First session

The screening of the documentary was a good way to provide context. Students responded from a more level playing field to the subject in a group which included those who already had a background in these practices

Some students sent in sounds but also as we played out loud many felt more comfortable sharing once it was apparent we were mixing across different audios rather than singling out contributions 

One student brought an actual radio which was an excellent and embodying contribution. This led to a more physical engagement with the object and a playful exploration of different audio qualities and became THE conversation prop. 

We had an interesting conversation about the history of radio – both the personal and the conceptual. 

One student suggested the development of a shared glossary and it was agreed that this would be the first phase of the project.

While some conversations about representation – especially of female experimental composers (in response to the documentary) and the historic exclusion of black music from institutional radio – it would be good to direct this more. 

A student shared their experience growing up with deaf parents and how historic discourses around music have largely failed to take into account the vibratory experience of sound. 

note

Following a session that was scheduled but ended up merging with the AV Cultures screening programme, the group proposed that we met during the day in a separate session. To me this also felt productive as a way of making the meetings more accessible as there were already teaching events scheduled on Tuesday days. 

Second session

This session used Piracy and Bootlegging as a starting point. I had provided some easy going reading as a way to get the ball rolling. There was some interesting conversation which included the aesthetics of the copy, the politics of distribution and the organisational efforts of assembling an ‘unofficial’ distribution network. We also discussed the role of technology in democratising the production of sound. This was echoed through the sharing of experiences and resources relating to this. 

Next session, I would like to expand this conversation about organisation as a way for us to imagine the role we have in the production of this broadcast. 

We touched on ideas of liveness in relation to our experience of time. This also opened up a conversation about archiving and memory. I suggested that we take a field trip to the zine library at LCC. This was partly in response to noticing that the lack of object – previously the radio – meant that there was more of a concerted effort to maintain the conversation and guide. While we did flow naturally to one area of piracy to another, again there were limitations in the way that this format could be conducive to an ‘activity’. 

It was decided that the broadcast should be live in some way with a physical manifestation in the form of something like a tape. I would like to make a suggestion that we also think about other forms of documenting our conversations, whether that be in a google doc, a mindmap or some other form. This may happen in the meetings themselves, or as a reflective exercise. 

Since it is still early days for the project, this meeting was a good way to form a core research group. Perhaps naming it would be a helpful way to formalise the project in some way.

Third session

There was quite low attendance this week although I think this is more due to a busy week deadline etc for the previous week. 

We started off the meeting by having a loose feedback conversation in response to the show just passed, sharing more sound specific feedback. They had all engaged with each other’s work and it felt like a good moment to slowly introduce the making aspect of the project. Following this, we had a conversation about the practicalities of this project including sharing ideas for future meetings.

This ended up being much more interesting than purely practical as the discussion on the nature of producing collaborative work – deciding on how we will produce the radio mix – sparked an interesting conversation on how we work together and the role of authorship within this. It was good to see students referring back to previous conversations about piracy and bootlegging which was the focus of the previous meeting.

For example, one of the students brought up the idea of a ‘band’ and the separatist hierarchies at times in assuming the position of a single instrument which may have the illusion of collaboration in making although can fall prey to waiting for your solo. We also came up with some ideas of what artists can learn from musicians. The key points we came to were:

• the practice of improvisation: getting used to making mistakes in public, the improvisation ethos of ‘if you make a mistake, make it twice’ 
• jam culture: being responsive to in the moment contextual shifts, reading and listening to people you are working with
• demand of duration: spending time with each others work without feeling the need to immediately say something, allowing for time to consider ideas 
• sonic experience as an opportunity to take respite from visual overload.

The conversation shifted to the role of sound in thinking about fiction, illusion and the idea of virtuality. This was in response to the contrast between the two readings I sent which sought to bridge the previous session and where I hoped to take the session this week. Both texts were dealing with the same topic – that of digital immortality and archiving – however one was more provocative and took a more alarmist view in relation to the digital. These were deliberately selected to introduce a way of contrasting and was successful in generating quite a dynamic conversation.

I noticed that they often interpret more complex ideas through talking about personal experiences and learning from each other. I therefore tried to take more of a ‘back seat approach’ and allow the conversation to drift off topic and see whether it would naturally come back to our focus. This was further in response to informal feedback I received at the previous session that they agreed that it was good to have a place for less structured discussion which was not as commital as attending a more formalised teaching session. At times this was successful although in other moments it required a bit more guiding. I attempted to guide rather by asking questions or asking that a student explain an artist they referenced etc to the others in the group. This felt like a positive community building experience and emphasised a ‘we are all experts’ approach.