The high pitched female character on Will & Grace was Karen played by Megan Mullally. Her voice is naturally high but not as high as the Karen character.
I’ve agreed with similar sentiments as that expressed by Jane Lynch in the past and long been self-conscious about my own voice, but I am rethinking this after the episode. There are a few podcast voices that I dislike because they have a tone or affect that I find grating—mainly they are smug or condensing rather than reflective and self-aware. It is an attitude issue I think, but I notice that I will say that I don’t like how they “sound” or I don’t like their “voice” yet I notice that I enjoy listening to other podcasts of people with unusual voices—even those that are high-pictched, rapid-fire, sing-song-y, which wouldn’t be the voice I would choose for a generic audiobook but works for the podcaster because their approach to the subject of the conversation is engaging. I also noticed that Jonathan Haidt has the sing-song quality to his cadence, and do not mind it. This makes me think that my statement that I don’t like the voices of certain podcasters is often about personality and tone rather than pitch. That said, for a generic audiobook, I’d like to always hear the voice of Oliver Burkeman.
Spent some time in NYC and noticed that many women were psychologically damaged from the dating scene. The vast majority want a stable, long term, monogamous relationship. Instead, they end up being intimate faster than they would prefer with men they don't really like.
Much of "sex liberation" is a post-hoc rationalization for women making serially unfortunate romantic decisions. The author of the article (tacitly) claims that she swapped out the pursuit of relationships with no-strings-attached kinky sex and has never been happier. Methinks she dost protest too much, and its because she can't admit she is paying for a bill of goods.
The primary bureaucratic imperative is to increase the scope of bureaucracy. The Stanford case demonstrates what the endgame looks like: creeping soviet-totalitarianism where every aspect of life is gerrymandered into homogenous boxes, forms filled in triplicate, and a Dolores Umbridge character smiling politely while declining your request to enjoy life.
The administrators fear competing institutions. People cant be allowed to see life outside the system lest they realize that the system exists to transfer wealth and power from you to them. Phrases like "safety", "inclusion", "diversity" et.al. are thought terminating cliches designed to give the managerial class Carte Blanche to wrap the world in red tape.
Elizabeth Holmes was speaking with a lowered larynx. If you inhale as if you’re yawning, you’ll feel the larynx drop. That’s the vocal tract position she was using. A lot of male pop/soul singers used this technique, mostly in the 80s. Much of this could be attributed to vocal coach Seth Riggs who stressed that singers could sing with a fuller tone at higher pitches if they could keep their larynx from rising (which is what it will naturally do unless an effort is made to keep it down.)
The king of low larynx/high singing is Michael McDonald. Other examples are James Ingram, Al Jarreau and Darryl Hall in the We are the World video. This style was very popular.
The lowered larynx works for speech in the sense that it introduces a lot of low frequencies as well as lowering the pitch (two different things- EQ vs pitch manipulation), but it does so at the expense of higher frequencies that are necessary for a truly harmonically rich tone. Ultimately, speaking with a low larynx sounds like a cheap shortcut and doesn’t really fool anyone.
Choice of microphone (along with EQ) would do more to help podcasting people with thin voices. Many podcasters use either the Shure SM 7b (the Joe Rogan mic) or the Electrovoice RE20 (the Rush Limbaugh mic). The RE 20 in particular is THE talk radio mic and has been for a long time. Part of the reason is the fact that you can speak very close to the mic without having unnatural boomy lows overwhelm the signal. Speaking close to a mic will allow much of the lower, quieter harmonic content to be picked up. It will also pick up a lot of the sparkly, airy detail at the top of the frequency spectrum which can be quite attractive. Also, many people’s voices rise in pitch when they rise in volume. (Mike Pesca, Penn Gillette) Being able to speak at a natural volume on a close mic will improve the tone of many people. (Pesca and Gillette are both great btw. Just using examples off the top of my head)
Vocal fry is not a deal breaker for me. I don’t mind it unless it sounds like an affectation. In the voice world it’s called “pulse register”. It’s the edges of the vocal folds making the lightest possible contact. There are vocal fry exercises that are especially beneficial to people who have trouble with vocal fold closure (breathy voices).
