[rfu-automation] Anything goes on the automated musical playlist?

[Gary Cziko]

Joe et al.:

I'm actually quite comfortable with keeping the automation playlist as open
and free as possible, with some reasonable time limits for selections.

It was the 15-minute amateur clarinet solo that got me going on this (I
probably wouldn't have brought it up if it had not been so long).. And then
Bethany's piece made me start thinking of what was considered and intended
to be "music" and if wanted to keep the automation limited to "music."

I think our principal objective should be to try to (a) get as much local
"audio art" as possible, (b) make sure we don't play profane and/or indecent
stuff between 6 am and 10 pm or play obscene stuff anytime, and (c) get Loco
Robo DJ to let us now what we are listening to (which should also help to
motivate local artists to contribute their stuff).

I would put stuff like grouping by genre on a far back burner, although it
would be nice to have this possibility for later use if we decided we wanted
to do it.

While a very eclectic and random playlist might turn off some listeners some
times, it might well bring that same listener back soon out of curiosity.

--Gary



On 7/7/06, Joe Futrelle <futrelle at shout.net> wrote:
>
> Did we ever decide that we should only put music on automation? If
> so, I would just argue for a very inclusive definition of "music" so
> we don't mistakenly pull some music like Bethany's piece. I would
> also propose adding non-music to automation. For instance local poet
> Michael Holloway, who lives in range of RFU in Urbana, has put out a
> great CD of him reading his poetry in a very engaging style, and I'd
> be happy to contribute that.
>
> I'm not sure there's anywhere we ought to draw the line on automation
> except stuff that violates our 501c3 (political endorsements), FCC
> regulations (obscenity, indecency during non-safe-harbor), non-
> protected speech (libel, verbal threats), and copyright violations
> (unlicensed content).
>
> But this doesn't really address a concern I think I'm hearing from
> you, Gary, which is that a completely eclectic automation programming
> style probably doesn't work for a certain class of listener, a
> certain time of day, or some other listening context. That doesn't
> concern me personally, but I admit that it's a potential concern that
> I don't think my and Lynsee's comments recently have attempted to
> seriously address. I think there are ways to address it that don't
> require completely pulling tracks that are especially unusual, for
> instance our earlier discussion of changing the shuffling process so
> there's more continuity (by genre, or whatever) from one track to the
> next. This kind of thing is technically possible, so I will look into
> how to program it along with looking into a time-based shuffling
> algorithm, and report back to the group when I have something working.
>
> --
> Joe Futrelle
> Person
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/rfu-automation/attachments/20060707/c57e9521/attachment.htm