Chapter 24 Singing and vocal development - UCL Discovery 2016... · 2016. 3. 16. · 1 Chapter 24...
Transcript of Chapter 24 Singing and vocal development - UCL Discovery 2016... · 2016. 3. 16. · 1 Chapter 24...
1
Chapter 24
Singing and vocal development
GrahamF.Welch
Singingandvocaldevelopment:Introduction
Despitethewarmthintheroomastheyshookthesnowofftheirwintercoatsand
gatheredaroundthekitchentable,therewasacollectivesenseofnervousnessand,
insomecases,uneasethatwasbarelytouchedbythehostess’cheerfulmannerand
greeting.Outside,thedarkofaNewfoundlandeveninghadalreadydescendedand
thehostesswonderedifsomeofthewind’sicychillwasreflectedinthebody
language.Thisgatheringwastobethefirstofseveralsessionsforthegroupwhen
thingsusuallyunspoken,sometimeshiddenformanydecades,wouldbeallowedto
surface.
Mybiggestrecollectionisschool,ofcourse.Youwenttoschool,thefirstthing
thenunswouldsay,—Anybodycansing.You’dgoandyouwereembarrassed
totearsbecauseyouknewyoucouldn’tsing,andtherewasnohelp…Ican
remember,atleastafullrow,ifnottwo,intheclassroomchoirsorthesinging
choir,thatyouweretoldtopantomime.Youhadtogotomusic,andyouhad
tolistentoallthewordsandbeabletomouthitorlip-syncitlikeeverybody
else,butyouwerenotallowedtosingandyouweren’tallowedtoturnit
down.(Knight,2010,pp.108–9,interviewwithC.,aged50)
2
Irememberplayingskippingandsingingonthestreet.Ican’trememberthe
tunesnow…Idon’tthinkIeverreallythoughtIcouldn’tsinguntilGrade7and
theteacherandallmyfriendsandIwereingleeclubandthatwasamajor
time,shestoppedandsaid—Somebodyistonedeafhere.Shesaid—It’syou
Vic,you’retonedeaf.Shesaid—Youdon’thaveanynotes,youjustcan’tsing
alongwiththemusicatall…Icanseetheclass,Iwassittingsecondrowback
andtherewerekidsbehindme,youcanimaginehowembarrassedIfelt.From
thenonIjustassumedIwastonedeaf…Iguessobviouslyitwastraumatic,to
rememberafter30years.(Knight,2010,p.125,interviewwithV.,aged47)
TheninGrade6[age11]…Istooduptosingitandshetoldmetositdown,
thatIcouldn’tsing.Well,Iwasdevastated…I’msureIwantedtocry.Of
courseyoucamehome,itwasnogoodoftellingyourparentsatthetimethat
somethinglikethishadhappenedtoyou…Andshewassuchapowerful
personinthecommunity…Itstayedwithmeforsolong.Itwassodegrading
atthetime.Eveninhighschool,iftherewasanythingtodowithmusic,I
hatedmusic…Ididn’tlearnit.Icouldn’tlearnit,asIthought…I’msurethat
[incident]affectedit,inalotofways…maybeshejustdidn’thavethe
knowledgeanditdidn’tcometoher—‘Iamdoingsomethingthat’sgoingto
affectthischildformostofherlife.’That’sprobablythewayitwas.(Knight,
2010,p.91,interviewwithL.,aged42)
Overthenextfewweeksandmonths,theseadultssharedmanysimilardetailed,yet
negative,memories,particularlyassociatedwiththeirformerschooldays.Despite
thepassingoftime,theseepisodesofchildhoodwerevividlyrecalled.Asenseof
3
embarrassment,shame,deepemotionalupset,andhumiliationwerecommonly
evidenced,usuallyaccompaniedbyreportsofalife-longsenseofmusical
inadequacy.FortheseparticularCanadians,asformanyotheradultsaroundthe
worldindifferentculturalcontexts,theassociationsbetweensingingandchildhood
werenotpositive.WithinthelocalNewfoundlandculture,singingcompetencyeither
asanindividualorwithinagrouphasalwayshadhighstatus.Consequently,any
perceivedsinging“failure”inchildhoodhasoftenledtocontinuedself-identifyasa
“non-singer”(seeKnight,1999)andhasreinforcedaculturalstereotypeofa
communitythatisdividedintwo:thosewho“cansing”andthosewho“cannot”—a
statusassociatedwithemotionaltrauma,acceptance,andasenseof“irrevocability”
(Knight,1999,p.144).
SimilarfindingshavebeenreportedfromotherstudiesofadultsinNorth
America,theUK,andScandinavia.Yet,despitesuchexperiences,therearesome
adultswhonevergiveuphopeofimprovementandtherehavebeenseveral
successfulexamplesofspecialistchoirsbeingstartedforadult“non-singers”(Mack,
1979;Richards&Durrant,2003).TheseincludeanewcommunitychoirinSt.John’s,
Newfoundland,four“beginners”choirsinoneLondoncollegethathavea20-year
history,various“SingingfromScratch”choirsintheMidlandsandSouth-Eastof
England,andsimilarinitiativesinSweden,theUnitedStates,Canada,Australia,and
NewZealand.
Theexistenceofsuchchoirsforadult“non-singers”isoneofanumberof
significantchallengestoabi-polar“can/cannot”categorizationofsingingbehaviors.
Theyarepartoftheevidencebaseforsingingtobeconsideredasanormal
developmentalbehaviorthatcanbeenhancedorhindered,particularlybythe
4
eventsandexperiencesofchildhood.Forexample,otherrecentresearchsuggests
thatsuchself-labelinginadulthoodmaybesomewhaterroneous.Anadult’s
perceivedsenseofsinginginadequacy,basedontheirnegativechildhood
experiences,isnotnecessarilybornoutempiricallywhentheirsingingabilityis
actuallyassessed.Severalstudieshavereportedamismatchbetweenperceivedand
actualsingingabilityinadults,withthebehavioroftenbeingmorecompetentthan
theself-perception(Cuddyetal.,2005;Knight,2010;Wise,2009).Onerecentstudy
ofsingingabilityinthegeneraladultpopulation,forexample,foundthatthe
majorityofadultparticipantsweremuchmorepitchaccuratewhentheyperformed
awell-knowntargetmelodyatslowertempi(DallaBella,Giguére,&Peretz,2007).
Overall,theprimesourceofsinging“failure”foranindividualisoftena
particularmomentinchildhoodand/oradolescencewhenthereisamismatch
betweendevelopingsingingcompetencesandasetsingingtask(Cooksey&Welch,
1998;Welch,1979,1985,2000a,b,2005a).Erroneousadultexpectationoften
createstheproblem.Thismismatchmaythenbecomefurther“objectified”by
continuinginappropriatecommentsfromadultsorpeers,whichsuggeststhatthe
singingproblemisevidenceofanunderlyingdisabilityinmusic.Arguably,the
numberofsinging“failures”thataresociallygeneratedinourcommunitieswouldbe
reducedradicallyiftherewasagreaterawarenessofa)howsingingmastery
develops,b)howchildrenofthesameagecanbeindifferentphasesof
development(asisconsiderednormalwithotherformsofculturallybiased
behavior,suchasreading),andc)howbesttoprovidesuitable“developmentally
sensitive”singingactivities.Thenarrativethatfollowsreviewsthenatureofsinging
developmentfromearlychildhoodthroughto(andincluding)adolescence.
5
Particularfeaturesarehighlightedofhownormaldevelopmentmaybefostered,
shaped,andsometimeshindered.
Singingasadevelopmentalbehavior
Pre-birthandinfancy
Thefoundationsofsingingdevelopmentoriginateintheauditoryandaffective
experiencesofthedevelopingfetusduringthefinalmonthsofgestation,particularly
inrelationtotheearliestperceptionofmelodicvariationsinthemother’svoice.The
amnioticfluidthatsurroundsthefetusisaneffectivetransducerofthepitch
contoursofmaternalvoicing.Asthemotherspeaksorsings,theprosodicfeaturesof
hervoice(melodyandrhythm)areconveyedtothedevelopingfetusbythesound
wavesthattransferthroughherbodytissueandthatalsoarereflectedfromsurfaces
inherimmediateenvironment.Atthesametime,themother’saffectivestateasshe
speaksorsingsisencodedhormonallyinherbloodstreamthroughneuroendocrine
activity.Thisemotionalstateisbelievedtobeexperiencedbythefetusrelatively
concomitantlywiththesoundofthemother’svoicebecauseofaninterfacingofthe
fetalandmaternalbloodstreams(seeWelch,2005aforamoredetailedreview).The
outcomeisaninterweavingofacoustic(prosodic/melodic)andemotional
experiencespre-birththatarelikelytounderpinthedevelopinginfant’ssubsequent
interactionspost-birthwiththesoundsofthematernalculture.Forexample,our
abilitytodetermineparticularlystrongemotionsinvocalbehaviorsinspeechand
singing(Johnstone&Scherer,2000;Louietal.,2013;Nawrot,2003;Sundberg,2000)
islikelytooriginateintheseearliestdual-channel(acoustic-affect)experiencesand,
arguably,tocreateacertainbiastowardtheassociationofparticularvocaltimbres
6
withpositiveandnegativefeelings(termed“emotionalcapital”—Welch,2005a).Six-
month-olds,forexample,exhibitendocrine(cortisol)changesafterlisteningtotheir
motherssinging(Trehub,2001),becomingcalmedwhenupsetandmorealertwhen
sleepy.
Thefirstyearoflifeischaracterizedbyashapingoftheinfant’svocal
productionthroughaninteractionwiththeacousticcharacteristicsofthematernal
culture.Parents,forexample,typicallyincorporaterichmusicalpropertieswhen
interactingwithinfants:theyspeakandsingathigherpitchlevels,useawiderpitch
rangeandlongerpauses,oftenataslowerrate,andusesmooth,simple,buthighly
modulatedintonationcontours(seeThurman&Welch,2000;Welch,2005b;Trehub
&Degé,Chapter2).Atbirth,neonatescontinuetobeparticularlysensitivetothe
soundofthehumanvoice,whilstdemonstratingacertaininitialperceptualplasticity
towardanylanguage(Eimas,1985).Two-day-oldneonates,forexample,listen
longertowomensinginginamaternalstyle(Masataka,1999).Adultsinging(both
maleandfemale)appearstobeespeciallysignificant,asdemonstratedinits
beneficialeffectsonprematureinfants’physiologicalfunctioningthroughchangesin
heartrateandoxygensaturation,alongsideareductioninstressfulbehaviors
(Colemanetal.,1997).
