The Cadence of English

[Jaimie]

I want to begin by saying how much I love Librivox and how dependent I am on listening. Librivox has many readers with varied accents and differing pronunciations. If a place name is mispronounced it may be momentarily distracting but it doesn't mar the whole reading. In a few of the readings though, the reader totally changes the cadence of the English language by using a sing-song rhythm which actually works against the meaning of the words. These are native English speakers and I am mystified why they should choose to read in that manner. It is very very difficult to listen to and also hard to understand because the normal way of speaking and understanding English depends on word emphasis and end of sentence tone, These are thrown askew by this strange sing-song pattern of reading. I have had to give up listening to several books that I really wanted to hear because of this strange undermining of the normal cadence. Although it's a thrill when readers are truly exceptional, they don't have to be exceptional in order to enjoy being a listener. But to be understood, they do need to speak in a normal rhythm.

[kri]

I want to begin by saying how much I love Librivox and how dependent I am on listening. Librivox has many readers with varied accents and differing pronunciations. If a place name is mispronounced it may be momentarily distracting but it doesn't mar the whole reading. In a few of the readings though, the reader totally changes the cadence of the English language by using a sing-song rhythm which actually works against the meaning of the words. These are native English speakers and I am mystified why they should choose to read in that manner. It is very very difficult to listen to and also hard to understand because the normal way of speaking and understanding English depends on word emphasis and end of sentence tone, These are thrown askew by this strange sing-song pattern of reading. I have had to give up listening to several books that I really wanted to hear because of this strange undermining of the normal cadence. Although it's a thrill when readers are truly exceptional, they don't have to be exceptional in order to enjoy being a listener. But to be understood, they do need to speak in a normal rhythm.

What you consider not-normal, some really love. We all have our preferences in a reading, and we will all find something that we really dislike That is the nature of allowing and encouraging a diverse readership. Our requirements for a recording are not very strict, and non-judgemental, and they will always be that way. It goes a long way to helping nervous readers who are new feel comfortable that their reading will be accepted.

It's not always easy to really know what you sound like while you're recording, and everyone feels comfortable reading in a different way. If you haven't already, I recommend you contribute a few recordings to our catalog (if you have the means) and add a little bit of what you think should be in a recording

[Gesine]

Here's a thread where this topic was discussed a lot: http://librivox.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1135

[SSherris]

I think that link spoke more to sound quality and objective qualities, like volume.

This is a very subjective complaint. But I'm very curious, Jaimie, to hear some examples of the different cadences you're hearing that distract you.

It's true that we'll never reject readers because of the way that they read or because of the technical quality of their recordings, but I think that most readers are anxious to provide a recording that other people enjoy, and positive, constructive criticism is usually welcomed.

A reader may not even realize he or she is speaking differently into a microphone than in real life. Or, maybe this *is* how the reader speaks in real life.

Lets find out what Jaimie is referring to before we rush to judgements.

[Jaimie]

SSherris said:

"This is a very subjective complaint. But I'm very curious, Jaimie, to hear some examples of the different cadences you're hearing that distract you."

and:"A reader may not even realize he or she is speaking differently into a microphone than in real life."

Thank you for understanding my perhaps poor attempt to communicate a difficulty that I was having with a few, actually very few, readings. In those readings I have to say the quality of the voices was very good, the pronunciation excellent, with few if any mistakes. Even if there were difficulties in those areas, as I tried to say, it wouldn't affect the whole reading.

I wish I could figure out a way to illustrate what I'm trying to say about my concern with cadence. I don't wish to point to a particular work and it would be unintelligible if I tried to diagram the difference between the natural speech of English and the way it's spoken in these few cases. All I can do is to speak to the dependence of meaning in English on word emphasis. We can change the meaning of what we say by changing the emphasis from one word to another. In the works I'm referring to, the word emphasis is either not there or it's given almost poetically to every fourth or fifth word, in what I called a sing-song reading. Often too the emphasized word ends on a higher tone which is distracting as well since two or three of these can occur in a sentence. The problem I find is not being able to easily follow a text which should be quite understandable.

I think my attempt at explanation may make me seem like more of a curmudgeon than I seemed in the first post. I will certainly continue to try to listen to these particular books and may be able to integrate them better. I was not trying to be negatively critical but hopefully just give a suggestion to readers that they should just try to follow the natural inflections of English. I know how hard it is to read aloud and I admire them for the great work they do!

