Simplify

The output of the BBCs radio programming is of a much higher quality than that of their television programming. I wonder why they are unable to transfer the talent from their radio broadcasting over to their television broadcasting.

You would expect as technology develops and integrates itself into our lives more and more, the quality of what is produced and broadcasted would also become higher. However, no matter how high the definition of your television screen is, Strictly Come Dancing and The Graham Norton Show will always be terrible.

For a while now I have been threatening to purchase a hand held digital video camera in order to shoot my own mini documentaries. I really like the idea of tackling a subject in a raw, real way and the filming would also allow me to show off my talents in sound and music production.

But the other night an article in The Wire magazine made me re-think these ideas. What is stopping me from doing the exact same thing but instead of recording the footage with a camera, recording it with a handheld microphone, capturing ambient background noise, over dubbing music and narration - using sound to tell the story.

Yes video will instantly allow us to see what colour the sky is, the face of the person speaking but so could careful narration. And a soundscape of a busy town centre or of carpenters hard at work would force us to imagine whats creating the blur of sounds presented to us.

Would the use of cutting edge technology lead to cutting edge results? Or could I achieve better, more powerful results using only audio?

I am really excited - genuinely excited at the the possibilities for audio documentaries and cant wait to get out recording and putting my ideas together.