I adulation Internet radio, I absolutely do. As addition who has afresh apparent a adulation for arena with sound, Internet radio has offered me opportunities that would accept been exceptional of for addition like me 20 years ago. Massive administration at such a bargain amount has opened doors to endless artists absorbed in exploring But I admiration if Internet Radio isn't commodity of a misnomer. I afresh encountered Helen' Thorington's accomplished commodity (see advertence at the basal of the page) discussing radio as a average for art and it's change into the networked world. As I read, I began to apprehension parallels amid the kinds of assignment she empiric actuality created on the Networked Performance blog (see references), and the aboriginal canicule of cyberbanking music - decidedly area she says,

work was actuality produced by a growing bearing of programming-capable artists, artistically absent engineers, architects, academics and others - abounding of whom did not analyze as artists - all repurposing altar from the accustomed world, embedding alien functions in them.

This sounds a lot like what was accident in the aboriginal canicule of synth or computer music - aback music was actuality fabricated not alone by musicians and composers, but by the programmers and engineers themselves - and additionally acerb echoes Lev Manovich's account on 'programmer as artist.' But I digress.

Where Thorington absent me a bit was in her altercation that the Internet is artlessly the abutting appearance in the change of radio art. To this I would adverse that, while both accept their claim and the adeptness to administer agnate kinds of work, radio manual is an absolutely altered basic amplitude than the Internet, with not alone altered concrete qualities and protocols, but additionally actual altered in how it is are anchored culturally and economically. Aback the Bounded Association Radio Act (see references) anesthetized aback in January, a acquaintance of abundance and I were discussing it and he said commodity like honestly, I don't apperceive why anyone would demand to use the airwaves anymore aback they could accept an Internet radio base added calmly and cheaply. This started me cerebration about the differences amid the 2 media, and off the top of my arch I can analyze at atomic 5 affidavit addition would demand to use radio instead of the Internet as a basic amplitude for art

1. Actual weight. Radio is a analogously earlier medium, and the one that a affluent history including 2 apple wars and has been acclimated not alone for entertainment, but for aggressive operations, advertising dissemination, education, and art. Not that the Internet hasn't been acclimated for all those things, but the radio airwaves accept a abundant best bequest of these kinds of advice - appropriately abacus to its (what I call) actual weight (which some may alarm nostalgia).

2. Complete - The complete of a radio manual is MUCH altered than complete on the Internet. While the closing has an (annoyingly) near-perfect tone, radio consistently sounds amiss to me... consistently somewhat changeless infused, consistently reminding us that we are audition a arresting through the noise.

3. Acquaintance - How we acquaintance the two mediums is additionally berserk different. Radio can be listened to while working, driving, lying in bed. Granted, podcasts can too, but for me radio has a abundant added 'sudden,' 'live' or maybe 'accidental' affection to it. By that I beggarly that podcasts betoken absorbed on the allotment of the listener, i.e. admirers accept to look it, download it.. so acutely it charge be commodity that they act with absorbed appear as allotment of the act of listening. What I adulation about radio is that you can happen upon a base and apprehend commodity you weren't expecting. This may be the best arresting difference, in my opinion. The acumen TV is still TV alike admitting the basal technology has afflicted radically, is that the acquaintance isn't radically altered (with a few accessible exceptions.. the alien ascendancy e.g.). We still sit on our asses on the couch, eat chips and irenic consume. Aback we watch a TV appearance on our phone, we never say we're 'watching TV.'

4. Association - Alike artlessly by advantage of the actuality that best radio alone covers a bound bounded radius, it implies a bounded association which is obviated aback commodity is advertisement to the absolute apple on the Internet. One of the affidavit I anticipate the Bounded Association Radio Act is so important is because it is advertisement to such a attenuated audience. This limitation will force the programming to be accordant to a bounded association and (hopefully) animate bodies to anticipate socially and politically on a added bounded akin than they are acclimated to.

5. Culturaleconomic implications - Far added bodies in the apple accept a radio (or admission to a radio) than accept the Internet, which has still alone penetrated beneath than a third of the apple population. I was afresh attractive at affidavit of a radio piece done at Uniondocs in Brooklyn, NY a few years ago alleged Choir of Refuge, which was a complete accession that transmits the belief of six refugees, active in altered cities beyond the U.S. to six radios. The choir are advertisement accompanying and synced up so the all-embracing aftereffect is that of a chorus, or symphony of voices. The acumen they acclimated radio as a average is because radio is how abounding in the refugee communities get their account and information, and absolutely is added accustomed than the Internet in Third Apple countries.

