I thought you did a great job of editing. It was a super podcast. Sorry
for handing you 7 minutes of audio at the last minute - Now that I've
heard more your concept of the 'micro' I'll be better, I promise....
:-)
Topics? hmmm.... I'll just toss out a) free media / public media b)
pop culture c) 21st century art movements
I think that it is too micro - it sounds more like an extended promo.
Give everyone three minutes, I'd say. Three uninterrupted minutes.
That way it can feel more like a conversation between the podcasters
instead of like an mtv show intro.
But the criticism here is intended purely as an improvement tool. It
was the first one- the idea hasn't found its stride yet and prolly
won't for a while. That doesn't change the fact that it is a great
idea.
e
Jeff Oestreich wrote:
I thought you did a great job of editing. It was a super podcast. Sorry
for handing you 7 minutes of audio at the last minute - Now that I've
heard more your concept of the 'micro' I'll be better, I promise....
:-)
Topics? hmmm.... I'll just toss out a) free media / public media b)
pop culture c) 21st century art movements
Jeff (This And That)
--- defwheezer@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
Hopefully (?) you've all by now listened/spammed your
friends/listeners
with the MAP-001 "on podcasting" podcast. Feedbacks anyone?
Suggestions for next topic?
Carl
I have to agree with Mr. Strauss - the energy was good, the editing
adept - but I had a hard time following the flow because none of the
passages excepty maybe "This and That" were up long enough to
establish a complete idea. I was left with noisy shards and fragments
and a way too long list of credits.
Perhaps we could shorten the segments next time (say three minutes or
less) but keep them entact - that way the podcasters at least have
autonomy over their own segments.
Adam Tinkoff
TINKOFF RADIO
On 6/28/05, mr strauss <mrstra...@popgoeslethal.com> wrote:
> I think that it is too micro - it sounds more like an extended promo. Give
> everyone three minutes, I'd say. Three uninterrupted minutes. That way it
> can feel more like a conversation between the podcasters instead of like an
> mtv show intro.
> But the criticism here is intended purely as an improvement tool. It was
> the first one- the idea hasn't found its stride yet and prolly won't for a
> while. That doesn't change the fact that it is a great idea.
> e
> Jeff Oestreich wrote: > I thought you did a great job of editing. It was a super podcast. Sorry
for
> handing you 7 minutes of audio at the last minute - Now that I've
heard more
> your concept of the 'micro' I'll be better, I promise....
:-)
Topics?
> hmmm.... I'll just toss out a) free media / public media b)
pop culture c)
> 21st century art movements
Yes, all critism is good as it leads to better future work.
I agree with the "fragmentation" issue, the feelgoodgirl part had a nice flow (IMHO), but then... but did justify in my own mind based on: There were precious few submissions, frankly. I extracted almost all of that stuff from full length (gasp!) podcasts.
It was a podcast on Podcasting, so part of my idea was to show a range of podcast genre's available (commercial, etc., not a detailed passage for each one) interspersed with more focused bits "on topic" (VOX, Area 51, ThisnThat).
I suppose a better descriptive, orienting intro (and leave out or shorten) the credits would be vaste improvements- volunteers??
Thanks, and keep the feedbacks coming, as well as ideas for the next show.
I was thinking:
Media, or the New Media, or the Media War, or War in the Media or...?
I'm prolly gonna participate in this project solo, is that cool? It's
too hard getting cohry over here - or more accurately, I want to be
able to do it when I feel like it.
I think the topic should be - how media making shapes cognition.
(as opposed to media consumption.)
Yes, all critism is good as it leads to better future work.
I agree with the "fragmentation" issue, the feelgoodgirl part had a
nice flow (IMHO), but then...
but did justify in my own mind based on:
There were precious few submissions, frankly.
I extracted almost all of that stuff from full length (gasp!) podcasts.
It was a podcast on Podcasting, so part of my idea was to show a range
of podcast genre's available (commercial, etc., not a detailed passage
for each one) interspersed with more focused bits "on topic" (VOX, Area
51, ThisnThat).
I suppose a better descriptive, orienting intro (and leave out or
shorten) the credits would be vaste improvements- volunteers??
Thanks, and keep the feedbacks coming, as well as ideas for the next
show.
I was thinking:
Media, or the New Media, or the Media War, or War in the Media or...?
.
Hey Eric,
Whatever works for you'all.