[earthcalling]

All I can do is to speak to the dependence of meaning in English on word emphasis. We can change the meaning of what we say by changing the emphasis from one word to another.

That's a very good point, Jaimie, and one that troubles me occasionally (as a reader more than as a listener, but that's how I spend more of my time here). Considered against our standard of 99% accuracy against the text, it is an unspoken truth that a reader can obscure, or even butcher, the meaning of a text even when staying 100% faithful to the words.

We hardly ever pick up this kind of thing in proof-listening; the only examples I'm aware of have been philosophical texts read by philosophers, who try to make darn sure their reading clearly and correctly reflects the author's intention.

If we were a different type of community, with a differently nuanced objective and ethos, we might put this kind of a check in place, just as we might have other checks on sound quality, the character and appropriateness of voices etc. But that would make us a quasi-professional outfit, probably releasing less than one tenth of our current output, and ruling out (either explicitly or by a dauntingly high entry level) a whole host of amateurs like myself.

So I think, on balance, it's better to live with the occasional audiobook (or chapter, or reader) that doesn't work for you, rather than to have the fundamental changes to LibriVox as a community that would be necessary to eliminate them.

And of course there's the whole issue of taste etc., already touched on.

Many thanks, though, for raising the question, and for doing it so sensitively.

David

[Jaimie]

These posts have given me a chance to work through my concern with the readings I talked about. The latter two replies have been especially helpful and enlightening. I understood the philosophy of having everyone read who wishes to and now I understand it on a deeper level, so thank you for involving yourselves in my thoughts.

Jaimie

[kri]

It's true that we'll never reject readers because of the way that they read or because of the technical quality of their recordings, but I think that most readers are anxious to provide a recording that other people enjoy, and positive, constructive criticism is usually welcomed.

I just want to note that in this community at least, any sort of criticism needs to be asked for first in order for it to be OK It's a sort of etiquette thing we've developed because some people really don't want criticism, and you don't really know who wants and who doesn't want it unless they say so. OK, so it's more than etiquette, it's an unwritten rule.

[SSherris]

It's true that we'll never reject readers because of the way that they read or because of the technical quality of their recordings, but I think that most readers are anxious to provide a recording that other people enjoy, and positive, constructive criticism is usually welcomed.

I just want to note that in this community at least, any sort of criticism needs to be asked for first in order for it to be OK It's a sort of etiquette thing we've developed because some people really don't want criticism, and you don't really know who wants and who doesn't want it unless they say so. OK, so it's more than etiquette, it's an unwritten rule.

Point taken. But you can still write to the reader and ask if they'd like your opinions on their reading.

I know I haven't been around Librivox for as long as many here, but I've still never come across someone who was so offended by the idea of getting feedback that they stopped volunteering. Are we so afraid of turning a small minority off that we're doing a disservice to the majority that wants to improve?

[kri]

It's true that we'll never reject readers because of the way that they read or because of the technical quality of their recordings, but I think that most readers are anxious to provide a recording that other people enjoy, and positive, constructive criticism is usually welcomed.

I just want to note that in this community at least, any sort of criticism needs to be asked for first in order for it to be OK It's a sort of etiquette thing we've developed because some people really don't want criticism, and you don't really know who wants and who doesn't want it unless they say so. OK, so it's more than etiquette, it's an unwritten rule.

Point taken. But you can still write to the reader and ask if they'd like your opinions on their reading.

I know I haven't been around Librivox for as long as many here, but I've still never come across someone who was so offended by the idea of getting feedback that they stopped volunteering. Are we so afraid of turning a small minority off that we're doing a disservice to the majority that wants to improve?

I have seen evidence of people who say they won't volunteer if given unsolicited criticism. It's not just that, but allowing an atmosphere of unsolicited critique would also scare new volunteers away. They may come to be comfortable with critique once they get some experience recording, but many people are nervous about their first recording and might not record at all if they felt people would be judgemental about it.

If you want more information about why we've come to the decision we have regarding criticism, you can read through this (admittedly long) thread about it: http://librivox.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1135

[earthcalling]

But you can still write to the reader and ask if they'd like your opinions on their reading.

I'd advise against that also. Imagine receiving a PM that says: "Would you mind if I gave some criticism of your reading?". You're not going to expect praise.

So unless a reader asks for criticism, don't offer it.

David