University of Toronto Media Art Discussion

Part 1
Do you listen to podcasts? What do you make of Spinelli and Dann’s
account of podcasting concepts and features? Do they fit with the
podcasts you listen to? Select a podcast (or listen to one of the
recommended podcasts from this week): how do you see these traits
at play in that podcast and the way you engage with it?
1. What do Tiffe and Hoffmann say about the ways women’s voices (and
the voices of other marginalized people) have been criticized,
particularly in media contexts? Can you think of examples of this?
Why insights do Tiffe and Hoffmann (and perhaps the Stoever or
Eidsheim readings) give into these criticisms?
2. Tiffe and Hoffman assert that podcasts offer space for women and
people with marginalized identities to express themselves in a more
authentic manner. Think about the podcast you listened to for this
week–particularly if it was hosted by someone who inhabits a
minoritized position (e.g., queer, fat, Muslim, woman, racialized,
Black, Indigenous, etc.). Do you think this is true in that case? Why
or why not?
Topics: what is distinctive (revolutionary?) about podcasting?; women’s voices
in audio media; podcasting and marginalized communities
Required Readings and Listening:
•
Spinelli, Martin, and Lance Dann. Excerpt from “Introduction: The Audio
Media Revolution.” Podcasting: The Audio Media Revolution, 5-9. London:
Bloomsbury Academic, 2019. (Tuesday, 18 October)
•
Ti e, Raechel, and Melody Ho mann. “Taking Up Sonic Space: Feminized
Vocality and Podcasting as Resistance.” Feminist Media Studies 17/1
(2017): 115-18. DOI: 10.1080/14680777.2017.1261464. (Tuesday, 18
October)
•
A podcast of your choice (see recommended options below) (Tuesday, 18
October)
Recommended resources
•
•
•
Gardner, Paula, and Stephen Surlin. “How to Make a Podcast: Technical,
Directing & Recording Tips.” In The Critical Digital and Media Literacy
Workbook: Feminist, Critical Race and Anti-Colonial Pedagogy for Social
Change, ed. Paula Gardner and S. Stein, 90–104. http:E ect.ca, 2021.
Migaki, Lauren, and Andee Tagle. “How To Start a Podcast, According to
the Pros at NPR.” NPR, 30 September 2021. https://www.npr.org/
2021/06/22/1009098800/how-to-start-a-podcast-npr-advice.
Spinelli, Martin, and Lance Dann. The rest of Podcasting: The Audio Media
Revolution. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2019.
Part 2
Here are some questions to consider:
–> In the epilogue, Rodgers introduces Doris Dailey. Who was Dailey,
ff
ff
ff
and how does she illustrate the points Rodgers makers in her article?
–> What do you make of Susan Ciani’s performance on the David
Letterman show? What do you make of Letterman’s interactions with
Ciani? How do Rodgers’s points about the gendering of electronic music
help you understand these reactions?
Topics: analog synthesizers; gender, technology, and music; historiography;
experimental music
Required Reading and Viewing:
•
Ciani, Suzanne. “Ciani on Letterman Show” (14 August
1980). YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=fZscRHkLMt0. (Tuesday, 25 October)
•
Rodgers, Tara. “Tinkering with Cultural Memory: Gender and the Politics
of Synthesizer Historiography.” Feminist Media Histories 1, no. 4 (2015):
5-30. (Thursday, 27 October)
Recommended Readings:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Pinch, Trevor, and Frank Trocco. “Shaping the Synthesizer.” In The Sound
Studies Reader, ed. Jonathan Sterne, 254-64. New York, Routledge, 2012.
Niebur, Louis. “Ideological Struggles and Pragmatic Realities.” In Special
Sound: The Creation and Legacy of the BBC Radiophonic Workshop,
35-63. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Sewell, Amanda. Wendy Carlos: A Biography. New York: Oxford University
Press, 2020. Oxford Scholarship Online, 2020. doi: 10.1093/oso/
9780190053468.001.0001.
Théberge, Paul. “‘Plugged In’: Technology and Popular Music.” In The
Cambridge Companion to Pop and Rock, ed. Simon Frith, Will Straw, and
John Street, 3-25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
“Suzanne Ciani Live Performance at P2 Art’s Birthday Party in Stockholm,
Sweden.” YouTube, posted 15 February 2017, https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=-UYyGbcyuJ8&t=1160s.
T H E C R I T I C A L D I G I TA L & M E D I A L I T E R AC Y WO R K B O O K
PHOTO FROM SOUNDTRAP ON UNSPLASH
Facilitators Handbook for:
DEVELOPED BY:
PAULA GARDNER AND STEPHEN
SURLIN
How to Make a Podcast:
Technical, Directing &
Recording Tips
WITH FEEDBACK AND
PARTICIPATION FROM AWO
ABOKOR, ASHA-KEYF DAHIR
ABDI, WENDY DE SOUZA,
DANIKA FERGUSON, SHOCHOY
FRAY, LINDA FREMPONG, LOOCRESHA GONSALVES DOYLE,
SAKINAH HASIB, KWAKU
NYANOR TSION NICODEMUS,
BRITTNEY MILLER, MARIA BELEN
ORDONEZ, AND SUZANNE STEIN.
TIME
2 hours 45 minutes (3.5 hours if you add
check-in and group agreement) provides
lessons in creating a podcast from beginning to end.
DESCRIPTION
2-3.5
HRS
90
This two-hour workshop invites participants to create a
short podcast or podcast series. It can be used with the
“Express Yourself – Decoding and Talking Back to Media”
module in this book, to share an idea, response, or call to
action made by your small group or yourself. The module
is designed to help you to create a podcast with minimal
equipment (e.g. just a cellphone).
90
P H OTO B Y K AT E O S E E N O N U N S P L A S H
T H E C R I T I C A L D I G I TA L & M E D I A L I T E R AC Y WO R K B O O K
GOALS
1. To learn how to plan and organize a
podcast
2. To learn how to record a podcast (on
your cellphone) and share it on social
media and podcast directories
3. To be able to apply your decoding
skills (learned in the “Express Yourself
– Decoding and Talking Back to Media”
module) to create your personal
message to talk back to media
M AT E R I A L S
1. Large, visible writing space (e.g. large
sheets of paper and tape, whiteboard,
or chalkboard) and markers or chalk
2. Index cards (small and large) or scrap
paper (11”x15” pieces if possible)
3. Pens or pencils
4. Smart mobile phone (participants can
work in groups and share one phone!)
5. Connection to the Internet to
download free podcast software
6. Anchor – free podcast software
available on the Apple App Store and
Google Play
R O O M P R E PA R AT I O N
Set up the writing space so that it is visible
to all participants when you demonstrate
writing a story board and/or a script.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR
FA C I L I TAT O R S
This workshop is recommended as a follow-up to the “Express Yourself – Decoding
and Talking Back to Media” module, where
participants will have learned how to make an
informed critique of media.
To prepare for this workshop, make sure
you have read through the material.
Be sure you have downloaded the free
Anchor app (on the Apple App Store or Google Play) and watched the 22 minute video
from Pod Sound School “How to start a podcast on your phone.” (https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=LnQiCVW7YCQ.) We recommend you create a test podcast, so that you
are comfortable with the app features. Note
that the app used to make the podcast requires access to the Internet. You might want
to make a sample short 1 minute podcast
yourself so that you can show the group how
91
T H E C R I T I C A L D I G I TA L & M E D I A L I T E R AC Y WO R K B O O K
easy it is to make a podcast on a smartphone,
and how great it can sound.
This workshop contains a lot of information
about how to make a podcast. Rather than
read it to all participants yourself, students
can take turns reading the information in each
section, and you can lead a discussion to be
sure everyone understands the information.
You can use large paper sheets to demonstrate the scripting sections to the whole
group and distribute paper to teams for their
group scripting work.
Work with the participants to create teams.
You can do this by brainstorming ideas for
the podcast topic and then sorting participants into groups with similar interests. Even
if participants want to record a solo podcast,
they can work in teams to support the scripting and recording. After teams are sorted, you
can lead a brief review of each section (format and goals, consent and privacy) and then
invite students to work in teams to answer
them. Participants will remain in their production teams for the remainder of the workshop.
Be sure to remind participants to take notes
at each stage, as this will become their script.
or evidence. This workshop builds on those
skills and lets you express your ideas about
different media. It takes you through the steps
of coming up with an idea for a podcast, writing a script and recording it and even distributing it online, if you wish. Let’s get started!
COMING UP WITH A PODCAST IDEA:
(15-20 MIN)
Think about the questions below to help
you come up with an idea and format for your
podcast.
P O D C A S T T H E M E , F O R M AT A N D G O A L S :
Think about your goals for the podcast and
your intended audience. In your teams, work
together to answer the following questions.
•
•
•
•
•
WORKSHOP AGENDA
Hi! In this workshop, we will make a podcast alone or with others in the workshop.
Many of you have already participated in the
“Express Yourself – Decoding and Talking
Back to Media” workshop where you learned
to think critically about media—like an advertisement, TV show, or music video — and
how to critique it, using a strong argument
92
•
Is this a single podcast or one in a
planned series?
What is the theme or topic you want to
discuss in your podcast?
What is the audience for your
podcast—who do you want to reach?
Do you want to make your own
podcast or make one with 1-2 other
people?
What will be the length of the
podcast? 2 minutes: a brief message,
response to a current event or
advertisement or music video. 3-5
minutes: a dialogue or debate about a
piece of media or news item
How many people will speak on the
podcast? (We recommend recording
with only 1 or 2 participants, as in
larger groups it may be difficult to hear
all speakers and speakers may overlap
more often.)
T H E C R I T I C A L D I G I TA L & M E D I A L I T E R AC Y WO R K B O O K
•
Find a location to record. Keep in mind
that the best place to record is in a
quiet room with a door. A closet is a
great place to record if you can’t find
another quiet space.
C O N S E N T A N D P R I VAC Y I S S U E S :
Now that you have teams and a podcast
theme, format and goals, let’s review the
consent and privacy issues and then you can
discuss them in your small group.
DISCUSS THESE QUESTIONS AS A
GROUP
•
•
How would speakers like to introduce
themselves on the podcast? (For
example, name, other details such as
where they attend school, a special
interest they have relevant to the
podcast, etc.) Be sure to discuss the
amount of personal material you wish
to share, recognizing that podcasts
can be easily shared and widely
disseminated. Do you want to use your
real name or a name you create for the
podcast?
