Kate’sVoice

Vocal image is the synthesis of rhythm, pitch, tone, volume and the inflection of a voice.  Your vocal image sends a message separate from your words.  We all saw this in the campaigns this year whether we were aware of it or not.  The vocal image of the candidates had the power to contribute to or detract from their credibility.  Vocal image makes wordless statements about  character,emotional state, economic status, education, age gender and lots more.  If we define vocal image as “the overall picture that people get of you from the sound of your voice,” then what pictures were painted of the potential President?  What did we expect of each because of the vocal image they created?

In an article in the Cristian Science Monitor from July,  Ariel Sabar said this about the vocal images of the two final candidates for president:”McCain is the blunt-spoken platoon leader, briefing soldiers for battle.  Senator Obama is the evangelist,    calling out from the hilltop.  McCain levels.  Obama transcends.  McCain is straight talk,  Obama great talk.”

As much as the two men represent different ideas and ideals, they also create two very different images of a leader through their vocal images.  My sincere hope today is that our President-elect is a great leader, that he takes us all to new heights of glory as a nation and as a planet, that together we transcend these difficult times, and that his great talk will be much more than just talk!

Recently, I read a post on a blog about the sound of Palin’s voice.  The blogger described her voice as sounding like “Minnie Mouse.” (It’s posted by Disgustedwithrepublicans on  McCainSucks.“)  This to me is a great example of what I discussed earlier in the year regarding the sound of voices and politics. The sound of a politician’s voice does matter more than we might think!

However, I want to comment a bit further on this.  You see, I think that as women vie for the most powerful offices in the country,  they also have to deal with the fact that to most ears, a woman’s voice does not sound as powerful as a man’s.  And I don’t think we want to admit that.  Therefore, what many women in politics try to do is to lower their voices, or make them more monotone.  This in fact, only makes them sound like a woman trying to sound like a man (though this is NOT the case with Sarah Palin).  Instead, women politicians need to find the strength in their own natural voices.  (And yes, they probably need voice coaches to do that…Hillary, I’d be happy to help!) Then, we as the voters and public, need to get used to hearing women speak in politics and accept that the world has changed and women are going to run the country one day, whether we like the way they sound or not.

Just for grins, the next time you listen to the candidates debating, count the “ums” and other filler words used by each (you may have to watch the debates on You Tube later if you want to actually pay attention to what they say).  Filler words are such phrases as “you know,” and words such as “um,” “er” and even “like.”  They are usually used when someone is uncomfortable with the silence, therefore they fill it…hence the term “filler words.”  They are generally unnecessary and a sure sign of nerves or unconscious speech patterns.  They tend to detract from what is being said, and public speakers generally try to avoid them.  How do they do this?  Mostly, they do this through conscious awareness of them and training themselves to be quiet rather than use a filler word.  But I’d be curious to know: How do YOU avoid using filler words?

When I did a Google search on Obama’s baritone, I got 19,600,000 results. Clearly, there is a lot of  interest in his voice as part of his success.  His prowess as a speaker is even accepted by the opposition. In fact, the latest research seems to indicate that, if the election results are determined by the two candidates’ oration skills, Obama will win, hands down.  This new study, published by the Vox Institute in Geneva, studied both candidates from the perspective of researchers on speech-communication and emotion-psychology.  The study revealed that even though Senator Obama seems to have a permanent look of anxiety on his face (and who wouldn’t if they were signing up for the job of President of the United States?!), McCain’s lack of emotion in both his face and his voice tell us that McCain is weaker than Obama. Add that to the general consensus that a rich, baritone voice is about the best one to have, and the study seems to suggest that we will be singing hail to Obama the chief!

In another study, researchers at Kent State  discovered in 2002 a component of speech that they said was a guaranteed predictor of success for presidential debates.  The study analyzed the voices of presidential candidates in debates since 1960.  They found an aspect of speech that they called a “hum,” in this case an ability to keep your voice steadfast.  You see, they found that people tend to alter their delivery style when they are unsure of themselves, or when they perceive the other speaker(s) as having more authority.  Those candidates in the debates who kept their voices steadfast always won the most votes.

So what does this mean to the voter?  Clearly, it confirms that the voice is a powerful tool and being a good communicator is important and that a great orator has the ability to sway us just with the sound of his or her voice.  Therefore,  before going to the polls, we have to be sure to look beyond a candidates’ voice and hear what they are actually saying.  What is their intention, besides winning?  Do their words, plans and promises align with their intention?  THEN we can evaluate whether or not both align with the sound of their voice and their delivery style, and with our own values and beliefs.

Now, I have a confession.  I may not pay attention to my own advice, as I am biased.  I think it would be wonderful to be represented on the world stage by someone with a beautiful voice again!!

With the conventions about to get underway, it is fascinating to consider the many influences over who we choose for our elected officials.  In this case, I am specifically wondering if we choose them by what they say or HOW they say it.  In a well-known study by Dr. Albert Mehrabian at UCLA in the 1970’s, it was learned that content is only responsible for 7% of a speaker’s appeal.  A whopping 93% of our opinion of a speaker is based on the sound of their voice and other related physical factors.

What is even more interesting to me is that what we consider appealing changes over time, just as fashions do.  Today, we like voices that sound real rather than cultivated, although it is true that ALL voice s are cultivated…but more on that later. As opposed to the time of the great orators like FDR, today we don’t even mind if our politicians make grammatical errors.  In fact, to us, it makes them seem more real.  We think we can relate better to people who make mistakes.  That being said, we sure don’t want them to  make mistakes when it comes to policy decisions!!

When you listen to the conventions, keep this in mind:  Do you like what they say, or how they say it, or both?