rmit university

I was really lucky to have been placed in a hard-working and cohesive group at random.
We began a little shaky, not knowing where we wanted to take the topic of attention and eventually settled on Game of Thrones, as we felt it would be a great idea to choose something that we had all seen but wasn’t too simple in subject matter.

We evolved our original ideas in the second week, opting to incorporate HBO as a conglomerate; discussing its decisions to take on GoT and similar shows that captivated our attention, but didn’t end up using a lot about what we found in research, as GoT served as an in-depth topic as it was. Gender alone gave us a lot to talk about, so we began to finalise and refine all our information.

We worked really well as a group, discussing and sharing articles and information on our facebook chat group, then meeting weekly in building 10 and in class. As the weeks progressed and we were shown examples of stylised and dramatic podcasts, we began to feel there was a lot more legroom for the podcast but grew uncertain as to how we’d relay the information as a narrative, feeling inspired by the examples in class.

In week 12, we presented a rough cut; an intro that encompassed the overall feel we were wanting to evoke throughout.
As we hadn’t reached a conclusion as a group as to how we wanted to creatively describe the findings, we settled on using Ben’s dramatic voice.
He began by opening the cut by posing a question to the audience as to why they watched game of thrones, thus opening a discussion about attention and it’s relevance, based on our information.
It was simple and effective; cutting the fat, much like the tv show itself.
Catherine was a little unimpressed with the lack of ‘meat’/content that was present, but in the end we all agreed that the themes worked and so we began filling it with content.

Taking on board the critique from Catherine, we settled on holding a casual discussion about the research and our personal vibes on the show as viewers ourselves, we thought this was help personify the overall feel.
We found a time in week 13 to get together and hold a panel discussion.
Unaware, or at least just exhausted from all our other group assignments for other topics, we may have missed the fact that there had been an allocated room for us to work in, so I booked an on air studio which suited us a lot better, and we looked really super professional too.
I borrowed a zoom recorder for us to use but because we had the option of using the studio, we set up the mics and began.
We ran a few test recordings and found that there was a low buzzing noise in the background. We hunted for it, screwing in cords tighter in case it was a technical issue.
We asked for the AV guys at the desk to come and take a look but we were told that this was ‘just the way the room was’ and that we would have to ‘deal with it’ because all the other students do apparently.
Studio’s are supposed to be completely silent, right?
We were running short of time, so we persevered.
This was the most difficult aspect of the project for me; coordinating written topics to spoken word amongst four people. Additionally,  we attempted to make it easier in the editing process, by rounding our words off. Avoiding bringing our voices up at the end of our sentences.

As Ben had the most experience with Adobe Audition, he offered to take the cuts and begin editing them before we met again on the Thursday before submission to finalise the edits as a group.
We got together and listened to the grabs he had chosen before incorporating the youtube clips that we had all chosen to further embellish topics discussed throughout.
Ben mentioned that there were very few issues that he encountered with the clips, it was just that he found it a little difficult to tie things off seamlessly.
Additionally, the YouTube clips that we had chosen to back-up our arguments, found in articles, weren’t always cleanly done, so tying those off seamlessly was a little difficult.
Another issue we found that because we had already established the voices of the podcast, only to embedded another entirely different American man, we opted for humour and included an intro to the chosen clips.

Overall, our group was a pleasure to work and collaborate with.
We never encountered any issues and each member held up their part of the agreement of showing up when they could and doing their share of the work.

I think the most recent podcast that I had listened to was The Ricky Gervais Show with Karl Pilkington.
I remember my ex boyfriend would play it in the car on long drives. Romantic.
Karl would be the butt of every joke and I’d just love the real laughter that Ricky would bust out at the sheer disbelief of the density of his co-host/martyr.

I don’t think I’ve listened to many other podcasts, to tell you the truth.
The sheer thought of making one has confused me a little.

I’ve forced myself to listen to one now on the BBC.
I love the English. I just feel they do comedy so well because they’re often so warped, similar to Australians but then completely different, if that makes sense. Probably not.
Anyway, it’s called The Listening Project and there’s a little girl interviewing her father. She sounds about 8 years old (specific) and she just asked him if he likes mummy better than any of his ex-girlfriends.
Kids are brilliant.

Podcasts have this incredible creative freedom to launch and translate information accumulated in any direction.
The issue I think lies in the information found, the creative efforts of your group and the shared direction – let’s also not forget that there are a tonne of other deadlines that we all respectively have to get done, amidst the podcast flurry.
We opted for a simplistic format to kick things off.

I think now that the podcast has been done (yes, I was late with my blog posts), I liked constructing it all and watching it come to fruition.
Grasping each member of the groups strengths and weaknesses helps to gauage what they can tackle as their parts and then bring it all together and make a podcast pasta.
I think we did a fairly good job for our first try, to be honest.
We had a good laugh too.

I had the most fun tackling the first recording exercise ‘do I have your attention’, forming a narrative, which I believe may have actually been the idea that Ben, one of group members, was hoping the podcast, was hoping our podcast would have become.
In hindsight, could’ve been pretty great but it’s a learning curve that’s only just begun.

We presented our rough cut to Catherine on Thursday – link here.

I really liked the sound clip that Ben prepared.
Having not been able to come up with an idea as a group, Ben took the inititave and threw a recording together, akin to what he had been trying to describe to us a week prior.
We felt that it worked in jest, as those of us in the group weren’t keen on being too serious throughout – Ben had accomplished a happy medium.

Our rough-cut was very rough but it gave the overall idea for how we wanted to present our findings.
It began with Ben, narrating and setting the tone with a little sarcasm, which was later described as arrogance by Catherine.
She suggested that we use it as a means of further developing characters throughout the podcast.
Considering our limited time frame, we found the concept of creating characters for four people to be an additional weight that we didn’t wish to carry. We were aiming for simplicity.
Catherine mentioned that she had not watched the show we were discussing, Game of Thrones.
Having only watched one episode and seeing the stereotypical female roles as mother and exotic female, she was unimpressed and didn’t give the show a second glance.
Which was what a lot of my findings were telling me too – articles in abundance convincing the public that women do in fact like GoT.
Catherine’s reaction to it as being ‘sexist’ was something that we took on board, myself especially as gender was my primary focus on the project.

She went on to say that she liked the overall tone of the clip but she didn’t think that we should poke fun at the audience, as was lightly done in the recording – so we scrapped that but kept the overall theme set by Ben in the beginning; music intro, then narrator, then launch straight into the topics broached.

Overall, the feedback was helpful and allowed us to gain a firmer grip on what we didn’t want, which eventually paved the way for what we should do.

Thanks!

What’s the deal with piracy though?
Piracy is essentially the backlash against pricing of content that doesn’t match up to average societal wages, thus forcing it underground. For a lot of people, it’s just another way to make a living.
I myself have never bought a pirated dvd but I’m still a pirate as I navigate my way through the seas of online content and stream Seinfeld online. It’s my go to.

Can I just ask though, why is that YouTube link not piracy? Is it because it hasn’t showed you the full progression of the show? Why should that matter?
It’s still someone else’s IP, the jokes, the acting, the content as a whole?

I’m not sure where I’m going with this because I like being a pirate – I think there’s also something very devious about it too. I think that and the monetary aspect is another reason people continue to do it.
The cost of living grows too high for us all to keep up with, so we love to kick back at the end of the day with a little something for US – if that means we’re streaming something illegally, so be it. Pour me another glass of red.

However, if I turn the argument around and seat myself on the opposing end, I’m now impacted as a ‘media maker’ or an artist who has created something and I’m no longer receiving any remuneration for my efforts, arduous or not.

For some reason I was just reminded of an episode in Seinfeld wherein Jerry is robbed.
Just before the police officer leaves his house, he asks him if the cops have ever found any stolen goods, to which the officer replies, no.
They cut to his stand-up where he talks about how easy Batman had it – all the characters go to the effort of having costumes, while looking wretchedly evil.
I think that if you’re going to be a pirate, at least dress the part and be open about the fact that you’re doing something wrong to make things a little more interesting.

I may start wearing an eye-patch from now on.
Who needs depth perception anyway.

Google defines perspective as:
‘the art of representing three-dimensional objects on a two-dimensional surface so as to give the right impression of their height, width, depth, and position in relation to each other.’

While, Rory Sutherland describes perspective as ‘re-branding’, which I find interesting.

Using the analogy of ‘someone who stands looking outside a window at a drinks party, is thought of as antisocial. Whereas, someone starting outside a window at a drinks party with a cigarette is a fucking philisopher.’ – could not be truer.
Why though?
I’m of course taking this in its most literal sense, interested in perspective, rather than the sonic references in the reading this week.

We all have a varying perspective on topics, life, meaning etc.. that’s why we interview people, right? We want to get their perspective because it may aid others in their own perspective and respective lives.

I thought it might be nice to finish on this last video as it ties in nicely a single shot sequence that was referenced in a class earlier in the semester. Apple, of course, executes it seamlessly and the sound isn’t too bad either.