OK, so I could reasonably be accused of being a little biased and perhaps emotionally invested in the podcast but I reckon that's a bit harsh.
To be sure, this is a very different style of podcast to that we did with MJCP but the production quality is generally higher, there's a greater breadth of subject matter covered (perhaps not to the depth we did in the past as it's more structured now) and because of the way it's produced it's more likely to have contributors regularly being involved.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of the Max and Iadora bit and I'm still not sure about Braue's singing (but that might be because I'm sober!). But I reckon the rest of it is pretty good.
Gramsey - are you saying the whole thing is really bad or is it one bit in particular that bothers you?
At the outset, please accept that I want to be constructive rather than pretend everything is rosy, because I really do want this podcast to work.
The overall podcast comes across to me that everyone is trying too damn hard! I have the highest respect for you Anthony, and I am a regular follower of your blogs (BTW, you missed last week so this week needs to be good
) and also Adam's, and I feel that your segment has been lightweight as opposed to what you two guys could offer, given your collective expertise. Your segment in Episode 2 was better than 1 but I want more! The Final Cut interview was excellent but why the hell split it over two weeks? By the time the next podcast comes out we'll need to re-listen to this segment to grasp the full context. This interview was good enough to have formed the majority of the podcast on it's own, and to cut it in half to allow David to sing (sorry David, as a singer you make a great writer) and a couple of computer generated voices attempt humour was in my opinion, wrong.
Given that the podcast is only going to come out every two weeks and is only around thirty minutes duration, I don't think you can attempt a greater breadth of subjects. You certainly can't cover news that's two weeks old and been on every RSS feed for so long it's been archived. The background music intro with voice overs gives an initial impression of a low quality production, but I accept that you tell me the overall production quality is higher.
I guess I would prefer more depth in the podcast rather than jumping all over. I accept Keith is trying to cover all bases each Episode but personally I'd prefer the depth even if it meant some episodes weren't of interest to me. I enjoyed Chris' intro with what is in the next Magazine, and this could be a regular "mid month" advice followed the following fortnight with some additional background to each article, given that the printed edition would be in our hands by then. Following that each fortnight could be snippets of breaking stories, but only if they're less than a few days old, and then have a major interview or discussion on a specific topic. End.
Everyone's got an opinion, and the above is mine. I hope you will accept it in the spirit it is given, because as I said earlier, I really do want this podcast to succeed. For me it is currently not working and I'd prefer to be objective and give you honest feedback than pretend I'm loving it.
Help
but, just in case you were kidnapped to a deserted island where you were tied up, then surreptitiously escaped your bonds, overpowered your assailants with a nearby stapler, fashioned a raft out of palm trees with a pocket knife you stole, and rowed back to the mainland with nothing but a packet of uncooked spaghetti -- just in case this all happened before you were able to click on the 'Podcasts' tab, and therefore you didn't stumble upon it yourself:
