In this doc, Radio Netherlands takes a thoughtful and sensitive look at the intellectual and emotional struggles to help children born with this condition. The piece not only explains the science behind the condition (and various treatments), but also talks with a group of women who have dealt with the condition first hand. Their stories are complex and emotionally difficult (it is difficult not to empathize with all sides in their stories—no one could ever be prepared to deal with such terrible situation).

The producers of the doc do an amazing job of remaining dispassionate in their storytelling, steering clear of the many potential emotional landmines. They avoid the easy temptation to let the poignant weight of these stories overwhelm their journalism of the entire subject.

The results are complete and clear. Regardless of one's own feelings and conclusions about how these situations should be handled, every listener will be moved by it.

That said, this is a typical Richman piece: brilliant. It's an audio diary from a teenage boy that makes the transition from home schooling to public schools. The piece is slow to reveal itself, but the young man's observations are worth the wait.

The boy's teen angst is a common experience, which is both a plus and minus to the piece. Though amplified by his shyness and unfamiliarity with public schools, almost anyone who has suffered through their teens can relate to Nick's feelings of alienation and being a square peg. While this commonality with register with many listeners, so will the desire to see the piece explore a little uncharted territory. While far from predictable, the piece did not contain as many unexpected moments as a listener may expect from this series.

The piece's most powerful moments where the "audio yearbook" Nick kept at the end of the year. This section felt rushed and it would have been nice to wrap the piece with a few more of these anecdotes from Nick's new friends.

There are some great ideas embedded in this piece, I just think it needs to pick a direction (commentary/reporting) and tighten up its focus.
At first, I thought all the sound effects were a bit annoying, but that annoyance makes a clever point later in the piece.
Writing and production are fine with the exception of some inconsistent audio levels and some occasional distortion.

This is a tough piece to review. I respect the producer's innovative approach to the material, yet I don't think this works well as a contemporary radio piece.

PACING: The frantic pacing of these pieces make them difficult to follow. As an experiment I tried listening to the pieces while working in my office. I found that the pace was so fast that, unless I was doing nothing else, I couldn't pick up anything. For a listener trying to follow along while they are driving, working, doing the dishes, etc..., it just requires too much attention.

HUMOR: If you are going to do comedy, you have to deliver. While there were some clever bits of writing in these modules, there are some thin spots as well.

SOUND EFFECTS: Use of canned sound effects is dangerous, because producers are often tempted to use them as a full character in their piece (like here) rather than as a texture (like Tom Keith on PHC). The mastery of Tom Keith is he knows when to demand attention for the sounds he creates and when to let them fit in with other elements. It's a lesson that could be well-applied to these pieces. Sometimes the canned effects work, other times they are just gratuitous.

This producer is offering his material via a web site, which is a perfect distribution mechanism for this type of work. It allows those interested in this type of piece a place to go and listen, at their convenience, and enjoy them. I just don't think these have a broad enough appeal to work on radio.

I remember hearing this at the 2002 PRPD conference. This is a classic in the making.

This is one of my favorite pieces that I've found on PRX so far. Smart, humorous, interesting. It bodes well with public radio Core Values and has a lot of potential uses.

This is a well-worn subject, which poses an interesting set of problems for producers. With a story that is well covered in other media, public radio has an opportunity to expand the story in unique directions. That doesn't necessarily mean covering stories or elements of stories simply because others are or aren't covering it (that kind of lifeless decision-making puts other media in control of your story selection). Instead, public radio can utilize out Core Values to add essence, color, and depth to stories. This point is where this documentary excels.

Debates about testing usually focus on politics and numbers, but this documentary goes inside a school for an extended view on how testing affects educators and students. It is incredibly poignant (and chilling) to hear students recite, "burn the test" (as in "burn-up," as in "do well") at a school spirit-laden pep rally focused on test scores. The children even have songs about scoring well on tests that are down right disturbing. This is bothersome because, as is subtly pointed out in the doc, the children are totally focused on doing well to show they are as smart as the suburban schools and their school deserves recognition. Never once does a student or educator mention that "educating children" is a concern or priority. Instead of students, these children are test-taking warriors, drilling to succeed in battle. For them, the effort feels weak and purposeless. This doc gives you an intimate front row seat.

It is inevitable that school testing debates will come up, as will the privatization of public schools (also a factor in this story). Bookmark or license this piece now—you’ll be glad its there for you when the story surfaces.

Again, if stations do not normally carry Soundprint, the presence of the brand may be unnecessary. It would be nice to have an edited version for stations that don't carry the series.

The doc is an interesting collection of self-observations, anecdotes, and stories. Most interesting, Amy/Justin doesn't consider him/herself a lesbian and, though painfully passionate about living as a man, isn't interested in sexual reassignment surgery. S/he compares him/herself to others who bear physical deformities or diseases: the feminine physical characteristics are no different than someone born with a misshapen arm or suffering from MS. Amy/Justin is a sincere person and disarmingly honest--and his/her openness is well-captured here.

While the program does a good job of providing an overview of Amy/Justin's life (and the challenges of that life), it doesn’t offer much context. While a listener would find the situation interesting and enlightening, such a straight forward profile doesn't offer enough to keep a busy person's attention for eight minutes--there has to more of a reason to listen. A bit less detail, replaced with a deeper penetration of why Amy/Justin's story is important, would go a long way.

The piece is deceptively simple. It tells the complex and emotional story knitting together historical and contemporary circus performers. The piece does a much better job of expressing life in the 20s-era circus and Cadona's colorful world, with only cursory treatment of the contemporary circus life.

Cadona didn't use a mechanic--the safety belt that protects the flier from falling to the ground. He felt it would help him master his triple somersault. While contemporary circus life is much more hospitable than the past, time has only raised the bar (so to speak) on circus stunts. Pages is the only woman in the world to complete a three-and-a-half turn somersault. When she is introduced, the documentary switches focus--zeroing in on Pages' ego (in the psychological sense), with less emphasis on the circus life that surrounds here. The tragic end of Cadona's career is interwoven with Page's fears about achieving her dream--the elusive quadruple somersault.

The producer/narrator's writing is impeccable, but the delivery style sounds a little dated. The production and mixing is about as good as it gets.

This would be an excellent choice for a stand-alone offering in a rotating slot or as part of a larger program. Too bad there isn't a promo available here.

This is a self-narrated story of how an elderly gentleman, named Ed Werler, met his second wife and cares for her now that she suffers from Alzheimer's disease. Ed is humble and tender, telling his story directly, yet with a bit of shyness. The production is impeccable, demonstrating the courage and confidence to let the story unfold naturally without giving away its best bits too early or getting too sentimental.

Though it may seem odd, it is probably best for stations not to set-up or introduce this piece as an "Alzheimer’s story"--that gives away too much of the story and sells short its potential. Play this as an unexpected bit of spice around Valentine's Day, Sweetest Day, or just about any time a story of true love would make the world seem a little less crazy.

Both the interview segments and musical performances are expertly recorded and edited. The producer mixes the elements together, moving from one element to another—offering a delicate mix of spoken word and music. The listener won't get frustrated or bored with too much of either element.

The program does run out of steam after the first eighteen minutes, with very few surprises in its second half. It might have been better to edit this down and pair it with another shorter profile/performance.

The program could fit on its own or as a recurring element (with the other episodes of this series) on a station’s broadcast schedule.

Some of the sound effects and music are especially effective, but a few could be cut down and/or eliminated all together (the counting dance steps audio could be kept at bed level, brought up for just a second or two, then brought back down--without diminishing the piece).

Our station used this piece on Mother's Day, but it would be appropriate for just about any time. This is an example of what sets public radio commentary apart: smart writing, effective delivery, and a catalyst for lingering thoughts and emotions.

In the piece, the captain offers anecdotes of a few memorable interments, including some of her own personal reflections on death and burial. The structure of the piece is loose and it would be better to focus on just one anecdote rather than two (plus several tangential reflections). The clearer direction would make a deeper impression on the listener.

There is music that comes up occasionally under the narration that is not necessary. It's timidly inserted and doesn't establish a necessary presence. There is music at the end of the piece that is either not phased correctly or not balanced properly (it can only be clearly heard out of the right channel).

From the description of the program here on PRX, we're told that the program is an interview with a man named Clyde, who has lived on the fringe of society since the 1960s. However, it would be hard to gather that from listening to the program. Outside of one isolated mention four minutes into the program (and another three minutes before we hear the interview), Clyde isn't introduced. If the listener doesn't catch that brief mention in minute three, you are left clueless about who this man is and why he's being interviewed--for the rest of the hour.

The program tries to tie music into the story by drawing contextual connections from the music to the interview, as well as highlighting inspirational bonds between the 60s era, the interviewee, and the music. However, if the producer wishes to use music to establish mood like this, they should play enough of the music to establish that mood (10-20 seconds, tops), and then move on to the meat of the program instead of playing every piece of music in its entirety. Additionally, some of the musical/interview explanations offered by the host are tenuous.

Focus is the big issue here. If the point of the program is to share Clyde's experience, why does seven minutes pass before we hear from him at all? Even when Clyde is heard (in minute seven) the interviewer doesn't introduce him, or share why he's being interviewed. It feels like you are joining a conversation in the middle and it makes the listener feel left on the outside. Further, during the course of the interview, Clyde is not reintroduced in order to catch up any listener who’ve tuned in since the program began.

The interview itself could use some editing--there are too many unnecessary tangents, too much insider laughing, and a general lack of focus to the interview. The discussion does follow a linear time line, but again, without any idea who this is or why the discussion is significant, the content (and meaning) are lost on the listener.

Oddly, the program ends with a fundraising pitch for the host station (complete with phone number).

While this program may work at its home station, this program won't be compatible with the production standards at many other stations.

However, speaking of playing to type...the "our side" references mentioned by another reviewer are a bit troubling, because it could be exclusionary (but not to the point that someone would be offended or not enjoy the piece). It's hard to tell if the writer refers to "our side" as in "her and the listener" (assuming the listener is liberal--a dangerous assumption) or as in (the less troubling) "her and her friends." This is very easy to fix, either by changing the references to "my side" or offering some parameters for what "our side" means early in the piece.

The pacing is a bit fast, and the breathy delivery seems a little forced at times, which makes it feel less personal/conversational and more like a comedy performance. The music bed under the last minute isn't necessary and doesn't feel purposeful, but it isn't distracting or bothersome at all.

Almost any station can use this piece, especially between now and the fall election. It would be a fun and refreshing addition to what, inevitably, will be a long, nasty, and monotonous election season.