>1. standardizing: is it OK to become dependent on real-audio (and with
>it Microsoft) what about upgrading all the time? what are the
>alternatives?
it is not ok. you should try to initiate decentralised performances.
Radio is not just broadcasting, and it is not always for a large audience.
The twentyfour hour boosts are becoming a bit shallow as well. It is good
to have twentyfour hour services, but it should stay open for special
events and experiments. This has to sort of be built into the
'(net.)radiopolicy' (they melt together of course), which is easier said
then done. Get down to software that does not give the 'radiosound', the
appearantly full experience of layered sound in one stream, when one can
try to build the layers differently, almost spatially. For me, I would
like this to be the basis of a 'transmission', (RA)streaming coming
as an addition and expansion to/of this.

As a response to the mail of Matthew Smith: I agree that all this bandwidth
clogging seems a bit stupid. I prefer more tactically chosen times and
issues to use the net in 'broadcasts' and yes, that they should be
connected to lifespace in some way, be it through ordinary media or
within a public event. On the other hand, who knows where the bandwidth
ends up in a few years time. There have been complaints about it for as
long as I can remember, and what is happening now was even called
impossible with an exclamation mark two years ago.

>RA
>what pros and cons.
the pro is it will always be there, no need to support it, easy to use.
The con is it smothers all other possibilities.

>2. hybridificaton: how to connect old and new media, and get out of the
>loop.
Again I think connecting old and new media depends largely on the
content of/idea behind/context of a 'transmission'. This will define
the way the transmission is both on the air and online. It does take
the will to produce differently. It has to become more of a 'rule' to
build a program/work not only from the sender-receiver tradition. This
means no fear of a smaller/selective audience at times, even occasionally
have only participating 'audiences' (see yr next point), have 'broadcasts'
that are 'stretched out' in time and place and very different from
different angles/at different locations/in different media.

>3. heavy-listening: the listener becomes the selector, a co-producers,
>can listening become a process of participation, active listening?
of course, just forget the idea of the mass audience and you nearly
have it allready.

>4. networking: is it possible to group into content clusters of flat
>hierarchies of international net.radios, under which preambles,
>banner exchanges, sharing sources, archives etc. not to be stronger
>in a group then a bunch of individuals without getting used for some
>private career -> no spokesmen, many spokesmen, open shared media like
>acoustic space, democracy??
Sounds very boring to me  :)  Democracy and all men are equal is inhuman,
it is not in human nature. It is true though that there is a very
different way in which people define this careering. Not long ago I was
contemplating writing a piece to nettime, a long whining road, about
how fed up I am sometimes of sharing information and ideas with a lot of
people and not getting anything in return or worse. I think that this
idea of what it means to investigate something in order to build new or
more interesting public spaces, works, whatever, is for many people
highly connected to getting an income more then anything else. It is
probably polluting a lot of the work we do. I am doubting very much
whether people should redirect their work elsewhere if they notice this
survival thing is starting to dominate their intentions, or whether it
is perfectly natural and in the end good for the work and entire field
it is in. (I am talking about artpractice, theorymaking and also politics
of course, not about building websites for companies or something)

>5. how to deal with commercialization
don't do it, keep it seperated.

>6. art
Without this, no mental life on this planet. net.radio can do without it,
but don't ask me how.




good life



J
*



 |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
(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/