Theearliestvocalbehavioriscrying.Itcontainsalloftheingredientsof
subsequentvocalization,includingsinging,withvariationsinintensityandpitch,as
wellasrhythmicpatterningandphrasing(Vihman,1996).Attheageof2months,
cooingandvowel-likesoundsarealreadyevidencedandbeingshapedbythe
maternalculture(Ruzzaetal.,2003).Aspectsof“musicalbabbling”thatcontain
definitemusicalfeatures,suchaspitchandrhythmicpatterns,arealsoevidenced
7
from2monthsonwards(Tafuri&Villa,2002).Theirincidenceandqualityappearto
berelatedpositivelytotheamountoftimedevotedtodailysingingbehaviorsbythe
mother;thegreatertheamountofmaternalsinging,theincreasedlikelihoodof
earliermusicalbabbling.Althoughmaternalsingingtoinfantsisprimarilya
caregivingtoolaimedatemotionalregulation,itprovidesarichmusicalcontextfor
mother–infantinteractionwheretheyoungchildismotivatedtoimitateandplay
withvocalsound(seeTrehub&Gudmundsdottir,2014,forareview).
Bytheageof3to4months,theinfantisabletoimitatetheirmother’s
exaggeratedprosodiccontoursthatcharacterizeinfant–motherinteraction
(Masataka,1992).Vocalplayemergesaroundtheagesof4to6months(Papousek,
1996).Bytheageof1year,infantsaresufficientlycuedintothelanguageofthe
maternalcultureforelementstobereflectedintheirownvocalizations.As
examples,FrenchinfantsbabbleusingFrenchspeechunits,Russianinfantsbabble
usingRussian,andJapaneseinfantsusingJapanese(Meltzoff,2002).Ingeneral,the
firstyearoflifeischaracterizedbyincreasinglydiversevocalactivity.Thefirst
vocalizationsofinfancy,withtheircommunicationofaffectivestate(discomfortand
distress,thenalsocomfortandeustress),areexpandedtoincludequasi-melodic
features(2–4months),developingvocalcontrol(4–7months),withvocalpitch
behaviorsthataredirectlylinkedtotheprosodicfeaturesofthemothertongue.
Earlychildhoodandpreschool
Singingdevelopmentpreschoolischaracterizedbyanincreasinginteractionwiththe
soundsoftheexperiencedmaternalculture.Thisinteractionisreflectedinamosaic
ofdifferentsingingbehaviorsthatareevidencedbetweentheagesof1and5years.
8
Theyrelatetotheyoungchild’sacquisitive,playful,creative,andspontaneous
natureastheyengagewithandmakesenseoftheir“local”musicalworld(e.g.,
Barrett,2011).Thevarietyofvocalizationincludes:2-year-olds’repetitionofbrief
phraseswithidentifiablerhythmicandmelodiccontourpatterns(Dowling,1999);
and3-year-olds’vocalinterplaybetweenspontaneousimprovisationandselected
elementsfromthedominantsongculture,termed“pot-pourri”songs(Moog,1976)
and“outlinesongs”(Hargreaves,1996)inwhichthenatureofthefigurativeshapeof
thesungmelodiccontour(its“schematic”contour)isthoughttoreflectthecurrent
leveloftheyoungchild’sunderstandingoftonalrelationships(Davidson,1994).
Thereisevidenceofincreasingsophisticationandcomplexityinrelationto
thelearningofsongsfromthedominantculturebyyoungchildren(e.g.,Mang,
2005;andseefootnote1fordevelopmentalmodelsbyRutkowski,1997;Welch,
2002).However,thepathofdevelopmentisnotnecessarilylinearforanyparticular
individual.InaUSstudyofthespontaneoussingingof2-year-olds’firstsongs,for
example,thereisevidencethat“phrasesaretheinitialmusicalunits”(Davidson,
1994,p.117).Suchphrasesarecharacterizedbylimitedpitchrange,acertain
disjunctionofkey/tonality,andadescendingcontour.Incontrast,recentItaliandata
of2-to3-year-oldchildrenindicatethatsomeyoungchildrenappeartobemuch
betteratimitatingacompletemelodymodeledbytheirmother(andalsobya
specialistcoursetutor)thanmatchingindividualphrasesofthesamesong(Tafuri&
Welch,unpublisheddata,seeFigure24.1;seealsoTafuri,2008).TheseItalian
childrenhadbeenexposedtoregularsessionsoftheirmothers’singingsincethe
finaltrimesterofpregnancy,bothathomeandinaspecialinfant–parentsinging
courseorganizedinthelocalconservatoire.YetforotherchildreninthesameItalian
9
group,withapparentlythesamelevelsofexposuretomaternalsinging,theopposite
isthecase.Theirsungphraseaccuracyisratedasbetterthantheirwholesong
accuracy(Figure24.1),inlinewithdatafromtheearlierUS(Davidson,1994)study.
<InsertFigure24.1here>
Fortheyoungestchildren,theboundariesbetweensingingandspeakingmay
beblurred,oratleastambiguoustotheadultlistener,andarerelatedtothe
dominanceofaparticularcontourschema(Davidson,1994)aswellastothe
influenceofthemothertongue.Forexample,alongitudinalstudyinCanadaof
younggirlsaged18to38monthsfrommonolingualandbilingualbackgrounds
reportedthat“intermediatevocalisations”(atypeofvocalbehaviorattheboundary
betweenspeechandsong)weremoreprevalentinMandarin-andCantonese-
speakingchildrenthaninEnglish-speakingchildren(Mang,2000/1).Afollow-up
studyinHongKongwithmono-andbilingual3-and4-year-oldsconfirmedthese
findingsandrevealedthat,regardlessofage,themanipulationofvocalpitchwas
usedtodistinguishbetweensingingandspeaking(Mang,2002).Themean
fundamentalfrequencies(F0)forsongswerereportedtobeconsistentlyhigherthan
speech,but“ownchoice”songswereperformedataslightlylowerpitchthana
criterionsong.Inaddition,theolderEnglishmonolingualchildrendemonstrateda
widermeanF0differentiationbetweentheirsingingandspeakingbehaviors
comparedtotheirCantonesemonolingualandbilingualpeers.Takentogether,such
examplesfromthesediverseculturalsettingsremindusthatsingingbehavioris
subjecttodevelopmentalprocesses,whilstalsobeingsensitivetosociocultural
context(includingtask).Intheseexamples,contextalsoincludesthepresenceor
absenceofapitch-basedlanguageasthemothertongueinwhichmeaningis
10
explicitlyconveyedbytheshapingofmelodiccontour.
Asmightbeexpectedfromtheinteractionofenculturationwithgenerative
skilldevelopmentinmusic(BritishEducationalResearchAssociationMusic
EducationReviewGroup,2001;Welch,2005b),longitudinaldataonsinging
developmentinearlychildhoodconfirmtheimportanceoftheprosodicfeaturesof
themothertongue.Spontaneoussingingischaracterizedprincipallybythecontrol
ofmelodic–rhythmiccontourpatterns(Dowling,1999;Sundin,1997).Betweenthe
agesof1and2years,forexample,atypicallyspontaneousinfantsongconsistsof
repetitionsofonebriefmelodicphraseatdifferentpitchcenters.Bytheageof3
years,threedifferentphrasesarecharacteristicallyevidencedandone-phrase
singingisrare(Dowling,1988,1999).Furthermore,recentcasestudyresearchwith
2-to3-year-oldsinafree-playdaycaresetting(Young,2002)celebratesawide
diversityinyoungchildren’sspontaneoussingingthatislinkedtocontextand
activity,whilstbeingmediatedbyage.Thisdiversityincludes“free-flowvocalizing”
(awordlessvocalcreationoftenassociatedwithsolitaryplaywithnodefinedoverall
musicalshape),“chanting”(oftenshort,repeatedphrases),“reworkingofknown
songs”(theutilizationofenculturatedsongfragments),“movementvocalizing”
(eitherofselforobjects),singingfor“animation”(associatedwithdramaticplay),
andtheimitationofactualsounds(definedas“comic-striptypenoises,”usually
associatedwithobjectplay).Aschildrengrowolder(3to4years)andmoresociable,
morespeakingthansingingmaybeevidenced.
Ageisalsoafactorinyoungchildren’sperceptionandexpressionofemotion
insinging;4-and5-year-oldsareabletoexpresshappinessandsadnessintheir
inventedsongs.InoneCanadianstudy,childrenusedconventionalmusicaldevices,
11
suchasamajormodalityanddottedorsyncopatedrhythmsfor“happy”songs,
contrastedbyareducedpitchrangeandsuppressionofmelodiccontoursin“sad”
songs(Adachi&Trehub,2000).Theirsongtextswerealsocontraposedemotionally,
with“happy”songsfocusedon“friends,”“family,”and“sweets,”but“sad”songs
focusedmoreonanegativeversionofthese(e.g.,“nofamily”).Incontrast,older
children’s“sad”songsweredominatedbythemesrelatedtodeath(Adachi&
Trehub,1999).DatafromSweden(Gabrielsson&Örnkloo,2002)confirmthegrowth
ofchildren’sexpertisewithageintherecognitionandexpressionofintendedsung
emotion,particularlybetweentheagesof4and7years.
Thefirstyearsofschooling
Itiscommonforadiverserangeofsingingabilitiestobeexhibitedbychildrenon
entrytocompulsoryschooling.Withinthisdiversity,itisnecessarytodistinguish
betweeni)children’s(developing)skillintheperformanceofataughtsong
(Rutkowski,1990,1997;Welch,1986,1998,2000b,2002;Welch,Sergeant,&White,
1996,1997,1998)andii)children’sabilitytoinventsongs(Davies,1986,1992,
1994).Aswithpreschoolsingingbehaviors,contextandculturearealsofactors
(Mang,2003;Rutkowski&Chen-Haftek,2000).
