Date:         Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:01:39 -0800
Reply-To:     Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Rod Stephens <[log in to unmask]>
Organization: Stephens Audio Video Enteprises (S.A.V.E.)
Subject:      Re: Edward R. Murrow "Hear It Now", etc.
Comments: To: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed

Hello Don,

These are all good points, and one has to respect the those of the past 
, present and future who have perfected the ability to "think on their 
feet" (as it were) in live situations.

In the Family Theater broadcasts, however, my hat is off also to our 
usual composer/conductor, Harry Zimmerman, who was playing (a live 
orchestra) the closing music cues behind Tony La Frano's voice overs. 
His tempi always matched what Tony was saying and doing, so their 
constant coordination is a wonderful creative thing to hear.

I must add that this speed up or down in tempo was a rarer occasional 
situation, since the rehearsal timings must have been honed by the staff 
in their professional experience in doing the show week after week 
without any hiatus (they went year 'round unless preempted by political 
conventions).

As a sidelight from across the Atlantic this quote regards the effect of 
the BBC on the speech of the British:

http://www.onestopenglish.com/News/Magazine/Archive/standard.htm

> In British English the notion of RP (Received Pronunciation) still 
> persists. Alternatively described as "the Queen’s English", "BBC 
> English" or "Oxford English", there appears, in some quarters at 
> least, the idea that there is some kind of standard we should aspire 
> to and that variations to that standard are somehow inferior.


Rod Stephens
Family Theater Productions
Don Tait wrote:

>  The discussion on this thread about the effect of broadcasting on American 
>speech and the speed with which radio announcers would speak "live" is very 
>interesting to me because I am both a collector fascinated by speech patterns 
>and am a radio announcer who does "live" work and knows what goes into it. 
>Perhaps it's off-topic, but since recordings preserve these things, perhaps it 
>isn't.
>
>  I have read (sorry, I can't remember where) that when the first radio 
>networks of sorts were begun in the 1920s, it was decided after discussion that the 
>"accent" to be used would be a Midwestern one. It was thought to be the 
>freeest of regional stresses (the South, New England, New York, et cetera). When 
>networks became national, that came to apply to all American broadcasting and 
>was adopted by all of the networks.
>
>  As for speaking slower or faster when credits and so on are being read 
>live, that's something an announcer must learn to do. It's a matter of knowing 
>what one has to say and watching the clock as it ticks away the seconds to the 
>time that one has to be finished. Those times are finite, especially in network 
>broadcasting. It requires thinking about what one is saying, has left to say, 
>and simultaneously concentrating on getting it finished on time. So one can 
>speak slower or faster depending upon the situation (sometimes a crisis).
>
>  None of this necessarily has to do with recordings of announcements from 
>the '30s, '40s or later if they might have been electronically sped up or slowed 
>down. And would that have been possible in the '30s, '40s, or even '50s? 
>Genuinely live is another matter.
>
>  Don Tait
>
>  
>
>  
>