I like your suggestion ofr the next topic, so let's make it "Official"
Enteries now being gathered for microcasts on the topic of:
*"How media making shapes cognition"*
Please clarify if I'm off base here- you mean *how does making media shape the cognition of the media producer*?
Carl
On 6/28/05, mr strauss <mrstra...@popgoeslethal.com> wrote:
> I'm prolly gonna participate in this project solo, is that cool? It's too > hard getting cohry over here - or more accurately, I want to be able to do > it when I feel like it.
> I think the topic should be *- how media making shapes cognition. (as > opposed to media consumption.)
> Yes, all critism is good as it leads to better future work.
> I agree with the "fragmentation" issue, the feelgoodgirl part had a
> nice flow (IMHO), but then...
> but did justify in my own mind based on:
> There were precious few submissions, frankly.
> I extracted almost all of that stuff from full length (gasp!) podcasts.
> It was a podcast on Podcasting, so part of my idea was to show a range
> of podcast genre's available (commercial, etc., not a detailed passage
> for each one) interspersed with more focused bits "on topic" (VOX, Area
> 51, ThisnThat).
> I suppose a better descriptive, orienting intro (and leave out or
> shorten) the credits would be vaste improvements- volunteers??
> Thanks, and keep the feedbacks coming, as well as ideas for the next
> show.
> I was thinking:
> Media, or the New Media, or the Media War, or War in the Media or...?
On 6/28/05, defwheezer <defwhee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "How media making shapes cognition"
> Please clarify if I'm off base here- you mean how does making media shape
> the cognition of the media producer?
I assumed he meant, "How does media shape the cognition of the
*audience*." There are always a lot more consumers than producers, so
that's a more interesting question.
Or, if your cognition has been shaped too much by media to understand
'cognition' -- "Do TV, radio, podcasts, whatever, make you stupider,
smarter, or just warped?"
Can we possibly pick something a little easier to wrap our heads
around? - something say like "Summer"? - Media and Cognition sounds
interesting, but a little too complex a subject for my humble cast...
We just play tunes and talk about places we like to visit! I'll pass
on the "Media Congnition Cast".
Adam Tinkoff
TINKOFF RADIO
On 6/28/05, Stephen Eley <sfe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/28/05, defwheezer <defwhee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "How media making shapes cognition"
> > Please clarify if I'm off base here- you mean how does making media shape
> > the cognition of the media producer?
> I assumed he meant, "How does media shape the cognition of the
> *audience*." There are always a lot more consumers than producers, so
> that's a more interesting question.
> Or, if your cognition has been shaped too much by media to understand
> 'cognition' -- "Do TV, radio, podcasts, whatever, make you stupider,
> smarter, or just warped?"
> On 6/28/05, defwheezer <defwhee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "How media making shapes cognition"
> > Please clarify if I'm off base here- you mean how does making media > shape
> > the cognition of the media producer?
> 1.) I assumed he meant, "How does media shape the cognition of the
> *audience*." There are always a lot more consumers than producers, so
> that's a more interesting question.
> 2.) Or, if your cognition has been shaped too much by media to understand
> 'cognition' -- "Do TV, radio, podcasts, whatever, make you stupider,
> smarter, or just warped?"
That's exactly what I thought too first, then second- but which is it?
Podcasts or any media for that matter is just an exercise in
controlled folly and doesn't inherently make you anything... YOU make
you smarter - not the media.
A
On 6/28/05, defwheezer <defwhee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/28/05, Stephen Eley <sfe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 6/28/05, defwheezer <defwhee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > "How media making shapes cognition"
> > > Please clarify if I'm off base here- you mean how does making media
> shape > > > the cognition of the media producer?
> > 1.) I assumed he meant, "How does media shape the cognition of the
> > *audience*." There are always a lot more consumers than producers, so
> > that's a more interesting question.
> > 2.) Or, if your cognition has been shaped too much by media to understand
> > 'cognition' -- "Do TV, radio, podcasts, whatever, make you stupider,
> > smarter, or just warped?"
> That's exactly what I thought too first, then second- but which is it?
Adam Tinkoff wrote:
>Podcasts or any media for that matter is just an exercise in
>controlled folly and doesn't inherently make you anything... YOU make
>you smarter - not the media.
>>>>Please clarify if I'm off base here- you mean how does making media
>>shape
>>>>the cognition of the media producer?