Withregardtothefirstofthesecategoriesconcerningtheskilled
performanceofataughtsong,twomajorUSandUKstudieshavedrawnon
developmentaltheoriestoproposephasedmodelsofsingingdevelopment
(Rutkowski,1997;Welch,19981).TheUSdata(Rutkowski,1997)wasgenerated
1 Rutkowski (1997), Singing Voice Development Measure (SVDM)
1 “Pre-singer” does not sing but chants the song text.
12
1.5 “Inconsistent Speaking Range Singer” sometimes chants, sometimes sustains tones and
exhibits some sensitivity to pitch, but remains in the speaking voice range (usually a3 to c4
[note: the pitch labels have been altered to bring them in line with modern conventions in
which middle C=c4, 256 Hz]).
2 “Speaking Range Singer” sustains tones and exhibits some sensitivity to pitch but remains in
the speaking voice range (usually a3 to c4).
2.5 “Inconsistent Limited Range singer” wavers between speaking and singing voices and uses a
limited range when in singing voice (usually up to f4).
3 “Limited Range Singer” exhibits consistent use of initial singing range (usually d4 to a4).
3.5 “Inconsistent Initial Range Singer” sometimes only exhibits use of limited singing range, but
other times exhibits use of initial singing range (usually d4 to a4).
4 “Initial Range Singer” exhibits consistent use of initial singing range (usually d4 to a4).
4.5 “Inconsistent Singer” sometimes only exhibits use of initial singing range, but other times
exhibits use of extended singing range (sings beyond the register lift: bb4 and above).
5 “Singer” exhibits use of extended singing range (sings beyond the register lift: bb4 and above).
Welch (1998) A revised model of vocal pitch-matching development (VPMD)
Phase 1 The words of the song appear to be the initial center of interest rather than the melody, singing
is often described as “chant-like,” employing a restricted pitch range and melodic phrases. In
infant vocal pitch exploration, descending patterns predominate.
Phase 2 There is a growing awareness that vocal pitch can be a conscious process and that changes in
vocal pitch are controllable. Sung melodic outline begins to follow the general (macro)
contours of the target melody or key constituent phrases. Tonality is essentially phrase based.
Self-invented and “schematic” songs “borrow” elements from the child’s musical culture.
Vocal pitch range used in “song” singing expands.
Phase 3 Melodic shape and intervals are mostly accurate, but some changes in tonality may occur,
perhaps linked to inappropriate register usage. Overall, however, the number of different
reference pitches is much reduced.
Phase 4 No significant melodic or pitch errors in relation to relatively simple songs from the singer’s
musical culture.
13
throughsystematicevaluationofchildren’ssingingbehaviorsacrossaperiodofover
15years.Theemergentnine-phasemodel(whichwentthroughseveralversions2)
suggeststhatchildrenprogressfromspeech-likechantingofthesongtext,tosinging
withinalimitedrange(“speakingrangesinger”)tothedemonstrationofan
expandedvocalpitchrangethatisalliedtoskilledcompetencyinvocalpitch
matching.ThismodelhasanaffinitywiththatofanotherUS-basedlongitudinal
study(Davidson,1994),whichsuggeststhatchildren’ssingingdevelopmentislinked
toaschematicprocessingofmelodiccontour.DatafromHarvardUniversity’ssix-
yearProjectZerostudyofchildrenagedbetweentheagesof1and6yearsindicated
fivespecificlevelsofpitchdevelopmentinyoungchildren’ssinging,expandingfrom
aninitialmelodiccontourschemewithapitchintervalofathirdtoonethat
embracedacompleteoctave.
Withintheresearchliterature,childrenaresometimesreportedasbeing
moreskilledwhencopyingasungmodeliftheyusedaneutralsyllableratherthan
attemptingthesongwithitstext(e.g.Levinowitz,1989).Thisfindinghasresonances
withdatafromathree-yearlongitudinalstudyof184childrenintheirfirstthree
yearsofformaleducationintenUKprimaryschools(Welchetal.,1996,1997,1998).
Theresearchprovideddetailedevidenceofhowsingingbehaviorsareage-,sex-,and
task-sensitive.Overthethreeyears,theparticipantsasacollectiveappearedto
2 The conceptualization of development as occurring in “phases” is a common outcome of research that
is undertaken over a long period with time for researcher reflection and the evaluation of new
data. For example, the current author has developed and reviewed a particular model of vocal
pitch matching over the past two decades (1986, 2002), which reconceptualizes the evidence
and reduces the number of developmental “phases” (rather than the originally labelled
“stages”) from five to four.
14
demonstratelittleoverallimprovementwhenrequiredtomatchthesungpitchesof
thecriterionsongs(twosongswerespeciallytaughtandassessedeachyear)(see
Figure24.2).However,thissingingbehaviorwasinmarkedcontrasttotheirabilityto
learnthewordsofthesongs,whichwasextremelygood,evenintheirfirsttermof
compulsoryschoolingatage5(Figure24.2:Year1,age5data).Furthermore,when
thepitchelementsofthetargetsongsweredeconstructedintosimplermusicaltasks
inwhichthechildrenwererequiredtomatchindividualpitches,echomelodic
contours,orcopysmallmelodicfragments,thechildrenweresignificantlymore
pitchaccurate,asdemonstratedbyyear-on-yearimprovements.Therewerenosex
differencesintheirsingingofthesethreetypesofdeconstructedtasks:boysand
girlswereequallysuccessfulanddemonstratedsimilarimprovementsovertime.In
contrast,whenthesameboyswerefacedwiththechallengeofsingingacomplete
song,theirvocalpitchbecamelessaccurateand,asagroup,theydemonstrated
littleornoimprovementinsong-singingacrossthethreeyears.Overall,singing
competencyappearedtobecloselyrelatedtothenatureofthetask,withmany
boysnegativelyaffectedinthetaskofsinginga“school”song.
Thisisaconsistentfindingacrosstwentieth-centuryresearchliterature.In
general,girlsasagrouparereportedtobemoreadvancedintheirsinging
developmentthanboys,withrecentresearchindicatingthatthisgenderdifference
getslargeraschildrengetolderfromage5throughto12(seeWelchetal.,2012for
areview).
Inlinewiththeselongitudinalfindings,tworecentstudiessuggestthat
genderstereotypingmaybeafactorinthelackofsingingdevelopmentinsome
youngboys(Hall,2005;Joyce,2005).Australianresearchinto5-year-oldboys’
15
singing(Hall,2005)indicatesthatsingingmaybeperceivedasa“female”activity.UK
researchof9-and10-year-olds(Joyce,2005)acrossthreeprimaryschoolsfound
thatonlyone-thirdofboysenjoyedsinging(comparedwithtwo-thirdsofgirls)and
thatboysbelievedthatgirlswerebettersingers.
Inadditiontoage,sex/gender,andtask,therearealsocontextualfactors
thatcanaffectchildren’ssingingbehaviors.Forexample,theUKlongitudinalstudy
datademonstratedaclear“schooleffect”(Welch,2000a).Whencomparing
individualschooldata,allthechildreninoneinner-cityschoolimprovedtheirsinging
skillsoverthethreeyears,notwithstandingtheirpoorsocio-economicenvironment
andgenerallylowacademicattainmentinotherareasofthecurriculum,whereas
relativelyfewchildrenmadeprogressinanotherschool,despitethemhavingmuch
highersocio-economicstatusandattainmentlevels.Amajorfactorinthese
differencesappearstohavebeenteacherexpectation.Progresswasmostmarked
wheretheclassteacherexpectedandworkedconsistentlyforsingingimprovement
withalltheirpupilsoverasustainedperiod.Similarfindingsconcerningschool
effectsonsingingmotivationperceivedself-identityasasingerandoverall
enjoymentofsingingasaschoolactivityarealsoreportedbyJoyce(2005).
<InsertFigure24.2here>
Socioculturaldifferenceshavebeenexampledalsointhemoreadvanced
singingskillsdemonstratedbyalargeclassoffirst-gradeChinese(HongKong)
childrencomparedwiththeirUSpeers(Rutkowski&Chen-Haftek,2000).Similarly,
anassessmentofthesingingbehaviorsof120HongKongchildrenaged7to9years
fromvariouslanguagegroups(Mang,2003,2006),usingboththeRutkowskiand
Welchdevelopmentalprofiles,reportedstatisticallysignificanteffectsforsex
16
(favoringgirls)aswellasmother-tongue.Chinesemonolingualchildrenperformed
consistentlybetterthanEnglishbilingualchildren,eventhoughthecriterionsong
wasinEnglish.Thiswasseenasafurtherindication(followingMang,2006
Rutkowski&Chen-Haftek,2000)thatCantonese-speakingchildrenachievesinging
masteryearlierthantheirEnglishcounterparts,perhapsbecausethepitchcenters
forspeechandsingingoftheformeraremorecloselyaligned.
BoththeUS-andUK-baseddevelopmentalmodelsagreethatdifferent
“phases”ofsingingcompetencyarelikelytobeexampledwithinanygroupof
childrenenteringtheirfirstschoolclass.Somechildrenalreadywillbeextremely
competentperformersofcompletesongsfromtheexperiencedmaternalculture
(bothwordsandmusic),whilstotherswillbelessadvancedandwillbeinoneofthe
“earlierphases”ofsingingdevelopment.Thisdoesnotmeanthatthelattergroupof
“developing”singerswillnotgainsingingmastery,particularlyiftheyareprovided
withanappropriatelynurturingenvironmentinwhichsingingtasksaredesignedto
match,thentoextend,currentvocalbehaviors.Forsuchchildren,itislikelythat
theirpreschoolinteractionshaveprovidedfeweropportunitiestofulfilltheirsinging
potential(asoutlinedinthe“Earlychildhoodandpreschool”sectionearlier).
Theeffectsofsingingaloneorwithagroupareequivocalintheresearch
literature.Someresearchevidencesuggeststhatchildrenmaybecomemore
accurateinreproducingthemusicalfeaturesofacriterionsongwhensingingina
groupcomparedtosingingalone(e.g.Buckton,1982;Greene,1993).Otherresearch
(e.g.Goetze,1985;Smale,1988)reportstheoppositeinfavorofincreased
reproductiveaccuracyiftheyoungchildisassessedwhensingingalone.Itmaybe
possibletoreconcilethesetwopositionsbyassumingthatindividualsinging
17
behaviorislikelytobeframedbyaninteractionbetweencurrentsinging
competency,thenatureofthesingingtask,thecompetencyofothersingersinthe
group,andanindividual’scurrentabilitytomakesenseoftheavailablefeedback.
