Adam and Dave have kissed and made up

[jgreenwald]

Here's the latest chapter in the Adam and Dave soap opera.

Dave this morning posted the following:

"You'll be pleased to know that I saw Adam Curry last night, and rushed over and shook his hand and let's not fight. He said "I'm a lover not a fighter." Sounds good to me. Later in the evening I gave him two OPML buttons, one for him to wear, and one to give to a friend. Basically I got what I wanted, it was harder than it had to be, but that's life. Nothing's ever handed to you on a platter. Onward!"

It's great to see those two crazy kids back together again.

[cpjolicoeur]

besides dave and adam...who really cares?

[Scorpio Moon]

You'd think Adam, the guy who claims to have invented podcasting, could up with a more original line than, "I'm a lover, not a fighter."

What a loser.

I have to give Dave cedit though. By sucking it up and making the first move at a public event--for all to see--he comes out looking like the better person.

Too bad his gesture (probably) wasn't geniune.

[bazookajoeshow]

Judging by the posts on this forum, nearly half the posters.

Bazooka Joe

besides dave and adam...who really cares?

[cpjolicoeur]

i dont think that means anyone cares. its just been a topic of discussion.

[vox_monitor]

I have to admit that I have never listened to Adam Curry's podcast. And I don't know who Dave is.

But I think it's good they're friends. Friendship is nice. Maybe VM will review Adam Curry's show one of these days, and I'll hear what all the fuss is about.

e

[sydbarrett]

hey I have nothing against gay dudes.
and in some places they can get married too. cool
So no problem here if they get married, good luck.
But don't go crying to me when you dudes want a divorce.
Ok.

Later podPeople of the Alley.

[ecolitgy]

I care. They are both significant contributors to the podcast world and I did not want to have to choose sides. I'd much rather see them working together instead of competing.

And I do believe the gesture was genuine.

Judy Rosella Edwards
http://ecolitgy.blogspot.com

[kevdo]

I have to admit that I have never listened to Adam Curry's podcast. Maybe VM will review Adam Curry's show one of these days, and I'll hear what all the fuss is about.

With all due respect, I don't see how you could credibly create a podcast review podcast without having even heard the Daily Source Code. Not a perfect analogy, but it's sort of like calling yourself a movie critic without having seen Citizen Kane or the Godfather.

I also think it's a bit sad that people don't even know who Dave Winer is. He basically was one of the founders of this technology!

Suggest you listen to Daily Source Code show #200 for a bit of background on this subject...

[robulon]

yeh but the thing is, the DSC is boring as hell most of the time, although not knowing who dave wiener is is a bit sucky, as we should be giving him a large chunk of credit pie too. curry had the idea, weiner made it work is how i sort of see it in my head. the 'podfathers' rather than the 'podfather'.

but anyway, what i mean is i disagree that you have to have listened to the DSC before you can have a credible base on which to review podcasts. and vox monitor is proof positive of this fact :)

Rob

[jimk]

but anyway, what i mean is i disagree that you have to have listened to the DSC before you can have a credible base on which to review podcasts. and vox monitor is proof positive of this fact :)

Rob

It certainly helps to know the history of something that you set about to make yourself an expert. To set yourself up as the reviewer of podcasts but to not know who the two founders of the movement are?

Well, if you're comfortable with that...that's your choice I suppose. It's the beauty of the format. Anyone can be anything.

[kevdo]

I give you guys credit for shredding Red Bar Radio. That indeed was a good call! "The very worst podcast we've heard." Great judgement!

Give DSC a listen though, it's usually a nice mix of mashups, promos, podsafe music, a bit of Adam and his ego (though not much more than any number of other ego-driven podcasts).

[vox_monitor]

well, this is an interesting issue - one well worth some conversation. My take on what we - vox monitor - do is that it has only very little to do with "podcasting" per se. What we do is review media. We give our opinion about how and why it is successful or about how and why it is unsuccessful. The fact that we are reviewing podcasts is relevant, in that the medium impacts the success criteria somewhat, but all that has nothing to do with Adam Curry.

It all fundamentally boils down to truth. Good art manifests truth. And cohry and I have pretty good truth sensors. What is at play here at least partially is something that might be called "the myth of the canon". Back before the democratization of media, it was thought necessary to have consensus about what constituted "important" art. And important art was art around which cultures of hierarchy developed. Knowledge about said works and their creators was how the "qualifications" of scholars were determined.

Hopefully nowadays, though, were getting past all that. Does the art resonate as true? That's the real question. Both in terms of the podcasts that we review, and in terms of the podcast we create. Does it resonate as true? If so, then we're doing our job just right. And if it doesn't, it's unlikely that listening to Adam Curry will do us any good.

[dcolanduno]

Hmm,

I'd say a reviewers credibility is in their accuracy, as it relates to you, on how often you find yourself agreeing with them. Once that trust is established, then they are a reviewer that is someone you will enjoy or find to be accurate, at some level, to your taste.

Not really much to do with what they know about the 'technicalities' of the history of the media, or who founded it.

In fact, NOT knowing these things can sometimes help in the short term.

I always find it interesting to hear feedback that others have about shows we all hold near and dear to our hearts.

I recently had two newspaper journalists here in my house to do articles on podcasting. One from the AJC, (local newspaper), and one from the Wall St. Journal. BOTH of them, relayed to me that they listened to quite a few podcasts, and hated most everything they listened to.

One, from the WSJ, said that there are like 10 people working on the story, gathering information from several podcasters, and that about half of that 10 didn't even really find any they enjoyed enough to make them want to subscribe to podcasts.

One of the two had this question, "So, I've listened to quite a few podcasts, especially the 'popular' ones from the major directories. Many people that go and listen to what the current folks out there like, will be surprised by what they hear. Most of it is far from what folks would call... 'normal entertainment'."

(I took that as a compliment)

I asked him, off the record for the interview, if he enjoyed any of the shows he heard. I actually asked this to both of them, (three if you count that one had a tag-along photographer). In both cases, neither had a kind word to say about the casts lots of us all enjoy.

They practically tore a new one out of the 'standard' casts we all praise here. None of them understood what the Daily Source Code was about, Dawn and Drew they were just baffled that anyone would find it entertaining, other than the novelty that podcasting provided. (no censorship), and man, did they HATE the fact that the 'formula' was to have a husband/wife just ramble about stuff. Actually, one of them even asked me on the phone before they got here; "God, it took me forever to find a show that wasn't some married couple complaining about work, or talking about podcasting, or just being foul and sexual with no point."

It is a REAL wake-up to hear what some folks think of our little world sometimes.

Then again, they are the media... and they could be biased to not want to 'like' the idea of podcasting coming along, like blogs, and diminishing their 'voice' a little.

I can't 'honestly' say that is the reason they didn't like the shows though. Because they all DID have shows they said they enjoyed. And that was pretty interesting as well, just to hear some feedback on that.

One of them was a little corrupted though, because I sent them, in email, before the interview, a list of 20 or so podcasts I thought he should hear, so his concept of podcasting wasn't just the shows he hated.

Most of the shows he 'liked' were from that list, so I don't think it means much to take his feedback.

The other guy... he liked, Insomnia Radio, CC_Chapman (Accident Hash), Free Talk Live, Dragon Page, smallWorld, and Skepticality... (well, I was sitting in the room, and it came last on the list... not sure it counts that he mentioned us).

Although it did show a bias to music and interview shows. So maybe he did like us, since he did bother to come to my house and take pictures.

In any case. It does show that a 'reviewer' doesn't need to know much, other than what they like and dislike. And to do an 'honest' review. Which means to always review the show that *IS* in front of you, and not the show that you *WANT* to be in front of you. That is a lost art in reviewing sometimes.

But if a reviewer sticks to that premise... and you find them to accurately agree with what you like. Then, they are a good reviewer for you.

[Scorpio Moon]

They practically tore a new one out of the 'standard' casts we all praise here. None of them understood what the Daily Source Code was about, Dawn and Drew they were just baffled that anyone would find it entertaining, other than the novelty that podcasting provided. (no censorship), and man, did they HATE the fact that the 'formula' was to have a husband/wife just ramble about stuff. Actually, one of them even asked me on the phone before they got here; "God, it took me forever to find a show that wasn't some married couple complaining about work, or talking about podcasting, or just being foul and sexual with no point."

It is a REAL wake-up to hear what some folks think of our little world sometimes.

It's about ****ing time someone burst the bubble of all of you who thought you were creating cutting edge podcasts that were oh-so innovative and brilliant.

I hope the WSJ journalists write about their disdain and take many of you, as well as Adam Curry, down a notch or two.

yeh but the thing is, the DSC is boring as hell most of the time, although not knowing who dave wiener is is a bit sucky, as we should be giving him a large chunk of credit pie too.

Maybe the first thing you could do is learn how to spell his name correctly. It's "Winer" not "Wiener".

[pwfenton]

I have to admit that I have never listened to Adam Curry's podcast. And I don't know who Dave is.

But I think it's good they're friends. Friendship is nice. Maybe VM will review Adam Curry's show one of these days, and I'll hear what all the fuss is about.

e
You mean to tell me you didn't even listen to his show when he played one of the two promos you sent him on June 11th?

I love this group.

[pwfenton]

It all fundamentally boils down to truth.

Exactly.

[vox_monitor]

I have to admit that I have never listened to Adam Curry's podcast. And I don't know who Dave is.

But I think it's good they're friends. Friendship is nice. Maybe VM will review Adam Curry's show one of these days, and I'll hear what all the fuss is about.

e
You mean to tell me you didn't even listen to his show when he played one of the two promos you sent him on June 11th?

I love this group.

No I didn't. I had no idea that he had played one of our promos.

When we review someone, we send them an email informing them of that fact. On those rare occasions when we talk about someone's show (a show not being reviewed) I email them and let them know. Similiarly, I email each promo finalist that we select as part of our promo contest.

The reason I do this is because I want them to have a reason to listen to at least that one episode of our show. That gives us a chance to be earn their attention. If and only if we provide them content that is compelling enough to make them want to listen again even when we aren't talking about them, will we get, or deserve, another opportunity to again earn their attention.

I certainly don't presume that anybody ought to listen to us just to check to see if we talk about them. A listener is doing me a favor, not vice-a-versa. So if I do talk about someone, or reference something that they have done as a positive example, or otherwise involve them in the content, I'll be **** sure to email them and give them a reason to be curious, a reason to maybe, if I'm lucky, want to do me the favor of listening. And if I work really hard, and make really great ****, I might entice that person, by providing him or her really resonant entertainment, to do me that favor at some point again.

that's my take on it anyways,

eric

[vox_monitor]

I'd be grateful to you, mr. fenton, if you would or could tell me which episode of DSC had our promo. I'd like to listen to it, hear which promo he chose to play, and see if he commented upon it at all. And while I'm there, he'll have a chance to interest me enough to maybe download and listen again.

eric

[dcolanduno]

It's about ****ing time someone burst the bubble of all of you who thought you were creating cutting edge podcasts that were oh-so innovative and brilliant.

I hope the WSJ journalists write about their disdain and take many of you, as well as Adam Curry, down a notch or two.

I doubt they will, it was indicated to me that the essence of either of those articles will be more 'positive' than negative. The AJC one was slated for Page 1 sometime this week. The journalist didn't seem positive about that though. I seriously have no clue about the WSJ article. I'll be surprised if some field guy from Atlanta is going to have much input, since he did say there were about 10 others. I'll be happy just to end up on a list of shows somewhere in there.

I *honestly* came into podcasting because of some of those shows they hated. Yes, I do a more 'NPR' style show, which is less of a standard podcast in feel. But, that was just what I knew I could do well. I'm not as much as a natural 'funny' person as are many of the 'couplescast' folks and so on. I used to do interviews on ESPN radio, and morning show stuff, but... totally different.

At first I wondered if these journalists had 'understood' podcasting when they said that. Then I remembered, they don't have to, it is all about liking what you hear. And, if they weren't liking it, not much I can say. That is the reason many people will just tune into American Idol podcasts and Rush Limbaugh repeats.

I honestly don't think that the articles, once written, will be as scathing as the reporters were about their experiences. They were more fascinated by the hype and audience size of something they, in general, thought so poorly of. I could actually tell they had this air of disappointment about most podcasts they heard. It is a wake-up call of sorts. But, I don't think it means we all should change our formats. It just means to be prepared for far more criticism than we are used to.

There is honestly, little internal criticism of podcasting in the community itself. Once the outside world, who will only see us as entertainers of a sort, comes to the table. They will say all sorts of bad and good things about us. But they won't hold back, and don't care about our feelings as much as we all do for each others.

I chalked it up more to these journalists being caught up in the big media world more-so than them deciding that all of us suck though.

[dcolanduno]

You mean to tell me you didn't even listen to his show when he played one of the two promos you sent him on June 11th?

I love this group.

<sniff>

I didn't hear my promo on Sirius... I tried to get to the store in time to get one for my car... I got there... and BAM, sold out of the model that interfaces with my head-unit. Yes, I could have got something different, but I wanted a specific model, which was real cheap because it integrates... :)

I was far from home, on a business trip, so I couldn't find another Best Buy or place like that in Northern North Carolina... <sigh>

I guess I should go get it now that I am home. :)

[docsnavely]

I was far from home, on a business trip, so I couldn't find another Best Buy or place like that in Northern North Carolina... <sigh>

I guess I should go get it now that I am home. :)

hah, you'd be lucky to find anything other than a dollar general in northern NC, especially along the mountains! :::banjo quietly plays in background:::[/i]

[vox_monitor]

Hey - as per the discussion in this thread, Cohry and I have reviewed Daily Source Code -

www.voxmonitor.com


Episode #29



thanks,

Eric

[Hittman]

did they HATE the fact that the 'formula' was to have a husband/wife just ramble about stuff.

I almost agree with them. I find such casts excruciatingly boring. I've listened to many of them that have been praised to the skies and still find them duller than dirt. I usually get the impression that they're nice folks, and that I'd enjoy a conversation with them on the exact same subjects over a beer and wings, but to just listen to them is deadly dull. To me.

But HATE them? Hell, I simply dislike them, and other people love them, and ho hum what's for dinner? Anyone who HATES (in all caps) a particular style of cast is taking all this way to seriously.

It's about ****ing time someone burst the bubble of all of you who thought you were creating cutting edge podcasts that were oh-so innovative and brilliant.

Just curious, Sparky, about your qualifications and expertise. (Since you're so emphatic and adamant, I figure you must have some.) Could you please provide the URL to your podcast so we can be enlightened by an example of what a cutting edge podcast sounds like?

I hope the WSJ journalists write about their disdain and take many of you, as well as Adam Curry, down a notch or two.

I wonder how many sales of GTA {whatever} are the direct results of articles condemning it as evil, or expressing distain for it. Frankly, the people who won't even try this because some "journalist" says it's lame aren't the kind of people who would listen in the first place. But every article that slams us will bring more listeners into the fold.

Maybe the first thing you could do is learn how to spell his name correctly. It's "Winer" not "Wiener".

Ooooo a spelling lame! That's soooo clever! Thank you for your insight.

At first I wondered if these journalists had 'understood' podcasting when they said that.

Do we understand podcasting? I'm serous. We know, and are learning the tech. Most of us are learning to improve the content and quality of our shows as we gain experience. Some of us have specific ideas about what we're trying to accomplish with our own specific shows. (And a lot of people don't yet. They're still defining themselves and their shows, working toward something without being quite sure what it is. The freedom to do that is yet another unique thing about podcasting.) But I don't think anyone really can grok what this is and what this is all about because we're not there yet.

We can understand radio, because it's mature. We can understand it's influence and importance and how it affects our society. But imagine an reporter back in the 20's, trying to understand this new thing that people were getting jazzed about. He couldn't, because it wasn't developed enough for anyone to understand at the time.