Re cosmetic surgery: one can do it "for herself" in the sense that she has so completely internalized whatever cultural ideal one might discuss that it honestly doesn't feel like it is "for" someone else, on the macro level. Obviously no one should do it because a specific individual asks them or wants them to do it. Many people at least used to say that they didn't want to be attractive but rather normal. I relate to that, as someone who has had an extremely high amount of cosmetic surgery. Not Michael Jackson/Joan Rivers level but truly a staggering amount.
Women’s voices! Yes, lower them if you can. Yes, limit vocal fry. I think there used to be a thing I referred to as “radio voices.” I.e. there were people, both men and women, whose voices sounded good on the radio, then on TV. People without radio voices could do all the less glamorous, but essential, behind the scenes work. Your voices are good enough that I am willing to listen to you. Unfortunately, as podcasting has become a thing, many people, both men and women, who are hard to listen to are now on the air. Grrr. Some could sound better with better equipment, I suppose, but some should stick to writing, research, etc. I do not stick with podcasts if the voices are awful.
It’s depressing that some universities feel the need to regulate many aspects of students’ lives. I was never a fan of fraternities and sororities, but I wouldn’t have wanted my alma mater to ban them when I was there. Voluntary organizations are good to have, especially in people’s formative years.
There’s one area in which I’d welcome a crackdown on student behavior, though: drinking. Maybe 21 is too high a drinking age, but if it’s the legal age in your state, and you’re running a university, it’s good for you to punish drinking on campus. Not only would it be a good lesson to students that the law matters, but it might weed out students who don’t take college seriously, and just want to get drunk and do the bare minimum academically.
You should charge extra for these beautifully written show notes!
I also have a real estate porn habit and hate dating, so I can relate to Meghan’s priorities.
The high pitched female character on Will & Grace was Karen played by Megan Mullally. Her voice is naturally high but not as high as the Karen character.
I’ve agreed with similar sentiments as that expressed by Jane Lynch in the past and long been self-conscious about my own voice, but I am rethinking this after the episode. There are a few podcast voices that I dislike because they have a tone or affect that I find grating—mainly they are smug or condensing rather than reflective and self-aware. It is an attitude issue I think, but I notice that I will say that I don’t like how they “sound” or I don’t like their “voice” yet I notice that I enjoy listening to other podcasts of people with unusual voices—even those that are high-pictched, rapid-fire, sing-song-y, which wouldn’t be the voice I would choose for a generic audiobook but works for the podcaster because their approach to the subject of the conversation is engaging. I also noticed that Jonathan Haidt has the sing-song quality to his cadence, and do not mind it. This makes me think that my statement that I don’t like the voices of certain podcasters is often about personality and tone rather than pitch. That said, for a generic audiobook, I’d like to always hear the voice of Oliver Burkeman.
Spent some time in NYC and noticed that many women were psychologically damaged from the dating scene. The vast majority want a stable, long term, monogamous relationship. Instead, they end up being intimate faster than they would prefer with men they don't really like.
Much of "sex liberation" is a post-hoc rationalization for women making serially unfortunate romantic decisions. The author of the article (tacitly) claims that she swapped out the pursuit of relationships with no-strings-attached kinky sex and has never been happier. Methinks she dost protest too much, and its because she can't admit she is paying for a bill of goods.
The primary bureaucratic imperative is to increase the scope of bureaucracy. The Stanford case demonstrates what the endgame looks like: creeping soviet-totalitarianism where every aspect of life is gerrymandered into homogenous boxes, forms filled in triplicate, and a Dolores Umbridge character smiling politely while declining your request to enjoy life.
