RadioDiscussions.com

 
RadioDiscussions.com Discussion Boards
Login May 18, 2013, 04:00:34 AM *
Username Password Session Length
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email? Did you forget your password?
:  
   Home   Help Search Contact Us Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: RADICAL NEW QUALIFICATION FOR BEING ON THE AIR: HAVE A 'RADIO VOICE'  (Read 4366 times)
Early Byrd
rimember

Offline Offline

Posts: 242


RADICAL NEW QUALIFICATION FOR BEING ON THE AIR: HAVE A 'RADIO VOICE'
« on: November 11, 2010, 02:58:32 PM »

Yes, folks, at one time, in order to get into radio, you actually had to sound better than the average person...call it a 'radio voice' if you will, but that's how you had to sound to get anywhere in the business...even in a small market situation.

Where did it all change?...especially when it comes to being on the air as a talk-show host?  Another topic on this board concerns the voice quality of a soon to be let-go WTTK personality, so it might be a good time to raise this topic.

Sorry, but voice quality does matter to some listeners, including yours truly.
Logged
Laurence Glavin
rimember

Offline Offline

Posts: 1299


Re: RADICAL NEW QUALIFICATION FOR BEING ON THE AIR: HAVE A 'RADIO VOICE'
« Reply #1 on: November 11, 2010, 03:02:56 PM »

Several years ago I read Eric Sevareid's autobiography, and he commented almost in amazement that he was hired by Edward R. Murrow NOT because of his newspaper credentials but because of his voice.  When sound was introduced into motion pictures, many "stars" of the silent screen couldn't make the grade.
Logged
raccoonradio
rimember

Offline Offline

Posts: 13214


Re: RADICAL NEW QUALIFICATION FOR BEING ON THE AIR: HAVE A 'RADIO VOICE'
« Reply #2 on: November 11, 2010, 06:25:22 PM »

And then "video killed the radio star" (as the Buggles song that introduced MTV put it!)

If you have the money you can get on the air though, right, Mr Drew Mortgage Show and/or Bill Kelley?
Logged
Don Juannn
Just another radio geek!
rimember

Offline Offline

Posts: 286

Just another radio geek....


Re: RADICAL NEW QUALIFICATION FOR BEING ON THE AIR: HAVE A 'RADIO VOICE'
« Reply #3 on: November 11, 2010, 08:33:19 PM »


Yes, folks, at one time, in order to get into radio, you actually had to sound better than the average person...call it a 'radio voice' if you will, but that's how you had to sound to get anywhere in the business...even in a small market situation.

Ever heard NPR's Diane Rehm?  Dave Finnegan?  Peter Meade?
Logged

Don Guilmette
ned
rimember

Offline Offline

Posts: 81


Re: RADICAL NEW QUALIFICATION FOR BEING ON THE AIR: HAVE A 'RADIO VOICE'
« Reply #4 on: November 11, 2010, 08:50:14 PM »

It used to be that you had to know how to say the letter "W" (as in double-you, not dubba-you) to be on the radio.....times have changed.
Logged
MRBIboredop
rimember

Offline Offline

Posts: 998


Re: RADICAL NEW QUALIFICATION FOR BEING ON THE AIR: HAVE A 'RADIO VOICE'
« Reply #5 on: November 11, 2010, 10:26:16 PM »

There has always been that running joke about having a face for radio, and there are some people in Boston radio who absolutely have a face for radio, but great pipes.

I do not have a voice for radio, never have, never will, which is why my voice is not heard on any of the legal ID's, promo's or anything else at MRBI. I work with 2 guys with voices far better than mine, and I don't feel the need to be on the radio.

Maybe it is that talk radio listeners are willing to overlook the "radio voice" thing in order to hear what they want from the talent's mouth.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2010, 10:37:24 PM by MRBIboredop » Logged
raccoonradio
rimember

Offline Offline

Posts: 13214


Re: RADICAL NEW QUALIFICATION FOR BEING ON THE AIR: HAVE A 'RADIO VOICE'
« Reply #6 on: November 11, 2010, 10:53:03 PM »

A certain "progressive" radio network thought it would be a swell idea to have a former Sat Night Live star as their counter to Rush. Result: even the hardcore followers were upset, for this actor had a droning voice--as one post by a liberal on a liberal messageboard put it, "Sorry, but I can't take the molasses-
draped voice of..."

You guessed it. And now he's a Senator...Al Franken. File under Not Ready For Prime Time Radio
Logged
Blackroc
rimember

Offline Offline

Posts: 867


Re: RADICAL NEW QUALIFICATION FOR BEING ON THE AIR: HAVE A 'RADIO VOICE'
« Reply #7 on: November 11, 2010, 11:55:18 PM »

Rehm?  Dave Finnegan?  Peter Meade?
    All acceptable voices (Rehm had a  vocal problem of some kind) for talk. As opposed to a few others I could mention with awful accents (Sunday/96.9) who butcher names (maybe on purpose I don't know).
    Their were times on the M&M'D program on FAN when I'd miss a word or two in every sentence.
Logged
Don Juannn
Just another radio geek!
rimember

Offline Offline

Posts: 286

Just another radio geek....


Re: RADICAL NEW QUALIFICATION FOR BEING ON THE AIR: HAVE A 'RADIO VOICE'
« Reply #8 on: November 12, 2010, 12:32:03 AM »

Rehm?  Dave Finnegan?  Peter Meade?

    All acceptable voices (Rehm had a  vocal problem of some kind) for talk.

Acceptable to you maybe....but not to others.

Same with McPhee.

The question is can you get the content without the distraction of the voice.  For Diane Rehm it's impossible for me....as bright as she might be.


Logged

Don Guilmette
DanStrassberg
rimember

Offline Offline

Posts: 2480


Re: RADICAL NEW QUALIFICATION FOR BEING ON THE AIR: HAVE A 'RADIO VOICE'
« Reply #9 on: November 12, 2010, 06:36:49 AM »

The question is can you get the content without the distraction of the voice.  For Diane Rehm it's impossible for me....as bright as she might be.

Well, if it's really Rheem's voice that bothers you (as opposed to, say, what you perceive to be her point-of-view) WBUR counter-programs with On Point, hosted by the golden-voiced Tom Ashbrook. So you can choose the male polymath with the golden voice or the female polymath with the scratchy voice. However, if you want civilized talk in the late morning, both of these hosts (whom I characterize as more centrist than liberal) are far from the right-wing ideologues on the commercial stations. Invective and flames are definitely not the order of the day on either of the public-radio talk shows.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP

Postings on Radiodiscussions.com are the opinions of the people who post them. Views expressed do not necessarily represent the views of Radiodiscussions.com or its owner or operator. In fact many of the views expressed here are just plain wrong. But they are opinions and this site allows us all to discuss those opinions. Any reliance on information posted is done so at the user's own risk. For a detailed look at the rules, regulations and uses of Radiodiscussions.com please see our TERMS OF SERVICE.

Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.25 seconds with 20 queries.