Thereisaninternalpsychologicalfeedbackmonitoringsystemthatisessentially
outsideconsciousawareness,whichisusedforamoment-by-momentself-
monitoringofthesingingbehavior.Thissystemdrawsoninformationfrominternal
sensereceptors,aswellasinternalandexternalauditoryinformationconcerningthe
relativematchingofvocalbehaviorwithanexternalmodel(seeWelch,1985,
2005a).Wheretheindividualisabletomakesenseofandusethesedifferent
feedbackchannelsincombination,thensingingasamemberofaskilledgroupmay
promotemorecompetentbehavior.Wheretheindividualislessabletomakesense
ofandusethisfeedback,suchaswhensurroundedbyalessskilledgroupofsingers
and/orwhenitisdifficultto“hear”theirownvoice,thenperforminginagroup
contextmaybemoredisadvantageous.Datafromstudiesofchoralacoustics,for
example,indicatethatauditoryfeedbackforone’sownvocaloutputisreduced
wheni)othersingersareincloseproximity(self-to-otherratio)andii)whennearby
singersaresinging,orattemptingtosing,thesamepitches(Daugherty,2000;
Ternström,1994).
Nevertheless,itislikelythatsingingcompetencywillbenurturedthrough
exposuretofrequentopportunitiesforvocalplaywithinanenvironmentthat
encouragesvocalexplorationandaccurateimitation(Mang,2003;Welch,2005a;
Young,2002).
Thedatafromvariousstudiesonearlysingingdevelopmentwerecollated
intoatheoreticalprotocol“baselineassessmentofsinging”forusewithchildrenon
18
entrytoschool(Welch&Elsley,1999).Thiswasevaluatedsubsequentlywithasmall
classofchildren(n=19)agedfrom3years8monthsto5years10months(King,
2000).Ingeneral,thedatasupportedkeyfeaturesofthemodel,namelythatsinging
competenceislikelytovaryatanindividuallevelwithmusicaltask,suchasinthe
sungreproductionofmelodiccontour,pitchintervals,andsongtext.Any
assessmentofsingingabilitiesinyoungchildren,therefore,shouldprovideamixture
oftasks(suchaspitchglidesandpitchpatterns,aswellassongmelodies)asabasis
fordiagnosisandcurriculumplanning.Furthermore,recentneuropsychobiological
dataonpitch-processingmodulesinthebrain(Peretz&Coltheart,2003)supporta
hierarchicalmodelinwhichmelodiccontour(paceDavidson,1994;Rutkowski,1997;
Welch,1998)isanalyzedbeforetheprocessingofintervalsandtonality(seeWelch,
2005aforareview).
Withregardtochildren’sabilitytoinventsongs,aseriesofstudies(Davies,
1986,1992,1994)indicatethat5-to7-year-oldshavearangeofsong-making
strategies;theseincludenarrativesongs(chant-likeinnature,oftenwithrepeated
figures),aswellassongsthathavemoreconventionalfeatures,suchasanopening
ideaandaclearsenseofclosure,four-phrasestructures,repetition,phrasesthat
both“borrow”fromtheimmediatemusicalcultureandwhichalsomaybe
transformed(sequenced,inverted,augmented)insomeway.Overall,childreninthe
firstyearsofschoolingdemonstrateaclearsenseofmusicalformandofemotional
expressionintheirinventedsongs.
Olderchildhood
Thelatteryearsofchildhoodarecharacterizedbyageneralsingingcompetencyfor
19
themajority.Relativelyfewchildrenarereportedassinging“out-of-tune”attheage
of11years(Howard,Angus,&Welch,1994;Welch,1979,2000b).Forexample,
evidencefromawiderangeofstudiesindicatesthatapproximately30%ofpupils
aged7yearsarereportedasbeingrelatively“inaccurate”whenvocallymatchinga
melodywithinaWesternculturaltradition.However,thisproportiondropsto
around4%ofthesamepupilpopulationbytheageof11(aproportionthatissimilar
tothatreportedfortheadultpopulation—DallaBellaetal.,2007).Withineachof
theseandtheinterveningagegroups,“out-of-tune”boysoutnumbergirlsbyaratio
of2:1or3:1(Welch,1979).Culture,however,continuestobesignificant.
Anthropologicalandethnomusicologicalstudies,forexample,havesuggestedthat
youngchildrenfromtheAnanginNigeriacansing“hundredsofsongs,both
individuallyandinchoralgroups”bytheageof5(Messinger,1958,p.20),Venda
childreninSouthAfricawerereportedasbothlearningspecialchildren’ssongsand
composingnewsongsforthemselves(Blacking,1967),whereasHeratichildrenin
Afghanistantendedtofocusontheimitationofadultmodels,withthechildren
(particularlyboys)ofprofessionalmusicians’families(sazendeh)beingimmersedin
thelocalmusiccultureandoftenexpectedtoperformprofessionallybytheageof
12(Doubleday&Baily,1995).
<InsertFigure24.3here>
Alarge-scalestudyofchildren’ssingingdevelopmentwasundertakenaspart
ofanevaluationoftheimpactoftheUKGovernment’sNationalSingingProgram
“SingUp,”whichraninEnglandfrom2007to2012.Dataonthesingingabilityof
11,258childrenaged5to12yearswerecollectedoveraperiodoffouryearsasthe
programwasrolledoutacrossthecountry.Children’ssingingwasassessedusinga
20
protocolthatcombinedtheRutkowski(1997)andWelch(1998)developmental
profiles(mentionedpreviously)tocreateanormalizedsingingscore(outof100).
Amongstotherfindings,dataanalysesrevealeda)thatolderchildrentendedtobe
moreadvancedintheirsingingabilitycomparedtoyoungerchildren,andb)that
thosechildrenwithexperienceof“SingUp”were,onaverage,twoyearsinadvance
developmentallycomparedtotheirpeersoutsidetheprogram,animpactthatwas
evenmoremarkedfortheyoungestchildren(seeFigure24.3)(Welchetal.,
forthcoming).Ingeneral—andinlinewiththeresearchreportedearlier—singing
abilitynormallydevelopswithageandcanbeenhancedifchildrenexperiencean
appropriatelyricheducationalprogram.Moreover,therearealsootherpotential
benefitsofsuccessfulsingingexperience,inthatchildrenaremorelikelytohavea
positiveself-conceptandsenseofbeingsociallyincluded(Welchetal.,2014).
Amongstotherpotentialbenefitsfromsingingareimprovedreadingskills(Biggset
al.,2008;Welchetal.,2012).
Oneeffectivemeansoffosteringsingingdevelopmentisbytheuseof
“imitation,”whichisacorereciprocalfeatureofearlymother–childvocal
interactions(Trehub&Gudmundsdottir,2014).Thisapproachisalsoevidenced
pedagogicallyaspartofanenculturatedinductionintotheskilledpracticesofexpert
singersinmanydifferentmusicalcultures,suchasexampledinthecathedralswhere
Europeansacredmusicispracticed,aswellasinthechoralcommunitiesofsub-
SaharanAfricaandScandinavia.CathedralsintheUK,forexample,typicallyinduct
theirchoristersattheageof8,sothatbytheageof13theywillhavehadfiveyears’
immersionintoaweekly(usuallydaily)ritualofrehearsals,performances,choral
singing,andsolos,embracingawiderangeofcompositionalstylesandmusical
21
genresthatspanover500yearsofWesternclassicalmusic.Withinthecathedral
choir,performanceskilllevelissignaledbysingernomenclature(suchas“head
chorister,”“seniorcornerboy,”“probationer”)andvariationsinthedresscode,as
wellasbythedegreeofperformanceinvolvementinparticularrepertoire.Novices
aredeliberatelyplacedinbetweenmoreskilled,olderchoristersandnormallyare
requiredtosingonlycertainitemsduringthecathedralserviceswhiletheydeepen
anddeveloptheirperformanceskillsthroughlisteningandobservingtheirmore
accomplishedpeers(seeWelch,2011).
AlthoughthetraditionofhighlyskilledboysingersintheUKmaybetraced
backtothefirstfoundationsofEnglishcathedralsinCanterbury(AD597),Rochester
(AD604),andSt.Paul’s,London(AD604),the“all-male”hegemonyofcathedral
musicexperiencedamajorchallengein1991withtheadmittanceofgirlsto
SalisburyCathedralintheWestofEngland.Sincethen,by2009,thepotentialfor
equallyskilledperformancebygirlchoristershasbeenrecognizedthroughthe
creationofseparategirls’choirsin31cathedralsandminsters(Welch,2011),3witha
smallnumberofothersaddedsince.Girlchoristersareusuallyadmittedusingthe
sameauditioncriteriaastheirmalecounterpartsandareexpectedtoperformthe
samerepertoiretothesameprofessionalstandard.
Evidenceofthepowerofthemusicalcultureincathedralsinfostering
specialistsingingskillsmaybefoundbothinthequalityofchoraloutputs(suchas
nationalandinternationalbroadcastsbytheBBC,commercialrecordings,
3 The data for 2009 on the numbers of cathedrals with female choristers in UK cathedrals has been
collated by Claire Stewart as part of her ongoing doctoral studies at the Institute of Education
into their impact on the all-male choral tradition.
22
internationaltours,andconcerts)andalsointheregularmedia-fuelledcontroversies
overwhetheritispossibleornottoperceivedifferencesbetweenthesingingof
olderfemaleandmalechildren(Sergeant,Sjölander,&Welch,2005;Welch&
Howard,2002).Withregardtoperceivedsingergender,asummaryofrecent
researchdata(Figure24.4)indicatesthat,whilstitispossibleforanuntrainedsolo
singer’ssextobeidentifiedrelativelyaccuratelyfromaroundtheageof8onwards,
itisalsoequallypossiblefortrainedfemalechoristersfromtheageof8tobe
systematicallymistakenasmale,dependingontheparticularpieceofmusicbeing
performed.However,oncethefemalechoristermovesintohermid-teens,thevoice
qualitybecomesmorecharacteristicallyidentifiableas“female”(“womanly”).4
Akeycomponentofourabilitytoassigngenderaccuratelytochildren’ssung
productsrelatestochangesinvocaltimbreaspartoftheagingprocess.Arecent
studyofn=320childrenaged4–11yearsrevealedthat,aschildrengetolder,there
weresignificantshiftsinspectralenergyintheirsingingofthesametargetsong.For
theyoungestagegroup(4–5years),nogenderdifferenceswereevidencedinthe
vocalspectrum.Incontrast,significantdifferencesemergedbetweengendersfor
childrenaged9–11years,withspectralenergylevelsabove5.75kHzdecreasingwith
ageandenergiesbelow5.75kHzincreasing.However,thisspectralshiftoccurredup
totwoyearsearlierforgirlscomparedtoboysofthesameage(Sergeant&Welch,
2009).
Ingeneral,children’svoicestendtobehigherinpitchandhavealess 4 For a detailed review of the literature on gender and chorister voice, including similarities and
differences in the underlying anatomy and physiology for singing, see Welch & Howard
(2002). For data on the perceived gender of untrained children’s voices, see Sergeant et al.
(2005).
23
complexacousticmake-upthanthoseofadults.Also,thereareincreasesinvocal
pitchrange,bothupwardsanddownwards,thatarecloselycorrelatedwith
advancingchronologicalage(Sergeant&Welch,2009).Nevertheless,childrenare
abletoachievesimilarloudnesslevelsasadultsbyusingrelativelymorebreathuntil
theageof12,whenadult-likebreathingpatternsareobserved(Stathopoulos,2000).
<InsertFigure24.4here>
Pubertyandadolescence
Theonsetofpubertyheraldsfundamentalchangestothenatureandqualityofthe
singingvoiceforbothfemalesandmales.Whereastheactualdimensionsand
growthofthevocalinstrumentaresimilaracrosssexesduringchildhood(Titze,
1994),duringpubertythemalevocaltractbecomessignificantlylongeranddevelops
agreatercircumference.Incontrast,thegrowthofthefemalevocaltractisless
marked,beingabout15%to20%shorterthaninthemaleandwithadifferent
internalratioofresonatingspaces,mainlybecausethefemaleneck(pharynx)is
relativelyshortercomparedtothatofthemale(Story,Titze,&Hoffman,1997).
Growthtypicallylastsfrom10to18yearsinfemales(andcanbeginatage7—
Herman-Giddensetal.,1997),comparedwith12to20yearsinmales(Thurman&
Klitzke,2000).Attheturnofthecentury,thehighpointofpubertalvoicechangewas
reportedtobearoundtheageof12to14yearsinbothfemalesandmales(Cooksey,
2000;Gackle,2000),afindingsubsequentlygenerallysupportedinmorerecent
studies(Juuletal.,2006;Willis&Kenny,2008).Nevertheless,thereisalsosome
evidenceofatrendforvoicechangetohappenearlierthanpreviously(Ashley&
Mecke,2013;Killian&Wayman,2010).Themeanaverageonsetofvoicechangeis
24
likelytobebetween10and12years(e.g.,Fisher,2010),withonestudyreporting
80%of11-year-oldsshowingevidenceofvoicechange(Killian&Wayman,2010).
However,ethnicityisnotreportedtobeasignificantfactorinvoicechange(Fisher,
2010).
Therearerelativelyfewmajorempiricalstudiesofsingingvoice
transformationduringadolescencereportedintheliterature,particularlywith
regardtothefemalechangingvoice.Thosethatareavailabledrawprimarilyondata
frompopulationsintheUnitedStates(e.g.,Cooksey,2000;Gackle,2000;Killian&
Wayman,2010;Williams,Larson,&Price,1996),theUK(e.g.,Cooksey&Welch,
1998;Geddye,personalcommunication;Harriesetal.,1996;Williams,2010),Japan
(Norioka,1994),andGermany(Ashley&Mecke,2013;Heidelbach,1996).Thedata
areconsistentaboutthepresenceandcharacteristicsofadolescentvoicechange.
Gackle(2000,updatedandrevised2014)reportstheoutcomeofherdoctoral
studiesinFlorida(during1987),alliedtoalmost30years’professionalobservation,
tosuggestthattherearefourdistinct“phases”infemaleadolescentvoicechange
(see inFigure24.5a).Inthefirstphase(termed“pre-pubertal:unchanged”)the
voicehasa“clear/light,flute-likequality”withnoapparentregisterchanges.The
comfortablesingingrangeisbetweenD4andD5,withinawidersingingrangeofBb3
toF5(anduptoA5).Thenextphase(“pre-menarchial:beginningofmutation”—
PhaseIIA)ischaracteristicofthebeginningsoffemalevoicemutationaroundthe
agesof11to13.Thecomfortablerangeisapproximatelythesameaspreviously(D4
toD5),withinaslightlyexpandedoverallrange(A3toG5).However,thereisoften
breathinessinthetoneduetoinadequateclosureofthevocalfoldsasaresultof
growthoccurringinthelaryngealarea.Asingingregistertransitiontypicallyappears
25
betweenF#4andA#4,andsomegirlsmayhavedifficultiesinsinginglowerpitches;
otherswillexperiencealossofupperrange.Singingoftenbecomesuncomfortable
andeffortfulandabreathyvoicequalityischaracteristicacrosstherange.Thenext
phaseisthepeakoffemalevoicemutation(“post-menarchial:pubertal—highpoint
ofmutation”—PhaseIIb).Singingischaracterizedbyalimitedcomfortablerange(B3
toC5),discomfort(particularlyatupperpitches),distinctvoicequalitiesforeach
sungregister,andwiththelowerpartofthevoiceoftentakingonamore“alto”and
oftenhuskyquality.RegisterchangesappearbetweenF4andA#4andalsoatD5to
F#5.Thefinalphase(“youngadultfemale”—PhaseIII)hasamuch-expanded
comfortablesingingrange(A3toG5),lessbreathiness,greaterconsistencyintone
qualityandregisters,andgreatersingingflexibilityandagility.Vibratooftenappears
atthisstageandthevoicehasamoreadult,womanlyquality.Ongoingresearch
(Welch,2004;Welch&Howard,2002)indicatesthatadolescentvoicechangeisthe
sameforrelativelyuntrainedfemalesingersasforthosewhohavebeeninvolvedin
sustainedvocalperformance,suchasthroughmembershipofafemalecathedral
choir.However,aswithadultfemalesingers(Lã&Davidson,2005),thereisalways
someindividualvariationintheimpactofpubertyonthesinger’svoicerelatedto
slightdifferencesintheunderlyingendocrinologicalmetabolismandphysiological
functioning.
Maleadolescentvoicechangehasamoreextensiveliterature,bothin
EuropeandtheUnitedStates.Onemajorandinfluentiallongitudinalstudywas
conductedbyCooksey(2000),initiallybasedonfieldworkinCaliforniainthelate
1970s,thendrawingonfurtherstudiesintheUnitedStatesduringthefollowing
decade,aswellasaLondon-basedcross-culturalinvestigationinthe1990s(Cooksey
26
&Welch,1998).Overall,Cookseyreportssix“stages”ofadolescentmalesinging
voicechange(see inFigure24.5a)thatarecharacterizedbyanoveralllowering
ofthesungpitchrange.Whilsttherateofvoicechangeisunpredictableforany
givenindividual,itisreliablysequentialforall.
Inthefirstmaleadolescentstage(“unchanged”),themeansungvocalpitch
rangeisA3toF5,withthetessiturapitchboundariesC#4toA#4.Thevoicequalityis
perceivedas“clear,”withrelativelylittleevidenceofbreathinessinthetone.The
beginningsofvoicechange(termedbyCookseyasStageI,“MidvoiceI”)aremarked
byareducedvocalrange(Ab3toC5)andinstabilityofsungpitch,particularlyforthe
upperfrequencies,whichtendtobeproducedwithincreasedeffort,aswellastone
qualitythatisperceivedasmoreeffortful,strained,andbreathy.Thesungrange
thendescendsapproximatelyinthirdsacrossthenextthreestages(seeFigure
24.5a),witheachstagebeingcharacterizedbyareducedmeanrangeandrelative
continuinginstabilityintheproductionofupperpitches,butcontrastedbyrelative
stabilityforthelowerpitches.Thepitchrangesare:StageII(“MidvoiceII”),F3toA4;
StageIII(“MidvoiceIIa”),D3toF#4;followedbyStageIV(“NewBaritone,”also
termed“NewVoice”),B2toD#4.Withinthese,StageIImayberegardedasthemid-
pointofvoicechange,andthisiswhenafalsettoregister(C5toB5)firstappearsand
(forsome)awhistleregister(C6toC7).StageIII(“MidvoiceIIa”)ischaracterizedby
thegreatestvocalinstabilityandtheleastclearvocalquality.Itisonlyinthefinal
stageofvoicechange(StageV,“SettlingBaritone,”alsotermed“EmergingAdult
Voice”G2toD4)thatthemeansungpitchrangeopensoutagainandthevoice
timbrebeginstoadoptaclearer,lessbreathyquality.However,thenumberand
intensityofharmonicsdonotyetapproximatenormaladultcharacteristics.
27
Nevertheless,foreachstageofvoicechangetheadolescentmalehasa(limited)
numberofpitchesthatcanbeproducedcomfortablyandmusically(seethedarker
shadedelementsintherangesformalevoicesinFigure24.5a)andithasbeen
possibleinrecentyearstofindagreaterawarenessbypublisherstoproduce
repertoirethatisspeciallywrittenasbeingsuitableforthesechangingvoices.
