DR Scene & Story Collection 5 - rr

[BrianFullen]

Thank you for This Finer Shadow (and the cast list!). It is loaded in the MW and awaits final PL by whomever shall please to do so.

Well, I really like scene & story. Would you accept multiple volunteers for the various duties? I'm sure I could make time for BC kind of stuff and for PL. Editing can be time consuming and there are those who do it better than I - like, Winnifred, for example and, no, of course I would not dare volunteer someone else to do something 'tho I'm not above recognizing people for good work I think they do. Can you just put me down for BC/role PL and, if you find an editor, I'd be happy to do final PL.

Since Finer Shadow is nearly complete, you'll have the room within the 2-DR limit. And yes, in this instance I'll let you take it as a 3rd story within the same collection.
But if you're going to BC, then it will be you finding an editor. (I often post a note or put a link in my sig, but that's by way of raising visibility, not claiming responsibility. )

If you'd still like to do it after This Finer Shadow is PL'd and squared away, then yes, I'll put you down as BC. In the meantime, you're certainly welcome to PL the parts and to see if someone would be willing to join you as editor.

[Winnifred]

Limbo:
Here's where I say that The Woggle-Bug Book is short a Book Coordinator / Proof Listener of individual parts / Editor.
If anyone wants to adopt this project and see it through, I'll waive the "2 stories in this collection" rule for that purpose... but it would still count to your limit of 2 DRs in progress at a time, until the story is completed.

I also want to be perfectly clear that nobody is expected or pressured to pick this up. This project has a script, and a few minutes of voice-work done, but the majority of the voice-work (and all of the PLing and editing) is yet to be done. As much as I don't like to see anything go to waste, it would be more of a waste to continue if you aren't enthused to do so.

If the project is not adopted in a few weeks, I'll make backups of the script and the recordings that are done so far. If anyone wants to run this story at a later date, then the existing work can be PL'd and hopefully put to use then.

Well, I really like scene & story. Would you accept multiple volunteers for the various duties? I'm sure I could make time for BC kind of stuff and for PL. Editing can be time consuming and there are those who do it better than I - like, Winnifred, for example and, no, of course I would not dare volunteer someone else to do something 'tho I'm not above recognizing people for good work I think they do. Can you just put me down for BC/role PL and, if you find an editor, I'd be happy to do final PL.

Well, I may regret this later, but I'm a sucker for Brian's blatant flattery, and I've never edited a DR before (though I have done other editing), so I'm going to dive in here and volunteer to edit. Looks like it might be awhile before that's required, so it should be safe.

Note that Ikestudios' file for Mr. H. M. Wogglebug, T.E. is not in the correct format (it's 48,000 rather than 44,100 Hz) so that'll have to be fixed before PL. And presumably she won't be available to make any corrections. I'm pretty sure she won't have left sufficient space between her lines (I've PL'd some of her other DRs), but as long as the lines are correctly read, that's easily fixable.

Cheers,

[BrianFullen]

Well, I may regret this later, but I'm a sucker for Brian's blatant flattery, and I've never edited a DR before (though I have done other editing), so I'm going to dive in here and volunteer to edit. Looks like it might be awhile before that's required, so it should be safe.

Cheers,

I'll admit that others have told me that I'm manipulative, but I've always sloughed that off as crazy talk. Now, hearing it from Winnifred, who is doubtless the sanest, best judge of character on the planet and all other things goodness, I might have to rethink my behavior. Nah! I'm a lost cause. And the thing is that rewarding bad behavior probably won't eliminate it! Just kidding, of course, except for the part about saying that Winnifred is good at "stuff"! Maybe I can be manipulative. But, if it matters, I was sincere about what I said. If you aren't already the best at editing DR's, Winnifred, you will be soon enough. That's the truth. And you know it! You may as well own it.

Gotta go now and change my signature for forum posts. Maybe I'll just change it to: "Thank you, Winnifred!"

[Winnifred]

Well, I may regret this later, but I'm a sucker for Brian's blatant flattery, and I've never edited a DR before (though I have done other editing), so I'm going to dive in here and volunteer to edit. Looks like it might be awhile before that's required, so it should be safe.

Cheers,

I'll admit that others have told me that I'm manipulative, but I've always sloughed that off as crazy talk. Now, hearing it from Winnifred, who is doubtless the sanest, best judge of character on the planet and all other things goodness, I might have to rethink my behavior. Nah! I'm a lost cause. And the thing is that rewarding bad behavior probably won't eliminate it! Just kidding, of course, except for the part about saying that Winnifred is good at "stuff"! Maybe I can be manipulative. But, if it matters, I was sincere about what I said. If you aren't already the best at editing DR's, Winnifred, you will be soon enough. That's the truth. And you know it! You may as well own it.

Gotta go now and change my signature for forum posts. Maybe I'll just change it to: "Thank you, Winnifred!"

Perhaps it's not so much the flattery as the entertainment value...

[BrianFullen]

All listed below are PLOK

• drcollection5_wogglebugbook_biggestarab.mp3
• drcollection5_wogglebugbook_kingweasel.mp3
• drcollection5_wogglebugbook_professorhipmus.mp3
• drcollection5_wogglebug_wife.mp3

Thank you!

[redrun]

Thank you, I've noted those. I see Winnifred had a note about the sampling rate on Mr. H. M. Wogglebug himself, but I'll let you see if that or other changes are required from the reader (which may or may not be forthcoming).

[BrianFullen]

Thank you, I've noted those. I see Winnifred had a note about the sampling rate on Mr. H. M. Wogglebug himself, but I'll let you see if that or other changes are required from the reader (which may or may not be forthcoming).

Exactly! I'm gearing up for that ...

[BrianFullen]

Thank you, I've noted those. I see Winnifred had a note about the sampling rate on Mr. H. M. Wogglebug himself, but I'll let you see if that or other changes are required from the reader (which may or may not be forthcoming).

See, right there! Winnifred is far more diligent than I am. I freely admit that in those cases that I am doing role PL plus editing I don't bother with tech specs. I'm sure I should, but I'm just lazy and I figure that so long as I can import a role recording into Audacity and merge it with narration track and other roles I can always export to spec. But I think Winnifred is well within her rights to expect a PL OK role recording that actually meets tech specs.

Speaking of spec ... the voice credit now runs "T. Craft as the voice of Mr. H. M. Woggle-Bug, T. E". I suppose that could stand "as is" if you're okay with that. If not, we have the basic elements of role name and volunteer's catalog name so perhaps the narrator could supply "read by" (or whatever) and we could reform the credit. I'll leave that to you to decide.

In addition to being fair to Winnifred I really want to be fair to IkeStudio. The fact is that I really like their voice and I think their style (at least as I hear it in this recording) is darn near perfect for this material. As I see it.

There's some minor stuff that I'd certainly say PL OK for standard PL. BTW, Please forgive me for not including timestamps in this particular post. I'll be happy to provide them if they might be of use to someone. But other than the volunteer who made the recording I do not know who that might be.

There are multiple instances of what I'd say are non-existent gaps between [groups of] lines. I don't see that as a problem because I could easily add those before exporting audio to spec. As I went through the file I split lines into clips and saved to aup3. So, not much more effort to insert the 3-5 second gaps where they belong.

More good news is that I did not find any missing passages. That's great because it would be difficult to preserve this recording without anyone, well really the original volunteer, to provide those passages.

