Tall Midget wrote:
While I have been a fan of Mac's since his early days at the Score, I think shakes raises many valid points here:
1)Mac's running Coppock imitation, constant reference to film scenes, and perpetual discussion of what he's planning on talking about in the next segment or next week give the show an unwieldy and artificial level of self-consciousness that makes his show a difficult listen. This self-consciousness impedes conversational chemistry and gives the show a distant quality that makes it seem more like a sports talk show about sports talk rather than a conversation about sports.
2)The constant name-dropping about Allen Brothers Steaks and the comforts of Mackeyland is stale. I make this point not out of class envy, but out of boredom. Rich people can be fabulously interesting in their decadence, but Mac isn't decadent. His aspirations are purely suburban and thus he's pretty boring when he talks about his consumption habits. As I've said before, Mac thinks he's Keith Richards, but he comes off as Mike Brady.
3)The continued passionate defense of classic rock makes Mac seem increasingly out of touch time passes. He seems to be taking Pappy's place as a champion of a bygone era with decreasing appeal.
4)Perhaps because Mac's monologues are so crowded with the above detritus, he sometimes seems unprepared to talk about sports. He's gotten by with this "casual" approach in the past, but I'm not sure his luck will continue.
None of these problems are fatal, though. Mac is a very talented talker and can become entertaining again if he exercises a little commonsense and some broadcasting discipline. I'm more concerned about Spiegel, though, who faces a much more difficult task if he is to succeed alongside Mac:
1)Contrary to Mac's assertions, it's clear that Spiegel doesn't possess a highly evolved "sports brain." While Spiegel excels in a fact-driven, topical sports talk format, he flounders when he is forced to draw conclusions or offer opinions based on those facts. In a few short weeks on the air, he has uttered a year's worth of silly proclamations. His inability to succeed in a speculative conversational style doesn't bode well for him because it is precisely this kind of fluid, unstructured approach to radio that Mac seems to prefer.
2)Again, contrary to Mac's earlier posts on Meatpants, Spiegel's warmth appears to be a weakness rather than a strength. Rather than bringing out new dimensions to Mac's personality, Spiegel's various passions and enthusiasms have only succeeded in making him seem alternately disingenuous and naive. Further, in constantly trying to "bring out the love" for one thing or another, Spiegel strikes me as an anachronism, a broadcaster out of touch with the current state of the Chicago sports talk landscape. It's not his newness that's a problem, then, but his outdated approach to sports talk that makes him seem like he's out of his league.
Finally, if it is true that all the Danny Mac show requires for success is additional flight miles, why was the reaction here to Spiegel's pairing with several fill-in hosts this week so positive? Why did Spiegel succeed with "low flight-time hosts" while struggling alongside Mac, with whom he has an established relationship and radio partnership? Even if one discounts some or all of the problems I identify above, the consensus here seems to be that Spiegel sounds much better with other partners than he does with Mac. This fact points to a problem that is perhaps much bigger and more troubling than the lack of "flight time" Mac conveniently chooses to identify as the chief drawback in his current show.
Excellent post, as usual, and I certainly disagree with little of it. However, I have a question. You've pretty much run through Mac's entire act here and why it doesn't work for you. What, may I ask, about Mac has, as you say, made you "a fan of his since his early days at the Score"? After reading all this, I'm not quite sure what's left to like about him.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
