Ed McMANN & Voice tracking

[Miami]

For all you listeners who despise voicetracking, I wonder why I have never seen a post decrying Ed McMann and The River. Everyone knows he's not "live and local", so why the free pass? Personally, I think he does it well. He includes local bits/flavor along with traffic, weather & contests. Sounds pretty good, doesn't it?
It just seems over the past couple of years whenever someone brings up voice tracking many of you supply the standard "Voice tracking sucks!!" or "You can always tell when a station is v.t." Sure I know v.t limits job opportunities,so no need to argue that point. I just want to know why no-one has jumped on The River for being v.t in the afternoon at a top 50 market station.

 

[Stick_Davis]

> For all you listeners who despise voicetracking, I wonder
> why I have never seen a post decrying Ed McMann and The
> River. Everyone knows he's not "live and local", so why the
> free pass? Personally, I think he does it well. He includes
> local bits/flavor along with traffic, weather & contests.
> Sounds pretty good, doesn't it?

Maybe that's just it. It's hard to criticize when it's done extremely well.

I don't think anyone would argue that voicetracking is bad when it can be done as well as Ed McMann (he sounds better than some live shifts, IMHO), but I think most people agree voicetracking is the worst when it's done out-of-market and can replace local jobs.

 

[aceofspades]

> For all you listeners who despise voicetracking, I wonder
> why I have never seen a post decrying Ed McMann and The
> River. Everyone knows he's not "live and local", so why the
> free pass? Personally, I think he does it well. He includes
> local bits/flavor along with traffic, weather & contests.
> Sounds pretty good, doesn't it?
> It just seems over the past couple of years whenever someone
> brings up voice tracking many of you supply the standard
> "Voice tracking sucks!!" or "You can always tell when a
> station is v.t." Sure I know v.t limits job opportunities,so
> no need to argue that point. I just want to know why no-one
> has jumped on The River for being v.t in the afternoon at a
> top 50 market station.
>

Ed does voicetrack very well. he sounds very local with his mentions to local concerts, events, etc. i think he's even done a few station appearances, which always helps hide the fact that he's voicetracked out of market. in this case, VT'ing is not a bad thing.

VT is bad when the jock is completely generic, does not support the station at local appearances and adds no local flair to his show. cause all it's doing is hurting the listener and making the station look bad. VT'ing cannot be justified in this scenario.

 

[Miami]

> Ed does voicetrack very well. he sounds very local with his
> mentions to local concerts, events, etc. i think he's even
> done a few station appearances, which always helps hide the
> fact that he's voicetracked out of market. in this case,
> VT'ing is not a bad thing.
>
> VT is bad when the jock is completely generic, does not
> support the station at local appearances and adds no local
> flair to his show. cause all it's doing is hurting the
> listener and making the station look bad. VT'ing cannot be
> justified in this scenario.

Ok, so if I'm reading you guys right, then it's ok in your opinion to voice track if it's done well and sounds good? You guys aren't all hung up on the whole "live and local" thing? I never have been either.Quality is quality regardless of where it originates from. Yes? Just so you know where I'm coming from, I've been on the beach for awhile now. Instead of filling in this week for a full timer, I might have my own gig if more stations were live 24/7 and not voicetracked. You might think I'm bitter, but I'm not. I understand that this is the business of radio as we know it in 2005. With that said, I still think voicetracking , when done well, improves the quality of many stations. Which brings me around to the original point I was trying to get at. For those listeners who bitch and moan everytime they hear the word "voice track" why haven't you jumped on The River? It's almost as if some listeners think they're too good or above having their station voicetracked. I'm just trying to spark some conversation. Why is v.t ok at this station, but not that station. And someone set me straight, is it "voicetracking" or "voice tracking"?
>

 

[jockitch]

> Maybe that's just it. It's hard to criticize when it's done
> extremely well.
>
> I don't think anyone would argue that voicetracking is bad
> when it can be done as well as Ed McMann (he sounds better
> than some live shifts, IMHO), but I think most people agree
> voicetracking is the worst when it's done out-of-market and
> can replace local jobs.

I don't know the history of the River. Ed's voicetracked arrival at B101 in Providnce elicited very negative response & continues to do so because he was part of an upheaval in staffing changes that resulted in a couple of heritage personalities being let go. I think if he replaced relatively unknown generic people it might have been a different story since he does do a good job although it sometimes takes him longer to talk about a song than it took to sing it.<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Jock Itch on 08/10/05 12:28 AM.</FONT></P>

 

[aceofspades]

> > Ed does voicetrack very well. he sounds very local with
> his
> > mentions to local concerts, events, etc. i think he's even
>
> > done a few station appearances, which always helps hide
> the
> > fact that he's voicetracked out of market. in this case,
> > VT'ing is not a bad thing.
> >
> > VT is bad when the jock is completely generic, does not
> > support the station at local appearances and adds no local
>
> > flair to his show. cause all it's doing is hurting the
> > listener and making the station look bad. VT'ing cannot be
>
> > justified in this scenario.
>
> Ok, so if I'm reading you guys right, then it's ok in your
> opinion to voice track if it's done well and sounds good?
> You guys aren't all hung up on the whole "live and local"
> thing? I never have been either.Quality is quality
> regardless of where it originates from. Yes? Just so you
> know where I'm coming from, I've been on the beach for
> awhile now. Instead of filling in this week for a full
> timer, I might have my own gig if more stations were live
> 24/7 and not voicetracked. You might think I'm bitter, but
> I'm not. I understand that this is the business of radio as
> we know it in 2005. With that said, I still think
> voicetracking , when done well, improves the quality of many
> stations. Which brings me around to the original point I was
> trying to get at. For those listeners who bitch and moan
> everytime they hear the word "voice track" why haven't you
> jumped on The River? It's almost as if some listeners think
> they're too good or above having their station voicetracked.
> I'm just trying to spark some conversation. Why is v.t ok at
> this station, but not that station. And someone set me
> straight, is it "voicetracking" or "voice tracking"?
> >
>

i personally havent fought the argument against voice tracking. but i havent fought FOR it either. i've read some people attack the river for it, but hoenstly, who REALLY cares? i think the river sounds good, and ed mcmann is a great DJ. why trivilize it over such a stupid and insignificant matter (at a listener standpoint)? my point was that since ed is plays a more active role with the station than your typical voice-tracker, they can get away with it.

the whole thing is a lost argument anyway. nothing is going to get solved. besides, what other connecticut radio station utilizes voice tracking from someone out of market? i think you can rule out syndicated shows and local voice tracking. help me out cause i can't think of any others, but i dont listen to the radio all that much.