferdinand de Saussure and Ludwig Wittgenstein have shown that words cannot fully capture the range of human experience and understanding. This is especially true in singing, where the physiological, emotional, and transcendent qualities of the act cannot be fully expressed through language. Unfortunately, the problems with singing-related vocabulary extend beyond these general limitations of language. The vocabulary we are stuck with actually exacerbates the issue.

Consider some of the commonly used singing terms related to technique, such as chest voice, head voice, mixing, belting, falsetto, support, placement, and registration. Can you define these terms? Can you describe how they feel? Have they been used in lessons or rehearsals, and if so, were you provided with official definitions for them? If you're reading this, I suspect you have. Before we continue, think about terms like water (chemistry), gravity (physics), photosynthesis (biology), or Pi π (mathematics). Experts in these fields universally agree on the definitions of these terms. Every biology teacher will explain photosynthesis as a process used by plants, algae, and certain bacteria to convert light energy, usually from the sun, into chemical energy stored in glucose. Pi is defined as the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, approximately equal to 3.14, with a decimal representation that never ends or repeats. However, when it comes to singing, even teachers with similar degrees and credentials to math and physics teachers do not have the same clear, universally accepted vocabulary to describe the core processes on which their teaching is based. Yet, I'm certain that some of you were led to believe that these terms are based on firm science and pedagogy. They are not, but rather centuries-old terms based on sensations and impressions that might make sense to some, but certainly not to all singers.

Let's examine the terms head voice and chest voice. They are absurd. There are not two distinct voices or mechanisms that move the production around. However, these terms have a long history, and people who are not familiar with the science tend to come up with imaginative explanations for why they make sense. I've heard things like, "when you're singing in your head voice, you feel it more in your head, and when you're singing in your chest voice, you feel it more in your chest." While this might be true for some people, it is not true for me. I have worked with thousands of singers, and for the most part, they do not report experiencing this sensation either. Worse yet, the term head voice is generally used differently when referring to male or female singers (note: I am referring to sex, not gender). Although there are slight sex-related variations in the structures used in voice production, their operations are identical. Therefore, using the same vocabulary to describe different operations is highly problematic. However, you won't have to look far to find a voice teacher or choir director who has a well-established explanation for the effectiveness of this practice.

One of the most frustrating terms is falsetto. Translated to English, falsetto means "fake little voice." How can it be fake? Why is it little? Does a male falsetto voice sound "feminine," hence "fake" or "little?" If so, we would have a term that contradicts our current efforts to address centuries of outdated gender stereotypes. Regardless, there is a specific functional pattern of the vocal folds that, when used by males, is generally described as falsetto, but in females, it is referred to as head voice. Setting aside the sociological implications, this terminology is simply nonsensical.

Now, let's discuss terms like Bel Canto and Belting. There are still many singing teachers who boast about their Bel Canto pedigree. We can't entirely blame them, considering that a significant portion of voice pedagogy is based on ideas found in books like Cornelius Reid's "Bel Canto, Principles, and Practices." He writes, "the principles of tone production put forward [are] the foundation upon which all good singing rests..." But guess what, Cornelius? History tells us that Bel Canto isn't really a thing! According to James Stark's book, "Bel Canto, a History of Vocal Pedagogy," it's a term that lacks a specific meaning – from "beautiful singing" to specific techniques of voice production. So, it's essentially a catch-all term that can mean anything and everything, depending on who you ask. Bel Canto is overused, misused, and ultimately a means to blindly endorse the philosophy that "classical singing is the foundation of all good singing." This is not true. It's as useless as saying that mayonnaise is the foundation of all cooking. Belting, often criticized by those in the Bel Canto camp, is not a legitimate concept either.

In Matthew Hoch's excellent resource, "A Dictionary for the Modern Singer," belting is described as "a frequently encountered term that can refer to a style, register, and technique used by singers who perform in non-classical styles. Because the word belt can mean so many things, it is often a confusing term to discuss and difficult to define precisely. Perhaps no other word in singing is as multifarious."

Did you notice Hoch's use of the phrase "non-classical?" This is where my litany of complaints about singing vocabulary stands out. Many would label me as a non-classical singing teacher. Imagine if the term "chef" exclusively referred to people who cooked French food, and everyone else was referred to as non-French cooks. What nonsense! Among musical academics, singers, and voice teachers, the term CCM (Contemporary Commercial Music) has come to refer to singing that is not classical. This includes musical theater, jazz, contemporary Christian, pop, and other genres. The term was coined by Jeanie LoVetri, a published and well-regarded voice pedagogue who was rightly frustrated with the use of the term "non-classical" in the literature about singing. For decades, academic journals, training programs, and so on, used the term "non-classical" to refer to any singers who were not classical. What bothered LoVetri was the idea that she was an expert in something that was defined as not being something else. To her credit, the term CCM has been widely accepted among scholars and academics in the field. However, the problem remains that this is a relatively small group of people compared to the vast number of singers.

Several efforts have been made to establish better vocabulary for singers, but none have gained widespread acceptance. Part of the issue stems from a lack of an established credentialing authority in the field. Another issue is that these terms are deeply ingrained and difficult to replace. Finally, there is a significant degree of resistance within the field. Many individuals who pride themselves on their progressive views on topics outside their field fail to recognize their role in perpetuating regressive practices within their area of expertise. Ultimately, it is not worth arguing about, as it is impossible to win an argument with someone whose views are based on folklore and fantasy. However, understanding the facts behind the fiction will enable you to navigate the challenges posed by this vocabulary more effectively.

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis suggests that language shapes our thinking, perception, and behavior. Viewed through this lens, the inaccurate, ineffective, and misguided language used to train singers presents a significant problem. Overcoming this problem, however, does not involve finding new and better words, but rather acknowledging that the words we currently have are useless and arbitrary. The term "head voice" is no more anatomically or functionally relevant than calling it the "kumquat" voice, and terms like "belting" are no more specific than "bucket o'sounds." Each singer needs to take responsibility for connecting with their voice through playful exploration. If working with a teacher, they need to remember that nobody can understand or guide the function of their voice better than they can. Making progress in the studio is therefore an act of aligning their sensations with the understandings and vocabulary of their teachers.