The administrators fear competing institutions. People cant be allowed to see life outside the system lest they realize that the system exists to transfer wealth and power from you to them. Phrases like "safety", "inclusion", "diversity" et.al. are thought terminating cliches designed to give the managerial class Carte Blanche to wrap the world in red tape.
Elizabeth Holmes was speaking with a lowered larynx. If you inhale as if you’re yawning, you’ll feel the larynx drop. That’s the vocal tract position she was using. A lot of male pop/soul singers used this technique, mostly in the 80s. Much of this could be attributed to vocal coach Seth Riggs who stressed that singers could sing with a fuller tone at higher pitches if they could keep their larynx from rising (which is what it will naturally do unless an effort is made to keep it down.)
The king of low larynx/high singing is Michael McDonald. Other examples are James Ingram, Al Jarreau and Darryl Hall in the We are the World video. This style was very popular.
The lowered larynx works for speech in the sense that it introduces a lot of low frequencies as well as lowering the pitch (two different things- EQ vs pitch manipulation), but it does so at the expense of higher frequencies that are necessary for a truly harmonically rich tone. Ultimately, speaking with a low larynx sounds like a cheap shortcut and doesn’t really fool anyone.
Choice of microphone (along with EQ) would do more to help podcasting people with thin voices. Many podcasters use either the Shure SM 7b (the Joe Rogan mic) or the Electrovoice RE20 (the Rush Limbaugh mic). The RE 20 in particular is THE talk radio mic and has been for a long time. Part of the reason is the fact that you can speak very close to the mic without having unnatural boomy lows overwhelm the signal. Speaking close to a mic will allow much of the lower, quieter harmonic content to be picked up. It will also pick up a lot of the sparkly, airy detail at the top of the frequency spectrum which can be quite attractive. Also, many people’s voices rise in pitch when they rise in volume. (Mike Pesca, Penn Gillette) Being able to speak at a natural volume on a close mic will improve the tone of many people. (Pesca and Gillette are both great btw. Just using examples off the top of my head)
Vocal fry is not a deal breaker for me. I don’t mind it unless it sounds like an affectation. In the voice world it’s called “pulse register”. It’s the edges of the vocal folds making the lightest possible contact. There are vocal fry exercises that are especially beneficial to people who have trouble with vocal fold closure (breathy voices).
Both of you have nice voices. Carry on.
Re cosmetic surgery: one can do it "for herself" in the sense that she has so completely internalized whatever cultural ideal one might discuss that it honestly doesn't feel like it is "for" someone else, on the macro level. Obviously no one should do it because a specific individual asks them or wants them to do it. Many people at least used to say that they didn't want to be attractive but rather normal. I relate to that, as someone who has had an extremely high amount of cosmetic surgery. Not Michael Jackson/Joan Rivers level but truly a staggering amount.
Women’s voices! Yes, lower them if you can. Yes, limit vocal fry. I think there used to be a thing I referred to as “radio voices.” I.e. there were people, both men and women, whose voices sounded good on the radio, then on TV. People without radio voices could do all the less glamorous, but essential, behind the scenes work. Your voices are good enough that I am willing to listen to you. Unfortunately, as podcasting has become a thing, many people, both men and women, who are hard to listen to are now on the air. Grrr. Some could sound better with better equipment, I suppose, but some should stick to writing, research, etc. I do not stick with podcasts if the voices are awful.
It’s depressing that some universities feel the need to regulate many aspects of students’ lives. I was never a fan of fraternities and sororities, but I wouldn’t have wanted my alma mater to ban them when I was there. Voluntary organizations are good to have, especially in people’s formative years.
There’s one area in which I’d welcome a crackdown on student behavior, though: drinking. Maybe 21 is too high a drinking age, but if it’s the legal age in your state, and you’re running a university, it’s good for you to punish drinking on campus. Not only would it be a good lesson to students that the law matters, but it might weed out students who don’t take college seriously, and just want to get drunk and do the bare minimum academically.