Loading...

radio

The following is a radio piece and accompanying paper I created for my class in “Creative DIY Cultures & Participatory Learning” on the state of DIY and pirate radio broadcasting, particularly as it exists in large urban areas like NYC. It explores the history and motivations for DIY broadcasting, examines the migration of DIY broadcasters from the airwaves to the internet, and what effect the recent passage of the Local Community Radio Act (LCRA) might have on the future of microbroadcasting.
NOTE: The audio portion of this piece isn’t quite “ready for prime time” quite yet. The audio quality still needs to be cleaned up especially for the Skype interviews, and portions of the VO re-recorded. I offer it here not as a finished production, but as a reference and companion to the paper. A ‘finished’ version will be completed in the new year.

click to play.  TRT ~33 mins 

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

We Want the Airwaves: An Investigation Into DIY Broadcasting

Introduction

Radio began as a DIY endeavor, invented by amateurs and tinkerers – the hackers of the late 19th and early 20th century. The Radio Act of 1927 allowed the government to privilege certain groups, particularly the radio corporations, in the allocation of the radio spectrum, and effectively locked the amateurs out.  Since that time, unlicensed broadcasters – or pirates – have roamed the airwaves and tried to elude the FCC. Through a series of interviews, this 33 minute “broadcast” looks at some of the motivations of these radio hackers – why they started doing it, and why they stopped. It also takes a critical look at the recently passed Local Community Radio Act (LCRA) – legislation which intends to open the airwaves to broadcasters under 100 watts, but may not be able to accommodate broadcasters in the largest urban areas. Finally, the migration of many microbroadcasters from the airwaves to the Internet is examined, particularly how this move allows for broadcasts to proliferate, but may not serve the public in exactly the same way the traditional radio medium is able to.  It concludes that there still is much more work to be done towards equitable distribution of the airwaves, and that while Internet radio may be able to meet the needs of certain communities, its very distribution methods indicate a much different audience than would be served by local radio. [continue reading this post...]

Share

{ 0 comments }

Why Internet Radio Isn’t Radio

by tomtenney on April 8, 2011

I love Internet radio, I really do. As someone who has recently discovered a love for playing with sound, Internet radio has offered me opportunities that would have been unheard of for someone like me 20 years ago.  Massive distribution at such a cheap cost has opened doors to countless artists interested in exploring  But I wonder if “Internet Radio” isn’t something of a misnomer. I recently encountered Helen Thorington’s excellent article discussing radio as a medium for art and it’s evolution into the networked world.  As I read, I began to notice parallels between the kinds of work she observed being created on the ‘Networked Performance’ blog, and the early days of electronic music – particularly where she says,

work was being produced by a growing generation of programming-capable artists, artistically minded engineers, architects, academics and others – many of whom did not identify as artists – all repurposing objects from the everyday world, embedding unfamiliar functions in them.

This sounds a lot like what was happening in the early days of synth or computer music – when music was being made not only by musicians and composers, but by the programmers and engineers themselves – and also strongly echoes Lev Manovich’s ideas on ‘programmer as artist.’  But I digress.

Where Thorington lost me a bit was in her argument that the Internet is simply the next phase in the evolution of radio art.  To this I would counter that, while both have their merits and the ability to distribute similar kinds of work, radio transmission is an entirely different virtual space than the Internet, with not only different physical qualities and protocols, but also very different in how it is are situated culturally and economically. When the Local Community Radio Act passed back in January, a friend of mine and I were discussing it and he said something like “honestly, I don’t know why anyone would want to use the airwaves anymore when they could have an Internet radio station more easily and cheaply.” This started me thinking about the differences between the 2 media, and off the top of my head I can identify at least 5 reasons someone would want to use radio instead of the Internet as a virtual space for art:

1. Historical weight. Radio is a comparitively older medium, and the one that a rich history including 2 world wars and has been used not only for entertainment, but for military operations, propaganda dissemination, education, and art. Not that the Internet hasn’t been used for all those things, but the radio airwaves have a much longer legacy of these kinds of communication – thus adding to its (what I call) historical weight (which some may call nostalgia).

2. Sound – The sound of a radio transmission is MUCH different than sound on the Internet. While the latter has an (annoyingly) near-perfect tone, radio always sounds imperfect to me… always somewhat static infused, always reminding us that we are hearing a signal through the noise.

3. Experience – How we experience the two mediums is also wildly different. Radio can be listened to while working, driving, lying in bed. Granted, podcasts can too, but for me radio has a much more ‘sudden,’ ‘live’ or maybe ‘accidental’ quality to it. By that I mean that podcasts imply intent on the part of the listener, i.e. listeners have to search it, download it.. so obviously it must be something that they act with intent towards as part of the act of listening. What I love about radio is that you can “happen upon” a station and hear something you weren’t expecting. This may be the most salient difference, in my opinion.  The reason TV is still TV even though the underlying technology has changed radically, is that the experience isn’t radically different (with a few obvious exceptions.. the remote control e.g.).   We still sit on our asses on the couch, eat chips and passively consume.   When we watch a TV show on our phone, we never say we’re ‘watching TV.’

4. Community – Even simply by virtue of the fact that most radio only covers a limited geographical radius, it implies a geographical community which is obviated when something is broadcast to the entire world on the Internet.  One of the reasons I think the Local Community Radio Act is so important is because it is broadcast to such a narrow audience.   This limitation will force the programming to be relevant to a geographical community and (hopefully) encourage people to think socially and politically on a more local level than they are used to.

5. Cultural/economic implications – Far more people in the world have a radio (or access to a radio) than have the Internet, which has still only penetrated less than a third of the world population. I was recently looking at documentation of a “radio piece” done at Uniondocs a few years ago called Chorus of Refuge, which was “a sound installation that transmits the stories of six refugees, living in different cities across the U.S. to six radios.”  The voices are broadcast simultaneously and synced up so the overall effect is that of a chorus, or symphony of voices.  The reason they used radio as a medium is because radio is how many in the refugee communities get their news and information, and certainly is more prevalent than the Internet in Third World countries.

The Chorus of Refuge piece  brought up a lot of questions for me about the medium of radio, and specifically about how they used it in this piece. For example, they never really mention where the broadcasts in the installation were originating (or how they synced them up) which made me wonder if they just had some transmitter in the back room that was only broadcasting to the building. If so, then is it really radio? I mean, I know they were using radios (the objects), but is it Radio (the medium, which includes all those things I listed above) or only representing radio?

I don’t have any answers here about the future of radio, or whether it’s a better or worse medium than the Internet.  I only think that it’s important to make the distinction between the two and be able to untangle this kind of confluence of mediums.  Convergence is exciting, but in order for us to understand it and use each convergent medium in the most beneficial way, we must be able to understand what makes each unique.

Share

{ 0 comments }

Voices in the Sludge

by tomtenney on February 26, 2011

Today Ashleigh and I took a trip to the Gowanus canal with my field recorder and a homemade hydrophone that I attempted to construct out of a toy mic, a balloon, vinyl tubing, K-Y  and modeling clay to see what kind of underwater sound magic could be mined.   Well, suffice it to say that there’s a reason that good hyrdophones can cost several hundred dollars, this one made out of children’s toys and lube didn’t last a hot second in the toxic depths of the Gowanus.  However, just as we submerged it for the first time – and right before it crapped out completely – I suddenly got a cacophony of craziness over the headphones – it was like the mic was picking up every radio transmission in the tri-state area simultaneously.  It didn’t last very long, but it was super cool and luckily caught on the recorder.  Have a listen.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Share

{ 0 comments }

Final Radio Piece: “Off the Grid”

by tomtenney on July 30, 2010

This is the final piece for my Radio Narratives class, a ten minute audio art/umentary entitled “Off the Grid,”  which profiles (to use the term loosely), three of my favorite art stars: Don Eng, John King, and Walter Gambin.  Special thanks to Reverend Jen for providing some miraculous VO which pulled everything together for me in my hour of need.   As always, I recommend listening with a good set of headphones. Comments and criticism are encouraged.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.


Share

{ 0 comments }

Radio Piece #3: Reunion

by tomtenney on July 18, 2010

This is the third of four radio pieces I’ll be posting this summer.  The directive for this one was to create a piece that fit into the theme “Home” as presented on the CD put out by the Deep Wireless Festival.  I chose to document my trip back to Boston, earlier this summer, for my high school reunion at the Cambridge School of Weston.  I had recorded several hours of the reunion, not knowing if I would use it for anything, so it was a challenge to create something out of this stuff that I had recorded without idea or direction.   I’m fairly pleased with the result, although I think parts of the narration are problematic and could use some additional editing.

As always, please listen with a good set of headphones if possible.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Share

{ 0 comments }

Great Expectations: Another Radio Piece

by tomtenney on July 8, 2010

This is my second production project for my Radio Narratives class.  The assignment was to create a piece following the Snap Judgement guidelines, with one of the following titles/themes: Great Expectations, The Wizard of Oz,  or Busted.  I chose the first, and wrote a script about my romance with a young German actress back in 1986, based on my journal entries and her letters.  Thanks to Noel Dinneen and Emilie Blythe McDonald for providing voices for the young me and the young Heidi.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Share

{ 0 comments }

So, this is my first foray into sound art, apart from audio I’ve designed for live performance pieces. It’s the first production project for my ‘Radio Narratives’ class at The New School, a three-minute sonic collage created almost entirely from appropriated materials, mostly soundtracks from military training and educational films, and follows the guidelines for the Third Coast Festival Short Docs Challenge.  I’ve included a brief statement of intent below, but my suggestion is to listen to the piece before reading, if you choose to read it at all.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Statement of Intent:
The piece was actually inspired by a Brecht quote about “an inescapable profusion and confusion in the tower of Babel.” I thought that “I didn’t know that” would be a good starting point for an exploration of state-controlled “truths” with the title phrase representing the public’s naive willingness to accept what we now recognize as mistruth and propaganda. I wanted the tension between time periods to emphasize how relativistic these messages are, depending on when we hear them – hopefully the mixing of periods emphasized the relationship between contemporary and dated material.

I originally titled the piece ” I Didn’t Know That: A Triptych” because I tried to create three distinct sections. The first is the monologue of media controlled messages, the second is a dialogue between the messages. The third section actually begins with Brecht himself reading a poem in his native German entitled “To Those Who Follow in Our Wake”, which, in translation, begins:

Truly, I live in dark times!
An artless word is foolish. A smooth forehead
Points to insensitivity. He who laughs
Has not yet received
The terrible news.

Layered on top of this is the voice of McLuhan discussing his idea of “resonance” – nonlinear, nonlogical comprehension of sounds and images. These are the 2 voice of “authenticity” that are eventually buried by the familiar voices introduced in the first two parts, which are layered over them to create a cacophony that is (hopefully) a sum greater than its parts. Anyway, I removed the subtitle since it didn’t strictly fit within the Third Coast guidelines and I’m sort of glad I did, as I felt it opened the piece up to a greater breadth of interpretation.

Share

{ 0 comments }