The Use of Science and Imagery in the Voice Studio-A Survey of Voice Teachers in the United States and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
American vocal pedagogy has become a body with two heads, one speaking with the voice of the subjective teacher, the other with the voice of the science-oriented teacher.1SO WROTE RICHARD MILLER IN HIS seminal 1996 work when describing the longstanding and ongoing philosophic divide between those teachers who rely on vocal and those who rely on imagery.2 This article will report on the results of a recent survey of over 500 voice teachers in the United States and Canada concerning the use of and in the voice studio. The survey has yielded interesting results. It has documented the broad-based use of a blended approach to the use of and imagery. It has also revealed both the need and desire for better communication within our profession.HISTORICAL CONTEXTThe philosophic division between science-based and imagery-based approaches to voice pedagogy is long standing, dating to the invention of the laryngoscope by Manuel Garcia in 1854.3 This science vs. imagery debate continued into the twentieth century. One commentator, for example, declared science is a blind man's guess,4 while another pointedly lamented singers' lack of understanding of voice science.5Within the past ten years, numerous articles acknowledging the division between the science-based and imagery-based methods have appeared in the Journal of Singing. Pedagogues Donald Freed,6 Margaret Kennedy-Dygas,7 Paul Kiesgen,8 Kenneth Bozeman,9 Lynn Heiding,10 Ingo Titze,11 and Deirdre Michael12 all have added their observations and opinions to the debate. Bozeman observed in 2007,[t]here are nonetheless those who claim that voice has not helped voice instruction, that it has been a distraction, or still worse, a substitute for effective teaching. While this no doubt has been true in some instances, the same criticism could be leveled at exclusive reliance on historic pedagogy.13Similarly, Helding acknowledged that same year the existence of a pedagogic rift between and when she stated,While few voice experts agree on the quality and extent of [the] influence [of Voice Science], most would concur that it is significant, that this influence has been both positive and negative, and finally, that disagreement and miscommunication between voice scientists and voice pedagogues unfortunately persist.14PURPOSE AND METHOD OF SURVEYThere clearly has been no shortage of debate over the use of or by voice teachers; however, there appears to be a lack of data about what techniques are actually being used by contemporary pedagogues. In other words, we don't know whether present day voice teachers choose to use one of these techniques to the exclusion of the other.Therefore, a survey was conducted among several hundred voice teachers in the United States and Canada. It asked them to compare the relative value of with that of when teaching their own students in their own studios. It asked whether they believe the profession remains philosophically divided between proponents of the science-based and imagery-based methods, and in so doing sought to determine whether the perception meets the reality.The survey was conducted from June 20 to July 28, 2010 via emails sent to 3,148 members of the College Music Society who identified themselves as voice pedagogues; 520 responses were received and analyzed. The survey consisted of fifteen questions. It also invited respondents to provide narrative comments and contact information to invite further discussion with the survey author.The following background information was collected about these 520 survey respondents:1) Geographic distribution of respondents: 19% live and work in the East Coast region, 20% in the South, 30% in the Midwest, 10% in the West/Southwest, and 2% in Canada.152) Degrees earned: 79% have at least a bachelor's degree, 71% an MM, 11% an MA, 43% a DMA, and 5% a PhD; 12% report holding a degree or performance credentials not listed on the survey form. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".