“It’s not a rotten brain!! It’s a good brain!!”

Yes—Frau Blooker, I'm a little depressed. I listen to a podcast call ??. I find it most enjoyable. The show is two Michigander men quipping back and forth. They possess a good mixture of intellectual and bawdy humor. They often pick up on stories of the strange. They follow the news, and current events and even when I've heard other shows commenting on the same items, I prefer Stereo Radiation’s attitudes and presentation. They do not try to shock. They maintain a “cool” delivery. They are laid back, yet their minds jump from one association to another very quickly. This is my trouble.

My depression started after they mentioned a comment that I made on their forum. They called out my handle “Rotwang” on their feed. This has happened a few times with other shows and I always get a kick out of the small recognition factor (Obviously this is why the hosts do this. To tickle the fans). But joy turned to sadness when they said I was one of their oldest fans. My mind is wary of double meanings lately, and I quickly thought ?? and ?? (the hosts) are saying I'm old as in “age” not as in “long-time” listener. The truth is I'm a bit of both. I'm probably five to ten years their senior and I did find them quite early on in their broadcasting careers.

If I were in the same room with them say at a party, I could understand them, but I don't think I could interject. I think I may be too old and slow. I found that listening to another podcast live (Redbar Radio) that I couldn't think of much to say or type out what I did mean to say fast enough to be apart of the show. (At the time this seemed like fun.) But now at the Stereo Radiation forum (not live), I have all the time in the world and I can't think of much to say. The hosts of ?? aren't as frenetic as Redbar’s Mike D, but they are nearly as unpredictable. I find them difficult to anticipate. Once I think I have a handle on one of their bits— it changes.

Oh well. As long as they are polite to this geezer, I will enjoy what they do.

HI-FRUCTOSE

Hi-Fructose magazine’s masthead description is “Under the Counter Culture.” This cute fusion of the phrases “counter culture” and “under the [store] counter or [drug] counter” is very apt. The artwork inside does have a counter culture-ish vibe, like the real counter culture artists of the 1960s some of who appropriated an older 1930s-40s cartooning style to speak of serious subjects like war and holocaust.

Within its pages, Hi-Fructose artists exaggerate with graffiti and the repurposing of found mast-market images and nick-knacks in a way that is sweet and ironic. The chemically enhanced reference of the magazine’s title is only implied as far as I can tell. I have read no overt messages inside the magazine concerning the talking of drugs, but it probably can be taken for granted that drugs were involved with the creation of the artworks. Much of the art looks like elaborate doodles that would require a level of concentration that, I imagine, might be attainable with a little help.

I was looking at Volume 8, which I picked off the rack at Borders books. You might call this art kitsch, but it is a type of kitsch I found very attractive. The magazine is divided into interviews of the artists along with examples of their work.

I will pass the issue on to my nephew, it may inspire his inner artist.

Better in the Dark

I have always meant to speak more in-depth about the podcasts I enjoy. It is far easier to warn others about poor podcasts than it is to make a case for a good show. For example, I have spent much time maligning Keith and the Girl episodes and guests, but this is only for the attention it might focus back on to my blog. So far this plan hasn't worked. I usually enjoy the Keith and the Girl show. I understand the effort they put in. They deserve their position at the top, but I still feel the need to, on occasion, say hey: that was very bad, or you’re just filling time. Someday I will have to praise their show, beyond remarks about what a benefit they have in Patrice.

The film discussion cast Better in the Dark is created out of Brooklyn and therefore is not too far from Keith and the Girl in region, but the shows overlap very little beyond geography.

If you are interested in film talk, I would advise you to give Better in the Dark several listens. I say several, because the show is quirky. Quirky in a good way. While Derick and Tom are all about discussing production values captured on film, their show is ironically recorded without many niceties or special effects. The sound as I mentioned is only passable. I believe they share a microphone, which accounts for the sound levels rising and falling as one or the other of the podcaster leans into their laptop. The first thing you may notice, however, is the editing.

The editing cuts are often and severe. It almost becomes a punk-like special effect on its own, the equivalent of a director inserting video static (snow) into his film in post-production as a transition. The transitions I say are severe, abrupt, and happen within sentences. This type of editing reminds me of “patches” a way music is refined in a studio. If a musical solo is flubbed or uninspired in the studio, the recording doesn't start over from the beginning, instead a patch is made over the offending portion. Usually the musicians play from one silence to the next for a seamless finished product, but Better in the Dark is all about seams. The patches are so frequent they almost create a rhythm. Another way the audio portion is like music.

At first the seams may be distracting. You will hear words stutter where the patch doesn't quite cover over the original take, but the longer you listen, the less the seams invade your thoughts.

Is this editing intentional? You can tell that tremendous effort is going into the edit. But the sound patches seem to be more a matter of who is talking and possibly what is being said. It seems like a dialog is improvised and polished as the show is being made. So the edits build the show instead of a show being organized or abbreviated later through edits.

The Better in the Dark episodes I have enjoyed most are the ones where the hosts bring their personal stories of how and when they first enjoyed a film, or what in their experience brought them to choose a topic (Pam Grier). They are always enthusiastic about their topics. I appreciate their knowledge of film categories (like blaxploitation) which maybe unfamiliar to me. They quickly summarizing movie plots, finishing each others sentences or one repeating the other for emphasis, which is more endearing than it sounds.

If you are a regular listener to many podcast, you will know how they often plead for money to help improve their show quality. With Better in the Dark, part of me wishes the men did have a better recording setup, but another part of me really enjoys the way they create their shows presently and I wouldn't want a slick new production. (If you want slick try Hollywood Saloon.)

I realize my review may not be eloquent or persuasive enough, but try a few shows out and make up your own mind. Give Better in the Dark a good listen for what they are not sa_saying as well as what they do sa_say.