Eidsheim Race of Sound

The Race of Sound
Listening, Timbre & Vocalit y

in African American Music Nina Sun Eidsheim
Refiguring American Music
A series edited by Ronald Radano, Josh Kun, and Nina Sun Eidsheim
Charles McGovern, contributing editor
The Race of Sound
Listening, Timbre, and Vocality
in African American Music Nina Sun Eidsheim
Duke University Press Durham and London 2019

© 2019 Nina Sun Eidsheim
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper ∞
Designed by Courtney Leigh Baker and
typeset in Garamond Premier Pro by Copperline Book Services
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Title: The race of sound : listening, timbre, and vocality
in African American music / Nina Sun Eidsheim.
Description: Durham : Duke University Press, 2018. | Series: Refiguring
American music | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: lccn 2018022952 (print) | lccn 2018035119 (ebook) |
isbn 9780822372646 (ebook) | isbn 9780822368564
(hardcover : alk. paper) | isbn 9780822368687 (pbk. : alk. paper)
Subjects: lcsh: African Americans—Music—Social aspects.
| Music and race—United States. | Voice culture—Social aspects—
United States. | Tone color (Music)—Social aspects—United States.
| Music—Social aspects—United States. | Singing—Social aspects—
United States. | Anderson, Marian, 1897–1993. | Holiday, Billie,
1915–1959. | Scott, Jimmy, 1925–2014. | Vocaloid (Computer file)
Classification: lcc ml3917.u6 (ebook) | lcc ml3917.u6 e35 2018
(print) | ddc 781.2/308996073—dc23
lc record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018022952
Cover art: Nick Cave, Soundsuit, 2017. © Nick Cave.

Photo by James Prinz Photography. Courtesy of the artist
and Jack Shainman Gallery, New York.
This title is freely available in an open access edition thanks

to generous support from the ucla Library.
This book is published under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-

NoDerivs 3.0 United States (cc by-nc-nd 3.0 us) License, available at
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/.
“No derivatives” as defined in this license prohibits abridgment or condensation.

This means that the license applies only to use of the entire work, with requests to
Duke University Press required for use of any portions of the work rather than the work as
a whole, because for uses of less than the whole work third-party rights may be involved. Use
of any part of the work, rather than the work as a whole, without explicit written permission
constitutes an impermissible abridgment or condensation. Any reuse of the work as
a whole must state this clarification, along with notice that the reuse is done
under the cc by-nc-nd 3.0 us license.
To Julie
This is a call to enhance love, but not just private love. This is a call to
enhance public love — justice. This is a call to intentionally support
the creation of structures informed by and informing our sense of so-
cial justice and spirituality. This is a call to become responsible for the
institutional structures we inhabit and that inhabit us. This is a call
for self- and world-making and for the bridge between them, as well as
recognition that the world is deeply spiritual even at its most secular. It
is a call to create and live the predicate for a beloved community.
— john a. powell, Racing to Justice
Widening Circles
I live my life in widening circles
that reach out across the world.
I may not complete this last one
but I give myself to it.
I circle around God, around the primordial tower.
I’ve been circling for thousands of years
and I still don’t know: am I a falcon,
a storm, or a great song?
— Rainer Maria Rilke, Book of Hours
Contents
Acknowledgments • xi
Introduction. The Acousmatic Question:

Who Is This? • 1
1 Formal and Informal Pedagogies

Believing in Race, Teaching Race, Hearing Race • 39
2 Phantom Genealogy
Sonic Blackness and the American Operatic Timbre • 61
3 Familiarity as Strangeness
Jimmy Scott and the Question of Black Timbral Masculinity • 91
4 Race as Zeros and Ones

Vocaloid Refused, Reimagined, and Repurposed • 115
5 Bifurcated Listening
The Inimitable, Imitated Billie Holiday • 151
6 Widening Rings of Being

The Singer as Stylist and Technician • 177
Appendix • 201 Notes • 205 Bibliography • 243 Index • 259

Acknowledgments
The idea at the core of the themes and topics with which I have wrestled in this
book has been my companion since I was a teenager — but these themes came
into sharper relief after I moved from Norway to the United States, where I ex-
perienced race as an insider to some communities and as an outsider to others.
This change of location and culture also afforded me a clearer view of the lis-
tening practices of the culture in which I was brought up. A term coined by
Mendi Obadike, “acousmatic blackness,” crystallized the many questions that
arose from these observations regarding vocal and listening practice. Since I
first encountered it in 2005, I’ve continuously meditated on and worked with
acousmatic blackness as a concept and as an analytical framework. In addition
to Obadike’s teachings, many interlocutors along the way have helped me work
through them at whichever stage I found myself in our respective encounters.
Even with the fear of omitting some, I still wish to name them.
First, many thanks to my editor, Ken Wissoker, for his editorial vision
and for truly understanding and trusting in my work. To Jade Brooks, Judith
Hoover, Olivia Polk, Christopher Robinson, Liz Smith, and the entire Duke
University Press production team, for steering this manuscript through the
production process. And to the three anonymous readers for their tremendous
efforts in reviewing the manuscript. I cannot thank you enough for your gener-
osity and for the depth of your intellectual exchanges with this work.
Thank you to my ucla colleague Jody Kreiman, professor of head and neck
surgery and linguistics, for countless conversations over the past five years, for
coteaching with me two graduate seminars related to voice, and for collaborat-
ing on some of the research for chapter 3.
I was fortunate to have a very special research assistant for all things Voca-
loid. Katie Forgy was an expert guide, bringing me up to speed in a world with
which I was unfamiliar; she also provided technical expertise. Her interest in
the topic reignited mine! Gabriel Lee and David Utzinger worked with me on
designing figures and music examples, respectively, and they executed all things
technical in that area. Alexandra Apolloni and Schuyler Whelden offered de-
tailed suggestions on the entire manuscript.
Special thanks to past and present colleagues in the Department of Mu-
sicology at the University of California, Los Angeles: Olivia Bloechl, Robert
Fink, Mark Kligman, Raymond Knapp, Elisabeth Le Guin, David MacFayden,
Mitchell Morris, Tamara Levitz, Jessica Schwartz, Shana Redmond, and Eliza-
beth Upton; and to graduate students at ucla and beyond (especially Robbie
Beahrs, Jacob Johnson, Ryan Koons, Joanna Love, Tiffany Naiman, Caitlin
Marshall, Helen Rowen, David Utzinger, Schuyler Whelden, Helga Zambrano;
and to Alexandra Apolloni, Monica Chieffo, Mike D’Errico, Breena Loraine,
and Jillian Rogers for working closely with me on multiple projects). Thanks
are also due to the exceptional ucla Council of Advisors, Joseph Bristow and
Anastasia Loukaitous-Sideris; Deans David Schaberg and Judi Smith; Associ-
ate Dean for Diversity and Inclusion Maite Zubiaurre; and Lauren Na, Reem
Hanna-Harwell, and Barbara van Nostrand and the rest of the humanities ad-
ministrative group and the Herb Alpert School of Music staff, who together
make everything possible.
For generously engaging me in conversation and sharing resources at critical
junctures, I thank Shane Butler, Faedra Carpenter, Hyun Hannah Kyong
Chang, Suzanne Cusick, J. Martin Daughtry, Joanna Demers, Emily Dolan,
Ryan Dohoney, Tor Dyrbo, Veit Erlman, David Gutkin, Stan Hawkins, David
Howes, Vijay Iyer, Brandon LaBelle, Douglas Kahn, Brian Kane, Jody Krei-
man, Josh Kun, Alejandro Madrid, Susan McClary, Katherine Meizel, Mara
Mills, Matthew Morrison, Jamie Niesbet, Marina Peterson, Benjamin Piekut,
Matthew Rahaim, Alexander Rehding, Ronald Radano, Juliana Snapper, Ja-
son Stanyek, Kira Thurman, Alexander Weheliye, Amanda Weidman, Zachary
Wallmark, Rachel Beckles Willson, and Deborah Wong.
Special thanks to Jann Pasler, George Lewis, Wadada Leo Smith, John Shep-
herd, Miller Puckette, Adriene Jenik, George Lipsitz, Deborah Wong, Andy
Fry, Steven Schick, and Eula Biss, who first helped me to critically articulate
the kernels of the ideas with which I grapple herein.
To Daphne A. Brooks for inviting me to be part of the Black Sound and the
Archive working group at Yale, and, earlier, the Black Feminist Sonic Studies
Group at Princeton, and to its stellar lineup of Farah Jasmine Griffin, Emily
Lordi, Mendi Obadike, Imani Perry, Salamishah Tillet, and Gayle Wald; to my
co-convener, Annette Schlichter, and members of the University of California
multicampus research group Keys to Voice Studies: Terminology, Methodol-
ogy, and Questions across Disciplines (especially Theresa Allison, Christine
xii • acknowledgments
Bacareza Balance, Robbie Beahrs, Shane Butler, Julene Johnson, Patricia Keat-
ing, Sarah Kessler, Peter Krapp, Jody Kreiman, Caitlin Marshall, Miller Puck-
ette, Annelie Rugg, Mary Ann Smart, James Steintrager, and Carole-Anne Ty-
ler); to the uc Humanities Research Center residency research group Vocal
Matters: Technologies of Self and the Materiality of Voice (my co-convener An-
nette Schlichter and participants Jonathan Alexander, David Kasunic, Kath-
erine Kinney, Caitlin Marshall, and Carole-Anne Tyler); to the Cornell Uni-
versity Society for the Humanities (Brandon LaBelle, Norie Neumark, Emily
Thompson, Marcus Boon, Jeannette S. Jouili, Damien Keane, Eric Lott, Jona-
than Skinner, Jennifer Stoever-Ackerman, Duane Corpis, Ziad Fahmy, Roger
Moseley, Trevor Pinch, Sarah Ensor, Nicholás Knouf, Miloje Despic, Michael
Jonik, James Nisbet, Brian Hanrahan, Eliot Bates); and to participants invited
to the symposium Vocal Matters: Embodied Subjectivities and the Materiality
of Voice (Joseph Auner, Charles Hirschkind, Mara Mills, Jason Stanyek, Jona-
than Sterne, and Alexander Weheliye) — thank you!
Many of the ideas herein were first presented in talks and roundtable discus-
sions. I thank all of those who have engaged me in questions and conversation.
For the invitation to speak about the ideas developed in this book, I thank
Juliana Pistorius and Jason Stanyek at Oxford University; Ryan Doheney and
Hans Thomalla at Northwestern University School of Music; Stan Hawkins
and the University of Oslo and Tormod W. Anundsen at University of Agder,
Kristiansand; graduate students at Indiana University; Zeynep Bulut and the
ici Berlin Institute for Critical Inquiry; Daphne Brooks and the Princeton
Center for African American Studies; Dylan Robinson, Robbie Beahrs, and
Benjamin Brinner at the uc Berkeley Department of Music; Martha Feldman
and David Levin at the University of Chicago Neubauer Collegium for Culture
and Society; Konstantinos Thomaidis and Ben Macpherson at the Centre for
Interdisciplinary Voice Studies; the Society for Ethnomusicology; the Ameri-
can Musicological Society; and the International Conference Crossroads in
Cultural Studies.
I extend a special category of gratefulness to the amazing writing communi-
ties of which I am part. For sustenance, sanguine advice, and good laughs my
thanks goes to Sara, Muriel, Katherine, Leslie, Juliana, Lauri, Jessica, Julie, Ray,
Sherie, David, Tracy, Kathy, Emily, Tavishi, and Jørgen.
Thanks to family and friends near and far for continued patience as I con-
stantly seem to be in the process of finishing a book and don’t take enough time
to play.
I extend gratitude to Luisfer for patience beyond measure, for good laughs,
and for always taking care of our family with a light touch. To Nicolás, the
acknowledgments • xiii
greatest teacher — who, at four years old, in response to my question about how
he sings beautiful tones, pontificates, “I feel them with my heart, and my brain
tells my voice how to make them.”
I dedicate this book to my luminous friend Julie. Julie and I have spent
countless hours writing in each other’s company. With her, I have shared many
intimate musings on work and life. I also dedicate this book to William and
Tildy. William has talked through all of these ideas with me — I thank him for
that. My beautiful friend Tildy has read and commented on practically every
sentence I’ve ever published — her patience and friendship are legendary.
Much earlier forms of parts of this book have appeared elsewhere: “The Mi-
cropolitics of Listening to Vocal Timbre,” Postmodern Culture 24, no. 3; “Voice
as Action: Towards a Model for Analyzing the Dynamic Construction of Ra-
cialized Voice,” Current Musicology 93, no. 1 (2012): 9 – 34; “Marian Anderson
and ‘Sonic Blackness’ in American Opera,” American Quarterly 63, no. 3 (2011):
641 – 71; “Synthesizing Race: Towards an Analysis of the Performativity of Vo-
cal Timbre,” trans-Transcultural Music Review 13, no. 7 (2009); “Race and
the Aesthetics of Vocal Timbre,” in Rethinking Difference in Music Scholarship,
edited by Olivia Bloechl, Jeffrey Kallberg, and Melanie Lowe (New York: Cam-
bridge University Press, 2015), 338 – 65.
For permission to reproduce images, I thank the Marian Anderson Col-
lection, Rare Book and Manuscript Library, University of Pennsylvania, and
cmg Worldwide.com; the Library of Birmingham; Misha; Robert Gillam;
Vanmark; Don Hunstein / Sony Music Entertainment; Sara Krulwich / The
New York Times / Redux; the Lincoln Center.
Additional research support was awarded by the ucla Council of Re-
search Grant; uc Institute for Research in the Arts Performance Practice and
Arts Grant; ucla Research Enabling Grant; Miles Levin Essay award at the
Mannes Institute on Musical Aesthetics; the ucla Center for the Study of
Women’s Faculty Research Grant; the Woodrow Wilson– Mellon Founda-
tion; the Department of Musicology and the Herb Alpert School of Music,
ucla; the Office of the Dean of Humanities, ucla; the American Council
of Learned Societies’ Charles A. Ryskamp Research Fellowship; and the uc
President’s Faculty Research Fellowship in the Humanities.
xiv • acknowledgments
Introduction
The Acousmatic Question

Who Is This?
Juliet: My ears have not yet drunk a hundred words

Of that tongue’s uttering, yet I know the sound.
Art thou not Romeo, and a Montague?
— William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, act 2, scene 2
Unwanted visitor : I don’t much like the tone of your voice.
— Monty Python’s Flying Circus, season 1, episode 9
The second voice that you heard
sounded like the voice of a black man; is that correct?
— California v. O.J. Simpson (1995)
President Obama is “talk[ing] white.”
— Ralph Nader to the Rocky Mountain News, 2008
Whether the vocalizer is heard over the radio or the phone, as part of a movie
soundtrack or in person — positioned far away and therefore hard to see or
speaking right in front of the listener — the foundational question asked in the
act of listening to a human voice is Who is this? Who is speaking? Regardless
of whether the vocalizer is visible or invisible to the listener, we are called into
positing this most basic question — a question of an acousmatic nature.
The specific term, originally connected with the concept of musique acous-
matique, originates with Pierre Schaeffer. Deriving the term’s root from an
ancient Greek legend that described Pythagoras’s disciples listening to him
through a curtain, Schaeffer defined it as “acousmatic, adjective: referring to
a sound that one hears without seeing the causes behind it.”1 Originating with
an electronic music composer, the term contains an assumption about the par-
ticular affordances of a particular historical-technical moment. That moment
arrived with the introduction of recording technology, which made it possible
to sever the link between a sound and its source. In playing back the recorded
sound, the source did not need to be present or active. Famously, Victor Re-
cords’ iconic logo showed a loyal dog desperately seeking the source of “his
master’s voice” (as the original painting was titled), even as the master lay dead
in the casket upon which the dog sat.2 While the acousmatic has been explic-
itly theorized in relation to the advent of recording and telephonic technology,
scholars have even traced the phenomenon of the division between sound and
source to ancient times, when tension was created by the unavailability of the
source to the listener.3
While the circumstances of the severing of sound and source vary, the impe-
tus behind asking the question is the same: the acousmatic question arises from
the assumption that, in asking, it is possible to elicit an answer. It is assumed
that if I listen carefully to a sound — in the absence of a visually presented or
otherwise known source — I should be able to identify a source, and that any
limitations are due to inexperience or ignorance. For instance, through atten-
tive and informed listening, I should be able to know a lot about the vocalizer,
and possibly about his or her identity. If I do not already know the person,
I should still be able to glean general information about him or her — from
broader identity markers to fine-grained assessments regarding health, mood,
or emotional state — and discern the speaker’s attempts to falsely communicate
emotions or truth statements, or even to speak as another through imitation or
impersonation.4
In the context of the human voice, this assumption about the possibility of
knowing sound in the first place extends to a second assumption: that it is pos-
sible to know a person. The acousmatic situation arises from the assumption
that voice and sound are of an a priori stable nature and that we can identify
degrees of fidelity to and divergence from this state. This position is grounded
in a belief — and truth claims — about the voice as a cue to interiority, essence,
and unmediated identity.5
We assume that when we ask the acousmatic question we will learn some-
thing about an individual. We assume that when we ask the acousmatic ques-
tion we inquire about the essential nature of a person. The premise of the acous-
2 • introduction
matic question is that voice is stable and knowable. As Joanna Demers describes
the act of reduced listening within an electronic music context, where we aim
to hear the sound of a creaking door without associating that sound with the
actual door, “Schaeffer starts from the point that we must already know,” and
so the goal in reduced listening is to “ignore what we know.”6
In contrast to Schaeffer’s position, I posit that the reason we ask Who is this?
when we listen to voices is precisely that we cannot know the answer to that
question. In this book I will argue that we ask that very question not because a
possible ontology of vocal uniqueness will deliver us to the doorstep of an an-
swer but because of voice’s inability to be unique and yield precise answers. In
Adriana Cavarero’s classic formulation, a human voice is “a unique voice that
signifies nothing but itself.”7 For Cavarero, a humanist, the voice is “the vital
and unrepeatable uniqueness of every human being.”8 Building on a story by
Italo Calvino about an eavesdropping monarch, in which hearing a single and
unrepeatable voice changes the king’s relationship to the world, Cavarero poses
a challenge for herself and her readers. “This challenge . . . consists in think-
ing of the relationship between voice and speech as one of uniqueness, that
although it resounds first of all in the voice that is not speech, also continues
to resound in the speech to which the human voice is constitutively destined.”9
While I am extremely sympathetic to the project of listening intently as a hu-
manizing endeavor, in contrast to Cavarero and Calvino’s king, what I identify
as listening through the acousmatic question arises from the impossibility that the
question will yield a firm answer. Therefore, despite common assumptions, we
don’t ask the acousmatic question — Who is this? — because voice can be known
and we may unequivocally arrive at a correct answer. We think that we already
know, but in fact we know very little. We ask the question because voice and vo-
cal identity are not situated at a unified locus that can be unilaterally identified.
We ask the acousmatic question because it is not possible to know voice, vocal
identity, and meaning as such; we can know them only in their multidimen-
sional, always unfolding processes and practices, indeed in their multiplicities.
This fundamental instability is why we keep asking the acousmatic question.
Therefore the question’s impetus is counterintuitive. In the face of common
sense, the key to the question does not lie in its ability to produce a reliable
answer when asked. Its import lies in the contradiction that it cannot fully be
answered — and thus must be continuously pursued. In the totality of the chain
of impossible-to-answer questions, we find our response.
The Acousmatic Question • 3

Voice, Timbre, Definitions
Part of the reason many definitions of voice fail to capture its nuance is that the
voice is a complex event that, in addition to its myriad acoustic signals, consists
of action, material, and social dynamics.10 Voice’s complexity, and the social and
cultural fabrics within which both voice and listening are formed, remain un-
derexamined. Thus, while they do not provide access to a stable essence, voice-
based assessments regarding race result in a number of discriminatory evalua-
tions and acts. They are used in court cases, as the epigraph from the California
v. Simpson case exemplifies. Potential renters who telephone regarding adver-
tised rentals are at a disadvantage if they are perceived as nonwhite.11 Similarly
there is historical precedent for expectations regarding singers’ ethnic or racial
backgrounds in relation to musical genre, vocal ability, and vocal sound. With a
growing group of scholars, I seek to create awareness of timbral discrimination
in the same way that consciousness has been raised around, for instance, skin
color and hair texture.
While I consider my scholarly coming of age to have begun with readings in
American, African American, gender, popular culture, and postcolonial stud-
ies, my background and expertise lie in experimental music, music theory, vocal
performance and pedagogy, and voice studies.12 I have observed the ossification
of terms and concepts in both areas, from ideas as seemingly straightforward
as pitch to concepts that are acknowledged to be more complex, such as genre,
musical interpretation, gender, and race. To me, the racialization of vocal tim-
bre exemplifies both sides’ processes of ossification — from vocal training and
music theory to critical studies. Thus I cross disciplinary boundaries and build
on work from music theory, the scientific and material aspects of timbre, and
voice studies in order to debunk myths about race as an essential category. The
analogy I have observed is this: In the same way that culturally derived sys-
tems of pitches organized into scales render a given vibrational field in tune
or out of tune, a culturally derived system of race renders a given vibrational
field attached to a person as a white voice, a black voice — that is, “in tune” with
expected correlations between skin color and vocal timbre — or someone who
sounds white or black, meaning that the vocalization did not correspond to (was
“out of tune” with) the ways in which the person as a whole was taxonomized.
In my earlier book, Sensing Sound: Singing and Listening as Vibrational
Practice, I focused on the materially contingent aspect of sound. I called for at-
tention to unfolding material relationships, for example, noting that what we
conventionally think of as “the same sound,” say, the pitch A played in quarter
notes at a pulse of 60 transmitted through air, would not be perceived as the
4 • introduction
same sound if transmitted underwater. Sound travels faster when transmit-
ted through water, and the body’s material composition also transmits sound
differently — primarily directly to the inner ear via bone conduction, compared
to via the ear drum when receiving the signal through air. The two books are
companion volumes, two sides of the same coin. Sensing Sound shows what the
naturalization of sonic parameters and ways of measuring sound does to the
general experience of listening to voice, while this book seeks to show the polit-
ical and ethical dimensions of such practices as they produce blackness through
the acousmatic question.
Specifically, in The Race of Sound: Listening, Timbre, and Vocality in African
American Music, I extend my previous argument by drawing out the parallel be-
tween the multiplicity of the thick event and the multiplicity of a person. Both
sound and person are complex events reduced to a moniker, a placeholder that
nonetheless is taken to stand in for the unnamable event. That is, in the same
way that what I have described as the vocal moment is complex as a thick event,
with the limited parameter of sound selected as the aspect that defines it, com-
plex phenomena such as human voices are further defined by socially, culturally,
and economically driven categories such as race, class, and gender. In the former
situation, voice is often reduced to its textually driven or notatable meaning
content (language, pitch, rhythm, etc.). In the latter situation, vocal timbre—an
elusive and understudied phenomenon13 — is often used to make truth claims
about voice and the person emitting the vocal sound. While most racial essen-
tialization of physical characteristics has been critically confronted (if far from
eradicated), the West’s long history of entwining voice and vocal timbre with
subjectivity and interiority has contributed to such truth claims remaining stag-
nant. Having noted this lack of research around vocal timbre, then, what can we
know about timbre, the vocal apparatuses, and so on? Not much.
Vocal timbre is also often referred to as vocal “quality”: the color, vocal
imprint, and sound of the voice.14 Vocal timbre is often described by analogy
to color and, as the case studies in this book discuss, many of these analogies
closely resemble or imply racialized descriptions. The origin of the idea that
colors may be connected with music is not racial; rather it is based on mathe-
matical and synesthetic principles derived in antiquity from the relationships
between music and form, light, intervals, and timbre. Today timbre is the pa-
rameter most closely associated with color, possibly due to the German word
for timbre, Klangfarbe, or tone-color.15 (The English timbre is derived from
French.) Thus the terms “coloring” and “tone-coloring” can be used to signify
timbral variation without necessarily implying any racial connotations. How-
ever, as I observe in chapters 1, 2, and 5, when colors are evoked in vocal descrip-
tions, they are drawn upon specifically in order to create a sonic analogy with
skin tone, and thus to racialize the sound.
The American National Standards Institute (ansi), an organization that
offers precise standards for everything from the size of nuts and bolts made in
different factories to the permitted decibel level in residential neighborhoods,
defines timbre in the negative: “that attribute of auditory sensation in terms
of which a listener can judge that two sounds similarly presented and having
the same loudness and pitch are dissimilar.”16 In other words, in this definition
timbre is everything expect pitch and loudness.
What is “everything” except pitch and loudness when considering voice? If
two voices sing the same pitch at the same dynamic and for the same duration,
timbre is what allows us to distinguish between them. Timbre is also everything
that allows listeners to distinguish between two different instruments that play
the same pitch at the same dynamic, with the same duration. And it is impor-
tant to point out that “everything else” is not an objective set of data. It is the
listener who detects timbre and who names the “everything else.”17 Indeed “like
pitch and loudness, quality results from an interaction between a listener and a
signal,” as Jody Kreiman succinctly puts it. Here she formulates the dilemma of
the acousmatic question in speech science terms.18 As there is no stable sound to
be known, only that which comes into articulation because of a specific mate-
rial relationality, there is no a priori voice to be known prior to the one formu-
lated in response to the acousmatic question.
But if voice is a co-articulation, are its physical makeup and its sound un-
related? And what can we say about the physical makeup of the voice and the
ways we can hear the overall physical structure of that materially specific organ
and its vocal production? Generally speaking, the sound of the voice is deter-
mined by the diameter and length of the vocal tract and the size of the vocal
folds. Neither of these components is fixed, and therefore they are adjustable
and a number of modalities work together to create and refine vocal sounds.
How does this translate to sound? Does it mean that those with statistically
similar physical vocal apparatuses sound the same, or so similar that we group
them together?
Comparing a large group that is distinguished into two groups — prepubes-
cent boy and girl vocal apparatuses — there are no statistically significant physi-
ological differences in terms of laryngeal size or overall vocal tract length.19 Boy
and girl voices are split into these two distinctions through enculturation. And
gender differentiation takes place for both vocalizers and perceivers. Vocalizers
signal gender through word choice, intonation, speed, rhythm, prosody, level
of nuance, and so on. Perceivers bring gendered expectations to the vocal scene
6 • introduction
and are thus unable to hear a voice outside gendered terms. So, the girl/boy
question exemplifies a case in which the physicality is the same, but the sound
and the perception brought to the sound differ.
While we do have considerable knowledge about the general physical changes
the vocal apparatus undergoes throughout a typical lifespan, it is important to
acknowledge voices at the outer edges of these spectra as well as the considerable
area of overlap between male and female voices. Moreover, while voices also un-
dergo physical transformation with hormonal treatment, regardless of physical
alteration, it is daily vocal practice that makes a given register feel comfortable.20
In other words, we can begin with a set of statistics about the human body, but
a number of forces combine to bring out one set of this body’s potentialities
while dampening others — and it is with this culture- and value-driven process
that The Race of Sound is concerned. I aim to indirectly, but nonetheless in-
tentionally, address the ways in which sociophysical conditioning (rather than
skin color or some other measurement) structures the naming of race. I wish
to enumerate some of the many ways in which the advantage of accumulated
privilege is preserved, not only across historical time and geographic space but
also in sounds, to create the recognition of nonwhite vocal timbre.21 Thus I
build on Obadike’s keen observation that hip-hop music may summon the pres-
ence of blackness without an accompanying black body. Extending this concept
to the case of African American singers, I suggest that her term and concept
acousmatic blackness may also capture the perceived presence of the black body
in a vocal timbre, whether or not that body is determined to be black by other
metrics.22 The acousmatic question is the audile technique, or the measuring
tape, used to determine the degree to which blackness is present. And because
of the acousmatic question’s inability to yield a precise answer, any identifica-
tion of black vocal timbre is, by definition, blackness formed in response to the
acousmatic question.
If voices that are similarly constituted exhibit distinctly different vocal sono-
rous characters, are voices that have different physical makeups bound to physi-
calities? No. As we will see in chapter 5, a young girl can sound like a mature
woman, and we know that impersonators cross not only race and class but also
age and gender. Voices that are physically similar may sound completely differ-
ent, and voices that are physically different may be mistaken for one another.
In other words, the sound of a given voice transcends assumed physical char-
acteristics and the ways in which we rely on such characteristics to make sense
of one another. Thus while voice is materially specific, a specific voice’s sonic
potentiality — such as a girl’s voice or a boy’s voice — and, indeed, its execution
