१३ नोव्हेंबर, २००५
Audible Althouse, #20.
This is a 46 minute podcast, covering an insulting letter, a misunderstood interaction with another blogger (my ex-husband), the concept of "The Althouse Man," how ugly the Three Stooges are, how blankly beautiful actors today are, that song about Saint Germain stuck in my head and the Supreme Court case that put it there, the problem of calling war opponents "unpatriotic," and the creepily under control Ave Maria Town.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
९ टिप्पण्या:
I have been craving a new podcast!
By the way, I always wonder what kind of wine you are drinking during podcasts? Tonight I'm drinking Ch. Malescasse 2000, a very affordable cru borgeois from a great vintage. I tend to polish off the bottle myself, but judging by the number of "wine breaks" you take (and the fact that you remain rational and coherent) leads me to suspect a smaller consumption on your part. Anyway, since we're hearing about the "Althouse Man" (which always reminds me of Leonardo's Vitruvian Man), what is the "Althouse Wine"?
Actually, this was a wineless podcast, because I was going out later. I wonder if I was different without the wine. I was very tired and took a nap afterwards, waking up in time to get out to my dinner party. The standard house wine, Chez Althouse, is J. Lohr Cabernet Sauvignon.
I like the hour-long, twice a week pdcasts, but I can understand why they may be a tax on both time and interest. For your sake I worry about the former, but for my own I worry about the latter. Maybe don't adhere to a set schedule- just do one when you like. I treat the podcasts like a friend who stops by and discusses what's been written on the blog for a week, and meanwhile I listen and do some homework, but it simulates conversation quite nicely. I needn't know that the friend will stop by Wednesday and Sunday at around 7:00 pm, just that she will, when she has something to talk about.
Most importantly, do what befits you, because if you don't, it'll probably be less enjoyable to us all.
I'll have to try the Althouse House wine! I didn't notice any marked difference between this dry podcast and previous podcasts.
I was alarmed to hear that you're considering cutting down on podcasts, though as Steve says, I'm sure the schedule is a bit taxing. I really enjoy the longer format podcasts, and it seems you have no trouble filling up the time. I think the fact that you're a professor makes the podcast format sort of a natural fit (I'm a college teacher too, so I think that's why I can relate to your style). I hope you continue with your current schedule of bi-weekly long-format podcasts as long as you continue to enjoy it. Whatever you decide, I'll continue to be a happy listener, even if I miss the large dose.
It appears you’ve invited comment to possible change in your podcasts and, if so, here goes. (Otherwise, please ignore, since I don’t wish to criticize unless asked.)
From the beginning, I’ve been an advocate of shorter, fewer podcasts. I’ve listened to the first two and, frankly, don’t find anything in them worth downloading and finding the huge chunk of time to later listen to. From the summaries, it appears to be not much new, though the above comments indicate you may address some comments you haven’t addressed on the blog. I’d be more interested in shorter podcasts about subjects not covered on your blog. (Lileks is a good model of podcasts, I think.) Goodness knows, on some topics, you get plenty of comments but I’ve noticed a dearth of comments about your podcasts and I think it supports my theory: despite its fans, they are the least popular feature of your blog. (I’m sure you’ll be able to blow me out of the water with hard numbers about how many downloads have been made of your podcasts so blast away.)
My prediction: rarity, and brevity, will make your podcasts more valuable.
Pete: Before I started podcasting, I questioned their value compared to podcasting, for reasons similar to what you're saying. People can't skim them, can't find the parts they want to hear, and so on, and fewer people are going to listen to the podcast than will read the blog.
As to my approach to podcasting, compared to Lileks's or anyone else's, I have my style, and it was nominated for an international award -- the only U.S. podcast that got nominated. I'm interested in using the podcast to explore ways that I would talk about things, and I'm not looking to make it more like something someone else does. It's a creative endeavor for me, like the blog -- an art project.
Yes, ma’am, to all your points. (You’ll recall, though, that I congratulated you on your podcast nomination and acknowledged it was a pleasure to be proven wrong. However, my critique is intended to help you win. ) But I’m not suggesting your podcasts should be more like anyone else’s; I’m just looking for ways to help you improve it and pointed to Lileks as a podcast I enjoy. And, yes, I agree your blogging is an artistic endeavor but like any artistic endeavor, you want it to be the best it can be.
Bottom line: I’m more likely to download a podcast I know I can find time to listen to. That might hold true for others. I suspect your devoted fans will download ‘em no matter what their length. So there’s a strong possibility you’ll broaden your audience rather than narrow it and while that’s not your first impulse as an artist, that’s no bad thing, either.
I’ll be quiet now.
Pete: Podcasts probably work best for people who are doing things like driving or walking where they are looking for something to listen to to fill the time. Then finding the time isn't the issue.
NYPundit: My iBook does not have its own microphone. I am using the microphone that came with Via Voice, but it's probably not the best choice.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा