Every parent eventually faces the question, “Why is the sky blue?” from their kids. I heard it this past weekend from my 14-year old daughter.
Since she’s now in high school I figured I’d better have a scientifically plausible answer, so I mentioned how the atmosphere breaks up the sunlight into its component colors, and the longer, redder lightwaves usually pass right through, unseen, while the shorter bluer rays, hitting the air molecules, are scattered more in the sky and that’s what we see.
Anyway, now I’m wondering if I can’t use the whole “longer wave/shorter wave” idea for today’s Soundcheck Smackdown, a silly one even by our standards, on which is better – high singing voices or low. (And yes, for everyone now leaving comments on the page to the effect that we need both types of voice and both have their own advantages and beauties, I agree. Thanks for not playing our game…)
As far as I can tell, there’s no contest: deeper voices are simply superior. It’s just science. Lower soundwaves are the ones that, like red lightwaves, pass through. Higher notes, with shorter soundwaves, get bounced around. So when your neighbor’s stereo is on, you hear the thud of the drums and the throb of the bass through the wall, but probably not much of the voice – unless it’s Barry White or someone like that. So those deep voices are getting through – they hit you in a more direct way then those inadequately-sized, tiny-waved upper voices.
It’s just science, people.
Plus, every guy knows that a girl with a husky voice, say, a girl just getting over a cold, sounds undeniably, scientifically sexier.
Tell us: do you prefer high singing voices or low?
Leave a comment.