Ingeneral,ageisapoorpredictorforestablishingvoicechangestages,with
anygivenagegrouplikelytoencompassseveralstages.Itispossibleforanindividual
topassthroughallstagesofadolescentvoicechangeintwelvemonths,butitisalso
possibleforthisprocesstobemuchslowerandtolastseveralyears.Nevertheless,a
summationofselectedUKandJapanesedataforover3,000males,aged9to14
years,providessomeindicationofthepossibleproportionsofdifferentcategoriesof
voicechangebyagegroup(Figure24.5b),whilstnotingthatother,morerecent
researchsuggeststhatvoice-changeonsetmaybegettingyounger(Ashley&Mecke,
2013;Killian&Wayman,2010).Ascanbeseen,theagesof12to14havesignificant
proportionsofmaleswhosevoicesareperceivedtohavealready“changed,”orin
theprocessof“changing,”whilstembracingareducingnumberthatarestill
“unchanged.”Ideally,choralgroupsofadolescentmalesingersinthisagerangeare
bestsuited,therefore,tomusicthathasbeenarrangedspecificallyfortheminthree
parts,usingtheCookseyclassificationguidelines(UnchangedandStageIonatop
line,StagesIIandIIIonamiddleline,andStagesIVandVonthebottomline),rather
thantoattempttraditionalfour-partmusicinwhichthetessituraeoftenarelikelyto
bemismatchedwithcurrentsingingabilities.
<InsertFigures24.5aand24.5bhere>
28
Factorsinfluencingsingingdevelopmentandtherealizationofpotential
Ascanbeseenfromtheprevioustext,singinginoneformoranotherisanessential
featureofourmusicaldevelopmentandbehavior.Ineachagephase(infancy,early
childhood,olderchildhood,adolescence),thehumanvoicehasadistinctive
underlyinganatomyandphysiologythatiscapableofproducingadiversityof
“singing”behaviors.Theseincreasinglyexploreandapproximatetotheparticular
sonicfeaturesofmodelsthatareavailableinthesoundworldsoftheexperienced
maternalandglobalcultures.Inthefirstmonthsoflife,these“sung”productsare
drivenbybasichumanneeds,beforebecomingmoreexploratoryandmelodicin
natureasvocalskillsdevelopintheacquisitionandmasteryofmusicalelements.
Throughoutchildhoodandadolescence,singingdevelopmentisaproductof
neuropsychobiologicalactivity,potential,andchange,interfacedwith,andshaped
by,particularsocioculturalenvironmentsinwhichcertainpatternsofsound
characterizethedominantmusicalgenres.Atanyage,developmentcanbe
supportedorhinderedbyanumberoffactors,suchastheappropriatenessofa
givensingingtasksetbyanadultinrelationtocurrentsingingcapabilities,the
expectationsofpeers,and/orthevalueplacedonsinging(andcertaintypesof
singingbehavior)withintheimmediateculture.Opportunitiestoengageinvocal
playandexploration,toshareinsinginggameswithpeersand“experts,”aswellas
toimproviseandcomposetheirownsongsareessentialfeaturesofmusicalcultures
thatfostersingingdevelopment.Childrenwhoexceedthe“norms”reportedinthe
researchliteraturearelikelytohavebeenprovidedwithanurturingenvironment
thatisdesignedtomatch,celebrate,enable,andextendindividualsingingexpertise
(suchasevidencedinthe“SingUp”evaluationdata(Welchetal.,inpress).Others,
29
whosesingingisperceivedtobe“lacking”insomeway,willnothavehadsuch
appropriateopportunities.Forsome,entrytoadolescencecanconfirmtheir
perceivedidentityasa“non-singer,”assomeoneforwhommusicisseenasanarea
of“failure.”Yet,everyonehasthepotentialtolearntosing—andindeed,studiesof
singinginadultssuggestthat“singinginthegeneralpopulationismoreaccurateand
widespreadthancurrentlybelieved”(DallaBellaetal.,2007,p.1188;seealsoCuddy
etal.,2005).Weneed,therefore,tocontinuetoseekoptimalwaystoallowchildren
andadolescentstoexploreandextendtheirsinging(andmusical)birthright.Inthis,
wewillreducetheneedfor“remedial”actioninadulthood,suchasthe
establishmentofadultchoirsfor“non-singers.”Thestoriesofalife-longsenseof
singing“disability”shouldbeconfinedtohistory.
30
Referencelist
Adachi,M.,&Trehub,S.E.(1999).Children’scommunicationofemotioninsong.InS.W.Yi
(Ed.),Music,mindandscience(pp.454–65).Seoul:SeoulNationalUniversityPress.
Adachi,M.,&Trehub,S.E.(2000,April).Preschoolers’expressionofemotionthrough
inventedsongs.PaperpresentedatthemeetingoftheSocietyforResearchinthe
PsychologyofMusicandMusicEducation,UniversityofLeicester,England.
Ashley,M.,&Mecke,A.-C.(2013).“Boysareapttochangetheirvoiceataboutfourteene
yeeresofage”:Anhistoricalbackgroundtothedebateaboutlongevityinboytreble
singers.ReviewsofResearchinHumanLearningandMusic,1(epub2013001),doi:
10.6022/journal.rrhlm.2013001.
Barrett,M.S.(2011).Musicalnarratives:Astudyofayoungchild’sidentityworkinand
throughmusic-making.PsychologyofMusic,39(4),403–23,doi:
10.1177/0305735610373054.
Biggs,M.C.,Homan,S.P.,Dedrick,R.,Minick,V.,&Rasinski,T.(2008).Usinganinteractive
singingsoftwareprogram:Acomparativestudyofstrugglingmiddleschoolreaders.
ReadingPsychology,29(3),195–213.
Blacking,J.(1967).Vendachildren’ssongs.Johannesburg:UniversityofWitwatersrandPress.
BritishEducationalResearchAssociationMusicEducationReviewGroup.(2001).Mapping
musiceducationresearchintheUK.Southwell,UK:BritishEducationalResearch
Association.
Buckton,R.(1982).Singasongofsix-year-olds.Wellington,NewZealand:Councilfor
EducationalResearch.
Coleman,J.M.,Pratt,R.R.,Stoddard,R.A.,Gerstmann,D.R.,&Abel,H.-H.(1997).The
effectsofthemaleandfemalesingingbehavioursandspeakingvoicesonselected
physiologicalandbehaviouralmeasuresofprematureinfantsintheintensivecare
unit.InternationalJournalofArtsMedicine,5(2),4–11.
Cooksey,J.(2000).Voicetransformationinmaleadolescents.InL.Thurman,&G.F.Welch
(Eds.),Bodymindandvoice:Foundationsofvoiceeducation(reviseded.,pp.718–38).
IowaCity,Iowa:NationalCenterforVoiceandSpeech.
31
Cooksey,J.,&Welch,G.F.(1998).Adolescence,singingdevelopmentandNationalCurricula
design.BritishJournalofMusicEducation,15(1),99–119.
Cuddy,L.L.,Balkwill,L.-L.,Peretz,I.,&Holden,R.R.(2005).Musicaldifficultiesarerare.A
studyof“tonedeafness”amongstuniversitystudents.NewYork:AnnalsoftheNew
YorkAcademyofSciences,1060,311–24,doi:10.1196/annals.1360.026.
DallaBella,S.,Giguére,J.-F.&Peretz,I.(2007).Singingproficiencyinthegeneralpopulation.
JournaloftheAcousticalSocietyofAmerica,121(2),1182–9.
Daugherty,J.F.(2000).Choirspacingandchoralsound:Physical,pedagogical,and
philosophicaldimensions.InB.A.Roberts&A.Rose(Eds.),Conferenceproceedingsof
theinternationalsymposium,sharingthevoices:ThephenomenonofsingingII(pp.
77–88).St.Johns,Newfoundland,Canada:MemorialUniversityofNewfoundland
Press.
Davidson,L.(1994).Songsingingbyyoungandold:Adevelopmentalapproachtomusic.InR.
AielloandJ.Sloboda(Eds.),Musicalperceptions(pp.99–130).NewYork:Oxford
UniversityPress.
Davies,C.(1986).Sayittillasongcomes:Reflectionsonsongsinventedbychildren3–13.
BritishJournalofMusicEducation,3(3),279–93.
Davies,C.(1992).Listentomysong:Astudyofsongsinventedbychildrenaged5to7years.
BritishJournalofMusicEducation,9(1),19–48.
Davies,C.(1994).Thelisteningteacher:Anapproachtothecollectionandstudyofinvented
songsofchildrenaged5to7.InH.Lees(Ed.),Musicalconnections:Traditionand
change(pp.120–7).Auckland,NZ:InternationalSocietyforMusicEducation.
Doubleday,V.,&Baily,J.(1995).Patternsofmusicaldevelopmentamongchildrenin
Afghanistan.InE.J.Fernea(Ed.),ChildrenintheMuslimMiddleEast(pp.431–44).
Austin:UniversityofTexasPress.
Dowling,W.J.(1988).Tonalstructureandchildren’searlylearningofmusic.InJ.Sloboda
(Ed.),Generativeprocessesinmusic(pp.113–28).Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Dowling,W.J.(1999).Thedevelopmentofmusicperceptionandcognition.InD.Deutsch
(Ed.),ThePsychologyofMusic(2nded.,pp.603–25).London:AcademicPress.
Eimas,P.D.(1985).Theperceptionofspeechinearlyinfancy.ScientificAmerican,252(1),
34–40.
32
Fisher,R.A.(2010).Effectofethnicityontheageofonsetofthemalevoicechange.Journal
ofResearchinMusicEducation,58(2),116–30,doi:10.1177/0022429410371376.
Gabrielsson,A.,&Örnkloo,H.(2002,August).Children’sperceptionandperformanceof
emotioninsingingandspeech.PaperpresentedattheISMEEarlyChildhood
Conference,Copenhagen,Denmark.
Gackle,L.(2000).Understandingvoicetransformationinfemaleadolescents.InL.Thurman,
&G.F.Welch(Eds.),BodymindandVoice:FoundationsofVoiceEducation(revised
ed.,pp.739–44).IowaCity,Iowa:NationalCenterforVoiceandSpeech.
Gackle,L.(2014).Adolescentgirls’singingdevelopment.InG.F.Welch,D.M.Howard,&J.
Nix(Eds.),Oxfordhandbookofsinging.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,doi:
10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199660773.013.22.
Goetze,M.(1985).Factorsaffectingaccuracyinchildren’ssinging(Unpublisheddoctoral
dissertation).UniversityofColorado.
