Objective: Belting is a vocal quality commonly used across contemporary singing genres. Despite its ubiquity, belting production and perception are highly debated topics. The variety of methodologies and terminology used to discuss, teach, and study belting limits our understanding of the underlying mechanisms and restricts the development of science-informed voice pedagogy. The goal of this study was to systematically examine the landscape of the published literature on belting to identify commonalities, disagreements, and directions for future research.

Methods: We conducted a scoping literature review using the PRISMA framework surveying English-language peer-reviewed scientific studies and pedagogical publications on belting in adult singers that were published between January 1957 and January 2024. Relevant data were extracted and grouped into the following categories: perception, acoustics, physiology, and pedagogy.

Results: 1761 publications were reviewed for inclusion. 134 were included in full-text review, and 107 met inclusion criteria for the study, comprising 54 scientific studies and 53 pedagogical publications. The majority of scientific studies were cohort studies (n=18), and pedagogical publications were largely opinion pieces (n=32). Sample sizes in multi-participant investigations ranged from 2 to 100 participants. Perceptually, belting was easily discriminated from other qualities and was characterized as having “bright” or “forward” resonance and increased loudness. Acoustic findings included higher first and second formant frequencies, with the first formant tuned to the second harmonic. Physiologically, belting was associated with an elevated laryngeal position, pharyngeal narrowing, closed quotient >50%, high subglottal pressure, and spread mouth shape with increased jaw opening. However, high individual variability was reported in both resonance and physiological production strategies. Historical pedagogical publications tended to frame belting as “damaging,” whereas contemporary pieces focused on sustainable techniques and cross-training.

Conclusions: Terminology was highly variable across all publications, with over 200 different words and phrases used to describe belting. Efforts to codify terminology in reference to belting may benefit from expert consensus paneling and pairing supporting audio examples to facilitate understanding and cross-study comparison. As ongoing efforts to unify terminology evolve, we propose using the lenses of acoustics, physiology, perception, and pedagogy as a way to frame future investigations on belting.