The voice operates between meaning and sound, resisting reduction to either

Evidence

But, as Dolar establishes, the “object voice” is neither the voice stripped of all sensual qualities in order to become the neutral transmitter of signifiers, nor the voice stripped of all signification in order to become a pure source of aesthetic pleasure. With Green’s voice, we continually slide between two types of non-sense: the nonsense of “the lover’s discourse”, the nursery-rhyme-like reiterations of baby-talk phrases that are devoid of meaning, but which are nevertheless the most important utterances people perform or hear; and also the nonsense of the voice as sound, another kind of sweet nothing. — Mark Fisher (edited by Darren Ambrose), K-Punk, 1185

Categorization

• DEFINE: Explains the Lacanian ‘object voice’ via Dolar as occupying space between signifier transmission and pure sound.
• XREF: connects to: Linguistic thoughts can be heard as sounds rather than meanings — Pauline Oliveros, Deep Listening, 221; Prosody alone can invert the meaning of identical spoken words.; The singing voice reduces to a source plus a shapeable vocal-tract filter — David Howard, Jamie Angus, coustics and Psychoacoustics, 1339

Broader Connections

• Linguistic thoughts can be heard as sounds rather than meanings #qualifies (0.82) — Pauline Oliveros, Deep Listening, 221
• Prosody alone can invert the meaning of identical spoken words. #exemplifies (0.75)
• The singing voice reduces to a source plus a shapeable vocal-tract filter #complicates (0.73) — David Howard, Jamie Angus, coustics and Psychoacoustics, 1339