What would you consider advanced?

[Axon]

I think the topics and some vocabulary in Easy Languages are often "advanced" in that they're the type of thing that would appear on a tough exam, like the environment, technology, and so on. However, there's a lot that they don't cover - very few people in the videos speak for more than thirty seconds or a minute, so with only Easy Languages you don't yet get an idea of how to expand a multi-layered point over the course of a few minutes. There's also a good amount of "advanced" usage in the form of specific words used in the home or slang phrases that you might not hear if not living in that community.

A typical "advanced" thing totally missing from Easy Languages is detailed descriptions of events or processes, like the language used in documentaries. "Since 1850 the population of the region has grown by over ten times..." and so on. And of course since it's all interviews, you don't get any language used at school or at work: "I need to take a half day next Friday because..."

I think you can get a lot of benefit out of Easy Languages at virtually any level, simply because they expose you to so many different voices so quickly, and most of the exchanges you hear are native speakers talking to others openly and freely. I've also visited at least three cities just because I saw them in Easy Languages videos

[leosmith]

I just watched 1 Korean and 1 French easy language video. Nice free resource imo. I would call them partially intermediate (B1/B2) and partially beginner (A1/A2). In both videos there was some intermediate level dialogue followed by some beginner sentence-pattern modeling. Although the dialogue was natives speaking at normal speeds, it was designed for learners, pronounced clearly with limited vocabulary. Personally, I would prefer to use these as a beginner; I feel that's the level where I'd benefit the most from them.

I also watched a minute or two of a Chinese video. Non-native speaker with poor tone mastery. What were they thinking?

[MorkTheFiddle]

I watched the first episode of Easy French, and then, for comparison, the first few minutes of a couple of things from French TV:
1. Season 1, Episode 1 of Hélène et les garçons
2. "Audrey Fleurot sur Dix pour cent : "L'écriture s'est enrichie du vécu de Dominique Besnéhard" on an episode of the TV show Le Grand direct des médias from Europe 1

Without reading the subs, I understood most but not all of Easy French. Let us say at least 85%.
I understood at most half of the old French TV series, Hélène et les garçons, and this is an episode I have seen 3 or 4 times before, once with subs (which are no longer available AFAIK).
I understood the people on Le grand direct variously. The host is very difficult for me to understand, Audrey Fleurot maybe 75%, and an actor who was interviewed off camera almost 100% (she speaks very slowly). The third guest whose name I did not catch did not say enough for me to make a judgment.

Based on this, I could not call Easy French "advanced." But "advanced" seems like the wrong word. Surely I rate as an advanced speaker of English, but I would hardly call myself advanced. I would just call myself a normal native speaker.

Now the real crux of the matter has been brought up by Cavesa. If I watch all the videos for Easy French, will I become an "advanced" listener of French? I think I just might give that a shot. I feel confident enough that I will improve, and if I use the methodical approach Luca advises, who knows?

[Carmody]

Many thanks for the suggestion. I did not know about these episodes but am really glad you pointed them out.

I have subscribed.

[MorkTheFiddle]

Many thanks for the suggestion. I did not know about these episodes but am really glad you pointed them out.

I have subscribed.

If you mean you subscribed to Hélène et les garçons, There are 100s of episodes, multiple cast changes (though a few characters/actors persist), and multiple spin-offs with some of the same characters. I can't keep track of all the spin-offs, but the last is still going and stars one of the originals, Patrick Puydebat. Puydebat does not have his own wikipedia article, even though he must have set some kind of record for longevity of his TV character (outside of soaps). The show debuted in 1991, and was said, credibly, to be the inspiration for the American sit-com Friends, and it is, in format and characterization and quality of acting, a lot like Friends. I would not want to oversell it, but it is pleasant enough. I stopped watching somewhere around episode 80 for the reason that so much of the language was too difficult for me.

As for the other TV show, I have never watched it. I kind of picked it at random to sample a more contemporary program.