Q & A With the Judges: Julie Shapiro

i'm a little bit behind the times here, so sorry to be responding quite after the fact, but - (and i know it's irrelevant now, but thinking ahead to a "next" adventure that may be similar)...

i wouldn't worry too much about one any ONE judge was listening for...the PRX team chose a diverse enough panel of judges that no matter which entry we were listening to - there was someone in the room who could/would speak to its strengths with enough conviction that everyone present gave the entry a certain consideration beyond their own initial reaction.

that said, it was important to have judges coming from different perspectives and backgrounds, so a wider selection of entries (stylistically) would even be considered at all. our individual opinions both cooperated AND rumbled, maintaining a robust but very fair judging process, at the end of the day.

and i just want to reiterate - exploring radio's potential to the fullest does not necessarily mean creating a highly produced or heavily scored segment full of sound effects and other audio bells and whistles. it just means tapping into how the SOUND of radio makes it _radio_ and distinguishes this medium from print or video or tv. this can absolutely be accomplished through voice and writing. [and it was in round one.]

Thanks Adrianne, for taking the time to share your thoughts. And also, thank you and everyone involved for taking the time to support and cultivate a new space for creative talent.

I have to say that I felt very empowered by this contest. In a very short period of time, I taught myself how to do something I've never done before and know now that I can do it again, and certainly feel inclined to think about how to do that. I found this contest thoughtfully done in a way that respected all entrants and encouraged anyone and everyone to try out. That was great!

It seems inevitable however, after the fact and after reading this, to feel a bit frustrated that more than one judge's expectations weren't laid on the table beforehand. Understandably, I think this is due to two reasons: first, that part of the judge's decision making criteria evolved as they listened to entries for the contest because this is its first year; and second, that it seems to be human nature to have assumptions about what we like and don't like, want and don't want, that we don't share until someone puts themselves out there. My feedback would be that posts like this--something along the lines of a blurb about what each judges is looking for, even if it reflected great diversity--would have been nice during the initial entry creation period. I found only one post as I struggled to make critical choices in composing a series of pieces--new, and reinterpreted based on other creative forms of self-expression, to use as material to record for my one and only shot to be make an impression. Because I read (as I recall) Izzi's post that basically said, hey, don't worry about making it professionally slick or full of sound effects, just be yourself, I didn't consider putting any other sounds in. I honestly thought that sound effects and outside the box were discouraged, in part b/c they disguise the voice and interfere with others ability to judge it on its own merits. I understood this to be a voice audition, that diction and tone were paramount, where I'd been encouraged to flex around the idea of putting myself out there as if I were already a radio host. I trusted that and created an entry which reflected that one published view. Given that I also read and understood that this was an audition for public radio, I structured my piece so that you could imagine hearing it based on what already exists out there, again understanding that you start with the basics and break out of the box once you've shown you can master the fundamentals as this was also expressed in that lone post. I understood that the next round was where we flexed our creative muscle. So its a bit disheartening to read your post today and know that without being gifted in some extrasensory way, there wasn't much chance to meet this criteria.

Perhaps my own approach was flawed with too many assumptions. But I wonder how many others feel the same?

I think of a sports tryout. You usually don't try out for Sports. You typically try out for Softball, Swimming, Tennis, Ice Dancing, Nascar, what have you. If I showed up for a Softball tryout and the judges evaluating the talent were looking for Ice Dancing talent, I'd look and feel pretty silly. That's pretty much how I feel after reading your post. I showed up for tryouts with the wrong gear in my kit; I brought a glove and no skates. The only difference is that while I could never see myself Ice Dancing, I feel confident that I could create with sounds and effects and definitely create outside the box.

This doesn't change my sense of overall empowerment through this process or belief in my talents. It does leave me feeling bitter-sweet. If there is a next year, doubtless, I'll be better prepared. In the mean time, I have no doubt that every single finalist deserves to be exactly where they are today, moving on to bigger and better things.

I offer my experience as feedback in the hopes that it might express something useful to consider if this contest should become an annual event. I would recommend more feedback in terms of expectations at the start. I would recommend an extra round where those with basic voice chops were then turned loose to inspire the judges with something interesting, one (or more) short pieces that showcased their chops and their imagination. The finalists could then be chosen from these second round entries. What I read here reinforces the feeling I had constantly during the entry round: how can I be so many different things in two minutes if I am not already a national public radio host? With a slightly greater learning curve, I think the contest could be even more inspiring beyond the opportunity it offers to those 10 finalists.

~Aikimuse

Thanks to everyone who took the time to listen, give feedback, and share their creative ideas in sound with us! Good luck, Finalists.
~www.publicradioquest.com/node/1855.

Ultimately a mere usurper of the name. I am fascinated by the struggles the panel seems to have had with the "risk factors". (Perhaps they should have recruited an actuarial or two.) But, after all, it is the calculated risk which has the best chance of making new discoveries, opening new roads, and leading us to new places.
All of those chosen show some potential to surprise us in delightfully unexpected ways. Time will out those with the most.
Oh, and thanks for giving the producers permission to explore new things as well.
May this all make for more interesting radio.

"If you don't know the difference between brave and foolish...don't be brave." Seymour B. Moore

...rocks

http://musicNerve.com - strange music for strange people