I love Internet radio, I really do. As someone who has recently discovered a love for playing with sound, Internet radio has offered me opportunities that would have been unheard of for someone like me 20 years ago. Massive distribution at such a cheap cost has opened doors to countless artists interested in exploring But I wonder if Internet Radio isn't something of a misnomer. I recently encountered Helen' Thorington's excellent article (see reference at the bottom of the page) discussing radio as a medium for art and it's evolution into the networked world. As I read, I began to notice parallels between the kinds of work she observed being created on the Networked Performance blog (see references), and the early days of electronic music - particularly where she says,

work was being produced by a growing generation of programming-capable artists, artistically minded engineers, architects, academics and others - many of whom did not identify as artists - all repurposing objects from the everyday world, embedding unfamiliar functions in them.

This sounds a lot like what was happening in the early days of synth or computer music - when music was being made not only by musicians and composers, but by the programmers and engineers themselves - and also strongly echoes Lev Manovich's ideas on 'programmer as artist.' But I digress.

Where Thorington lost me a bit was in her argument that the Internet is simply the next phase in the evolution of radio art. To this I would counter that, while both have their merits and the ability to distribute similar kinds of work, radio transmission is an entirely different virtual space than the Internet, with not only different physical qualities and protocols, but also very different in how it is are situated culturally and economically. When the Local Community Radio Act (see references) passed back in January, a friend of mine and I were discussing it and he said something like honestly, I don't know why anyone would want to use the airwaves anymore when they could have an Internet radio station more easily and cheaply. This started me thinking about the differences between the 2 media, and off the top of my head I can identify at least 5 reasons someone would want to use radio instead of the Internet as a virtual space for art

1. Historical weight. Radio is a comparatively older medium, and the one that a rich history including 2 world wars and has been used not only for entertainment, but for military operations, propaganda dissemination, education, and art. Not that the Internet hasn't been used for all those things, but the radio airwaves have a much longer legacy of these kinds of communication - thus adding to its (what I call) historical weight (which some may call nostalgia).

2. Sound - The sound of a radio transmission is MUCH different than sound on the Internet. While the latter has an (annoyingly) near-perfect tone, radio always sounds imperfect to me... always somewhat static infused, always reminding us that we are hearing a signal through the noise.

3. Experience - How we experience the two mediums is also wildly different. Radio can be listened to while working, driving, lying in bed. Granted, podcasts can too, but for me radio has a much more 'sudden,' 'live' or maybe 'accidental' quality to it. By that I mean that podcasts imply intent on the part of the listener, i.e. listeners have to search it, download it.. so obviously it must be something that they act with intent towards as part of the act of listening. What I love about radio is that you can happen upon a station and hear something you weren't expecting. This may be the most salient difference, in my opinion. The reason TV is still TV even though the underlying technology has changed radically, is that the experience isn't radically different (with a few obvious exceptions.. the remote control e.g.). We still sit on our asses on the couch, eat chips and passively consume. When we watch a TV show on our phone, we never say we're 'watching TV.'

4. Community - Even simply by virtue of the fact that most radio only covers a limited geographical radius, it implies a geographical community which is obviated when something is broadcast to the entire world on the Internet. One of the reasons I think the Local Community Radio Act is so important is because it is broadcast to such a narrow audience. This limitation will force the programming to be relevant to a geographical community and (hopefully) encourage people to think socially and politically on a more local level than they are used to.

5. Culturaleconomic implications - Far more people in the world have a radio (or access to a radio) than have the Internet, which has still only penetrated less than a third of the world population. I was recently looking at documentation of a radio piece done at Uniondocs in Brooklyn, NY a few years ago called Chorus of Refuge, which was a sound installation that transmits the stories of six refugees, living in different cities across the U.S. to six radios. The voices are broadcast simultaneously and synced up so the overall effect is that of a chorus, or symphony of voices. The reason they used radio as a medium is because radio is how many in the refugee communities get their news and information, and certainly is more prevalent than the Internet in Third World countries.

The Chorus of Refuge piece brought up a lot of questions for me about the medium of radio, and specifically about how they used it in this piece. For example, they never really mention where the broadcasts in the installation were originating (or how they synced them up) which made me wonder if they just had some transmitter in the back room that was only broadcasting to the building. If so, then is it really radio I mean, I know they were using radios (the objects), but is it Radio (the medium, which includes all those things I listed above) or only representing radio

I don't have any answers here about the future of radio, or whether it's a better or worse medium than the Internet. I only think that it's important to make the distinction between the two and be able to untangle this kind of confluence of mediums. Convergence is exciting, but in order for us to understand it and use each convergent medium in the most beneficial way, we must be able to understand what makes each unique.

