c_n_anderson
-
Content count
36 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by c_n_anderson
-
-
Kulap and Jordan noted that their own podcasts are probably subject to the same criticisms that they dished out this week. Here are some modest suggestions to improve the Earwolf Challenge itself as a podcast using some of the same criticisms that judges have used. One of the recurring themes from all the judges is how intimate and personal the podcasting medium is. Probably my favorite note this week was from Jordan when he said: "A podcast is about your personalities and opinions, just trust that those are listenable". I feel that I have found out a lot about Besser throughout the 6 weeks of 3 podcasts a week: that he likes sci-fi, is not a fan of "meta" comedy, is not a fan of "so bad its good" comedy, that he likes to say "I don't know" when coaching, that he thinks comedy is tough if you do it all alone, and that he prefers a "socratic method" of hosting the show. Due to this "socratic method" Besser typically draws in one of the two (?) associate producers into dialogue (especially during the Day 1 episodes). Unfortunately, I know next to nothing about the personalities and opinions of the associate producers. I know a little more about the producers due to Day 1 from this week (where they and Besser discussed feedback offered on this very forum), but unfortunately any development of them as "on air personalities" disappeared as the associate producers did not contribute to the discussion during Days 2 and 3 of the podcast. Furthermore, the really only provided information and not really opinions (I'm sorry but I know one producer is named Frank and I can't remember the name of the second one). If Besser wants to use a "socratic" method to host the show, he shouldn't host the show alone. He should have a co-host or a side-kick that contributes to all podcast episodes. As it stands, the incorporation of the associate producers "on air" is confusing. They are typically not "on mic" (more on that later) and because I have not established a "listening" relationship with them, I am not sure why I should pay attention when they talk. Either they should contribute a whole lot less or a whole lot more. Either way, we should get to know their names (they should be introduced before answering a question, as if a listener is hearing the show for the first time).
.
For all the talk about sound quality from judges throughout the six weeks, I am really surprised that "The Earwolf Challenge" itself features so many instances of "on mic/off mic" dialogue. If it is supposed to be funny, I don't get it. It just sounds shitty. Perhaps because the show has recently discovered it "socratic" nature, the producers can be excused for answering Matt's questions off mic during the show introduction. But the inclusion of "on mic/off mic" dialogue in the commercials is really puzzling - you had the opportunity to re-record the bit and drop it in whatever you wanted and went with the one where an unnamed producers starts "off mic" and ends up "on mic" (from this past week)? Or the ones from a couple weeks back where Besser echoes prompts just given to him off mic? If you made producing a commercial an actual task in the challenge and had external judges compare contestant submissions to any commercial featuring sloppy mic work produced by the podcast itself, I'd be surprised to see "The Earwolf Challenge" out of the bottom three. Oh, and in Skype go to
Tools>Options>Sounds>Select which events play a sound
and turn off the "hang up" option. The default skype hang up tone sounds bush league.
.
One of the more forceful critiques this week was from Besser toward Bob and Dan to "have a plan" for the day 1 coaching session. I will speculate here on the current set-up, but I wonder if structural changes (especially with regards to planning) can make the coaching sessions and the bottom 3 phone calls/defenses more interesting to listen to. I am curious if other forum members share my opinion that Day 2 works best as a podcast episode, followed by Day 3, and Day 1 trails far behind. On one hand, Day 2 is interesting because it includes interactions between well-known luminaries in podcasting. They are all physically located in the same room, so non-verbal cues can lead to a natural rhythm when they assess what they think of the same submission. It also seems to me that there is a degree of non-recording preparation (i.e. before they hit record, they can talk about what points they want to hit.) The dialogue during the coaching sessions and the bottom 3 phone calls/defenses seems less prepared. I am most certainly not advocating that you script out the interactions, but having a plan seems wise. For example, Besser seemed to touch on a good concept this week by pretending he was Bill Gates/Steve Jobs/Podcasting Mogul and asking the different podcasts to present their pitch to join the podcasting network. The podcasts could have been notified that this was "the game" as opposed to having to "find the game" (they aren't doing improv). A simple email prior to the coaching session saying "Besser's going to ask you for a thirty second pitch pretending he is a podcasting mogul" could have avoided the stammering and confusion as each podcast attempts on the fly to produce a cogent argument. Similarly, defenses could be better mounted if an email sent to all teams (even half an hour before the potential bottom 3 phone call) listed what the general critique topics were about that week's submission. If you sent the feedback to all the teams via email then it would still be a surprise when a team finds out their inclusion in the bottom 3, but again they can mount a cogent argument. I get the impression that the only off air prompting that the podcast contestants get is an email stating what the rules are of that week's challenge (e.g. topic and length).
.
I thought the most interesting defense all season happened when the F + stated in the most recent episode that the current note was the polar opposite of the note from the PFT episode. I could easily see this being something that they could have missed "on the fly" only to wake up at 3 AM the next morning and realize the contradiction. Also note that "push back" made the interaction interesting. I have posted on this forum before my disapproval that the Challenge may seek to discourage "too much pushback". (To be fair, this sentiment only reared its head once with Ham Radio, and since then its seemed to be pretty much a non-issue).
.
Some final comments - I thought Jordan's critique not to do "fake teasers" was off base. Fake teasers are one of my favorite recurring bits in CBB. Remember when they were going to count down 100 top songs (from the last decade?) but only got through the first few notes of "Jam Rock"? Remember when Scott was going to premiere his new song parody (was it Beyonce?) but got interuppted by the "hot line"? Remember when Scott and Gillian were going to do a beat by beat discussion of the upcoming season of Community only to be foiled by the "open door policy"? All really funny.
