Final Paper Link

Here is a link to the paper I wrote on Bob Dylan as a sound poet: http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfk8q5dp_0ddpm8mdj

"Don't think twice [about reading]- it's all right."
Enjoy!

Mary

Bob Dylan = Sound Poet

In this paper, I present Bob Dylan as a sound poet. I provide a brief background on Dylan and discuss sound poetry before bringing together a discussion of Dylan and sound poetry and analyzing three of his songs: “Simple Twist of Fate” from his 1975 album Blood on the Tracks, “Masters of War” from his 1963 album Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan, and his more recent tune, “Workingman’s Blues #2” from his 2006 album, Modern Times. I believe Dylan’s songs, the messages he communicates through them, and his audience’s strong reactions to them all connect him to the genre of sound poetry.

Writing about such an iconic figure, it was hard to limit my study to only three songs. Dylan’s been on the music scene for over forty years and has an extremely large songbook. Hence, one of the most challenging parts of drafting the paper was actually choosing which songs to include. The easiest part was choosing to write about him for my topic. Ultimately, I chose to discuss “Simple Twist of Fate,” not only because it’s one of my all time favorite Dylan tunes, but also because the emotion Dylan projects in his lyrics and recordings/performances is extremely powerful. Sometimes I can’t help but cry listening to it because of the longing Dylan relates. I picked “Masters of War” for this paper because it has a strong political, antiwar message and is regarded as one of Dylan’s most significant songs and it’s also one of his earliest. The more recent “Workingman’s Blues #2” also possesses a strong message, and it reminded me of the early American folk songs, like the slave work songs I note when I discuss sound poetry and its origins.

I envision presenting this paper at a conference about pop culture, American studies, or even one connected with a creative writing panel. More specifically, conferences like Society for Literature, Science, and the Arts, and the States of the Art: Considering Poetry Today international conference through the Department of North American Literature and Culture both seem very interesting, relevant, and like they would welcome a paper such as this one. And, I imagine even CCCCs may find a fit because it is so broad and tends to cross disciplines. It would be exciting and worthwhile to work on this paper even more and present at conferences to further discussion of this topic and receive feedback…and maybe even provoke interest!

Abstract - How can I resist wanting to write about Dylan again?

Music can be considered many things: art, entertainment, message, a universal language, the expression of our soul, commodity; it is life. For my final paper, I’d like to use Bob Dylan as an example to further explore and discuss the importance of sound and the variability of it to music and music artists. I will analyze some of the noise Bob Dylan has made over the past 50 years and explore how the sound he’s made has evolved over that time.

Popularly regarded for his lyrics (and not always his voice), I will focus on Dylan through the frame of music as message. Dylan’s work relates to some of the readings from class (Cage, Burroughs, Rothenberg, and “Listening”), and I will also pull from literature on Dylan, such as his autobiography, Chronicles, and critic reviews/opinions to define how he creates his music and how it is revered or criticized from the music community. Doing so is important to show the different levels of how sound aesthetic is affected by visual aesthetic.

I will analyze how he sings the same song differently, for example the differences between the Blood on the Tracks and 1975 bootleg versions of “Simple Twist of Fate” and “Tonight I’ll be Staying here with You” – it’s not just the lyrics that change, but also his vocal quality/sound, phrasing, and emotion. These different performances likewise garner variable reactions from fans. These differences can be recognized not only over time, as the differences between his earlier albums and recent ones, but in live performances over the past few years. Whether others sing Dylan’s songs or Dylan sings his songs differently, they have the power to take many shapes because of the base quality of his work—his message and how he originally conveyed it.

Through this discussion of Dylan, I argue that although visual aspects of music are currently more significant that sound in popular culture with such emphasis placed on image, fashion, videos, and awards, the sound aspects are what eventually prevail with music and manipulations of sound are what notably affect us as listeners. Dylan partakes in the visual aspects of the industry appearing in commercials and selling paraphernalia and performing at live events, but his sound is most influential. When we close our eyes and listen to the music, what we hear is most important – the sound and the message.


It kind of sounds like I’m justifying Bob Dylan’s fame, but in a way I’m asking “Why is he famous?” It seems like many artists rely on either their image or their voice for their fame, if not both (Miley Cyrus=image, Aretha Franklin=voice, Elvis=I like to think both). But, Dylan has had success with his nasally voice that many people have parodied and that many others dislike. It’s what Dylan does with his voice and his sound and his message that make him work as a music artist and help others relate to him. Some say he’s more of a poet than a musician, so his recordings could be considered a type of sound poetry.



(These are a bunch of my ideas, and I’m not sure if this topic will end up working well or not. I’m wondering if the idea’s too broad and/or if I should quickly try another one. I was also considering writing about the way sound functions differently in public versus private spaces – the way people speak differently, and the differences in the listening that occurs in these spaces.)

Defeat the Monsters

In _Sound Unbound_, Bruce Sterling’s essay, “The Life and Death of Media,” truly intrigued me. He claims that we live in “the Golden Age of Dead Media,” where our technology dies as fast (perhaps sooner) than it was created (79-80). Sterling is right on when he notes that paperback books as a medium can outlive the computer I’m using this very moment, and all of the technology associated with it (79). Nevertheless, today the short-lived technology has power associated with it, unlike the archaic but strong and true paperback (79). …which brings me to my first question:

How have our culture’s values changed, if indeed they have, from the paperback era to the PowerBook era? Or, maybe a better question is what values have we adopted because of electronic media advancements, and how will these values influence future media?



My second question, which I’ll attempt to answer, deals with plagiarism and copyright law:

If plagiarism and piracy are “monsters” (33) that impede rather than foster creativity and art, how can we reverse copyright law and reinstate the idea that certain levels of plagiarism can be productive and beneficial? Should we? If it’s ok for Shakespeare and Dylan and Disney, why not continue riffing off others to produce “new”, interesting, entertaining works?

I believe that we plagiarize to an extent even if we do not intend to. We’re naturally influenced by speaking to others, reading others’ works, and our experiences. Even though copyright law is in full force and many people still want financial gain for the sale and reproduction of their creative works, Creative Commons seems to be gaining more popularity, and some authors are publishing their works online for free access (like Lessig). Creative Commons is a great way for authors to establish different copyright terms for their works to ensure that they receive the credit and express the freedoms they wish to be associated with those works. Creative commons gives the authors power over their works as opposed to the rights that are regulated by the government or corporations.

Especially with the capabilities of YouTube and other like programs, people are modifying/adapting existing works, as well as creating their own. These platforms illustrate people’s inventiveness and creativity. These interests should not be cut short because of copyright. We could potentially lose out on enjoying works, like Shakespeare, because of monsters impeding art. Adaptation can be considered art, and if people have the ability to adapt well, they should be able to share their work, just like their predecessors. It seems like many people are rethinking copyright law and its effect on art, and Creative Commons is taking off. I think Creative Commons is a great start to defeating the monsters, and it will be interesting to see what takes place regarding copyright in the future.

voiceover voiceovers and vocal cord surgery - cultural constraints and commodifications of sound

What makes some sounds/voices more appealing than others? I was surprised to read on page 46 of Silverman about the extra voiceovers in Singin’ in the Rain. It reminds me of Marni Nixon who sang for Natalie Wood as Maria in West Side Story and many other characters, like Audrey Hepburn’s Eliza Dolittle in My Fair Lady and Deborah Kerr’s Anna in The King and I. She even dubbed a few notes for Marilyn Monroe in her hit “Diamonds are a Girl’s Best Friend”.

If we’re matching voice with body, Marni Nixon’s voice manages to be a Puerto Rican teen, a British flower girl, a British teacher, and an American sex symbol. Why couldn’t Nixon just star in the films herself since she was doing all of the voice work? It reminds me of people recording voices for cartoon characters. These Hollywood films definitely represent the “linguistic constraint and physical confinement” that Silverman discusses (45). Hollywood gives us its “privileged mode of representation” of reality (44). Even though Nixon had the singing chops for the roles in the musicals I mentioned above, the other actresses had the look desired by the production company/director. Thinking of these circumstances makes me wonder how we’re cultured to judge if voices match up with bodies and vice versa. Sometimes we hear people speak, and for some reason, aren’t fond of their voice sound or don’t believe the voice matches up with the body. Although I haven’t really answered the question of what makes sounds appealing, I think the question can be even more specific – are sounds appealing because of biological reasons (how certain sounds affect our auditory system, like high-pitched screeches) and/or are sounds appealing based on cultural constructs? I’m inclined to say the answer is a mixture of both. Some sounds are physically difficult to listen to, but the sounds available to us and accepted as favorable are definitely restricted and represented by culture (including Hollywood film culture).

*************

During our class discussion, I also became interested in the topic of authenticity, which makes me question: How do we know what voices/sounds are authentic? Can they be? Why is authenticity so important? Is it? In terms of voice, we’re all influenced by region/dialect/language, etc. However, as some actors and actresses show, voices and accents can be impersonated. Recently, I read about people having vocal cord surgery simply because they want to regain the youthfulness of their voice after aging, or because they wish to have a different vocal tone. Ultimately, we can (try to) fake authenticity, and we’ll also pay to achieve a favorable sound (just like we do with plastic surgery for looks). To this end, vocal sound could be considered a commodity.

Soundscape: Office Sounds

The goal of our soundscape attempt was to capture common sounds that take place in the Colson Hall offices. Layla recorded the sounds with her iPhone, and Amelia and I made sounds such as walking down hall, fiddling with keys, opening the door, unzipping a jacket, pouring water into a cup, typing a paper, messing up a sentence and saying, “oh crap”, deleting some text, talking to friends passing by in the hall, complaining about work, opening and closing desk drawers and the overhead compartment, turning on the radio, and getting back to work.

These sounds truly represent life in Colson. Sometimes it’s quiet until friends come by to say hi and we use the time to discuss or complain about work, then the visitors leave and the office environment once again becomes quiet after the friendly voices and footsteps fade away. Just because I liked the sound, I bounced a ping pong ball toward the end, and it really seems to take over the end of the recording, even sounding over the radio. Ironically, this sound is the one we don’t hear too much in Colson.

The iPhone Layla used to record, and the program on the it, added extra layers of sound – manipulating the sounds we made throughout the recording – from shoes clip-clopping down the hallway, to the voices, to the ping pong ball at the end. It is interesting how the program kind of accentuated the moods the we were trying to project (anger with “oh crap” (frantic typing, then banging overhead cupboard – frustrated)….empathy with “that sucks”....long, drawn out, low)
It’s like the remixing that DJ Spooky talks about. In this case, though, the iPhone program is the DJ. Therefore, the final outcome of the soundscape is the result of multiple authorship – a collaboration between Layla, Amelia, and me, and the manipulation of the iPhone. Our recording would sound much different without the program. Once we made the sounds, we lost all control over how they ended up on the recording. The iPhone would make some sounds louder than others and give them different tones and tempos. We really had no control over the outcome because we did not know exactly what the iPhone program would do with our sounds.

Considering the larger questions from the beginning of the semester, I wonder if we produced music or art or poetry…or if our recording is a noisy racket. I think John Cage would be pretty accepting of what we’ve done, and even though we haven’t recorded a bathtub performance, we did do a similar rendition since we used common, everyday, office props. We also planned out our performance (though not as detailed as Cage) by having a rough outline of the sounds we would make and in what order we would make them. I’d say we modernized Cage’s performance with the iPhone application adding extra layers of sound to our performance. It’s hard for me to interpret our soundscape as an outsider because I was so involved in the preparation and recording, so I’m curious to see what others have to say about our work.

We're all DJs, all the time.

1. What do we gain through mixing/sampling? Can we avoid these processes if we want, or do they happen naturally as well as intentionally?

DJ Spooky believes, “At the end of the day, it’s all about reprocessing the world around you…” (29). This reprocessing seems like it would be typical of not only sampling music and sounds, but also of writing. It almost seems natural to reprocess when we slow down at some point during our day and let our thoughts review. Sometimes we do things differently the next day as a result of this review/reprocessing. Furthermore, I think everything DJ Spooky says on page 25 about sonic sculptures resonates with writing: As we develop our writing, we sample ways of doing something and creating, breaking free from old associations, forming new contexts and thoughts, learning a new language, and taking the ideas and folding them in on themselves. We’re constantly pulling from the old and adapting it to make something new. This mixing reminds me of writing exercises I had to complete a few years go where we were assigned to examine and then write in different authors’ styles (Hemingway, Stein, Faulkner, to name a few). Even if I didn’t have this assignment, though, it’s implied that I’ll pick up writing style from reading other authors and continuing to write.

