Oi … Sound is not a second class citizen

You can’t get away with crap pictures so why do you think you can get away with crap sound?

Just recently I’ve heard some appalling examples.  Examples that give you no choice but to either switch off the sound or change websites and hope that the sound doesn’t follow you.

Something else I’ve noticed people doing is just putting any old ambient sound over stuff in the hope that it creates an atmosphere, or people will think its ‘artistic’.  Again unless its spot on its just not worth doing. Actually not only is it not worth doing, it can ruin a very good set of pictures.

Generally it tells me that the photographer doesn’t think their photos are strong enough so they’re going down the multimedia road.  That would be fine, but they need to work bloody hard on the sound if they’re going to  make something worth watching. It’s not easy.

Here’s some examples of what I’m talking about:

This is an audio slideshow on Reuters called ‘Twins fight for free education in the slum.’ Not the snappiest of titles is it?

I’d really like to know how far duckrabbit readers actually manage to get through this audio slideshow? I have no idea if it’s good or not because the sound is more disturbing than a cat drowning. It’s completely unlistenable, which is a shame because the story itself might be fabulous.

Here’s another offender, God Bless Ya on Foto 8.

30 seconds of the god awful pissed Irish singing would be an endurance but three minutes feels like a punishment. Again I’m completely distracted from the photographs, which may be wonderful.

I’m wondering a couple of things. Where was the editorial control on these pieces?  Where is the the care and the attention to detail, where is the obsession, where is the perfectionism, where is the vision, where is the purpose, the story, where is the love? Where is the person who knows what they’re doing, where are they are trying to get to and why?

Listen as I said before its not easy. Its EASY to criticize and both of these examples should be applauded for having a go, but its perhaps at that level they should have remained.  The truth is most people don’t have the time to do these things properly but audiences don’t care, they won’t make allowances.

A duckrabbit rule: if you think something is good enough to send out into the world then you should test it with a few people you trust first.

OK so here’s a duckrabbit example and yes I tested this piece a lot before sending it out into the world.  I think it shows that you can create a soundscape alongside photos that gives a sense of place. That’s all we were trying to do here, create a atmosphere over which the listeners preconceptions layer their response.

I guess I was lucky because I had David White’s photos to start with but the truth is I would never start a project now unless the photos are great, cause they’ve got to match or be better than my audio which I am going to slave over.

UPDATE MIKE HOLLEY comments:
I lasted 15 seconds on the Reuters slideshow, that sound is dreadful. I tried to watch it without the sound but I could still hear that wailing in my head. The sound in God Bless Ya is not only poor but it doesn’t to relate to the photos. I agree that it’s distracting and makes you just stop watching and move on.

I’ve watched Chucking Out a few times and it’s one of my favourites, along with Fairground Attraction, because the combination of photos and audio creates an atmosphere.

On your comment that photographers are using multimedia because they feel their photos aren’t up to it, what I think is also happening in some cases is that multimedia is seen as the “next big thing” for photographers, particularly photojournalists. The problem is that the barriers to entry are really low – copies of Soundslides (£50)and Audacity (free) and a recorder (£250) and you’re away…

Thanks for posting these, food for thought for us budding multimedia story tellers.