The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

Ditto. The Elocution classes (or at least the self-taught principles) taken by public figures may render them - even "The Great Commoner" - not representative of typical speech patterns in their home states/regions. By the same token, film stars of the late 1920s through the early 1950s were often trained for the stage, and their diction (and their movements too, through the mid-1930s!) reflect that.

Home recordings would probably be a more reliable source for an ethnographic study of this sort. Of course, the locations of those home recordings would need to be known, and the dates would be helpful. I have a couple I can think of - one taken in Camden NY in 1905, and one of the Welch family (I cannot remember offhand where they lived) taken on Christmas Day, 1912. They all sounded "normal" to me.

Talking records by companies such as Berliner (employing local talent) might give some insight. George Graham has a slight mid-Atlantic accent...

A study like this would be a huge undertaking if it were to be properly approached (unlike the fluff we read on the Internet).

George P.

emgcr wrote:Diction has certainly suffered greatly and the "drawl", often produced from mouths hardly opened, is frequently difficult to understand in today's world. This, of course, is not unique to the USA but also occurs in the UK, and probably other countries too, as standards fall. One of the pleasures of listening to older American recordings is the clarity of speech.

I completely agree with you that diction has suffered immensely in recent years. At my High School there are plenty of kids who just speak with terrible grammar and string their words together when they talk. I would like to point out that the school I attend is one of the best in the State of Connecticut, so the school gives an excellent education, but still they just don't teach handwriting and proper speech like they did way back when. I have even been made fun of by my peers for my vocabulary, although for the most part they were only trying to get a rise out of me. I find it really unfortunate and somewhat sad that many Americans of today don't speak with the same sort of eloquence and vocabulary that our ancestors once did.

phonogfp wrote:Home recordings would probably be a more reliable source for an ethnographic study of this sort. Of course, the locations of those home recordings would need to be known, and the dates would be helpful. I have a couple I can think of - one taken in Camden NY in 1905, and one of the Welch family (I cannot remember offhand where they lived) taken on Christmas Day, 1912. They all sounded "normal" to me.

George P.

I actually have a brown wax cylinder from 1902 that is a home recording from New Hampshire which demonstrates perfectly what you describe. Perhaps I will upload a video of it later as an example.
-Steve

One of the great differences is the speech patterns of an orator or stage performer, as compared to vernacular speech. When I started performing in local theatre 30+ years ago, no one used microphones and had to support and enunciate. Today, even amplified, it is hard to understand the performers. True, to our ears, the earlier style sounds stilted, but one can understand each and every syllable. An old vaudevillian taught me, "If you cannot be heard upon the stage, you do not belong upon the stage" (spoken is that classic, stiilted stage manner )

Interestingly, with regards to accents--

I read or heard somewhere that the British accent has evolved over the centuries, and sounds different than it did in the 1600's/1700's. When you think about it, the American accent and the British accent should be one and the same, as many earlier settlers of this country were British. I assumed that ours changed, and not the British accent, maybe due to other influences (e.g., other ethnic groups mingling (German, French, Irish, Italian, etc., etc.). I wish I had the source of what I am discussing, but. apparently, the British accent sounded more like ours does now in the 1600's/1700's, rather than the other way around! I don't know if I believe this, or not, but this was the author's assertion!

With regards to the original post--

I would guess that Roosevelt's accent is that of an upper class individual of the day. That is why it sounds a bit different than what one would expect.

Interestingly, William McKinley was from more humble beginnings and was from Ohio, and, yet, his speech patterns do not sound Midwestern. I am not sure if he sounded different than most Midwesterners, or if the Midwestern accent developed later:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6ZUneyU7Vo

orpington wrote:,,, When you think about it, the American accent and the British accent should be one and the same, as many earlier settlers of this country were British...

Even if we disregard for the moment the influence of many accents from many countries brought by immigrants, it is a lot more complicated than that. Which British accent? As is America, there were and are many British accents depending on location within the country (or even in different areas of London) and social class. When most Americans think about a British accent they likely think about the upper class British accent or what they hear from BBC announcers. Try comparing that with Cockney, for example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnjGNJ5JL8w Or try comparing English heard in London with that heard in Glasgow.

A prime example in America is the accent and some of the words traditionally heard in the U.S. Appalachians (although now disappearing). This was long mocked by people outside the region who had no idea what it was, but what they were hearing was the common language of the British lower classes in Elizabethan times carried into the mountains by settles who were isolated there for a very long time and thus continued to use the language and accent that came with their ancestors, with some variants that may have evolved into it over time.

Clay

My Georgia-born-and-bred father would use the expression, "Hop up and fetch me [something]" to my Mom. That was an archaism if ever I heard one. It doesn't work too well, though, with the next generation. "Fetch" is something you say to your dog.

After listening to lyrics of songs from today, reading articles on the internet and trying to understand what young people are talking about, I have come to the conclusion that there is no "American" accent any more or English language for that matter...

Henry wrote:My Georgia-born-and-bred father would use the expression, "Hop up and fetch me [something]" to my Mom. That was an archaism if ever I heard one. It doesn't work too well, though, with the next generation. "Fetch" is something you say to your dog.

It's one of many hold overs from that old English based Appalachian language. Having grown up in East Tennessee I knew exactly what he was asking for.

And come to think of it you just illustrated that the same old English word is very much alive and kicking. He meant exactly what you mean when you use that command with your dog. "Bring that to me."

Clay

Yes, having spent some time in Britain, there are a wide variety of accents and regional dialects, perhaps even moreso than in this country, so I hastily did indeed write 'British accent' in the broader sense, as if it were one.

The regional dialects in Appalachia referenced above, as being very reminiscent of Elizabethan English, are there easily accessible recordings, as I would like to hear this?

orpington wrote:
Interestingly, William McKinley was from more humble beginnings and was from Ohio, and, yet, his speech patterns do not sound Midwestern. I am not sure if he sounded different than most Midwesterners, or if the Midwestern accent developed later:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6ZUneyU7Vo

Unfortunately, that's not McKinley speaking: that is a studio recording. McKinley never recorded his voice.

Bill

PS: there is an interesting Berliner record of "Buffalo Bill" Cody from 1898 on YouTube: I had tried to share it, but I couldn't get the link to work.