Talk:Human voice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeHuman voice was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
January 12, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed

Disambiguation[edit]

a very good, nay, outstanding candidate for disambiguation! 217.5.141.103 14:52 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

Falsetto[edit]

It's not really accurate to say that falsetto is more difficult to sing well. The reason most men have trouble singing well in falsetto is simply lack of practice. Pretty much any man can learn to sing countertenor if they take lessons and practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wahoofive (talkcontribs) 18:28, 14 March 2005 (UTC)

If they have to practice to be able to sing well then that mens it doesn't come naturally, meaning it is harder to sing in. A lot of men sing in falsetto but it takes hard work to sing the pitches correctly. 69.217.195.50 01:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Different registers[edit]

This article has some OK parts, but else it is crap... There are more voice registers than the ones mentioned, and the sound comes mainly from the mouth. The methods for finding the voices will not work for anyone, thus you cannot say "this is your head voice".

request[edit]

can someone write-up an anatomical description of the different registers? thank you – ishwar  (speak) 01:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Having read this article, I feel reticent to rely on Wikipedia for information henceforth! This article is a botch of poorly understood /explained half-truths. Flute register, for instance, is not even mentioned. By the way, the vocal folds are not called cords, this is misleading (they are essentially tissue folds). Victoria Burmester

The vocal folds are referred to as cords by the world book encyclopedia, and encarta. Information on the phsyiological mechanisms of the chest voice and falsetto are now added. In the case of falsetto I added the info to falsetto. But i will get around to adding it here.--I'll bring the food 00:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't complain, just fix it[edit]

If you see something wrong or missing in the article, don't just make general complaints on this talk page about how crap the article/wikipedia is. You are a wikipedia editor. Edit. Thparkth 11:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil.--I'll bring the food 00:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This is fundamental to wikipedia. Looking at previous comments, I see people saying "Oh look at how bad this article is - there's a whole heap of stuff I know that the article doesn't even mention" - well fix it yourself if you know so much. That's the idea of wikipaedia - you're mean't to edit it yourself. Watto the jazzman 09:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Anatomical Differences in Chest, Head, and Falsetto voices:[edit]

I've heard that the difference between these "voices" has to do with the thickness maintained by the vocal folds as a pitch is sounded:

Chest voice is when your vocal folds are kept thick enough that your chest is your primary resonator.

Head voice is reached when the folds thin to a point that your skull is the primary resonator of the sound rather than your chest (when the folds are thicker).

Falsetto is produced when the vocal folds are at there thinnest, allowing the most flexibility but the least resonance (little skull or chest resonance).

Does somebody have a source for this? I might have a book around somewhere with this info. 67.87.98.164 01:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

first paragraphs confuse it with human *language*[edit]

which isn't true for all human voices. a human can make voices without having developed any language. phrases like "can create different *meanings*" is what i mean.

Please sign your posts on talk pages. Meaning can exist without language. Birds and cats make all kinds of sounds which have clear meanings to others of their species, but they don't really have language, depending on how strictly you define that term. Anyway, very few humans exist without language. The sounds made by the human voice are used almost exclusively for communication purposes. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

GA failure[edit]

Lead does not summarize article, way underreferenced.Rlevse 20:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Records[edit]

Does anyone know the highest or lowest note ever to be achieved by a human voice? This is, of course, rather trivial, but it would make the article a lot more interesting than it is. Watto the jazzman 09:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Accordion[edit]

Accordions also have so-called voices which is actually the combination of different free reeds. FWIW in German they're called Chöre, which literally means something rather peculiar, choirs. -andy 84.149.93.114 21:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Vocal registration or resonation?[edit]

The section on this page seems to have confused or blended these two topics. It also presents a view that is controvercial and not in keeping with the pages on vocal registration and and vocal resonation. I am going to try and fix the inaccuracy.Nrswanson (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

human voice? (db)[edit]

How loud is the human voice? I don't see the info in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.121.64.216 (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

______________________________Reply__________________________________

A human's voice is approximatly 25-35 decibals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.248.49 (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Vocology[edit]

Why was vocology removed? SLP1 took it out because she says it's a "very uncommonly used term/info"; she may not be familiar with the term, but others seem to be. Did a quick google search -- there are about 16,000 google entries PLUS quite a few vocology certification/internships at several different places PLUS there's the European Journal. (72.244.61.51 (talk) 05:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC))

Black people[edit]

It would be interesing if someone explained what exactly makes the diffrence between black and white voices. What makes us able to identify singer's race when a song is played on the radio? Is this about a pitch or timbre or what? How does it affect singing e.g. in the opera? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.137.50 (talk) 07:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Actually it is not always possible to tell. Opera singers like Reri Grist, Harolyn Blackwell, and Kathleen Battle don't sound "black" to me. Likewise, when Renee Fleming, a white woman, sings jazz music she sounds like a black woman (a commment many vocal critics have made). However, that being said I would suspect that the genetics of black persons may play a role in a developing a distinct "black sound". Genetic traits will result in certain physicl traits like the bone structure of the jaw, the shape of the neck and head, etc. Those physical traits all play a role in sound production as they effect vocal resonation. Culture may also play a large factor in developing a "black sound". However, I don't think anyone has ever done a serious study on the subject so this is just speculation that should not be included in the article.Nrswanson (talk) 10:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are still interested, I think it is due to a Black accent. If you spend your early years around mostly blacks, you will pick up their way of talking. The same applies to people in GB sounding different with vowels and such than American people. Anyone can change the sound of their voice. For example, try widening your tongue, projecting sound differently, pronouncing vowels differently etc. Blacks are used to different sounds than whites, and brits are used to different sounds than Americans. However, that is my opinion.Ticklewickleukulele (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Steven[edit]

The beginning of the article starts off with "The human voice (also referred to as a steven)". This seems strange, but it has a history of being reinstated after deletion by users. Is there a reference that proves this is a real occurrence? User: Rucha58 18:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I added a citation for steven = voice. It is a synonym used in various English speaking communities for the concept of Human Voice. I have included it analogous to other article leads such as stream, which list various other synonyms (brook, rill, burn, runnel, etc.). Leasnam (talk) 18:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Influences of the human voice[edit]

I recommend deleting this section. New Scientist is not a primary source. Further, the paper referred to in the New Scientist article has fundamental flaws. The long established arguments for 12 ET are better.

From a scientific perspective, the whole page needs a lot of work. Would anyone mind if I did a major overhaul? (I am not a regular contributor but am an expert in some aspects of voice science.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inala (talkcontribs) 12:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Inala. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inala (talkcontribs) 12:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

potential Science News resource[edit]

Beautiful voices tickle the brain by Laura Sanders

Attractive voices tickle the part of the brain that normally handles visual input, a new study finds. In the study, participants listened to different voices saying “had” and later rated how attractive the voices were. Voices rated more attractive were associated with greater brain activity in a region near the part of the brain that responds to faces, an international team of scientists reports in an upcoming Cerebral Cortex. That the brain detects and responds to vocal beauty suggests that people may be tuned in to hidden, nonverbal forms of communication.

See Prosopamnesia, Prosopagnosia and potential Fusiform gyrus, and Visual agnosia in general.

99.190.86.16 (talk) 07:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Move to "voice"[edit]

"Human voice" sounds a little overly technical. Plus, the article subject sentence just uses "voice".Ticklewickleukulele (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yesterday I heard Bernard Krause's recording of Gibbon communication--through voice. You want this article should include the voice of gibbons..or crocodiles? Human Voice is the correct title, thank you. Tapered (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Technically sound....[edit]

This article is an example of technical, structural, and (mostly) grammatical correctness, but editorial mediocrity. The first question the writer of a technical article needs to ask is, "Can an ordinary reader with no technical background on the subject understand what's written without herculean effort?" "Human voice" fails the test. Tapered (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Abuse[edit]

I don't think the word 'abuse' can be used without a definition of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vince Calegon (talkcontribs) 10:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Exact scope/topic covered by this article[edit]

In everyday talk I think the term human voice means basically "the thing that one uses when speaking, singing etc". However the article at the moment has as its second sentence says "The human voice is specifically a part of human sound production in which the vocal folds (vocal cords) are the primary sound source." In other words it specifically excludes unvoiced consonants (and any other sound not originating from the vocal folds). In other words it seems to be saying that the sounds of human speech come from the human voice plus something else.

