Radio Racket a Waste!

[Chesterco]

Just listened for almost an hour. I want this hour of my life back. No organization, rambling, boring inside stuff. Guess that's why it's on the Internet.

 

[wprt949]

if you dont like the radio racket then your not a true radio geek

 

[Chesterco]

if you dont like the radio racket then your not a true radio geek

That's the trouble, I am a radio geek. The show is a train wreck, first we go here, then we go there, no rhyme or reason. By the way, I would take your post more seriously if you used "you're" rather than the incorrect "your." Yeah, they're garnering really smart listeners.

 

[wprt949]

ah sorry

 

[RoscoeBrowning]

Yeah, they're garnering really smart listeners.

Like yourself.... this is the 3rd show that you've admitted listening to! Thanks for your patronage!

 

[raydofan]

A few observations...from my professionality

I spent a bit of time with this stream, and boy, I gotta tell ya-1) Please turn off that crappy reverb! I cannot listen to this on a regular radio station (when they use what sounds like a decent Lexicon), let alone a low-bit stream with what sounds like a Radio Shack reverb (or perhaps a club DJ mixer?) Just awful...upgrade or scuttle.. 2) Get better sounding mics and/or processing, and adjust properly.What kind of mics are you using? They sound like bad sm 58s.Also: whenever the news guy stops talking, I hear a buzzing noise. The expander setting (if your using a dbx unit) will hush the noise. I would explore your chain for the source of the buzzing. I think you have a cd machine with some motor leakage. Get a multiband processor of some sort. You really should process for streaming.3) Upgrade your stream. Please. 64kbps or better.4) Offer proper high-bitrate MP3s for download. ~~~~RJ is your Elliot Offen. He sounds like he has something to prove, big time, even though he's 'successful'. True success is never trumpeted like that putz does it. I recorded that Disco TV thing once so I could play it for my friends...as a goof. He's funny in a way he's not even aware.Hmm. You guys. You guys are probably the reason I don't work in radio today. Total small-market mentality, constantly tugging at the hems of the more 'anointed' preformers. I started with people like you, and based on the observations above, it doesn't appear that you are going any further, or have learned anything. Has anything gone really right in your careers?. And all the recent-memory nostalgia! You guys seem a bit young to reminisce, so why do it? Small markets (with stations who wind talent cheaper than computers) are filled with big-wig wannabes (Scotty and Alex? (that's TALENT???) who can't produce anything of quality. I wish there were more 'farms' for talent, but it seems the small pools that remain are filmed with effluent residue. Not even remotely palatable.Do yourselves a favor-all of you who produce and listen to this show:Take up landscaping. Your pay would be better, and stories about literally crawling through the digest are better than stories about the cancer-causing people with whom you associate. Some words of wisdom from Mr. Waters. The memories of a man in his old ageAre the deeds of a man in his prime.You shuffle in gloom of the sickroomAnd talk to yourself as you die.Life is a short, warm momentAnd death is a long cold rest.You get your chance to try in the twinkling of an eye:Eighty years, with luck, or even less.Just my opinon. I could be wrong, I could be right...

 

[Kyle D]

First of all, thanks for taking the time to listen to our show and post about it. Ordinarily we wouldn't even respond to every little complaint, but you obviously took the time to write a thoughtful analysis (which we appreciate), and that deserves the respect of a response.I can see that you're a Sound Engineer, so naturally you're looking (or listening) at this differently than 99% of our listeners. We have put together the best equipment we have with the means we have been afforded. I think everyone on the show would agree that we would love to have Seinheuser's, amongst other things, but it's just not possible now. If someone wants to buy a big schedule of spots, maybe that can change. As for all of the streaming & processing, I admittedly know nothing about the topic, but I can tell you that you're the only person I've heard from complaining about the sound quality of the show. I have heard from some folks complaining about the reverb (I myself am not a fan of reverb), but it's George's call to use it. I can tell you that high-bitrate MP3s (or some other form of downloadable audio files) is on our to do list. We hope to get that up and running very soon.Dead on with RJ. 'Nuff said.As for our careers, I think they're going well, and that's with George being unemployed! None of us work in radio full-time any longer (Roscoe never has) on our own volition. We enjoy talking about the business, and that's what we're doing. Some people are going to like it, others won't. That's the business, whether it's terrestrial, satellite or Internet.Landscaping wouldn't do any of us any good. Roscoe and I are a tad too fair skinned, and George has a bad back.We're doing a show in which we are trying to inform with big time guests and also entertain. Again, we appreciate you all listening and don't mind the criticism. Our show is only 5 weeks old and ever evolving.Unlike a lot of people in this business, we're not doing this for our ego's, we're doing this to have some fun. Some people won't believe that, but it's the truth.Again, thanks for listening and letting us know what you think.

