One of the Podcasts I listened to was signifying something, hosted by Steve Flato, in the episode I sampled he talked to Sarah Hennies who premiered a piece called “Pressure” which consisted of a high hat struck repeatedly. It was made in a way to emulate the therapeutic repetition that Sarah had experienced. They also talked about the reframing of seeking what you want to do into finding out what you are drawn to and how that helped Sarahs work develop.
In terms of measuring it against the Audio Paper manifesto and viewing it though that particular lens, it met a few of the points of the manifesto. It definitely afforded performative aesthetics as it presented a piece of Sarahs in it’s entirety and was framed in a way as to suggest a group activity of listening, having it be the centre piece from which the conversation develops. The episode individually didn’t particularly assemble a range of voices per se didn’t particularly feel like it existed as a part of a larger ecology. I think perhaps the criteria would be better met if one were to view the podcast as a whole.
The interview format as a whole is interesting to me, it creates a diversity of thought that allows for conversation which in turn generates new thoughts both in the participants and in the listener. I also really appreciated the simplicity with not a huge deal of noticeable editing or segments, which really allowed for focus on the content over anything.
The Conversational tone is pretty characteristic of podcasting in general and doesn’t feel like it super matched up with, at the very least, what my perception of an Audio Paper is or should be.