New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Beatboxing May Be Safer Than Singing

Because the glottis between the vocal cords stays open more than in normal singing, the practice may be safer than traditional vocalizing and could even be a good warm-up for singers. Wayt Gibbs reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Which, do you imagine, is harder on the human voice: [rock singer sound], or [soprano sound]—or this [beatboxing sample]?

Beatboxing, as musician Tom Thum was doing in that last example, uses the voice to mimic an incredible range of percussive instruments, from drums and cymbals to record scratches and didgeridoos.

But to make such, well, inhuman sounds, the performer contorts various parts of the vocal tract and pushes air at high velocity through the larynx, creating concerns that beatboxing might lead to long-term vocal damage.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


So researchers took a close look at what happens inside the throat as the beat goes on. They snaked thin video cameras through the noses of four male beatboxers to watch their voice boxes during performance.

The study found that beatboxing is actually probably safer than normal singing—or the screams of a rock star—because the glottis between the vocal cords stays open more and the force doesn’t get concentrated in any one spot. The work appears in the Journal of Voice. [Andrew Sapthavee, Paul Yi and H. Steven Sims, Functional Endoscopic Analysis of Beatbox Performers]

A little beatboxing might thus even help singers warm up before they expound on the history of physics [Galileo, Galileo clip].

—Wayt Gibbs

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
 

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe