PAS Conference Home Page
About PAS
Conference Details
Conference Committee and Staff
Webbed multimedia versions of the presentations given at PAS 2004
Panel Discussion sessions text and/or audio
Electronic Scrapbook
Original schedule of the October 2004 PAS Conference
Denver, Colorado area information
Entertainment that was available during the 2004 PAS Conference
Links page
View the 2004 PAS Conference Attendee Survey Results

Conference Attendee Survey Results


Not all questions were answered by all respondents. For each question, percentages are based upon the number of responses to that question. Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole percent.

1. How did you first hear about the PAS II conference? (64 responses)

(a) e-mail 22%
(b) print ad in a professional journal 6%
(c) website 9%
(d) flyer you picked up at a conference 8%
(e) supervisor 2%
(f) professor 9%
(g) colleague 13%
(h) invitation 2%
(i) prior PAS conference 9%
(j) ASHA SID-III e-mail list 2%
(k) Mailed flyer 19%

2. Do you think there was enough advertisement for this conference to attract a diverse group of attendees and presenters? (64 responses)
  (a) Yes 60%
(b) No 13%
(c) don’t know 28%

3. Please use the space below to make any suggestions about how to improve the advertisement of future conferences.


None – I thought the diversity was excellent”

“It depends upon the format you adhere to. Do you want it restricted, and have no parallel sessions – if so, you need a moderate amount of advertisement. A big number of participants might spoil the formula of a small, dedicated congress.”

“Did you advertise to the SID 3 list? (Note: Yes); how about to state, regional, national NATS governors and officers? (Note: Yes).”

“Did you have an ad in the NATS Journal of Singing?” (Note: Yes, 2 different issues, spaced 4 months apart.)

For statistical purposes only, please answer the following questions about your country of origin, ethnicity, age and education. If you wish to decline to provide this information, please indicate this below, and skip ahead to the section labeled “Conference Format.”

______ I wish to decline to provide demographic information about myself. 0% - all provided info

4. You are: (65 responses)

(a) a U.S. ctizen 79%
(b) a non-citizen attending a university in the United States on a student visa 1%
(c) neither a citizen nor a student on a visa 19%

5. Your age: (65 responses)

(a) under 20 2%
(b) 20-29 11%
(c) 30-39 17%
(d) 40-49 29%
(e) 50-59 22%
(f) 60 and over 20%

6. Which of the following ethnic groups do you consider yourself a member of? (64 responses)

(a) Hispanic or Latino 2%
(b) Native American 0%
(c) Asian 3%
(d) African American 2%
(e) Native Pacific Islander 0%
(f) Caucasian 91%
(g) Other 3%

7. Please circle your highest academic degree. (63 responses)

(a) Bachelors 14%
(b) Masters 32%
(c) Doctorate 40%
(d) Professional Certification
(e) B and D 3%
(f) C and D 10%
(g) no academic degree 2%

8. What subject area is your highest degree in? (72 responses – some indicated multiple majors)

(a) voice science or voice disorders 13%
(b) speech-language pathology 6%
(c) physics 1%
(d) acoustics 3%
(e) engineering 4%
(f) medicine 6%
(g) music 63%
(h) other
Alexander Technique 3%
Nursing 1%
Linguistics 1%
Law 1%

Conference Format
9. Were the individual presentation sessions…(65 responses)

(a) too short 12%
(b) too long 6%
(c) about right 82%

10. Were there sufficient opportunities in the conference to ask questions and interact with other voice professionals? (65 responses)

(a) yes 74%
(b) no 23%
(c) not sure 3%

If you answered no above, please make suggestions below about how the format might have been better organized to foster more interaction.

“Presentations could have been spaced apart better to allow for more questions”

“Presentations were about right in length when speaker kept to time!”

“Fewer presentations and more time in between to interact would be preferable.”

“Change the proportion between presentations and discussions – could have a bit shorter presentation with a bit longer discussion. Have discussions and panels on topics like how to improve collaborations and exchanges between the scientific and musical communities from the point of view of singers and scientists.”

“Everyone seemed to have more to say than the allotted time. It would have been nice to have either lunch or dinner as a group the first full day.”

“As a voice teacher, performer and speech pathologist, I enjoyed the interaction with the voice scientists; however, I think the “Why?” and the “So what?” could be better explained from the onset of the presentation to give the voice teachers a better sense of how it relates to singing. I am not saying “change the jargon” – each discipline must talk their own talk, but more attention should be given to how the results, positive or negative, relate to healthy vocal production.”

If presenters made their procedures available, but didn’t necessarily say it verbally, esp. listing of equipment, we’d have more time for questions. Also, could the format be radically altered – pure voice science in the a.m., and in the afternoon, translation sessions – ‘what does this mean for the singing voice?’ ‘practical application of this morning’s lectures.’ ”

11. Were there…(65 responses)

(a) too many presentations 20%
(b) not enough presentations 2%
(c) enough presentations 62%
(d) no opinion 17%

Presentation Quality and Content
12. Did the overall quality of the presentations…(64 responses)

(a) greatly exceed your expectations 6%
(b) exceed your expectations 33%
(c) meet your expectations 50%
(d) meet your expectations, but quality was somewhat uneven 5%
(e) somewhat failed to meet your expectations 6%
(f) failed to meet your expectations 0%

13. Did the range of topics presented…(65 responses)
(a) greatly exceed your expectations 6%
(b) exceed your expectations 38%
(c) meet your expectations 47%
(d) somewhat fail to meet your expectations 9%
(e) failed to meet your expectations 0%
14. Did the content presented…(65 responses)

(a) greatly exceed your expectations 11%
(b) exceed your expectations 22%
(c) meet your expectations 58%
(d) somewhat fail to meet your expectations 9%
(e) failed to meet your expectations 0%

Meeting conference objectives

The objective of this conference was to explore the following questions:

How does singing voice research relate to and assist other voice disciplines?
Where is singing voice research going? What new directions are being explored, and what areas demand further examination?

15. Did the conference meet the objectives outlined above? (65 responses)

(a) absolutely 26%
(b) substantially 55%
(c) somewhat 15%
(d) not really 3%
(e) not at all 0%

16. Will your participation in this conference impact your future work? (65 responses)

(a) yes, definitely 58%
(b) yes, somewhat 32%
(c) not really 9%
(d) not at all 0%

In what ways will your experiences at this conference impact or not impact your future work?


“Identified some young researchers whom I might be able to assist.”

“Designing my next experimental focus – effects of menstruation on vocal fold vibratory variability.”

“In my voice teaching, I will re-evaluate how I work with male students, in light of Scott McCoy’s presentation. Ingo Titze’s presentation, too, will improve my teaching, but not as immediately.”

“I now have some new questions to think about. I met people and had useful discussions.”

“I may use real-time voice analysis software in my studio.”

“I feel encouraged to try spectrographic analysis and other technological aids in my vocal studio.”

“I’ll communicate and collaborate with vocal pedagogs, performers and SLP professionals.”

“I would like to see more studies on breathing and brain control.”

“Based on Scott McCoy’s presentation, the way I approach breathing for males and females will definitely be rethought. Dr. Wicklund’s suggestions for teaching an injured singer were also helpful. I am also intrigued to explore using more technology in my teaching.”

“In some of the more heavily scientific presentations, I found myself saying ‘so what’ at the end – how does that info help me as a voice teacher? I recognize that much of the research is reinforcing what singing teachers have done for years on instinct.”

“I came away with a broader view of related but not studied topics.”

“I believe that I am not as intimidated by the scientific aspect of voice as I was before.”

“Reactance (Titze); 3 rd octave analysis (Hunter).”

Conference Website
17. Did you find the conference website easy to navigate? (62 responses)

(a) Yes 100%
(b) No 0%

18. If not, please explain:

“Had problems due to MacIntosh/Netscape versus PC/Explorer…couldn’t print, couldn’t access certain links, including abstracts.”

19. Was the website reliable in its operation? (62 responses)
  (a) Yes 98%
(b) No 2%
20. Did you find the information on the website to be?

1. Accurate (61 responses) (a) yes 100% (b) no 0%
2. Helpful (59 responses) (a) yes 98% (b) no 2%
3. Up to date (57 responses) (a) yes 100% (b) no 0%

21. Did you have any problems registering online? (63 responses)
  (a) Yes 14% (b) No 62% (c) not applicable (didn’t register online) 24%
22. What suggestions would you have for enhancing the conference website?

“It’s fine. No need for flashy stuff.”

“A listing of attendees. A chance for attendees to contact one another to share rooms, etc. Perhaps better done by e-mail so the general public wouldn’t have access to the info.”

“Registration online was awkward. Make it possible to register multiple people under one name (i.e. husband and wife).”

Future Conferences
Please tell us how to improve future conferences.
23. Were the hotel and meeting rooms…(61 responses)

(a) Excellent 21%
(b) Satisfactory 64%
(c) Unsatisfactory 15%

24. Was the conference staff helpful with problems you experienced? (60 responses)

(a) Yes 100%
(b) No 0%

25. What was the most positive aspect of this conference?

“From a student’s perspective, having the travel grant was greatly appreciated. I couldn’t have gone to the conference without it.”

“The formula for PAS I worked! Good overview of the field. Many singing teachers’ experiences were brought in.”

“Small numbers, world class experts and great chances to network.”

“New ideas popping up.”

“Good mix of science and vocal practitioners.”

“The range of speakers.”

“At NATS (2004 New Orleans National Conference), I was amazed that I could actually follow Ingo Titze’s presentation. At this conference I determined that the reason is his ability to explain more than my preparation. There were other technical gurus whom I could not follow, but I was not surprised since I’ve never been able to read their work, either. Still, I’ve come away thinking that this group is not totally intimidating.”

“Presenters who are able to communicate their information in a direct, conversational manner, e.g. David Howard, Graham Welch, Ingo Titze, Sten Ternström, James Daugherty, etc.”

“Exposure to the variety and depth of study in the area of voice science. It is wonderful to find out that there is a global community of committed professionals in this field.”

“Intermingling of disciplines”

“The exchange and discussions between the scientific and musical communities. This is very valuable and unusual. There were excellent presentations from both fields. Despite some things to improve, it was a great conference. I really appreciated it. Thank you!”

“The conference gives a tangible sense of the artistic and scientific communities working towards developing a common language. In many instances, the singing teacher presenters seemed to benefit greatly from the input of the scientific community, offering a different perspective on interpreting data.”

“Well organized, small-scale, friendly atmosphere.”

“Wide range of presentations and perspectives together with the warm, collegial atmosphere.”

“No simultaneous sessions! Wonderful!”

“Excellent program booklet.”

Lisa Popeil; being in the company of renowned voice scientists; also from the very beginning John Nix had a wonderful, welcoming way via e-mail; and as I stepped off the elevator, Dr. Titze was so gracious and welcoming. For me the environment and mix of disciplines promoted learning and sharing.”

26. What was the least positive aspect of this conference?

“After conference hours, little contact with other participants was given. We dispersed into small groups.”

“No chance to eat together as a group.”

“Internet access from the hotel rooms was very poor – slow dial up.”

“The room in which we met had several problems. The chairs and my arthritis were mutually exclusive. The room was crowded and the air flow inadequate. It was difficult to see from the back of the room. I would hope for a different shaped room next time, perhaps with a crescent shaped seating arrangement wider than deep. If it had two podia, perhaps the upcoming speaker would be able to set up during the Q & A of the preceding speaker and allow for a smoother transition. I did think this was a wonderful meeting, however.”

“All the usual problems associated with holding a meeting in a hotel.”

“Whenever possible, presenters should provide an audio component or demonstrate. Viewing spectrographs of singing without hearing the voices is absurd. Also, if the voice scientists could at least define their terms, this would be extremely helpful to the other end of the voice community.”

“The lack of unified terminology.”

“There is a huge dichotomy between the scientists’ extremely technical and data loaded presentations and those of musicians. There needs to be more common ground established regarding terminology. The scientific language was often baffling, undefined and frustrating.”

“Some presentations were not well prepared, and some presentations didn’t have their place here (looked more like promotion).”

“ I have begun to wonder if the scientific community is, at times, searching for the Holy Grail – that is, the need to quantify that which is artistic and in many ways intangible, i.e., looking for ways to ‘label’ the hallmarks of gold standard singing. On the issue of registers and credibility, I think the singing community would be best served to move towards some kind of certification that would be required of all voice teachers. The certification would insure a minimum level of knowledge of acoustics and physiology, which, I think, would lead to pedagogically sound teaching.”

“Too much VoceVista.”

“Unrealistic scheduling…presentations rushed, question time cut off, visual presentations moved too fast.”

“Could you schedule posters a bit earlier in the conference? It was hard to be mentally alert at the time authors were with their posters (late afternoon).”

“Have tables (classroom setup) rather than just chairs (theater-style), and have 2 large screens instead of just one in the middle of the room.”

“Some ‘Voice Foundation’ – like behavior from a few participants, which was not evident at PAS I.”

“It was surprising ASHA CEUs were not offered.”

“I want to see more research on all styles of commercial music, please. Please ask researchers to use ‘classical singers’ instead of ‘trained singers’ or ‘professional singers.’ Trained singers and professional singers come from all musical styles. The terms are not interchangeable. If the research only applies to trained professional classical singers, it should say so, otherwise the implication is that the data applies to any and all kinds of music and styles.”

“Perhaps add some tutorial sessions – on terminology, or the application of technology to studio teaching.”

Thank you for your feedback! Your remarks will be included in summary form in the final report on this conference to the National Institutes of Health.

Click here to go to the site Click here for our terms of use and copyright info Click here to provide feedback about the site
Click here to visit the National Institutes of Health Website Technical Tips Click here to bookmark this site