On changing voice patterns

[eighthobstruction]

It's all your dyslexicon, eighth!

.....it's delecible [ or even delectable} dissective dyslexicumism....my mum used to say " it's not your personality, but it is what you are like"[in a Bristolian accent]....(butchered in that new ITV detective show MacDonald and Dodds...)....

[eighthobstruction]

Isn't that a bit 'right notes, not necessarily in the right order'?

You see, I'm being told on here, in rather forthright terms, I might add, that things such as pace, breath control, diction, resonance don't matter and I'm being too fussy, but surely these are the very virtues we look for in a good classical performance.

So, I don't imagine much post-concert chat goes as ... "Well, he took that last section much too fast, his breathing broke up a lot of the phrasing, failed to articulate a lot of the notes, but the requiem's still a great piece and he was very enthusiastic. I was even able to catch the earlier train!"

there is truth there within....personally i think serveral folk are writing about 3 different things/meanings of what the thread is about....

[jayne lee wilson]

Isn't that a bit 'right notes, not necessarily in the right order'?

You see, I'm being told on here, in rather forthright terms, I might add, that things such as pace, breath control, diction, resonance don't matter and I'm being too fussy, but surely these are the very virtues we look for in a good classical performance.

So, I don't imagine much post-concert chat goes as ... "Well, he took that last section much too fast, his breathing broke up a lot of the phrasing, failed to articulate a lot of the notes, but the requiem's still a great piece and he was very enthusiastic. I was even able to catch the earlier train!"

No, it is more that you seem to be trying to set up your own standards - those vocal characteristics you are most comfortable with in presenters - as objectively, definably correct, a touchstone against which all others are judged. Of course "pace, breath control, diction" matter, but how individual examples of such strike the individual ear/brain varies very widely.

Remember our discussion about the young woman continuity announcer on Radio last 3 Saturday, PM after 1500 hrs of 29/02? Her name is Danielle Jalowiecka, who is also a professional recorder player.
I've been back several times to listen to those announcements; and I'm only the more impressed by her phrasing, tonal clarity and articulation; "pace, breath control, diction" seem faultless to me - better than many, but I'm not sure why "resonance" should matter so much: a young female voice will usually have inherently less of this than a middle-aged male one, surely?
But so what? You might as well criticise a viola for not being a trombone.
Danielle is very good on her own terms. Why would I want her to sound like Penny Gore? (Who I guess has the "resonance" you prefer?)

I wish more people here would go and listen to that voice, since you and I hear it - the actual physiological way it strikes our ears - in profoundly different ways. Further comments very welcome!

***
It isn't so easy to transfer speech values to musical ones (processing of such is usually in different cerebral hemispheres, left for speech, right for music..); a post-concert chat could also go "I've never heard the finale taken so fast! Some approximations, but it was amazing! Wow! Glad I was here....." (in the bar later): "not sure I'd want it on record though....."

Then the live recording gets released.... to universal acclaim (but "perhaps not a library version though..." .....)
Etc....

[cloughie]

I listened to You and Yours on Radio 4 today - the presenter Melanie Abbott was excellent and clearly spoken but two other contributors gabbled and their diction was poor - is clarity not too much to ask for?

[Count Boso]

No, it is more that you seem to be trying to set up your own standards - those vocal characteristics you are most comfortable with in presenters - as objectively, definably correct, a touchstone against which all others are judged.

I've been back several times to listen to those announcements; and I'm only the more impressed by her phrasing, tonal clarity and articulation;

Danielle is very good on her own terms. Why would I want her to sound like Penny Gore?

Or to sum up - one person's meat is another person's poison? Neither opinion negates the other. Neither opinion is less true for the person who holds it. And it's certainly no comfort to the person who 'likes not' to learn that someone else 'likes', regardless of whether either or both are alone in holding their opinions.

I think, though, the initial post was about the speed at which young people now tend to speak? Living in an area where many non-native English speakers live/work, I was struck by how quickly the most fluent spoke (not always intelligible to me), but the opinion I formed, based entirely on myself, was that native English speakers tended to speak English more slowly than native French/Spanish/Italian and so on spoke their native languages. I seem to speak quite slowly. Is this just because I'm old?

[kernelbogey]

...Remember our discussion about the young woman continuity announcer on Radio last 3 Saturday, PM after 1500 hrs of 29/02? Her name is Danielle Jalowiecka, who is also a professional recorder player.
I've been back several times to listen to those announcements; and I'm only the more impressed by her phrasing, tonal clarity and articulation; "pace, breath control, diction" seem faultless to me - better than many, but I'm not sure why "resonance" should matter so much: a young female voice will usually have inherently less of this than a middle-aged male one, surely...?

I agree about Danielle Jalowiecka, and am grateful for the spelling because, despite the clarity of her diction, I couldn't make out (despite going back to a newsbulletin) the first consonant of her last name. Danielle has turned up reading the news on World Service at unsociable hours. Debbie Russ is another who reads the news occasionally on R3 and WS, and also has impeccable (IMV) diction.

[Serial_Apologist]

Or to sum up - one person's meat is another person's poison? Neither opinion negates the other. Neither opinion is less true for the person who holds it. And it's certainly no comfort to the person who 'likes not' to learn that someone else 'likes', regardless of whether either or both are alone in holding their opinions.

I think, though, the initial post was about the speed at which young people now tend to speak? Living in an area where many non-native English speakers live/work, I was struck by how quickly the most fluent spoke (not always intelligible to me), but the opinion I formed, based entirely on myself, was that native English speakers tended to speak English more slowly than native French/Spanish/Italian and so on spoke their native languages. I seem to speak quite slowly. Is this just because I'm old?

In my case, as a 74-year old I'm now wondering about that too - people also seem to walk faster than me these days, though to me I'm just walking at my usual pace. I think the impression that some foreign languages are spoken faster than English is just that, having noted in films where English subtitles are provided there doesn't appear to be much difference. Or maybe the foreign language just uses more words to say the same thing!

Oh and welcome to the forum, Count Boso!

[jayne lee wilson]

Or to sum up - one person's meat is another person's poison? Neither opinion negates the other. Neither opinion is less true for the person who holds it. And it's certainly no comfort to the person who 'likes not' to learn that someone else 'likes', regardless of whether either or both are alone in holding their opinions.

I think, though, the initial post was about the speed at which young people now tend to speak? Living in an area where many non-native English speakers live/work, I was struck by how quickly the most fluent spoke (not always intelligible to me), but the opinion I formed, based entirely on myself, was that native English speakers tended to speak English more slowly than native French/Spanish/Italian and so on spoke their native languages. I seem to speak quite slowly. Is this just because I'm old?

But Stephen McK was clearly appealing to an older "traditional" style of presentation as, precisely, an objective measure of newer and especially younger approaches. I would guess that Donald MacLeod and Penny Gore would be something like his touchstones. It didn't seem to me to be merely subjective, and I'd never have challenged him if it was just like/dislike.

I try to take the broader view, that we need, and should try to accept (even celebrate), much more variety in those voices: gender, accent, character etc.
But how they strike the individual ear, as I say, will vary enormously. At 63, I don't find much difficulty with young voices, or their speed of utterance. (Non-native English speaking is surely a very different question; but how very attractive it can be.... I love French-accented English** as much as Geordie!).

Age and gender (and experience of course) may well be very influential on the individual response to a given voice. Physiological, surely, and at the cerebral level.
But it would so useful if you would go listen to Danielle J., young indeed (enviably...) but not to my or other ears here, remotely rushed or unintelligible.....in fact rather good at what she does.

**instant example: Pierre Boulez - very rapid delivery, but always intelligible, no?

[Count Boso]

But Stephen McK was clearly appealing to an older "traditional" style of presentation as, precisely, an objective measure of newer and especially younger approaches


I try to take the broader view, that we need, and should try to accept (even celebrate), much more variety in those voices: gender, accent, character etc.

This is what I was intending to convey. Both sides are merely explaining ('justifying') their personal viewpoint. Is one view superior to the other? Who decides - an independent judiciary?

[jayne lee wilson]

This is what I was intending to convey. Both sides are merely explaining ('justifying') their personal viewpoint. Is one view superior to the other? Who decides - an independent judiciary?

Point taken, but I would say that my "variety" doesn't need any "judiciary" - just a wide open curiosity and I hope, a certain generosity of spirit. I felt that Stephen was invoking just such an undefined "independent" measure, a stricter, narrower view of what a good announcing voice is supposed to sound like, which had led him to an unfairly harsh judgment of this specific example..... but.....anything more is for him to say, really........
(Any thoughts on Pierre Boulez yourself, Boso?)

Like/dislike needs no justification; judgements do. I've tried to clarify as best I can, and don't wish to repeat myself any further.

[Count Boso]

Like/dislike needs no justification; judgements do. I've tried to clarify as best I can, and don't wish to repeat myself any further.

Yes, thank you for your time, though I didn't say 'justification: I said "explaining ('justifying')", by which I probably again judge by myself. If I like or dislike something is satisfies me to explain/justify my reaction to myself, to understand/justify it to myself. To test it. There is no necessity, I would agree with you, to justify to others unless they are interested in hearing other people's thoughts. Some are, some aren't.

I still feel you present your view in a positive light (wide open curiosity, generosity of spirit) whereas the opposing view was narrower, stricter, 'unfairly harsh judgement', because that is how you see it. Which is that: how you see it. I hasten to say that you have clarified your view completely and there is no need to repeat yourself.

(Any thoughts on Pierre Boulez yourself, Boso?)

None whatsoever. A blank. I am an ignoramus as far as that goes.

[StephenMcK]

I have only this to say, and I will address myself to the Forum at large.

When one expresses a firm view it has to be expected that there may be some who disagree, strongly perhaps; but there is such a thing as a sense of proportion.

'Yah, but ... ' / 'Please, but me no buts'.

[ardcarp]

Here's an excellent test for clarity in a continuity announcer's voice. Listen to the Shipping Forecast in a strong wind and rough sea on Long Wave...oh, and on a portable transistor radio. If you can understand it, they pass my test. I do hope, BTW, that this government's fiddling with the BBC's public service commitment won't affect Long Wave and the Shipping Forecast. Fishermen and small-boat sailors still rely on it, despite all the latest gismos.

[kernelbogey]

...I do hope, BTW, that this government's fiddling with the BBC's public service commitment won't affect Long Wave and the Shipping Forecast. Fishermen and small-boat sailors still rely on it, despite all the latest gismos.

The same goes (in a different sense) for the World Service. It must contribute immensely to UK's international prestige.

[ardcarp]