Discuss your plans to disseminate the
podcast. Will it be posted on YouTube
or Vimeo, shared on social media, etc.?
W H AT ’ S T H E P L A N – T H E S TO R Y
RULES! (10 MIN)
(10 minutes, reading and reviewing the
plan together or in small groups)
In this section, we are going to review the
plans for making the podcast.
N O T E T O FA C I L I TAT O R S
Keep students in their production teams
for the remainder of the workshop. Review
the following areas either by reading them
or inviting students to read the sections to
the rest of the group. Note that technical
information regarding recording a podcast
on Anchor will be provided below, in the
section “Tools to Make your Podcast”.
THE STORY RULES!
We are all probably new to making a podcast. You can make a great podcast just using
your smartphone. Directors know that the
story is more important than the technical
features, so focus on storytelling and you can
make a great podcast! The most important
thing is to find your voice, craft your message
and record and deliver it for others to hear!
We will work on that shortly, in the script section.
W H AT ’ S T H E P L A N ?
We are going to use a free app to make a
podcast, and if you like, to make a nice title
or logo for your podcast! The app is super
easy to use, and we will help each other – so
93
T H E C R I T I C A L D I G I TA L & M E D I A L I T E R AC Y WO R K B O O K
no need to worry if you don’t have any experience.
WRITING THE SCRIPT
(30 MIN)
We recommend you use free podcast
software called Anchor that does not require
editing. The easy to use software allows you
to add music (provided on the app), to trim
the beginning and end and to upload it and
distribute it to podcast directories. Anchor is
available on the Apple App Store and Google
Play.
N O T E T O FA C I L I TAT O R S
Briefly introduce the script exercise, inviting teams to read through the script
material and sample script, and then get to
work on the script as a group. Participants
can use regular paper to write out the
script. Invite participants to change up the
script as they like – there is no “right” way
to write a script! You can roam around the
room, visiting teams to support them, as
they need. Remind students that for podcasts featuring one speaker only, they can
shorten the content part of the script to one
or two ideas.
We are going to learn tips to record your
podcast live, so it doesn’t need editing. Don’t
worry if it’s not perfect, as long as the audio
quality is good enough and the message is
clear and engaging.
You can use free design software called
Canva. This easy to use software allows you
to make a logo and add a photo of yourself
to your podcast, to help you to promote it.
Canva is available on app stores.
PODCAST SCRIPT GUIDELINES AND
SAMPLE:
Below is a sample script, which you can
use or change to suit your podcast.
More information on how to use these
apps is to follow.
94
Decide on a title for your podcast or podcast series. Aim for a title that is interesting
and conveys the content of your podcast.
Each podcast episode needs to be searchable; if you use an abstract title, add a semi
colon to add a description that is searchable.
INTRODUCTION:
ON UNSPLASH
PHOTO BY GLENN CARSTENS-PETERS
PODCAST TITLE:
Including:
• Greeting, which includes the name of
the series and this episode’s topic.
• Introduce host(s) and/or participants.
T H E C R I T I C A L D I G I TA L & M E D I A L I T E R AC Y WO R K B O O K
P O D C A S T M A I N C O N T E N T:
Here you will script out what you plan to
say (see below). For podcasts featuring one
speaker only, you can shorten the content
part of the script to one or two ideas.
SIGNING OFF:
TA G L I N E ( O P T I O N A L ) :
This will give a tone or vibe to the podcast.
• For example, “Kicking back at Jane and
Finch, it’s time for our podcast: ‘What
your teacher doesn’t know but should.’
You are hanging with (podcast host
names).”
LO C AT I O N O F T H E P O D C A S T:
Here you can thank listeners and the production crew, and remind listeners of the
name of your podcast and where to find it
(e.g. on your social media feed, YouTube, etc.)
• For example, “That’s all for today.
Thanks for listening. Thanks to Sharma
for recording support. Remember to
like us and share this pod. Look for our
next pod in this series– we drop them
weekly, on YouTube. Bye for now!”
Here you note your location; you can include a land acknowledgment, commonly
used in Canada to recognize that we live and
work on traditional territories of Indigenous
peoples and are responsible to collaborate in
the care of our shared spaces and land.
SET UP:
This is optional, and introduces the listener
to the general theme of your podcast. Here
you want to explain the podcast format – interviewing, dialogue, panel discussion.
• For example, “If you are new to our
series, xx, on this pod xx and I chat
about…”
A LEAD IN:
Use it to start the podcast to lead into the
show’s theme and capture the listener.
• For example, “JJ and I were listening to
the new tune dropped by xx and
realized…”
95
VI. SAMPLE PODCAST SCRIPT OUTLINE
TA G L I N E ( O P T I O N A L ) A N D I N T R O D U C T I O N S :
EXAMPLES
LO C AT I O N O F T H E P O D C A S T:
EXAMPLES
SET UP:
EXAMPLES
PODCAST EPISODE SEGMENTS/TOPICS:
EXAMPLES
We suggest you segment the podcast
with 3 or 4 themes or questions. You
don’t need to name these segments, just
flow through them.
OPENING PODCAST TOPIC:
EXAMPLES
Agree to someone starting, for example:
Awo: “So this is Awo and I’m going to
start us out with a general question….
Prat, what would you say about xxx.”
Prat: “Thanks for that Awo, I’ve been
thinking about this a lot lately since….”
Belen: “I’m really glad you mentioned
that because…”
VI. SAMPLE PODCAST SCRIPT OUTLINE
PODCAST TOPIC 2:
EXAMPLES
Agree to someone starting, for example:
Awo: “So this is Awo and I’m going to
start us out with a general question….
Prat, what would you say about xxx.”
PODCAST TOPIC 3:
EXAMPLES
Agree to someone starting, for example:
Awo: “So this is Awo and I’m going to
start us out with a general question….
Prat, what would you say about xxx.”
FINAL PODCAST TOPIC:
EXAMPLES
For your final topic, choose a good closing question or thought. You may want
to talk about the stakes of a problem,
what’s been achieved or lost recently,
and/or an imagined better future.
SIGNING OFF:
EXAMPLES
“Well, I really found that to be a great
conversation about…”
“I want to thank my podcast partner, xx,
and thank the listening audience. Remember that there are more podcasts
available on (podcast distributor site).
Feel free to like or share our pods. Until
next time, we are xx and xx signing off!”
T H E C R I T I C A L D I G I TA L & M E D I A L I T E R AC Y WO R K B O O K
PREPARING TO RECORD AND DOING A
T E S T R U N W I T H YO U R S C R I P T:
(30 MIN)
In this section, we will learn simple tips that
will make your podcast sound great! Take
some time to read these with your group and
practice using them as you run through your
script in practice sessions before your record.
N O T E T O FA C I L I TAT O R S
Review the following tips in the whole
group or small groups. You can roam
around the room to support students as
they study these tips and try them out, as
they practice their scripts out loud.
PRACTICE:
We are going to practice reading the podcast script before we record. Practice the tips
below to get the best sound and recording
that you can.
If you are a single person recording, you
can just practice the script before you record, and follow best practices recording
tips. If you are recording in a group, there are
tips below for how to move the conversation
around the group.
RECORDING TIPS:
QUIET ROOM:
Record in a quiet room, with the door
closed if possible. Ask anyone else in the
space to maintain quiet while you are record98
ing. If you are in a noisy house, you can record in a closet to keep out excess noise.
T E S T F I R S T:
Test out recording on your phone (or using
the software) before you record, to find the
best distance from your mouth to capture
good sound, keep out excess noise and avoid
voice effects that are distracting (like excess
“s” sounds or lip smacking sounds). Do this by
recording and then listening to your recording until you find the best technique for each
person recording. Pro tip: Be sure to complete
your words before you pause. When you restart give the tape a second to roll to be sure
your first word isn’t cut off.
PRACTICE:
Try to get a good recording. Note that in
the Anchor podcast software, you can “trim”
the beginning and end of the podcast.
RECORD SHORT SEGMENTS:
Using the Anchor app. The anchor app
allows you to record short segments and
then automatically blends them into one
podcast piece, so you can use that feature to
record your podcast in segments instead of
all at once.
P R E PA R I N G TO R ECO R D YO U R
P O D C A S T:
Recording in a group can be challenging
because you want to avoid talking over each
other and you want to maintain the flow and
timing of the conversation. Try out these tips
to help you out! There are also tips for sounding great, whether you are a solo podcaster
or a group!
98
PHOTO BY SOUNDTRAP ON UNSPLASH
T H E C R I T I C A L D I G I TA L & M E D I A L I T E R AC Y WO R K B O O K
PODCAST RECORDING INSTRUCTIONS
AND TIPS:
P R E PA R AT I O N :
•
•
•
•
Use index cards or paper to list the
questions you will address and bullet
points that each speaker anticipates
discussing.
Leave your notes off the table as
shifting paper will make unwanted
noise on the recording.
You might want to place the index
cards in the middle of the table (and
not touch them) so that all participants
follow along; you can also point to
items on the card to silently cue
participants to move on to a new point
or question.
Preplan who will introduce each
subject and who will respond first. If
you want more structure, you can plan
all speaking turns before your record. If
you are comfortable, however, you can
let the conversation flow naturally.
•
GROUP SIGNALS:
•
•
Create hand signals for your team to
use during the recording; these can
include suggestions to finish one’s
thought, needs to pause, suggestions
to transition to another speaker,
suggestions to move on to a new
question, etc.
You can use each other’s names to
keep the conversation moving. Using
names also helps listeners to follow
which participant is speaking.
DIALOGUE SPIRIT AND FLOW:
•
Try to encourage the spirit and feel of
the cast. Feel free to talk casually and
•
with familiarity toward each other.
Flow: Try to keep track of time and
keep the dialogue to your planned
time. You may want to give someone
the job of keeping track of time; use
hand signals to gently signal to a
speaker that they will want to wrap
a thought or think about volleying to
another speaker.
Keep in mind the imagined audience
of your podcast and tell stories and
use examples that speak to that
audience.
