Wednesday 24 November 2010
******Comment******
With regard to my evaluation, I treat it as un finished (or un perfected) there are subjects I still wish to cover but I am aware that while the guide is 750 words I have already written 1741. Having already asked if we will be given the option to revisit and re-write portions of our written work I will leave the Evaluation as it is until I know whether I am to cut out / abbreviate sections or just carry on writing as I am. I will then revisit and continue to write about song choice, The afternoons radio show, the way the groups worked etc.
Evaluation
To begin: The task was given to us to create two 1 hour radio shows, one for a morning slot and another for an evening slot. As we had been placed in large groups it was agreed we would assign members of the team to do specific work on a different show, this resulted in two teams: the Morning team and the Evening team; later to be known as 'The Morning Glory Show' and Afternoon Delight. I feel this was incredibly effective, while every member had creative and skilled input to an extent in both shows, we were able to focus on a specific time slot and therefor a specific audience. We agreed that to promote at least the minimum input in terms of content between radio shows, each group would create a feature for the others show.
As part of the assignment we were instructed to create means of gathering feedback regarding our radio shows after they were broadcast. One means of feedback we decided upon would be a facebook page where audience members could freely leave comments and ratings during and after the broadcast, this page was also used to raise awareness of our show. Our plan was to increase publicity for our broadcast day in the hope we could increase the viewing figures, however, unfortunately only one slot per group was available on the scheduled children in need radio day. As this slot was specifically an afternoon one it was only natural that we should choose the Afternoon delight half of our group as apposed to the Morning glory show. This meant that the radio show I had the most creative input in was given a secondary slot, this made it difficult to publicise and decreased the effectivity of our facebook page dramatically. That said we set about gathering feedback in other ways, the most popular and effective being asking individuals in a variety of audience segmentations to give us feedback on the quality and content of our show. I asked number of people to watch and listen to the on demand video and give me a few pieces of positive and negative feed back. I asked a variety of people so as to gain feedback from people both within our target audience and people outside its boarders, I then compared that with my own criticisms and complements toward the final show.
To a technical level both I and a number of people believe, to a point, we performed well. A number of areas were most apparent. The most immediately obvious downfall is the level of the fill music. It soon becomes noticeable that the level is too high and, while this does not make listening particularly difficult, it does make it potentially more uncomfortable. As the sound mixer this is my responsibility, having practised many times finding the correct levels and succeeding on more than one occasion I thought it was fine to wear one earphone on an the other off. I chose to do this because with both ear phones on I found it somewhat hindered my capability of having regular conversation with the other presenters (a style we were hoping for) hearing my own voice led me to self monitor my inflections which, we better and more accurate when I did not listen to myself. Having justified the headphones, I think the failure to control levels properly was more likely down to nerves and, with a little more practice, would have easily been sorted permanently.
The same applies to the transitions between carts, features etc. I think that given the lack of experience using the equipment and the beginning of the assignment we all did extremely well in learning the techniques of queuing carts, and fading up and down tracks. But despite this with more practice the overall skilled use of the equipment would have naturally increased in quality.
The equipment available to us is of high standard, however, due to the number of presenters we wated to use, an extra mic would have bettered the audiences experience. By using directional mics we lower the presence of unwanted background noise, but we also decrease the size of the effective pick up array. Th means that unless the presenter is talking directly into the mic the quality and level of their broadcasted voice is unpredictable. When two presenters are using one mic this becomes an issue. We learnt how each presenter needed to project their voice, but, an extra mic would have bettered the quality and quite possibly relaxed my co-presenters even more, enabling more natural conversation.
One of the more critically acclaimed aspects of our show was the content. Feedback suggests that the tone of the piece and the style of programming reflected our target audience's interested very well and , in a few cases, the interests of other people not immediately inside our target audience profile. Like Radio 1 we aimed for a friendly more chatty tone than that of Radio 2 for instance. To achieve this we knew the key factors we pitch, pause, pace and projection. I've already talked about a few of these but this is because they are the building blocks for everything said on a radio show (hand in hand of course with content). I found similarities between the Chris Moyles show and a friendly pub chat, deciding that the projection distance was at a moderately personal yet not intimate distance. I then tried to study regular conversation but eventually turned to testing styles whilst learning the equipment. I chose to do this because learning how regular conversation works and then teaching myself to present in that way whilst monitoring myself is a much less efficient method than simply playing myself. I reviewed each broadcast we recorded and adjusted my pitch pause pace and projection until I felt it was correct, each presenting member did the same.We also tried to lower our tone, another conventional speech characteristic we noticed in radio. The feedback I gathered also shows that the conversational style we employed helped us connect with our audience. However it was mentioned by more than one audience member that sometimes the conversation felt a little force perhaps even awkward. I think the way to of combated this would be to write down a more elaborate list of small conversation topics. Also remembering that this was a pilot broadcast and conversation would naturally become more relaxed as the show becomes more established and the presenters more practiced and comfortable with broadcasting.
I received feedback stating that perhaps we should having included more feature content. Initially I disagreed, but knowing the audience is the one who has to listen not me I decided to look further into it. I have come to the conclusion that perhaps rather than simply squeezing in more content (the way I had originally perceived the criticism) we should replace some of the existing conversation with more structured (maybe pre recorded) features. An example could be the games we played. Woodchuck Chilli was a feature I received praise on, people did comment that the portrayal through a singular sense platform did need work but their main praise was its structure and its lack of wasted time. Woodchuck Chilli was also our only pre recorded feature. We chose to do this because logistically the game would be too unpredictable to record live, instead we needed the option of editing the audio. After recording the feature I was able to use Soundtrack pro to edit out and inappropriate content as well as re-structuring the feature and stripping it of any wasted space, taking it for 10+minutes to only a few. We chose to do the games live because it worked on other radio stations such as radio 1, but given the feedback I think it would be a better option to pre record this feature in a similar fashion to that of Wood Chuck Chilli or at least practice the structure and maybe even script it.
The decision to assign members of the overall team to a specific show was accepted as a group, however it was met with confusion. I think this is partially caused by different interpretations of the brief. I admit I was one of the main people asking to sub divide our group, I wanted this because I was aware of the number of people with strong creative minds inside the group and thought it best to concentrate them on separate tasks rather than have them conflicting on the same one. I had interpreted the brief to say that our group of 8 was to produce 2, 1 hour radio shows. This meant to me that sub dividing the group still ensured the group out putted the correct content. Other members of the group I think were interpreting the brief in a different way and thought that every one should have input in everything. A group board meeting solved this issue and after talks with staff we established that the way to go forward would be to produce a feature for the other teams show (in order to demonstrate creating content for different target audiences). In a college situation and a professional one I still stand by the idea the sub divide the group because I think it was correct both by the brief and in terms of managing the members of the group. I was not the producer or manager of this group, I do think we would have benefited from having one and on reflection I regret not suggesting we assign an overall executive producer for both teams. To criticise myself I knew that the overall group was confused and that the plan was not completely clear but I did not act as I would have if I had fully concerned myself with the matter. Looking back it seems unfair to leave another group member feeling as if their grades could be at stake, even if I did not personally believe they were. I do not take full responsibility for the splitting of the groups, as I said there was no overall producer to cast that kind of order I was only a driving force to that decision. As I said, however, I was key part in its execution and therefor I hope my interpretation of the brief was correct when I thought that it was not fundamentally necessary for each member to be involved in both the morning and afternoon shows.
As part of the assignment we were instructed to create means of gathering feedback regarding our radio shows after they were broadcast. One means of feedback we decided upon would be a facebook page where audience members could freely leave comments and ratings during and after the broadcast, this page was also used to raise awareness of our show. Our plan was to increase publicity for our broadcast day in the hope we could increase the viewing figures, however, unfortunately only one slot per group was available on the scheduled children in need radio day. As this slot was specifically an afternoon one it was only natural that we should choose the Afternoon delight half of our group as apposed to the Morning glory show. This meant that the radio show I had the most creative input in was given a secondary slot, this made it difficult to publicise and decreased the effectivity of our facebook page dramatically. That said we set about gathering feedback in other ways, the most popular and effective being asking individuals in a variety of audience segmentations to give us feedback on the quality and content of our show. I asked number of people to watch and listen to the on demand video and give me a few pieces of positive and negative feed back. I asked a variety of people so as to gain feedback from people both within our target audience and people outside its boarders, I then compared that with my own criticisms and complements toward the final show.
