|
smittims
|
 |
« on: 10:54:17, 02-04-2007 » |
|
To what extent does the sound of the presenter's voice influence your agreement with what they say or your liking of the prigramme as a whole?
I noticed that several people posted a warm welcome to Martin Handley's return to the early slot (whether it's called 'Breakfast'or Morning on 3') , and I can't help feeling thatb this is because Martin has such a beautiful speaking voice.
Since this is a 'private' board I can say that I don't like Sarah Walker's voice.This is not an opinion of her as a person or of her professional abilities.She always sounds to me as if she is either sneering or about to burst out laughing. I wonder if someone,noticing that her voice is rather deep (an ex-smoker,maybe) told her to 'put a smile ' in her voice'.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Janthefan
|
|
« Reply #1 on: 12:09:45, 02-04-2007 » |
|
I dont find that I agree or disagree with what is said by presenters according to whether or not I like their voice or style, BUT it makes a huge difference to my enjoyment, or lack thereof, of the programme (or am I now supposed to say "show"?).
Many presenters now drive me mad with irritation, either because the sound of their voice is unpleasant, or more often they say TOO MUCH.
Less is more.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Live simply that all may simply live
|
|
|
Chichivache
Posts: 128
The artiste formerly known as Gabrielle d’Estrées
|
|
« Reply #2 on: 12:10:06, 02-04-2007 » |
|
I have to confess that I find constant 'smiliness' too ingratiating, and there are some recent presenters who put such wide-ranging cadences into their speech that I find them hard to follow. I tend to shut them out, and just wait for the music!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
wotthehell toujours gai archy
|
|
|
|
pim_derks
|
|
« Reply #3 on: 13:26:56, 02-04-2007 » |
|
The voice of Brian Perkins always makes me laugh, even when he's reading the most tragic news.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"People hate anything well made. It gives them a guilty conscience." John Betjeman
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #4 on: 13:27:11, 02-04-2007 » |
|
Above all their tones of voices seem designed to convey a basic message - 'Don't worry, this music is not too (that most dreaded of things for the British) serious, it's 'fun' really'. That implicit demand for everything to be 'fun', light, ephemeral (otherwise it might sound a bit - gulp - Germanic?) is reflected by a great many British composers and performers.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
John W
|
|
« Reply #5 on: 19:44:57, 02-04-2007 » |
|
Sarah Walker reminded me of the awful Jane Jones (formerly Classic FM lunch) who always speaks 'smilingly' whatever she says. I was so glad when Jane Jones was shunted to a very early morning show which I'll never hear in the car. Listening to Classic FM in the car is a VERY rare thing but there are always times when I scan the stations and some good music is heard, just a BIG pity about their ads and presenters. But now I am going to hear Sarah on R3 in the morning  I just had to cringe today in her first minute when introducing a work she smiled 'I hope you agree that...' and well that was just Jane Jones again  As more and more of the changes at R3 bed in the more the whole station IS beginning to sound like Classic FM. Do the BBC really think the ClassicfM style is their only way to increase listeners? That is what all these changes are for isn't it? To increase listeners? John W |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
roslynmuse
|
|
« Reply #6 on: 22:44:23, 02-04-2007 » |
|
I agree with Jan. I've just been listening to the 1979 excerpt on the vintage presenters thread and they weren't afraid of silence. And somehow they invested a certain dignity to the proceedings that I wouldn't mind having again once in a while...
BTW Who does Catherine Bott remind me of? Someone, very strongly, and it was a rather negative association... (...a politician?)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Tony Watson
Guest
|
|
« Reply #7 on: 22:52:28, 02-04-2007 » |
|
Sarah Walker reminds me of Alma Cogan - the girl with a giggle in her voice. Certain voices can be irritating and I wonder whether anyone saw Lord Reith being interviewed by Malcom Muggeridge in 1967 on BBC4 tonight. He was questioned about announcers' voices and he said that his aim was simply to have accents that would not offend anyone in the UK. He was actually dismissive of what he understood as received pronunciation and certain types of accent found in the south of England, especially the sort that pronounces "tower" the same as "tyre". I think he spoke much sense.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
roslynmuse
|
|
« Reply #8 on: 22:54:16, 02-04-2007 » |
|
I wonder what he thought of Malcolm Muggeridge's dulcet tones?!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #9 on: 22:58:05, 02-04-2007 » |
|
Sarah Walker reminds me of Alma Cogan - the girl with a giggle in her voice. Certain voices can be irritating and I wonder whether anyone saw Lord Reith being interviewed by Malcom Muggeridge in 1967 on BBC4 tonight. He was questioned about announcers' voices and he said that his aim was simply to have accents that would not offend anyone in the UK. He was actually dismissive of what he understood as received pronunciation and certain types of accent found in the south of England, especially the sort that pronounces "tower" the same as "tyre". I think he spoke much sense.
Those people go to that immortal place, the 'thay-a-tar'. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
Tony Watson
Guest
|
|
« Reply #10 on: 23:04:28, 02-04-2007 » |
|
I wonder what he thought of Malcolm Muggeridge's dulcet tones?! Muggeridge said: "I bet you wouldn't have appointed me," (in relation to something else) and Reith said: "I wouldn't be so sure about that." And, yes, he did complain about the 'thay-a-tar' school of speech. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Martin
|
|
« Reply #11 on: 23:32:54, 02-04-2007 » |
|
Do the BBC really think the ClassicfM style is their only way to increase listeners? That is what all these changes are for isn't it? To increase listeners?
Sadly I think it rather looks that way, John. It's a big, big mistake. Fashion only lasts a relatively short time; culture and art are much more enduring. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bryn
|
|
« Reply #12 on: 00:11:38, 03-04-2007 » |
|
Martin, and others, did you actually listen to what was being said in relation to the recordings broadcast, rather than the style of delivery? If so, and Classic FM offers introductions and debriefings of similar quality, perhaps I should give CFM another try, compressed dynamic range notwithstanding. I have my doubts though. There was a certain amout of baseless carping on the 'official' Radio 3 boards too, but again, actually listening to what was said during the broadcast, blew rather sizeable holes in the contentions advanced by the 'critics'. How dare a Radio 3 presenter sound cheerful!?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John W
|
|
« Reply #13 on: 11:20:48, 03-04-2007 » |
|
Bryn, Yes I do actually listen to what Sarah says, sometimes. Like yesterday's 'I hope you agree that....' utterance, and today after the Schumann symphony she said the playing 'made the piece transparent, like looking in a lake and seeing down to the bottom......' Then at the other extreme, well she is a pianist...., AFTER the three piano pieces just now by Hummel/Tomasek/Vorisek, she has made some very informed comment about the playing which was totally beyond me as my ears were not listening for any of the effects she mentioned, and wouldn't recognise them anyway, so for me and many others I'm sure, that was a waste of time too. John W |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Andy D
|
|
« Reply #14 on: 00:59:50, 04-04-2007 » |
|
I really don't think this sort of discussion gets anywhere at all. There was a long thread in TOP about a year ago where most posters were attacking Sarah Walker because of the way she spoke and the vast majority of the posts were removed by the moderators - quite rightly IMO. Of course some voices are irritating and some are more agreeable but, as this is purely personal prejudice, airing these views is not exactly constructive. Discussion of content is another matter however. PS I like Sarah Walker (although I haven't heard her on the new programme yet)  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