Now if one were asked (without having read the preceding paragraph) "What else makes up the sounds of human speech, apart from the human voice?" I think that one would be puzzled.

I think the answer to this conundrum might be that the term "Human voice" as being used in this article is being used in a technical sense, not the everyday sense. I think that it is not clear that the term is being used in a technical sense, so I am suggesting that either 1) the article is expanded to the everyday sense, or 2) the article mentions that this is about a technical sense (and mentions what the everyday sense is).

I have not gone ahead and done this because I am not sure I have got this right, and because a change of this nature is better discussed first.

I have already put in the present third sentence "(Other sound production mechanisms produced from the same general area of the body involve the production of unvoiced consonants, clicks, whistling and whispering.)" in order to make it clear what the second sentence was excluding (if I have understood correctly).

Some research into what other sources say:

  • Encyclopaedia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/topic/voice-phonetics "Voice, also called Full Voice, in phonetics, the sound that is produced by the vibration of the vocal cords." Note the "in phonetics", in other words implying a technical sense."
  • http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/voice includes: "Simple Definition of voice: the sounds that you make with your mouth and throat when you are speaking, singing, etc." which does *not* exclude unvoiced sounds, and also includes definitions which specify the involvement of the vocal folds.
  • http://www.thefreedictionary.com/voice includes "The sound produced by the vocal organs of a vertebrate, especially a human" (I think "produced by the vocal organs" could include sound production not including the vocal folds.) and "Linguistics[:] Expiration of air through vibrating vocal cords, used in the production of vowels and voiced consonants." (specifically vocal cords, but also specifically technical).

... so there does seem to be in these sources a loose, everyday meaning which does not exclude unvoiced sounds, and technical meanings which do exclude unvoiced sounds.

I look forward to a discussion of how to proceed. FrankSier (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the situation is as dire as you suggest. Vocal phonation is the primary (just not the exclusive) element of human vocal production. Your recent addition to the lede is fine, but I agree that a whole section below should be dedicated to a summary of the Consonant article, perhaps with a {{main}} hatnote. —Wahoofive (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Voice Disorders[edit]

It is misleading to say that a "speech impediment" affects the human voice. Firstly, "speech impediment" isn't really a term that is used in Speech-Language Pathology. Secondly, a "speech impediment" is a problem ABOVE the level of the vocal organs. The more accurate description would be a voice disorder. –Meagan.Honigman (talk) 03:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Overall, this section seems disjointed and underdeveloped. Besides the above comment (in which it was pointed out that "speech impediments" doesn't really fit in the category), it seems very limiting to say that voice disorders only involve lesions or cysts of the vocal folds. There is no mention about disorders due to disruption of the movement of the vocal folds, or any other changes in the vocal folds. As a start, a list of some voice disorders would be nice. –Meagan.Honigman (talk) 04:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Voice Cord Nodules[edit]

The only reference for this section was to an article about hoarseness- there was no reference for the rest of the information about nodules. –Meagan.Honigman (talk) 04:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Man's vocal range vs woman's[edit]

This phrase: "...among men, there are bass, baritone, tenor and countertenor (ranging from E2 to even F6), and among women, contralto, mezzo-soprano and soprano (ranging from F3 to C6)" is confusing to say the least.

It seems to reference e.g. "The highest note ever sung by a male countertenor" in comparison with the typical high end of the vocal range for a soprano.

Is it really reasonable to state that a woman's voice can only sing a note a major fourth LOWER than a man's, comparing the highest note for each?

Use the same criteria for both sexes. B. Polhemus (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human voice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Human voice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)