Upon listening to Group One’s demo recording a week after the initial recording, there are many things to take from the experience in order to better ourselves for the live-to-air show.

There are many minor issues such as handling the microphone on air – something that may appear as insignificant but actually creates friction and is picked up quite clearly on air. Informal and inappropriate language/speech on air is another thing that (whoever is presenting) needs to be consciously and constantly aware of while speaking to the RWAV audience. The show itself is in need of structure. I believe the run sheet, for majority of the time, worked well. However, I would perhaps alter the structure of sponsorship announcements in order to create a smooth transition between interviews, tracks and prerecorded content. Content wise, our group is in dire need of developing perhaps an overall theme for the actual show, or even different themes to coincide with the interviewees and interview topics. Due to the frantic nature of our groups’ preparation for the recording of the demo we did not develop solid ideas for our interview sections, relying on interviewing one another. Although, in retrospect, I believe it would have been more beneficial to have content mirroring what we intend to use/create for our live-to-air show in order to get a more accurate feel for the content we should be and have the potential in producing. Another issue I believe with the demo is the lack of balance between two presenters. The entirety of the show appears very one sided, dominated by only one presenter. This makes it sound heavy due to a lack of diverse opinion. We need to work on a flow and connection between presenters, rather than only utilise one.

In regards to the panel work (my role), I feel that there were many positives and many things for me to improve on if I am to work the panel in the final show. On many occasions, the transitioning between segments was smooth, interviews flowing into tracks and vice versa, accompanied by backtracking and introducing of track names and the station itself. However, at some points the interviewees and presenter, something that needs to be looked into in regards to positioning in front of the microphone and general loudness of vocal range. Being attentive to speech throughout the show is also crucial in maintaining the levels of all speaking. I also need to make sure the introductions of tracks are at an appropriate level, especially in regards to any build up in pace and volume as a song may progress further through verses and chorus.

The main thing I believe I need to focus on is ensuring that if there are any technical difficulties or mistakes, there is content that can be employed automatically in order to kill any dead air. The conclusion of the demo is clunky and generally messy. It is evidently unprepared, and appears to be filling air time. My intention to fill more time by playing a sponsorship failed due to slight technical difficulty as it did not play as intended. Due to the desperate desire to kill the dead air, an attempt to play the closing track resulted in the mistake of playing the previous song played rather than the track by band ‘The Rubens’. This is quite obviously noticeable, and although slightly painful to hear, is a good example and lesson in what can happen on air at any given time. Always having content queued up is crucial in case of any sort of difficulties and I aim to practice the transitioning between segments, specifically the introduction and conclusion of the show in practice sessions leading up to the live-to-air show.  As a group we need to prepare more in order to create a rewarding and efficient show that appears organised, yet not over rehearsed and obviously practiced. We need to do more research in what topics and tracks are appropriate for the RWAV audience and work on integrating them in an appropriate yet interesting one hour live-to-air show.