Vocal fry

[HarryHarry]

I recently came across the term in an article about how women undermine themselves by speaking in a certain way and I was curious about why we do this and what we can do to change it.

I know for a fact that I speak differently when I speak to certain people, in part to stop them interrupting and to check that they’re still listening, but also to avoid coming across as cold and unfriendly. When I have experimented with speaking in my real voice, which is deeper and flatter and less expressive, I have found that people - especially men - have responded negatively, calling me stuck-up, rude and aggressive. They seem to treat me much better when they think I am a young, weak and timid little girl.

The reason I’m thinking about this is that since having children, I’ve become more aware of how strong women are, and how the patriarchy has been set up to make us think otherwise. I am now less willing to make myself smaller to make men feel bigger. But I also don’t want to be perceived as a bitch and I don’t want all my encounters with other people to be negative.

Does anybody have any thoughts?

I don't agree with policing women's expression so I wouldn't 'correct' someone or seek for them to correct themselves, but that doesn't mean I don't find vocal fry intensely annoying.
As pp said both men and women can speak in an affected way. I remember watching an interview with a pop singer who said he knew women quite liked it when he made his singing voice break a bit. I'm pretty sure not all Phil Mitchell types do that growly whisper when they phone their mums.
I've noticed listening to American public radio (NPR) that a lot of American men upspeak now (or at least specific middle-class NPR bro does when he's trying to sound unrehearsed and interesting). Radiolab (on R4 Extra) is a textbook example.

If a woman uses her lower register, it's vocal fry.

Vocal fry isn’t just lower register though is it? It incorporates a sort of growl. Don’t know how else to describe it. It’s a type of voice projection that has to be forced. Nobody speaks like that naturally.

Essentially it’s how Kim Kardashian talks.

It's kind of a frog noise. Makes people sound smug and bored at the same time

Vocal fry isn’t just lower register though is it? It incorporates a sort of growl. Don’t know how else to describe it. It’s a type of voice projection that has to be forced. Nobody speaks like that naturally.

Yes, if you are a singer or study speech pathology, it's describes a particular way the sound is produced physiologically. Much like falsetto is a special type of vocal noise. But vocal fry can make your voice a lot lower than you could with normal speech. I think, though I'd not want anyone to quote me on this, that it's a similar sound to certain kinds of very low chant singing.

It drives me around the bemd

I remember a few years ago there was an article being passed around which discussed how the vast majority of voices for things like GPS and Siri/Alexa-type "assistants" were female, and how male voices were available but far less popular. Of course sexism was brought up, followed by a wall of comments saying that women's voices were just more pleasant to listen to.

Female voices (well, higher register voices) cut through background noise a lot better. I listen to Radio 4 and podcasts in the car. The deeper male voices get lost in the road noise.

Great. Another thing to criticise women for.

sammybins which register would you place Grace Jones' voice?

That must have been in the 50s right?

I'm afraid the perception that women's voices were too high was still very widespread in the 1970s. When Angela Rippon was hired to read the BBC news, there was a lot of debate about whether viewers would be willing to listen to a female voice.

That's a really interesting article Nojeansplease !

The author does cover a lot more than fry - referring to "croaky" and "creaky" voice too. It is a tricky area because there is not complete consensus on vocal quality descriptors.

Vocal fry is literally the sound of food frying in a frying pan.

That is why is it called "fry" (rather than any of the many other meanings of "fry", like small fish or testicles, although you can fry both!)

There are other "creaky" sounds that are not usually referred to as "fry" - it normally refers to a very specific vocal feature, eg.
ncvs.org/e-learning/tutorials/qualities.html

Fry need not be a "forced" sound and can be completely natural for the speaker. Other times, as mentioned in the article linked by Nojeansplease, it can constitute "vocal abuse" and lead to voice problems:
theconversation.com/keep-an-eye-on-vocal-fry-its-all-about-power-status-and-gender-45883

Lower pitched voice (not necessarily including vocal fry) is perceived as "authoritative". Bigger people tend to have deeper voices and bigger people tend to be male. Testosterone also adapts the larynx to produce lower pitch sounds and males tend to have larger resonating cavities which amplify lower frequencies.

Both men and women who try to force a lower pitched voice can end up with "Bogart-Bacall Syndrome":
www.voiceinstituteofnewyork.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/bogart-bacall-syndrome1.pdf

Slower speech rate and greater fluency are also associated with "authoritativeness".

If there are known "power differences" between speakers and the "less powerful" person speaks in a way that is perceived as "acoustically authoritative" (ie. not the words used) then an onlooker will tend to view the less powerful person as "cheeky", ie. speaking "above their station" relatively.

