RadioLab- The Bad Show Response

Title: The Bad Show, Season 10- Episode 5

Year: unknown

Country: USA

Hosts: Kyle Shane, David Buss, Pat Walters

Guests: Dr. David Buss, Dan Charles, Alex Haslam, Jeff Jensen, Fredrick Kaufman, Sam Kean, Latif Nasser, James Shapiro, Fritz Stern and Benjamen Walker

List all the audio fx or techniques used in the episode.

A host narrates the episode. Audio from other interviews conducted by that host are placed throughout the episode as if they are happening live, except that they are clearly edited in because of the way that the other voices will begin out of nowhere and get faded out in the middle of a sentence.

Words and phrases from numerous voices (from the host and guests) will be strung together to create a single sentence.

Low muffled audio clips (often interviews) will be played in the background.

Real audio from the events they are referring to will be played and words/ phrases will be played as if they are responding to the host then and there.

The hosts recording quality is the exact same when he is narrating and when he is talking to a guest, even though these recordings were probably made at different times.

Music will be played for short periods of time ranging from 5 seconds to 60.

The hosts reenact an experiment from 1968 before telling us about the experiment.

The host will break the mood by shushing someone off screen and explaining that he is actually inside a closet because where he is, is echoey and the clothes muffle the echo. Later on we hear him once again break to yell to someone off screen that he needs two more minutes.

When they take a break they play an ad and then have a couple minutes of classical music before they return.

When they start narrating their next segment they begin to explain a story over music. It is of a German scientist. Before World War I he discovered ammonia. It was first used to produce food, which saved millions of lives. It was then used as a weapon during World War I. Throughout the story the listener hears the sounds of what they are describing in the background.

In the next segment they are talking about evil Shakespeare characters so we hear audio clips of lines these characters said from live stage performances.

We hear about the “green river killer” from a man who wrote a book about him. In the background we hear audio from the original interrogation of the green river killer. After this serious topic we get another long silence with sad music.

We hear the credits as if they are coming through a voicemail and then the show is over.

Respond to those that are most effective in adding to the emotional impact of story telling.

The way they led into the segment where they described the electrocution experiment was extremely effective. Rather than just telling what happened and rattling off the statistics that had been gathered from this experiment, we get to hear what it had been like then and there. Also the recording quality back in 1968 is very different from today so when we hear the audio from the real experiments we know that it’s real, but it doesn’t feel as real. It sounds like audio from a movie; so, hearing how it played out back then, but in the recording quality of today (and with the hosts voices) it feels more real. Plus it was a great way to catch our attention.

The way they told the story of the German scientist was extremely effective. The way they use sounds of what was happening as they tell the story makes you feel as if you were there. It makes it that much more powerful.

The author of the book about the green river killer was the son of the police officer who interrogated the killer. The son got a lot of information for his book by interviewing his own father so when he is telling us what happened he is telling us his father’s experience. It’s a very personal thing for him. To make it come to life we interchange between the son narrating what happened and the audio of his father and the serial killer talking during the interrogation. It creates a new depth to the story.

Whenever a segment ended on an extra serious note they would have a few moments of silence with some sad music playing. It was a way of showing respect and gave the listener a chance to soak in the information that had just been thrust on them. It showed us that the hosts clearly took these stories seriously and that we should to. It made the moment heavier, which was good because a heavy subject matter was being discussed.

Write about different voices within the program, and how those voices served to create a dynamic, sonic landscape and narrative.

They do one segment where they reenact the beginning of an experiment without explaining that it’s a reenactment. It isn’t until we are led to believe that one host just electrocuted the other that they admit that they were just acting and that they were displaying a real experiment that was performed in the late 60s. We then get audio clips from someone explaining the experiment in an interview and audio of the experiment actually being conducted.

When describing the German scientist conducting his experiment there is an explosion in the experiment so they play a combustion noise in the background. They describe in detail the first time the Germans used gas in World War I. When they first describe the release of the gas we hear gas noises in the background. When they describe how leaves shriveled when the gas touched them, we hear the sound of leaves crumbling. The German scientist who released the gas then went and held a dinner party so we hear dinner party music. The German scientist's wife killed herself. We hear a gunshot. When they end the story with the German scientist's son finding his mom dead and killing himself as well, everything goes silent for a while with just some sad music playing. The hosts disagree over whether the German scientist was evil or not. It’s a tense moment so one of the hosts asks the other whether they should continue and the other host says yes.

When they are talking about Shakespeare characters we hear a recording of one famous line a particularly evil character said. It was “what you know, you know”. The second host asks the first host a question. The first host responds using the character’s line. The second host asks another question. The first host does it again to annoy him. They laugh. It breaks the tension. Because they are talking about characters instead of real people for once, laughing is acceptable. Not disrespectful. It gives us a moment of relief.

They describe one part that is really gruesome and warn right beforehand that what you're about to hear is really graphic. Later on they describe something even more graphic and beforehand they warn that if you have any children in the room you should tell them to leave.

We hear about a serial killer from a guest who wrote a book about that serial killer. The author’s father was the officer who interrogated the killer. As the son is describing his father point of view, we hear audio clips of his father during the interrogation. This creates a very interesting way of telling a narrative.