RESPOND AND VOLLEY:
•
Respond to and volley speaking
opportunities to each other. For
example: Shequita: ”…that reminds of
xx, Asha, I know you have had that
experience with…. Do you want to
comment on…“ Asha: “Yes, thanks,
Shequita. It’s really important to
remember that…”
99
T H E C R I T I C A L D I G I TA L & M E D I A L I T E R AC Y WO R K B O O K
W E A R YO U R E M OT I O N S :
Try to smile (or frown, or otherwise display
emotion on your face) when you talk; it animates your voice and helps your audience to
pick up on the tone you are trying to convey.
TA R G E T YO U R C O M M E N T S TO YO U R
AUDIENCE:
Our audience for this book is individuals
interested in critical digital literacy, gender-based violence, community-based educational organizations, and the problems and
opportunities of university-community-participant collaborations. Think about them and
their interests and needs when providing
comments.
compelling to listeners, especially
in podcast formats where there are
no visuals to add layers of interest or
context. Try to tell vivid and specific
stories.
D I F F E R E N T WAY S T O P O S I T I O N
YO U R S E L F:
At various times, you may choose to speak
wearing a different hat. For example, you may
speak as:
• Content Expert: Feel free to speak
from that position as a student, student
leader, mentor, media maker, or
observer of culture or media, who has
an informed opinion.
• “We” voice: This includes members of
a student group, community
organization, school, or a consumer of
media, food, objects, etc. As a member
of a community, you might want to
speak from the position of someone
who has listened to community
member opinions and can relay how
a community feels or responds to a
particular situation or event.
• “Me” voice: You have subjective
experiences as a person walking
through the world performing different
roles. Personal stories are extremely
100
DIALOGUE WITH EACH OTHER:
•
•
•
•
Engage in this as a dialogue among
your group, rather than as separate
interventions.
Be conversational: Slip into the
conversation as appropriate (and
polite) the way you would in
conversations with friends.
Look at each other when you dialogue,
and not at the mic or the producer/
director.
Use sounds like “um hm” to respond to
each other’s comments as you wish, or
laugh, groan, whatever… to show you
are discussing with and listening to
each other.
B E S H O R T A N D S W E E T:
Keep comments focused and tight. Try to
keep comments to 30 secs or less to keep
the dialogue momentum.
T H E C R I T I C A L D I G I TA L & M E D I A L I T E R AC Y WO R K B O O K
NAME EACH OTHER:
C R E AT E S O U N D B I T E S :
Say each other’s names during the dialogue so that listeners can follow who is
speaking.
Aim to make focused, clear and brief
“soundbites,” or complete thoughts and
statements that convey clear information
concisely.
• Take a few moments to think before
you answer; if you like, jot down notes
to reference when you respond.
• Don’t aim to have perfect English;
focus on trying to communicate
clearly.
• Feel free to correct/clarify what you’re
saying or to ask each other to do that;
those kinds of exchanges feel familiar
to us and are compelling to hear.
• If you feel you have rambled and could
make your point more succinct: pause
and restart recording.
RECOGNIZE LISTENERS:
You can recognize and speak directly to
your listeners to relay information (“see our
website Efect.ca for more info, curriculum,
podcasts, etc.”) or to show you know who
they are and why they are listening.
PAUSE:
Whenever you like. Relax and pause before you answer and between questions.
This keeps you focused and calm and makes
room on the tape for the sound editor to cut.
You can take a break whenever you want or
need to, like if you need to cough, or to focus.
P H OTO B Y K AT E O S E E N O N U N S P L A S H
NIX UMS:
Try these tricks for not starting your sentence with “Um”, start your sentences with
words like:
• “That (makes me think;) I’d (say…)
• “Sometimes/Often…(we find that…)
• “It’s (commonly believed that…)
• “Well,”…(it seems to me that)
• “Now…since we understand that…”
101
T H E C R I T I C A L D I G I TA L & M E D I A L I T E R AC Y WO R K B O O K
HOW TO RECORD A
P O D CAST O N YO U R
PHONE
N O T E T O FA C I L I TAT O R S
Review the following tips in the whole
group or small groups.
You can recommend that participants
test out the app before they attend the
workshop so that they are familiar with it.
The app is very easy to use but does require an internet connection.
Ask students to watch the 20 minute video by Pod Sound School to learn how to
use the app. Video is at this url (https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnQiCVW7YCQ) If there is time, participants can practice making a test podcast with the app.
USING ANCHOR, A FREE APP TO MAKE
YO U R P O D C A S T:
We are going to use a free, easy to use
podcast app, Anchor (produced by Spotify).
It has options to share or not share, so if you
or your group do not wish to share, you don’t
have to. If you want and we have time in the
session, you can also use the free app Canva
to add a title, logo and photo to your podcast.
You will use Anchor to record, trim, add
background music, and publish your podcast.
You can share your podcast on social media
and in podcast directories. Anchor is available
on app stores as a free download.
102
LEARNING TO RECORD ON ANCHOR:
Please watch this 20 minute video from
Pod Sound School https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=LnQiCVW7YCQ
After you watch it, start the video from the
beginning and follow along, using your script
to record the different pieces of your podcast
script: introductions, content, closing.
You can record each of these separately
on the Anchor app and it will edit them together automatically!
We suggest that you record each piece
separately, then listen to it and re-record it if
you want to.
Open source music is available on the app.
The app increases and decreases the music
volume so that doesn’t block out your voice.
If you are planning to distribute your podcast
publicly, we recommend using music from
this source, as you have permission to use
it. (Copyright law requires that you must get
permission and pay fees if you wish to use
music published by popular artists.)
T H E C R I T I C A L D I G I TA L & M E D I A L I T E R AC Y WO R K B O O K
OPTIONAL TOOLS:
These tools are entirely optional but can
be useful if you have them. If you don’t have
them, don’t worry about it – your podcast can
still sound great.
•
•
Tripod or phone table stand: You can
buy a very cheap one at a discount
store. This helps to keep the phone
equally distanced from all speakers, to
create best sound.
Pop filter: Use between your mouth
and the phone to avoid getting pop
noises. If you don’t have one, be sure
to keep your phone a few inches from
the speaker’s mouth.
PODCAST DEMOS
(15 MIN)
Okay, it’s time to share our podcasts with
the larger group! Let’s take turns playing our
podcasts.
ADDENDUM: RESOURCES
FOR FUTURE TRAINING
FREE AND EASY PODCAST LESSONS:
Check out these great, short, and easy to
follow instructional videos. This is only a selection. Pod Sound School has a lot of great
videos; see the list below or explore their
website below to find more that interest you!
Pod Sound School. https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=LnQiCVW7YCQ (22.31 min)
Pod Sound School. Podcast jumpstart.
https://www.podsoundschool.com/freebies
How to (online guides and courses)
Pod Sound School. Learn how to podcast:
podcasting blog 2020. https://www.podsoundschool.com/podcasting-blog
Pod Sound School. Podcasting and Social
Media tips https://www.youtube.com/
podsoundschool
PodSound School. Online free master
class in podcasting. https://www.podcastingsmart.com
Podcast motor. How To Start A Podcast:
Your 2021 Step-By-Step Guide
https://www.podcastmotor.com/how-tocreate-the-perfect-podcast-setup
Buzzsprout. How to make a podcast (with
many free resources
https://www.buzzsprout.com/
how-to-make-a-podcast?gclid=CjwKCAjwos-HBhB3EiwAe4xM919RUgSGl85o-RipE4X1O_1Aw_enFqoRyXmHqV0StNSgqCaQ1FTtmRoCWI4QAvD_BwE
103
T H E C R I T I C A L D I G I TA L & M E D I A L I T E R AC Y WO R K B O O K
MAKING A PODCAST USING
PROFESSIONAL RECORDING AND
E D I T I N G E Q U I P M E N T:
Making a podcast with professional equipment takes more time and resources. You do
not need to use professional equipment to
make a great podcast. If you are interested in
learning these skills, however, some tutorials
are recommended below.
Podcast Insights. How To Start A Podcast:
A Complete Step-By-Step Tutorial. [text resource] https://www.podcastinsights.com/
start-a-podcast
Podcast Insights. How To Start A Podcast:
A Complete Step-By-Step Tutorial. [podcast]
https://www.podcastinsights.com/podcast
Podcasting with Aaron. How to Set Up GarageBand (Mac) for Recording Podcasts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRtB87AdSBM (8 min)
A C C E S S I B I L I T Y A S S I S TA N C E , U S I N G
CAPTIONS, AUDIO DESCRIPTIONS AND
TRANSCRIPTS:
Note that there is a transcript option on the
Anchor podcast app. If you publish your pod
as a video, you can include the transcript
Information on how and why to use accessibility features: Indiana University. Accessibility information for Podcasters
https://kb.iu.edu/d/awuz
104
Feminist Media Studies
ISSN: 1468-0777 (Print) 1471-5902 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfms20
Taking up sonic space: feminized vocality and
podcasting as resistance
Raechel Tiffe & Melody Hoffmann
To cite this article: Raechel Tiffe & Melody Hoffmann (2017) Taking up sonic space:
feminized vocality and podcasting as resistance, Feminist Media Studies, 17:1, 115-118, DOI:
10.1080/14680777.2017.1261464
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2017.1261464
Published online: 12 Dec 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1616
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 5 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rfms20
FEMINIST MEDIA STUDIES 
115
del Campo, Marisa A., and Thomas J. Kehle. 2016. “Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response (ASMR)
and Frisson: Mindfully Induced Sensory Phenomena that Promote Happiness.” International Journal
of School & Educational Psychology 4 (2): 99–105. doi:10.1080/21683603.2016.1130582.
Cheadle, Harry. 2012. “ASMR, The Good Feeling No One Can Explain.” VICE. http://www.vice.com/read/
asmr-the-good-feeling-no-one-can-explain
Feld, Steven, Aaron A. Fox, Thomas Porcello, and David Samuels. 2004. “Vocal Anthropology: From the
Music of Language to the Language of Song.” In A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, edited by
A. Duranti, 321–345. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Herndon, Holly, and Claire Tolan. 2015. “Lonely at the Top.” Platform. 4AD.
