Short and Simple
As a disclaimer, I am not a radio person. Without visual images and movement, my mind would naturally begin to zone out after 15 minutes of a story that is molded for a particular type of audience. These radio stories were all mediocre to me. The producers were all very creative, the final products just seemed dulled due to the topics that were chosen. What seemed strange to me was how they originally planned it out. The competition was to develop the best story/show from their parents’ suggestion. These suggestions weren’t previously used because they were initially thought to be not quite good. So why would it seem like such a great idea to clump a whole bunch of rejected ideas together and tie them together by one flimsy topic related theme?
Listening to Lisa Pollak play back that story about the Ukrainian funeral seemed a bit strange, the tone of voice was genuinely excited and good humored. It was a decent, and arguably, I agree with the final decision of it being the best produced show. However, at the end of the 62 minutes, the only Julie Synder and Sarah Koenig’s story with the two ultra concise dialogues. There are expectations of radio stations that I simply don’t find interesting. The producers are given a time gap to fill, but many of the most potent stories are short, simple, and sweet. Overdevelopment can leave a bad taste, not to mention cause the listeners to stop paying attention, especially when it would take 16 minutes to tell one story…
Taking 16 seconds to say “she was kind of whispering something, and we bent down and she said ‘I’m bored’,” is comparably the most effective and creative use of time and audio entertainment that was possible and relevant to the show topic. It was the most interesting to me because it wasn’t explained too much; the pure humor of it was enough for me to enjoy what I heard. For the other stories, there was more time spent on musical transitions or anticipation pauses in voice, which were good, but the topics seemed bland, or overworked to be original. The topic of what’s said is definitely what makes me feel that a story is interesting.
4 responses so far
I agree that it is certainly easier to lose your focus on a radio broadcast than on, say, a TV show. I do think that has a lot to do with the fact that the radio does not require any visual attention. I know while I was listening to NPR, I was also doing math HW, because, well, I could. Unlike watching a video, I could see one thing and hear another. If a radio broadcast doesn’t interest you, it’s much easier to ignore, because you can’t see it. I would compare it to music, which also (usually) has no visual component, so if it doesn’t interest you (much like radio), you can just stop paying attention. Plus radio programs are often several minutes in length, so if you’re not an auditory person to start with, you’ll definitely have some problems.
I completely agree that it’s harder to focus without visuals. As I was listening, I found myself looking for the video that went along with the audio, forgetting that there wasn’t any. I never really listen to the radio, so it was weird listening to, rather than watching, an hour long show.
I also have a hard time focusing without visuals. Even when I listen to PWTR, I am browsing the Internet or doing chores and sometimes lose track of the conversation that’s going on, no matter how much I looked forward to it prior to hearing it. But since I don’t listen to live radio, I can’t really participate in the show or view the live chat. If these sorts of components were added to radio shows, it would be much easier and more entertaining to endure the hour.
I totally agree with you about the 16-second story being much better than the others. It was short, to the point, and it was actually fun to listen to. I mean, when you compare it to the whole Erie Canal saga, it was so much more memorable. I think that since we live in this environment where we’re so in-tune to visual stimulation, the mere task of sitting and listening to an audio-only presentation is mind-boggling for us.