Olivia McDonald // Mediafactory Blog

Here we are, three days later, and we received not one but seven scripts! Again, not what we were expecting, and again, somewhat frustrated that we’re not getting what we were told to expect. At the end of the day, I can deal with however many scripts we get. It is just exasperating when we initially campaigned to work in smaller groups on multiple scripts, but we were told No, the idea of the studio (for the writers) was to work in a writer’s room on one script. Which is totally fine! Except now we are getting seven scripts. If there was some form of cohesion and continuity in this dialogue it would help us all out a lot. I also don’t understand how it has taken this long to get a script. I do realise it’s not an inherently speedy process, but it is week 5, meaning we’re almost half way through the semester and we’re only getting something tangible to potentially film, now.

The scripts were all obviously written around a set of guidelines or basic plot structure- and maybe that was what was meant by one script, a unifying plot line or things to “tick off” within the individual scripts. So, they were all similar but written in different styles, with different dialogue and slight differences in character. There was often a sub storyline involving a stapler, which multiple times did not make sense to me. We later found out that these subplots were included as a “B” story, the secondary storyline that complements the A line. While I respect the need to write structurally and include such a secondary plot, it seemed forced to me and consequently detracted from the episode(s).

We read all the scripts in class, which took a long time given there were some over the required 3-5 (I think) page limit (17 pages, to be specific). I’m not sure why someone would bother submitting and getting us to read 17 pages of a script when we specifically said we won’t shoot episodes over 5 minutes.

We gave feedback to the writers after each script and then in two separate groups. I did really enjoy elements of each script and thought some were great. They were funny and I did really love the characters. I still think they lend themselves towards a silly yet loveable humour more than the dark humour the writers had intended. I think dark comedy will also be more difficult to achieve in filming.

We discussed how we would move forward. Robin suggested picking one script per group and developing it or tweaking it for filming. Stayci more or less said that wouldn’t be nice to the other writers, but in reality it was going to be a much more efficient process if we did that (and we could merge other elements or dialogue from the other scripts), and so we chose Cam’s script, and gave more specific feedback. The writers said they would re-write it over the weekend and that we will have it for the following Tuesday, so we can start filming ASAP.

Finally, we asked about getting a general document with synopsis, solidified characters, notes about the world, etc as we needed it if we were to try and cast external actors, and just generally prepare for shooting. We were told that they had been working on that all along, which we thought was curious as we have been left in the dark for the past few weeks regarding all of these details. It’s all happening now (or will start to happen next week)!

Today was a rather messy class. After sending the writers our second prompt in response to their character ideas, we were all looking forward to reading what they had written in response to our questions and video. Alas, a response we were not to receive. While the assortment of notes on premise, theme and aesthetic were obviously developed from their original characters, they were notably incoherent and had no notable regard to our suggestions.

This did not bode well with the class. Everyone was quite angry as it seemed that we had no contribution in the progression of the dialogue and ultimately, the script. I think that a lot of the issues we have with how they responded could be cleared up with some communication. It is obvious we’re not on the same page in terms of how this dialogue is meant to be working, and actually talking to them would be very productive.

For me, one of the biggest issues was the lack of cohesion between the documents they provided us with. They all had different lengths, different writing styles, and different ideas. While developing separate ideas and giving us each of them as separate documents is not at all a bad idea (more options, more material for us to work with), I wasn’t aware that was the aim, or idea of the project. After the last time we met with the writers, we were all under the impression that they’d be working on the one document. Again, separate ideas and suggestions would be needed for the one document, but it’s not what we were expecting for the dialogue.

I think we all made each other angrier by talking about it in class, but as I mentioned, I think it is because we have not had nearly enough communication with them. We also had different expectations of the dialogue, which again would have been improved with communication.

Apparently, we will be getting a script on Friday! It is evident that the light-hearted mockumentary style we had developed with our second video prompt was not what the writers had in mind. They also did not acknowledge our vlog style introduction. They did seem to take notice when we said we wanted a female protagonist. I’m sure some of our other ideas and notes might come up later in the series or script writing process because a lot of them were rather specific that mightn’t need to be mentioned in the premise documents.

More than anything I’m keen to meet with them and discuss it all, and really keen to get the script as these vague premise documents aren’t that useful for us if we want to shoot an actual script. Time will tell.

I touched on what I am concerned about regarding the groups for this semester in a previous post. These are things that I have noticed in the first month of this studio and that I think may be an issue or something we have to think about for group work going ahead.

There are a few things that I have noticed about the class and working in groups so far. Firstly, there is a varying degree of skill level within the class. While this is inevitable and not at all a bad thing, it is something I worry about in terms of the ongoing practical work. Ideally, those who have less experience (myself), can learn from those who are more skilled. It would be unfortunate if those with more experience ended up doing a lot, or most, of the technical work (both for them and for the less experienced). I think this is an important factor to consider when we form our groups. I think it would be best if we had a variety of experience in each group.

It is easy for someone who doesn’t know how to operate a very foreign piece of equipment to step back and let someone more confident do it. Similarly, I can understand that it is a lot more efficient and would be a lot less frustrating for those who are experienced if they did the work. However, one of my main desires or goals for this studio is to gain a lot more competence in technical work and production. I would find it a wasted opportunity for everyone involved if we didn’t help each other and transfer our skills.

This is why I loved our class today- Friday 11^th of August, in which set up a scene and went through the basics of the equipment operating. Not only did it show me that I was definitely not the only one who felt out of their depth regarding the EX3s, sound recorders and general filming practice and processes; but it was also great to go through all of these things to a degree with Robin. I really appreciated the opportunity to have a go at being the camera operator. I think it would be even more valuable if we could do a similar thing in smaller groups, as there would have been people who were familiar with the content and hence bored in this class. There were also people who didn’t have as good as a chance as I did at practicing hands on skills. Nonetheless this session gave me hope for what the future holds in terms of my (and all of our) practical development.

The second thing I have noticed through group work is that there are people who are very vocal (myself included), and people who are not very vocal. Neither is an issue, and neither I have a problem with. It is a matter of working with both types of people in a way that allows less vocal people to have more of a contribution and more vocal people to make less of the decisions (which may be a burden if no one else is making them). It is something I have noted now, to see how it is dealt with and how we work within our groups throughout the semester. As a relatively confident person in class conversation and group discussion, I definitely do not want to take up most of the conversation. I may be becoming hyper aware of this issue but I want to make sure we all are equally engaging with the production process and decisions being made.

I have appreciated that we have worked in fluid groups up to this point in the semester. I look forward to forming groups and solidifying our aims and groups culture.

Working on the second video in our dialogue with the writers was fairly different from the previous time. We were responding to written content, rather than creating something from nothing as we were previously doing. Our groups were also different- bigger, but with more roles as we were using DSLRs with sound recorders and had three actors.

We all had many ideas about plot lines and jokes in response to the characters the writers provided us with. As a class, then in our two groups, we discussed how we could see the web series and episodes panning out, and what we liked, disliked and needed clarification on regarding the characters. We all really like the idea of a mockumentary (like The Office, Parks and Recreation or Modern Family). I think comedy, while difficult to do really well, seems a lot more achievable and probably enjoyable to create than drama. Even if the characters are otherworldly, the setting of an office is rooted in the every day and we can combine the humorous aspects of vampires and clones with the relatable humour of office work and politics.

With this in mind, we decided a good option for format could be a vlog style video, along with more “normal” filming of the office environment. We quickly decided on a scene to craft, which we could bookend with vlog videos. We decided to film the vlog section on a laptop, as this would ensure it looked like an actual vlog. We then filmed the middle section of the video on the DSLRs. Unfortunately, there were more people than there were roles, so not everyone got to participate in the filming (beyond watching and commentating). I was an actor, and so while I was involved in the discussion and planning process (as we all were), I didn’t get an opportunity to use any equipment.

We finished filming in class and decided to stay back and try to edit it quickly together. We soon ran into some trouble with the sound being out of sync on the laptop videos, something to do with the sequence settings we decided. It took us an hour (a very frustrating hour) to work out how to get around the problem and we learnt our lesson- do not film on more than one type of camera!

I ended up finishing the editing myself at home. I really enjoy editing and I would love to learn more about post production. I think editing in a group can be frustrating, not only because people may have differing opinions but also because people have different methods, shortcuts, and processes that they like going through. I am slower at doing some things but I still know what I am doing (with the basics at least) so I sometimes get exasperated when people try and show me their way of doing things as if what I am doing is wrong, or as if I don’t know what I’m doing. It’s not a major issue but something that I noticed in this exercise, as I have in the past. I will have to work a way around this frustration as group work in post-production is inevitable and crucial.

I am looking forward to hearing back from the writers after our latest video. I also enjoyed being able to give written feedback. I think the dialogue is going well so far, but we will really be able to tell in a few weeks’ time when the episodes are due to be written. For now, I’d like to be able to talk to them in person and brainstorm with them about the show. I’m excited to hear their ideas and where it will all lead.

Here is our video:

What is a web series? In all honesty, after our class on Friday (28th of July), I felt like a bit of a newbie to web series. Series names and titles were exchanged around the class and I remained slightly shocked at the number of series that people watched or knew. It’s not that the web series is a new concept to me, I just don’t think I had known it to be so established and widespread. Consequently, I feel that I may be misinformed when I consider questions about how a web series differs from a “regular” television show. Nonetheless, what little amount of web series I have dabbled in do offer me a somewhat guided view as to these questions.

What distinguishes a web series from any other kind of serialized motion picture drama? The predominant answer to this question, for me, lies in the series’ accessibility, both for makers and consumers. The fact that anyone with a camera and an internet connection can create and publish content that can be consumed by anyone else with an internet connection (over 3 billion people), is astounding. This is not a small factor in the definition of the web series. I think there is a by-the-people, for-the-people sentiment with web series. I think people like consuming media outside of multi-national production and distribution companies and media outlets. Even if this factor is not apparent in the content itself (which it may well be), I think it is prevalent in the consumption of web series and the conversation around them. This is not a blanket rule, but I think that to a degree, consumers of web series may feel more empowered as an audience within their media consumption.

The form and delivery of a web series can influence the content in a variety of ways. While a low-budget series with episodes under five minutes may not be able to employ the resources, locations, and actors (and so forth) that a high-profile production company or network can, they are not bound by any television restrictions or guidelines. Of course, not all web series are cheap productions made by unqualified people with a spare DSLR, but the general premise of a web series (for me) is that the creators aren’t answering to a studio boss. Their content lives outside the politics of multi-national companies and is delivered on a platform without strict regulations and guidelines. Consequently, there is a lot more daring creativity in the content of web series. They are different, they are new and often relatable, an underappreciated characteristic in television.

The concept of the web series is still rapidly developing and changing. In our class, we didn’t even mention streaming services such as Netflix or the Australian Stan or Presto (that I recall). For me, these services don’t come to mind when talking about web series. However, these services do produce their own original content, that is distributed exclusively on the internet. Does this mean they count as web series? If they do, how does the conversation around web series change when such global, powerful and income (and ratings) driven companies are involved? Maybe this could be something we explore throughout the studio.

Preparing our first video prompt for the writers was an interesting process. We were given the task of creating an “action” based prompt. Being such an open-ended brief, it took us some time to work out what our options were. After some clarification, we headed out into RMIT to investigate what our options were and potentially film a trial on our phone.

At first, we thought we could use stairs as a setting, and film someone walking up from the adjacent escalators. While this wasn’t a bad idea, it shows the re-occurring pre-occupation we had with what would look “cool” or be fun to film, rather than what it was that we were filming and how that would influence or inspire the writers. We soon moved on from that idea and found a revolving door, which we decided to film someone walking through (as the action). We filmed me walking through from different angles. Amber shot it, and so there were only practical roles for the two of us at this stage.

We then took it downstairs and assembled a rough cut, and upon further consideration decided to finish it using the phone (rather than the provided EX3). While this meant our final product wasn’t of a very high technical standard, nor was it as visually pleasing as it would have been shot on the film camera, it was incredibly more efficient. Furthermore, I don’t think we would have had the skills in our group to operate the EX3. This is an issue I am concerned with regarding our impending group formation (for the rest of the semester). I don’t feel I bring a lot of technical skills to the table, and I think the varying skill levels of the class is something that needs to be taken into consideration when we form the final groups.

We ended up finishing the editing in class too. The final result was fitting with the open brief, and time we had spent on it. It was a basic video of a girl walking through a revolving door. It wasn’t a masterpiece technically but it wasn’t shabby either. The dramatic orchestral music we used as the accompanying track helped give it more life and purpose. For what our brief was and how much it is worth, I am happy with the final outcome.

In terms of how our group worked, we were efficient and appropriately collaborative. It was hard as there weren’t many production roles (no sound recording, only one camera operator etc.), but those who didn’t do much in the filming did more of the editing.  Something else I am concerned about regarding group formation is how we work together in the groups, between those who are more vocal and those who often end up in the backseat of decision making and planning. I think it’s important that we ensure everyone feels comfortable speaking up, and that everyone is equally engaged in the production process in one way or another.

In terms of how the writers may respond, I have no idea! I am really interested to see what they make of it. There is still a lot to take from such a basic video- maybe a character, a place, a situation, and so forth. I’m not sure how much they have to use the prompts, or if they are just there as a suggestion. I’m looking forward to finding out.

 

Today we talked about the studio going forward, specifically in relation to our contact with the writers. In our previous class, most of us and the writers agreed that we would enjoy working on a series, in smaller groups and that we would prefer episodes about “everyday people” in relatable situations, that are lightly comical. Today we found out that the writers will still work in a “writers room”, all working on the one project. I’m not sure how it will all develop and I don’t know enough about writing to say what would work best, but it would be great to be able to collaborate and talk with individual writers or at least smaller groups. They will write a serial, a multi-episode production with an overarching storyline. This wasn’t what we had decided we wanted, but it was the studio’s purpose and I’m sure it will challenge and entertain us in the right ways.

We talked about how there will be ‘dialogue’ between the writers and ourselves. They will write small, unpolished snippets of content for the next month or so, which we will produce and develop visually; e.g. location scouting, shooting a scene or episode (multiple times perhaps), casting etc. This is when we will develop our technical skills so we are ready for when the writers give us an actual episode. I also appreciate that is it mirrors bigger productions- as producers we are collaborating with the writers to develop a script. It will all start by us providing a prompt, or video basis from which the writers will develop, or begin to develop, the story and script.

Robin showed us a video made by someone from a different studio, of a girl feeding her cat. It was simple yet it could inspire a story. After watching this we were tasked with making our own, as part of Assessment 2. I will write about this process in a separate blog post.

 

 

Reflection upon our first three classes

The beginning of this studio has been rather different to the usual first weeks of semester. Rather than starting off with the typical name sharing and course outline, we jumped right into the heart of the subject; a workshop about scriptwriting (what makes a good script and how instrumental a script is in the development of a film or episode) with Australian director and producer Ana Kokkinos. In reality, this may have been the lung or the liver of the subject for the media students- I think it was more relevant and essential for the creative writing students. But nonetheless these two first lessons were enlightening and covered skills and processes that are relevant and essential in any part of the production process.

In the first lesson on Tuesday we covered the characteristics of a good script, and Ana talked us through scene analysis. First, we were asked- why do we write scripts, and even more, why do we tell stories? We do this to communicate something, or to make sense of the mess of life. I really like this overarching sentiment, that stories, and films and episodes and scripts are making sense of life and helping the audience understand it.

We learnt that the foundation of a good script is theme, characters and structure. A good story well told:

• Is about somebody with whom we have empathy
• This somebody wants something badly
• This something is difficult to achieve
• The story must come to a satisfactory ending

While this was all very interesting and relevant to a degree, there was still more in It for screen writers. However, Ana did explain how key the script is to the entire production crew- from the director, to the costume designer, to the production manager and of course the actors. In this way we found out how the script is handled by each of these people, including the development of a mood board from a script. She showed us a copy of a mood board for a film she had worked on, in which the concept of heaven was presented and visualised in almost innumerable ways. Towards the end of a lesson we read a short story and split into small pairs or groups- in which one person would develop the story into a script and the other would develop a mood board from it. We did this between Tuesday and Friday.

I loved creating the mood board from the script I read (can be found under Olivia’s moodboard, alongside Cam’s script which I worked off). I enjoyed taking different parts of the script and playing with them visually. For example, I thought the time of day in Cam’s script was pertinent to the story, as the lighting and eeriness of dusk is so powerful. I also enjoyed thinking about the cast and what kind of person would be able to portray these characters. I thought it was a pity that Cam and I did not get to share our work in Friday’s class but all the work that we listened to and saw was awesome and it was very interesting to see how people could take adaptions in different ways. I really enjoyed Jen’s script as it was so different to all the other adaptations, as was Eve’s, which is what we focused on in today’s class.

Overall Ana was really engaging and gave a valuable insight into scriptwriting. This previous Monday, we met our actual teacher/tutor/studio leader Robin for the first time. I can appreciate that the switchover between tutors must’ve been frantic and it seems it’s given us as students a bigger chance to shape our course which is a novel but enjoyable experience. I liked that we got straight into filming something even if it was very quick and very un-polished, but I think just with the structure of it all and the group sizes, I didn’t really get much out of it. It was still fun though and helped contextualise the rolls we had talked about in that class.

In terms of the weeks going forward, I’m looking forward to getting into it all and starting to work on our actual project, even if it does take a while for any episode or tangible product to be formed. It’s all a bit topsy-turvy right now but I’m happy going along and seeing what comes of it all.

Monday 21^st July- This is Serial hopes, expectations, and goals

Serial is my second studio, and I am really looking forward to exploring something completely different to what I have already done. My previous studio, Room with a View, was about radio production and hence completely audio, and non-fiction based. Creating a web series, regardless of the final tangible outcome, entails learning and using film and visual mediums and fiction content- all of which I am very excited about.

Apart from a refreshing change, I am hoping that through Serial I will gain more hands on technical skills. I am not sure what specific skills I would like to hone- there are many skills needed for film (based) production that I still need to lay the foundations for, or at least solidify the foundations to be able to then enhance them. For example, camera operation and lighting are some skills that I would really like to build upon. I feel more confident in editing/post production, but even still my skills there are very basic, and I would love to learn more and enhance them through this studio.

On top of these (and many more) technical skills, I look forward to working in a group and collaborating, and hence learning about roles and responsibilities within a media/film/series production, as I have not had such a chance previously. Additionally, I love the idea of working with screen writing students as it mimics a “real-world” setting in terms of having separate departments for writing/production. It is also great because I don’t think I’m great at thinking of ideas or stories, and so having someone else to do that will be awesome.

Finally, I love how the class has had an opportunity to help shape the plan for the semester and share what we want to get out of it. I think it will be a great semester.

So, the time has finally come where I can look back on Room With A View in its entirety and reflect. The semester has flown by and yet it feels like so long ago that we were first sitting in the studio at RRR and hearing about how the semester would work.

Honestly, I find reflecting on such a big subject and time difficult. I don’t necessarily know how I’ve grown, I think this will become apparent when I start my next project and I notice some improvement in my skills and in the final outcome. If I break it down into assessments so I can think about each individual project and what it taught me:

First RWAV show: 

I think our first show went really well. As I detailed at the time, I found my role as producer to be lacking in any clear-cut definition and without many tangible tasks. This was just due to the nature of the show and the fact that so much of the work a “real-world” producer typically does was done by my other group members. But anyway. I think our first show was a few levels up from our second show. I think Dusty and Sammy spoke well as presenters, however, I think there might have been too much of a difference between their voices. It’s a fine line between having great audio texture (if that’s not a thing, it is now) and distinguishable voices and having voices that are slightly jarring in their differences. Not sure which side of the line they stood, but it was close either way. Nothing they can help, obviously. Rose was super prepared as panel operator and I found it cool how she had said at the beginning of the subject that she would prefer not to do the panel because she thought she’d muck it up, and then she totally smashed it!

I’m still not sure of how I can reflect on this show as an individual. I think I gained more vicarious experience than I did hands-on.

Individual interview: 

This was fun and good practice but as I know from my feedback, and as I had predicted, overall it really wasn’t that interesting. Leah (interviewee) was quite nervous but more to the point didn’t have that much new information to share and didn’t really have a fresh enough take on the topic of the housing market to warrant a whole interview.

Leah wasn’t the first person I contacted, I had initially reached out to someone who works for the Eastern Alliance for Greenhouse Action, a big long name for an organization that represents/is a mix of people and representatives from the eastern councils in Melbourne, that focuses on community and local government sustainability. This is more niche and a fresher topic, but the potential interviewee was overseas right up until the due date. I think this would have been a better interview.

However, I don’t regret interviewing Leah. The downfalls weren’t with her as an interviewee. It was a mix of factors, including that she didn’t have a fresh take on it but also the questions I asked her and the way I edited it. Also, I stand by my point that it isn’t right to tell someone something will be aired on radio and then not air it. I understand it happens in the media and in real life but I didn’t feel comfortable doing that, especially if they were a full-time worker and would be taking valuable time out of their day under the potentially false premise that the interview would be on the radio.

Anyway, with the content I had, I think/believe I did a technically good job at editing. I maybe could have made some different choices to make the interview more interesting but I still like how it came together. I also had fun working on Auditon again.

Feature: 

I am really happy with how our feature turned out. It was pretty easy to think of the idea and find people to interview, but more time consuming to think of the right and appropriate questions to ask them. Dusty especially worked really hard on this and thought of an unimaginably large plethora of questions for each interviewee. I have to say I didn’t focus on the feature very much at the beginning and didn’t do nearly as much work in the planning of it as Sammy and Dusty did because I was focusing on (and stressing about) our second show which came at a similar time to the feature. During this time when I wasn’t helping out as much I relied on the fact that I could/would do a lot more of the editing work, which I did.

