Despite all the far-out new technology and the onset of nonlinear consumer habits, one thing about human media not changed: the music fan has no better friend than a good radio show.
No amount of magazines, peer advice or record-store browsing can substitute for those individuals who make it their business to select and play good music over the airwaves on a regular basis.
Unfortunately for fans of experimental music, it can be hard to find a good radio program dedicated to music on the outer fringes. There is a contradiction between experimental music's built-in lack of popular appeal, and radio's need of a guaranteed audience. Certainly there are experimental music programs out there, but each one is a sort of miracle unto itself, existing within and in spite of a hostile environment.
Even more rare are programs such as "It's Too Damn Early" Saturday mornings on WDBX in southern Illinois, which is not only an hours-long weekly audition of the underplayed, but is also hosted by DaveX who clearly understands the value of lagniappe. Each week, while spinng a variety of obscure tracks, DaveX provides live programming notes at his blog "Startling Moniker," where he also generously provides mp3s of previous shows. Between episodes of ITDE, DaveX also works hard at finding the latest music to share with his audience, writing reviews, keeping in touch with musicians and labels and generally acting as a cheerleader for the perpetually encouragement-starved international experimental community.
It was in this spirit of scene-building that DaveX recently invited me to participate in a mutual email interview. My answers to DaveX's questions were recently posted at Startling Moniker, and it is here and now that I present DaveX's answers to my questions:
--
Explain the usual processes that you go through to select music for
your program. What are your basic criteria for what is appropriate
for the show? Do you discover new artists through magazines,
word-of-mouth or some other information source? (My intent with this
line of questioning is not to create a howto for bands trying to get
radio play. I am more interested here in getting some insight into
how you operate as a "curator" or selector, if those terms mean
anything to you. )
I do a lot of research for music to play on “It's Too Damn Early.” I don't think I use any methods that are particularly strange ('zines, websites, word of mouth, liner notes, other radio shows, reviews, listservs, writing to labels and musicians), but my suspicion is that I devote more time and energy to this research than many DJs, and certainly MUCH more than the casual listener. It is accurate to say that I am fascinated by music and sound in general, so this makes the research much more easy and worth my time.
One of my most basic criteria for recordings appearing on the show is that I personally enjoy it in some manner. This could be anywhere from really loving the recording, to feeling a sense of challenge while listening to it. You're very apt to use the term "curator." In the past, I have even gone so far as to name a portion of my show "The Sound Museum," which was where I'd present ordinary or unremarkable recordings that were once deemed important enough to BE recorded, but no longer were of any real value. I think of these as lost and forgotten recordings, aural fragments of us all-- a sonic detritus, perhaps.
In the greater show itself, I try to live up to the show's motto: "In all the world, nothing finer," which I gleefully stole from a vintage advertisment! To me, it means presenting a world-class selection of experimental recordings; despite having no budget, staff, assistance, etc. However, one of my stated goals for "It's Too Damn Early" is to help "grow" a community of experimental artists in Southern Illinois-- one where experimental music creation and appreciation could flourish. Because of this, I take more time to demonstrate the links between one work and another. Even if I don't state these links verbally, I always keep it in mind while selecting recordings during the actual broadcast. Also, because I am trying to "grow" experimental music appreciation and exploration in Southern Illinois, I will play from works "in progress," or from much lesser-known artists. In a larger more established community, I'm not sure this would be as good a decision for a broadcaster.
Finally, let me comment on selecting music during the show itself! While actually broadcasting, I try to be as free and flexible as I possibly can. I think of each show as a sketchpad of sorts, so I'll try out new musical ideas as far as mixing recordings, layering, ordering or juxtapositioning of tracks, etc. This is a really fascinating experience for me, so I try to share if with listeners by liveblogging the shows. Still, I think a lot of the mental process is missed. If listeners ever have a chance to watch a good radio DJ at work, they should take it!
-
How do you obtain the music that you play and review? It seems as if you
purchase discs for the show, or get them through the radio station.
Do you actually spend money on this kind of music? If so, about how
much per month?
Presently, I receive the bulk of my recordings for the show as promotional materials, which I often write away for directly. I enjoy a close working relationship with many, many labels and artists due to a large effort on my part to make sure that they receive accurate playlists and feedback via reviews and my own commentary. I am extraordinarily thankful that so many labels and artists are willing to share their music with my listeners; and that they are being helped in a small way by my broadcasts as well.
At my previous station, WIDB, recordings would be delivered through a hierarchy of program directors after being mailed to the station itself. These were the property of the station, which half-heartedly maintained a library of music. At WDBX, the situation is a bit different-- as volunteers, we are generally expected to supply our own music. WDBX does maintain a station library; but it is mostly devoted to Americana, folk, and local artists. In my experience, theft is always a serious concern with libraries of this sort; most DJs I work with maintain their own personal holdings, which they share as necessary. I am lucky that WDBX is a very open, communicative environment-- I am often able to pass on music that is useful for other shows, whether it is flexible enough for programming within another show, or simply inappropriate for my own. In the past, there has been much "cross-pollination" between the new age show and my own, much more than anyone would suspect! I also found a serious fan of early avant-garde in the fellow who ran the "singing cowboy" Western Swing show-- it always pays to share info with fellow DJs.
Normally, I do purchase quite a bit of music, but I'm not really able to do this much lately-- simple concerns like having food, gas money for getting to work, and keeping the lights on have had to take priority. I continue broadcasting, though-- I believe that art and culture should never be the sole domain of an elite, nor be out of reach of any human being. Art and communication are our heritage as human beings. I have often said that you should do whatever you have to do to ensure that this is not taken away from you.
-
Tell me about music that you have crafted yourself. What kind of
sounds were you trying to make? Were you trained in any instruments?
What tools have you used in the course of making music?
My own recorded output has been quite small in comparison to my work on radio. I had initially hoped this would not be the case, but I have often realized that my ideas for music far outstrip my ability to acheive them physically. Ideally, I'd love to work with a group of talented musicians who could carry out some of my concepts, as a cross between a composer and a bandleader. Realistically, though, I doubt this will happen. As for sounds, I've tried all sorts of things-- I'm attracted to so many different ideas that it would be foolish to try making any sort of list. I am not trained with any instruments whatsoever, and could hardly be called proficient on even the most basic of instruments. Nevertheless, what I lack in skill and training, I more than make up for in enthusiasm. I'm hoping to get back into recording when the time seems right.
-
What attracts you to radio? What are your opinions about the state of
radio today? If you owned the planet Earth, how would you govern over
the radio waves? What would your perfect use of radio be?
I was initially attracted to radio because it just looked like a lot of fun. I had a friend who worked at a college station, so I would accompany him occasionally. Eventually, I began helping with his experimental broadcast, ~Ore~. A lot of the deeper concepts and ideas surrounding the medium didn't occur to me until later, when I was actively co-hosting these broadcasts.
My opinion of radio today is similar to my opinion of many things: that there is a frustratingly large potential that is going unused, primarily due to a small number of people's financial concerns. The airwaves have been hijacked from the American people by corporations, big business, and the music industry-- and citizens are really not aware of it! The problem is that I think most folks are genuinely happy with radio as it is. The radio corporations, FCC, and music industry have done such a good job of maintaining a status quo that ordinary citizens have never experienced anything else-- they simply don't know what radio CAN be like. Being within range of a good community radio station usually changes that for a lot of folks, but there are far too few of these to make a serious difference in total.
As for owning the Earth-- well, that's obviously a pretty big question! I like the idea of a regulatory agency that insures one station isn't stepping on another station's signal-- there's a Christian station somewhere around our area that I suspect turns up its transmitter from time to time to drown out WDBX's signal. This is supposed to be the job of the FCC, which is necessary, but I think that they spend more time being cultural monitors nowadays to worry about the engineering aspect of their work. Beyond this, I'd try to make sure that a single company could not own so many stations as is currently allowable. In my community, I have seen a big-fish-bigger-fish progression of radio stations being eaten by other stations, being eaten by conglomerates, and still larger conglomerates. While the programming wasn't fantastic before, it's actually become quite a bit worse now. The heart of the problem is that most stations forget that the airwaves are the property of the public, and start treating them solely as a money-making opportunity to sell advertising. When you compare the miniscule budget of WDBX to one of these big stations, it is shameful how little useful, necessary services they provide to the public-- especially when we consistently trump them in this regard. In fact, I'd doubt our yearly budget could keep one of these behemoths going for a month.
-
What is experimental music to you? Are there characteristics that
so-called academic and popular experimental music have in common?
What role do you think experimental music plays in relation to the
entirety of human culture and our general direction as a species?
What role should it play, do you think?
For me, experimental music is the only genre (and I use that term for lack of a better one) of music that is definined not by its sound, but by its process-- in other words, experimental music doesn't "sound like" anything in particular-- it is experimental by means of how and why it was created. While it is technically true that no musician truly knows the outcome of their recording beforehand, I think it is simple-minded and disingenious to think of ALL music as experimental-- when a rock band sits down to make a song, they have a rock song in mind-- so the experimental intent is simply not present.
On "It's Too Damn Early," I don't try to maintain a "pure" experimental output-- I know that some of the tracks I play have an intent to be droning, or noisy, or whatever-- but as an overarching concern, I also recognize that these are areas of music that are actively being explored, and thus are something I consider experimental in nature as well.
As for academic and popular experimental recordings, I think they have much more in common that folks would suspect. The joy of creating something new, the openness, acceptance of odd sounds, willingness to explore-- these are all common aspects that could easily be built on. It's really only the audience that is different, and the level at which they are willing to engage with the sounds being presented. What a long-time listener of XI Records or Pogus Productions releases expects from the liner notes of an album is clearly much different than someone who enjoys work from Public Eyesore, Roil Noise, or Deathbomb Arc. Another defining aspect of these two areas of experimental recording is in the process itself-- the "popular" recordings are much more actively cross-pollinated by shifting band members, split releases, musical guests, distros, sharing a tour, etc-- whereas I often find that while academic artists and composers are very knowledgeable about the work around them, they tend to be much less informed by it. It's not a hard and fast rule by any means-- there are many examples where this doesn't hold true! But hey, art and music are slippery.
I'm not sure what experimental music has to do with us a species-- this is probably far too large a question for me to answer, but I'm flattered you'd even try, haha. Personally, I think that experimental music and sound at best is pushing our acceptance and understanding of existing art and communication; and simulataneously delivering us all new tools with which to communicate. It's also a hell of a lot of fun to listen to and to be a part of this effort.
-
You've mentioned "active listening" on your show and blog. I have
my own opinions on this, and I don't want to ask too leading of a
question. Still, I'll risk it: Is listening a dying art form? How
do you think the act of listening is changing, especially considering
the parabolic increase of signals that we are experiencing in this
culture?
To begin, let me say a bit about my personal concept of "active listening," or what I am referring to when I say this term. Consider it like this-- music can be used in a variety of ways: instruction, entertainment, as data, etc... so its also safe to assume that we don't listen to different types of music in the same ways. You'd be missing the point of a good James Brown song if you didn't move your ass, and its not incredibly important that the listener even understand what is generating the sounds or how. For an experimental work, the opposite may be true! If you don't "actively" listen, you can miss important details-- and usually, knowing more about a work can lead to greater appreciation of it. If you keep waiting for the beat to kick in so you know when to leap to your feet, you'll miss out entirely. To advocate active listening is my way of telling listeners that there is more to the music I am broadcasting than is immediately apparent. In this way, the experience of radio doesn't end when I present the song-- it is a collaborative process between the listener and myself.
As for listening as an art form... I don't really have any data on this, but my best guess is that its probably not changed a whole heck of a lot. In my experience, there is a limited amount of people who listen to anything much beyond a basic level-- its simply not afforded the cultural level of importance as visual experience, as the difference between someone's "word" and their signature on a document shows. (Hell, even the verbs "shows" or "illustrates" are evidence of this bias towards the visual!) I'd like this situation to improve, but it's also not terribly realistic of myself and my abilities to expect a sea change. Still, if you want to enjoy my show more fully, this is the best way to experience it-- as an active listener, and also as a participant in some fashion.
Regarding the "increase" of input we receive-- there are a lot of conflicting ideas of how this is affecting people, and I think the most reasonable assumption is that there are a lot of real, possible reactions to it. I see evidence that people are more able to focus through the "noise" to receive the input they're seeking, which is a good listening skill to have-- but I also see that this increased focus can sometimes narrow to the point of excluding valid input as well. A lot has been written about niche genres and publications, where whole "worlds" are obsessively explored in what appear to be tiny genres of music-- power electronics, for example. This can be good in that the level of detail available to fans and researchers is incredible, but can also overwhelm fans into overlooking everything outside a small area of music. Everyone who fileshares on a regular basis is familiar with the guy who's looking for recommendations, but has narrowed his requirements so much that nothing seems to satisfy the recording he is seeking! Overall, I think that no good can come from censorship or a reduction of these "signals." I wholeheartedly agree with Thomas Jefferson's concept of the "free market of ideas," where the best ideas (or signals, perhaps) rise to the top. A good radio show can help with sifting some of these signals for us, but all listeners should realize that it's not because DJs are magical-- we may be more skilled at sifting through these signals, but it's not something that is somehow beyond the ordinary person.
###
No amount of magazines, peer advice or record-store browsing can substitute for those individuals who make it their business to select and play good music over the airwaves on a regular basis.
Unfortunately for fans of experimental music, it can be hard to find a good radio program dedicated to music on the outer fringes. There is a contradiction between experimental music's built-in lack of popular appeal, and radio's need of a guaranteed audience. Certainly there are experimental music programs out there, but each one is a sort of miracle unto itself, existing within and in spite of a hostile environment.
Even more rare are programs such as "It's Too Damn Early" Saturday mornings on WDBX in southern Illinois, which is not only an hours-long weekly audition of the underplayed, but is also hosted by DaveX who clearly understands the value of lagniappe. Each week, while spinng a variety of obscure tracks, DaveX provides live programming notes at his blog "Startling Moniker," where he also generously provides mp3s of previous shows. Between episodes of ITDE, DaveX also works hard at finding the latest music to share with his audience, writing reviews, keeping in touch with musicians and labels and generally acting as a cheerleader for the perpetually encouragement-starved international experimental community.
It was in this spirit of scene-building that DaveX recently invited me to participate in a mutual email interview. My answers to DaveX's questions were recently posted at Startling Moniker, and it is here and now that I present DaveX's answers to my questions:
--
Explain the usual processes that you go through to select music for
your program. What are your basic criteria for what is appropriate
for the show? Do you discover new artists through magazines,
word-of-mouth or some other information source? (My intent with this
line of questioning is not to create a howto for bands trying to get
radio play. I am more interested here in getting some insight into
how you operate as a "curator" or selector, if those terms mean
anything to you. )
I do a lot of research for music to play on “It's Too Damn Early.” I don't think I use any methods that are particularly strange ('zines, websites, word of mouth, liner notes, other radio shows, reviews, listservs, writing to labels and musicians), but my suspicion is that I devote more time and energy to this research than many DJs, and certainly MUCH more than the casual listener. It is accurate to say that I am fascinated by music and sound in general, so this makes the research much more easy and worth my time.
One of my most basic criteria for recordings appearing on the show is that I personally enjoy it in some manner. This could be anywhere from really loving the recording, to feeling a sense of challenge while listening to it. You're very apt to use the term "curator." In the past, I have even gone so far as to name a portion of my show "The Sound Museum," which was where I'd present ordinary or unremarkable recordings that were once deemed important enough to BE recorded, but no longer were of any real value. I think of these as lost and forgotten recordings, aural fragments of us all-- a sonic detritus, perhaps.
In the greater show itself, I try to live up to the show's motto: "In all the world, nothing finer," which I gleefully stole from a vintage advertisment! To me, it means presenting a world-class selection of experimental recordings; despite having no budget, staff, assistance, etc. However, one of my stated goals for "It's Too Damn Early" is to help "grow" a community of experimental artists in Southern Illinois-- one where experimental music creation and appreciation could flourish. Because of this, I take more time to demonstrate the links between one work and another. Even if I don't state these links verbally, I always keep it in mind while selecting recordings during the actual broadcast. Also, because I am trying to "grow" experimental music appreciation and exploration in Southern Illinois, I will play from works "in progress," or from much lesser-known artists. In a larger more established community, I'm not sure this would be as good a decision for a broadcaster.
Finally, let me comment on selecting music during the show itself! While actually broadcasting, I try to be as free and flexible as I possibly can. I think of each show as a sketchpad of sorts, so I'll try out new musical ideas as far as mixing recordings, layering, ordering or juxtapositioning of tracks, etc. This is a really fascinating experience for me, so I try to share if with listeners by liveblogging the shows. Still, I think a lot of the mental process is missed. If listeners ever have a chance to watch a good radio DJ at work, they should take it!
-
How do you obtain the music that you play and review? It seems as if you
purchase discs for the show, or get them through the radio station.
Do you actually spend money on this kind of music? If so, about how
much per month?
Presently, I receive the bulk of my recordings for the show as promotional materials, which I often write away for directly. I enjoy a close working relationship with many, many labels and artists due to a large effort on my part to make sure that they receive accurate playlists and feedback via reviews and my own commentary. I am extraordinarily thankful that so many labels and artists are willing to share their music with my listeners; and that they are being helped in a small way by my broadcasts as well.
At my previous station, WIDB, recordings would be delivered through a hierarchy of program directors after being mailed to the station itself. These were the property of the station, which half-heartedly maintained a library of music. At WDBX, the situation is a bit different-- as volunteers, we are generally expected to supply our own music. WDBX does maintain a station library; but it is mostly devoted to Americana, folk, and local artists. In my experience, theft is always a serious concern with libraries of this sort; most DJs I work with maintain their own personal holdings, which they share as necessary. I am lucky that WDBX is a very open, communicative environment-- I am often able to pass on music that is useful for other shows, whether it is flexible enough for programming within another show, or simply inappropriate for my own. In the past, there has been much "cross-pollination" between the new age show and my own, much more than anyone would suspect! I also found a serious fan of early avant-garde in the fellow who ran the "singing cowboy" Western Swing show-- it always pays to share info with fellow DJs.
Normally, I do purchase quite a bit of music, but I'm not really able to do this much lately-- simple concerns like having food, gas money for getting to work, and keeping the lights on have had to take priority. I continue broadcasting, though-- I believe that art and culture should never be the sole domain of an elite, nor be out of reach of any human being. Art and communication are our heritage as human beings. I have often said that you should do whatever you have to do to ensure that this is not taken away from you.
-
Tell me about music that you have crafted yourself. What kind of
sounds were you trying to make? Were you trained in any instruments?
What tools have you used in the course of making music?
My own recorded output has been quite small in comparison to my work on radio. I had initially hoped this would not be the case, but I have often realized that my ideas for music far outstrip my ability to acheive them physically. Ideally, I'd love to work with a group of talented musicians who could carry out some of my concepts, as a cross between a composer and a bandleader. Realistically, though, I doubt this will happen. As for sounds, I've tried all sorts of things-- I'm attracted to so many different ideas that it would be foolish to try making any sort of list. I am not trained with any instruments whatsoever, and could hardly be called proficient on even the most basic of instruments. Nevertheless, what I lack in skill and training, I more than make up for in enthusiasm. I'm hoping to get back into recording when the time seems right.
-
What attracts you to radio? What are your opinions about the state of
radio today? If you owned the planet Earth, how would you govern over
the radio waves? What would your perfect use of radio be?
I was initially attracted to radio because it just looked like a lot of fun. I had a friend who worked at a college station, so I would accompany him occasionally. Eventually, I began helping with his experimental broadcast, ~Ore~. A lot of the deeper concepts and ideas surrounding the medium didn't occur to me until later, when I was actively co-hosting these broadcasts.
My opinion of radio today is similar to my opinion of many things: that there is a frustratingly large potential that is going unused, primarily due to a small number of people's financial concerns. The airwaves have been hijacked from the American people by corporations, big business, and the music industry-- and citizens are really not aware of it! The problem is that I think most folks are genuinely happy with radio as it is. The radio corporations, FCC, and music industry have done such a good job of maintaining a status quo that ordinary citizens have never experienced anything else-- they simply don't know what radio CAN be like. Being within range of a good community radio station usually changes that for a lot of folks, but there are far too few of these to make a serious difference in total.
As for owning the Earth-- well, that's obviously a pretty big question! I like the idea of a regulatory agency that insures one station isn't stepping on another station's signal-- there's a Christian station somewhere around our area that I suspect turns up its transmitter from time to time to drown out WDBX's signal. This is supposed to be the job of the FCC, which is necessary, but I think that they spend more time being cultural monitors nowadays to worry about the engineering aspect of their work. Beyond this, I'd try to make sure that a single company could not own so many stations as is currently allowable. In my community, I have seen a big-fish-bigger-fish progression of radio stations being eaten by other stations, being eaten by conglomerates, and still larger conglomerates. While the programming wasn't fantastic before, it's actually become quite a bit worse now. The heart of the problem is that most stations forget that the airwaves are the property of the public, and start treating them solely as a money-making opportunity to sell advertising. When you compare the miniscule budget of WDBX to one of these big stations, it is shameful how little useful, necessary services they provide to the public-- especially when we consistently trump them in this regard. In fact, I'd doubt our yearly budget could keep one of these behemoths going for a month.
-
What is experimental music to you? Are there characteristics that
so-called academic and popular experimental music have in common?
What role do you think experimental music plays in relation to the
entirety of human culture and our general direction as a species?
What role should it play, do you think?
For me, experimental music is the only genre (and I use that term for lack of a better one) of music that is definined not by its sound, but by its process-- in other words, experimental music doesn't "sound like" anything in particular-- it is experimental by means of how and why it was created. While it is technically true that no musician truly knows the outcome of their recording beforehand, I think it is simple-minded and disingenious to think of ALL music as experimental-- when a rock band sits down to make a song, they have a rock song in mind-- so the experimental intent is simply not present.
On "It's Too Damn Early," I don't try to maintain a "pure" experimental output-- I know that some of the tracks I play have an intent to be droning, or noisy, or whatever-- but as an overarching concern, I also recognize that these are areas of music that are actively being explored, and thus are something I consider experimental in nature as well.
As for academic and popular experimental recordings, I think they have much more in common that folks would suspect. The joy of creating something new, the openness, acceptance of odd sounds, willingness to explore-- these are all common aspects that could easily be built on. It's really only the audience that is different, and the level at which they are willing to engage with the sounds being presented. What a long-time listener of XI Records or Pogus Productions releases expects from the liner notes of an album is clearly much different than someone who enjoys work from Public Eyesore, Roil Noise, or Deathbomb Arc. Another defining aspect of these two areas of experimental recording is in the process itself-- the "popular" recordings are much more actively cross-pollinated by shifting band members, split releases, musical guests, distros, sharing a tour, etc-- whereas I often find that while academic artists and composers are very knowledgeable about the work around them, they tend to be much less informed by it. It's not a hard and fast rule by any means-- there are many examples where this doesn't hold true! But hey, art and music are slippery.
I'm not sure what experimental music has to do with us a species-- this is probably far too large a question for me to answer, but I'm flattered you'd even try, haha. Personally, I think that experimental music and sound at best is pushing our acceptance and understanding of existing art and communication; and simulataneously delivering us all new tools with which to communicate. It's also a hell of a lot of fun to listen to and to be a part of this effort.
-
You've mentioned "active listening" on your show and blog. I have
my own opinions on this, and I don't want to ask too leading of a
question. Still, I'll risk it: Is listening a dying art form? How
do you think the act of listening is changing, especially considering
the parabolic increase of signals that we are experiencing in this
culture?
To begin, let me say a bit about my personal concept of "active listening," or what I am referring to when I say this term. Consider it like this-- music can be used in a variety of ways: instruction, entertainment, as data, etc... so its also safe to assume that we don't listen to different types of music in the same ways. You'd be missing the point of a good James Brown song if you didn't move your ass, and its not incredibly important that the listener even understand what is generating the sounds or how. For an experimental work, the opposite may be true! If you don't "actively" listen, you can miss important details-- and usually, knowing more about a work can lead to greater appreciation of it. If you keep waiting for the beat to kick in so you know when to leap to your feet, you'll miss out entirely. To advocate active listening is my way of telling listeners that there is more to the music I am broadcasting than is immediately apparent. In this way, the experience of radio doesn't end when I present the song-- it is a collaborative process between the listener and myself.
As for listening as an art form... I don't really have any data on this, but my best guess is that its probably not changed a whole heck of a lot. In my experience, there is a limited amount of people who listen to anything much beyond a basic level-- its simply not afforded the cultural level of importance as visual experience, as the difference between someone's "word" and their signature on a document shows. (Hell, even the verbs "shows" or "illustrates" are evidence of this bias towards the visual!) I'd like this situation to improve, but it's also not terribly realistic of myself and my abilities to expect a sea change. Still, if you want to enjoy my show more fully, this is the best way to experience it-- as an active listener, and also as a participant in some fashion.
Regarding the "increase" of input we receive-- there are a lot of conflicting ideas of how this is affecting people, and I think the most reasonable assumption is that there are a lot of real, possible reactions to it. I see evidence that people are more able to focus through the "noise" to receive the input they're seeking, which is a good listening skill to have-- but I also see that this increased focus can sometimes narrow to the point of excluding valid input as well. A lot has been written about niche genres and publications, where whole "worlds" are obsessively explored in what appear to be tiny genres of music-- power electronics, for example. This can be good in that the level of detail available to fans and researchers is incredible, but can also overwhelm fans into overlooking everything outside a small area of music. Everyone who fileshares on a regular basis is familiar with the guy who's looking for recommendations, but has narrowed his requirements so much that nothing seems to satisfy the recording he is seeking! Overall, I think that no good can come from censorship or a reduction of these "signals." I wholeheartedly agree with Thomas Jefferson's concept of the "free market of ideas," where the best ideas (or signals, perhaps) rise to the top. A good radio show can help with sifting some of these signals for us, but all listeners should realize that it's not because DJs are magical-- we may be more skilled at sifting through these signals, but it's not something that is somehow beyond the ordinary person.
###