Greene,G.A.(1993).Theeffectsofunisonsingingversusindividualsingingonthevocalpitch
accuracyofelementaryschoolchildren.PaperpresentedattheSouthernDivisionof
theMusicEducators’NationalConference.
Hall,C.(2005).Genderandboys’singinginearlychildhood.BritishJournalofMusic
Education,22(1),5–20.
Hargreaves,D.J.(1996).Thedevelopmentofartisticandmusicalcompetence.InI.Deliege
&J.Sloboda(Eds.),Musicalbeginnings(pp.145–70).Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Harries,M.L.L.,Griffin,M.,Walker,J.,&Hawkins,S.(1996).Changesinthemalevoice
duringpuberty:Speakingandsingingvoiceparameters.LogopedicsPhoniatrics
Vocology,21(2),95–100.
Heidelbach,U.(1996).Dieentwicklungderknabenstimmezurmannerstimmebei
chorsangerndargestelltamsingstimmfeld(UnpublishedMDthesis).Technischen
UniversitätDresden,Dresden,BRD.
Herman-Giddens,M.E.,Slora,E.J.Wasserman,R.C.,Bourdony,C.J.,Bhapkar,M.V.,Kock,
G.G.,&Hasemeier,C.M.(1997).Secondarysexualcharacteristicsandmensesin
younggirlsseeninofficepractice:AstudyfromthePediatricResearchinOffice
SettingsNetwork.Pediatrics,99(4),505–12.
33
Howard,D.M.,Angus,J.A.,&Welch,G.F.(1994).Singingpitchingaccuracyfromyears3to
6inaprimaryschool.Proceedingsoftheinstituteofacoustics,16(5),223–30.
Johnstone,T.,&Scherer,K.R.(2000).Vocalcommunicationofemotion.InM.Lewis&J.M.
Haviland-Jones(Eds.),Handbookofemotions(pp.220–35).NewYork:TheGuildford
Press.
Joyce,H.(2005).Theeffectsofsex,ageandenvironmentonattitudestosinginginKeyStage
2(Unpublishedmaster’sdissertation).InstituteofEducation,UniversityofLondon.
Juul,A.,Teilmann,G.,Scheike,T.,Hertel,N.T.,Holm,K.,Laursen,E.M.,Main,K.M.,&
Skakkebaek,N.E.(2006).PubertaldevelopmentinDanishchildren:Comparisonof
recentEuropeanandUSdata.InternationalJournalofAndrology,29(1),247–55,
doi:10.1111/j.1365–2605.2005.00556.x.
Killian,J.N.,&Wayman,J.B.(2010).Adescriptivestudyofvocalmaturationamongmale
adolescentvocalistsandinstrumentalists.JournalofResearchinMusicEducation,
58(1),5–19,doi:10.1177/0022429409359941.
King,R.(2000).Aninvestigationintotheeffectivenessofabaselineassessmentinsinging
andsomeinfluentialhome-environmentalfactors(Unpublishedmaster’sdissertation).
RoehamptonInstituteLondon,London.
Knight,S.(1999).Exploringaculturalmyth:Whatadultnon-singersmayrevealaboutthe
natureofsinging.InB.A.Roberts&A.Rose(Eds.),ThephenomenonofsingingII(pp.
144–54).St.John’s,NF:MemorialUniversityPress.
Knight,S.(2010).Astudyofadult“non-singers”inNewfoundland(Unpublisheddoctoral
dissertation).InstituteofEducation,UniversityofLondon.
Lã,F.,&Davidson,J.(2005).Investigatingtherelationshipbetweensexualhormonesand
femaleWesternclassicalsinging.ResearchStudiesinMusicEducation,25,75–87.
Levinowitz,L.(1989).Aninvestigationofpreschoolchildren’scomparativecapabilitytosing
songswithandwithoutwords.BulletinoftheCouncilforResearchinMusicEducation,
100,14–19.
Loui,P.,Bachorik,J.P.,Li,H.C.,&Schlaug,G.(2013).Effectsofvoiceonemotionalarousal.
FrontiersinPsychology,4:675.doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00675.
Mack,L.(1979).Adescriptivestudyofacommunitychorusmadeupof“non-singers”
(UnpublishedEdDdissertation).UniversityofIllinoisatUrbana-Champaign.
34
Mang,E.(2000/1).Intermediatevocalisations:Aninvestigationoftheboundarybetween
speechandsongsinyoungchildren’svocalisations.BulletinoftheCouncilforResearch
inMusicEducation,147,116–21.
Mang,E.(2002).AninvestigationofvocalpitchbehavioursofHongKongchildren.Bulletinof
theCouncilforResearchinMusicEducation,153(4),128–34.
Mang,E.(2003).SingingcompetencyofmonolingualandbilingualchildreninHongKong.In
L.C.R.Yip,C.C.Leung,&W.T.Lau(Eds.),Curriculuminnovationinmusic(pp.237–
42).HongKong:HongKongInstituteofEducation.
Mang,E.(2005).Thereferentofchildren’searlysongs.MusicEducationResearch,7(1),3–
20,doi:10.1080/14613800500041796.
Mang,E.(2006).Theeffectsofage,genderandlanguageonchildren’ssingingcompetency.
BritishJournalofMusicEducation,23(2),161–74,doi:10.1017/S0265051706006905.
Masataka,N.(1992).PitchcharacteristicsofJapanesematernalspeechtoinfants.Journalof
ChildLanguage,19(2),213–23.
Masataka,N.(1999).Preferenceforinfant-directedsingingin2-day-oldhearinginfantsof
deafparents.DevelopmentalPsychology,35(4),1001–5.
Meltzoff,A.N.(2002).Elementsofadevelopmentaltheoryofimitation.InA.N.Meltzoff&
W.Prinz,(Eds.),TheImitativeMind(pp.19–41).Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Messinger,J.(1958).Overseasreport.BasicCollegeQuarterly,4Fall,20–4.
Moog,H.(1976).Themusicalexperienceofthepre-schoolchild(trans.C.Clarke).London:
Schott.
Nawrot,E.S.(2003).Theperceptionofemotionalexpressioninmusic:Evidencefrom
infants,childrenandadults.PsychologyofMusic,31(1),75–92.
Norioka,Y.(1994).AsurveyofJapaneseschoolagedpoorpitchsingers.InG.F.Welch&T.
Murao(Eds.),Onchiandsingingdevelopment(pp.49–62).London:DavidFulton
Publishers.
Papousek,M.(1996).Intuitiveparenting:Ahiddensourceofmusicalstimulationininfancy.
InI.Deliege&J.Sloboda(Eds.),Musicalbeginnings(pp.88–112).Oxford:Oxford
UniversityPress.
35
Peretz,I.,&Coltheart,M.(2003).Modularityandmusicprocessing.NatureNeuroscience,
6(7),688–91.
Richards,H.,&Durrant,C.(2003).Tosingornottosing:Astudyonthedevelopmentof
“non-singers”inchoralactivity.ResearchStudiesinMusicEducation,20(1),78–89.
Rutkowski,J.(1990).Themeasurementandevaluationofchildren’ssingingvoice
development.TheQuarterly,1(1–2),81–95.
Rutkowski,J.(1997).Thenatureofchildren’ssingingvoices:Characteristicsandassessment.
InB.A.Roberts(Ed.),Thephenomenonofsinging(pp.201–9).St.John’s,NF:
MemorialUniversityPress.
Rutkowski,J.,&Chen-Haftek,L.(2000,July).Thesingingvoicewithineverychild:Across-
culturalcomparisonoffirstgraders’useofsingingvoice.PaperpresentedtotheISME
EarlyChildhoodConference,Kingston,Canada.
Ruzza,B.,Rocca,F.,Boero,D.L.,&Lenti,C.(2003).Investigatingthemusicalqualitiesof
earlyinfantsounds.InG.Avanzini,C.Faienza,D.Minciacchi,L.Lopez,&M.Majno
(Eds.),Theneurosciencesandmusic(Vol.999,pp.527–9).NewYork:Annalsofthe
NewYorkAcademyofSciences.
Sergeant,D.C.,Sjölander,P.,&Welch,G.F.(2005).Listeners’identificationofgender
differencesinchildren’ssinging.ResearchStudiesinMusicEducation,24(1)28–39.
Sergeant,D.C.,&Welch,G.F.(2009).GenderdifferencesinLong-Term-AverageSpectraof
children’ssingingvoices.JournalofVoice,23(3),319–36,doi:
10.1016/j.jvoice.2007.10.010.
Smale,M.J.(1988).Aninvestigationofpitchaccuracyoffour-andfive-year-oldsingers.
DissertationAbstractsInternational,AAT—8723851.
Stathopoulos,E.T.(2000).Areviewofthedevelopmentofthechildvoice:Ananatomical
andfunctionalperspective.InP.J.White(Ed.),ChildVoice(pp.1–12).Stockholm:
RoyalInstituteofTechnology,VoiceResearchCentre.
Story,B.H.,Titze,I.R.,&Hoffman,E.A.(1997).Volumetricimage-basedcomparisonofmale
andfemalevocaltractshapes.NationalCenterforVoiceandSpeechStatusand
ProgressReport,11,153–61.
Sundberg,J.(2000).Emotivetransforms.Phonetica,57(2-4),95–112.
36
Sundin,B.(1997).Musicalcreativityinchildhood:Aresearchprojectinretrospect.Research
StudiesinMusicEducation,9(1),48–57.
Tafuri,J.(2008).Infantmusicality.Farnham,UK:Ashgate.
Tafuri,J.,&Villa,D.(2002).Musicalelementsinthevocalisationsofinfantsaged2to8
months.BritishJournalofMusicEducation,19(1),73–88.
Ternström,S.(1994).Hearingmyselfwithothers:Soundlevelsinchoralperformance
measuredwithseparationofone’sownvoicefromtherestofthechoir.Journalof
Voice,8(4),293–302.
Thurman,L.,&Klitzke,C.(2000).Highlightsofphysicalgrowthandfunctionofvoicesfrom
prebirthtoage21.InL.Thurman,&G.F.Welch(Eds.),BodymindandVoice:
FoundationsofVoiceEducation(reviseded.,pp.696–703).IowaCity,Iowa:National
CenterforVoiceandSpeech.