To a technical level both I and a number of people believe, to a point, we performed well. A number of areas were most apparent. The most immediately obvious downfall is the level of the fill music. It soon becomes noticeable that the level is too high and, while this does not make listening particularly difficult, it does make it potentially more uncomfortable. As the sound mixer this is my responsibility, having practised many times finding the correct levels and succeeding on more than one occasion I thought it was fine to wear one earphone on an the other off. I chose to do this because with both ear phones on I found it somewhat hindered my capability of having regular conversation with the other presenters (a style we were hoping for) hearing my own voice led me to self monitor my inflections which, we better and more accurate when I did not listen to myself. Having justified the headphones, I think the failure to control levels properly was more likely down to nerves and, with a little more practice, would have easily been sorted permanently.
The same applies to the transitions between carts, features etc. I think that given the lack of experience using the equipment and the beginning of the assignment we all did extremely well in learning the techniques of queuing carts, and fading up and down tracks. But despite this with more practice the overall skilled use of the equipment would have naturally increased in quality.
The equipment available to us is of high standard, however, due to the number of presenters we wated to use, an extra mic would have bettered the audiences experience. By using directional mics we lower the presence of unwanted background noise, but we also decrease the size of the effective pick up array. Th means that unless the presenter is talking directly into the mic the quality and level of their broadcasted voice is unpredictable. When two presenters are using one mic this becomes an issue. We learnt how each presenter needed to project their voice, but, an extra mic would have bettered the quality and quite possibly relaxed my co-presenters even more, enabling more natural conversation.
One of the more critically acclaimed aspects of our show was the content. Feedback suggests that the tone of the piece and the style of programming reflected our target audience's interested very well and , in a few cases, the interests of other people not immediately inside our target audience profile. Like Radio 1 we aimed for a friendly more chatty tone than that of Radio 2 for instance. To achieve this we knew the key factors we pitch, pause, pace and projection. I've already talked about a few of these but this is because they are the building blocks for everything said on a radio show (hand in hand of course with content). I found similarities between the Chris Moyles show and a friendly pub chat, deciding that the projection distance was at a moderately personal yet not intimate distance. I then tried to study regular conversation but eventually turned to testing styles whilst learning the equipment. I chose to do this because learning how regular conversation works and then teaching myself to present in that way whilst monitoring myself is a much less efficient method than simply playing myself. I reviewed each broadcast we recorded and adjusted my pitch pause pace and projection until I felt it was correct, each presenting member did the same.We also tried to lower our tone, another conventional speech characteristic we noticed in radio. The feedback I gathered also shows that the conversational style we employed helped us connect with our audience. However it was mentioned by more than one audience member that sometimes the conversation felt a little force perhaps even awkward. I think the way to of combated this would be to write down a more elaborate list of small conversation topics. Also remembering that this was a pilot broadcast and conversation would naturally become more relaxed as the show becomes more established and the presenters more practiced and comfortable with broadcasting.
I received feedback stating that perhaps we should having included more feature content. Initially I disagreed, but knowing the audience is the one who has to listen not me I decided to look further into it. I have come to the conclusion that perhaps rather than simply squeezing in more content (the way I had originally perceived the criticism) we should replace some of the existing conversation with more structured (maybe pre recorded) features. An example could be the games we played. Woodchuck Chilli was a feature I received praise on, people did comment that the portrayal through a singular sense platform did need work but their main praise was its structure and its lack of wasted time. Woodchuck Chilli was also our only pre recorded feature. We chose to do this because logistically the game would be too unpredictable to record live, instead we needed the option of editing the audio. After recording the feature I was able to use Soundtrack pro to edit out and inappropriate content as well as re-structuring the feature and stripping it of any wasted space, taking it for 10+minutes to only a few. We chose to do the games live because it worked on other radio stations such as radio 1, but given the feedback I think it would be a better option to pre record this feature in a similar fashion to that of Wood Chuck Chilli or at least practice the structure and maybe even script it.
The decision to assign members of the overall team to a specific show was accepted as a group, however it was met with confusion. I think this is partially caused by different interpretations of the brief. I admit I was one of the main people asking to sub divide our group, I wanted this because I was aware of the number of people with strong creative minds inside the group and thought it best to concentrate them on separate tasks rather than have them conflicting on the same one. I had interpreted the brief to say that our group of 8 was to produce 2, 1 hour radio shows. This meant to me that sub dividing the group still ensured the group out putted the correct content. Other members of the group I think were interpreting the brief in a different way and thought that every one should have input in everything. A group board meeting solved this issue and after talks with staff we established that the way to go forward would be to produce a feature for the other teams show (in order to demonstrate creating content for different target audiences). In a college situation and a professional one I still stand by the idea the sub divide the group because I think it was correct both by the brief and in terms of managing the members of the group. I was not the producer or manager of this group, I do think we would have benefited from having one and on reflection I regret not suggesting we assign an overall executive producer for both teams. To criticise myself I knew that the overall group was confused and that the plan was not completely clear but I did not act as I would have if I had fully concerned myself with the matter. Looking back it seems unfair to leave another group member feeling as if their grades could be at stake, even if I did not personally believe they were. I do not take full responsibility for the splitting of the groups, as I said there was no overall producer to cast that kind of order I was only a driving force to that decision. As I said, however, I was key part in its execution and therefor I hope my interpretation of the brief was correct when I thought that it was not fundamentally necessary for each member to be involved in both the morning and afternoon shows.
Friday 5 November 2010
*****Comment*****
It appears that not all my post appear in list form. Please refer to the bottom of the page where you can see all posts under the heading 'Blog Archive'.
The bottom post (starting with 'Radio analysis - Chris Moyles') is the first post, leading to the top post being the newest.
The bottom post (starting with 'Radio analysis - Chris Moyles') is the first post, leading to the top post being the newest.
Running Order
Running Order
The running order is a very important part of a broadcast, it is as essential as a script and works hand in hand with the scheduler in Myriad. By nature Radio shows have very specific timings to begin and end, this is then reflected in the very specific timings of each feature and song. Having created all our content, including features and jingles we uploaded them on to Myriad. Prior to this I wrote in paper form, a list of every feature: where they were saved on the computer, what they were saved as, how long they were, and how much dead sound was at either end of them.
I then who handed this list to rob who put them in an initial order. We then reviewed this proposed running order and made small adjustments. Here is the final running order. It details the GMT time of each feature, this helps ensure we are on time throughout the show. The name of the feature, a short description, the deck, estimated time and actual time are also stated. The deck identification helps me (the mixer/DJ) know which levels need to be brought up. The estimated and actual times all help us keep track of schedule, ensuring we hit the 10:30 finish dead on.
The running order is a very important part of a broadcast, it is as essential as a script and works hand in hand with the scheduler in Myriad. By nature Radio shows have very specific timings to begin and end, this is then reflected in the very specific timings of each feature and song. Having created all our content, including features and jingles we uploaded them on to Myriad. Prior to this I wrote in paper form, a list of every feature: where they were saved on the computer, what they were saved as, how long they were, and how much dead sound was at either end of them.
I then who handed this list to rob who put them in an initial order. We then reviewed this proposed running order and made small adjustments. Here is the final running order. It details the GMT time of each feature, this helps ensure we are on time throughout the show. The name of the feature, a short description, the deck, estimated time and actual time are also stated. The deck identification helps me (the mixer/DJ) know which levels need to be brought up. The estimated and actual times all help us keep track of schedule, ensuring we hit the 10:30 finish dead on.
GMT Time  | ITEM | Description/Name | Deck | Est. Time | Act. Time |
0930 | INTRO | “the time is now” jingle | PC 1 | 36 secs | 36 secs |
0930 | SNDBD | Sound Bed | PC 2 | - | 10 mins |
0930 | INTRO | Introductions | MIC 1,2,3 | 10 mins | 10 mins |
0940 | SONG | Katy Perry - Firework | PC 1 | 03:46 secs | 03:46 secs |
0943 | JINGLE | Ellajingle.wav | PC 3 | 07 secs | 07 secs |
0944 | CHAT | Discussion | MIC 1,2,3 | 2 mins | 2 mins |
0946 | JINGLE | Fact of the Day | PC 1 | 11 secs | 11 secs |
0946 | CHAT | Fact of the day discussion | MIC 1,2,3 | 5 mins | 5 mins |
0951 | SONG | Darwin Deez - Constellations | PC 2 | 03:15 secs | 03:15 secs |
0954 | CHAT | Discussion | MIC 1,2,3 | 1 mins | 1 mins |
0955 | JINGLE | Time to Rhyme | PC 1 | 3 secs | 3 secs |
0955 | SNDBD | Time to Rhyme soundbed | PC 2 | 5 mins | 5 mins |
0955 | CHAT | Time to Rhyme game | MIC 1,2,3 | 5 mins | 5 mins |
1000 | JINGLE | Braggjingle.wav | PC 3 | 5 secs | 5 secs |
1000 | NEWS | (see news running order) | |||
1005 | CHAT | News discussion | MIC 1,2,3 | 5 mins | 5 mins |
1010 | FEATURE/ SONG | Wood Chuck Chilli/Kings of leon - Radioactive | PC 4 | 10:04secs | 10:04secs |
1020 | CHAT | Wood Chuck Chilli discussion | MIC 1,2,3 | 2 mins | 2 mins |
1022 | JINGLE | Barryoke | PC 1 | 5 secs | 5 secs |
1022 | FEATURE | Barryoke | MIC 1,2,3 | 5 mins | 5 mins |
1027 | SONG | Two door Cinema Club | PC 2 | 02:48 secs | 02:48 secs |
1030 | END | - | - | - | - |
After rob finished the Running order he handed it back to me and I used it as a template to assemble the cart tracks on Myriad into the suitable order. I then adjusted the settings of the schedule to play or pause when ever was needed.