Rhythm Science also made me think about the mix CDs I’ve made. It’s interesting to think of them as “a paradox of personal and impersonal” (29). Although I’ve never mixed the songs in ways that changed the individual songs, the songs I chose to incorporate on my CDs took those songs into new realms, producing new contexts and environments (57). With each mix, a new whole is produced even if the individual songs appear unchanged. With the new framing, though, the songs could be interpreted differently by the listeners. Again, writing can work the same way if one sentence gets put in another context – another story, another paragraph, another point of view.

Spooky’s mom asks a profound question when she says, “Who speaks through you?” (37). With intertextuality and the webbed (not necessarily linear) connections that exist in our minds and our compositions, pieces of others are speaking through us all of the time. Intentionally or not, we’re all DJs, all the time.



2. “Is identity for sale to the highest bidder?” (76). Spooky implies that identity is for sale in today’s open market world, and I think it is an idea worth pondering. Sometimes we work very hard to develop and/or maintain our identities. Adding in the concept that we can also buy identity puts a new twist on how we view identity, how we achieve identity, and how money plays (can play) a role in forming that identity.

Dylan can do it all: My thoughts and questions about Music's place in our life and Accepting All Noise as Music/Art

In the readings and listenings for this week, we encounter a variety of different music/art/noise/communication forms. I’d like to present and discuss some of these forms in attempt to better understand what the authors are saying and to better understand the roles these types of communications play in our worlds.

Below are some clips of people performing Steve Reich’s pendulum music to give you a visual/audible perspective:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhVC9_e2hzQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca4JERTjJw0&feature=related

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, Steve Reich is also known for clapping music, in which his goal was to make music only by using the human body. This clip is an example of a clapping performance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhhIZscEE_g&feature=related

******************************************************************

1) One of the main points of the readings this week seems to be that we can listen to our worlds, and everything can be music worthy of paying attention to. The chapter “Listening” made the most sense to me this week. The very first paragraph caught my attention and prompted my thinking with the statement that the world “is not legible, but audible” (3). So, we don’t really read the world, but listen to it and interpret based on those listenings. Like Sabrina, I’m not very familiar with sonic culture, but I can relate to music. There is definitely a solid connection today between music and money, and perhaps that is why the sound of music is unavoidable (3). Even though music has invaded our lives, how simple or difficult would it be to ignore or function without? Would other sounds of our world be more centralized if music did not have such economic power?

We let music interpret for us – it has power, and even though we relate to it and use it to express ourselves, I have to wonder how we would go about making connections and expressing ourselves without it sometimes . Oftentimes, a list of lyrics comprises my favorite quotes. We hear music in our cars, in elevators, while exercising, and many of us have ear buds in or near during most parts of the day. Do we miss the natural music of the world because of this reliance on music? Perhaps. But, I’m pretty much alone, I feel like I need music…in my office, in the car, at home…I like having those sounds as the background to my world. Surely, we all could function without music, but how would our lives be affected? It might not even matter. We’d probably be more in tune with nearby footsteps, cars, children playing, a pen dropping, and other sounds that allow us to take in and eavesdrop on the daily occurrences of life around us. Nevertheless, what would be lost if we got rid of music? Some people would lose out on a lot of money, that’s for sure.

I think it’s important to recognize how much we value music/sound/communication in terms of property as well. Birds use sound to mark their boundaries (“Listening”). Musicians mark their boundaries, too. They try to mark their images, their lyrics, and their melodies. They profit from all of this. This reading mentions Bob Dylan, and being such a fan, I can’t go without making some commentary on the topic of him. Intellectual property is an important facet of music and creativity in general today, that sound also has territories. Dylan is best known for his songs of protest and social commentary. He is an example of a musician interpreting the politics of the day, and he’s also an example of a musician whose music is sometimes believed to be more noise than “music” or art. The Seth MacFarland clip below parodies this idea and alludes that communication via sound can exist without language, per say. (A commercial parodying Priceline Negotiator commercials with William Shatner precedes the clip.) In a way, the clip reminds me of some of the sounds heard in “Language Removal Service” where we hear sounds and breaths, but no words.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ4ZXsyqsWo

