Indie-Pop Voice: How a Pharyngeal/Retracted Articulatory Setting May Be Driving a New Singing Style
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Different genres of singing may be characterized in part by singers’ articulatory settings (Gick et al., 2004; Bateman,2003; Nair, Nair & Reishofer, 2016). Bateman (2003, p. 122), for example, notes that pop singing is often characterized by horizontal expansion and vertical compression of the lips, while jazz uses labial protrusion. The articulatory settings associated with a given singing style are known to have noticeable, systemic effects on the acoustics of the singer’s pronunciation (e.g. Ophaug, 2010). Recently, a new singing quality has emerged, sometimes called “indie-pop voice” (e.g. Ugwu, 2015). Initial popular descriptions focused on characteristic vowel pronunciations and unusual front-rising diphthongs, usually before coronal consonants. Careful observation suggests that, while the details and degree of these characteristics vary from artist to artist, they have in common a pervasive pharyngeal voice quality. We consider the possibility that a distinctive articulatory setting is used by “indie-pop”singers, which may be responsible for the observed effects on sung pronunciation. For the present study, we selected 8 contemporary pop artists, and took spectral measurements of the vowels from their successful songs, and from spoken interviews. Preliminary results reveal a high F1 across the “indie-pop" vowel space (particularily the front vowels), a strong correlate of pharyngealization. We also observed lower F2 in most vowels (particularily high-back), a correlate of retracted tongue-root (Aralova, 2011). Low-back vowels were exceptions to this, possibly because an articulatory setting with retracted tongue could be redundant with the low tongue position inherent to these vowels. Global tongue retraction may also explain the unusual diphthongs: the greater distance between the tongue’s vocalic position and a coronal target for the following consonant could lead to an audible transition. References Aralova, N., Grawunder, S., & Winter, B. (2011). The acoustic correlates of tongue root vowel harmony in Even (Tungusic). In Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS XVII) (pp. 240-243). Bateman, L. A. (2003). Soprano, Style and Voice Quality: Acoustic and Laryngographic Correlates. M.A. Thesis. University of Victoria. Clements, G. N. (2015). The hierarchical representation of vowel height. Features in Phonology and Phonetics: Posthumous Writings by Nick Clements and Coauthors, 21, 25. Gick, B., Wilson, I., Koch, K., & Cook, C. (2005). Language-specific articulatory settings: Evidence from inter-utterance rest position. Phonetica, 61(4), 220-233. Gick, B. (1999). A gesture-based account of intrusive consonants in English. Phonology, 16(01), 29-54. Nair, A., Nair, G., & Reishofer, G. (2016). The low mandible maneuver and its resonential implications for elite singers. Journal of Voice, 30(1), 128-e13. Ophaug, W. (2010). Sangfonetikk En innføring. Bergen: Fagboklaget. Ugwu, Reggie (2015). Selena Gomez’s “Good For You” And The Rise Of “Indie Pop Voice.” Buzzfeed.com. https://www.buzzfeed.com/reggieugwu/what-is-indie-pop-voice?utm_term=.qgvJ2GqJB#.buLX98zXp
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".