>>>1.) I assumed he meant, "How does media shape the cognition of the
>>>*audience*." There are always a lot more consumers than producers, so
>>>that's a more interesting question.
>>>2.) Or, if your cognition has been shaped too much by media to understand
>>>'cognition' -- "Do TV, radio, podcasts, whatever, make you stupider,
>>>smarter, or just warped?"
>>That's exactly what I thought too first, then second- but which is it?
> Podcasts or any media for that matter is just an exercise in
> controlled folly and doesn't inherently make you anything... YOU make
> you smarter - not the media.
> A
> On 6/28/05, defwheezer <defwhee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 6/28/05, Stephen Eley <sfe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 6/28/05, defwheezer <defwhee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > "How media making shapes cognition"
> > > > Please clarify if I'm off base here- you mean how does making media
> > shape
> > > > the cognition of the media producer?
> > > 1.) I assumed he meant, "How does media shape the cognition of the
> > > *audience*." There are always a lot more consumers than producers, so
> > > that's a more interesting question.
> > > 2.) Or, if your cognition has been shaped too much by media to > understand
> > > 'cognition' -- "Do TV, radio, podcasts, whatever, make you stupider,
> > > smarter, or just warped?"
> > That's exactly what I thought too first, then second- but which is it?
I think either is fine, depending on your predilection-
How does media shape the cognition of the *audience*.
Or, If your cognition has been shaped too much by media to understand 'cognition' -- "Do TV, radio, podcasts, whatever, make you stupider, smarter, or just warped?"
To also address Eric's comment about "Give everyone three minutes, I'd say. Three uninterrupted minutes. That way it can feel more like a conversation between the podcasters".
I think that's a great comment, and would like to adopt that as a target to shoot for when producing your segment. To take that one step further (fasten seat belts!), how much would you like to hear other peoples segments prior to making your own? I can see where going "round-robin" with these could help to "bind" them together into a single entity. For istance- Eric submits his, and one or more others "respond" with their own 2-4 minute perspective (length of a pop song)?
I'm prolly gonna participate in this project solo, is that cool? It's
too hard getting cohry over here - or more accurately, I want to be
able to do it when I feel like it.
I think the topic should be - how media making shapes cognition.
(as opposed to media consumption.)
Yes, all critism is good as it leads to better future work.
I agree with the "fragmentation" issue, the feelgoodgirl part had a
nice flow (IMHO), but then...
but did justify in my own mind based on:
There were precious few submissions, frankly.
I extracted almost all of that stuff from full length (gasp!) podcasts.
It was a podcast on Podcasting, so part of my idea was to show a range
of podcast genre's available (commercial, etc., not a detailed passage
for each one) interspersed with more focused bits "on topic" (VOX, Area
51, ThisnThat).
I suppose a better descriptive, orienting intro (and leave out or
shorten) the credits would be vaste improvements- volunteers??
Thanks, and keep the feedbacks coming, as well as ideas for the next
show.
I was thinking:
Media, or the New Media, or the Media War, or War in the Media or...?
.
> I like that name for you. Royal Deafness. That's what I'm calling you from > now on.
> eric
> defwheezer wrote:
> Hey Eric,
> Whatever works for you'all.
> I like your suggestion ofr the next topic, so let's make it "Official"
> Enteries now being gathered for microcasts on the topic of:
> *"How media making shapes cognition"*
> Please clarify if I'm off base here- you mean *how does making media > shape the cognition of the media producer*?
> Carl
> On 6/28/05, mr strauss <mrstra...@popgoeslethal.com> wrote:
> > hey deafness -
> > I'm prolly gonna participate in this project solo, is that cool? It's > > too hard getting cohry over here - or more accurately, I want to be able to > > do it when I feel like it.
> > I think the topic should be *- how media making shapes cognition. (as > > opposed to media consumption.)
> > Yes, all critism is good as it leads to better future work.
> > I agree with the "fragmentation" issue, the feelgoodgirl part had a
> > nice flow (IMHO), but then...
> > but did justify in my own mind based on:
> > There were precious few submissions, frankly.
> > I extracted almost all of that stuff from full length (gasp!) podcasts.
> > It was a podcast on Podcasting, so part of my idea was to show a range
> > of podcast genre's available (commercial, etc., not a detailed passage
> > for each one) interspersed with more focused bits "on topic" (VOX, Area
> > 51, ThisnThat).