Dusty and Sammy did most of the interviews- they both spoke to Ben Byrne (RMIT Academic), Dusty spoke to Robbie Nicols from White Man Behind a Desk, and Sammy spoke to Beth from Beth Blvd. Rose and I interviewed Andrew Mills from the YouTube miniseries Leftovers. I have been an avid watcher of this YouTube channel for a long time so it was awesome to speak to him about all the work that goes into it etc. We found that he was quite a bit shyer than some of our other interviewees and so it took him a while to warm up, but that wasn’t a big problem.

After we had all the content, then came the task of editing, which we started 4 or so days after our last interview. I put a lot of time and work into editing it and to take 2+ hours of content with 4 different interviewees and to get it under 15 minutes with a clear progression is difficult. I didn’t really think about how difficult it would be to gain some kind of concise and clear flow to the piece. Obviously, you plan to a degree before the interviews but theres only so much you can do, as you need all of them to be able to work out what will sound best where, and what won’t be included.

JJ and I spent three long days in the edit suites in building 9 finding the storyline for our piece and making it pleasing to the ears. Dusty and Sammy came in a lot too, but they were both mroe pre-occupied with other study and uni requirements than JJ and I were, and they had done all of the preproduction work anyway.

On the first day, we went through all the interviews, cut out anything that wasn’t relevant or said well, then went through and sorted it into different categories/questions so we could more easily map out the progression. At the end of the day, we’d been through all our content but didn’t have it in any order or anything which I found quite stressful. We started a ‘run-sheet’ or plan of the piece, but I found that really difficult and quite pointless. I thought it would be best just to play around with the clips in audition and from that see what works where.

So on the next day, JJ and I came in and we were soon joined by Sammy, and then later Dusty too. Sammy did a great job of organizing the clips and actually just getting rid of a lot of them too. This was something I was finding difficult, as there was so much that was so relevant and interesting! But there’s only so much you can keep, and Sammy laid a really good foundation on which we could move little clips around and keep adjusting to improve the whole piece.

That’s what we spent the rest of the time- a day and a half- doing. Continuously cutting clips down when the interviewee was repeating themselves, taking out pauses, ums and errrs, adjusting the volume, moving clips around, cutting them up, re-arranging them again and so on. It was an incredibly arduous process and I found the ability to make a quick decision to be a life-saver (and not always an ability I have). On the last day, I did a lot of the editing while JJ worked on her blog and other pressing things (but was there for help and second opinions). I had to leave mid-to-late afternoon, before the feature was finished. I gave her some quick instructions/advice to finish it off and thought we’d be good to wrap it up there. I think however there must have been a miscommunication or something of the like because when she uploaded it later there were more issues than earlier on in the day. I feel very grateful but also very bad for JJ, she spent over 12 hours in the basement and ended up uploading the piece over 6 times to google drive for Dusty to listen to (the rest of us were busy) before getting more advice or changes to make. This is not their fault at all but would have been a lot more cohesive if there were still a few of us in the studio.

Anyway, I was back in the city at 7.30 (I had left at 4) and poor JJ was still in the suites so I went out and helped her. We spent another 2 hours on it again, until it was at a point we were happy with. I hadn’t realised how much more there was to do earlier. However, it is a good thing I had to listen back to it so many times as it became clearer as to what needed changing/fixing/deleting. It was also frustrating as a few little things took our time, like finding the right music and adjusting the volume of each clip to be the same (tried to get Audition to do it for me but it didn’t work). Anyway, again I left before JJ as needed to get up very early. She just had to upload it to SoundCloud but still, I’m very appreciative of all the work and time she put into it. I’m really happy with how it turned out and for the most part, think we worked really well together as a group.

 

In terms of the subject as a whole, I enjoyed it (mostly). There were peaks and troughs- troughs at high moments of stress (before second show, editing feature) and peaks when we worked really well as a group together (first live show, finishing the feature and everyone loving it). I think our semester was difficult at times because our assessments weren’t evenly spread, because we went first for the live show, then had a massive break before our feature/second live show, which was a time I felt incredibly stressed. But I had a great time too. It was a special experience to be working with the same group for the entire semester, something I haven’t done yet as this was my first studio. I was blessed with a motivated, smart and reliable group who I really enjoyed working with. I think I enjoyed working on the feature more than the radio shows, as there wasn’t as much external pressure for it to fit into RRR’s guidelines etc, but nonetheless, both experiences were awesome and it was really special to be able to go on the radio (and pick all the songs!)

Overall, RWAV was quite challenging at times, but rather enjoyable and an invaluable experience.