I was on a
train to Yorkshire last Sunday and noticed that the pre-recorded voice of the
announcer was the same as that on the Metrolink trams in Manchester. I can't
say I was pleased because I find her enunciation annoying. She has a way of
withholding some of her consonants, in particular the word "will" -
as in "the next stop will be" - she pronounces as "wiw". I
suspect the cause is the computer programme which, in the process of stringing
her words together into meaningful phrases, chops off some of the endings
prematurely, thereby presenting a compromised speech format which lacks the
charm of an authentic local accent while failing to achieve the crystal clarity
of standard received pronunciation.
Still, I am consoled
by the fact that she always sounds cheerful, positive and approachable (although
she's just a disembodied voice). In any case, her tone is certainly uplifting
compared with that of the miserable-sounding woman who announces the landings
in the lift at the building I once lived in: if depression were contagious you
would have caught it by floor three.
An
unthinking or cheapskate approach to vocal recordings can seriously damage the
public image of companies and organisations. When office managers, for
instance, take it upon themselves to record the phone menu options, the results
will often sound humourless, abrupt, abrasive, bumbling or some combination of
these. In PR terms, it's a false economy not to employ a professional actor to take
care of the telephone interface with the public; they know how to achieve the
desired effect. A good example of how to get it right is the Post Office which,
some years ago, introduced an audio prompt "Please go to counter
three" and, if you didn't know better, you would have sworn it was Roger
Moore, sitting comfortably in an armchair, glass of single-malt Scotch to hand,
keeping a watchful eye on the queue from behind a velvet curtain. But not all
companies get it right. Try calling TalkTalk or Virgin Media and be prepared to
be wound up by the relentlessly cheery woman trying just a bit too hard to
convince you that it's fun to listen to tedious lists of options which purport
to make your ordeal easier but which are really designed to prevent you talking
to a real person.
But I
digress. I was travelling to Yorkshire to attend a poetry reading staged as
part of a friend's book launch (click here for details). During
the event half a dozen poets got up to read their own works, so it was an
opportunity to enjoy and appreciate their different approaches to poetry. Some poems
had unexpectedly funny endings; others were quietly contemplative; and there
was one which brought an emotional tear to the eye. I have to say, however,
that the quality of the vocalisations didn't always do justice to the written
words. Being able to write a good poem doesn't necessarily qualify you as the
best person to read it out; conviction alone is not enough. When spoken words
are taking centre stage they need performance skills to lend them their full
weight. Diction, enunciation and projection are all crucial to the act.
With all this
in mind, I tried a little experiment when I got home. How hard can it be, I
thought, to read something out loud? So, in the light of my observations, I
recorded myself reading a Wonderman blog post to see how it might sound: laid
back is how I would describe it. Not in a good way, not in a Mark
Rylance-as-Thomas Cromwell kind of way
but in an unfocused, drifting kind of way, and with a tendency to drop
syllables at the end of some words.
Jo, great. Delicately considered.
ReplyDeleteThank you Tom.
ReplyDelete