Jump to content
🔒 The Earwolf Forums are closed Read more... ×


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by CarolineEAnd

  1. Fanta makes a lot of good points, but let's also look at it this way: You want to introduce a friend to Comedy Bang Bang. You COULD just send them the link and hope that they listen to it themselves. But sometimes I'll find myself in the position of wanting to share a specific bit with a friend. I can remember times I've been at a friends apartment and I've played them iBrain or a particularly funny Would You Rather. In that case it is up to the friend to be so intrigued by what they heard in 2-5 minutes to put the effort into listening to a whole podcast.
    I suppose my thinking is that Frank and Peter picked out 10 podcasts that are clearly good. Each of the ten had the potential to win and be part of Earwolf or else they wouldn't have been chosen. You'd think that as part of the Earwolf workforce I'd be ultimately concerned which who is going to win, but I'm actually finding myself more compelled by the coachings and discussions than with the results. Perhaps I fear that two sedentary judges with one guest judge would provide fewer viewpoints and less discussion.
    It is all conjecture at this point, and I hope that my posts don't come across as shutting anyone elses opinion down. I think everyone has really neat ideas and I'm glad that the discussion is happening! Maybe I'm simply enjoying the current season so much that I don't want to see changes made and that's why I'm defending the structure so much.

  2. RE: Palooka- Personally, as someone who has been in a lot of judging scenarios and gets really emotional, I'd be glad to have the time to collect myself and calm down before I had to speak. Maybe I'm more emotional than most people (I definitely am) but to me the idea of being told you are eliminated and being immediately called upon to be articulate and grateful sounds awful.

  3. As someone who has listened to a bunch of Totally Laimes, the drops are used totally ironically and inappropriately and the guests always enjoy them and find them hilarious. They have about 5 (pac-man dying, Hallelujah, sheeeeee-it, Windows start up noise, etc) and like Rob said, it's similar to Scott's too-long (or not long enough, in my opinion) song intros.

  4. -I don't disagree that two long-term judges would be good, but listeners are only going to listen to one episode and make a judgment so it's something the podcasts should be prepared for. It amazes me how many NEGATIVE iTunes reviews go up the day after the FIRST episode of a podcast. If someone doesn't like it they give it 0 stars and a mean comment. Listeners make judgments on one episode (if that). I've definitely given up on podcasts within 10 to 15 minutes. It's accurate for how the podcast will be received by listeners.

  5. -Well, look at Totally Laime who already had a recurring segment but made a new one that would better fit the challenge. If you want to use the American Idol metaphor (and I haven't watched American Idol since Season One, so bear with me), there will probably be weeks where a contestant has sung an, I don't know, Aretha Franklin song for years at karaoke so they immediately know which song they'll do and how to stylize it, whereas other weeks they might not even know who Burt Bacharach is. I don't think this challenge was necessarily poised against people who don't have recurring segments, as two of the bottom three were using segments they already had.

  6. This episode made me think about my favorite sketch shows and what they did that constituted "recurring segments." My favorite show of all time, sketch or no, is The State. I guess you could call the "Hi, We're The State" pieces Michael Ian Black did as recurring segments, although I think there are just 4 or 5 of those in total. You could maybe say Louie or Doug or Barry & Levon, but they didn't show up all too often either. What do you guys think?

  7. I really love the conversation going on in this thread. Something that I've seen echoed by several posters that is especially impressive and comforting to me is the emphasis on positivity. I agree with many of you in that I'd rather hear comedy stem from celebration rather than the breaking down of something. I can certainly get my snark on, but my sensibilities are less Gawker and more HelloGiggles if that makes sense (it probably does to one person). Something that I enjoy about Earwolf programs is that even when it approximates negativity it doesn't become judgmental or hateful. HDTGM generally stays more in the "HOLY SHIT" range than the "THIS SUCKZ" and Who Charted is 1 part "Who listens to this??" and 9 parts "What would you do if your kid changed his name to Afrojack?". I'm glad that this quality is being noticed and valued by other listeners.
    Now off to listen to Belle & Sebastian and talk about sunshine...

  8. I'd compare judging sound quality in this challenge to judging an outfit on Project Runway based on a big stain. If the stain is big enough, nobody will notice the garment. It's the first thing that draws your eye and needs to be fixed. Plus, it might demonstrate carelessness on the part of the designer which is symptomatic of a larger problem.

    I only watched one season of Project Runway, so I'm not sure why I chose that analogy.

    • Like 1