OT: Audible - a moan

[Jenny M Benson]

Does anyratelse use Audible> And if you do, what do you think of their
choice of readers? I find myself wondering just how they choose them -
is it a case of choosing the people who will do it for the least fee?
It certainly doesn't always seem to be those who are most suitable
and/or able.

A little while ago I listened to one of a series of novels in which the
female protagonist is the narrator of the story. Except Audible had it
read by a man, which was weird. My latest listen is Monica Dickens'
"Dear Dr Lily" which was disconcerting for a start as the reader sounded
about 10 years old. But it got worse. Her consistently pronouncing the
"oo" sound as in "push" like the "u" sound in "cut" I could have
accepted as a regional variation (though "hook" pronounced "huck" is
pushing it), but her pronunciation of so many words is just plain WRONG.
Just a few examples are: lumbargo, vine-yard, Deveezes, Jimmy Duronte
and garss fire.

[BrritSki]

Does anyratelse use Audible>  And if you do, what do you think of their
choice of readers?  I find myself wondering just how they choose them -
is it a case of choosing the people who will do it for the least fee? It
certainly doesn't always seem to be those who are most suitable and/or
able.
A little while ago I listened to one of a series of novels in which the
female protagonist is the narrator of the story.  Except Audible had it
read by a man, which was weird.  My latest listen is Monica Dickens'
"Dear Dr Lily" which was disconcerting for a start as the reader sounded
about 10 years old.  But it got worse.  Her consistently pronouncing the
"oo" sound as in "push" like the "u" sound in "cut" I could have
accepted as a regional variation (though "hook" pronounced "huck" is
pushing it), but her pronunciation of so many words is just plain WRONG.
 Just a few examples are:  lumbargo, vine-yard, Deveezes, Jimmy Duronte
and garss fire.

I use Audible but not a lot. Ellie Griffiths' archaeologist detective
series, Susan Hill's Serailleur and Lots of Reg Hill. Not noticed any
major problems with readers such as you mention. Latter sounds almost
like an AI text to voice...

[Nick Odell]

Post by BrritSki

Does anyratelse use Audible>  And if you do, what do you think of their
choice of readers?  I find myself wondering just how they choose them -
is it a case of choosing the people who will do it for the least fee? It
certainly doesn't always seem to be those who are most suitable and/or
able.
A little while ago I listened to one of a series of novels in which the
female protagonist is the narrator of the story.  Except Audible had it
read by a man, which was weird.  My latest listen is Monica Dickens'
"Dear Dr Lily" which was disconcerting for a start as the reader sounded
about 10 years old.  But it got worse.  Her consistently pronouncing the
"oo" sound as in "push" like the "u" sound in "cut" I could have
accepted as a regional variation (though "hook" pronounced "huck" is
pushing it), but her pronunciation of so many words is just plain WRONG.
 Just a few examples are:  lumbargo, vine-yard, Deveezes, Jimmy Duronte
and garss fire.

I use Audible but not a lot. Ellie Griffiths' archaeologist detective
series, Susan Hill's Serailleur and Lots of Reg Hill. Not noticed any
major problems with readers such as you mention. Latter sounds almost
like an AI text to voice...

That's an interesting thought, Brritters. Something we will probably
have to watch out for more often.

I've heard book readings from incredibly dull and flat readers who are
often amateurs who seem just to like the dull and flat sound of their
own voices but professional audio book producers usually use
professional actors/readers. Do you suppose, Jenny, the readers in
question are well known actors somewhere? For instance Radio 4x has
just finished broadcasting (and not for the first time) the rough,
tough James Bond story On Her Majesty's Secret Service, condensed into
ten episodes read by the distinctly unrough, untough Joanna Lumley
because she once had a small part in the movie.

