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!

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?

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?