.
Don't get me wrong. I love this show, the contestants, the judges, the hosts, and the associate producers. My suggestions are only meant as constructive. -
Sean says: "Brett seemed to be very non-responsive to any and all feedback". It seems as if that is what Besser wanted from Brett considering that his last time in the bottom 3 he got nailed for "too much push-back". I didn't really think Brett was non-responsive anyways. The podcasts ought to be judged on what they submit, rather than how quickly they establish a rapport with the host and guest judges.
-
-To respond to this statement: "I don't ever get the feeling the judges/hosts are treating anyone with less respect than they deserve".
-I dunno - one of the "notes" Brett got was basically "rather than hating your character you made us hate you". Brett doesn't get angry after this, responds in a totally professional manner, and then gets lectured on how to "take a note", not only for this podcast but also as a life lesson. Give me a break. Besser said that it made him "bristle" that Brett didn't even listen to the note. It makes me bristle that Besser is just assuming that Brett wasn't listening. This wasn't like a rehearsal where Brett got to do additional material after getting feedback and keeps on making the same mistake over and over again. Basically, he got one shot to do the assigned challenge, critiqued on it, and then "judged" for too much push-back on the critique.
-That said, I will repeat my sentiment that I think a healthy give and take is likely to be more interesting to listen to than everyone too worried about offending someone. I really don't want Day 3 of the podcast challenge to turn into sports interviews with athletes, where they respond with the most boring platitudes possible, because there is only a downside to saying something the least bit controversial. -
Rocking the Suburbs is really good. I am also a huge fan of "The unauthorized biography of Reinhold Messner", though I just call it "Messner" for short. What did you think about the whole Ben Folds/Shatner collabo in '04? I mean the cover of "Common People" is great, but that song stands on its own. I just wiki´d Ben Folds and it turns out that he has been married four times. FOUR times!
-
I'd love a Westerns themed show. Hopalong Cassidy was big in the 1930's and 1940's, Will Rogers was dead by 1943 (he never met a man he didn't like, but was conspicuously silents on women). Howard Hughes would be great also.
-
-I can’t believe Besser’s criticism that Brett can’t take a note and that there was too much “push-back” on the criticisms. Re-listening to the comments for Brett, it seemed like he barely got in a word edge-wise with Jesse’s comedy-del-arte anecdotes and weird hat-lady comparison. Were some of Brett’s responses edited out? Because, when he agreed that “it was clearly a bad choice” that doesn’t sound like he wasn’t listening to the note or being confrontational to me. It’s also really duplicitous to ask someone to “defend themselves” and then rail on them for making “too many excuses”.
-Perhaps the most relevant interchange with regards to “push-back” is Besser’s claim that Brett was “acting like we didn’t get the joke when we did get the joke”. But Besser’s first critique was that “making fun of hacks is kind of hack”. Brett subsequently clarified that the target of the joke wasn’t the hack, but the critic. This clarification was a totally reasonable thing to say given the intial critique. If this is what qualifies as “too much push-back” then I am afraid that the Day 3 of the Earwolf challenge will turn into everyone just saying “yes sir, yes sir” to all the critiques. I think it would be more interesting for people to more rigorously defend their choices, but I guess that won’t happen because future bottom 3 dwellers will be too scared to be accused of "not being able to take a note".
Socratic Hosting; What "The Challenge" can learn from "The Challenge"
in The Earwolf Challenge
Posted
I just want to point out that I have no problem with conflicting notes (for what it is worth, I don't think that lack of consistency is a problem with the show). Conflicting notes are perfectly acceptable, even expected, if you realize that each finished product is the combination of 1. a choice. and 2. execution of that choice. You can make two different choices and still fail in execution of both. Or the same choice can be made by two different podcasts and one succeeds and the other fails because of differences in execution. For example, in the sketch week the little dum dum club created a podcast agent character. This is very similar to a character from one of my favorite podcasts from another member of the UCB: Matt Walsh's very funny Bear Down: The Chicago Bears Podcast. Bear Down has a character called Doug Mandel who is a Blog Podcast Agent (https://twitter.com/DougMandelBPA). I think Doug Mandel is hilarious while the little dum dum character was just ok (I also think that the similarity is almost certainly a coincidence).
.
My point about the F+ was not to complain about their elimination, but to point out that at least they had something to say during the "defense" segment of the show. I am hard pressed to remember any other defense from the 6 weeks of the show. Maybe it's a bad idea, but I wonder if the podcast contestants were prep'ed in some way prior to the defense (without scripting the interaction or ruining the surprise) the give and take would make for a more interesting listen. F+ could choose to separate the reading and the commentary or commentate (?) while they read the material and either choice may work. I think the choice they made that doomed them was to have like 5-6 different people read in one voice AND comment in another, thus asking the listener to follow 12 different points of view. The execution would have to be really, really, great for that to end up as anything other than confusing.
.
I think the choice/execution perspective also allows for flexibility in interpretation of notes. Thus, the note "don't do meta humor" or "don't do fake teasers" really shouldn't be thought of as a blanket ban - but rather, as: if you are going to make that choice you better make it really funny because it could easily fall on its face.
.
Finally, should I be abbreviating microphone as "mike" or "mic"? "Mike" doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me (kind of like how Peg as a shortened name for Margaret makes no sense to me either), but "Mike" seems to be in dominant use (it's the selection of the wikipedia entry).