Hudelson, Joshua. 2012. “Listening to Whisperers: Performance, ASMR Community and Fetish on
YouTube.” Sounding Out! Accessed December 10, 2012. https://soundstudiesblog.com/2012/12/10/
whisper-community/
Morgan, Frances. 2012. “Ladies and Gentlemen, We Are Floating in Space.” The Wire. http://www.thewire.
co.uk/in-writing/themire/20909/ladies-and-gentlemen_we-are-floating-in-space
Power, Nina. 2012. “The Dystopian Technology of the Female Voice.” Her Noise Archive. Accessed August
25, 2012. http://hernoise.org/nina-power/
Richard, C. 2015. A Scientist’s View of the Term “Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response.” Accessed
November 28, 2016. http://asmruniversity.com/2014/08/03/scientist-view-termautonomoussensory-meridian-response/
Roberts, A. O. 2015. “Echo and the Chorus of Female Machines.” Sounding Out! Accessed March 2, 2015.
Echo and the Chorus of Female Machines
Thompson, Marie. 2016. “Feminised Noise and the ‘Dotted Line’ of Sonic Experimentalism.” Contemporary
Music Review 35 (1): 85–101. doi:10.1080/07494467.2016.1176773.
Tolan, Claire. 2015a. “Citizen Shush.” Oval Space Performance November 4, 2015. YouTube, Accessed June 3,
2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1Lc2fTz4ZY&list=PLe2hNiHTzbyofgpH1bjGmkQQ7SE_
FL33n&index=1
Tolan, Claire. 2015b. “Shush Systems.” Accessed August 27, 2016. http://shush.systems/info/
Tolan, Claire. 2016a. “Decentralised Shush.” YouTube, uploaded May 18, 2016. https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=MQUdd3LdzzY&index=2&list=PLe2hNiHTzbyofgpH1bjGmkQQ7SE_FL33n
Tolan, Claire. 2016b. “You’re Worth It 04.04/Yummy OPSEC W Snowcrash Overload and Jenny Mainframe.”
Berlin Community Radio. Aired March 29, 2016. https://www.mixcloud.com/BCR_Radio/youre-worthit-0404-yummy-opsec-w-snowcrash-overload-and-jenny-mainframe/
Weidman, Amanda. 2014. “Anthropology and Voice.” Annual Review of Anthropology 43: 37–51.
doi:10.1146/annurev-anthro-102313-030050.
Taking up sonic space: feminized vocality and podcasting as
resistance
Raechel Tiffea and Melody Hoffmannb
a
Merrimack College; bAnoka-Ramsey Community College
The authors of this paper host a podcast called Feminist Killjoys, PhD. Every week, we research
and compile notes about our topic; set up technology to record, talk, and laugh for an hour;
manage our way through software in order to edit the files; and utilize social media to publicize. We have already developed a rich community of listeners and feel proud of the public,
This article was originally published with errors. This version has been amended. Please see Corrigendum (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
14680777.2017.1278106).
116
 COMMENTARY AND CRITICISM
accessible contribution we provide to the airwaves. We are one example of countless women-hosted podcasts. We are interested in exploring what it means for women’s voices to take
up sonic space, particularly in a society that polices and criticizes traditionally feminine vocal
tonality (e.g., vocal fry, upspeak). In this essay, we draw on phenomenology and sound theory
to understand the feminist implications of podcasts hosted by women (specifically when
these women have uniquely marginalized vocal styles), how podcasting treats women’s
voices differently than broadcasting as a precursor, and what women in podcasting means
for the field of feminist media studies.
The deviant female voice
Many scholars have theorized about the body and the ways in which different bodies are
and are not granted access to space-taking (Sara Ahmed 2006; Judith Butler 2004). Ahmed
(2006) notes how “inhabiting a body that is not extended by the skin of the social means
the world acquires a new shape” that does not accommodate what is marked as “deviant”
(2006, 20). For example, heteronormative space is freeing for the straight body, but that
same space takes on a constricting, limiting, and often punitive shape for the queer body.
Indeed, the materiality of the flesh and bone has been deeply important to the feminist
project of naming and challenging the oppression and violence enacted against marginalized bodies. However, much less has been discussed about an immaterial element of the
material body: the voice. As sound scholar Yvon Bonenfant (2014) notes:
Sound isn’t solid, but it takes up space … When we sound, there is a resonant field of vibration
that moves through matter, which behaves according to the laws of physics—it vibrates molecules. This vibratory field leaves us, but is of us, and it voyages through space. Other people
hear it. Other people feel it. (n.p.)
Similarly, Stephen Connor (2004) suggests that our senses are not isolated and that we feel
sound as much as we hear it, a phenomenon he calls “intersensoriality.” Both Bonenfant and
Connor illustrate that, like the physical body, the voice occupies space.
We know privileged bodies are more able to occupy space than marginalized bodies:
men’s legs on a subway; white people’s bodies at a lunch counter; rich people’s bodies in
the front of an airplane. Yet we must also take into account how these bodies’ voices occupy
spaces of access and privilege. A man’s voice talking over a woman’s at a meeting; a white
person’s voice interrupting a person of color while being called out on racism; an Englishspeaking boss talking at a non-English-speaking worker. These voices matter and “people
feel it.”
As women, the authors know all about struggling for vocal space in both our work and
personal lives. (Between us, we also occupy other marginalized positions, including being
queer and working-class.) Our podcast was created in the spirit of Do It Yourself (“DIY”) punk
communities that made their own culture instead of consuming what was made for them
(Stephen Duncombe 2008). Like zines, which allow “everyday oddballs [to speak] plainly
about themselves and our society with an honest sincerity, a revealing intimacy, and a healthy
‘fuck you’ to sanctioned authority,” the authors use the podcast as an outlet outside the
normative and decorous boundaries of academic work production (Duncombe 2008, 2).
And we are not alone. Thousands of podcasts are hosted on the internet, with more and
more of them being hosted by a woman or multiple women. This is significant in a world
that teaches us to take up less space and be quiet.
FEMINIST MEDIA STUDIES 
117
We find it especially interesting that the voices of women on podcasts often reflect the
exact qualities that are policed and criticized by contemporary society. Numerous popular
press articles have been written criticizing the traditionally feminized qualities of women’s
voices, including: vocal fry, upspeak, the use of the word “like,” and women using curse words,
among others (Emily Tess Katz 2014; Naomi Wolf 2015). Academic research has also taken
feminine vocal stylings to task and revealed different societal responses to these vocal tones,
particularly if these gendered voices are also racialized (Rindy C. Anderson, Casey A. Klofstad,
William J. Mayew, and Mohan Venkatachalam 2014).
Women’s voices before podcasting
Hegemonic vocal norms are especially apparent in broadcast journalism, which we understand as a sort of precursor to podcasting (the “radio” of the internet). In journalism school
(where very few podcasters go), soon-to-be anchors, reporters, and radio hosts are trained
to speak with little emotion. Constructing a “plain” voice keeps viewers and listeners focused
on the story, not the storyteller. The lack of emotion keeps reporters from appearing biased
in any way but is also a gendered move given societal constructions of men as emotionless
and women as over-emotional. The traditional broadcaster voice is so ubiquitous that people
who stray from the construct are usually trained to unlearn any vocal variance.
However, in an era where the boundaries between the internet, radio, and TV are increasingly blurred, even those working in traditional outlets are able to be the “oddballs” of journalism. Take for example two women (one queer, one a person of color) who unpoliced their
“deviant” voices. In Minneapolis, KARE 11 anchor Jana Shortal rejects the “no emotion” rule
in her reporting and it stands out in her work. She refers to herself as an “odd duck” in the
newsroom. “I just decided to embrace my own way … and it’s been the best” (personal
communication with authors, July 21, 2016).
The double-jeopardy of being a woman of color in broadcasting is especially harrowing
given the likelihood of being labeled “too Black” or “not Black enough.” For example, LaToya
Dennis of WUWM in Milwaukee, Wisconsin at first worked to sound more “monotone” when
reporting stories. “I didn’t want to sound like I was 12 and I didn’t want to be ‘the Black
reporter’.” But after tiring of mimicking the “status quo” Dennis decided to embrace her voice,
stating, “It’s been one of my best decisions yet” (personal communication with authors, July
22, 2016). Although these two women were aware of the policing of voice in broadcasting
they made an explicit choice to unpolice themselves. As Bonenfant (2014) reminds us, “The
policing of our sound is under our control. We can find ways to unpolice, and enjoy the
unbridledness of our sound” (n.p.). Shortal and Dennis’s success despite (or because of )
rebelling against feminized vocal norms are exceptions in the slowly-changing broadcast
landscape, but embracing one’s “authentic voice” is a defining and foundational trend in
feminist podcasts.
Podcast possibilities
Podcasting allows women and other minorities access to broadcast media but with far fewer
restrictions. For one, there are no norms regarding how to speak. In general, the more you
sound like yourself the better. Even those who receive criticism—disproportionately women
of color—are still incredibly successful. For example, Aminatou Sow of the popular feminist
118
 COMMENTARY AND CRITICISM
podcast, Call Your Girlfriend, receives criticism from listeners about her voice. Interestingly,
the criticism isn’t about her sounding Black, nor foreign (she is from Guinea and grew up in
West Africa and Europe), but is about her “uptalking.” Despite the trolls, CYG is what The
Guardian calls “a cultural phenomenon” (Melissa Locker 2016 n.p.). Similarly, two of WNYC’s
most recent podcasts, Two Dope Queens and Sooo Many White Guys, are hosted by Black
women (Jessica Williams and Phoebe Robinson) who have been accused of sounding “too
Black” (Candace King 2016); however their podcasts continue to be among WNYC’s most
successful.
As feminist media studies scholars we are influenced by how women’s voices continue
to be policed and cherished, and the ways in which we can resist and redefine the norms of
sonic space. We understand that the podcast world is not a utopia, and that as long as there
is an internet, so too will there be trolls disparaging the sound of feminine/feminist voices.
However, we are hopeful about the potentiality of podcast space for traditionally-oppressed
voices, given our own experience being embraced as loud and occasionally vulgar women
podcast hosts, and observing the success of other minority podcast hosts. Furthermore, we
understand podcasts as a medium from which to better understand the ways in which
women are uniquely subjugated in the media, and, more importantly, how this medium
becomes a tool of resistance. In light of an increasingly crowded field of feminist podcasters
and broadcasters who are breaking traditional journalism boundaries with their voices, feminist media studies scholars have much to research in this new form of the digital, feminized
voice.
References
Ahmed, Sara. 2006. Queer Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others. Durham: Duke University Press.
