CBC Radio Broadcast

Riordan Henry

10/16/2008

INFO 390
Radio Broadcast

For this project I initially was completely lost. I had no idea what I wanted to do my project on, so instead of wasting time I decided to start looking at articles on Google about the most successful type of broadcasting. This eventually led to a lot of articles that suggested how to best perform a broadcast as well as articles on the most successful genre. The former was somewhat useful; however amongst all this I continually saw articles on something called the CBC. When I looked that up I found out there was a major scandal surrounding Canada’s largest broadcasting system about funding and the deletion of programming. I researched it a bit and found that I was actually interested in it.

What I was really trying for with this presentation is the fast-talking, no silence, ranting style of a character like Dennis Miller. I strayed away from his particular format, which uses too many politically and academically charged words that evoke a bit too much emotion from every side of the argument. Instead I chose only the parts of that style I wished to keep: namely the long-winded, blatant sarcasm. I also mixed this with a few stereotypical sounds, generally found on wacky morning shows that overuse their stock sounds due to their button-happy attitudes toward their soundboards. I add a few of these stock sounds to keep the mood light, as the speech does seem to drag on a bit at times and may appear slightly hostile at points. I did not use all the sound bites I would have liked to, especially due to one particular instance that would have caused an intensely awkward and unfortunate juxtaposition. (I use the words “god awful” and I originally had the sound of a toilet to show how crappy something was).

Also, I began the presentation as something that sounded as though it would be informative, which I believe it truly was. However, I feel that this was not simply informative, I think the sarcasm adds quite a different edge to it, rather than my voice just empirically mouthing off facts, percentages and specifications, which is exactly how the beginning appears as though it will be. To bolster this, as I lay further and further into the supporters of classical music, I satirically have Beethoven’s Ode to Joy playing in the background, which gradually gets louder, culminating in its loudest point at the end of my speech, which happens to coincide with my rudest comments toward the supporters and likewise most supportive of the CBC. This ever-increasing melody, coupled with the increasing intensity of the speech works fairly well, although it is a bit cliché. It brings to mind the stock imagery of General Patton striding across stage in front of an enormous American flag while the chanting becomes louder and trumpets blare even louder. I feel my layering of the sound works similarly, but to a different end with irony and satire as the selling points of this presentation.

Certain sound elements were purposely left out. Namely the element of silence was completely ignored because I felt that with the ranting and ever-increasing sound layer that it would work totally against what my goal was. This needed to seem like someone was legitimately upset about how this was working, as a supporter of classical music would, and even angered by their own rant of it, getting worked up. Generally speaking people filling with anger over a subject tend not to keep their voices to themselves or allow anything to overcome their words. This was my goal.

Reading Questions for 9/30 & 10/2

3 Questions on McKee Reading

1. Heidi McKee’s essay on sound applies quite specifically to sound in internet multimedia projects, as it states in the title. Would the same apply to an internet sound clip without visual integration or ability to pause the sound? What if the clip was 1 minute long and gave the listener no chance to alter its volume or stop or start it? Wouldn’t sounds work together as effectively?
2. McKee mentions that sound and visual elements of web presentations are taken simultaneously by the viewer, but are treated separately by the computer. This is very noticeable with a poor connection: the sound plays flawlessly while the images are lagged and often pause. What does this say about programming? Why is sound given the priority? Is it easier to follow the meaning with clear sound and garbled images or vice versa?
3. McKee also mentions silence and it appears to be one of her bigger issues. But she clearly doesn’t mean silence in the sense of no sound at all. She means silence as the absence of previously heard (sometimes unconsciously) sounds. Does this mean the introduction of the absence of a previously heard sound is as noticeable as the introduction of a previously unheard sound/noise? Should it be as important?

Readings for 9/23 & 9/25

Readings for 9/23 & 9/25

1. By observing in Elkins’ essay “How to Look at a Postage Stamp” the detail in which he describes the stamps themselves, it is clear that the author intends his readers to view other objects this way, potentially everything. How can this case be made if every detail of daily life should be given this much attention? Aren’t some details mundane? Some details supposed to be looked over? (e.g. the counterfeiting deterrents)
2. If the same argument is applied again, wouldn’t that much attention to detail bog down daily life into a lack of forward progress? If someone were to reach the stage of admiring all details, wouldn’t that inherently prevent him/her from seeing other details? Perhaps missing the other 99% of everything…
3. It is clear that James Elkins finds the detail in stamps fascinating, both in their own artistic right and their commonly overlooked status. As he uses these as an example, does it seem somewhat counteractive to his intention? So much time spent on stamps makes it seem like he’s writing an essay completely about stamps and not about How to Use Your Eyes.

Sequential Art

Riordan Henry

10/02/2008

INFO 390

Sequential Art

This image is a depiction of the creative process that I undergo when writing a paper for school, specifically. This does not reflect my process when writing recreationally. Specifically, the recreationally written items are not forced, thus the beginning differs as there is no procrastination.

This is a flow chart of sorts that does not follow any specific linear direction. It is obvious there are potentially different outcomes, as shown at the corners. The bottom right corner is the paper that comes from diligent work and time budgeted efficiently. The Top right corner shows what happens when I take too long of a break from my work and the train of thought is utterly lost. Generally this can be rectified with more time spent and often a complete renovation of my idea, starting over. The bottom left corner, unfortunately shows what happens when I waste my time and ignore the assignment at hand and just enjoy a bit of gaming. The angry teacher wielding a failure of a paper speaks iconically of my failure there as a student. Each direction can possibly go awry, though, as shown in the multiple possibilities leading away from the trash can, which shows a complete renovation of the paper, or at the very least a cancellation of my previous work. Clearly, if I decide to ignore my work and join friends out for a night of partying as opposed to reworking my assignment, the same outcome will occur as if I had initially wasted my time. The path that generally leads to the most efficient outcome is the path cutting straight from the top left to the bottom right; once the project is started, I find it most beneficial to write as much as possible, then rework whatever parts need alterations. Overall, this type of process is the quickest for me and usually it is the only way I like to write my papers. The generally accepted mode of project generation for an academic setting is writing and revising, whereas my process involves mostly barreling through the project, completing it as quickly as possible and revising little, aside from spell changes and punctuation errors.

The images used here are all taken from Google image searches. All these images were chosen on the basis of amusement and my ability to relate to them. This speaks to McCloud’s essay of iconic art. Since all these images are relatable to most views, or at least presumably so, I feel that the piece as a whole is quite understandable. The example here is the snack pack with cheese and crackers that most people of my age ate at a younger age. It is also a type of food that is likely a college staple. The foods we ate as children are once again acceptable and widely enjoyed in our college days strangely enough. Had I used personal images that only meant something to me personally, it would likely appear to be a garbled array of strange images. For instance if I used my tattoo designs as a symbol of my distractions, no viewer would likely be able to discern their meaning as it relates to the picture. The most specific image that appears here is the Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare game cover. This was actually chosen as a personal relation to me as the creator because it specifically is a major source of distraction from my work, whereas most other video games attract little of my interest, time or effort. This could potentially be a confusing image to viewers that do not play video games or are not familiar with this one in particular. I feel, though, that this game is widely known enough to create the desired effect of frivolous distraction from the assignment.

Sequential Art

This is how I work...sometimes