What I think might be the bad news is that there are several examples - 'superlative conglomeration', 'personification', 'perspicacity ' and 'hyperbolated insousancy' - that don't sound at all close, or at least not to my ear at first blush. These tend to be in passages that [especially] dramatically rendered and a quick pace. Sometimes I've found that these sorts of things can be clarified via Effects (Change Tempo, Amplify, etc.) so that rerecording might not be necessary. The thing is that such editing can be time consuming and, then, whether to do it. Honestly, this book seems to be full of [clever] word play and it's entirely possibly that the volunteer intended to deliver them in a style that might be considered in 'keeping' with the overall sense of the material. But, of course, we have rules about keeping to the text. Honestly I don't know if clarifying the words I've mentioned is worth the time to do it and, perhaps that depends upon ....

As I said above, I did not notice any missing passages. With the exception of just a few misreads the content is there and very close to being true to text. There are these few misreads:

• "supply you with food" read as "support you with food"
• "own you for a day and a half" read as "owe you a day and a half"

I don't think the first alters the meaning of the sentence. I'd say the second one does - but maybe could be fixed via editing without requiring a rerecording.

I'm interested in your opinion, redrun. I really do want to be fair to the original BC/Reader. I believe that a huge part of one these projects is identifying a project and scripting. And they did that heavy lifting. I also like to listen to this reader and I imaging others will as well. I'd hate to see this recording written off if it can be used. On the top of that, I'd feel really sleazy about pushing anyone out of a project that they'd taken to heart.

Anyway, I clearly don't know how to be succinct. Done. For now.

[Winnifred]

See, right there! Winnifred is far more diligent than I am. I freely admit that in those cases that I am doing role PL plus editing I don't bother with tech specs. I'm sure I should, but I'm just lazy and I figure that so long as I can import a role recording into Audacity and merge it with narration track and other roles I can always export to spec. But I think Winnifred is well within her rights to expect a PL OK role recording that actually meets tech specs.

Speaking of spec ... the voice credit now runs "T. Craft as the voice of Mr. H. M. Woggle-Bug, T. E". I suppose that could stand "as is" if you're okay with that. If not, we have the basic elements of role name and volunteer's catalog name so perhaps the narrator could supply "read by" (or whatever) and we could reform the credit. I'll leave that to you to decide.

In addition to being fair to Winnifred I really want to be fair to IkeStudio. The fact is that I really like their voice and I think their style (at least as I hear it in this recording) is darn near perfect for this material. As I see it.

There's some minor stuff that I'd certainly say PL OK for standard PL. BTW, Please forgive me for not including timestamps in this particular post. I'll be happy to provide them if they might be of use to someone. But other than the volunteer who made the recording I do not know who that might be.

There are multiple instances of what I'd say are non-existent gaps between [groups of] lines. I don't see that as a problem because I could easily add those before exporting audio to spec. As I went through the file I split lines into clips and saved to aup3. So, not much more effort to insert the 3-5 second gaps where they belong.

More good news is that I did not find any missing passages. That's great because it would be difficult to preserve this recording without anyone, well really the original volunteer, to provide those passages.

What I think might be the bad news is that there are several examples - 'superlative conglomeration', 'personification', 'perspicacity ' and 'hyperbolated insousancy' - that don't sound at all close, or at least not to my ear at first blush. These tend to be in passages that [especially] dramatically rendered and a quick pace. Sometimes I've found that these sorts of things can be clarified via Effects (Change Tempo, Amplify, etc.) so that rerecording might not be necessary. The thing is that such editing can be time consuming and, then, whether to do it. Honestly, this book seems to be full of [clever] word play and it's entirely possibly that the volunteer intended to deliver them in a style that might be considered in 'keeping' with the overall sense of the material. But, of course, we have rules about keeping to the text. Honestly I don't know if clarifying the words I've mentioned is worth the time to do it and, perhaps that depends upon ....

As I said above, I did not notice any missing passages. With the exception of just a few misreads the content is there and very close to being true to text. There are these few misreads:

• "supply you with food" read as "support you with food"
• "own you for a day and a half" read as "owe you a day and a half"

I don't think the first alters the meaning of the sentence. I'd say the second one does - but maybe could be fixed via editing without requiring a rerecording.

I'm interested in your opinion, redrun. I really do want to be fair to the original BC/Reader. I believe that a huge part of one these projects is identifying a project and scripting. And they did that heavy lifting. I also like to listen to this reader and I imaging others will as well. I'd hate to see this recording written off if it can be used. On the top of that, I'd feel really sleazy about pushing anyone out of a project that they'd taken to heart.

Anyway, I clearly don't know how to be succinct. Done. For now.

.

"Read by" is easy. I know where to find Ikestudios reading those very words (on another dramatic reading I PL'd) and it would be easy to cobble that together.

I agree about their voice; the readings are generally well-done, and it would be a pity to lose this reading, if we can salvage it.

Just my two cents worth.

[BrianFullen]

"Read by" is easy. I know where to find Ikestudios reading those very words (on another dramatic reading I PL'd) and it would be easy to cobble that together.

Agreed! I let a narration get by me as PL not long ago that did not have "Characters" line in it and was too embarrassed to ask narrator for a fix on something I gave an OK to. So, I stole Inkell saying "Characters" (I did request her permission and she was already on the project for a role) and used that. I've heard narrators include "stub" credits with the role name and "read by" parts so that, in a pinch, they (or the editor) can slot in the volunteer giving their forum name. Sometimes I've done that, following in their example.

I agree about their voice; the readings are generally well-done, and it would be a pity to lose this reading, if we can salvage it.

Just my two cents worth.

I think you have great instincts and well worth the "two cents" going rate. Now, is that US or Canadian two cents? Not that I have any notion of current exchange rates which assumes currency and I haven't seen any currency lately - just plastic and that's not really money! Is it?

[redrun]

I'm interested in your opinion, redrun. I really do want to be fair to the original BC/Reader.

Sounds like Winnifred has the credit taken care of. The 'formula' for spoken voice credits is also up to the BC, so even the as-recorded version would work if you like.

It sounds like you're also willing to re-sample and to add the silences, so Winnifred will get a file that's up to what we usually expect to work with. I certainly like having things 'regular' as I can, when I go to edit.

On the two specific examples, though I've not listened, I agree with your assessment that only the second one changes the meaning.
If I were PL, and someone had just turned this in, I'd ask them to re-record the line. With that option probably off the table, I'd see if I could get it "close enough" in editing, but whether that's the case would very much be the BC's call. We do attempt to stick to the source material, and we certainly never alter it intentionally... but we do make allowances for practical reasons.

I certainly understand that priorities change, and folks disappear, for a while or forever. I like when we're able to push these abandoned projects over the finish line, and keep the excellent volunteer work that's already been done. But when folks disappear before completing the work they signed up for, we're left with a choice to be made by whoever is here to make it.
I want to be clear that it is not 'unfair' to re-cast an incomplete role that cannot reasonably be corrected, as seems to be the case here. But if you and Winnifred are willing to try those tricky edits, or if you'd like someone to re-record just a few lines and attempt to match the style, those options are also open to you.

[Winnifred]

In my opinion, “own” can be turned into “owe” just by snipping off the “n.” It might not be brilliant, but it’ll do. I’ve successfully snipped an unncessary “s” off a word before. This can’t be much harder. I’ve also inserted a single word into someone else’s recording, though again, not brilliantly. But, hey, I’d be willing to try if it’s needed.

Oh, and that’s the US cent. We don’t have pennies in Canada anymore.

Cheers,

[BrianFullen]

I'm interested in your opinion, redrun. I really do want to be fair to the original BC/Reader.

Sounds like Winnifred has the credit taken care of. The 'formula' for spoken voice credits is also up to the BC, so even the as-recorded version would work if you like.

It sounds like you're also willing to re-sample and to add the silences, so Winnifred will get a file that's up to what we usually expect to work with. I certainly like having things 'regular' as I can, when I go to edit.

On the two specific examples, though I've not listened, I agree with your assessment that only the second one changes the meaning.
If I were PL, and someone had just turned this in, I'd ask them to re-record the line. With that option probably off the table, I'd see if I could get it "close enough" in editing, but whether that's the case would very much be the BC's call. We do attempt to stick to the source material, and we certainly never alter it intentionally... but we do make allowances for practical reasons.

I certainly understand that priorities change, and folks disappear, for a while or forever. I like when we're able to push these abandoned projects over the finish line, and keep the excellent volunteer work that's already been done. But when folks disappear before completing the work they signed up for, we're left with a choice to be made by whoever is here to make it.
I want to be clear that it is not 'unfair' to re-cast an incomplete role that cannot reasonably be corrected, as seems to be the case here. But if you and Winnifred are willing to try those tricky edits, or if you'd like someone to re-record just a few lines and attempt to match the style, those options are also open to you.

Great we have a plan. If Winnifred agrees. I'll take a shot at getting the recording into what might reasonably, in one person's view (mine, I guess), be considered PL OK. But I'll ask Winnifred to confirm that opinion that it's doable before we try alternative paths (like, maybe, style matching) I won't go crazy with the time investment though. I'm willing to set aside a few hours, as soon as tomorrow, to see if I can get it up to PL OK. But I'll probably ask for a spot check where I see problems. Does this seem like a reasonable approach to you Winnifred?

[Winnifred]

Great we have a plan. If Winnifred agrees. I'll take a shot at getting the recording into what might reasonably, in one person's view (mine, I guess), be considered PL OK. But I'll ask Winnifred to confirm that opinion that it's doable before we try alternative paths (like, maybe, style matching) I won't go crazy with the time investment though. I'm willing to set aside a few hours, as soon as tomorrow, to see if I can get it up to PL OK. But I'll probably ask for a spot check where I see problems. Does this seem like a reasonable approach to you Winnifred?

Sounds good to me.

[BrianFullen]

Hi Winnifred and redrun,

I uploaded
https://librivox.org/uploads/redrun/drcollection5_wogglebugbook_mrhmwogglebugte.mp3
(10:15) for role PL by Winnifred.

Some notes:

Formed (or reformed) words:

• 'superlative conglomeration' had sounded like 'solarative conglomagation' (I don't know if I found an acceptable match for the syllable 'la' in superlative - let me know if you think I should try again)
• 'gorgeousness' had sounded like 'gorge-ness' - but I think it might be okay now
• 'personification' had sounded like 'persification' - but I think it might be okay now
• 'own you for a' had been read as 'owe you a' - but I think it might be okay now
• 'insoucancy' in 'hyperbolated insousancy' had sounded like 'insentiency' - but maybe it's better now

Also, I let 'protoplasma' for protoplasm go by.

There is a line - "Do not, I bet you, risk your valuable life by wearing that cloth!" - both in source text and script read as '... I beg you ...' which I'd say was a goodchoice by the reader, so I left that alone.

There is a line = "Every check in that entrancing dress is a joy and a delight to my heart!" - with enchanting read instead of entrancing and that seemed okay to me.

There were a few other nits like 'a foreman' instead of 'the foreman' and 'caramel' instead of 'caramels' but they didn't seem like show stoppers to me.

I reused the same file name because I have a copy of the original, as you two may or may or, and I suppose ikestudio does. Also, I suppose that there's probably an off-line backup if there ever was a need to recover a clobbered (by upload) file.

Of course, as Winnifred is role PL-ing this file, she has final say on whether it's PL OK or not. I'll try to fix (or refix) whatever might need done on it.

I'm fine with the form [catalog name] as the voice of [role name] or without the "as the voice of' bit, or the standard 'ready by' or just 'by' as I notice many folks do for DR's and plays. I guess the point is that they feel they are portraying characters as opposed to simply reading text from a book and I get that. So, if it's to me I'll be flexible so long as the key elements of [catalog name] and [role name] are present.

Talk to you later. I'll keep trying (while probably failing) to be succinct.

Cheers.