Anderson, Rindy C., Casey A. Klofstad, William J. Mayew, and Mohan Venkatachalam. 2014. “Vocal Fry
May Undermine the Success of Young Women in the Labor Market.” PLoS ONE 9 (5): e97506. doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0097506.
Bonenfant, Yvon. 2014. “On Sound and Pleasure: Meditations on the Human Voice.” Sounding Out.
Accessed June 15, 2016. https://soundstudies.wordpress.com/2014/06/30/on-sound-and-pleasuremeditations-on-the-human-voice/?iframe=true&preview=true
Butler, Judith. 2004. Undoing Gender. New York, NY: Routledge.
Connor, Stephen. 2004. “Edison’s Teeth; Touching Hearing.” In Hearing Cultures: Essays on Sound, Listening,
and Modernity, edited by Veit Erlmann, 153–172. Oxford and New York: Berg.
Duncombe, Stephen. 2008. Notes from the Underground: Zines and the Politics of Alternative Culture.
Bloomington: Microcosm Publishing.
Katz, Emily Tess. 2014. “Vocal Fry, Made Famous by Kim Kardashian, is Making Young Women ‘Less
Hirable’.” The Huffington Post. Accessed June 15, 2016. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/31/
vocal-fry_n_6082220.html
King, Candace. 2016. “‘2 Dope Queens’ are Bringing More Diversity to Podcasts.” NBCNews.com.
Accessed June 20, 2016. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/2-dope-queens-are-bringingmore-diversity-podcasts-n551306
Locker, Melissa. 2016. “Call Your Girlfriend: Podcast Dishes on Everything from Benghazi to Bieber.” The
Guardian. Accessed June 20, 2016 https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/mar/05/call-yourgirlfriend-podcast-politics-pop-culture
Wolf, Naomi. 2015. “Young Women, Give Up the Vocal Fry and Reclaim your Strong Female Voice.” The
Guardian. Accessed June 15, 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/mar/05/call-yourgirlfriend-podcast-politics-pop-culture
Ideological Struggles and Pragmatic Realities
Special Sound: The Creation and Legacy of the
BBC Radiophonic Workshop
Louis Niebur
Print publication date: 2010
Print ISBN-13: 9780195368406
Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: September 2010
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195368406.001.0001
Ideological Struggles and Pragmatic Realities
Louis Niebur
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195368406.003.0002
Abstract and Keywords
Opening with a discussion of the material problems encountered by the
Workshop’s supporters after its initial proposal, this chapter primarily concerns
the aggressive but ultimately futile attempts by the BBC’s Music Department to
prevent the studio’s creation. Frightened of an academic studio under the BBC
banner, and determined to protect the “rational development of music” in
Britain, department heads proposed a series of often‐ridiculous alternatives to a
full‐fledged electronic music studio. Ultimately, those in opposition to the studio
were successful in shaping a great deal of the final studio’s makeup, largely
forbidding the use of the studio by outside composers and initially limiting the
output of the Workshop to electronic “sound effects” for dramatic productions.
The chapter then examines the studio’s tiny budget, offers detailed discussion of
the equipment it acquired, and explores its early compositions.
Keywords: BBC, radio, sound effects, radiophonic, electronic music
The story behind the creation of the Radiophonic Workshop reveals a complex
history of compromises and collaboration faced by no other electronic music
studio in the twentieth century. Out of the internal philosophical battles,
economic frustrations, political dramas, and concessions, however, developed a
musical style unique in several respects, one dependent to an unusually high
degree on the studio equipment’s idiosyncrasies and on the space in which its
composers worked. A study of radiophonic music must deal with these issues,
which are often ignored in other areas of research. With a more distinct
impression of the space and equipment from which this music originated, an
Page 1 of 34
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press,
2022. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.
Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 18 February 2022
Ideological Struggles and Pragmatic Realities
understanding of the hows and wheres, we can achieve a deeper understanding
of the whys behind radiophonic music.
On April 13, 1956, at an Entertainment Divisional Meeting, the BBC’s head of
central program operations, Brian George, proposed setting up a small
laboratory in order to experiment with electronic sound effects in radio
productions. Shortly before the broadcast of All That Fall, in November 1956 he
commissioned a report from Alec Nesbitt, an engineer who followed
developments in electronic music, on the subject of musique concrète and
elektronische Musik; in assembling the report Nesbitt received help from
producers Donald McWhinnie and Douglas Cleverdon, T. H. Eckersley (assistant
head of central program operations, Recording), and composers Daphne Oram (a
studio manager [SM]) and André Almuro. In this five-page document they traced
the history of the genres, described the existing facilities in France, Germany,
the United States, and the rest of Europe, and discussed ways of establishing a
similar studio at the BBC. In it they stressed the value such a studio would offer
to dramatic productions, and noted that the unique application of electronic
sounds to drama increased the potential for truly new ideas:
(p.36) Cologne and Paris have developed this medium primarily as an art
form, but in this country there is a demand by Features Department for the
use of Musique Concrete [sic].…Undoubtedly, Radiophonic Music is in a
primitive and elementary form and it therefore seems prudent to
commence our work from the first principles, and in doing so it is probable
that we will develop a facet of the technique that has been overlooked by
the workers on the Continent.1
They argued that in addition to studio equipment, the new department would
need four employees, never referred to as “musicians”: an engineer capable of
creating and repairing machines, and three “tape editors and devisors of special
effects.” They suggest that SMs could do the editing and effects, a position
slightly higher than an engineer in the BBC hierarchy and one that valued
creativity and originality. After examining the document, George assembled a
group of producers, SMs, and other bureaucratic officials from various
departments to form the Electrophonic Effects Committee (EEC), which
convened for the first time on December 14, 1956.2 At this meeting, they
debated again what kind of facilities and staffing were needed for the proposed
unit, who would direct it, and what its administrative structure would be. Donald
McWhinnie had recently traveled to Paris to meet personally the composers
behind musique concrète, in preparation for his work on All That Fall, and on
behalf of this committee McWhinnie submitted a report to George wherein he
noted the necessity of
Page 2 of 34
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press,
2022. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.
Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 18 February 2022
Ideological Struggles and Pragmatic Realities
obtaining facilities for private experiment and for making recordings which
may never be broadcast. Clearly the exact requirements would have to be
worked out in detail with a technical expert and in consultation with the
Club d’Essai: I should say that the basic essentials would be a room
containing two or three tape reproduction machines, turntables for slow
speed of 78s, a tape-recorder, facilities for echo, filters, etc., and a small
studio with two or three microphone points, an old piano, various
percussion instruments and space for two or three actors.3
Since the committee found the extemporaneous qualities of sound effects
especially important, they noted that “perhaps it might be stressed that the
ability to improvise will be a quality preeminently to be looked for both on the
technical and production sides of the team.”4 They also questioned in this initial
meeting whether they wanted to “loan” SMs and engineers to the new
department or create permanent appointments, tentatively settling on the
former. (Later documents indicate that the committee believed musicians/
engineers (p.37) would be able to deal with electronic sound effects only for a
limited amount of time before succumbing to mental instability!)5 In this
description of the potential duties of staff in the studio, there is a remarkable
similarity to the fears first voiced about the staff of the BBC’s earlier Research
Division in the 1920s and 1930s: “Whilst a free hand must be given to those
working in the section, it will be necessary to exercise a strict, but
understanding control over their work. Self-discipline is most important as their
work will be erratic and will not follow a normal shift pattern.”6
Cleverdon and Searle’s production of Night Thoughts, from December of the
previous year, was said to have been “restricted owing to the limitation both in
the numbers and the performance of our existing tape machines,” and the
document concludes by suggesting that “once basic techniques are mastered,
discussions should commence with Features and Drama Departments,” then
offering a tentative shopping list for the basic equipment necessary for setting
up a studio. Basing their list on Continental models, they included as many
pieces of equipment as possible, knowing they wouldn’t get everything they
asked for. George followed up this optimistic list by noting that “you perhaps set
your sights a little bit too high in terms of staff and technical facilities, bearing
in mind the present financial stringency.”7 Up to this point, all of the members of
the EEC were representatives from sound broadcasting. On March 6, 1957, they
agreed to ask a representative from television, Leonard Salter, to join them.8
They also decided to change the name of the subject under discussion from
“Electrophonic” to “Radiophonic,” because the former term was currently used
in brain research. They agreed on the change and subsequently changed their
name to the Radiophonic Effects Committee (REC).
Page 3 of 34
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press,
2022. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.
Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 18 February 2022
Ideological Struggles and Pragmatic Realities
At the same time these decisions were made, in his enthusiasm to teach others
within the BBC about the potential of electronic and tape effects and music,
producer Douglas Cleverdon organized a monthly listening group for the
playback of electronic music, starting February 19, 1957. He devoted the first
evening to Nadja Etoilée by French musique concrète composer André Almuro.9
Another typical evening’s playlist consisted of Jim Fassett’s Symphony of the
Birds, Karlheinz Stockhausen’s Study II, Herbert Eimert’s Etudes
Übertongemische, Luciano Berio’s Mutazioni, and Bruno Maderna’s Notturno.
That night’s listening concluded with Ruisselle, an hour-long radiophonic poem
with words by Roger Pillaudin and music by Maurice Jarre. Cleverdon sent out
invitations a week before the event, announcing it as a playback of
“experimental recordings in the fields of electronic music, musique concrète,
and other forms which may generally be described as radiophonic music.”10
Cleverdon was on the lookout for composers, technicians, poets, or SMs who
might be interested in the techniques and equipment available to them at that
time.
(p.38) Location
One of the biggest obstacles facing the REC in setting up an electronic studio
was the lack of a viable site. They sought a location that would provide
“adequate daylight, large rooms, little interference with other people, peaceful
surroundings, and…not too easily accessible to keep away people not connected
with the work.”11 The need for several soundproof rooms, free from interference
and noise, with close access to echo rooms and existing studios, made the search
more difficult than it might otherwise have been. They considered Nightingale
Square, a huge Victorian-Gothic nineteenth-century building in Clapham that
had been a convent for elderly Belgian nuns before being taken over by the BBC
Engineering Department.12 (It had the advantage of being close to electrical
equipment and facilities.) The most desirable site, though, and the original
thought of the committee, was the Maida Vale studios, where the majority of the
BBC’s music was recorded in five large studios. The BBC had used the huge art
nouveau Maida Vale complex, built in 1909, since the 1930s, when they had it
converted from a large sunken roller skating rink, the Maida Vale Roller Skating
Palace and Club, into a multipurpose studio complex for use by the BBC
Symphony Orchestra, chamber music groups, and dance bands. Since then, it
had housed all of the BBC’s major music recording studios. Although it offered
the perfect location, there was initially no available space in that facility. Four
months after the REC began making inquiries, however, a small collection of
rooms was offered to the fledgling studio, situated in the old balcony of the
sunken rink.13 The Engineering Department cleared two rooms to house the new
Radiophonic Workshop: the first, Room 13/14 (created by knocking down a
center dividing wall to create a large working space), and the small adjoining
studio, Room 15.
