On Thu, 4 Jun 1998, august wrote:

> this is starting to get sickening.
> 
> if you want to make radio...than do it!
> 
> all this talk about making radio without actually doing it reminds me of a
> radio station with legal access to a transmiter...but is too afraid to turn
> the fucker on!!   just fucking do it.
> 
> 
> the idea was never really to make pretty broadcasts.  sometimes that comes
> as a side-effect, but is still relatively unimportant.  if you just want to
> make "pieces" to store as a contained work of real audio on-demand, than
> fine.  If you think that is "where its at"...then your dead wrong.  sure it
> is a somewhat important aspect....but not the only one.

i think it is not very useful in terms of the ongoing discussion to
polarize realaudiobroadcast capabilities to either "canned" content or
lifetransmissions.
Maybe the most important question is "what is the purpose of any
transmission and how should it serve potential listeners/users/whomever in
the most efficient way? 
you have to make a difference wheter you want to make art or provide a
service:the network beyond the service is hidden to the user.
 
> the idea of some sort of interconnected sculptural atmosphere of radio is
> what we all seem to be after and  dates back to the early 20th century,
> dude - before mcluhan and medium-is-the-mesage stuff .  as far as I know,
> the idea has never been realized, except in specific short-term events.
> 
> you can have your machines and your automated content served up on a
> platter like hitradio if you want.....but, first comes the connections and
> the overlapping of radio, net and whateverelse...then comes the atmosphere
> and hybrid/mutated forms.  the sculptural aspect of net.radio lies in the
> connections not in the content.
> 
> 
> the idea is rather simple (although multifaceted)...if everyone is casting
> simultaniously (whether live or recorded or automated material) ...then why
> not just connect them all together and form this atmosphere you are talking
> about  ...and the world would be  a happier place....well maybe not, but
> the radio scheme would sure as hell  be a lot more interesting.

if you have not heard it until now, the broadcast to happen in bregenz is 
exactely going to be what you described here.though a perpetuum mobile
doesn't exist until now, the atmospehre is not going to form itself
instantely and without providing adequate content.
 
> this is nothing new... no single person of the net.radio theorists invented
> it.....but who the fuck is gonna take the first step.  it seems to me that
> everybodys concept and theory of radio/net.radio  is so fucking inflexable
> that noone can get their shit together and just   make   some    noise!!!!

> 
> Im ready to hear some PRACTICAL suggestions  boyz and girlz.
> if you arent willing to try and actuallize the idea (which implies some
> sort of collaboration)...then let it die or keep on reformulating it into
> infinity without ever doing anything.
> 
> 
> 
>  |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
> (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/
> 
> 


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