I'm thinking that it might be an idea to split Section 58 into Section 58a and Section 58b. The reason is that, without the benefit of the text, it may appear to the listener that the person described in the second part is the same person described in the first part, and that would be quite a terrible mistake to make. If you would like it split (and appropriately renamed in the recording), please let me know.
Thank you!
I've put these in the MW Ready for PL
Well, I chose to combine those two short pieces for Section 58 because they were really short, and there are other sections where I have done the same. It should be easy enough in reading to make the separation by inflection and timing -- a good inflected ending to the first piece, an appropriate pause, announcing the title of the second piece and continuing should be sufficient. The other clue is that the Section title lists them both and should be read as such.
Perhaps I should have given clearer guidance on this. The best way to handle these is to read the intro with both titles, and then read the first title again before beginning it, then the second title when it is read. That should be clear enough to the listener. I haven't listened to this, so I'll let our DPL give you a report and any suggestions if anything needs to be changed.
Thanks so much for your contribution and your thoughtful suggestion.
Since this is your first recording, I thought I'd go ahead and give you a proof listening report..
The technical specifications are spot on.
Your reading is just fine, with a good clean recording.
So, I am happy to mark this one PL OK.
So, feel free to sign up for more sections in this or other projects.
You are off to a good start.
silverquill wrote: ↑June 18th, 2021, 5:46 am
...
Well, I chose to combine those two short pieces for Section 58 because they were really short, and there are other sections where I have done the same. It should be easy enough in reading to make the separation by inflection and timing -- a good inflected ending to the first piece, an appropriate pause, announcing the title of the second piece and continuing should be sufficient. The other clue is that the Section title lists them both and should be read as such.
Perhaps I should have given clearer guidance on this. The best way to handle these is to read the intro with both titles, and then read the first title again before beginning it, then the second title when it is read. That should be clear enough to the listener. I haven't listened to this, so I'll let our DPL give you a report and any suggestions if anything needs to be changed.
Thanks so much for your contribution and your thoughtful suggestion.
I'm thinking that it might be an idea to split Section 58 into Section 58a and Section 58b. The reason is that, without the benefit of the text, it may appear to the listener that the person described in the second part is the same person described in the first part, and that would be quite a terrible mistake to make. If you would like it split (and appropriately renamed in the recording), please let me know.
Thank you!
I've put these in the MW Ready for PL
Well, I chose to combine those two short pieces for Section 58 because they were really short, and there are other sections where I have done the same. It should be easy enough in reading to make the separation by inflection and timing -- a good inflected ending to the first piece, an appropriate pause, announcing the title of the second piece and continuing should be sufficient. The other clue is that the Section title lists them both and should be read as such.
Perhaps I should have given clearer guidance on this. The best way to handle these is to read the intro with both titles, and then read the first title again before beginning it, then the second title when it is read. That should be clear enough to the listener. I haven't listened to this, so I'll let our DPL give you a report and any suggestions if anything needs to be changed.
Thanks so much for your contribution and your thoughtful suggestion.
Sections 59 and 70 are PL OK.
I do agree with your assessment of section 58. As it is now, it is confusing to the listener, it sounds as if you are reading the obituary of the individual in the first part.
I would recommend following Larry's recommendation above (I bolded the information) at ~0:27 in the recording and resubmit. Everything else was worthy of a gold star. Nicely done.
AnthonyT wrote: ↑June 19th, 2021, 8:34 am
Thank you, I'm excited to keep recording!
Could I have sections 49,50, and 51.
Great!
I've put you in for these.
Just be careful of overdriving your gain.
There were a few places where there was some clipping - not serious, but something to be aware of.
I do agree with your assessment of section 58. As it is now, it is confusing to the listener, it sounds as if you are reading the obituary of the individual in the first part.
I would recommend following Larry's recommendation above (I bolded the information) at ~0:27 in the recording and resubmit. Everything else was worthy of a gold star. Nicely done.
Hello Larry,
I am sorry I'm taking a long time to send out the rest of my sections. I was wondering if you could extend my deadline by an extra month. I don't need two months, but one month would be much appreciated.
DariaAM wrote: ↑June 20th, 2021, 1:50 am
Hello Larry,
I am sorry I'm taking a long time to send out the rest of my sections. I was wondering if you could extend my deadline by an extra month. I don't need two months, but one month would be much appreciated.
Not a problem. You do have some time left anyway, and we still have unclaimed sections.
Thanks so much for letting me know.
I do agree with your assessment of section 58. As it is now, it is confusing to the listener, it sounds as if you are reading the obituary of the individual in the first part.
I would recommend following Larry's recommendation above (I bolded the information) at ~0:27 in the recording and resubmit. Everything else was worthy of a gold star. Nicely done.