> > I suppose a better descriptive, orienting intro (and leave out or
> > shorten) the credits would be vaste improvements- volunteers??
> > Thanks, and keep the feedbacks coming, as well as ideas for the next
> > show.
> > I was thinking:
> > Media, or the New Media, or the Media War, or War in the Media or...?
defwhee...@gmail.com wrote:
>I think either is fine, depending on your predilection-
>How does media shape the cognition of the *audience*.
>Or,
>If your cognition has been shaped too much by media to understand
>'cognition' --
>"Do TV, radio, podcasts, whatever, make you stupider, smarter, or just
>warped?"
>To also address Eric's comment about "Give everyone three minutes, I'd
>say. Three uninterrupted minutes. That way it can feel more like a
>conversation between the podcasters".
>I think that's a great comment, and would like to adopt that as a
>target to shoot for when producing your segment. To take that one step
>further (fasten seat belts!), how much would you like to hear other
>peoples segments prior to making your own? I can see where going
>"round-robin" with these could help to "bind" them together into a
>single entity. For istance- Eric submits his, and one or more others
>"respond" with their own 2-4 minute perspective (length of a pop song)?
>>Podcasts or any media for that matter is just an exercise in
controlled folly and doesn't inherently make you anything... YOU make you smarter - not the media.<<
On contrare – know of one podcast that can get you Smartenized.
And while media doesn't make most people smarter, I have seen many instance where it has made someone substantially dumber. In one recent case it was a woman who was superior, she through, because she got all of her news from The New York Times and NPR. She had a good vocabulary, but was as ignorant as a brick, completely incapable of even comprehending any point of view other than her own.
On the flip side there's the folks who limit all of their input to spews from the far right. They're just as convinced they're brilliant, and just as wrong.
The theme is fortuitous – it's exactly the subject of my last podcast: How pressure groups change your reality by getting you to adopt new words that have different shades of meaning than the old, more accurate words. So the train of thought is fresh, but there's no way I can compress it from ten minutes to three, and I don't want to just repeat myself, or thump my chest and say *hey, listen to **my** podcast!* Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Three minutes may be too long with this many participants. Could we do it in 90 seconds? That would be a real challenge, but it could make for a very pithy podcast.
I didn't hear any feedback, which is fine, but I just want to double
check that the link made it out to everybody.
Dave Hitt wrote:
Podcasts or any media for that matter is just an exercise in
controlled folly and doesn't inherently make you anything... YOU make
you smarter - not the media.<<
On contrare – know of one podcast that can get you Smartenized.
And while media doesn't make most people smarter, I have seen many
instance where it has made someone substantially dumber. In one
recent case it was a woman who was superior, she through, because she
got all of her news from The New York Times and NPR. She had a good
vocabulary, but was as ignorant as a brick, completely incapable of
even comprehending any point of view other than her own.
On the flip side there's the folks who limit all of their input to
spews from the far right. They're just as convinced they're
brilliant, and just as wrong.
The theme is fortuitous – it's exactly the subject of my last podcast:
How pressure groups change your reality by getting you to adopt new
words that have different shades of meaning than the old, more
accurate words. So the train of thought is fresh, but there's no way
I can compress it from ten minutes to three, and I don't want to just
repeat myself, or thump my chest and say *hey, listen to **my**
podcast!* Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Three minutes may be too long with this many participants. Could we
do it in 90 seconds? That would be a real challenge, but it could
make for a very pithy podcast.
defwhee...@gmail.com wrote:
>I think either is fine, depending on your predilection-
>How does media shape the cognition of the *audience*.
>Or,
>If your cognition has been shaped too much by media to understand
>'cognition' --
>"Do TV, radio, podcasts, whatever, make you stupider, smarter, or just
>warped?"
>To also address Eric's comment about "Give everyone three minutes, I'd
>say. Three uninterrupted minutes. That way it can feel more like a
>conversation between the podcasters".
>I think that's a great comment, and would like to adopt that as a
>target to shoot for when producing your segment. To take that one step
>further (fasten seat belts!), how much would you like to hear other
>peoples segments prior to making your own? I can see where going
>"round-robin" with these could help to "bind" them together into a
>single entity. For istance- Eric submits his, and one or more others
>"respond" with their own 2-4 minute perspective (length of a pop song)?
|
