Re:reflections regarding  xchange open channel...

To add some of my thoughts (from my standpoint) to Rasa's and Monika's email:
especially regarding

> why and for whom we do those broadcasts?

This is my biggest problem, in fact. Because it is a blockade in my head. If I'm
transmitting it into the air, I 'know/act' with a notion that there is an audience
out there. When re-transmitting these net-sessions I instinctively act as a kind
of 'mediator/ buffer', not only on the level of language translation, but also on
the level of translation between different media.Another instinct tells me to do
exactly the opposing - not to translate it in any way, but to leave it in the
original form - as just an impression of a different media expression.

I am just beginning to realize the extreme differences between classical media
(one active transmitter, many passive receivers...) and the internet media. The
latter having it's main advantage in all it's various possibilities for a large
number of active contributors.

On Tuesday seven of us were transmitting together! This is a large enough number
to be out for a drink & debate = a social event. Large enough number for an
artistic event or a few dislocated synchronized events. In all your places there
were probably quite a few people present - so it already was a synchronized
dislocated event.

All my past I had to do with different aspects of 'programming', of creating
'forms' & 'formats' and other radio-products...
Irationally I would prefer to continue these sessions as 'friendly gatherings', at
the same time acting as a 'promotion' (a model) for more and different of such
networking group gatherings to appear.

The main difference, as I said before, is the perspective of active collaboration
versus the reality of passive consumation.

In this context of brighter perspectives is also the use & production of 'our'
original music/sounds/interviews/ideas, which for our own use will avoid any
copyright problems when the international police hits internet. (and let's not
forget the increase in 'independent' production!)What we're working on is probably
not a form of a media but social structure.

Still...

> one strategy may be a kind of raw scedule, blocks with different forms and
> topics. So my proposal is to think about what to transmit and to test different
> forms of smaller and larger groups broadcasting at the same time. and of
> course to go on with netnoisechaosalltogetherexperiments :), but not the
> whole time of broadcast, maybe first a kind of main content area and then
> open experiments.

I agree that some formation of  synchronically 'producing' social structure is
needed, otherwise it's chaos (and certain excellent musical moments :))).

But pleeeeaaaase, not too much!!!

Sometimes there are nice debates on irc, but not in sound... So this is the
reserve that we have. I agree with Alice_T that there are other software solutions
for debates then realaudio. It can of course be transmitted via realaudio stream
for the passive majority.

Thunk you vury mooch, phorr d uttaention!

Greetings from the sunny Ljubljana...

Borut



 |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
(a) (c) (o) (u) (s) (t) (i) (c) ( ) (s) (p) (a) (c) (e)
 |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
information&comunication channel | for net.broadcasters
http://xchange.re-lab.net  (Xchange)  net.audio network
xchange search/webarchive: http://xchange.re-lab.net/a/