Audio:

For my production project (60%), I’ve got A3 as my grade. Things that I did well were:

  • Diversity in my role, as I did pitched, produced, presented and recorded an “as live” podcast.
  • It was technically accomplished production across pre-recorded and live elements.
  • After, I realise there was a mistake, I was able to fixed it straight away.
  • According to Paul, he said my driving and hosting was slick and organised with good sign posting and set-ups: the listener always knew where they were and what was about to happen. From the start of this unit I had a clear idea about what I was going to do: no doubt helped by my experiences with performing. By dress, I’d put together a confident opening with appropriate music, and as presenters we were both very confident and relaxed. I used our relationship to its advantage after dress formative feedback, when it was suggested we needed to be ourselves more, and to signpost/throw forward/ forward sell more effectively.
  • The eventual podcast featured an improved intro/menu/throw forward, with punchy music. I followed a well-written script, part read/part improvised, but read as if it wasn’t written down.
  • Everything was very well organised. The podcast flowed in a logical manner. The two fo us had a good on-air relationship: we sounded like two friends who’ve created a podcast, (but really professional one). It was framed as if it was part of an on-going series and really sold the society to our student audience.
  • Our submission had a clear aesthetic and was a good attempt to synthesis form and content.
  • Although there’s an argument to suggest that with a “showbiz” subject matter there may have been the temptation for a more “jazz hands” aesthetic, i.e. music, applause/cheering FX, which I to an extent can’t resisted! In the event though, it’s possibly a bit “talky” but my on-air relationship carries this off. My artefact demonstrated consideration of technical scope for delivering meaning in a coherent manner.

Things I need to look out for in the future:

  • When faced issue like downsizing, try look at the bigger picture/overall “feel” of your artefact and maybe supplement the basics with some fresh ideas which add variety/light and shade to your narrative, thus helping your listener to say with you be entertained fully at all times.
  • The “talkiness” of my podcast could have been relieved by some pre-production elements such as jingles/transitions to help the programme along.
  • The podcast initially needed a little rebalancing in favour of the brief.
  • The pre-recorded interview was arguably still a bit long: might it have been better run in two halves (a bit like how I split up the vox). It was still very scripted and organised though.

For my critical reflection (40%), I’ve got C1 as my grade. Things that I did well were:

  • I was able to offers the beginnings of a good critical reflection.

Things I need to look out for in the future:

  • I need to proof read my work, before submission. Also, I can recruit a critical friend to check it for me.

Published by kproductionuk

A media student.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: