This one just crossed my mind earlier.

We all know what all the canon characters sound like and as such we only describe their inflections when they are talking.
But when we present a new character, should we describe shortly how they sound like to give a general idea of it or their language alone will do that.

Not unless they have particularly notable vocal characteristics...

I don't describe voices. But tones, I do tell.

958058 I think the later although it doesn't hurt to maybe point out the more intresting aspects. Like for instance perhaps call attention to thier unusual tone of voice (nasaly, quiet, msyterious, dark, deep, scratchy, silver tounged, oily, creepy).

I let my characters tell there language nine times out of ten depending on the situation. Let their voice be hear and not shown.

958058 I'd say give description only if its necessary. Like in a description of a grizzled old royal guard who perhaps has a raspy voice. Stuff like that.

Otherwise I think readers tend to give characters a "default voice". Basically if you don't describe a character then they just imagine it in whatever way tickles their fancy.

I only use the standard descriptions you would for singing: Soprano, alto, tenor, baritone and bass. One or two adjectives are all you ought to need from there.
In theory.

958065
I agree. If a voice is normal, unaccented, and without any vocal quirks, there's really no point in trying to describe it. However, if you have a character who has a notable voice, whose voice changes under certain conditions (Fluttershy's voice is most often very soft and airy, but when she gets assertive, it's the same voice, but its qualities change, becoming much harsher), it should be noted whenever it occurs, and also when it changes back.
958082
Describing the pitch is a good idea, though some readers may not be musically inclined and wouldn't know an alto from a bass. N-not that that describes me, nope.
Eeyup, I'll shut up now.

If you cannot comunicate the way the character is saying something through text, you need to re-write whatever was said. Simple as that.

Examples: (woo!)
"That doesn't look good." Sounds perfectly flat and generic. Requires a re-thinking.

"That there doesn' look good a-t'all!" Sounds like the most annoying pony in the fandom.

958185

That's... not true at all. There's no way to communicate, say, pitch or timbre through dialogue alone, which are the kind of things the OP is asking about. Without descriptive adjectives there's no way to distinguish between the same line said by Morgan Freeman or Hilary Clinton.

There is several ways to describe voice however they also go the general rule of anything that needs to be described. Unless it's something to catch the person's interest it doesn't need to be said. So for instance if an adviser sounds exactly like Ben Stine A way to describe it would be "a voice like a tax form" or something like that.

For accents I personally don't go into to much into the accent. You can type it out but accents actually fluctuate in real life. Sometimes they get stronger or weaker due to the conversation. Little tiny bits of it sprinklled here and there can help the reader keep it in mind but you don't need to have applejack or big mac say "ah" instead of "I" all the time. only when the accent makes it that way. (clear as mud? Good!)

958058

958185 *thumbs up*

958264 But asking what a character's voice sounds like to the ear is like asking what the sky looks like from the center of the Earth. It's a meaningless question, because writing is not aural. The differences between written characters' voices are in the words the author puts in their mouths. Pages of description will not change that. Describing the aural component of a character's voice is a lagniappe, and in my opinion, should be used lightly.

An example:

Roger's voice was raspy, dark, tortured, a song that had been dragged over a hundred miles of sandpaper. "Hello, Jim. We need to go to the store today. We're almost out of eggs and milk, and I know how much you like scrambled eggs in the mornings."

versus

Oscar's voice was as flat as an armadillo on a Texas highway and as neutral as Keanu Reeves acting a love scene. "Hello, Jim. We need to go to the store today. We're almost out of eggs and milk, and I know how much you like scrambled eggs in the mornings."

They sound different in your mind's ear right after you've read the description, but they have exactly the same voice as characters. Unless you're going to stop every few lines to remind your reader of Roger's and Oscar's respective vocal qualities, they're going to get mixed up on who is speaking, and that's a bad thing.

For making your characters memorable and your stories engaging, character voice is infinitely more important than what the character's voice sounds like.

95840

Except the two examples you gave are perfect examples of why such descriptions are necessary. Roger's lines take on a sinister tone, like a bitingly sarcastic serial killer toying with his prey by mocking his victim's normality. Oscar comes across as an executor who's only talking to Jim because he's getting paid for it. These aren't things you can necessarily convey through dialogue alone; context may demand that the lines be inappropriate to the voice of the character.

While I certainly agree with character voice is more important that what the character's voice sounds like, what I object to is MuzzledElk's blanket statement that such descriptions can be completely replaced by the mere content of the dialogue alone.

A good way to do it, IMO, is through imagery. Don't describe the voice painstakingly, but drop a line that allows the reader to imagine it themselves.

'Rarity did a double-take when she heard the stallion's voice. If she had any throat lozenges on her, she definitely would have offered one to him.'

Not the best example, I know, but it lets the reader ascertain a simple detail in a way that isn't just a plain description.

958286

"a voice like a tax form"

Y'know, that says it all right there. Wow.