The M Word: What Do We Actually Mean by "Mix"?

There are some words in vocal coaching that become so familiar that we stop questioning them.

"Support"

"Placement"

"Open"

And increasingly "Mix"

I've been thinking about this one quite a lot recently.

Partly becuase I came across a section of a presentation by Dr Irene Bartlett and Dr Ron Morris for the Australian Voice Association on Instagram. Their presentation and work has prompted me to write this blog and to think more deeply about something I encounter regularly in my own studio: What do people mean when they ask a singer to "find their mix"?

And perhaps more importantly: what do we think "mix" means?

A perception, not an instruction.

My starting point is quite simple.

I don't think "mix" is a technical instruction.

It is a word we use to describe a sound or an experience.

Both are valid!

A singer might hear a particular sound and describe it as "mix". They might feel something in their voice that they have learned to associate with "mix". A teacher might hear a particular quality and call it "mix". A listener might hear the same sound and descibe it in completely different terms, which is often the case with all kinds of singing terminology.

And all of these perceptions can be real.

But that doesn't necessarily make "mix" a technical description of what is happening.

There is a very real physiological and acoustic activity underlying the sound a singer calls "mix". There may be changes in the vocal fold behaviour, resonance, airflow, vowel shape and counteless other variables.

But the word "mix" doesn't tell us what those things are.

And this is where I think the terminology can become problamatic.

If I tell a singer to "use more mix" what have I actually told them to do?

What are they supposed to change?

What exactly are they mixing?

And, perhaps most importantly, do they and I mean the same thing when we use the word?

So...what are we mixing?

This is where I think the word gets particularly interesting.

If we say we're mixing something, presumably there are two or more indentidfiable things being mixed. But what are they?

Chest and head?

Two registers?

Two different qualitites of sound?

Ressonance?

Vocal fold activity?

A sensation?

The answer isn't necessarily obvious.

And this is partly because I believe "mix" has grown out of a particular way of thinking and talking about the voice.

We have inherited terms such as chest voice and head voice, which have been used in singing pedagogy for centuries. They were certainly in use long before Manuel Garcia's work in the nineteenth centery. Garcia was hugely influential in formalising theories of vocal registers and developing termonlogy around them, but he did not invent the concepts of chest and head voice. In fact, his own writing shows just how complicated and changeable these classifications already were.

Interestingly, Garcia himself later wrote that the names, chest, medium and head voice were incorrect but accepted.

I find that fascinating.

Because it reminds us that vocal termonlogy has always been shaped by attempts to describe something that is extraordinarily difficult to describe.

And our understanding of the voice has developed enormously since the nineteenth century.

Yet these terms remain.

That isn't necessarily a bad thing. If we were to wait for scientific voice research to catch up, we'd be very limited to the sounds we make.

A term can be useful even if it isn't a precise technical description and in some cases, it can be more useful.

The problem comes when we forget that distinction.

When perception becomes instruction.

"Chest voice" and "head voice" are interesting examples because they can describe an expereince of singing.

A singer might feel a vibration or sensation in the chest.

They might feel something around the face or head.

They might hear a particular quality of sound.

But that sensation doesn't mean that the sound is literally being produced in the chest or head. And what happens if they don't feel those things?

The experience is real. The termonlogy is attempting to describe that experience.

"Mix" can work in a similar way.

A singer might have a particular experience and think "Ah, that's my mix."

A teacher might hear a particular quality and say "That's a lovely mix."

But if those two people have different ideas about what "mix" means, the word isn't necessarily helping them communicate.

And this is where I think vocal coaching termonlogy becomes really interesting and potentially problematic.

A useful instruction doesn't necessarily have to be scientifically precise. But it does need to mean something to the people using it.

If a teacher and singer have developed a shared understanding of a word, and it helps that particular singer access something useful, then great!

Use it.

I'm not interested in banning words from the vocal coaching vocabulary simply because they aren't technically perfect or acurate.

I'm interested in asking whether the word is acutally helping.

"But I can't find my mix...".

This is probably the part of this conversation that matters most to me as a vocal coach.

Becasue I have seen singers become genuinely confused by the idea that they should be able to "find" their "mix".

They try to locate it.

They listen for it.

They manipulate their voice in increasingly complicated ways.

And when they don't experience whatever they have been told they are supposed to experience, or assume what others experience, they can begin to wonder whether they're doing something wrong.

Or, worse, whether there is something wrong with them.

So, if you've been told to "find your mix" and you can't find it, please don't worry.

I can't find mine either.

Not becasue I haven't trained enough. Not becasue I'm missing some important part of my voice.

But because I don't think there is a little pot of mix somewhere in my vocal tract waiting for me to locate it.

I can make different sounds, change what I hear and feel, make adjustements depending on the musical task in front of me. I don't need to find a thing called "mix" in order to do any of those things.

And I certainly don't want a singer to leave my studio believing that they have failed because they haven't found theirs.

So, should we stop using the word "mix"?

I don't think so.

At least, that's not the point I'm trying to make here.

If "mix" is a useful word between you and your teacher/coach/MD, and you both understand what you're talking about, then carry on.

But if the term doesn't work for you, it doesn't make you less than, or an unskilled singer.

Perhaps we need to be a little more curious about it.

When I say "mix", what do I mean?

When my teacher/MD says "mix" what do they mean?

What does the singer understand the instruction to mean?

And what do we actually want the singer to change?

Sometimes a much more useful conversation might be:

What are you hearing?

What are you feeling?

What would you like the sound to do?

What changes if we alter the vowel?

What happens if we change the amount of intensity?

What are you noticing as you move through that part of your range?

Questions like these may lead us towards something much more useful than simply saying:

"Find your mix".

Don't let familiarity become precision.

I think this is the bigger question underneath all of this.

In vocal coaching, certain words become popular because everybody uses them.

And once everybody uses a word, it can start to feel as though everybody must know exactly what it means.

But popularity doesn't create a shared definition.

Sometimes we inherit terminology without ever stopping to ask what it is actually describing.

"Mix" is a particularly good example because it sounds so reassuringly technical.

It sounds as though there is a clearly identifiable thing that can be found, developed and applied.

And it's popularity makes it even more notable.

But a label isn't necessarily an explanation.

And I think singers deserve to know the difference.

So, the next time you hear someone say "use your mix", perhaps don't immediately accept it as an instruction you have to understand.

Pause.

Ask yourself:

What do we actually mean by "mix"?

What am I hearing?

What am I feeling?

What might my teacher be hearing?

And, most importantly, what are we actually trying to change?

You don't have to reject the word.

You don't have to become suspicious of every piece of vocal terminology.

But you also don't have to feel that you are somehow failing because you can't find something that nobody clearly defined for you and your voice.

Sometimes the most useful thing we can do as singers, coaches, teachers and musical directors is simply to stop, get curious, and ask:

What do we actually mean?

As always, I'm interested to hear what you think. Drop me an email or Instagram (@thebirminghamvocalcoach) message and let me know your thoughts.

If you're intersted in booking a coaching session email me on ashley@thebirminghamvocalcoach.co.uk