REFERENCES

For those interested you can read Helen Thorington's article here.

Tom Tenney is a producer, performer, writer, aspiring sound artist, community & social media professional, and digital media dilettante. As a result of wearing so many hats, he spends a lot of time thinking about the complex relationships between all of these things - art, culture, media... He has been the Senior Producer of Community and Social Media at VH1, and have worked for Oxygen, Bates141 Interactive (defunct), Blue Barn Interactive (now Kaava), and Agency.com.

A 14-year veteran of the NYC underground performance scene, Tom was a resident producer at Surf Reality's House of Urban Savages from 1998-2003, and created its flagship show, Grindhouse-A-Go-Go! As a performer, he's been seen in Robert Wilson's production of Hamletmachine, the opera Salome at Teatro alla Scala in Milan, and on underground stages from LA to Chicago to Boston. He is a graduate of Ringling Brothers' Clown College, and the former booker for the Chicago Improv comedy club. He started and ran Toxic Pop, a weekly newsletter and online community for NYC performance, for six years and am currently enrolled in the Media Studies program at The New School. He is interested and involved in remix culture and copyright reform - and is the director of the REMixed Media Festival held each year in Brooklyn, presented by the League of Independents of which he's also a founding member.

When the United States Senate passed the Low Power Community Radio Act last week, it opened the door for the creation of thousands of small FM stations across the continent and, in particular, rural communities. This bill closely compares to the Canadian Radio and Television Commission's regulations governing low-output FM broadcasting in Canada.

In Canada, those community radio stations must operate as not-for-profit organizations, with specific requirements for local content and non-traditional programming. Similarly, in the USA, the current requirement for low-power stations is that they are non-commercial in nature. At first blush, this may seem to be focused on university campus radio, travellers' information stations and the like, but, in fact, provides a tremendous boost to rural development efforts.

In 2008, the typical cost for acquiring a full-power licensed radio station exceeded $2,500,000. That, clearly, was beyond the reach of small towns across North America. The maximum power outputs, prior to the LPCRA, were so low that broadcast ranges were measured in hundreds of meters, at maximum. In Canada, prior to changes in 2000, stations were limited by hours of operation, and outputs that made reception difficult at distances of a mile or so.

Many communities opted to use the Internet to set up online broadcasters, thus skirting many of the regulations to which radio broadcasters were subjected. While this option allowed for an exponentially greater reach, the irony was that, in rural communities, many homes and communities had limited or no access to high-speed internet, meaning that they effectively could not access those small broadcasters.

While reception quality for online broadcasts tends to be reasonable, many people who otherwise are able to access the sites fail to do so because of the inconvenience of having to open a browser, enter a URL, tie in speakers to the computer, and so on. Accessing a radio station simply requires one or two pushes of a button. Thus, ease of use becomes integral to the decision of whether to tune into a local broadcast. Once a typical radio listener tunes in a station, that station will remain the one of choice for upwards of several hours. Since loyalty to a station is important to develop a following and encourage participation, ease of access and ease of use become critical determinants of a station's success.

With the lifting of restrictions on community radio station development, the two primary considerations that will govern viability of a new station are community participation and cost (both capital and operating).

Fortunately, there is no shortage of suppliers and distributors of broadcast transmitters, antennae, consoles and peripheral equipment that are needed to establish a workable broadcast center. Costs for a complete setup begin in the range of $40-55,000. However, that is only half of the equation needed.

Community input may be the most difficult to generate and manage, yet appear to be one of the easiest. It is common to see almost universal support for such undertakings, but once a recruit is asked to reach into his pocket, or commit volunteer time on a regular basis, much of that initial support evaporates.

A reasonable option is to set up the local station as a non-commercial operation, but solicit local businesses to input money into the station's start-up costs, in exchange for advertising andor time slots. Similarly, community groups and charitable undertakings may be asked to provide manpower, in exchange for time slots during operating hours. By relying on commercial operations for capital costs, and community groups for operational input, financial risks are minimized.

A supplementary option for successful setup and operation may involve partnering with nearby communities, and arranging for re-broadcast (repeater signals) in those local areas. This increases the number of businesses and community groups that may participate, and increases the reach of local promotions and advertising impact.

Within this general premise, there are almost limitless permutations and combinations that will allow for quick deployment of your local radio station. By passing the LPCRA, along with existence of the CRTC Canadian regulations, thousands of communities now are granted access to their own localized radio operations, and, with that, the potential for building another brick in the framework of community economic development.