Lou, there's no dignity to an old fart with a broad brush - that's me. The
mere act of trying to be popular is dereliction; that's how old fashioned I
am. They very clearly cleared out the professional-sounding geezers to
youthen the sound. What did happen to Simon? Adapt and survive? Does he hit
the required quirkiness quotient? He was once very good, long ago, but
tradition is bunk.
Tom said it well, except that I like Ira. The trouble is when his show
became a runaway hit (with the help of other distinctive voices like Sara
Vowell and David Sedaris, both of whom I like very much), the network
decided this was The Formula. The WAY TO HOOK THE MILLENIALS - which is *THE
HOLY GRAIL* of future funding.
I don't know that for a fact, but it's too reminiscent of the old Hollywood
trick of anything that works once must of course work a hundred times, no
matter how contrived the imitations. To me, it panders, and there is no
worse offence.
Well, worse is the network's abject fealty to the White House, Congress, and
corporations, but that's another topic and I don't entirely blame them for
it.
-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 1:06 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Radio voices, was Toothpaste
I'll name Ira Glass (Gwass). Come on, I don't care how interesting some of
those shows might be, a guy who can't pronounce "L" correctly shouldn't be
doing radio hosting. I agree about Scott Simon, plus he sounds like he has
bad dentures sometimes (strange whistling sounds in his mouth). And many of
their younger-sounding reporters talk in questions or talk in that "hipster"
style of halting and attempting to "dead-pan" everything. I think it's an
attempt at irony. It's unamusing and unprofessional, in my opinion.
What's really ironic is that NPR has worked very hard over the years, at
least in their studios and production venues, to perfect the recording and
transmission of the human voice. When they have someone with a beautiful
voice -- as long as the local station isn't over-compressing so the
pronunciation dynamics are crunched -- it sounds really good. Now in this
age of cutbacks at all the for-profit news outlets (TV and radio), why can't
NPR go out there and hire the very best voices.
One thing I will say about NPR, which is a definite plus over local TV news,
cable TV news and some of the network TV news people. NPR people can read
their scripts clearly and with proper pacing and rarely get tongue-tied or
mis-read things. This used to be minimum industry standard in professional
electronic journalism, but that time is apparently long passed. Not only are
local and cable TV news people incapable of reading aloud, whoever writes
their scripts often appear to be semi-literate. I try to be amused because
getting worked up about the unprofessionalism is akin to raging at the wind
or the moon.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lou Judson" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 11:50 AM
Subject: [ARSCLIST] Radio voices, was Toothpaste
> I'd b e curious which voices you mean. Is it beneath our dignity to name
names?
>
> Scott Simon has always annoyed me, especially his laugh, such that I no
longer listen to weekend
> edition.
>
> The 2 new magazine programs in the mid-day are a sad replacement for the
long form Talk of the
> Nation...
>
> etc.
> <L>
> Lou Judson
> Intuitive Audio
> 415-883-2689
>
> On Mar 12, 2014, at 4:42 AM, Carl Pultz wrote:
>
>> Regarding the basic suitability of voices for broadcasting, I'm flummoxed
by some of the choices
>> NPR is making. I've never cared about beautiful voices, but in a visual
culture that is so
>> concerned about just the right look, how is it that we are expected to
accept aural ugliness? Ear
>> of the beholder? I'm too old to understand, but my guess is it's an
immature, half-educated,
>> nitwit management who assume, naturally, what the ideal should be -
people who sound just like
>> them. It's the dictatorship of the "creative class."
>
>
|