 

[raydofan]

Hmmmk

I can see that you're a Sound Engineer, so naturally you're looking (or listening) at this differently than 99% of our listeners. We have put together the best equipment we have with the means we have been afforded. I think everyone on the show would agree that we would love to have Seinheuser's, amongst other things, but it's just not possible now.

Forget the Sennheisser MD421. There are plenty low-cost condenser mics that are available, and they sound great (just get the pop filters). Ditto rack processors.I listen critically, yes, but that shouldn't discount the other '99' 's appearent non-opinion. You're telling me there is not one sound enginneer in the whole bunch of ya? Hmmm.Bad sound effects people on another level entirely. A layperson cannot describe any bad sound experience, and they may or may not tune out (or walk out) based on some perception.

Unlike a lot of people in this business, we're not doing this for our ego's, we're doing this to have some fun. Some people won't believe that, but it's the truth.

Well, you're not giving the hog report, are ya? 50% ego. The fact is that you're not doing a profunctary program. Ego is part of the enjoyment of all this. Just like part of my reason for posting: I like having an effect on you as you have on others. Honestly. But it really serves no purpose in the grand scheme of things. What kind of reverb is that? You have to tell me. But turn it off.Thanks.

 

[odomski]

The show is simply a portal for former WILM employees who have an ax to grind against the station and the former program director. The show's recent Phil Neuman interview turned into a b*tch and moan session about how the panel's employment at WILM was so bad. In my opinion, that proves the show's real purpose...just for the panel to vent on how their broadcasting life sucks because of WILM. Personally, I don't give a rat's hairy a$$ how your employment at WILM sucked. We all know they aren't greatest station to work for, but your paychecks cleared every two weeks and you were on the radio every day, doing something you obviously have a passion for (I commend you all for your love and dedication to broadcasting). When I was a WILM employee, Loudell and I had our differences, but they weren't that bad for me to stew over them six years later. What station is great to work for anyway? None that I can think of.

 

[Kyle D]

Shawn -Other than the show with Neuman on it, WILM has barely come up as a topic. Do we make references occasionally, yes because it's where we last worked. Last night, the only time the station was mentioned was when George was conveying a story about how RJ showed up one night demanding to see him during his air-shift. Beyond that 5 minute story, the station wasn't mentioned in the other 5 hours and 25 minutes of the show.By your comments, I don't think you've listened to each show, which is fine. But, if you're going to make comments like this, you should really know the subject matter.I can't speak for George, but my overall experience at WILM was a positive one. I got out of the business because I couldn't afford to raise a family on the low salaries of radio any longer. I gave it my best, and like many others before and after me, I eventually had to give in to reality. In fact, I'm still in touch with a few of the folks we used to work with. Not everyone's paycheck cleared every 2 weeks, for I know at least one that didn't. In fact, it was this employee's first paycheck at the place!We all do love broadcasting, and that's why we're doing this show. We're having fun doing it, and we want people to have fun listening to it. We're not naive, and knew not everyone was going to talk positively about the show. You all are entitled to say what you like. We're doing the show we want to do, and folks can take it or leave it. Industry feedback has been overwhelmingly positive, so we must be striking a cord somewhere.Thanks for the comments Shawn, and we hope you can call the show sometime.

 

[fred flintstone]

Radio Racket: A work in progress

I've been holding off on weighing in here. Radio Racket is clearly a work in progress and some things have improved (i.e., equipment problems and sound quality). But I can't disagree with some of the criticisms posted (even though I feel the intent was not constructive criticism).Full Disclosure: I know one of the three hosts. I know another by his work and reputation. Both are exerpeinced broadcasters capable of better work and have done better work.For whom is this show being done? If the hosts are doing the program for their own enjoyment (and the enjoyment of a few friends), then the program can be viewed as a typical station after-hours bull session put on the Internet. As a hobby show, the program is an apparent success because the participants seem to be having a good time. If the purpose is to stir up sh*t, vent and p*ss off people, than the show is also an apparent success because the hosts frequently mention people who, they believe, are angry with them.If the show is being done for radio geeks, then maybe radio geeks are tolerant of the production problems and on-air foul-ups and even enjoy hearing the hosts discuss them at length and berate each other for them. If, however, the show is being done for fellow broadcasters, then a more polished and professional presentation is needed. Too often, the show has the sound and feel of a student radio station, rather than of the product experienced radio pros, such as these.This is a program in need of a format - and maybe in need of a PD or producer who is not part of the in-studio "zoo crew." The show lacks discipline and structure (which is difficult for anyone to impose on oneself and one's own work). Somebody needs to be thinking about the audience, about pacing and about making decisions on when to end a topic or a phone call.The program also needs more show prep. I can appreciate this is a volunteer effort and the hosts have lives and day jobs. Still, the show often sounds as though nobody has thought about what they are going to do or what they are going to say before they do or say it.The program is way too long. It's scheduled for four hours and has gone over five and a half. Topics expand to fill the time, and some topics are beaten beyond death and then beaten again. Along with a more structured and less stream-of-consciousness format, cut the show back (maybe two hours) and stay within the time frame.Other observations:

• Interviews: Generally, the best part of the show - mostly because the guests so far have been radio people who know how to talk on the radio. Brusstar's interviewing style in these "live lines" shows the apparent influence of his former program director: long rambling questions, which appear intended to demonstrate the host's knowledge of the subject (as opposed to drawing out the guest). Roscoe's interruptions of the guests especially get in the way: He interject comments in a possible attempt at humor. Sometimes, if the guest pauses, Roscoe tries to answer the question for him. Sometimes he tries to top the guest. Often, his comments are totally irrelevant to the topic and sometimes take an interview off-track (unless the guest just ignores the comment and keeps going). Multiple interviewers are tricky; one person only should lead each interview. And keep the questions simple.
• Radio news: Each hour begins with a summary of radio industry news from the prior week. This should be expanded and integratred into the show. Kyle reads a story, then Brusstar (and others) comment on it and discuss it.
• Board Reflections: This is done on a hap-hazard basis. Conversation lags and somebody mentions something posted on one of the message boards. This could be a real asset to the show and should be formalized and made a regular feature. Follow Allan Sniffen's example here and do a segment on what people are talking about the several radio message boards and comment on it.
• Phone calls: Phone calls are dragging the show down. First, by all the requests for people to call and all the complaints about people who have not called. Second, by many of the calls themselves. This includes calls from the "usual suspects" who often call for the sake of calling, and calls from people who just want to argue with the host about the show or some personal issue. The show has to be set up so it does not need phone calls; there are not enough callers right now to make this a call-in show. And if calls happen, they need to be screened and used selectively. Let the caller make his point (the host should not take over and do all the talking) but don't let the caller fillibuster (pot him down once he's made his point). Here again, Roscoe's interjections often derail a call and prolong it, either starting an arguement or sending the conversation off on tangents.
• On-air roles: On most "zoo" type programs, the host (Howard, Imus) is funny/outrageous and the sidekick (Robin, Charles) is the "voice of reason," keeping things on track and preventing the host from going over the top. Here the host is the voice of reason and the side-kick is the smart ass, and it's not working. Roscoe is the in-studio producer and the show needs more producing and less interjecting.

One final note: Don't take the fact that people are listening as a sign of listener satisfaction. Radio people want a show like this, and they want it to be a good show. People had complaints about the old management of this board and they kept posting because they wanted a radio board and this was (at the time) the only game in town.

 

[fred flintstone]

Re: Radio Racket: A work in progress

Whoops!

 

[RoscoeBrowning]

Thanks for the comments. Out of curiousity, which interview are you referring to?

 

[fred flintstone]

Thanks for the comments. Out of curiousity, which interview are you referring to?

The Carter, Neuman and Rollye interviews, as well as the RJ and Rockin' Rob phone calls (in particular) this weekend.No offense intended here. I appreciate being co-host is a very difficult role. It's also an under-appreciated role because a co-host is there as a supporting player to the host. The co-host's role is to feed the host, without taking the audience's attention off the host. And it's not easy to do.