can exceed imagination.
The image I have used to explain this idea is that of the falling tree, as in
the classic question If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does
it make a sound? Through this question our understanding of and relationship
to a multifaceted event is reduced to what we perceive as sound. And, I posited,
in the same way that we reduce the rich, multifaceted, heterogeneous, and un-
definable composite event of a falling tree to mere sound, we reduce the thick
event of vocality through another question: the silent acousmatic question Who
is this? When we ask the acousmatic question, we reduce vocal events in a man-
ner similar to the way we reduce the falling tree to sound, and in so doing we
ignore multiplicity and infinity in order to fix what is unfixable under a single
naturalized concept. In short, the question What is the sound of the falling tree?
reduces the thick event to one aspect — say, sound — while the question Who
made that sound? discounts enculturation, technique and style, and an infin-
ity of unrealized manifestations in favor of preconceived essence and meaning.
The naming and critical analysis achieved with the aid of this question pair
serve as “a portal, opening up a new and previously inaccessible way of thinking
about something,” as Jan Meyer and Ray Land put it. They explain that such
a portal is often enabled through the articulation of a “threshold concept,” a
distillation that “represents how people ‘think’ in a particular discipline, or
how they perceive, apprehend, or experience particular phenomena within that
discipline (or more generally).”23 Linda Adler-Kassner and Elizabeth Wardle
describe threshold concepts as “naming what we know.”24 Thus “a consequence
of comprehending a threshold concept . . . [may] be a transformed internal view
of subject matter, subject landscape, or even world view.”25 For my particular
work, crystalizing how most people think about sound—they reduce it through
naming — has been transformative. This insight has given me the critical tools
to understand the process through which vocal timbre is racialized.
Returning to the question about the falling tree, the first layer of this an-
alogy is the reduction to sound of the physical and multisensory event of sing-
ing. The second layer is the reduction of the thick event to a quantifiable sound
with inherent meaning and attendant value. As mentioned, from the perspec-
tive of singing and listening as vibrational practice, meanings and values are not
inherent; instead they are derived from listening communities’ values. One of
the primary values that drives the society and culture that give rise to the music
discussed in this book is difference. This difference is imagined as race, which
is not unconnected to other imagined categories, but is articulated within a
complex matrix of intersectionality. Hence the thick event— a continuous
vibrational field with undulating energies (flesh, bones, ligaments, teeth, air,
longitudinal pressure in a material medium, molecules, and much more)— is
8 • introduction
reduced to socially and culturally categorized and evaluated vocal sounds, such
as pitch and voice, as essential markers.
An underlying assumption about vocal sounds’ power to identify is present
in a wide range of observations about voice. For example, as the epigraphs above
illustrate, after minimal exposure to Romeo’s voice, Juliet hears it as in tune
with her recollection of his voice and his broader membership in the Montague
clan. In the Monty Python comment the speaker considers his interlocutor to
be attitudinally out of line, thus akin to a false note. His observation not only
offers suggestions regarding the interlocutor’s possible ranges of tones, but also
carries information about the speaker himself: a person situated lower in a so-
cial hierarchy would not deliver such a judgment publicly. And the question in
the 1995 court case California v. O.J. Simpson, “The second voice that you heard
sounded like the voice of a black man . . . ?,” is based on the assumption of a
priori categories. Uncritically acting on the assessment that the voice “sounded
like . . . a black man” assumes that voice points to the stable category of “black
man who has emitted such a voice.” And since the system sets up binaries of true
or false and guilt or innocence, whether according to a pitch system or a racial-
ized system, those who fail to fall within the “true” category are, by default,
marked as false. President Barack Obama, for example, is called out for failing
to align vocally with the timbres expected of the race the listeners have assigned
to him.26 While drawn from very different archives and ultimately with very
different outcomes, assumptions about possible “misalignment” are fueled by
listeners who use the voice as “truth statements,” such as Juliet’s perceived align-
ment of Romeo’s true measure of love. In sum, an assumption about stable and
knowable sound provides a conceptual framework that reduces the thick event
to sound, to the question of being in tune, or to racial timbral categories.
What Does the Acousmatic Question Offer Insight Into?

Having established that there is no unified or stable voice, we may draw the
following lessons from the in-depth readings of vocal cases treated in the
chapters that follow. They can be summarized into three interrelated correctives
that better capture what voice is and what we identify when we identify voice:
• Voice is not singular; it is collective.
• Voice is not innate; it is cultural.
• Voice’s source is not the singer; it is the listener.
In extending my analytical toolkit in order to understand more about the
thick vocal event, I am particularly concerned with vocal timbre — an elusive
concept that, as mentioned earlier, may be defined broadly as everything about
the sound of the voice except duration and pitch.27 Timbre is used as a basis for
considerations of identity and state, including age, mood, and musical genre.28
It is used diagnostically in terms of health and is considered part of the acoustic
signal and airflow.
While these definitions address timbre’s richness and complexity, what uni-
fies these vastly different analytics, methodologies, and scholarly discourses is
the assumption that timbre is static and knowable. In other words, there is a
perceived sense of inevitability in each of these approaches. Vocal timbre is as-
sessed when it is understood as a knowable entity, or in the context of correcting
or creating a particular type of timbre. My suggested correctives address these
false assumptions and provide an alternative explanation for the formation of
timbral meaning. Hence in the following redefinitions of voice, the broader
phenomena of voice, vocal timbre, and timbre are not knowable entities but
processes.29 The perception of vocal timbre thus entails dealing with slices of
a thick event — a multitude of intermingling phenomena set within a complex
dynamic of power and deferral over who gets to assign the meaning that ulti-
mately affects the very medium it seeks to define.
First, voice is not singular; it is collective.30 The voice is not a distinct entity,
but rather part of a continuous material field. The so-called physical individual
voice, then, is part of a continuum, a concentration of energy that we interpret
and define as a distinct voice. (As we will see in this book, imagining separate
and distinct voices requires many acrobatic framings!) The voice is composed
of a collection of bodily organs involved in the production of sound, the acous-
tical conditions in which it is emitted and sensed, and the style and technique
involved in its lifetime of training, what Farah Jasmine Griffin calls “cultural
style.”31 No one part of this collection of styles and techniques involves race es-
sentially or entails the uniqueness of the speaker; it is instead a performance of
cultural style. James Baldwin observes the collective performance of race thus:
“I began to suspect that white people did not act as they did because they were
white, but for some other reason.”32 That is, Baldwin’s insight is that “white-
ness” is a particular performance of culture. The performance of whiteness is
followed by the assumption that any such traits are either expressions or false
performances of essence. Recall, it is this deep-seated belief that is expressed
in the observation that Obama “talks white.” In the absence of underlying as-
sumptions regarding the (performed) sound of whiteness and which bodies
have the right to perform such sonorities, there would be no reason to make
such a point. Because the voice is not distinct and separate, it possesses neither
10 • introduction
the capacity to signal innate and unmediated qualities nor a stable identity.
This is the case in what I call the measurable and the symbolic realms.
Moreover the voice is not unique, in part because it is not a static organ. It
is not an isolated and distinct entity; instead it is shaped by the overall physical
environment of the body: the nutrition to which it has access (or of which it is
deprived) and the fresh air it enjoys (or harmful particles it inhales). It is the
physical body and vocal apparatus that are trained and entrained each time a
voice voices, and that develop accordingly. Vocal tissue, mass, musculature, and
ligaments renew and are entrained in the same way as the rest of our bodies. Re-
search and knowledge that show how the body is a result of its overall environ-
ment also apply to the part of the body that is the voice. Because we often focus
on the sound and assume that there is an unchanging relationship between the
entity we believe to be a static, distinct human and the vocal sound we hear,
we also assume that the voice is intrinsic and unchangeable. However, just as
the body possesses different qualities, or is able to carry out different activities,
depending on how it has been nurtured and conditioned, so too is the voice an
overall continuation and expression of the environment in which it participates.
Second, in this way, voice is not innate; it is cultural. Vocal choices are based
on the vocalizer’s position within the collective rather than arising solely as
individual expression. Vocal communities share an invisible and often uncon-
scious and inexplicable synchronicity of vocal movements and vocal perfor-
mance, gravitationally attracted by the dynamics of the culture in which the
vocalizer participates. This takes place, for example, through the vocal body’s
movements, habituation of practice, proprioception (self-monitoring), listen-
ing, and the specific practices adapted to and expressing a given culture’s ideal.
Neither speakers nor singers use the entire range of their voices’ infinite timbral
potentialities.33 In other words, the decisive factor in honing each voice’s poten-
tiality and developing expertise in a timbral area is not individual preference but
collective pressure and encouragement.
With the multitude of timbral choices involved in learning how to use the
voice, voices tend to be developed based on collective rather than singular pref-
erence. The process that determines which select areas of our vocal potential we
attend to, and that therefore will be understood as innate, is a social one. What
we conceive of as a single voice, then, is a manifestation of a given culture’s
understanding of the vocalizer and his or her role within that culture. That is,
voice is a manifestation of a shared vocal practice.
Third, as we’ve already begun to see, the voice does not arise solely from the
vocalizer; it is created just as much within the process of listening. This means

Speaker Listener
Ear
Sensory
nerves
Feedback Brain
link
Sound
Brain Vocal waves Sensory
muscles nerves
Ear
Motor
nerves
Linguistic Physiological Acoustic Physiological Linguistic

level level level level level
Figure Intro.1 The speech chain. Peter B. Denes and Elliot N. Pinson, The Speech
Chain: The Physics and Biology of Spoken Language (New York: W. H. Freeman, 1993), 5.
that the voices heard are ultimately identified, recognized, and named by lis-
teners at large. In hearing a voice, one also brings forth a series of assumptions
about the nature of voice. The speech chain — the now-ubiquitous model of
the voice conceived by the linguists Peter Denes and Elliot Pinson — includes
two general areas: the speaker and the listener (see figure Intro.1).34 Informa-
tion transmission from speaker to listener can be condensed into the following
parts: the speaker’s brain ➝ motor neurons ➝ sound generation ➝ the lis-
tener’s ear ➝ the listener’s brain.35 This model usefully expanded the previous
model of speech by considering speech in the context of communication (versus
distinct and separate processes). As Denes and Pinson outline, the speech chain
is incomplete without the listener.
I will go one step further in suggesting that the listener, including both other
listeners and auto-listening, is so strong, and indeed so overriding, that in order
to understand the process of evaluating and defining vocal timbre and voices,
it is more useful to consider the process from the listener’s point of view.36 And
I could flip the directionality of the speech chain, calling it the listener-voice
chain, with the listener as the focal point (see figure Intro.2). This is because,
on the one hand, actual vocal output is determined by the speaker’s listening to
his or her own voice and considering how the community hears it, and by the
12 • introduction
Listener Speaker
Ear
Sensory
nerves
Brain Feedback
link
Sound
Sensory waves Vocal Brain
nerves muscles
Ear
Motor
nerves
Linguistic Physiological Acoustic Physiological Linguistic

level level level level level
Figure Intro.2 Listener-speaker model.
countless concrete instances in which he or she is vocally corrected, directly or

indirectly, by other people. On the other hand, regardless of the actual vocal sig-
nal emitted, listeners will produce their own assessment of what they did hear.
We actually assign value when we pose and respond to the acousmatic question.
Identifying the voice as located within the listener returns us to the first two
correctives. Because a human vocalizer exists and vocalizes within a commu-
nity, listeners’ assessments directly affect and entrain the vocalizer materially
and thus sonically, and direct the vocalizer’s auto-listening. The assumptions,
expectations, and conventions of a given culture, and that culture’s impression
of who the vocalizer is, are overlaid onto its acceptance or rejection of the vo-
calizer, akin to what Marcel Mauss describes as bodily technologies.37 Further-
more, as Carter G. Woodson and Michel Foucault have both noted in reference
to different cultural circumstances, adopting those listening practices and self-
monitoring the voice is a condition of participation in a culture.38 As Foucault
indicates, monitoring is relocated within the individual and thus does not need
to be reinforced on a level higher in the structures of power. In a nutshell, this
tripartite cycle explains why, by asking the acousmatic question, the listener
cycles between the vocal apparatus as part of a continuous material field and
vocal acts that accord with the values and dynamics of the culture within which
they are practiced and heard. Ultimately it is why we cannot expect to yield a
singular and unambiguous answer to the question Who are they?
Roadblocks and Processes on the Way

toward Insights into Voice
In conversations and interactions with voice scholars working in a wide variety
of fields, I have found that each study seems less interesting by itself than when
considered together with seemingly related (and seemingly unrelated) voice re-
search. However, while numerous fields and areas of research hold voice at the
center of their work, their definitions of voice, methodologies, and epistemo-
logical and ontological assumptions vary widely. In some cases the object of
study has no correlation, yet in other cases the same phenomenon (or aspects
of it) is studied in multiple fields but vocabulary is not shared, or differences in
epistemological horizons and methodology seem insurmountable.
Synthesizing across fields, I observe a split in ontology, epistemology, meth-
ods, and the very object “voice” into what appear to be two general camps: the
position that assumes the voice is measurable and the position that assumes
voice is an expression of the symbolic.39 (Hereafter I will refer to them as mea-
surable and symbolic.) The categories “measurable” and “symbolic” can broadly
be thought of as “essential and strategic remappings of nature and culture.”40 As
a result of the split between these two major positions, the same phenomenon
is approached, scrutinized, and discussed using two sets of disparate vocabu-
laries, resulting in a roadblock separating disciplines. The measurable position
is concerned with organizing the material voice in ways that can be defined
and replicated. Examples include movement of the air molecules and tissue,
articulations of the mouth and tongue, timbral definition, the metrics of a vo-
cal genre, and more. This position understands voice as a measurable, material
entity that develops in a linear, causal relationship. It considers factors such as
bodily health and socially and culturally formed habits and practices that are
directly vocal or that somehow affect vocal or listening practice. The defini-
tion of voice is limited to aspects that can be measured and quantified, such as
acoustic signal, air flow, and articulation. These are all interpretations that slice
the thick material event into segments that allow for the articulation of test-
able questions and replicable experiments. The measurable voice is understood
as largely straightforward in regard to its signaling. To slightly caricature this
position, any emotional, cultural, or social investments in voice can be general-
ized as stemming from an evolutionary explanation. Those who take this posi-
tion formulate and address questions with the assumption and intention that
14 • introduction
they can and will be answered in unambiguous terms. The answers to questions
posed or the confirmed outcome of the thesis are aimed at broader application
or transferability. The measurable position aspires to show us something about the
universality of vocal function.
In contrast, the symbolic position is concerned with the ways in which vocal
sound presentations are interpreted. Broadly described, this position considers
how dynamics (of power, for example) are played out through the acceptance
of meaning-making. Here, what I conceive as the thick material vocal event is
also segmented, significant only in its symbolic capacity, and often conceptu-
ally detached from the material sound or phenomenon. Whether the voice is
read and understood as sound, as text, or even as implicated with the body,
this analysis assumes that the power and impact of voice take place only on the
symbolic level. In other words, for voice to have a different meaning, it is the
symbolism that must be changed. However, as with the measurable position,
the voice comes to be so intimately associated with whichever symbolic position
is taken that considering the connection between the thick event of the voice
and the given symbolism as a true choice becomes challenging.
Scholars operating from this type of position investigate the historical and
cultural reasons the voice is understood in such a manner rather than evolu-
tionarily. They formulate and investigate questions in order to address a very
particular situation and, indeed, to help formulate how this situation is dis-
tinct and how it contributes to an understanding of why an answer or position
is not transferable to another situation. The value of such a research project’s
outcome lies precisely in its level of detail, in a fine-grained and finely textured
engagement. The symbolic position aspires to show us something about the voice’s
fine-grained specificity and overall complexity and the impossibility of any findings
being directly ported to another situation.
We may now turn to the roadblocks. Considering voice from only one of
these perspectives fails to take into account both the ways in which the sym-
bolic is derived from material positions and how the symbolic informs every-
thing from the units of measurement used to the types of questions formulated
in material positions. As mentioned, part of the reason for the divide between
the two positions is that, due to its richness, voice is studied in multiple dis-
ciplines, which are often so different that they are not considered by one an-
other.41 Voice is at the center of research in vastly different areas of inquiry,
such as (to mention a few) musicology, ethnomusicology, anthropology, film,
gender, and sound studies on the one hand; linguistics, biology and evolution-
ary studies, acoustics, mechanical engineering, and head and neck surgery on
the other. As a result of their assumed ontologies, epistemologies, and research
Measurable Symbolic
Material
Figure Intro.3 The model shows

the interplay among the symbolic, the
measurable, and the material.
methodologies, each of these positions yields distinct, often non-overlapping,

voice objects, for example voice as subjectivity, voice as evidence of reproductive
fitness, and voice as libretto.
In summary, voice scholarship in general, and the potential field of voice
studies (which I see as explicitly transdisciplinary) in particular, possess built-
in problems in regard to cross-fertilization. Within these two camps — the
measurable and the symbolic — the voice has been formulated as two entirely
different objects, and because of this there have been no grounds, reason, or
purpose for their scholars to interact. The interactions have mainly consisted
in pointing out the errors in the other camp’s assumptions about and defini-
tions of voice. However, the past five years have seen a shift toward interest
in transdisciplinary conversation.42 The third position I wish to advocate in
this book is that the symbolic and measurable dimensions are never detached;
they always already work in tandem with the material dimension. The symbolic
and the measurable are both re-created in the material, and the material gives
rise to that which we understand as the symbolic or the measurable (see figure
Intro.3).43
What is the tactic or perspective that shows us how to connect the symbolic
and the measurable? How may we dissolve the roadblocks? For me, the answer
is a practice-based methodological approach to vocalization, explained in more
16 • introduction
detail below, that allows us to simultaneously address the naturalized aspects of
both the measurable and the symbolic. This approach is grounded in the mate-
rial and considers the flow among the three areas: symbolic, measurable, and
material. In making these connections, I look to the pioneering work of Rob-
bie Beahrs, Shane Butler, J. Martin Daughtry, Cornelia Fales, Sarah Kessler,
Katherine Kinney, Jody Kreiman and Diana Sidtis, Theodore Levin, Caitlin
Marshall, Kay Norton, Ana María Ochoa Gautier, Kasia Pisanski, Matthew
Rahaim, Annette Schlichter, and Amanda Weidman, to name a few, all of
whom work from a rigorous sensibility regarding voice’s material- and meaning-
making powers.44
While most of these scholars would probably not describe their work in this
way, I find that an interesting common thread among them is their sensitivity
to the practical application or use of voice in their approaches. Here I want to
gesture toward an area of inquiry into voice, involving vocal practices such as
singing, acting, vocal therapy, and more, that is often not considered scholar-
ship but that has allowed me and many of the above-mentioned scholars to
consider the dynamic between the measurable and the symbolic. Specifically,
in addition to these positions, I am interested in an aspect of the performative
perspective that I call critical performance practice and discuss in more depth
below. Such a methodology allows me to map the relations and track the con-
sequences between the material and the semiotic.
Voice’s Manifestations of the Measured and the Symbolic

It is a truism that the body has been objectified and used as a measure of race
and as evidence of innate racial difference. This book shows that voice is equally
objectified, entrained, and used as a “measure” of race (i.e., a feature that is be-
lieved to represent something specific but has the power to do so only through
social consensus). Created internally and crossing from the internal to the
external, the voice holds a special position in the sonorous landscape, herein
addressed as experienced through Western thought. The voice is thought to
reveal the true nature of the body. As I have discussed elsewhere, measure-
ments of skull shape and size and taxonomies of the relative development of
different races and ethnicities were graphically charted in The Family Group
of the Katarrhinen and Inventing the Family of Man and Types of Mankind.45
These figures sought to convey at a glance the idea that different human and
animal groups that represented a wide spectrum of beings on a single evolu-
tionary timeline — from the primitive (apes, Africans) to the highly evolved
(Aryans) — lived side by side at the same time. Because of the medicalization of
vocal pedagogy that also took place at this time, the relative developments were
believed to be audible or, in today’s big data language, “sonified” through vocal
timbre.46 The term “measuring,” then, refers to the ways in which the body’s
physical dimensions (crania and height) were, to some extent, measured. These
dimensions, taken with those not measured (e.g., internal tissue and organs),
were thought to be made audible to a given community of listeners through
the voice, much like masses of data are sonified to make them easier to process.
These perceived quantitative findings on the measures of the subhuman not
only arose from but also reinforced a belief in difference in the metaphysical
sphere: the difference between fully human and not fully human, and the exis-
tence or nonexistence of the soul. The impact of such a perverse attitude is not
limited to those claiming superiority, but, as W. E. B. Du Bois has shown, through
enculturation “a peculiar sensation” develops. It is “this double-consciousness,
this sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of others.” One be-
gins “measuring one’s soul by the tape of a world.”47 The metaphysical isola-
tion of “black folk[s]” is totalizing.48 And, when thinking back to Aristotle —
“Voice (phōnē) is a kind of sound characteristic of what has soul in it” — we are
reminded of the long-standing connection between soul and voice.49
What the seemingly objective measuring and naming of the symbolic really
allows is manifestation of the power dynamic at play— and that manifestation
then takes on a life of its own. In the antebellum era, slave owners and non-
slaves began to hear the sounds of slaves’ voices as a distinct vocal timbre, first
in what was understood as self-exclusion and evidence of subhumanness (in
their “noisy” voices), then in the reification of blackness.50 Ronald Radano has
described the process in this way: “The tendency to devalue Negro music, to
reify blackness and to turn it into a natural resource, also sustained the percep-
tion of its difference, its status as an objectionable, illicit form of black cultural
property, which, in turn, established its negative value.” The “inalienable, un-
exchangeable qualities of black musical animation” are traded in the exchange
of blackness through the form of black vocality.51 Understood as a natural re-
source, vocal timbre is also measured in its value.
Echoing the language of Radano and Arjun Appadurai, through “exchange
and re-imagined uses” — evaluated, quantified, given a sticker prize, and thus
appraised, assessed, calculated, weighed and measured — body, soul, and voice
take on the social life of things.52 This book tells stories about the ways such
values are traded on the back of the voice but also instilled in the voice through
formal and informal pedagogies. Throughout I do argue that listening is akin
to measuring. The two techniques are similar in that they are both socially and
culturally constructed: neither will work unless a community buys into them.
18 • introduction
Assessments such as “a white voice” and “an overly loud voice” mean nothing
unless the listening community that assesses the voice knows the designation to
which these concepts refer — akin to the agreed-upon definition of “one meter”
or “in tune”/“out of tune.”
The effectiveness of any measuring tool is reliant on a community’s agree-
ment about and adherence to the measuring convention; thus the articulation
of the two positions discussed earlier—the measurable and the symbolic—does
not take place in a vacuum. It affects the definition, perceptions, and indeed
the material makeup and expression of the voice. In any investigation that has
articulated a measurable entity (decibel, pitch, enharmonic sound) or symbolic
position (imitation, gendered performance, coy expression), a formulation of
the vocal object has already taken place. Rather than dealing with the messy
variables that accompany it, the thick vocal event has already been pruned into
the select aspect of voice that was already assumed at the outset. I think of this
as akin to working with rigged evidence.
Expressed as a formula, this process unfolds as follows: the symbolic (as mani-
fested by concepts ranging from gender to decibel) is used to shape the material;
the material is shaped accordingly and emits precisely the signal that the sym-
bolic purports to describe or capture; this signal is then measured; and a (false
and rigged) correlation is logged and used as confirmation of the existence of the
phenomenon and/or meaning envisioned by the symbolic. Thus, considering
the triangulation of the measurable-symbolic-material aspect of the voice shows
us the dynamic and codependent processes played out in the perception of every
utterance and evaluation (see figure Intro. 3). With attention to that process,
preconceived aspects of the symbolic and the material are denaturalized.53
The process of projecting, arranging, and manifesting the vocal object re-
sults in a self-fulfilling prophecy. Below I offer a list of some ways in which this
takes form. In each case, a pivot is created around listener-determined timbral
meaning or measurement. The listener then adjusts various aspects of his or her
perception of the thick vocal event to offer coherence around the assumed or
projected meaning. The specific areas I address include the sense of coherence
(according to a given society’s measuring tools) between singer’s timbre and
visual appearance, ethnic or racial identity, genre assignment, and affiliations
with vocal communities. This process is born from the assumption that voice
is unique and innate.
Scholarship seems to be continually refining the processes of raising aware-
ness and critiquing such labeling. Thus when I assert that it’s not racism itself
but what underlies racism (assumptions about essence and the need to define)
that is the root of racist thought and action, I point to the assumption that there
is something there to recognize and define. Child, middle-aged woman, African
American, or white — all of these definitions depend on the assumption that
there is something there to name correctly. Work that makes these definitions
salient is important, as it underpins untold nightmares that are played out daily.
Where my own work differs, however, is that I am not primarily concerned
with offering up more fine-grained discernment.
For example, Angela Davis reframed female vocalists within African Ameri-
can culture and African American artists within American popular music in
her massively influential 1999 Blues Legacies and Black Feminism: Gertrude
“Ma” Rainey, Bessie Smith, and Billie Holiday. While Davis and other scholars
seek to address artists who have been marginalized in some way — including
household names who have not received social or monetary recognition con-
gruent with their artistic offering and cultural impact — to me, at the end of
the day, these scholars are mounting arguments that deal in issues of fidelity.
While I admire the overall thrusts of scholars like Davis, I cannot but note
that the main ways in which such arguments and theses are forwarded relate
to the types of contextual information that are considered or not considered
when interpreting and judging an artist’s level of excellence, impact, beauty,
relevance, and so on.
In her close readings of Gertrude “Ma” Rainey, Bessie Smith, and Billie
Holiday, Davis makes a case for recalibrating the lens through which African
American blueswomen are considered, thus recognizing an agency and artistry
that were not originally attributed to them. Indeed, Davis corrects the idea
that Holiday was someone who passively “worked primarily with the idiom of
white popular song” to someone who “illuminated the ideological construc-
tions of gender and . . . insinuated [herself] into women’s emotional lives.”
Through her vocal work, Davis asserts, Holiday “transform[ed] already exist-
ing material into her own form of modern jazz” and “relocated [that material]
in a specifically African-American cultural tradition and simultaneously chal-
lenged the boundaries of that tradition.” Bringing in comparisons to “African
Americans’ historical appropriation of the English language,” Davis compares
Holiday’s contributions to the “literary feat of Harriet Jacobs,” who, in the nar-
rative Incidents in the Life of Slave Girl, “appropriated and transformed the
nineteenth-century sentimental novel and, in the process, revealed new ways of
thinking about black female sexuality.” By bringing in additional context, such
as Herbert Marcuse’s notion of the “aesthetic dimension,” Davis hears Holiday
as “transform[ing] social relations aesthetically beyond the shallow notions of
love contained in the songs.”54
The assumption underlying these interpretations of Holiday’s work is that
20 • introduction
the goal is to sharpen our interpretive lens, and that, by doing so, the reading
will more closely capture the truth. One of its major premises is that the way we
have heard Holiday before is not quite correct; that is, we have heard her cor-
rectly only after Davis’s analysis heard her with proper fidelity. While I am in
favor of expanding the ways we might listen to Holiday, and of Davis’s endeavor
to remove the myths and inaccuracies surrounding Holiday, my approach and
contribution differ from those that seek to claim the most accurate interpreta-
tion. Ultimately I seek to disassemble any promise of “accuracy.” I will go as far
as to argue that its pursuit is a dead-end street.
In this area I align with Jacques Derrida’s belief that the search for mean-
ing consists of a series of deferrals. (But I do not align with his prioritization
of written language.) By insisting on returning to the category of the listener,
which embodies the category of the originator of meaning, I am not insisting
on a more perfect understanding of the voice. Instead I aim to confront the
continually developing understanding of meaning, the choices and power struc-
tures at its base, and the selective choices even the most conscientious listeners
must carry out in order to make sense of a voice.
In this way scholars from different disciplines are committed to dismantling
“transcendental racial categories.”55 However, as a scholar, what work is left for
me once I have demonstrated that the categories are not transcendental? I am
skeptical that it’s possible to reinvigorate agency by offering up (another) fidel-
ity, however nuanced. Measuring and invoking meaning (the symbolic), even if
in a more refined way, will produce the same result in the long run —that is, will
legitimize what I think of as the cult of fidelity. We may move further into style
and technique, understanding what makes up the performance and focusing on
the details, and ultimately coming out on the side of a vibrational field engaged
through vibrational practice — and we may stop there without renaming. Thus
I have used anomalous examples in order to move away from categories and
names and toward intermaterial vibrational practice, and I analyze that practice
from the perspective of style and technique.
So is there a way we might name or notate something without also ossifying
it in the process? Looking to film studies, I find much resonance with the work
of Michael Boyce Gillespie, whose work is “founded on the belief that the idea
of black film is always a question, never an answer,” and with his notion of “the
enactment of film blackness,” which relates to my notion of voice as the “perfor-
mance/construction of the event.” Gillespie contributes a refinement of the def-
inition of blackness by examining twentieth- and twenty-first-century Ameri-
can cinema, showing that “film blackness” is a performance taking place within
a production and that it is much more nuanced than any idea of blackness can
capture. Gillespie also articulates options for black film as starting points for
interpretation. For example, in a reading of Medicine for Melancholy, Gillespie
writes that the film offers “film blackness as a meditation on romance, place,
and ruin.” In the end, because Gillespie resists the temptation to replace exist-
ing categories with another renamed, more finely grained category, he opens up
spaces for additional ways to perform, inhabit, and imagine blackness.56
While insistent that his work is not concerned with race specifically, the
composer, improviser, and trumpeter Wadada Leo Smith offers an example
in his notational system of opening space while avoiding the reassignment of
meaning. Called Ankhrasmation, the notation system “is a compositional lan-
guage he developed using multidimensional visual symbols as stimuli for im-
provisation.”57 The notation system stresses that meaning is both personal and
contextual. For example, if all members of an ensemble are assigned to play a
red half-triangle, each will need to research the meaning of “triangle” and “red.”
The half-triangle is a velocity unit. Smith explains, “Each person will take that
velocity unit and determine how fast or slow that velocity unit develops, de-
pending on which symbol it is — but even if they all have the same symbol, it
would by nature never come out to be the same velocity.” For red, Smith uses the
symbolic references of blood and cherry to illustrate the process the musician
might engage. On the one hand, “if it’s referenced as blood, then they have to
go and do the research and find out about all the properties of blood and come
up with some reference of how blood is used in humans or other creatures.
Then they start to transform that data about blood into musical property.” On
the other hand, “if you take the cherry, the cherry’s got an outer skin that’s red,
and it also has a pit inside of it. It has a stem that comes out of the center of it.
And you would take all of those elements and break them down into differ-
ent parts and research them.”58 The Ankhrasmation system is realized through
each participant’s individual associative chain, which, of course, has also been
developed within a lifetime of enculturation. These individual reference points
are emphasized and indeed make up the music. Smith’s system offers a radical
departure from the traditional Western staff system and from interpretations of
singers’ legacy and impact, as exemplified in the ubiquitous perceptions of and
work on Holiday, whereby pitches and people are processed through a series
of (Derridean) deferrals and an ongoing dispute about which interpretation is
most accurate.
My listening-to-listening framework, addressed in detail below, attempts to
consider all symbols and meanings from an Ankhrasmation point of view, as-
serting that there is no in tune or out of tune, no “voice of a black man”; there is
no single most accurate red triangle sound, but rather each designation is already
22 • introduction
the result of chains of associations made by an individual under the pressures
of the social and cultural contexts in which that individual participates. Thus
thinking about Davis and other scholars through Ankhrasmation makes ex-
plicit a focus on both the context and the meaning based on it rather than on
an improvement in meaning. There is no attempt at calibrating the lens for a
more accurate assessment; there is instead an aim to be more explicit about the
dynamism and instability of meaning-making, resisting the gravitational pull
toward reassignment of meaning.
I am following Farah Jasmine Griffin, Emily Lordi, and Robert O’Meally,
who represent “models of scholarly works designated to dismantle the myth that
black women singers naturally express their hard lives through their songs.”59 I
want to stress that I deeply respect these scholars and that my work would not
have been possible without theirs. While we have similar aims — to shed myths
and inaccuracies — they tend to emphasize more detailed and complex contex-
tualization that facilitates deeper reading. They also emphasize a more accurate
analysis with the goal of higher fidelity (e.g., reading Holiday’s rhythmic so-
phistication as a Jazz Genius with an untimely death and as an auteur through
her lyric interpretations). Taking Smith’s lead through Ankhrasmation rather
than aiming for higher fidelity, I use the data to point to what I conceive as the
fiction of fidelity.
While my assumption is that all measurements and constructions merely
label and manifest dynamics of power as they are played out, measurement and
construction also constitute a game that works only when everyone participates
and continuously re-creates and reifies. The measured and the symbolic para-
digms take place within the body through explicit and implicit pedagogy. Vo-
cal culture is performed and formed in the flesh. I examine this phenomenon
by observing a very particular kind of vocal training. When listeners connect a
singer with a particular community, their listening is filtered through assump-
tions about that community and the music and vocal genres with which its
people are most commonly associated. For example, when an African Ameri-
can singer, such as Marian Anderson, is connected more with a community of
minstrelsy and spirituals than with opera, she is heard, and expectations about
her are formed, through that filter. When a timbre is understood as gendered
in a particular way, and a singer’s voice precludes association with that gendered
meaning, listeners create alternative identities for the singer. In the example
of the jazz and ballad singer Jimmy Scott, the categories of female, sex, and
death are inserted in place of Scott himself. Because the myth of vocal essen-
tialism and innateness runs so deep, we create complex, schizophrenic, layered
listening situations in order to compensate for confrontations with the non-
essential nature of voice — confrontations caused, for instance, by vocal like-
ness, imitation, or ventriloquism. And finally, the sound of a particular racial-
ized genre — soul — is reproduced through vocal synthesis and dresses in the
imagery of blackface. In other words, through listening, the symbolic mani-
fested by way of the material is used to confirm itself. Consequentially voice as
evidence becomes an unexamined truism: the evidence is rigged.
Let’s return to the issue regarding the possible function, if any, of the acous-
matic question. What I have realized, by attuning to sixty years’ worth of in-
stances of listening to race in the United States,60 is that posing the acousmatic
question — Who is this? — will never tell you who the singer is. Attending to
the acousmatic question tells you only who is listening: who you are. Indeed,
who we are.
The Micropolitics of Listening

Because listening is never neutral, but rather always actively produces mean-
ing, it is a political act. Through listening, we name and define. We get to say,
“This is the voice of a black man.” We get to say, “That singer doesn’t sound
sincere.” And we get to say, “This singer doesn’t sound like herself.” As I hope I
have made clear by now, not only do we, as listeners, get to label the vocalizer;
we also manifest the symbolic in the material. Because voices are communal
technologies attuned to cultural values, what the community hears, and the
meanings it assigns, are accordingly aligned. In other words, through listening
we enact and activate.
This book advocates the return of the acousmatic question to the listener,
and ultimately to ourselves: Who am I, who hears this? On which assumptions
and values are my observations based (or, to put it more strongly, to which are
they tethered), and from which position(s) within a given society do I observe?
This book seeks to provide tools that can help denaturalize both the listening
process and the voices it names.
Through such listening we enact the micropolitics of timbre: the process of
discernment involved in listening to and naming voices. “Micro” refers to the
smaller unit or entity of vocal expression, in comparison with “macro” units
such as notes, durations, phonemes, words, phrases, sentences, and so on. “Mi-
cro” also refers to the way these sentiments are activated by a listener. While
there is a relationship between hegemonic definitions and naming, the activa-
tion and realization of these definitions’ potential take place one by one, ear
by ear. The rubber hits the road where and when the neighbor, friend, family,
stranger, and, most crucially, the vocalizer himself or herself hears and names
24 • introduction
the voice based on these factors. It is both the curse and the beauty of the collec-
tive process that, through listening, we can either reinforce or refuse to engage
naturalized notions and values. Listening is not a neutral assessment of degrees
of fidelity but instead is always already a critical performance — that is, a politi-
cal act.61
Because, within the figure of sound framework, vocal timbre and the so-
called measurable object or given meaning (or symbol) seem to conform to one
another so closely, there is no analytical space within which to assert a third
point: the role of the interpretant. Therefore, again, rather than examining
what is purportedly heard, I suggest we step back in order to examine listening
practice and the frames around it that yield given outcomes. In other words,
we can apply Peirce-like operations in order to acknowledge the third party.62 I
propose that we examine racialized vocal timbre (and any other qualities that
are understood as essential) in order to move from an analysis of sound to an
analysis of how that sound is listened to.
With The Race of Sound, then, I wish to hurl against the wall the long-over-
due and much-underexamined connection between the perceived meaning of
vocal timbre and vocalization. By offering new methodologies with which to
examine vocal timbre, sound, and listening, I wish primarily to offer an inter-
vention in American studies, race and ethnicity studies, and cultural studies,
and secondarily in sound and voice studies, musicology, and ethnomusicology.
Specifically I wish to address the problematics of voice as they are played out
through the dynamics of race in late twentieth-century American popular mu-
sic. I do so by taking seriously the important and penetrating critiques offered
by these areas of scholarship regarding race, gender, ethnicity, and identity, and
by detailing how they take form in the broad and elusive arena of vocal timbre.
Drawing on my knowledge in music, sound studies, and voice studies, I wish to
offer an additional perspective on how social divisions and power relationships
are carried out through the space of vocal timbre, which seems to be one of the
last areas still viewed as an essential trait.
Because of general assumptions regarding music and voice—that their major
currency is sound and that vocal sounds are essential and unmediated expres-
sions — readings of vocal timbre have remained impenetrable to critical inves-
tigation. In the same way that hair, body movement, dialect, accent, and style
have been critically examined and thus are no longer available as ammunition
for arguments about race as essence, The Race of Sound shows how timbre is
institutionalized and internalized as a meaningful measurement of traits be-
lieved by a given society to be essential to people, and demonstrates the falsity of
such correlative argument. The internalization of the disciplining of ears — or,
in Jonathan Sterne’s evocative term, “audile techniques” — is described by Du
Bois, as noted earlier, as “souls being measured by the tape of a world.”63
As a musicologist, scholar of voice and sound studies, singer, and voice
teacher, I consider vocal timbre here within a contemporary music context
while keeping a keen ear tuned to historically situated racial dynamics sur-
rounding physiology, how these dynamics are connected to notions of voice,
and the ways in which racialized listening is formed. In carrying out this work,
I build on critical-analytical traditions that detail the construction of identity
and essential categories, including race and gender. I examine how structures of
power burrow down into flesh and are realized through it; how the articulation
of power structures is self-regulated by those who live within them; how the
technology of narrative comes into play; how knowledge is situated; and how
everyday life is performed.64 I also dig into and listen deeply to the sonic archive
in a detailed examination of vocal timbre.
Engaging perspectives from performance studies, I address concerns in criti-
cal race studies and sound studies and extend them to the site of vocal timbre.
Thus my questions find a parallel in theater scholarship’s inquiry into the per-
formed spoken voice. Faedra Chatard Carpenter is also “struck” by the phe-
nomenon that, “despite the widely accepted recognition that race is a social
construct, Americans still talk about what sounds black or sounds white in sim-
plified racial terms.”65 I share goals with scholars of avant-garde music, jazz, and
literature, such as Fred Moten, who is concerned with the rematerialization of
the visual through sound and with the objectification of persons based on the
ways in which their visual presentation is understood.66 I also share objectives
with Daphne Brooks, Emily Lordi, Jennifer Lynn Stoever, and Gayle Wald, all
of whom critically engage the catalogue of the African American experience.
Their activist approach to scholarship includes listening to that experience as
it is archived in the form of vocal micro-sonorities and inflections within the
context of popular music production, representation, and reception.67
Moreover I build on Josh Kun’s work on the “American audio-racial imagi-
nation,” which posits that considering music’s potential function as a form of
survival — considering “audiotopia” — offers key insights into racial relations
and dynamics.68 Developing an awareness of and a vocabulary to describe the
American audio-racial imagination is to better articulate and thus develop
critical analysis with which to address the “peculiar sensation, this double-
consciousness, this sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of
others”69 — or, to paraphrase Baldwin, this sense of always hearing one’s voice
through the ears of others. In developing our awareness, we take on the collec-
tive response to the acousmatic question. Since all predicates heard in the voice
26 • introduction
are judgments made by acculturated listeners, heard voices reflect the norms
and values of those listeners. Parsing encultured responses to the acousmatic
question builds a critical apparatus that aids in denaturalizing, in the context
of the belief that it is possible to know sound (e.g., F-sharp, quarter note, in
60 metronome tempo), or disidentifying, in the context of the belief that it
is possible to know people and to know them through their voices (e.g., the
belief that President Obama is “tal[king] white”), through critical interven-
tions such as the micropolitics of listening. In building on these strategies and
perspectives, I wish to understand and detail the material-symbolic projection,
manifestation, performance, and perception of vocal timbre in general, and ra-
cialized vocal timbre in particular.70
Listening to Listening
While working through specific issues related to voice, The Race of Sound is a
book about how ideas and ways of listening manifest. Attuning to how we ob-
serve voices offers one poignant way of witnessing concepts and active processes
of thought in manifestation and in practice. Thus by listening to listening we
can trace voice back to ideas.71 And by doing so, we can consider the sound and
the meaning attached to it as several of many interesting data points that can
help us understand the voice as a collective expression of a cultural fabric, and
as arising through listening.
In The Race of Sound I propose that we can better understand voice by ex-
amining listening to voice, because (1) attitudes around the voice as essential, in-
nate, and unmediated are deeply engrained; (2) voice is always already produced
through social relationships, within which it is heard and reproduced; (3) cri-
tique on the symbolic level remains a critique of systems of thought, seemingly
separate from the material and sonorous voice and the sensorium involved in
experiencing that voice; (4) research on the quantifiable material level is seldom
connected to the symbolic power dynamic, a dynamic acted out through listen-
ing (whether with human ears or machines); and finally (5) the limit to know-
ing voice lies in what we understand about listening to it; hence to know voice
we must examine the listening practices that structure voice.
That which is manifested through listening is consequently measured and
used to confirm ideas and ways of thinking and the ways in which they manifest.
That is, voice has long been believed to be essential, innate, and unmediated,
and consequently any meaning derived from it is unavailable for critical exami-
nation. Listening to listening, I propose, enables analysis of the voice — even as
it is an essentialized object — and offers a space within which we may do more
than automatically re-essentialize it. In order to listen to listening, though, we
must first observe listeners’ naturalized behaviors and assumptions.
Methodology
Because my basic definition of voice is that it does not exist a priori, I devel-
oped a methodology that responds to this perspective. By listening to listening
in order to become clearer about the auditory practices that structure voice,
analyses that are intended to identify the most accurate figure of sound are no
longer relevant. Listening to listening urgently calls for new analytical tools so
as not to replicate essentialisms. Fundamentally, listening to listening also calls
previous data into question and expands our notion of what can count as data.
In short, it reorients the researcher. To that new landscape, critical performance
practice applies an analysis that resists renaming, resists replacing one existing
category with another. In laying bare the ways voices are produced and listened
to, and in building the ability to note where naming takes place, critical per-
formance practice can also resist another renaming. When we consider voice
through critical performance practice, a measurement of the naturalization of
voice is introduced, and this analytical framework allows us to step outside of
and question the endless loop of essentializations and of increasingly nuanced
categorizations. Thus we can see that both naming and resistance to naming
vocal timbre are political. It is this process that I call the micropolitics of voice.
As mentioned, considerations of the thick vocal event have tended to fall
into two camps, involving attention to either the measurable or the symbolic. I
often compare the rich vocal event to the falling of a tree. In this scenario, mate-
rial considerations encompass considerations of the atoms; the shift in the tree’s
position from vertical to horizontal; the actualization of some of the shifting air
molecules into sounds; and how the ecosystem shifts from living to dead, with
the tree becoming nutrition for insects, fungi, moss, and more. Symbolic con-
siderations can include concern with the pitch of the falling tree’s sound and the
range of possible meanings and interpretations of that sound. In a vocal event
such as vocal fry, a material position would concern itself with the function of
the vocal folds in sonic production; a reading of a spectrogram that could, for
example, consider the pattern regularity or irregularity; the impact on the vocal
cords; and more.72 From the symbolic position, vocal fry would be considered
in terms of its meaning and signaling, including its gendered and generational
dimensions.73
Aiding me in coming to The Race of Sound’s conclusions was an experien-
tial and experimental approach based on embodied knowledge of singing and
28 • introduction
listening. I developed multiple experiments into the more streamlined critical
performance practice methodology expounded earlier. The methodological tool
of critical performance practice synthesizes and combines the book’s correctives
(voice is a collective, encultured performance, unfolding over time, and situ-
ated within a culture) with my performance-based tenets concerning voice.74
Carrying out critical performance practice means testing and examining ma-
terially and performatively symbolic positions on the voice and tracking any
insights, findings, and conclusions to the symbolic realm — even if a symbolic
interpretation seems beyond evolutionary logic. Critical performance practice
methodology offers a tool that allows tracking between, among, and within the
measurable, symbolic, and articulated (or performative) modes.
How is the methodology of critical performance practice implemented, in
practical terms? Critical performance practice applies narrative analysis to ob-
jects, timbres, and discourse based on listeners’ observations. It aims to tell the
story not of whether a voice is authentic or maintains fidelity to a given idea,
but of how a given vocalizer is associated with a particular category, culturally
created group, or genre. In this way critical performance practice methodol-
ogy can address performances carried out through listening. Responding to
the myth of voice as essence, critical performance practice re-creates the iso-
lated and bifurcated listening that takes place in upholding such a myth. For
example, by working through the triangulated and mutually influential areas of
the material, the measurable, and the symbolic; by testing through vocal teach-
ing and practice; and by assuming that vocal events are collective, encultured,
and manifested through listening, we can test and debunk hypotheses (e.g.,
that there is an innate black vocal timbre). And by tracking how vibrating air
molecules are eventually performed, experienced, and interpreted by a human
being who is situated within a particular cultural context, we can learn more
about the ways the symbolic is embedded within the material and the material
is not disconnected from the symbolic.
Built on the assumption that voice is neither innate nor unmediated, critical
performance practice methodology is able to test any meaning that arises
through listening, as well as track measurable categories back to the concept(s)
and relational dynamics that gave rise to them in the first place. Moreover this
work does not stop with a critical diagnostic. By engaging critical performance
practice we are able not only to identify, analyze, and offer critical positions but
also to propose critical performative strategies that can contribute to untangling
notions of voice as innate, essential, singular, defined statically, and a priori.
To summarize, racialized timbre exists as a species under the figure of sound
and is used as proof of race because the figure of sound assumes that it indeed
identifies an example of a phenomenon that exists in nature— an essence. How-
ever, there are two incompatible phenomena. The first paradigm, the figure of
sound, is a particular way of listening to things. When you listen to it in this
way, it produces a restrictive outcome: it allows only certain namings and situa-
tions wherein multiple naming possibilities nonetheless exist and within which
reaching a certain threshold moves us into a situation of contested namings.
Race exists vocally for most people because they approach voice through the
paradigm of the figure of sound, wherein voice can be named and the naming
ritual is limited to the names into which a given responder to the acousmatic
question is enculturated.
The route to a better name is to step away from the paradigm of the figure
of sound altogether — and here we use the acousmatic question to propel this
lateral movement. Applying the acousmatic question to listening to listening
allows a more precise question to come into relief: Why do I hear this person
in this way? In our focal shift from the singer to the listener, we not only move
to a second paradigm, from essence to performance, but we can also hear the
performance as the product of combined processes of entrainment, style, and
technique.
At first the answers to the questions — the singers’ very singing is in itself an
answer to the question “Who is singing?” and to “Why do I hear this person
in this way?” — look exactly the same. However, what establishes the difference
between entrainment as understood through the figure of sound and entrain-
ment as understood through style is agency. Through agency, a space for dis-
cernment is cleared and the trick of race is subverted. If, as Ta-Nehisi Coates
notes, “race is the child of racism, not the father,” style is singers’ and listeners’
selective use of a lifetime of formal and informal pedagogy, even if this educa-
tion took place within a racist society. Specifically, as a community member and
a scholar, in order to discern style and technique I “listen in detail” to how we
listen to timbre.75 The acousmatic question introduces a technique that can lead
us to the revelation that not only is timbre not essential, but when the figure of
sound paradigm collapses, something is there. What is revealed is entrainment
and style and technique. We move from immersion within the figure of sound
paradigm to what is exposed when peeling off its veil.
Style and technique, then, constitute an approach, an analytical mode, and a
description of a condition. They constitute an approach when a given vocalizer
plays with the material condition and feels compelled to name the practice and
its product. Here technique refers to an inner vocal choreography, the actual
movements the singer executes, and, more specifically, singers’ employment of
vocal technique to create the types of sounds they want to make. Style refers to
30 • introduction
the overall stylization of the vocalization and to the elusive differentiation that,
for example, causes two equal, perfectly presented renditions to be identified as
a romantic versus a baroque rendition of a piece. Style and technique constitute
an analytical mode when, on being confronted with the acousmatic condition,
listeners listen within an inquisitive frame. They may ask themselves: What is
the material play? What are the ranges of ways I could name these performative
choices? Doing so, listeners recognize the material-symbolic play on the part
of both vocalizer and listener. Style and technique constitute a description of a
condition when we understand that voice is not identified a priori.
If the meaning of vocal timbre is explained entirely through the singer’s ex-
ecution of technique and communication of style, and listeners’ interpretations
of these aspects, a certain type of imbalance may be felt. Analysis of technique
and style does not seem to have the capacity to account for the racism played out
through the voice as a tool of systematic oppression. For example, racial mim-
icry from antebellum to present-day minstrelsy cannot be excused as merely
trading in stylized vocal techniques. As Eric Lott has noted, an imbalance of
power and the related inability of one side to negotiate create a situation of cul-
tural theft and imperialism.76 To me, the very structure of power within which
entrainment and subsequent vocalization take place is the issue, not which exact
timbres were unconsciously entrained and which were deliberately performed.
The issue is the fact that a timbre performed by one person is understood as es-
sence (e.g., a so-called white timbre performed by a person understood as white),
while the same timbre performed by another person is understood as an imita-
tion (e.g., a so-called white timbre performed by a person understood as African
American). In other words, the same timbral performance is assigned a differ-
ent meaning depending on the power structure within which the vocalizer and
listener are situated. And entrainment as essence, versus as style and technique,
is not defined by any external, measurable parameters.
However, I would argue that, by carefully attending to style and technique,
as listeners (both as vocalizers and as listeners of other vocalizers) we can de-
velop tools that will help us to distinguish between, for example, “racial mim-
icry” and “mimicry of racial mimicry,” to draw on Daphne Brooks’s and Anne
Anlin Cheng’s vocabulary.77 Within the context of the United States, the for-
mer trades in what Radano has described as “animation” of blackness.78 The
latter, however, engages vocal technique and style in a recognition of complex
cultural origins — where any recognized sonic markers have developed through
a fraught power dynamic in an explicit process of creating difference. Indeed,
to invoke Radano again, “thinking about black music this way, finally, helps us
recognize how it emerged and evolved according to identifiable social processes
Table Intro.1. Beliefs about the Material and Beliefs about What Is Named
Belief about the material Belief about what is named

Essence Material is essential Names essence
Entrained Material is given/formed Names the condition
Style/technique Material is chosen/selected Names the choice
along the symbolic boundaries that structured a profoundly racialized world.” 79

The actualization of any given phase within the politics of listening, as shown
in table Intro.1, depends entirely on how listeners heed the acousmatic question.
By questioning erroneous ideas about sound as essence— fixed entities that
are possible to know — we may turn our attention to what I call sound as a
vibrational practice, a practice that is materially dependent and contingent.
When we bring discussion regarding the metaphysics of sound into the realm
of people’s voices and identity politics, the parallel is this: I have identified that
a given sound does not exist as such a priori, and hence cannot be identified as
correct or incorrect. Thus sounds cannot be considered in terms of their relative
fidelity or falseness ( falsk, as “out of tune” is phrased in Norwegian). I compli-
cate this basic observation about sound and extend the problematics to voice. By
doing so, I dispel the notion that timbre is unique, is singular, and arises from
the singer. Hence the notion of voice as essence is also dispelled. In that way, I
can show what the naturalization of parameters and ways of measuring sound
do to the more general experience of voice and listening. I can also foreground
the explicit political and ethical dimension of such practices.
While much of my previous work on voice and race has carefully traced the
entrainment of timbre, here I attempt to account for overlapping possibilities
of entrainment used in the service of the figure of sound and as a resource in
the expression of agency. Entrainment may take place within a constrained exis-
tence, such as the conditions of slavery or gender inequality, where the entrain-
ment of the body is total. Entrainment can also take place within the choice to
undertake a particular vocal practice, within a vocal practice’s resistance against
hegemony, and in a play whose vocal roles may be forced upon a person, within
which the vocalizer may potentially redefine the very definition of that vocal
practice. That is, what we have referred to as vocal “mimicry of racial mimicry”
may be connected to familiar positions, what Gayatri Spivak describes as “stra-
tegic essentialism” and Jose Muñoz considers “disidentifications.”80 By closely
examining entrainment’s complex condition, we may conceive of certain uses
of entrained vocal features as technique and style.
32 • introduction
By extracting the thread of technique and style from the totality of entrain-
ment, I can turn the acousmatic question into a productive one, a method of
critical practice.81 This practice does more than name the choice the singer
makes. In listening, we can be more precise, zooming in to aspects of “strate-
gic essentialism” or performative “misrepresentations.” Listening in to how we
listen and how we respond to the acousmatic question Who is this? opens us to
a type of micropolitics of listening, where the determination of race, essential-
ism, and naturalized concepts can be analyzed and contested by the listener as
well as the vocalizer.
Thus, by practicing listening to listening, applying the critical performance
practice analytical framework, and either flagging or performing the micropoli-
tics of listening — that is, by hearing that there is nothing unique or natural
about voice while taking steps to decipher its encultured process — The Race of
Sound offers a significant challenge. I challenge both everyday listening to and
indexing African American voices, and Cavarero’s theory of the “vocal ontol-
ogy of uniqueness.”82 While Cavarero ties the sound of the voice to the unique-
ness of the vocalizer’s body in order to offer a relational ontology and politics,
I advance the micropolitics of listening, a process that does not assume any
indexical connection between voices and bodies. In fact I began by noting that
racialized listening does not necessarily stem from racism, and I can now show
that, (most likely) inadvertently, Cavarero’s “vocal ontology of uniqueness” as-
sumes the very same logic that supports racialized perception of vocal timbre.
Chapter Overview
In each of the chapters I deconstruct how a given voice is created through (1)
projection by the listener rather than by the vocalizer alone. I show how and
where that process actively and concretely affects the singer’s body or vocal pre-
sentation and detail how these concepts are (2) manifested in the singer, ex-
plaining (3) which symbolic position is projected over them. The breakdown
of this process offers details of the politics that are carried out through vocal
timbre. Additionally, within the chapters I discuss and offer examples of the
different phases of the micropolitics of listening. The micropolitics of listening
includes both reinscribing essence through entrainment and moving away from
essence by harnessing entrainment toward self-determined style and technique.
I can also offer another way to think about this book: it argues that when
listeners identify vocal performances as black, they are really offering a natural-
ized shorthand for deeply informed and considered cultural expressions that
are always, in the here and now, actualized through vocal style and technique.
Each chapter discusses different aspects of these naturalization processes and
the performances of their conflations. In other words, singing is always made
up of entrainment, style, and technique but is generally mistaken for essence.
And when voice is mistaken for essence, other aspects of the vocalizer that are
believed to be essential are conflated with voice and are forced into a causal
relationship, performing the erroneous logic that an essential black body gives
rise to an essential black voice.
In chapter 1, “Formal and Informal Pedagogies,” I set out a case against vo-
cal timbre’s ability to sound the essence of a person. The chapter presents as an
alternative explanation that vocal timbre is a result of the material condition
of the voice as formed through continuous entrainment. Specifically I offer a
consideration of voice as always already a continuous formal and informal peda-
gogical enterprise. Voice teachers’ projection of race and/or ethnicity as unme-
diated essence, which would be expressed in an authentic voice and would result
from the training, is used as evidence of the singer belonging to a given ethnic
community. This chapter’s analyses and concerns join the tradition of critical
pedagogy. By considering the deep impact that voice teachers have on the for-
mation of vocal timbre, I investigate the ways in which overall perceptions of
race and ethnicity, paired with convictions about voice as an essential and un-
mediated expression of interiority, play decisive roles in vocal training. I argue
that what takes place during formal voice lessons, where teachers’ sentiments
about their students’ identities (including race and ethnicity) are present in vo-
cal evaluations and pedagogical prescriptions, is similar to informal voice les-
sons. That is, by investigating a very controlled situation of entrainment within
formal voice lessons, I make a broader argument about the ways everyday vocal
training is manifest corporeally and vocally. As such, we understand that voices
are equally entrained through repetitions called forth at teachers’ urgings or in
seeking recognition within a classroom or broader social setting. That is, the
material voice manifests cultural and societal values and dynamics of power in
its habituation of ligaments, muscles, and tendons, and sounds timbral identity
categories accordingly.
In chapter 2, “Phantom Genealogy,” I show how the values of a historical-
political moment set the agenda for entrainment. I not only show that the voice
is entrained but also discuss how stories about essence are constructed. Thus I
argue that perception of timbre is shaped through narratives about the singer
and the voice — specifically by which artistic, genre, repertoire, ethnic, or racial
genealogies are drawn around the singer. By arranging the narrative arc within
which a voice is heard, perceptions can be radically directed, opportunities pre-
sented for the singers can open and close, and the artist’s voice and career can be
34 • introduction
shaped. For example, applying such a reading, we see that Marian Anderson was
placed within the narrative genealogy constituted by the historical perception
of slaves’ voices, burlesque opera, and minstrel shows. Her career, her voice, and
its perception were thus shaped by such complex filters and identity markers,
including the notions of black voice and the suffering voice of the spiritual, that
became so strongly associated with her that she was not allowed to move beyond
their projection onto her voice. As such, this chapter traces the fraught history
of African American singers in integrated U.S. opera to the mid-nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries. While a singer can certainly relate a narrative
through timbre alone, individual singers are heard in particular ways depend-
ing on the context within which they are placed. In these cases the racial imag-
ination may not manifest by directly shaping flesh and its consequent vocal
production. Rather it manifests through timbre that is experienced as racial-
ized simply through the musical, genre, or repertoire genealogies connected to
the voice. The ways in which we hear a particular voice are drawn as networks
among people, genres, repertoires, and racialized conceptions of music, and a
singer’s vocal timbre is directed through that filter.
In chapter 3, “Familiarity as Strangeness,” I show that, although we are all
subject to vocal entrainment, it is possible to use it as the basis of what I call
“style and technique.” Style and technique means that the singer is making
choices in regard to his or her vocal sound and expression and has honed his
or her vocal technique to reflect these choices. I also show that, ultimately, the
listener is integral to recognition of the singer’s voice as essence. Specifically this
chapter examines timbre in regard to particular vocal pitch ranges and their
relationship to gender. Gender is not primarily cued through pitch, as is com-
monly assumed; timbre is a stronger cue to gender. Jimmy Scott, who was born
with Kallmann syndrome, which affects male hormonal levels and prevents the
onset of puberty, is commonly believed to signal gender ambiguity through vo-
cal tessitura. By considering Scott in relation to comparable black male singers,
I show that his vocal range was also occupied by many of his peers whose voices
were not read in the same gender-ambiguous ways. I posit that the gender am-
biguity through which Scott is perceived is due to timbre, particularly through
his failure to exhibit falsetto in the higher register. In other words, a singer can
sing in a higher vocal register and signal (black) masculinity by exhibiting the
otherness of that vocal register through falsetto.83 In contrast, Scott sang with
great timbral integration, sounding no timbral break into falsetto. Thus while
Scott himself insisted on his heterosexual male identity, his producers and au-
diences manifested ambiguity toward his gender and state of being through
imagery, descriptions, and castings. My discussion shows that listeners under-
take extreme measures when a voice does not fit within preconceived, culturally
dependent notions — such as Scott’s voice, which challenged the popular image
of masculine blackness.
The stages of the politics of listening are also reflected in the digital realm.
In chapter 4, “Race as Zeros and Ones,” I focus on the ways audiences are in-
tegral to the process of creating the singer through digital entrainment— the
fashioning of sound and image using digital tools — which is produced on the
basis of assumed essence. Here I revisit the vocal synthesis software Vocaloid,
which I first critiqued in 2008 for producing and reinforcing racial musical and
vocal stereotypes. Surprisingly, over the past few years music producers and on-
line user communities (with significant overlap with the anime community)
have refused the racialized presentation of the vocal synthesis software, impos-
ing their own characters over the voices. The Vocaloid vocal synthesis system
and the artistic activities around it provide a striking example of how voices
are manifested through a combination of sound, music, genre, and visual and
textual (re-)presentation. Zero-G and other companies that work with the Vo-
caloid system eventually listened to their users’ application of the software and
their full artistic creation of characters that subverted the companies’ original
bid. Zero-G et al. have responded in kind, working with users in creative com-
petitions and crowdsourcing the imagery, names, and textual descriptions of
newly issued synthetic voices.
Chapter 5, “Bifurcated Listening,” showcases audiences’ oscillation between
aligning the performer with style and technique and aligning him or her with
essence. It is in this unsettled space that we can understand the singer as hav-
ing agency. In examining the concrete tools of singing, this chapter reveals a
new avenue in the reading and analysis of voices. I tackle how the reception of
vocal icons such as Billie Holiday complicates and contradicts the simultane-
ously applied practices. On the one hand, Holiday’s voice is deemed unequaled
in its power due to the authenticity it communicates, which is believed to be
beyond the performer’s control. On the other hand, Holiday’s distinctive voice
is a prized sound for imitation. And when that imitation is successful, the fact
that Holiday’s life experience overlays that of the artist who erases herself while
channeling the grain of her voice poses multiple intriguing questions, making
the vocal moment even more poignant. Observing how the position that voice
is essential, unmediated expression is upheld while recognizing vocal imitation,
we can see that such attention requires a rearrangement of listening into a bi-
furcated perception that can simultaneously hold the “essential” voice of one
singer and the recognizable voice of another in a contradictory grasp. In other
36 • introduction
words, the recognition of ventriloquism counters the premise that an inimitable
voice has been imitated.
The sixth and final chapter, “Widening Rings of Being,” calls for the study
of voice as style and technique. By developing detailed knowledge about the
arbitrary and adoptable patterning of voices, we can grasp the institutionaliza-
tion and internalization of race that takes place through daily vocal and listen-
ing practices. I posit that race and ethnicity are merely aspects of a continuous
field of style and technique that are distinguished from its limitless potentiality
only through naming. In other words, The Race of Sound suggests that in order
to more fully understand the operationalization of race through vocal timbre,
we must turn our inquiry to the listener who materializes his or her own val-
ues when naming voice. The chapter and book close by posing an open-ended
question: What protective mechanism does the naming of voice serve for the
listener? What would listeners have to confront within themselves if they were
not able to rely on the mechanism of measuring voice?

Eidsheim Race of Sound

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eidsheim Race of Sound

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eidsheim Race of Sound

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Race of Sound

Listening, Timbre & Vocalit y

Listening, Timbre, and Vocality

in African American Music Nina Sun Eidsheim

Duke University Press Durham and London 2019

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Cover art: Nick Cave, Soundsuit, 2017. © Nick Cave.

This title is freely available in an open access edition thanks

This book is published under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-

“No derivatives” as defined in this license prohibits abridgment or condensation.

Introduction. The Acousmatic Question:

1 Formal and Informal Pedagogies

4 Race as Zeros and Ones

6 Widening Rings of Being

Appendix • 201 Notes • 205 Bibliography • 243 Index • 259

The Acousmatic Question

Juliet: My ears have not yet drunk a hundred words

The Acousmatic Question • 3

What Does the Acousmatic Question Offer Insight Into?

The Acousmatic Question • 11

Linguistic Physiological Acoustic Physiological Linguistic

Linguistic Physiological Acoustic Physiological Linguistic

Figure Intro.2 Listener-speaker model.

countless concrete instances in which he or she is vocally corrected, directly or

Roadblocks and Processes on the Way

Figure Intro.3 The model shows

methodologies, each of these positions yields distinct, often non-overlapping,

Voice’s Manifestations of the Measured and the Symbolic

The Micropolitics of Listening

Belief about the material Belief about what is named

along the symbolic boundaries that structured a profoundly racialized world.” 79

The Acousmatic Question • 37

You might also like