During broadcast this schedule helps me, as the main presenter, guide the conversation where ever it needs to go and activate the features/content at the appropriate times. Rob will sit near me keeping track on the clock and helping me keep time with the schedule on the running order. (hence the nick name 'Producer Rob'
Video (cross media)
Continuing to develop our Cross media, we decided to create a youtube channel. On this channel we will upload content promoting our radio show and content that gives our radio show another level, for example. Woodchuckchilli is a game we created involving Matt Bird and Matt Bragg eating hot chillies, this game works well over a single sense media such as radio but the use of visual imagery video entails makes the feature even more enjoyable to watch.
http://www.youtube.com/themorninggloryshow1
Rob applied his graphics to the channel giving it a more professional look, we had hope to create a more elaborate design like this website:
http://www.youtube.com/user/mysteryguitarman?blend=1&ob=4
But unfortunately the design options he uses are only available to contributors (members chosen by youtube to potentially earn money due to large subscription sizes and good video content).
Here is an example of a promotional video we created:
We also filmed a short mock-umentary, but decided against publishing it as we feared it did not put across our intended point as well as we'd hoped. The video featured interviews with myself and Matt Bragg and other comic features. We still have the film, if you wish to see it please let me know.
http://www.youtube.com/themorninggloryshow1
Rob applied his graphics to the channel giving it a more professional look, we had hope to create a more elaborate design like this website:
http://www.youtube.com/user/mysteryguitarman?blend=1&ob=4
But unfortunately the design options he uses are only available to contributors (members chosen by youtube to potentially earn money due to large subscription sizes and good video content).
Here is an example of a promotional video we created:
We also filmed a short mock-umentary, but decided against publishing it as we feared it did not put across our intended point as well as we'd hoped. The video featured interviews with myself and Matt Bragg and other comic features. We still have the film, if you wish to see it please let me know.
Graphics
Having created decided on a number of aspects of our show, we knew it was important to increase to media platforms we spread ourselves, upon just like many commercial radio shows today.
Rob decided he wanted to create the still image graphics and have a go at designing a few Logos for our 'facebook' page, our youtube page and potentially an aston or ident of some variety for the live stream.
Having had experience doing this with other projects I had no trouble with Rob leading the graphics front.
Here is a selection or the images he created:
These Logos reflect the style of the show very well, using colour and font to attract the audience. Adding an element of fire to the 'Wood chuck chilli' Logo is a great way of visualising the type of game it will be.
Rob also designed the Logo for our sister show 'Afternoon delight'
Having had a meeting with the other radio team we have updated each other se to where we are and ensured we are all on the right track. We also decided that each group will create the opposite groups News in order to practice creating content for different audiences. Each group will present the otehr with an audience profile to make this possible.
Rob decided he wanted to create the still image graphics and have a go at designing a few Logos for our 'facebook' page, our youtube page and potentially an aston or ident of some variety for the live stream.
Having had experience doing this with other projects I had no trouble with Rob leading the graphics front.
Here is a selection or the images he created:
These Logos reflect the style of the show very well, using colour and font to attract the audience. Adding an element of fire to the 'Wood chuck chilli' Logo is a great way of visualising the type of game it will be.
Rob also designed the Logo for our sister show 'Afternoon delight'
Having had a meeting with the other radio team we have updated each other se to where we are and ensured we are all on the right track. We also decided that each group will create the opposite groups News in order to practice creating content for different audiences. Each group will present the otehr with an audience profile to make this possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)