ANNOUNCERS AND CRITICS

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 21986, 9 January 1937, Page 8

ANNOUNCERS AND CRITICS

[By LISTENER] An, evil thing is sure enough to breed trouble in the end. No more than a month or so ago I complained about the indignity foisted upon the popular announcer from 3YA when he is compelled solemnly to recount the sturdy performances of various industrious hens in the Christchurch egg-la? ing competitions. That he should have to do this is bad enough, but to criticise him for any fancied imperfection in his recital is almost inexcusably uncharitable. This week, however, a stone was hurled at him in the correspondence columns of “The Press” for his pronunciation of Leghorn (a species of the industrious birds already mentioned). A correspondent objected to the dropping of the “hj.” Others generously rallied round to support •the announcer and to confound the critic. Although it is not my intention to take a fevered part in .the debate, it is only just to mention in passing that the Oxford dictionary’s declaration in favour of the' H-droppers is good enough for me. A Broadside This criticism of : one announcer, however, is a small mrtter compared with the broadside delivered against all New Zealand national announcers in a letter I have had from a correspondent who desii'es to be anonymous, but who at the same time is prepared to declare his identity to announcers or other persons wishing to correct him on any point. Perhaps, though, there can be no harm in saying that he is the good shepherd of a country flock. Anyway, here is what he wrote: “I seriously think the time has come to set and maintain a higher* standard than that of present announcing. Now you may ask, ‘Who is this that dares rush in where angels fear to tread?’ Tire answer is twofold; First, I am a worm trodden so often underfoot by announcers’ solecisms that at last I turn; and, second, I have slight qualifications which may earn me a hearing —in my profession clearness, accuracy, and even beauty of speech are demanded, and although I fall short here, I have an ideal, having spent much leisure time in voice production. “What really got me going was your opinion a short time ago that the sole requirements of an announcer were a pleasant voice and intelligence. I beg to suggest a few other things, for want, of which I have squirmed many a night or swiftly turned the knob to silence. Perhaps I am a prig or a pedant or a precisian, but I do want this wonderful medium of education, culture, art, recreation, call it what you will, I do want this thing in my home and for my family to set some sort of standard, at least in the spoken word of the announcer. We are so much at his mercy that I think it a fair request. For general announcing surely a good education is necessary. I have not been so mean as to sit with a note-book and pencil jotting down the faux pas of our announcers—l think I could have filled many a page. Obviously most of the announcers get out of their depth educationally, and even if there are no actual solecisms, they betray themselves, 1 it seems to me, either by a. nervous hastening over unfamiliar phrases or by a mincing pronunciation which is laughable. A great deal of vocal music is sung in Italian and by Italians, but many an announcer gives these out with French pronunciation of Italian words. Surely a smattering of Italian is desirable in an announcer; it is the widest known musical language in the world. English Pronunciation “Good English pronunciation is another desideratum, avoiding on the one hand the affectation heard mostly in women speakers over the radio of distorting certain vowels in imitation of Oxford but often approaching the Cockney, and on the other hand the slovenliness sometimes .called the New Zealand twang. I shall not say anything about sports announcers. Perhaps sporting fans like them that way. I do object, however, to a typical sports announcer being engaged to describe any event of national importance which may demand dignity and restraint. The man who described Jean Batten’s arrival in New Zealand seemed just the fellow for a tough wrestling bout. “I don’t think; any announcer wants to sound bored, but with all the varied matter which any one announcer has to pour forth, like a sausage machine in full cry, I don’t 'seer how the poor fellow can fail to, be bored under the present system. The thing, to do then is to appoint several hundred more announcers, so, that .every subject possible is announced, by someone who, is perfectly thrilled to talk about it, and. who is pleasant-voiced and intelligent at the same time. Why ask a townsman, to give a weather report, when everyone knows that only a farmer or other rural dweller puts the enthusiastic note into weather talk; why ask a man to tell us about a concert who obviously has never mixed with musical people or who doesn’t know B flat from a bull’s foot? People other than musicians will never get Interested in good music if they are told in a bored voice that this is ‘classical’ music, the title being mispronounced or inaudible.. Nobody but a musician with a knowledge of a particular kind of music should be allowed even to give the title of such music over the air. People would then begin to realise that this music at any rate meant- something to someone. The men-who describe sporting sporting events seem keen on their subject. What about other Subjects? Let’s have professors, schoolmasters, linguists, artists, etc., regularly on the job. Perhaps we have versatility in the land for only a few score more announcers who will not open their mouth to put their foot in it.” Partial Defence; Well, that’s it. As this is a time of year when the good fellowship of Christmas has not entirely vanished, X am compelled to say something in favour of the announcers. I feel that even this critical good shepherd will, .admit that his suggestion for a vast team of announcers is financially impracticable. It would be waste of time to employ a man simply for the reason that he could

pronounce Italian so perfectly that a gang of pseudo-experts would write to “The Press” explaining how he was pronouncing it wrong. Again, I doubt whether the average farmer’s normal appraisal or condemnation of the weather would be made in terms suitable for broadcasting. Innocent people might wonder how the rain got tinted red. With the position as it is, the work must be done by a few announcers having the blessed gift of versatility. And I must say that I have not noticed marked boredom on the part of the announcers from national stations, even though they have enough to be bored about. It seems to me miraculous that they preserve even „ a moderate degree of liveliness throughout a day in which they have to give interminable race results, proclaim the titles of scores of gramophone records, read long extracts from newspapers, and introduce performers at the microphone. It would, indeed, be surprising if an occasional solecism did not escape from their lips when it is remembered what a wide range of subject matter they have to cover. Their work, too, has to be done without the intrusion and flavour of personality. If New Zealand announcers were allowed to be a little informal, rather less like cultivated masters of ceremonies, it would" be easier for them and for their audiences. They are not allowed to be friendly as is the announcer from Berlin who so cordially wishes everybody “a good reception.” What is a Standard? However, it is easy to see the point of a man who feels that radio —the greatest of modern inventions —should provide a standard for the spoken word. It is easy to say this, but difficulties arise immediately. From the criticisms that have been made, it would seem that the public is most anxious that there should be a standard of pronunciation, for example. This matter has been considered patiently for a long time by the British Broadcasting Corporation, and even with the co-operation of the finest experts, a standard of pronunciation is being reached only by slow steps. The troubles encountered have been explained in “Broadcast English,” a pamphlet issued by the British Broadcasting Corporation. Words of doubtful pronunciation have been submitted to expert phoneticians who report in turn to a dazzlingly intellectual committee under the chairmanship of Mr Bernard Shaw. The pamphlet has already appeared in three editions, and an idea of the doubtful words can best be illustrated by the rulings ultimately given for British announcers. The first list, issued in 1928, contained 332 words; the second, issued in 1932, contained 503 words; and the third, issued a little over a year ,ago, contained 779 words. Now, many people would have felt from time to, time that words were being mispronounced, but it required the best British experts to give authoritative rulings. In his introduction to the latest edition of this pamphlet, Pro 7 fessor A. Lloyd James, professor of phonetics at the School of Oriental Studies, London, wrote: “The listener who writes to ask the ‘correct’ way of pronouncing a word quite evidently assumes that there is a ‘correct’ way. In all these queries and criticisms there is implied the idea of a standard pronunciation. We have a standard yard, a standard pound weight, a standard sovereign, and a standard pint. The yard does not vary from Aberdeen to Plymouth, and the pint pot contains as much in Mayfair as in Bethnal Green. Unfortunately speech is not capable of rigid measurement, and there is no absolute standard of pronunciation. Pronunciation varies from district to district, from class to class, from character to character, in proportion to the local, social, or personal difference that separates them.”

So it would seem that if New Zealand’s announcers are “to set some sort of standard” in the spoken word, they would have to do what English experts will only dare to do in professional collaboration. On the whole, then, our announcers are not so bad. The greatest imperfections come from the cadet announcers, but these young ones have to learn their trade somehow, and their mistakes are not. quite as annoying as those that are probably made by young doctors wfien learning their craft. A Cluster of Sopranos The National Broadcasting Service seems at present to have an enthusiasm for sopranos. There are three or four of them touring the national stations. They are Miss Sybil Phillips, Signora Marotta (with her basso husband), Miss Dawn Hunt, and Miss Hinemoa Rosieur. Miss Rosieur, a young sfnger from Auckland, was on from 2YA on Thursday evening. She is one to be watched. She has not the perfect production of Signora Marotta, but she has a voice of fine range, and there is thrilling richness in her lower register. She can go down from the fluting notes of the true soprano to notes of almost contralto roundness. She deserves an A grade recommendation to listeners. She will be on the air from Auckland on Monday and Wednesday of the coming week.