Page 4 of 34
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press,
2022. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.
Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 18 February 2022
Ideological Struggles and Pragmatic Realities
My purpose in dwelling on the materiality of this space is to create a dramatic
sense of the conditions of production at the Workshop. It is easy enough to
describe the details of the original rooms; what I hope to do instead is to
describe how these details combined to create the specific environment needed
for the creation of the radiophonic sounds under discussion. I want to emphasize
that I am not concentrating on material specifics to prove a “perfect
conjunction” of elements, or a “unique combination” of people and equipment
banding together to create works of universal genius. Although it is certainly
true that these works can be judged by some set of standards as either good or
bad, successful or unsuccessful, that is not my primary goal. Rather, by simply
showing the hidden details of production in their original context, I will
demonstrate the idiosyncratic nature of these works’ creation.
Today Room 13/14 betrays nothing of its radiophonic past; the equipment has
long since been evacuated and the space converted into office cubicles. But (p.
39) as the winter of 1958 turned into spring and the Workshop’s opening
approached, the REC and the Engineering Department began filling this newly
created space with electronics. The room was about twenty-five feet long and
fifteen feet wide, with two frosted windows on the south side, and doors leading
into the main hallway directly opposite on the north. The ceiling was low, with a
thick supporting beam running its length and concrete arches extending from it
on both the east and west ends of the room, making for an irregular work space.
Short carpeting covered the floors, and a series of soft lights illuminated the
space. The lack of ventilation in the room was immediately a cause for concern.
It could become very stuffy, because the source of outside air was often blocked
to eliminate sound from the busy Delaware Road outside. Located right next to
this room (usually just called Room 13) was Room 15, which was not so much a
room as a utility space. Because of its small size and its lack of outside windows,
it was most frequently used to record sounds in isolation for later treatment.
Engineer Dick Mills told me once that if more than one person used the room at
the same time, “we almost had to take turns to go outside and breathe!”
Having solved the question of location, the committee turned its attention to
matters of equipment and staffing. Although Nesbitt, in his initial report, had
offered suggestions as to which recorders, filters, and other equipment the
fledgling studio would require, and although he had given his opinion on the
best method of staffing such an organization, the REC could not go ahead with
his plans, as the next section will demonstrate.
Opposition from the Music Department
The Workshop’s supporters and opponents were clearly divided. Predictably, the
strongest criticisms of the Workshop came from the Music Department,
particularly from Light Music. The Music Department had resisted supporting
electronic and concrete music since it had first been developed, leaving the
Drama Department to pursue its own course. The antagonism between
Page 5 of 34
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press,
2022. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.
Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 18 February 2022
Ideological Struggles and Pragmatic Realities
departments had developed as a result of the BBC’s difficult mandate to cater to
large audiences while at the same time “educating” the public in the repertoire
of classical music. By the late 1950s this had produced a persistent middle-ofthe-road approach to broadcasting. Predictably, certain staff members quickly
dismissed avant-garde trends or experiments offhand as of too limited a utility.
By this time, those in power at the Music Department must have known of
British composers’ growing desire to experiment like their American and
Continental colleagues with the developing medium of electronic music. After
the success of Beckett’s All That Fall, they must have also felt within the BBC the
(p.40) growing impulse to create a separate, internal department for the
creation of electronic sound effects for drama and, most threatening to them,
music. One can detect the Music Department’s careful drawing of the
boundaries of musique concrète in the minutes of the first meeting of the REC on
March 6, 1957, during which the second item under discussion was the terrain
of each department. The committee agreed that the sounds under consideration
should fall into two categories:
A. Those produced on instruments played by musicians which may
include electronic devices, but the music of which can be expressed
in existing forms of musical notation.
B. Sounds, produced by technical methods, embracing the
techniques already developed in other countries, e.g. electronic
music derived from oscillators and for which the composer cannot
use existing forms of musical notation, and music concrete based on
natural sounds.14
It can be easy to miss the significance of this seemingly arbitrary distinction,
between “notatable” and “nonnotatable” music, but they were trying to find in
electronic music features of the “traditional” music with which they were more
familiar. When it came to dividing the work to be done between the various
Drama and Music Departments, discussions became more politicized. They
agreed that the Music Division would be responsible for “all music effects under
‘A,’ ” while the “Entertainment Division” (the Drama and Feature Departments)
would “be responsible for sounds in ‘B.’ ” This implied that if a sound could be
notated, it would belong to the Music Department. In other words, it was then,
in fact, “music.” And naturally, the opposite was also true: if the sounds were not
notatable, they did not constitute music. This easy way for the Music
Department to create boundaries for electronic music (and especially musique
concrète, which was of particular interest to British composers) only temporarily
satisfied young composers who wanted a chance to experiment with new
equipment outside the confines of dramatic productions.
Page 6 of 34
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press,
2022. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.
Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 18 February 2022
Ideological Struggles and Pragmatic Realities
Faced with what they must have seen as an inevitability, the committee decided
to defuse the burgeoning movement for a full-fledged electronic music studio
with a plan of their own. For the idea to work, however, the Music Department
had to satisfy the Drama Department’s needs, as well as those of eager
composers and advocates of electronic music, without sacrificing their ideals of
maintaining the musical high ground. They attempted to do this by purchasing a
unique new instrument that created electronic sounds but kept the comforting
form of an organ. The head of Light Music Programmes (Sound), Frank Wade,
along with F. W. Alexander (both committee members), requested (p.41) the
purchase of this new musical instrument, which could create music
electronically and yet was more suited to the tastes of less marginal audiences.
They received permission to order the construction of a special “Colour Tone
Instrument” or “Multi-colour Tone Organ” from the firm Musical Research Ltd.
(a division of the Miller Organ Co.) at a cost of ₤3,000. In a letter to the
accounting office dated February 11, 1957, Wade wrote that in Europe, and to a
lesser extent in America, “where musico-electronics remain under control of
scientists and have no really practical musical application, we are convinced that
we should concentrate on being the first country to combine electronics with live
instruments in the production of real music.”15 One of the supposed benefits of
the instrument was that it had a keyboard just like an ordinary organ, with a
single manual, and could function as an organ, conforming to “established
musical patterns.”16 Wade hoped that the instrument would help existing
musical ensembles to save money and that the novelty of its electronic sounds
would increase the number of BBC listeners.
The Miller Multi-colour Tone Organ could also produce “electronically generated
‘effects’ sounds useful in plays, features, etc.” and thus was considered a perfect
concession to the Drama Department.17 This multipurpose instrument could be
used to “experiment with electronic sound as a musical language and to expand
the colour tone box into a musical instrument in its own right,” so it seemed to
make the Workshop redundant.18 The Music Department recognized the use of
electronic sounds in their Drama productions as legitimate; this was not the
problem. It was more threatened by the potential use of electronic sounds to
create undesirable music, because such music threatened to undermine the
careful cultural work they had undertaken.19
With the purchase of this instrument, the question of electronic music seemed,
to the representatives of the Music Department, to be answered. They could see
no reason to continue participating in a discussion geared toward creating an
electronic studio; they did their best to fight the promotion of music they felt
jeopardized the moral musical culture of Britain. However, the purchase of this
instrument as a supposed solution to the electronic music problem did not
diminish composers’ and producers’ desire to see the BBC create studios like the
ones existing in Europe and America.
Page 7 of 34
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press,
2022. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.
Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 18 February 2022
Ideological Struggles and Pragmatic Realities
An amazing collection of memos and letters survives in the BBC’s archives
showing just how divided the Drama and Music Departments were over this
issue. One particular event fanned the embers of controversy that had been on
the point of igniting for some time, bringing the most conservative members of
the Music Department in contact with the most radical proponents of electronic
music for the first time, with Drama representatives seemingly caught in the
middle. On February 12, 1957, four members of the BBC’s upper staff met with
(p.42) representatives of the Society for the Promotion of New Music (SPNM).
The BBC contingent was composed of Bernard Keefe and Frank Wade
(representing the Music Department), Douglas Cleverdon (Drama), and M. R. G.
Garrard (the “number two” of Studio Operations, responsible for the staffing of
the Workshop). After the meeting, both Keefe and Cleverdon reported to their
bosses. Cleverdon, who had lunched with the chairman of the society on the day
before, had nothing but enthusiasm for the organization and was eager to
accommodate the needs of its composers. He saw collaboration between the
SPNM and the BBC as leading to useful cooperation, taking for granted the need
to pursue in-house electronic music production. Cleverdon reiterated his plan to
conduct monthly playback sessions of experimental music (the first of which,
Almuro’s Nadja Etoilée, was scheduled for a week after the meeting). He saw
these sessions as a means of exposing young talent to the new techniques of
electronic and tape music “with occasional demonstrations of new BBC gear as
it becomes available. This would help us to get to know young composers with
the necessary enthusiasm and elementary technical knowledge, who might in
due course undertake experimental work for us.”20
Note that Cleverdon had no qualms about calling the creators of electronic work
“composers.” The ideological baggage surrounding the traditional notion of the
composer was not nearly as important to Cleverdon, detached as he was from
the intricacies of musicians’ union politics, individual musical biases, and
institutional prejudices that had grown up around experimental music within the
Music Department.21
Keefe and Wade’s response was not nearly as optimistic. Wade added a
handwritten addition to the bottom of Cleverdon’s memo confirming that the
Music Department wanted to be allowed to pursue electronic music in its own
way. At the same time, Wade indicated that he respected Cleverdon’s position:
“It seems desirable in view of the many lines of approach to electrophonic
effects of which the above is only one example that as soon as possible a further
meeting of the committee might be called…to assure coordination.” His
insistence that the sounds under discussion be labeled “electrophonic effects,”
rather than music, and his subtle attempt to make sure “his people” were
included in the discussions betray a fear that the “lunatic fringe” would take
over the more musical commissions.22 Keefe expressed this fear more explicitly
in his letter to the controller of the Music Department, R. J. F. Howgill, and his
more musically conservative assistant, Maurice Johnstone. From his discussion
Page 8 of 34
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press,
2022. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.
Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 18 February 2022
Ideological Struggles and Pragmatic Realities
with the SPNM, Keefe was able to establish two positions. First, he expressed
his and Wade’s belief that electronic sound should be “limited at present to the
technical facilities necessary for compositions of electronic music and musique
concrète used in conjunction with features and drama productions.” This way,
there could be no (p.43) misunderstanding of the boundaries between proper
“music” and this new subversive form. Second, Keefe resented the composers,
two of whom he felt were urging the BBC to “spend every penny it could lay its
hand on to build an electronic studio to outdistance those at Cologne and
Milan…. My personal impression is that one or two of the composers were
anxious to have a toy to play with, not that this was the only instrument by which
they could realize their imaginative dreams.”23 Keefe did not object primarily to
the idea that composers would take advantage of the BBC’s generosity. Rather,
he dismissed these composers for turning against the ideals of British music.
These traitors, in his eyes, were merely small symbols of what he saw as a larger
threat to the newly established “British musical tradition.” He articulated his
beliefs further in the memo, which bears reprinting in full, for it represents a
perspective and philosophy widespread among musical conservatives in the
Music Department at the time:
A comparison between the situations in Germany and England was
continually emphasized [in the meeting], suggesting that the BBC was
hopelessly conservative. I think the comparison was false: in Germany
composers had experimented in atonal and dodecaphonic music to a
degree beyond which the human element was inadequate in performance,
and electronic devices offered the only means of realizing the
mathematical complexities their music seemed to need. Webern himself
said that he could go no further with traditional means. Such a situation
has not arisen in this country. Twelve tone composition has been used by
very few, and without any marked success. At this stage I think the BBC
should beware of providing what will be little more than an opportunity to
escape from a stylistic impasse…. The situation, I think, is comparable to
that of a few years ago when every composer thought he should write
another “Ring,” and demanded eight horns, Wagner tubas, four harps,
etc.24
Keefe articulated a narrow position, ignoring British twelve-tone advocates
Elisabeth Lutyens and Humphrey Searle, to say nothing of younger up-andcoming composers. He argued that although electronic sound was rapidly
evolving into a necessary element in drama and features, it should be restricted
to these areas. He urged the administration to prevent any further
encroachment of electronics into the sonic world of the BBC. Drama and
Features had to remain firmly separated from Music; this was essential to their
position. Musical conservatives like Keefe saw electronic music as just the
serialist composer’s latest attempt to gain a foothold in Britain. Electronic music
was thus irredeemably associated with the ideological battles being waged
Page 9 of 34
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press,
2022. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.
Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 18 February 2022
Ideological Struggles and Pragmatic Realities
throughout (p.44) the Continent, which Britain had managed to avoid, largely
due to the exclusionary policies of the BBC.25 Keefe’s and others’ anxiety over
musical technique coincided with a uniform belief that the composers of this
music were largely charlatans who sought a style that could disguise their lack
of ability. Keefe presented the case cryptically, and in a diplomatic fashion. But
there was nothing cryptic about the memo Wade sent a day later to Howgill, in
which he rearticulated this position unmistakably:
In Europe, in my opinion, it is already vieux jeu to make electronic noise for
its own sake. There was of course, heavy pressure from the more
extravagantly minded (and less erudite) composers for the BBC to provide
them with an expensive toy. But Mr. Keefe and I endorse each other in the
view that the [BBC] should continue its two-pronged policy:
A. To provide an electronic instrument that can be combined
musically.
B. To supply Drama and Feature’s legitimate requirements of
background and effects.
Our inability to supply the Society for the Promotion of New Music, etc.
with the £150,000 toy they demanded does not seem terribly important to
me. Guardianship of rational development of musical aesthetics in this
country does, however, seem to be of paramount importance [emphasis
mine].26
Finally, the gloves had come off. Nothing less than the musical integrity of the
nation was at stake. As protectors of the country’s music, leaders of the BBC’s
Music Department took their responsibilities very seriously; that is where their
Multi-colour Tone Organ came in. It allowed electronics to be used in a way that
“[could] be combined musically.” Wade sarcastically dismissed composers’ desire
to take advantage of the musical tools of their Continental colleagues with a
barely concealed contempt for their perceived inarticulateness.
On March 19, Wade outlined the Music Department’s position in a letter to the
controller of Entertainment (Drama and Features). This letter included a
“Statement of Purpose,” which Wade forwarded to all of the important figures in
sound broadcasting at the BBC. Acknowledging both the inevitability of
establishing a Radiophonic Effects Unit and the desire of “musical” composers to
utilize the equipment housed there, he then revealed that Music Department
heads had recently decided they needed to exert control regarding electronic
music: “A watch will be kept to safeguard the rational development of musical
aesthetics in this country, and at the end of the year selected composers only will
(p.45) be given the opportunity to experiment.”27 He cited Frank Howes’s
summary of electronic music in the Times, which had said that “the scientists
and trautonists are therefore not yet dealing with music, which is an art, but
Page 10 of 34
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press,
2022. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.
Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 18 February 2022
Ideological Struggles and Pragmatic Realities
only with its raw material.”28 Using Howes’s remarks as a tacit endorsement of
his ideas, Wade went on to claim that the primary and “legitimate” concern of
the Music Department was to protect how “art” and “raw material” were
combined. He proposed the electronic Multi-colour Tone Organ as the solution to
this problem.29 With it, “appropriate results” could be injected into the art form.
Although Wade acknowledged the legitimacy of electronic sound effects and said
that laboratory work might be required for such projects, he added:
We are also very concerned that the sterility, which has resulted in Europe
from expensive laboratories being at the disposal of secondary musical
composers who have produced little beyond freakishness, should be
avoided here. In due course we shall doubtless emerge at a point where
the results of the sound effect operation can have some bearing on the
future of the music art form. But that point will be some time ahead.30
The decision to house the Radiophonic Workshop at Maida Vale was a coup for
those who believed in electronic music as music, and it had political implications
outside the realm of electronic sound production. With its close proximity to
traditional musicians in the orchestral studios, the Workshop inevitably became
associated more with music making. Such geographical proximity enabled the
kind of back-and-forth communication between the Workshop’s composers and
engineers and those associated with more traditional music. One can only
imagine how the Workshop’s output would have differed if it had ultimately
found a home at the Engineering building at Nightingale Square. At the time of
Wade’s memo (March 19, 1957), the decision on where the Radiophonic
Workshop would be housed was still three months away and could thus still be
influenced by the Music Department (although, ultimately, practical
considerations outweighed any philosophical ones). Music’s goal was to maintain
two distinct strains of development for electronic sound, as Wade made clear in
the conclusion to his memo: “May we ask that it be ensured that the two parallel
lines of development be pursued and that there be no undue haste to exploit
sound effects, under a pseudo-musical label, for their novelty, freak or feature
value.”31
It was up to forces outside the sphere of the Music Department to advocate in
favor of electronics. Two weeks later, in a spirit of reconciliation, the head of
Features, Lawrence Gilliam, wrote a carefully worded response to Wade’s letter,
directed to all recipients of that Statement of Purpose.32 Gilliam, a (p.46)
longtime supporter of experimental techniques, “strongly support[ed] [Wade’s]
view that the radiophonic equipment should not be used by secondary
composers who (have failed perhaps to establish themselves in more traditional
forms) wish to cash in on this new technique.” But he gingerly admonished Wade
for assuming that just because experiments on the Continent had ended in
“sterility,” British composers would naturally end up with the same results. “The
younger generation of composers is interested in these possibilities; and
Page 11 of 34
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press,
2022. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.
Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 18 February 2022
Ideological Struggles and Pragmatic Realities
inasmuch as the BBC is the only organization in Britain with the necessary
equipment, there is a certain obligation on the Corporation to let them see what
they can achieve.” With a bit of rhetorical sleight-of-hand, Gilliam then described
the situation of three respected “art music” composers—Peter Racine Fricker,
Humphrey Searle, and Michael Tippett—who had all expressed an interest in
composing electronic music for Features but were severely limited by the lack of
available equipment. The pig-headedness of the Music Department was now
affecting the output of Features, Gilliam seemed to be saying. No one could deny
that Tippett was a respectable composer. Gilliam knew that the BBC Music
Department’s shortsightedness had been in some way responsible for the bad
reputation of English music in Europe. Only by encouraging the more
experimental paths of those other studios could England hope to compete.
Comparing the Music Department’s members to an earlier generation of art
critics, Gilliam noted that “the early cubists were often accused of ‘sterility and
freakishness,’ but no informed person would now dare to deny their formative
effect on such modern masters as Braque and Picasso.” As if to prove the Music
Department’s reactionary position invalid, Gilliam reminded of the BBC’s poor
showing in recent Continental music competitions by reminding them that “we
cannot blink the fact that, in the view of the Italia Prize juries, the BBC music
entries [meaning the entries from Music Department] so far have all failed to
exploit the potentialities of the radio medium.” Hoping to bind the sound
broadcasting world together, Gilliam finally reminded them of the elephant in
the room, television, whose growing market share threatened to eliminate radio
altogether if it did not begin to explore new, more dynamic techniques: “In the
present situation of Sound broadcasting, it is surely self evident that we must
pursue with energy, determination and ingenuity a new technique that belongs
to the realm of imaginative creation in the Sound sphere.”33
Gilliam’s note calmed the Music Department, or at least made them reconsider
their public opposition. In private correspondence, their antagonism toward the
Workshop continued unabated. Over a year after the Workshop opened in April
1958, Wade wrote an angry memo to Pip Porter, who was responsible for
scheduling commissions for the Workshop’s services, after receiving a cost (p.
47) estimate for the Workshop’s services that had apparently been sent around
to all production departments as a way of recruiting business. In it he reiterated:
It should be quite clear that this department would never use the
Radiophonic Workshop and is, in fact, offering much more economic
facilities through the Colourtone Instrument now installed in Maida Vale
3…. I shall be more than interested to know how the overall cost of the
Radiophonic Workshop to the Corporation could be reduced by proper
consideration of the facilities now available in MV3 via the Colourtone
Instrument.34
Page 12 of 34
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press,
2022. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.
Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 18 February 2022
Ideological Struggles and Pragmatic Realities
Porter responded immediately to Wade’s letter by agreeing that it would be nice
if the Workshop staff could use the “Colourtone Instrument” but that no one
knew how to use it!35 However, Wade, responsible for the Light Programme,
perceived only part of the threat of the Workshop. What he and others in the
Music Department did not realize was that radiophonics was ultimately to
abandon whatever tenuous claims could be made for it as part of the
“contemporary music” scene and tread directly into the territory of Light Music.
Gilliam’s claim that electronic sound “belonged” to sound broadcasting also held
true for only a short time; within a few weeks of the Workshop’s opening,
television began exploring “special sound” with equal enthusiasm as radio.
In the last two years of the decade, however, there was a slight but noticeable
shift in attitude toward electronic music in the music culture of the BBC, at least
in terms of acknowledging its importance on the Continent. Cleverdon
commented in a meeting of the Third Programme board that “although Music
Department seemed to be willing to put on recordings of electronic compositions
from the continent, they did not seem to be so anxious to encourage British
composers in this field.” He then wondered “whether electronic composition in
fact really came more within the scope of Features Department.”36 His
concession that his department might be responsible for support of the fledgling
art form indicates his resignation to Music Department’s continual opposition to
the creation of new electronic music within the BBC. But his acknowledgment of
this music’s value was an important step for the department, anticipating an
important philosophical shift brought about there by a new leader. In winter
1959, William Glock was appointed controller of Music. With this change in
management came a huge change in programming direction. In contrast to his
predecessors, Glock was famous throughout Britain for his advocacy of
contemporary music, and particularly for his enthusiasm for young avant-garde
composers. He had created Score, Britain’s first journal devoted to the study of
contemporary music, in 1949. To further the promotion of new music, he had (p.
48) also established in Dartington at the beginning of the 1950s, with the help
of other leading composers, a summer school on the model of Darmstadt. This
school emphasized the study of both contemporary and early music. In this new
climate, those in Light Music (and the more conservative individuals within the
larger Music Division, such as Howgill’s second-in-command, Maurice
Johnstone) were forced to rethink their aggressive tactics.37
Staff and Equipment: Stocking Rooms 13/14 and 15
It is not easy to inventory the equipment that ultimately ended up in the
Radiophonic Workshop’s initial studio in April 1958. Since no records survive
detailing the specific machinery in their entirety, this sort of precise list is
impossible to assemble. Nevertheless, by using records, photographs, and the
memories of those involved, I have attempted to reconstruct as closely as
possible the limited inventory of the Workshop at the time of its creation. Again,
such detail is necessary, as it was those specific pieces of equipment that were
Page 13 of 34
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press,
2022. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.
Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 18 February 2022
Ideological Struggles and Pragmatic Realities
to determine the nature and sound of the Workshop’s output. One thing is
certain; the task is made much more difficult by the haphazard methods by
which the Workshop gathered equipment. From the moment the REC secured a
home for the Workshop, the committee began asking around in other
departments for obsolete or redundant and used equipment. After receiving the
overly optimistic equipment list suggested in the initial proposal, the committee
was faced with the realization that they would receive only £1,900 for “minimum
purchase of essential equipment not obtainable from redundant plant.”38 This
meant that although they would be receiving some money—“start-up” money, as
it were—most of their equipment needs would have to be met by soliciting other
departments or by requesting through the Equipment Department a search of
the redundant plant, a storage facility for overstocked items or equipment too
obsolete or old-fashioned to be wanted by anyone else.39 These items still had to
be paid for, but could be purchased at a reduced price. They managed to scrape
together some pretty exotic things, in particular some equipment from the
recently upgraded Royal Albert Hall, including an enormous ornate wood-carved
mixing desk. The Equipment Department sent them a list of available items: a
shabby collection of secondhand, unwanted gear including microphones,
amplifiers, jackfields, filters, and other assorted studio essentials, but very few
large items.40 Once they had established what kind of material they would
obtain from other departments, the REC was able to begin shopping for new
equipment, which they purchased from their £1,900 budget. George summarized
the final approved budget to McWhinnie on February 25, 1958, and included a
chart of the essential equipment to be ordered (table 2.1).41 (p.49)
Table 2.1. Initial Radiophonic Workshop Purchases
Item
Manufacturer
Type
No.
Approx.
Cost
Two Reflectograph Industrial
Model Recorders (variable
speed)
Rudman Darlington
(Electronics) Ltd.
RR 102 ₤241
One Reflectograph Twin
Channel Data Recorder
Rudman Darlington
(Electronics) Ltd.
RR 102 ₤250
One Decade Oscillator
Muirhead
D-650B
₤313
One Square-wave Shaper
Muirhead
D-783
₤70
One Variable voice frequency
filter with amplifier
Albiswerk Zurich S.A.
502/50 ₤480
Page 14 of 34
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press,
2022. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.
Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 18 February 2022
Ideological Struggles and Pragmatic Realities
Item
Manufacturer
Two Lenco four-speed
Transcription Units complete
with pick up and band location
service
Goldring
GL56
Manufacturing Co. (Gr.
Britain) Ltd.
Minor equipment which cannot
be specified in detail at this
stage
Type
No.
Approx.
Cost
₤46
₤500
Total:
₤1,900
R. V. A. George to Donald McWhinnie, memo, February 25, 1958, WAC
R97/9/1.
George was overly optimistic about the opening day for the Workshop, yet the
contents of his list were purchased without delay. The equipment listed above,
together with the redundant equipment “adopted” by the Workshop from other
departments, constituted an effective bare-bones basic studio, even though the
equipment was almost entirely secondhand and ill-functioning. These obsolete
and antique items constantly needed repair and/or adaptation to fulfill the
demands of the composers. This was another reason that, when issues of staffing
arose, it was necessary to have a highly skilled engineer who worked full-time
keeping the equipment in working order.
Tape Recorders
In the classic tape studio, tape recorders are the single most important pieces of
equipment. The Workshop ended up with a unique combination of such
machines. The most interesting and eccentric pieces were the two German-made
Motosacoche tape recorders (figure 2.1). To enable dubbing back and forth,
these huge machines, about four and a half feet tall and three feet square, were
linked by a central controlling unit, making for three huge boxes. They were the
first non-steel tape recorders bought by the BBC and took fifteen seconds to
gear up to the correct speed.42 They were very reliable machines, however, and
could run all day without problems. The Motosacoche company was (p.50)
Page 15 of 34
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press,
2022. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.
Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 18 February 2022
Ideological Struggles and Pragmatic Realities
known for their motorcycles, and
an interesting feature of these
recorders was that their “hoods”
could be raised by electric motors
and steel ribbons to above head
height for repair and motor
replacement!
The BBC had also modified the
original machines in order to
modernize them. They had
replaced the original openplatter format from which the
magnetic tape spooled with less
precarious closed-tape reels,
and adapted them in the
interest of tape economy to run
at 15 inches per second (ips)
Figure 2.1. The two German-made
Motosacoche tape recorders, with central
controlling unit. Copyright © BBC.
rather than their original Continental standard speed of 30 ips.43
The EMI BTR/2 tape recorder was only slightly less bulky than the Motosacoche
but required no separate controlling unit. This British machine had been the
professional standard recorder at the BBC since 1953 owing to its versatility,
ease of operation, and durability.44 Extremely reliable, the BTR/2 was about four
feet tall and provided an exceptional frequency range (50 to 15,000 cycles per
second). It had adjustable speeds that could play at either 15 ips or 7.5 ips.45
The main drawback was their prohibitively expensive cost: new machines were
selling for £850. By 1958, these machines had largely been replaced by the
cheaper EMI TR90, which were half the cost, making the BTR/2 an
uneconomical choice. I can only assume the Workshop was able to (p.51) get
one of the BTR/2 machines after it had been replaced with the cheaper TR90 in
another department.
The Reflectograph 500 was a new model of semiprofessional mono tape recorder
that recorded at a slower speed than the Motosacoches but had the advantage of
variable speed, adjustable anywhere between 3.75 and 7.5 ips. This meant that
recording pitch could be raised or lowered in interesting ways. At about three
feet square by one foot deep, with detachable lids, they were also fairly portable.
One of the Reflectographs acquired by the Workshop was a special model that
could record two separate tracks onto the same piece of tape. While it was
different from a stereo recorder, since it couldn’t record both channels of sound
at once, it was still the first “multitrack” recorder the Workshop possessed.
At the bottom of the quality scale were the Ferrograph recorders. These portable
workhorses were used in the Workshop for recording sounds in isolation or on
location. They were common throughout the BBC and had been used before the
Page 16 of 34
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press,
2022. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.
Subscriber: McMaster University; date: 18 February 2022
Ideological Struggles and Pragmatic Realities
Workshop opened in the studios in Piccadilly, and particularly at Piccadilly Two,
where All That Fall had been recorded.
Turntables
In the late 1950s, tape was still a very new medium. The vast majority of
recording at the BBC, including all programs recorded for rebroadcast, was still
done on disc. Most stations around the globe still required disc copies of BBC
programs; these were provided by the BBC transcription service, which
recorded them onto special larger discs that required special turntables. The
Workshop acquired a set of internally built machines known as the TD/7
Transcription Disc players, which were the standard machines used to play back
these discs. The Workshop required these turntables not only for playback but
also to rerecord tape recordings onto disc for playback on TD/7 machines. In
order to play back standard records, the Workshop acquired a set of turntables
by Lenco, a company that specialized in high-quality turntables for broadcasting.
Sound Generators and Miscellaneous Equipment
Following methods developed in earlier productions, most of the actual sound
creation in the Workshop in the early years was done by manipulating existing
sounds in the manner of musique concrète rather than by producing it
electronically through oscillators. The north wall of the Workshop, in between
the two doors, (p.52) was devoted to three large rack-mounted units holding
miscellaneous pieces of equipment for sound manipulation, mostly signal
amplifiers and filters. Attached to the racks on the right was a small workstation
where portable components (filters, oscillators, tape recorders) could be
combined to create new sounds.
Before any sound could be recorded, its signal had to be amplified. The
Workshop owned two kinds of amplifiers: line and trap-valve. The line amplifier
is a basic amplifi…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment