accents, voices, emotion and being "over the top"

[kayray]

But I'm starting to think that a good reading might well be to someone 6-8 feet away, with an appropriate amount of energy so that they can hear you clearly.

I dunno, I think a more intimate sound is nicer. I'm working on achieving that myself.

[djaquay]

Ask yourself if you're having fun? If you're not, take a break!

Let's hear more of your recordings!

Indeed, I am having fun (even while I'm thinking too much). And as soon as I shake this cold, I'm signed up for a chapter of Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes that I just can't wait to record. <sigh>. Darn colds...

Dave

[Ponyfeathers]

I am for voices and emphasis in narration. Especially in works with many characters, it can be difficult for a listener to keep track of who is speaking and what else that character has been responsible for in the text, particularly if the listener allows her mind to drift at all during narration. Also, just as many people do not realize how fast they are reading, many people do not realize how flattened their affect has become as they read aloud. The average reader has to really overdo it hard in order to take things over the top; I think many people are surprised by how normal their voice sounds even when they are trying to bump it up.

Accents are a tricky question, though. Yes, they can be awful. I find mine are largely unconscious, so I don't try to fight them. Also, something written by a British author will have something closer to the correct rhythym when read with a British accent, in my opinion. (I would actually say that Shakespeare is an exception, because the writing is largely metered anyway, often with diversions from the rhythym signifying emphasis. I don't think metered verse in general requires accents.) Finally, if the accent is written into the text to denote class, nationality, etc, I think it is the truest rendition of the work to at least attempt an accent. If it's awful, well, we're all volunteers here.

Listening to professional audio books in addition to the volunteer work can help you make a judgement on voices versus none. Two of my favorite narrations with voices are Simon Prebble reading Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell and Tony Roberts reading The Stupidist Angel, both of which may be found at Audible.com. There are brief samples of each there, but I don't know how many voices you would be hearing. Edit: Quite a few, actually--the samples are about 10 min.

Edit: I should add that successfully "doing" voices doesn't necessarily just mean changing your pitch, though that is certainly the easiest thing to do. For example, you can create quite a different impression by reading a character with a brusquely clipped voice vs. a lazy drawl vs. a thoughtful rhythmic plodding. Adding more or less breathiness, speaking through a tight jaw or through the nose or in the back of the throat, and even just holding a particular facial expression as you speak will all change the quality of the voice.

[Cloud Mountain]

But I'm starting to think that a good reading might well be to someone 6-8 feet away, with an appropriate amount of energy so that they can hear you clearly.

I dunno, I think a more intimate sound is nicer. I'm working on achieving that myself.

Actually, although it seems contradictory, the closer you get to the mike, the MORE intimate your recording will sound. There are serious problems with getting close though, ones that get in the way of "intimacy." like plosives and the like...

[djaquay]

Actually, although it seems contradictory, the closer you get to the mike, the MORE intimate your recording will sound. There are serious problems with getting close though, ones that get in the way of "intimacy." like plosives and the like...

I certainly agree that being close-to-mike improves the intimacy of the recording. For myself, I was thinking more of working with the volume/projection as I read.

Of course, the work or particular passage being read would greatly influence whether I wanted an intimate sound or not. All something to play with, I suppose.

Dave

[kayray]

Yup, lately I've been moving a bit closer to the mic and reading with less force. I think it sounds better. There might be lots of listeners who prefer a different style. but luckily we've got as many styles of reading as we have readers, so everyone will be able to find someone they like to hear :)

[ceastman]

Great advice from Cloud Mountain! Although, reading Candide, I can't smile; nothing good ever happens to these people. . . ^_^

But, but... they figure it out come the end of the book, right?

And, Catharine, I enjoyed Red Chief!

Ted,
who was born in Texas, where everyone has a bad pseudo-Texas accent. . .

More experience with reading aloud and stuff...

When I first started here (and for many moons afterwards) I concentrated a little over-muchly on being slow and on enunciation. My husband's comment was that it sounded stilted and formal, listening to it. Now, we've both been part of a group that meets roughly monthly to share a meal and then read aloud (from Harry Potter or from other childrens' lit books). One week, nobody had brought The Book, so we riffled through the host's library and found various Halloween stories (this was in October). I read "Homecoming," by Ray Bradbury, and my husband commented that he'd really enjoyed my reading of that, and that I should try to make my recordings more like that.

So I've been following that aspect of Cloud Mountain's advice - Imagine yourself reading a story to an appreciative friend, rather than "This is a recording that has to be UNDERSTANDABLE!" More enjoyable too.

-Catharine

[ductapeguy]

A few months ago, a new member recorded a particularly dynamic, enthusiastic and over the top recording for the weekly poetry. He then proceeded to critique all the other recordings and advocate that everyone try make their recordings in a similar fashion.

I enjoyed his recording, but I usually can't get that uninhibited in my recordings. Like Catharine, I find that my "live" readings to an audience are much more relaxed and dynamic than my recordings. As soon as I turn on the mic I get a pronounced stammer (heavily edited out). There are times when reading that I aim for over the top. I can't decide if I was too over the top in King Lear as the fool or not over the top enough.
Most of the time, I'm aiming for a clear reading and a warm, human connection. I hope I achieve it.

[Dri]

In theory, the reading of a book is different from acting.

If, e.g., the writer chooses to phrase,

"Be quiet, " he whispered or,
"Be quiet, " he shouted,

then it is in the written text how that imaginary he said it. Theoretically, there is no need to whisper or to shout the direct speech here. Of course, cautious intensification could be applied, but it would be still far away from true whispering or shouting.

Chipdoc recommended George Guidall once and currently I listen to it - it is great. During the first chapters I clearly recognized the somewhat unique accent (Jewish / east European) but later on, it disappeared (at least to me) and now I hear the words, virtually without accent. And, of course there are many occassions when different characters in the book shout something. Guidall remains calm, throughout the reading. Nevertheless, the tension in the reading rises continuously. It is really unbelievable, what a great reading that is.

Having said that, one could see, e.g. part of Poe's writing as a monologue and act on it, as Don did. It turned out magnificent. After liking it so much I clicked on the reading from Tom. He did the classical book reading and it is fine too. I couldn't even tell, which one is better. Maybe, it would depend on one's mood.

Regards,
Igor

[SmokestackJones]

Hey there,

Wow, where to begin? My take on it is, dramatic or no, you should tailor the reading to the piece. If it calls for different characters, go ahead, act it out (if you're able). When I do something from Dickens, I can't help but act out the characters, even if I have to chew some scenery to do it. OTOH, I've done several poems read with a quiet intensity that have worked out well.

As for accents, if the piece lends itself to it and you're confident in your ability to do the accent, have at. I never shy away from them, even though sometimes the results are less than what I wanted (I've really learned what's wrong with my British accent doing these recordings). Remember: you can only get better with each successive recording.

-SJ

[gypsygirl]

Characterization - I tend not to like character voices when I'm listening to books I've read to myself, simply because they never sound the way I imagined them in my head. On the other hand, when I read aloud, I do do a certain amount of characterization, especially in works that have many characters in close proximity. So I work under a bit of a double standard.

Inflection - This, to me, is vital. Otherwise the reading falls completely flat.

Accents - I do occasionally add accents, I don't know with how much success, but it's not necessarily to do with where a person is from so much as just differentiating one person's origin from another.

[Planish]

But I'm starting to think that a good reading might well be to someone 6-8 feet away, with an appropriate amount of energy so that they can hear you clearly.

I dunno, I think a more intimate sound is nicer. I'm working on achieving that myself.

Actually, although it seems contradictory, the closer you get to the mike, the MORE intimate your recording will sound. There are serious problems with getting close though, ones that get in the way of "intimacy." like plosives and the like...

My favourite podcasts are those where it does feel as if the speaker is talking to me, personally (but not in a creepy psycho way )
I think the CBC's Definitely Not The Opera podcast succeeds, even though it's excerpted from a national network program.
Some of performance artist/musician Laurie Anderson's spoken word pieces are very intimate too. It sounds like she's speaking softly in your ear telling you about some wierd dream she had.

The "close to the mic" business reminds me of the way Bill Cosby would park the mic right by his mouth whenever he did either his father, the Voice Of God (in the "Noah and the Ark" sketch), Army boot camp drill instructor, or one of his "brain talking to the rest of him" bits. Lots of bass. Very intimate (as when it's his brain talking to his stomach) or "in your face" (as with the drill instructor). For the kids' voices he'd pull it away. A bit too over the top for reading books, but he got a lot of variation in characterization just from mic placement. Not so easy with a boom mic on a headset though.

I guess it does have a lot to do with the nature of the piece itself though.

When I was reading some bits for the Oscar Wilde "Reviews" project, I imagined him (Oscar Wilde) holding forth at a dinner party consisting of a half a dozen of his arty friends. Or leaning on the mantlepiece in the library, over cigars and brandy afterwards. A bit of projection to carry to the far end of the table, but not like he's on a stage.

For a philosophical/scholarly work, maybe read it like a history professor quoting a passage to their students in a small lecture hall. Possibly looking over the top of their glasses to see how many are actually awake after reading an particularly important point. (The one that'll be on the final exam.)

But for a story, I think my imagined audience would is someone sitting next to me on a sofa. No constant eye contact like in a conversation, but they're right there. I do occasionally wave my hand and or tilt my head as I read aloud.