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.]
 

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe