Original Comment by: Mory Buckman
http://i-m-not.blogspot.com
I'm sorry, but I don't get it.
Most of this "beta" episode gave me no reason to believe that the podcast format could be illuminating in ways the magazine and blog can't. At any point, it seems like there is one person talking while the others merely voice agreement or laugh at casual jokes. This is redundant, because both other mediums already serve as excellent outlets for individual speech. Better outlets, in fact, since the written word is more conducive to concise and elegant expression. GAP is a good idea, but it would work better as a regular feature of the Lounge than it does in audio. On the other hand, the interview format is more promising, and I look forward to hearing from professionals on topical issues in the future.
I think the big opportunity that has not yet been realized here is the possibility for debates. It's not interesting to listen to one person ranting while others agree; It's very interesting to hear two people with radically different positions argue (in a civilized manner, of course) two different sides of an issue. Maybe this is an unreasonable request, but I would very much like to hear discussions between an "artist" perspective and a "businessman" perspective, for instance. Without having two viewpoints, the format is pointless.
Finally, I must echo the criticisms of the sound quality. The balancing is off, but more irritating are the frequent breathing-into-the-microphone sounds. Also, there is a lot of background noise. This unprofessionalism is at odds with the impressive job you consistently pull off on the magazine. As for music, please leave it out. Even used only as a bookend, it would probably be rather annoying. I would prefer that you address the more critical issues first.