Elocution

[Bob K]

I searched this site for this topic and found nothing.  A couple of questions.

One, does anyone ever advise news correspondents, interview subjects, or anyone you've miked, to enunciate clearly?  Some people have a tendency to jumble words, which of course makes it hard for audiences to understand what they are saying.

Also, is it just me, or does it seem like jumbled speech is becoming more common, especially regarding interview subjects?    

[OB1]

I don't think of this as a sound mixer's job and posties can eq the mumbling.

 

But sometimes I do when it's a live broadcast. I will make a light hearted comment as I'm wiring the talent. But the rapport has to be there.

[The Documentary Sound Guy]

Generally no, unless I have history and rapport with the subject.

I will sometimes mention it to the director privately on docs.  Again, if I have rapport with them, and especially if they slurred a sentence that is likely to be critical, but that judgement call ultimately belong to the director.

In scripted, this kind of thing is the responsibility of the director and script supervisor.  If they aren't saying anything, it's not really our job as sound mixers to correct them.  Generally, the most I'll do is point out I'm having trouble understanding what's being said; what they do with that information is up to them.

Asking anyone other than a professional actor to enunciate clearly is likely to create other performance issues.  Interview subjects or untrained speakers will make that note their focus, which makes them self-conscious and will detract from their ability to speak naturally on camera.

As a sound mixer / recordist, your job it to make sure that the recording is technically proficient, but elocution is not part of that.  Elocution is a performance issue, which is the director's responsibility.  If you say something, you need to be conscious of the fact that you are speaking about something that is the director's job, and if you don't have a good relationship with the director, that can go very badly.

[PMC]

I was elocuted once. I got better.

 

I learned early on in my career to address similar concerns with the director or producer only. Not the talent directly. As a PSU it isnt my job to direct delivery. Plus i don't want to fluster the talent.

[Rick Reineke]

I have mentioned this to directors, but not directly to the mumbling talent.

[JonG]

Same as above. I will say that directors are certainly getting worse at conducting interviews. They used to ask the subject to answer questions as complete sentences, but now they just let the subject answer as if the question is being heard, or start the answer with “so” a lot. 
 

I have also noticed that many people are starting to pronounce words differently. Like “umportant”, a lot of u’s replacing i’s in the beginning of words. Not to mention wllll instead of well, wrrrr instead of were or we’re, thrrrrr instead of there, their, or they’re. 

[PMC]

JonG,

Many many moons ago I was a commercial production director straight out of college. We were doing a car commercial with 'name redacted'.

 

Now, i am lilly white and the famous boxer, 'name redacted' was black. Probably still is. One of his lines was, "When a customer puts their trust in you, you owe them your best.

 

He couldn't pronounce 'best' to save his life. It was always 'bess'. And in my young nieve white kid mind (I was probably 24) I felt he should pronounce the 't'. I was stupid for trying to force my white bread grammer on an inner city  guy who grew up in the hood.

 

After 12 takes, it was a jib shot booming into a haze filled boxing ring, the producer told me, "We have to move on. The client picked the guy. He has to know what he would get.

 

I didn't realize until we got into the edit that it was inappropriate for me to play diction coach on set.

 

That being said, if I interview subjects in my capacity as the owner of a small production company, I PSM and DP as a hired gun for other companies, I tell them, "Please minimize 'ums' and 'errs' and don't start sentences with 'so'.

[edward chick]

If the Producer does not say anything, I let it go. Usually they pick up on the word that was not pronounced  properly . 

[Bob K]

I see the responses are 100% "no."  But, I'm surprised that no one talked about the "news correspondents" (aka reporters) and "interview subjects" I mentioned.

 

In my experience in network television news (20 years), the crew consists of producer, correspondent, cameraman and soundman.  These crews are almost always collegial, informal, and have a clear sense of teamwork.

 

As to “directors,” I don’t recall ever having a director in news or documentaries.  Whom would they direct?  There are no actors. 

 

I have to disagree that EQ in post can fix jumbled words.  It can’t.

  

Also, no one has yet opined on my other question: Is jumbled speech becoming more common? 

 

I appreciate the responses, and resolve to mention any such issue only to the producer.

[The Documentary Sound Guy]

I work mostly in doc, and every documentary I've worked for has a director.  If there's any doubt, it's the person asking the interview questions.  They have varying degrees of interview skills, but most of them know what they are looking for and how they want to get it, and most of the time, interviews get cut down so heavily that they are only listening for the very critical parts of the interview, and will re-ask if something critical gets missed.  For other projects, sometimes interviews are more exploratory, and the attitude is they'll just use what is good, so if something gets slurred, no worries, they will use something from another question or another interview.

I've done less news, and I agree that news correspondents may be a specific case where they might want to hear from you.  But even in that type of crew, usually I'd expect the field producer to fill the director's role ... if the field producer is not paying close attention, then the correspondent might be the primary, and yes, if the atmosphere is collegial, I might mention something to the correspondent, especially if we are doing something like headlines or stingers where they are simple and informational.  In general though, the news correspondents I've worked with have been good at enunciating, or knowing when their speech is bad, so maybe it hasn't come up.

I refrained from opining about whether mumbling has become more common because I think it's too big a generalization.  There's certainly a conversation happening in the scripted world about actors speaking more quietly and directors allowing more unintelligible performances.  There are articles about this, and lots of possible reasons have been cited, but I haven't seen an explanation that truly makes sense to me yet.

I would tentatively suggest two possible explanations:

 

1. With the rise of cameraphones and social media, we have many, many more untrained speakers making video content than ever before.  People have always had varying degrees of intelligibility, but we are recording much more 'natural' speech compared to past eras.

2. With the amount of media we now consume, hearing damage is widespread and has been getting worse for decades.  Most of us as PSMs probably have varying degrees of minor hearing damage that gets worse as we age as well.  So, even if people aren't speaking less clearly, our ability to understand unclear speech may be getting worse, both as mixers, and in the general public.

 

I would also look at whether and how vocal / speech training has changed or shifted for actors over time.  It's possible that as we've moved away from theatre schools of acting there has been less emphasis on teaching enunciation (or maybe there are less 'professionals' coming from theatre schools, so major personalities have less training?)  I would call this a highly speculative explanation, and would want to see research / data backing it up, but it's a third possibility that I can imagine.

[Olle Sjostrom]

There’s also the possibility that our hearing is worsened with age and now we think everyone’s mumbling 

[inspire]

But what about different tools to improve the situation? RX is one of the most powerful, but there are also very good tools from AI. Why not improve the situation by post-treatment? I think it is used a lot or I am wrong? 

[Bob K]

Documentary Sound Guy—  I think there are different words for things in Canada.  Your description of a "director" matches what's called a producer here, at least in the news/doc/PR world.
 

Also, the jumbled words I refer to are spoken by news anchors and correspondents on network television.  Camera phones and social media are not involved.
 

Olle—  That's worth consideration.  But, I hear well in all situations (including when watching TV), except when I'm watching network news and news magazines.  That's when I hear words mashed together in a "jumble."
 

inspire— Why not post tools?  News is news.  It's shot, edited and broadcast on the same day.  News magazines would have more time.  But, they have more time for everything.

[The Documentary Sound Guy]

1 hour ago, Bob K said:

Your description of a "director" matches what's called a producer here, at least in the news/doc/PR world.

I kind of doubt it's a Canadian thing. I've worked with plenty of US directors on docs (who are credited as such on IMDB).  But certainly it could be doc vs. news or doc vs. reality.  Doc productions I work on often have a producer (specifically, a field producer) in addition to a director on set.  The two roles are quite distinct.  News or reality is more likely to have a correspondent or 'host' who is self-directing (and is likely to appear on camera with their interview subjects).  I will say that docs are not infrequently directed by filmmakers who wear multiple hats (often camera), but the director role (meaning, deciding who and what gets shot, and what questions get asked) takes precedence over the other hats.

[Bob K]

I'm curious to know the names of any of these documentaries with directors.  I just did a search of documentaries I've worked on, and found just one with a director, and she was credited as both producer and director.  She conducted the interviews, but directed nothing.

It's interesting that you say you "doubt it's a Canadian thing," and then go on to describe "news or reality" in a way that is completely foreign to network news in the U.S. where, again, I have 20+ years of experience.

I also have to say that your phrase "news or reality" is disturbing.  Those two things have nothing in common in the U.S.  Reality TV is entertainment.  It's not news.  It's just more evidence that your experience in Canada is different.

  

 

[The Documentary Sound Guy]

13 hours ago, Bob K said:

I also have to say that your phrase "news or reality" is disturbing.  Those two things have nothing in common in the U.S.  Reality TV is entertainment.  It's not news.  It's just more evidence that your experience in Canada is different.

You are misreading me.  "News or reality" means just that:  News *or* reality.   They are two different types of productions, both of which bear some things in common with documentary, but are not documentaries.  They also bear the commonality of being frequently 'hosted' by an interviewer who appears on camera, though they perform very different kinds of interviews, and they call their host by different titles.  They aren't the same in Canada any more than they are in the US.

 

I prefer not to name my clients publicly.  But, I wonder what you make of this IMDB list of the top 10 documentary directors:  https://www.imdb.com/list/ls073721801/?  What is it, exactly, that you think Errol Morris, Ken Burns, Werner Hertzog, and Michael Moore etc. do if not direct?  Go find any list of the top 10 documentaries from last year and see how many do not have a credited director.  Make it an American list since you seem to think this has something to do with Canada.  I'd be shocked if you find any that doesn't credit a director.  Yes, directing a documentary looks different than directing a drama.  But that doesn't mean there isn't someone calling the shots creatively.  Producers don't do that work; they are responsible for the business side, not the creative.

I would say you are doing your client a disservice by saying she directed nothing while being credited as a producer.  It's certainly not uncommon for a doc director to also be credited as a producer; that doesn't mean she didn't do any directing.  It means she also did some producing work (which, given the breadth of the title, could mean almost anything).

[carbonhobbit]

On small productions I will offer up how the locals might pronounce a word or two; Nevada and Audubon, but on larger productions I just let the butchering of words left to the higher ups.

[Bob K]

Doc Sound Guy— 
 

I've worked on several reality TV shows.  None had either a director or interviews.
 

As to the one documentary I worked that credited someone as "producer/director," I was there.  You were not there.  Yet you claim to know more about what the she did than I do?  That's ridiculous.
 

No, she did not "call the shots creatively" or anything else.  She conducted interviews, and I'm sure did preproduction regarding locations and appointments.  In fact, she did what producers do.
 

As to the documentaries that credit someone as both producer and director, I don't know why they would choose to do that.  Maybe it pays more.  I can see it in Michael Moore's case, since his docs certainly have an entertainment aspect.
 

Again, your experience is vastly different than mine.

[The Documentary Sound Guy]

I'm done.  Believe what you like.

[PMC]

4 hours ago, carbonhobbit said:

On small productions I will offer up how the locals might pronounce a word or two; Nevada and Audubon, but on larger productions I just let the butchering of words left to the higher ups.

👍

[The Immoral Mr Teas]

I watched a documentary history of Britain's Ordnance Survey a few years ago. 'Ordnance' was pronounced 'ordinance' throughout without exception. There is no way that would have happened if I had recorded that commentary.

 

Jez

[johngooch]

Working on a movie where a famous Boxer was appearing as a cameo...  Late in his career and definitely a more than a bit scrambled but he still was massive and imposing and not always in a good mood.  I mentioned to the director that i could not understand him.  Directors response... -' Yea, go ahead and tell him you can not understand him because I absolutley will not" ...   Didn't loop it.. and sure enough it was gibberish in final..   Another silly movie. 

[Bob K]

Regarding my original question:
 

I asked Google "Do people speak faster than before?" AI Overview said "Yes, it appears people are speaking faster today, with average speech rates increasing from around 145 words per minute (wpm) to 160-180 wpm."
 

I also asked Google "Do prescription medications make people talk faster?"  SI Overview said Yes, and provided the examples of Adderall, Vyvanse and Ritalin.
 

I asked is each "becoming more popular?"  For Adderall, yes.  And, there are "persistent national shortages."  For Vyvanse, "yes, leading to a 24% increase" in U.S. production.  For Ritalin, yes, noting "prescription rates for stimulants increasing by 58% in the US from 2012 to 2022." 

So, while I'm apparently the only one here who has noticed it, I think word jumbles are becoming more common, and the increased velocity of speech may be a factor. 

[Olle Sjostrom]

This is also a feeling I get, that people are mumbling more, and I blame the internet and captions, and also in some ways incompetence in the audio field; worse quality in recordings on major videos and/or tiktok accounts. On TikTok you need to speak fast and maybe even speed your speech up after editing since there was (is?) a limit to how long your videos can be. 

Whenever my kids watch anything on YT I go crazy. Everyones really monotone too, very high intensity, not much dynamic in the speech at all, no one's breathing, everyone's shouting repeating the same words over and over. And also there's this other camp that tries to sound more relaxed, or even sedated. Maybe it's got something to do with medicine, sure, but if an AI gives me an answer like that I want to make sure myself.. AI wants to make you happy, not disprove a thesis you might have.  

[Izen Ears]

I would tell the director, or even better the scripty. If you don't have either of those, the producer. If all you have is a camera person, see if they care and if they do, tell them. Otherwise just let it go, as hard as that may be.

 

One time on a movie, I told an actor how to pronounce "poor boy" sandwiches. I was so scared but the character was supposed to be from here and would have never said it the way they were. Usually I just tell the scripty but we were doing a VO in his trailer and they weren't there.
 

Yes docs always have directors, what a silly debate. Sometimes producers direct with a tiny crew.