Nick

[Kate B]

Post by Nick Odell

Post by BrritSki

Does anyratelse use Audible>  And if you do, what do you think of their
choice of readers?  I find myself wondering just how they choose them -
is it a case of choosing the people who will do it for the least fee? It
certainly doesn't always seem to be those who are most suitable and/or
able.
A little while ago I listened to one of a series of novels in which the
female protagonist is the narrator of the story.  Except Audible had it
read by a man, which was weird.  My latest listen is Monica Dickens'
"Dear Dr Lily" which was disconcerting for a start as the reader sounded
about 10 years old.  But it got worse.  Her consistently pronouncing the
"oo" sound as in "push" like the "u" sound in "cut" I could have
accepted as a regional variation (though "hook" pronounced "huck" is
pushing it), but her pronunciation of so many words is just plain WRONG.
 Just a few examples are:  lumbargo, vine-yard, Deveezes, Jimmy Duronte
and garss fire.

I use Audible but not a lot. Ellie Griffiths' archaeologist detective
series, Susan Hill's Serailleur and Lots of Reg Hill. Not noticed any
major problems with readers such as you mention. Latter sounds almost
like an AI text to voice...

That's an interesting thought, Brritters. Something we will probably
have to watch out for more often.
I've heard book readings from incredibly dull and flat readers who are
often amateurs who seem just to like the dull and flat sound of their
own voices but professional audio book producers usually use
professional actors/readers. Do you suppose, Jenny, the readers in
question are well known actors somewhere? For instance Radio 4x has
just finished broadcasting (and not for the first time) the rough,
tough James Bond story On Her Majesty's Secret Service, condensed into
ten episodes read by the distinctly unrough, untough Joanna Lumley
because she once had a small part in the movie.

<mode: grumpy old pedant>
I'm noticing more and more how young persons (ie under about 35) are
lacking in the general education area. They don't recognise historical
names, or geographical ones, or anything remotely foreign. Worse, they
don't seem to realise that they don't know them and just go ploughing on.

Hmmph.

[Ben Blaney]

Post by Kate B
I'm noticing more and more how young persons (ie under about 35) are
lacking in the general education area. They don't recognise historical
names, or geographical ones, or anything remotely foreign. Worse, they
don't seem to realise that they don't know them and just go ploughing on.

Not new. Bill Bryson, writing in 1987:

In my day, the principal concerns of university students were sex, smoking
dope, rioting and learning. Learning was something you did only when the first
three weren’t available, but at least you did it. Nowadays, American students’
principal concerns seem to be sex and keeping their clothes looking nice. I
don’t think learning comes into it very much. Just at this time, there was an
outcry in America over the contagion of ignorance that appeared to be sweeping
through the nation’s young people. The principal focus of this nationwide
hand-wringing was a study by the National Endowment for the Humanities. It had
recently tested 8,000 high school seniors and found that they were as stupid
as pig dribble. More than two thirds of them did not know when the US Civil
War took place, couldn’t identify Stalin or Churchill, and didn’t know who
wrote The Canterbury Tales. Almost half thought World War 1 started before
1900. A third thought that Roosevelt was President during the Vietnam war and
that Columbus sailed to America after 1750. Forty-two per cent – this is my
favourite – couldn’t name a single country in Asia. I would scarcely have
believed all this myself except that the summer before I had taken two
American high school girls for a drive around Dorset – bright girls, both of
them now enrolled in colleges of high repute – and neither of them had ever
heard of Thomas Hardy. How can you live to be eighteen years old and never
have at least heard of Thomas Hardy?

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Ben Blaney

Post by Kate B
I'm noticing more and more how young persons (ie under about 35) are
lacking in the general education area. They don't recognise historical
names, or geographical ones, or anything remotely foreign. Worse, they
don't seem to realise that they don't know them and just go ploughing on.

In my day, the principal concerns of university students were sex, smoking
dope, rioting and learning. Learning was something you did only when the first
three weren’t available, but at least you did it. Nowadays, American students’
principal concerns seem to be sex and keeping their clothes looking nice. I
don’t think learning comes into it very much. Just at this time, there was an
outcry in America over the contagion of ignorance that appeared to be sweeping
through the nation’s young people. The principal focus of this nationwide
hand-wringing was a study by the National Endowment for the Humanities. It had
recently tested 8,000 high school seniors and found that they were as stupid
as pig dribble. More than two thirds of them did not know when the US Civil
War took place, couldn’t identify Stalin or Churchill, and didn’t know who
wrote The Canterbury Tales. Almost half thought World War 1 started before
1900. A third thought that Roosevelt was President during the Vietnam war and
that Columbus sailed to America after 1750. Forty-two per cent – this is my
favourite – couldn’t name a single country in Asia. I would scarcely have
believed all this myself except that the summer before I had taken two
American high school girls for a drive around Dorset – bright girls, both of
them now enrolled in colleges of high repute – and neither of them had ever
heard of Thomas Hardy. How can you live to be eighteen years old and never
have at least heard of Thomas Hardy?

Written 37 (ish) years ago.
Those students he was writing about are now the senior management of all
the institutions of the world.

[Kosmo]

Post by Kate B
I'm noticing more and more how young persons (ie under about 35) are
lacking in the general education area.

Try watching the Chase or Tipping Point for both confirmation and
sometimes a complete non-confirmation of this point.

[Jenny M Benson]

Post by Kate B
<mode: grumpy old pedant>
I'm noticing more and more how young persons (ie under about 35) are
lacking in the general education area. They don't recognise historical
names, or geographical ones, or anything remotely foreign. Worse, they
don't seem to realise that they don't know them and just go ploughing on.
Hmmph.

This grumpy old pedant agrees. The young-sounding girl reading my
latest Monica Dickens is quite suitable as the narrator but she has just
pronounced "truculently" as "troo-sulently."

Harrumph!

[BrritSki]

Post by Kate B
<mode: grumpy old pedant>
I'm noticing more and more how young persons (ie under about 35) are
lacking in the general education area. They don't recognise historical
names, or geographical ones, or anything remotely foreign. Worse, they
don't seem to realise that they don't know them and just go ploughing on.
Hmmph.

This grumpy old pedant agrees.  The young-sounding girl reading my
latest Monica Dickens is quite suitable as the narrator but she has just
pronounced "truculently" as "troo-sulently."
Harrumph!

LOL

I bet you were really anjry.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by BrritSki

Post by Kate B
<mode: grumpy old pedant>
I'm noticing more and more how young persons (ie under about 35) are
lacking in the general education area. They don't recognise
historical names, or geographical ones, or anything remotely foreign.
Worse, they don't seem to realise that they don't know them and just
go ploughing on.
Hmmph.

This grumpy old pedant agrees.  The young-sounding girl reading my
latest Monica Dickens is quite suitable as the narrator but she has
just pronounced "truculently" as "troo-sulently."
Harrumph!

LOL
I bet you were really anjry.

I hear some 'mispronunciations' so often that I wonder if it has
actually changed since IWAL - or maybe it's an American thing that has
overtaken the 'proper' version.

(e.g. Colin Powell)

[Jenny M Benson]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by BrritSki

Post by Kate B
<mode: grumpy old pedant>
I'm noticing more and more how young persons (ie under about 35) are
lacking in the general education area. They don't recognise
historical names, or geographical ones, or anything remotely
foreign. Worse, they don't seem to realise that they don't know them
and just go ploughing on.
Hmmph.

This grumpy old pedant agrees.  The young-sounding girl reading my
latest Monica Dickens is quite suitable as the narrator but she has
just pronounced "truculently" as "troo-sulently."
Harrumph!

LOL
I bet you were really anjry.

I hear some 'mispronunciations' so often that I wonder if it has
actually changed since IWAL - or maybe it's an American thing that has
overtaken the 'proper' version.
(e.g. Colin Powell)

Yes, the same reader I mentioned above also referred to a Clerk of the
Court as a "clurk".

[Chris]

Post by BrritSki

Post by Kate B
<mode: grumpy old pedant>
I'm noticing more and more how young persons (ie under about 35) are
lacking in the general education area. They don't recognise historical
names, or geographical ones, or anything remotely foreign. Worse, they
don't seem to realise that they don't know them and just go ploughing on.
Hmmph.

This grumpy old pedant agrees.  The young-sounding girl reading my
latest Monica Dickens is quite suitable as the narrator but she has just
pronounced "truculently" as "troo-sulently."
Harrumph!

LOL
I bet you were really anjry.

Are Audible titles read by professionals or volunteers?

Mrs McT

[Serena Blanchflower]

Post by Chris

Post by BrritSki

Post by Kate B
<mode: grumpy old pedant>
I'm noticing more and more how young persons (ie under about 35) are
lacking in the general education area. They don't recognise historical
names, or geographical ones, or anything remotely foreign. Worse, they
don't seem to realise that they don't know them and just go ploughing on.
Hmmph.

This grumpy old pedant agrees.  The young-sounding girl reading my
latest Monica Dickens is quite suitable as the narrator but she has just
pronounced "truculently" as "troo-sulently."
Harrumph!

LOL
I bet you were really anjry.

Are Audible titles read by professionals or volunteers?

Professionals. They're the official audio editions of the books,
produced by the publishers.

[Jenny M Benson]

Post by Chris
Are Audible titles read by professionals or volunteers?

Professionals. But it seems some of them are far from professional at it.

[Chris]

Post by Jenny M Benson

Post by Chris
Are Audible titles read by professionals or volunteers?

Professionals. But it seems some of them are far from professional at it.

Interesting. I only know RNIB talking books, I even recognise some of the
names. They pride themselves on it, it’s how it began.

Mrs McT

[Iain Archer]

Post by Kate B
<mode: grumpy old pedant>
I'm noticing more and more how young persons (ie under about 35) are
lacking in the general education area. They don't recognise historical
names, or geographical ones, or anything remotely foreign. Worse, they
don't seem to realise that they don't know them and just go ploughing on.
Hmmph.

This grumpy old pedant agrees.  The young-sounding girl reading my
latest Monica Dickens is quite suitable as the narrator but she has just
pronounced "truculently" as "troo-sulently."
Harrumph!

I've just experienced the interestingly bizarre and bizarrely
interesting "her otto - laryn - gologist"[1] (first 'g' hard) in a
recording of Oliver Sacks' Musicophilia, though that's from a mature
male reader.

He generally does well, though might perhaps have done a bit more to
enliven the prose. I was a bit surprised in the same chapter by a long
second 'i' in tinnitus, but I see Chambers swings both ways, so I'll let
him have that.

iain

[1] It can go in the collection, along with my own peed - stryan.

[Joe Kerr]

Post by Iain Archer

Post by Kate B
<mode: grumpy old pedant>
I'm noticing more and more how young persons (ie under about 35) are
lacking in the general education area. They don't recognise
historical names, or geographical ones, or anything remotely foreign.
Worse, they don't seem to realise that they don't know them and just
go ploughing on.
Hmmph.

This grumpy old pedant agrees.  The young-sounding girl reading my
latest Monica Dickens is quite suitable as the narrator but she has
just pronounced "truculently" as "troo-sulently."
Harrumph!

I've just experienced the interestingly bizarre and bizarrely
interesting "her otto - laryn - gologist"[1] (first 'g' hard) in a
recording of Oliver Sacks' Musicophilia, though that's from a mature
male reader.

Thanks to Google I shall refrain from enquiring as to who Herr Otto
Laryn-Gologist is.

[john ashby]

Post by Iain Archer

Post by Kate B
<mode: grumpy old pedant>
I'm noticing more and more how young persons (ie under about 35) are
lacking in the general education area. They don't recognise
historical names, or geographical ones, or anything remotely foreign.
Worse, they don't seem to realise that they don't know them and just
go ploughing on.
Hmmph.

This grumpy old pedant agrees.  The young-sounding girl reading my
latest Monica Dickens is quite suitable as the narrator but she has
just pronounced "truculently" as "troo-sulently."
Harrumph!

I've just experienced the interestingly bizarre and bizarrely
interesting "her otto - laryn - gologist"[1] (first 'g' hard) in a
recording of Oliver Sacks' Musicophilia, though that's from a mature
male reader.
He generally does well, though might perhaps have done a bit more to
enliven the prose. I was a bit surprised in the same chapter by a long
second 'i' in tinnitus, but I see Chambers swings both ways, so I'll let
him have that.
iain
[1] It can go in the collection, along with my own peed - stryan.

According to my SOED while the 'g' in laryngitis and laryngeal is soft
the stem laryngo- has a hadr 'g'. Or is that not the complaint? Yes, the
'o' should be long as in soul (the SOED gives sow as an example which is
fine in the garden but not in the farmyard).

john

[Serena Blanchflower]

Does anyratelse use Audible>  And if you do, what do you think of their
choice of readers?  I find myself wondering just how they choose them -
is it a case of choosing the people who will do it for the least fee? It
certainly doesn't always seem to be those who are most suitable and/or
able.
A little while ago I listened to one of a series of novels in which the
female protagonist is the narrator of the story.  Except Audible had it
read by a man, which was weird.  My latest listen is Monica Dickens'
"Dear Dr Lily" which was disconcerting for a start as the reader sounded
about 10 years old.  But it got worse.  Her consistently pronouncing the
"oo" sound as in "push" like the "u" sound in "cut" I could have
accepted as a regional variation (though "hook" pronounced "huck" is
pushing it), but her pronunciation of so many words is just plain WRONG.
 Just a few examples are:  lumbargo, vine-yard, Deveezes, Jimmy Duronte
and garss fire.

I listen to a lot of audiobooks, a large proportion of them are from
Audible. I don't think Audible have any responsibility for the choice
of readers, that's done by the publishers. Where Audible have had a
role is in hugely increasing the market for audiobooks, so that most
books produced by mainstream publishers are now available in audio. You
will be able to find a lot of the same books, with the same readers,
available, either on tape/CD/download from your local library.

I suspect that, all too often, price will be a significant factor in
choosing a reader, with the really good readers being kept for those
books, and authors, where they're confident of large sales. I've come
across a few actors who have close friends living in Ambridge[1],
reading audiobooks, over the years.

There are some readers who really make the book and who work closely
with the author. Kobna Holdbrook-Smith, for example, is superb reading
Ben Aaronovitch's Rivers of London books. Ben has said that he now
hears it read in Kobna's voice, when he's writing them. Colin Buchanan,
who played DI Pascoe in the Dalziel and Pascoe TV programmes, was
fabulous reading those. It was always really clear who was speaking at
any time, as he really differentiated the voices.

On the other hand, Joan Hickson, surprisingly, was appalling at reading
some of the Miss Marple books. The problem was that she read them,
rather than acted them and, as they are written in the third person,
you'd hear Miss Marple say something, followed by "said the General"...
It made it completely unlistenable to. David Suchet, on the other
hand, read the Poirot books extremely well, as did Hugh Fraser (aka
Captain Hastings).



[1] I think I've mentioned before my theory that there's a recording
studio in one of the business units at Sawyer's farm. A number of the
village businesses appear to be kept afloat by their owners' side hustle
of recording audiobooks under their friends' names.

[Jenny M Benson]

Post by Serena Blanchflower
I listen to a lot of audiobooks, a large proportion of them are from
Audible.  I don't think Audible have any responsibility for the choice
of readers, that's done by the publishers.  Where Audible have had a
role is in hugely increasing the market for audiobooks, so that most
books produced by mainstream publishers are now available in audio.  You
will be able to find a lot of the same books, with the same readers,
available, either on tape/CD/download from your local library.

You've just made me realise I made a big mistake - but which turns out
not be so big after all. The audiobook I am currently enduring (1) is
one from the library service's BorrowBox but I now see it is published
by "Bolinda/Audible audio."

My problem is that so many of the books I particularly want to listen to
are not available via BorrowBox, only from Audible.

(1) The appalling reader is Lauren Irwin - not, I presume, the Olympian
Rower, but apparently (I now discover) the voice of Peppa Pig.