Over the top

Zaklog the Great · Post by **Zaklog the Great** » July 14th, 2009, 6:43 am

After having recorded and posted a few here, and after listening to several recordings by other lv-ers, I've come to a conclusion that I'd like to check with some veterans here. It seems to me that one key to getting a good reading is to overperform: put much more emphasis and pacing into your voice than you would usually. To your own ears you might sound like a clown, but it plays much better for your audience than a calmer reading would.

So to those of you who know more than I, am I right? Is this good advice for newbies or should I just shut up and get back to my own recordings?

sadclown · Post by **sadclown** » July 14th, 2009, 6:47 am

Zaklog the Great wrote:After having recorded and posted a few here, and after listening to several recordings by other lv-ers, I've come to a conclusion that I'd like to check with some veterans here. It seems to me that one key to getting a good reading is to overperform: put much more emphasis and pacing into your voice than you would usually. To your own ears you might sound like a clown, but it plays much better for your audience than a calmer reading would.

So to those of you who know more than I, am I right? Is this good advice for newbies or should I just shut up and get back to my own recordings?

I think it depends on what you're reading, if you are reading more of a textbook, like The Family Kitchen Gardener or Gray's Anatomy, then I would say no. But if you are reading an exciting novel, then yes you should put emphasis and pacing into your recording. So, basically the answer is, "it's up to the reader!"

Great Plains · Post by **Great Plains** » July 14th, 2009, 7:06 am

I've noticed for sure that things sound a lot more exaggerated and silly to me when I'm recording than when I listen to the recording played back.

Lucy_k_p · Post by **Lucy_k_p** » July 14th, 2009, 7:25 am

For fiction (rather than a textbook) yes it is. The reason behind this is when talking to someone in person/seeing them on television, you get a lot of visual cues to see what their emotion is (the expression on their face, the way their hands move, their body language) whereas in a pure voice recording these cues are missing so your performance needs to be 'bigger' and more obvious to get across the same effect.

Stage actors often need to do something similar, as the people sitting at the back of a large theatre can't see normal, subtle body language and facial expressions, so the actor has to exaggerate their performance slightly in order to display the relevant emotion.

Post by **hugh** » July 14th, 2009, 8:21 am

It depends on preference. We've got all kinds here. Probably putting more emphasis than you normally would, and working harder at enunciating is important; but for my ears it can go too far, and sometimes the hamming overtakes the words, which is never good.

But certainly reading an audiobook well is not the same as having a regular conversation. It takes experience, and I suppose the best thing is to listen to readers you really like, and try to figure out what it is you like about them; and slowly start incorporating those traits into your recordings.

kayray · Post by **kayray** » July 14th, 2009, 10:03 am

Ugh, no. Just read :)

RuthieG · Post by **RuthieG** » July 14th, 2009, 10:33 am

But, Kara, you are blessed with a naturally expressive voice. Not everyone is. Some people have to add expression when it doesn't come naturally.

Ruth
(who is an irredeemable ham, anyway, at least in E. Nesbit stories)

kayray · Post by **kayray** » July 14th, 2009, 10:38 am

Well, I guess I would rather listen to a reader who is a bit flat, than one who is obviously over-the-top and hammy. But, as usual around here, there are probably as many opinions as there are listeners! :)

Post by **hugh** » July 14th, 2009, 10:56 am

Yes I agree with Kara, just read. ... and I agree - don't listen to a bunch of readers & incorporate their styles...unless you feel like it.

Zaklog the Great · Post by **Zaklog the Great** » July 14th, 2009, 11:02 am

I suggested this for two reasons. One, and I will name no names, but from my listening flat readings are by far the most common mistake I've heard (and this includes my first few recordings for LV). Two, returning to recordings I had made some time earlier, what I thought was an expressive reading at the time sounded amazingly toneless.

Yes, I realize it is possible to take this too far as well, but it doesn't seem like that's the mistake most people incline to.

sadclown · Post by **sadclown** » July 14th, 2009, 11:38 am

Zaklog the Great wrote:I suggested this for two reasons. One, and I will name no names, but from my listening flat readings are by far the most common mistake I've heard (and this includes my first few recordings for LV). Two, returning to recordings I had made some time earlier, what I thought was an expressive reading at the time sounded amazingly toneless.

Yes, I realize it is possible to take this too far as well, but it doesn't seem like that's the mistake most people incline to.

Well, like anything that you do, at first it's hard and awkward to record but most readers get over that and learn to relax the more that they work at it and improve their readings. Like you said, at first my readings were very flat as well, but I think I have improved a lot since then as well.

Jc · Post by Jc » July 14th, 2009, 1:53 pm

I find that exaggerating a bit when reading is a good way to add expression. The reason for me is that when I read, I'm too concentrated on the reading to pay much attention to my voice, so I sound much flatter than when I talk. Another symptom of this is, for instance, that I can fake a French accent when i speak French, but have yet been unable to do so when I read. I have listened to a couple of my recordings in which I thought I was rather expressive while reading, but which all still sounded flat to me.

however, I think that one should also be careful when over-emphasizing. I mean, yes, it might help, but it's also very difficult to sound natural. There's a certain rhythm, an inflexion to natural voice that I find very hard to imitate when reading, and even when I do try to emphasize certain words, the stresses just don't seem to fall at the right places, and sound wrong somehow.

So I guess what i'm trying to say is this: yes, over-emphasizing will make it sound more expressive, but you have to make sure you're putting the emphasis at the right places. Otherwise, it'll sound contrived.

Another point to take into account is that I think you'll always sound a bit flat to yourself, because you're much more used to your own voice, and know the range of your voice, so that when it sounds just a slighly bit different, you'll notice it much more.

catchpenny · Post by **catchpenny** » July 14th, 2009, 2:55 pm

“Unless their __ readers bring them to life, books are indeed dead things.” - LC Powell. (sort of, anyway.)