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.
[The following is an exact transcript of this podcast.]
On the June 30th podcast, you heard some bad singing. Clearly a lot of people think they can sing—just look at the enormous crowds that show up to audition for American Idol. But how many people can actually stay in key? [Sound of bad singing.]
Scientists think they have an answer, which they presented at a conference on acoustics in Paris on July 2nd. In the first part of the study, the researchers stopped people at random in a Montreal park and asking them to sing Quebec’s anthem. In that park, turns out 40 out of 42 people sounded as good as the pros. That percentage is surprisingly high. Which makes the two people who couldn’t sing especially interesting—why couldn’t they carry a tune? [More bad singing sound.]
The researchers repeated the experiment, this time asking people to sing Jingle Bells. They then tested the bad singers’ ability to listen to some music and identify the sour notes. They found that the off-pitch crooners fall into two classes. Those who simply can not hear that they’re hitting the wrong notes. And those who can tell, but keep singing anyway. [More bad singing sound.]
—Karen Hopkin, with Mel F. Louis
60-Second Science is a daily podcast. Subscribe to this Podcast: RSS | iTunes
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