Typical differences between male and female speech, eg. vocal quality, intonation:
uiowa.edu/voice-academy/male-female-voices

Women's voices differ perceptibly during the menstrual cycle and are rated as "more attractive" at times of highest fertility. Experiments to test this had women record themselves reading the numbers 1 to 10 every day and these recordings were rated by men for "attractiveness".
www.researchgate.net/publication/332673890_Fertility-Dependent_Acoustic_Variation_in_Women's_Voices_Previously_Shown_to_Affect_Listener_Physiology_and_Perception

(I haven't checked for research into whether or not "attractive" vocal qualities and ratings linked to fertility in the menstrual cycle are culturally bound. I seem to remember, maybe on Mumsnet, some women being angry about research like this as objectifying women. It does not bother me. Humans are animals. To me it is no different to studying differences in the characteristics of sounds that other animals make and whether or not they have a role in signalling fertility.)

"Vocal habits" are learned so they often "run in families" or are "cultural" so a "typical" female voice in one place will be different to another. There can also be deliberate or unconscious mimicry of role models.

Individuals differ in how much or how little their speech and voices are influenced by others, eg. some people retain their accents strongly, others easily and unintentionally mirror the accents of others. The same applies to vocal quality. "Communication Accommodation Theory":
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_accommodation_theory

Voice quality in women considered using Communication Accommodation Theory is something I find fascinating. I was lucky to be in the right place at the right time to be involved in some early "Speech Accommodation Theory" research, looking at speech rate and fluency in men. I did not have the chance to look at what really intrigued me, which was vocal quality in women.

This is just another way to hate on women isn't it. Also, as previously mentioned, it is the throat constricting, often as a result of anxiety or nervousness- so it's basically hating on insecure women.

I'm afraid the perception that women's voices were too high was still very widespread in the 1970s.

Even now criticisms about ‘irritating’ and ‘grating’ voices are made about women sports commentators, especially if they have the temerity to be talking about men’s matches. Of course, there are compliments too but negative comments about their voice tone or accents are predictably commonplace.

I understand that vocal fry isn’t meant to be very good for the vocal chords but I dislike attempts to police women’s voices.

I understand that vocal fry isn’t meant to be very good for the vocal chords but I dislike attempts to police women’s voices.

And on a so called feminist board too. There are some horrible posts on this thread.

I find vocal fry vaguely irritating in the same way as any other vocal affectation, but in the sense that it's a trend associated with young women and teen girls, if you compare it to trends associated with young men and teen boys it's pretty obvious that it's a. really very benign and b. only being castigated because it is associated with young women.

Also WTF was that post about women with deep singing voices who're successful being "fat, ugly, or lesbians"? Along with the contempt expressed towards women with more conventionally feminine voices in the same post I'd suggest that a little examination of one's internalized misogyny might be in order.

I can think of quite a few deeper female singing voices that I like. Other than those already mentioned I love Melissa Etheridge. I do agree that often female singers end up singing out of their tessitura range because the music industry thinks it's what the public wants (a friend of mine dug up a video of the Japanese pop star Utada Hikaru singing in what's clearly her natural range and she sounded so much better than she usually does, so there's one example of a mezzo soprano who usually sings in the soprano range because it's what the market is deemed to want).

I feel like it's similar if not completely the same as the sound Iliza takes off in her comedy

Vocal fry isn't a deep voice. It's the "bored" sound where your sentence or words tail off into a gravelly tortured sound.

It really annoys me. Because it sounds really affected.

I have a fairly deep voice, sometimes soft but sometimes I can call a child from one end of the playground to another. I don't think it's unfeminine but I also don't really care.

I don't see vocal fry being annoying as being unfeminist. It just makes me think the speaker is drawling in a way to signal they don't give a shit or aren't committed to what they are saying.

i once heard people who use VC alot described as "poor mans darias" remember that cartoon from the 90s? possibly not the most complementary but quite funny and accurate.

RoyalCorgi
I remember the criticism of Angela Rippon being the first UK newsreader. Oh how women cannot possibly read the news as newsreading is a serious business.(groan)
My then, teenage self thought it was quite a bizarre thing to say.
You hear the same said about female football commentators.

People who choose to change their way of speaking, often do so to gain a social advantage.
No surprise that any woman would want to explore this.

Vocal fry is not per se an "affectation", need not be the result of "throat constriction" due to anxiety, need not lead to damage to the voice and is not confined to a gravelly sound tailing off an utterance if someone is bored or wants to appear bored.

Some of the ways it is being described are as if it is the vocal equivalent of nonchalantly and superciliously blowing smoke in someone's face.

What you seem to be describing Huntlybyelection is a "vocal tic" or non-verbal vocal gesture that happens to include some vocal fry. Not vocal fry per se as a voice quality. It seems as if people might be talking about different things - unless it is just me who has got the wrong end of the stick!

The article linked by the OP suggested that it was vocal fry in general that was being discussed. It might have become "fashionable" but do PP find it irritating because of how it sounds or because of who has "popularised" it? Kim Kardashian was mentioned - I have no idea what she sounds like.

If woman are deliberately adopting a lower-register speaking voice, forcing a "dropped larynx" with increased muscle tension then vocal fry can be a by-product rather than the aim.

The same applies to men. Typical jobs that result in men damaging their voices because they try to adopt a deeper, more authoritative voice: barristers, priests, rabbis.

It is much less common for a woman to damage her voice due to adopting a lower than natural register - natural for her, not for women in general.

Women's voices are far more often "pathologised" than men's and women are far more likely than men to be pathologised for the sound of their voices. They present for therapy when there is absolutely nothing wrong with their voices but someone has made fun of them or slurred them, they are shamed and humiliated and think something is wrong with them.

Women's voices are naturally much more "musical" than men's, more expressive with a wider pitch range and greater use of intonation to express meaning. A woman's voice does not have to be deeper than usual for her to be singled out and "diagnosed" by others as having something "wrong" with her, medically, morally or ideologically.

It can just deviate by being less varied in intonation and stuck in the mid-range (is she boring?? is she bored?? is she depressed?? is she autistic??) or higher range (is she hysterical?? is she over excited??) or the low range (is she threatening?? is she angry?? is she sullen??).

Most people are very good at picking up cues from the sound of someone's voice and that can be a great aid to empathy. Or it can be turned against someone.

There have been some brilliant women speakers at events over the past couple of years, at meetings discussing women's rights and the GRA. Many of them have what might be characterised as "girly" voices. Some might decide that that indicates they must be air-heads but I would hope that most women here would not have such stereotypical ideas about how a woman "should" sound.

I have to say that I have been gobsmacked by some of the negative, judgemental comments in this thread on a Feminist board.

Most women's voices sound the way that they do because of their individual anatomy and environment, not due to affectation. A "raspy" voice might be "natural" because her mother spoke like that, or she works in a dusty environment or a call centre. To suggest that it is all "affectation" and "irritating" is like having a dig at women for the shape and size of their breasts or their teeth.

For my own part, my voice is naturally deep for a woman. I went through the humiliation of not being allowed to sing at school, sent to sit on the sidelines with the couple of boys whose voices were breaking early.

I always loved singing but would only dare sing if I was alone. I was in my fifties before a friend who was a trained singer overheard me, said that he thought my voice had a good "tone" and potential and encouraged me. I now perform in public regularly and have been recorded. (it's never too late to do something that you love!)

I also prefer female voices on Sat Nav. As mentioned above, the higher register cuts though engine noise better. I also don't like a man as a back seat driver!

"If you listen to female recording artists, most of them are soprano. There's a handful of altos, and they're usually fat, ugly, or lesbians. (The three cardinal sins). "
The speaker here is obviously (although perhaps not so obvious since so many missed it!) refering to others sexism/homophobia, not their own. Being alto seen as improper and unfeminine, not womaning properly, just as are being 'fat, ugly, or lesbian'.
Interesting take from an old friend who was severely hearing impaired -- not the sound of Annie Lennox, but how 'male' her body language was. Watching old films also fascinating, how females have constantly tried to adapt how we sound, just as we adapted how we clothed ourselves, and how we moved and sat, smiled and spoke.

The speaker here isobviously(although perhaps not so obvious since so many missed it!) refering to others sexism/homophobia, not their own. Being alto seen as improper and unfeminine, not womaning properly, just as are being 'fat, ugly, or lesbian'

Seen by whom ? I listed a small selection of famous , commercially and critically successful women. I could have named plenty of others.

I don't believe for one minute they were viewed as "ugly, fat or lesbian" or that altos are seen as "improper" or "unfeminine"

That is a ridiculous over- egging to suit someone's personal agenda.

I think saying that vocal fry can be quite natural for some speakers ignores that it's also a trend. I think it's close to equivalent to Valley-Girl speech really, it seems to belong to a similar demographic and I think the associations are very similar - extroverted, concerned with social machinations, fashion, etc. (It always reminds me of Sweet Valley High novels, which probably dates me.)

There has been a big trend for lower women's pop voices in the last few years, lots of wanna be Adele's and Amy Winehouses.

I only really heard it recently. I read something about it then there was someone on the radio talking as if they were a wet dog (a bit like Scooby Doo really).

I couldn't stop laughing - it was a serious interview (not about voices ar anything) but they sounded so unsure, nervous (even though they were an authority on something or other) and a wee bit spaced out.