Now that the shows are done and over with, it is required of us to critique our own show and that of another group. This post will be my critique of my group’s show which is called Wacky History. Below is some suggested criteria to look at.
Quality of audio sound -e.g. is the volume appropriate? are the levels even? Is the sound clear, and free of noises not needed (e.g. mouse clicks, background noise)?
Quality of audio editing – use of effects, transitions, are the edits clean?
Use of sound effects- how are they used? Is it effective?
Use of music- how is it used? Is it effective or distracting?
Does the show have a structure? Is it cohesive or does it feel stitched together?
Does it tell a story effectively? Is there a sense of drama, unknown? Does it draw you in to listen?
If you would rate this radio show, how many stars out of five would you give to the show
I will start with a few quick points: We did not reach the time that we needed to given the size of our group. Also, upon seeing some of the other group titles, I think we could have come up with something cooler and wackier. BUT, I believe these to be small issues. As I did with the other review, I will start with the topic of sound: clarity and evenness of tone fell pretty flat in my opinion on our show. Some parts are easy to hear and other immediately after are significantly more quiet. It is obvious that the recordings were all made separately, with different microphones and in different locations. Considering we all agreed to do our parts separately, I am not surprised and am definitely not blaming any one individual. I am also a little surprised at how the sound changed once everything was combined. When I heard the individual recordings, they sounded good and mostly clear but somehow I feel that they lost some quality in the finished product. Besides some recording and sound issues, I really liked all the music we chose. I can hear a variety of “happy” songs that go with the “wacky” part of the show and I think they make great background music when people are speaking. I also know we tried to make use of the “fade in” and “fade out” effect and I think it really helped with sound transitions. For the most part, the music was helpful in my opinion and not distracting. Next, we’ll discuss structure: Our show was based on two main talking points with a few interesting bits and then our bumpers and commercials. I believe the transitions between themes are good and I believe we made good use of our commercials to split up the show and split up each person’s speaking part. It sounds cohesive to me except for a few small parts like in the beginning and some abrupt changes in the end. There are parts where we go from speaking to a bumper and then a commercial and then back to a bumper where I really like the editing and the music that goes along with it. Finally, let’s about the story: Our show definitely tells a story. I don’t think it is 100% effective and i’m sure with more work and tweaking it could become better but I believe a story is very much present: we discuss interesting history. We chose two main topics so that we could actually go in depth and tell a story about each. I can’t say there is a huge sense of drama but there is a sense of the unknown. The part where Chantel admits that she thought dentures were a more modern invention is a good example of the “unknown”. I don’t think most average people know where dentures came from so it should be a topic that draws you in. Also, about midway, Ben goes through a “lightning round” of really fun and interesting facts. This helps draw the listener in when they are done hearing a commercial and might want to stop listening.