BS: 'vocal fry'- my suspicions confirmed

Subject: RE: BS: 'vocal fry'- my suspicions confirmed
From: Alice
Date: 25 Feb 13 - 07:13 PM

I agree with Don. Habits like vocal fry can damage your voice over time.

I think people are, in general, unaware of many things that can damage your voice.

Alice

Subject: RE: BS: 'vocal fry'- my suspicions confirmed
From: Lighter
Date: 25 Feb 13 - 08:09 PM

I associate "vocal fry" especially with the word "rilly."

The controversy is whether it's a real affectation or just some unconscious sound that's always been around but is only being noticed today by carping old people who don't know how to rock.

When I first noticed it some years ago ('90s?), before I even knew it had a name, it was coming almost exclusively from "Valley Girl" types: stereotypically shallow, materialistic, derisive females under 25.

My perception hasn't changed much since then.

Maybe it's been around long enough now to have become unconscious for people born after, say, 1995. But it always seemed like an affectation to me. Like I mean, rilly.

Have you ever thought about "is-is"? As in, "The question is is whether 'vocal fry' is something new or what."

Listen to almost anybody on TV news nowadays - reporters and interviewees - and I think you'll find in sentences like that it's the rule rather than the exception.

Subject: RE: BS: 'vocal fry'- my suspicions confirmed
From: gnu
Date: 25 Feb 13 - 08:40 PM

"The controversy is whether it's a real affectation or just some unconscious sound that's always been around but is only being noticed today by carping old people who don't know how to rock."

No controversy... I abhor it. And I know how to rock... far more than any brain dead little valley girl (your words re "valley girl"). Some "sounds are cool" but an entire change of speech pattern and inflection that simply detracts from human communication is, well, unacceptable to me.

Subject: RE: BS: 'vocal fry'- my suspicions confirmed
From: Gibb Sahib
Date: 26 Feb 13 - 01:34 AM

I'd find it hard to believe that creaky voice (/ vocal fry) is mainly an affectation *nowadays*. Being a transplant to California from New England to Southern California, it's something I notice constantly. I spend a considerable amount of time in places like coffeeshops, overhearing conversations of people below age 25. The thing I hear most is the glide up at the end of phrases -- which I find irritating, I suppose, because it is just not "music to my ears" in the way that tones from my region and generation would sound like. That is, I feel surrounded by these "strange Southern California people"! In the end though, it's just regional speech.

Closely following the up-glide is the creaky voice. It is so common and seemingly unconscious that I don't see it as an affectation. And it no longer has anything to do with "valley girls." I don't even think it has much to do with sounding cool or what have you -- though certainly it indicates one's age pretty well. I think it's pervasive enough to be considered, again, mainly a regional and generational thing now.

I have supposed that women do it more because they want to talk in a lower register, and their voices "bottom out."

***
For Canadians who think that Canadians don't generally say out/about differently than Americans... sorry, but they most certainly do. I'd say it's the number 1 speech clue, from the American perspective, that someone is from Canada. It has become a bit of a custom to signify that difference with the orthography "oot." No, it does not rhyme with "boot." That's just the way the spelling has evolved. Regardless, there is a *very* consistent difference between how Americans and Canadians tend to say "out." Not all Canadians say "out" the same! BUT a really large number say it in a way that most Americans do not, and for that reason the difference serves as a good accent "border" between the two countries' speech.

Other aspects of Canadian accents are fairly clear, but these turn up in some American accents, too, such that they don't create such a perception of difference as does "out."

Subject: RE: BS: 'vocal fry'- my suspicions confirmed
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 26 Feb 13 - 10:36 AM

Good and thoughtful comments, Gibb Sahib. The rest of you, not so much.

Subject: RE: BS: 'vocal fry'- my suspicions confirmed
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Feb 13 - 10:10 PM

"I think it's pervasive enough to be considered, again, mainly a regional and generational thing now"

That would imply it is characteristic of young men as well as young women in the relevant demographic? Is it? The rising intonation would be I imagine - in England as well. The general assumption is that a major reason for that has been the popularity of the soap Neighbours a few years back.

Subject: RE: BS: 'vocal fry'- my suspicions confirmed
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Feb 13 - 10:22 PM

I find Alex Wagner is one of Earth's great beauties. She has the best of several racial perfections of beauty in one.

I found that group chanting sometimes reaches a resonance that causes the air to pop with an overtone of static white noise CRACKLING that can even be picked up on microphones. It is a very unusual phenomenon.

Hey Gibb that glide up you speak of is primarily Irish and is heard in even the most distinguished circles in Boston's high society.

Subject: RE: BS: 'vocal fry'- my suspicions confirmed
From: GUEST,999
Date: 27 Feb 13 - 08:43 AM

The real meaning of vocal fry.

Subject: RE: BS: 'vocal fry'- my suspicions confirmed
From: gnu
Date: 27 Feb 13 - 05:50 PM

Good points recently but I still want to smack someone who wants who sings when they talk. No rocket science. No anthropologic analyses. No linguistic analyses. I just wanna smack em because I am that annoyed.

Subject: RE: BS: 'vocal fry'- my suspicions confirmed
From: GUEST,999
Date: 27 Feb 13 - 05:59 PM

Like, duh, let's not go there.

Subject: RE: BS: 'vocal fry'- my suspicions confirmed
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Feb 13 - 06:28 PM

"I find Alex Wagner is one of Earth's great beauties."

She's lovely, and evidently a nice, intelligent lady... but she talks funny. ;>)

Subject: RE: BS: 'vocal fry'- my suspicions confirmed
From: Gibb Sahib
Date: 27 Feb 13 - 08:09 PM

McGrath--

"I think it's pervasive enough to be considered, again, mainly a regional and generational thing now"

That would imply it is characteristic of young men as well as young women in the relevant demographic? Is it? The rising intonation would be I imagine - in England as well.

[Disclaimer: I am speaking only from my casual observations (though those observation are reasonably extensive).]

I didn't mean to imply that it was characteristic of young men as well, sorry. It's mostly "girls". Here, "girls" is meant as a nebulous category.... not any well-defined age range, rather a social category. Put in a crude way, it's a category of girls and women (say, up to 40 yrs old!) largely defined by cultural ideas of desirability and "youthfulness." (I am not trying to be rude here, just making an observation of how I understand the use of "girls" in at least an American context.) In fact, my "theory" is that (at least for some people), this vocal effect is an (unconscious) indicator of one being or seeing oneself as a "girl."

I'll spare you hearing it for now, but I have a musical track I made that includes a woman (California native) who was 37-ish at the time. In it, she speaks a line in a "fry" voice that I think my audience (when I auditioned the track live) widely heard as "sexy"--judging from the audience's audible reaction when they heard it. (This, by the way, was the woman's natural, unconscious voice.) One might normally think a "breathy" voice (customary in the past) would be "sexy," however, my interpretation is that this creaky voice indicates the woman belongs to the category of a youngish, probably "available" group...possibly even that she is "Californian," etc. -- all categories that potentially suggest sexiness.

More likely, the voice only sounds "sexy" for certain people conditioned to it; it only functions in those cultural conditioned contexts. I think I have been acculturated to hear it as a potentially sexy voice, i.e. indicating a "girl." At the same time, in more "professional" contexts, I find it personally irritating and indicative of things like "lack of confidence" and "lack of qualification" -- i.e. equally prejudiced yet different perceptions.

I know that may sound like a lot of over-interpretation, but it really rings true, to me, at least!

The rising intonation, BTW, is something widely associated -- in America -- with Southern California ("Los Angeles"). However, it has spread with young people all over the US and Canada, presumably through media. Here (Los Angeles County) it is maybe just as common with men as with women.

Subject: RE: BS: 'vocal fry'- my suspicions confirmed
From: gnu
Date: 27 Feb 13 - 08:34 PM

Another informative post, Gibb. Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: 'vocal fry'- my suspicions confirmed
From: Lighter
Date: 27 Feb 13 - 09:00 PM

> The rising intonation, BTW, is something widely associated -- in America -- with Southern California

It was long associated with the South. Now it's all over. In fact, any particular connection with SoCal is new to me.

Subject: RE: BS: 'vocal fry'- my suspicions confirmed
From: GUEST,999
Date: 27 Feb 13 - 09:35 PM

San Fernando Valley is what you be looking for.

Subject: RE: BS: 'vocal fry'- my suspicions confirmed
From: Gibb Sahib
Date: 28 Feb 13 - 12:28 AM

Hmm, probably several different things that could be described as "rising intonation," Lighter. When I visited Liverpool, England, the speech feature that jumped out at me was what I would also call a rising intonation at end of statements. But that was a different one than the WestCoast/Cali one! We may be thinking of different things, since I don't associate what I'm hearing the majority of high school kids in my town (in the San Gabriel Valley) do with the US South...and time and again when people deliberately imitate a "Los Angeles" accent, they do it.

Or maybe these are all a similar thing, but I (and some others) don't "hear" them the same when it is combined with other Southern US, Australian, Irish, etc accent features!

Let's take a poll! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: 'vocal fry'- my suspicions confirmed
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Feb 13 - 06:19 PM

My theory is that some women want to sound authoritative so they imitate the masculine sounds of a bass voice or radio announcer and try to drop their voices beyond their
actual range. If you notice what they are talking about, it usually is some declarative
statement and they feel that when they induce vocal fry, they are going to be taken more seriously. Big mistake!

Subject: RE: BS: 'vocal fry'- my suspicions confirmed
From: Jack Horntip
Date: 15 May 25 - 12:47 PM



        Vocal Fry: what it is, who does it, and why people hate it!


Youtube video from linguist Dr. Geoff Lindsey.

Informative and funny. Worth watching.

Subject: RE: BS: 'vocal fry'- my suspicions confirmed
From: Donuel
Date: 16 May 25 - 07:55 AM

Jack the professor was very impressive. I would counter that some vocal fry is pathological. Injury to the vocal cords can occur outside of polyps due to explosive air or objects. Other syndromes cause uncontrollable fry as well.

Subject: RE: BS: 'vocal fry'- my suspicions confirmed
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 16 May 25 - 08:43 AM

> some women want to sound authoritative

Maggie Hatchett lowered her voice pitch to better dominate her cabinet, but she had speech coaching; the result was a gentle but menacing purr. Conversely (and perversely), many singing instructors will attempt to adjust their female tutees' pitch upwards, even if they're natural contraltos, presumedly under the delusion that sopranos earn more; in practice, I find some sopranos' singing beautiful but illegible.

Subject: RE: BS: 'vocal fry'- my suspicions confirmed
From: Bill D
Date: 16 May 25 - 06:02 PM

Interestingly, I have not heard nearly as many examples as when I started this thread. Perhaps a lot of young women have stopped trying to sound that way.

Subject: RE: BS: 'vocal fry'- my suspicions confirmed
From: keberoxu
Date: 17 May 25 - 03:09 AM

I had an adult male relative, a generation older then mine,
whose natural voice was placed very high.
He was so sensitive about it that he labored to place his voice
lower than natural.
He also smoked heavily.
It was not unusual to hear vocal fry in his speech.
He died of throat cancer, probably due to the smoking.

Subject: RE: BS: 'vocal fry'- my suspicions confirmed
From: robomatic
Date: 17 May 25 - 10:11 PM

There was a version of vocal fry I heard (before I learned that term) that I would have called 'throaty', associated with femmes fatales trying to sound both sexy and seductive.

There is also the version that I would have simply called 'raspy' and either inadvertent, a result of dryness, smoking, what-have-you. This can be either femaie or male.

There is a particular type of rasp that goes directly to my nerves and feels like a physical knock. Not the same in frequency as fingernails on a chalkboard, but definitely an assault on the neurons. If I had an instructor who talked that way I would change course.

Subject: RE: BS: 'vocal fry'- my suspicions confirmed
From: Mr Red
Date: 18 May 25 - 06:03 AM

The deepening of the voice is a trick politicians use. As witnessed by Maggie Thatcher's change of tone as she neared the PM job. It definitely was deliberate and tutored.

Subject: RE: BS: 'vocal fry'- my suspicions confirmed
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 18 May 25 - 06:32 AM

The voice coaching didn't happen (or wasn't completed) during her run-up, Mr Red. There's recorded evidence that Maggie Hatchett's voice deepened while she was (ahem) on the job: the recording of her abusing quoting St Patrick's prayer on-air, during the coverage of her going into No 10, doesn't have that distinctive menace associated with her voice in later years.

What *really* .... winds me up .... is people .... who insert deathless pauses .... every few words .... in public speeches .... in homage to .... Lady Di's .... asthmatic speech coach. But I digress.

Subject: RE: BS: 'vocal fry'- my suspicions confirmed
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 18 May 25 - 10:56 AM

I noticed that this topic was revived after mention of "vocal fry" (may have been incorrect diagnosis) on one of the BS threads regarding the voice of the Trump lawyer John Sauer during Supreme Court hearings. He sounds much older than the 51 years Wikipedia suggests. And RFK jr has as gravelly a burned-out voice as there is. Their voices aren't a simple matter of situational emphasis, it sounds entirely involuntary, so probably some other problem. (Looking up thread Alice mentions an NPR piece from 2011, and I think I also heard that and is my point of reference about the subject.)

I was also a long-time listener to the Diane Rehm show, and over the years she was diagnosed with spasmodic dysphonia, but that was more of swallowing or choking on words, not the assumed raspiness.

Subject: RE: BS: 'vocal fry'- my suspicions confirmed
From: meself
Date: 20 May 25 - 10:49 AM

"Vocal fry" is one of those things that you may hardly notice - until it's been pointed out to you, and then you start hearing it all the time, and, chances are, it bugs you every time. I am surprised that no one has mentioned the theory that criticism of vocal fry is essentially the latest criticism of women having the audacity to speak out. Not saying I necessarily buy that; just saying it's a notion that's out there.

Subject: RE: BS: 'vocal fry'- my suspicions confirmed
From: keberoxu
Date: 20 May 25 - 11:54 AM

The worst vocalizing I ever heard came from
Henry Kissinger, whose voice was a burnt-out husk.