That guy in the Rogan clip made a great observation: "Those people aren't 'asking questions' because they're just telling you what they think. There's no debate."
I like the "Something happened, but with jokes" approach to your podcasts. You are giving people fair warning that you like to tell jokes when you are saying what you think. I tell jokes, not because they are funny, but because they are true, or mostly true, or somewhat true, but the jokes have an element of truth to them that makes the "I'm just a comedian" shtick moot. Maybe you could play old timey music when you are being facetious. The people will vote with their ears. It doesn't matter if there is nothing between them.
I think, for differentiating between "past Jeff" and "present Jeff", you ought to borrow a trick from old radio dramas and some films, and change the tonal quality of your voice in some way. They used to do this when someone was, for example, having an inner monologue while also carrying on a conversation with another character, where the spoken conversation sounded normal, but the inner thoughts were played in a thinner, almost whispy tone, as if it was filtered through an old telephone or something. If I recall, the old Shadow radio show did something similar when Lamont Cranston was clouding men's minds and being the Shadow.
The trick is, of course, that you want your effect to be distinctive enough to be noticeably different, but not so wild as to make you unintelligible.
Does anyone else here remember the 2004 Tyco corruption trial, the April mistrial? The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post released the name of one of the jurors, Juror No. 4, after she was seen by someone in the gallery as making what looked like an "OK" hand gesture to the defendant before entering deliberations. That name spread like wildfire on social media, and the juror was personally threatened and abused to such an extent that the judge had to call a mistrial. The two newspapers had to defend their decision.
On "The Daily Show," right after the name was released, Jon Stewart (and the writers, one assumes) joined the two media outlets heaping abuse upon Juror No. 4, and he took the New York Post's reporting as totally accurate. (It wasn't.) The mistrial came on the next Friday, and on Monday's show, Jon Stewart and "The Daily Show" condemned the decisions of The Wall Street Journal and New York Post to harass an individual juror, apparently unaware of how hypocritical it made him look. It never seemed to occur to him or anyone else at the show that MAYBE the online abuse of Juror No. 4 could have come from people who MIGHT have watched his show. The fact that "The Daily Show" isn't a major newspaper makes no difference. They still have basic moral and journalistic obligations.
I have always hated his "But I'm just a comedian!" excuse for careless stories like this.
Seems like it's all shades of the Infotainment Problem -- it's initially presented as almost a public service, like "we're making the issues of the day accessible to a general audience," but the more successful it is as entertainment, the more it becomes a de facto news source.
Nice try with the music underneath, but it doesn’t work for the reasons you mentioned. Try flipping it around by playing the old time stuff under your past voice and then breaking in with straight commentary.
Another vote for the blips and the boops. Or at least I think the music here was too loud compared to your voice, and having it be music with lyrics was extremely distracting to me (so maybe softer instrumental music would be less distracting)
The constant audio reminder that this is a interjection is good. I'm not sure the music is the most optimal way of doing it, but it works.
As a request, could you link directly to the piece you're discussing? I'd like to easily be able to read it myself again, and possibly go over the comments even.
That guy in the Rogan clip made a great observation: "Those people aren't 'asking questions' because they're just telling you what they think. There's no debate."
Please go back to the blips and bloops. They were so much better than over engineering it with the music.
I like the "Something happened, but with jokes" approach to your podcasts. You are giving people fair warning that you like to tell jokes when you are saying what you think. I tell jokes, not because they are funny, but because they are true, or mostly true, or somewhat true, but the jokes have an element of truth to them that makes the "I'm just a comedian" shtick moot. Maybe you could play old timey music when you are being facetious. The people will vote with their ears. It doesn't matter if there is nothing between them.
I think, for differentiating between "past Jeff" and "present Jeff", you ought to borrow a trick from old radio dramas and some films, and change the tonal quality of your voice in some way. They used to do this when someone was, for example, having an inner monologue while also carrying on a conversation with another character, where the spoken conversation sounded normal, but the inner thoughts were played in a thinner, almost whispy tone, as if it was filtered through an old telephone or something. If I recall, the old Shadow radio show did something similar when Lamont Cranston was clouding men's minds and being the Shadow.
The trick is, of course, that you want your effect to be distinctive enough to be noticeably different, but not so wild as to make you unintelligible.
Does anyone else here remember the 2004 Tyco corruption trial, the April mistrial? The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post released the name of one of the jurors, Juror No. 4, after she was seen by someone in the gallery as making what looked like an "OK" hand gesture to the defendant before entering deliberations. That name spread like wildfire on social media, and the juror was personally threatened and abused to such an extent that the judge had to call a mistrial. The two newspapers had to defend their decision.
On "The Daily Show," right after the name was released, Jon Stewart (and the writers, one assumes) joined the two media outlets heaping abuse upon Juror No. 4, and he took the New York Post's reporting as totally accurate. (It wasn't.) The mistrial came on the next Friday, and on Monday's show, Jon Stewart and "The Daily Show" condemned the decisions of The Wall Street Journal and New York Post to harass an individual juror, apparently unaware of how hypocritical it made him look. It never seemed to occur to him or anyone else at the show that MAYBE the online abuse of Juror No. 4 could have come from people who MIGHT have watched his show. The fact that "The Daily Show" isn't a major newspaper makes no difference. They still have basic moral and journalistic obligations.
I have always hated his "But I'm just a comedian!" excuse for careless stories like this.
Blips and bloops, please.
Having seen "The Death of Stalin", I firmly believe we need more execution-based comedy.
Seems like it's all shades of the Infotainment Problem -- it's initially presented as almost a public service, like "we're making the issues of the day accessible to a general audience," but the more successful it is as entertainment, the more it becomes a de facto news source.
Also happy 735th birthday to Rin Tin Tin.
Nice try with the music underneath, but it doesn’t work for the reasons you mentioned. Try flipping it around by playing the old time stuff under your past voice and then breaking in with straight commentary.
Personally, I disagree. I think when "the old guy" is speaking, it makes sense to have "old guy music"!
Or another way of rationalizing it (if it needs a rationale): podcast Jeff vs. writer Jeff. Podcast Jeff (speaking in the present) gets the music.
"Theater is still around, mostly so people who aren't good at sports have something to do."
QOTD
That’s one of those “I’m 70 percent joking” jokes.
LOL
Another vote for the blips and the boops. Or at least I think the music here was too loud compared to your voice, and having it be music with lyrics was extremely distracting to me (so maybe softer instrumental music would be less distracting)
If “threads is the good version of a comments section”, what’s this actual comments section 😆
The constant audio reminder that this is a interjection is good. I'm not sure the music is the most optimal way of doing it, but it works.
As a request, could you link directly to the piece you're discussing? I'd like to easily be able to read it myself again, and possibly go over the comments even.
I liked the bleeps and bloops well enough, but to my surprise, I think using the music is better.
Mr. Maurer, two questions. First, who sets the standers for truth and fairness? Second, who sets the standards for the standard setters.