I find Clinton vastly more enjoyable when she's speaking rather than shouting. I hate her victory/losing speeches. I find Obama terrific at all times, but not so much more so than Clinton in this kind of setting. We have two good candidates.
I have often wondered about this- hardwired sexism of sound tech. Any sound person can tell you that mikes pick up (and transmit) higher voices terribly. So I've wondered whether women shouting onscreen sounds comparatively worse to us than a man partially due to how it emphasizes the limitations of sound equipment. (Of course, there's our entire culture's aversion to women being loud that not one of us can entirely erradicate from our interpellated selves, but this sort of technological reinforcement interests me).
If she has a good sound tech, though, there are ways to improve such things. I'm not sure it's a question of tone as much as style and approach. I just think she's better at just talking rather than at commanding a crowd.
It's interesting though, listening to her tonight. When she gets into "stump speech" aspects of her answers to debates, she goes into a nearly monotone head voice. Obama goes into musical cadence in similar moments.
Oh, yes. I remember thinking this weekend when I was calling a dance that I needed to keep my voice in its lower registers. Surely any woman in politics has learned the same lesson; after all, "shrill" is one of the quickest sexist dismissals.
oh yes- any woman who regularly uses a mike learns that. However, for pols (in this case), I think it's a double-edged sword. Lower vocal registers = masculine, you know? And all too often it's one more nail in the "mannish" lady pol's coffin, I'm afraid. Ironic, given how many ppl like to listen to altos sing, or think "phone sex voices" are hot.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-02-22 01:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-22 01:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-22 01:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-22 02:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-22 05:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-22 02:28 pm (UTC)salt mines......
Date: 2008-02-22 01:45 am (UTC)Okay just teasing.
But seriously if you are going to post instead of work the least you could do is talk about your baby and post pictures/videos and the like.
Re: salt mines......
Date: 2008-02-22 01:49 am (UTC)Re: salt mines......
Date: 2008-02-22 01:53 am (UTC)If you ever tell me you're coming to a music night I am going to make you pie. Just so you know.
Re: salt mines......
Date: 2008-02-22 01:55 am (UTC)Re: salt mines......
Date: 2008-02-22 02:26 am (UTC)Re: salt mines......
Date: 2008-02-22 02:31 am (UTC)Re: salt mines......
Date: 2008-02-22 02:03 am (UTC)Re: salt mines......
Date: 2008-02-22 02:36 am (UTC)Re: salt mines......
Date: 2008-02-22 02:46 am (UTC)Does this mean I've been doin it wrong? darn it.
Re: salt mines......
Date: 2008-02-22 02:46 am (UTC)Re: salt mines......
Date: 2008-02-22 02:47 am (UTC)