Thurman,L.,&Welch,G.F.(Eds.)(2000).BodymindandVoice:FoundationsofVoice
Education(reviseded.).IowaCity,Iowa:NationalCenterforVoiceandSpeech.
Titze,I.(1994).Principlesofvoiceproduction.EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:Prentice-Hall.
Trehub,S.E.(2001).Musicalpredispositionsininfancy.InR.J.Zatorre&I.Peretz(Eds.),The
biologicalfoundationsofmusic(Vol.930,pp.1–16).NewYork:AnnalsoftheNew
YorkAcademyofSciences.
Trehub,S.E.,&Gudmundsdottir,H.R.(2014).Mothersassingingmentorsforinfants.InG.
F.Welch,D.M.Howard,&J.Nix.(Eds.),Oxfordhandbookofsinging.NewYork:
OxfordUniversityPress.
Vihman,M.M.(1996).Phonologicaldevelopment.Oxford:Blackwell.
Welch,G.F.(1979).Poorpitchsinging:Areviewoftheliterature.PsychologyofMusic,7(1),
50–8.
Welch,G.F.(1985).Aschematheoryofhowchildrenlearntosingintune.Psychologyof
Music,13(1),3–18.
Welch,G.F.(1986).Adevelopmentalviewofchildren’ssinging.BritishJournalofMusic
Education,3(3),295–303.
Welch,G.F.(1998).Earlychildhoodmusicaldevelopment.ResearchStudiesinMusic
Education,11(1),27–41.
37
Welch,G.F.(2000a).Singingdevelopmentinearlychildhood:Theeffectsofcultureand
educationontherealisationofpotential.InP.J.White(Ed.),Childvoice(pp.27–44).
Stockholm:RoyalInstituteofTechnology.
Welch,G.F.(2000b).Thedevelopingvoice.InL.Thurman,&G.F.Welch(Eds.),Bodymind
andVoice:FoundationsofVoiceEducation(pp.704–17).Iowa:NationalCenterfor
VoiceandSpeech.
Welch,G.F.(2002).Earlychildhoodmusicaldevelopment.InL.Bresler&C.Thompson
(Eds.),Theartsinchildren’slives:Context,cultureandcurriculum(pp.113–28).
Dordrecht,NL:Kluwer.
Welch,G.F.(2004).DevelopingyoungprofessionalsingersinUKcathedrals.Proceedings,
2ndInternationalPhysiologyandAcousticsofSingingConference,Denver,USA.
Retrieved3June,2005from
<http://www.ncvs.org/pas/2004/pres/welch/welch.htm>.
Welch,G.F.(2005a).Singingascommunication.InD.Miell,R.MacDonald,&D.J.
Hargreaves(Eds.),Musicalcommunication(pp.239–59).NewYork:OxfordUniversity
Press.
Welch,G.F.(2005b).Themusicaldevelopmentandeducationofyoungchildren.InB.
Spodek&O.Saracho(Eds.),Handbookofresearchontheeducationofyoungchildren
(pp.251–67).Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociatesInc.
Welch,G.F.(2011).Cultureandgenderinacathedralmusiccontext:Anactivitytheory
exploration.InM.Barrett(Ed.),Aculturalpsychologyofmusiceducation(pp.225–58).
NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Welch,G.F.,&Elsley,J.(1999).Baselineassessmentinsinging.AustralianVoice,5,60–6.
Welch,G.F.,Himonides,E.,Saunders,J.,Papageorgi,I.,&Sarazin,M.(2014).Singingand
socialinclusion.FrontiersinPsychology,5:803,doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00803.
Welch,G.F.,Himonides,E.,Saunders,J.,Papageorgi,I.,Vraka,M.,Preti,C.,&Sarazin,M.
(forthcoming).Children’ssingingbehaviouranddevelopmentinthecontextofSing
Up,anationalprograminEngland.
Welch,G.F.,&Howard,D.(2002).Genderedvoiceinthecathedralchoir.Psychologyof
Music,30(1),102–20.
38
Welch,G.F.,Saunders,J.,Hobsbaum,A.,&Himonides,E.(2012).Literacythroughmusic:A
researchevaluationoftheNewLondonOrchestra’sLiteracythroughMusic
programme.London:InternationalMusicEducationResearchCentre,Instituteof
Education,UniversityofLondon.
Welch,G.F.,Saunders,J.,Papageorgi,I.,&Himonides,E.(2012).Sex,genderandsinging
development:Makingapositivedifferencetoboys’singingthroughanational
programmeinEngland.InS.Harrison,G.F.Welch,&A.Adler(Eds.),Perspectiveson
malesandsinging(pp.37–54).London:Springer.
Welch,G.F.,Sergeant,D.C.,&White,P.(1996).Thesingingcompetencesoffive-year-old
developingsingers.BulletinoftheCouncilforResearchinMusicEducation,127,155–
62.
Welch,G.F.,Sergeant,D.C.,&White,P.(1997).Age,sexandvocaltaskasfactorsinsinging
“in-tune”duringthefirstyearsofschooling.BulletinoftheCouncilforResearchin
MusicEducation,133,153–60.
Welch,G.F.,Sergeant,D.C.,&White,P.(1998).Theroleoflinguisticdominanceinthe
acquisitionofsong.ResearchStudiesinMusicEducation,10(1),67–74.
Williams,J.(2010).Theimplicationsofintensivesingingtrainingonthevocalhealthand
developmentofboychoristersinanEnglishcathedralchoir(Unpublisheddoctoral
dissertation).InstituteofEducation,UniversityofLondon.
Williams,B.,Larson,G.,&Price,D.(1996).Aninvestigationofselectedfemalesinging-and
speaking-voicecharacteristicsthroughcomparisonofagroupofpre-menarchialgirls
toagroupofpost-menarchialgirls.JournalofSinging,52(3),33–40.
Willis,E.,&Kenny,D.T.(2008).Relationshipbetweenweight,speakingfundamental
frequency,andtheappearanceofphonationalgapsintheadolescentmalechanging
voice.JournalofVoice,22(4),451–71,doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2006.11.007.
Wise,K.(2009).Understandingtonedeafness:Amulti-componentialanalysisofperception,
cognition,singingandself-perceptionsinadultsreportingmusicaldifficulties
(Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation).KeeleUniversity.
Young,S.(2002).Youngchildren’sspontaneousvocalizationsinfreeplay:Observationsof
two-tothree-year-oldsinadaycaresetting.BulletinoftheCouncilforResearchin
MusicEducation,152,43–53.
39
Figure24.1AccuracyratingsofItalianchildren(n=28)aged2.6to3.3yearsin
imitatingsongphrasesandcompletesongsmodeledbytheirmothers.Ratingsare
basedona7-pointscaleofperceivedaccuracy
DatafromTafuri,J.,InfantMusicality,2008
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
rati
ng
(m
axim
um
7)
individual children's singing ratings (n=28) Phrases Songs
40
Figure24.2Longitudinaldataon5-to7-year-oldchildren’s(n=184)ratedsinging
abilities(maximumaccuracyrating=7)fora)wordsoftargetsongs(twosongswere
assessedeachyear);b)sungpitchesofsamecompletesongs;c)deconstructedpitch
elementsofthesamesongs(singlepitches,simplemelodiccontours(glides),and
simplemelodicfragments)
DatafromWelch,G.F.,Sergeant,D.C.,&White,P.,Thesingingcompetencesoffive-year-old
developingsingers.BulletinoftheCouncilforResearchinMusicEducation,127,pp.155–162,1996,
Welch,G.F.,Sergeant,D.C.,&White,P.,Age,sexandvocaltaskasfactorsinsinging“in-tune”during
thefirstyearsofschooling.BulletinoftheCouncilforResearchinMusicEducation,133,pp.153–160,
1997,andWelch,G.F.,Sergeant,D.C.,&White,P.,Theroleoflinguisticdominanceintheacquisition
ofsong.ResearchStudiesinMusicEducation,10,pp.67–74,1998.
41
Figure24.3Meannormalizedsingingscoresaveragesbydecimalageand
intervention(“SingUp”versusNon“SingUp”)
42
Figure24.4Confusabilitybyageandgenderofchildrenandadolescentsaged4to16
years.Thefigureisextrapolatedfrommeasureddataofperceivedconfusabilityfor
untrainedsingers(Sergeantetal.,2005)andmeasureddataofperceived
confusabilityfortrainedsingers(Welch&Howard,2002).Initially,untrainedyoung
boysareconfusedasgirls.Then,thesexesbecomemorereadilydistinguishable
fromtheageof8/9years.However,singingtrainingcanenablegirlsfrom8/9years
to14yearstosound“boy-like”incertainpiecesfromtherepertoire.From14years
onward,singersexbecomesmorereadilyidentifiable
DatafromSergeant,D.C.,Sjölander,P.,&Welch,G.F.,Listeners’identificationofgenderdifferences
inchildren’ssinging.ResearchStudiesinMusicEducation,25,pp.28–39,2005andWelch,G.F.,&
Howard,D.,Genderedvoiceinthecathedralchoir.PsychologyofMusic,30(1),pp.102–120,2002.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
4 6 8
10
12
14
16
Incr
easi
ng C
onfu
sabi
lity
boys
girls untrained
girls trained
Age
43
Figure24.5aStagesofsingingvoicechangeforfemales(basedonGackle,2000)and
males(basedonCooksey,2000)
DatafromGackle,L.,“Understandingvoicetransformationinfemaleadolescents,”in:L.Thurman,&
G.F.Welch(Eds.),BodymindandVoice:FoundationsofVoiceEducation.RevisedEdition,pp.739–
744,2000andCooksey,J.,“Voicetransformationinmaleadolescents,”in:L.Thurman,&G.F.Welch
(Eds.),BodymindandVoice:FoundationsofVoiceEducation.RevisedEdition,pp.718–738,2000.
44
Figure24.5bExtrapolatedmodelofadolescentmalevoicechangebyage,basedon
UK(Geddye,personalcommunication)andJapanesedata(Norioka,1994),total
n=3,188
IncludesdatafromNorioka,Y.,“AsurveyofJapaneseschoolagedpoorpitchsingers,”in:G.F.Welch,
&T.Murao(Eds.),Onchiandsingingdevelopment,pp.49–62,1994.