**********************************************************************

2) Reading Burrough’s, I kept thinking of the many times I’ve been in theme parks and heard sounds of things like wildlife or spaceships while waiting for a ride. Looking around, I finally find the hidden speakers in the nearby plants or other scenery. The sounds are important to the experience, though, and the sounds help prepare customers by helping them not only visualize the theme but also hear it and submerse themselves into that adventurous world for a few minutes. Recordings of visuals and sound are extremely important, and it’s interesting to think of the reactions people would have if we did what Burrough’s suggests and set up recordings of cut-ups to play in the streets. I think it’s a far stretch to say that the person recording and/or playing back the recording becomes a god (11), but I definitely think power is involved. How much power and how influential can the people who control media, like sounds and visuals (thinking of the Funcke article that discusses the Indian government showing art and technology like video to rural populations (9-11)) impress upon our culture and affect what we perceive as life?

The answer seems like an easy “yes,” but these impressions from those in power really do influence our lives in terms of what we perceive as art, music, soothing sounds versus screeching noises, etc. It’s why it’s accepted for Bob Dylan to be considered art and good music but some contestants on American Idol garner laughs and harsh critique. Nevertheless, I think it’s our job to challenge popular ideals and ourselves to see all of the sounds of our world as life and art examine them, at least in terms of purpose, even if we may not be the biggest fan.

If art can be anything, Dylan’s wordplay with these store signs can be art, too. Check out the link below to see the Poet Laureate of Rock ‘n Roll at work:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eiASBBuFso

*And to end with more love for Bob – a bird singing another bird’s song – my current, favorite YouTube artist, Fretkllr, who doesn’t show his face, but only lets you hear the music from his mouth and see the music he creates with his guitar because he’d rather go unidentified.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YjKnXy5GcE&feature=channel_page

Sounds are so much better heard through a headset

1.) In Sterne’s introduction, “Hello!” he claims that “modern ways of hearing prefigured modern ways of seeing” (3), which seems logical to me. Nevertheless, it makes me question: How does seeing what is spoken affect our hearing/listening? Does it?

Sterne’s discussion of headsets in the beginning of Ch. 2 made me think about my experience wearing headsets. When listening to music through a headset, for example, I definitely feel set off from the world - more private and more focused. Additionally, I notice that I pick up on more details of the music, like some of the background instrumental sounds. These sounds add depth, texture and more feeling to the music. Listening through headphones seems like the best way to hear sound because of the focus it allows. It’s sad that we sometimes miss so much without them. I think I can pick up on these intricacies even more when my eyes are shut and my sense of hearing is primary.

Likewise, I think visuals can sometimes take away from sound because we receive information from multiple senses at once and cannot concentrate on simply sound (as we can do more successfully using a headset). During week two, I brought up this idea because I found myself focusing on words rather than sound while listening to the Tennyson recording, but I think we can take this question to a different level when we think of ways of hearing influencing ways of seeing. Is Sterne talking about seeing literally? Or seeing as in understanding? These different interpretations of “seeing” could potentially yield very different answers. In terms of understanding, hearing can prove beneficial. I’m not so certain, though, that hearing can help us see visually, unless perhaps we are connecting music, sounds, and words in a musical to comprehend the events being performed. Then again, comprehension would be the goal and outcome, not merely seeing.


2.) In Ch. 1, Sterne discusses Francis Bacon, automata, and the capabilities of machines simulating human/animal behavior (72). Sterne states that these imitations were “meant to suggest a level of understanding of and mastery over nature” (72). Evidently, human vie for an understanding of nature and try to control or manipulate some aspects of it (with science, for example). Sterne shows that we can indeed understand and imitate sound, but can we ever have a mastery over nature? I’m doubtful because nature seems so powerful and uncontrollable. I ask this question because I think we can imitate nature, including the sounds we find in nature, and we can influence nature through our actions (like how we can build structures on the earth, dam waterways, and affect air quality), but mastery over it seems like a far stretch to me.

Revive Memorization! (so I'm not so forgetful)

Here are two questions that came to my mind while reading Walter Ong’s book Orality and Literacy for class this week.

Question 1: Ong spends a good bit of time in Chapter 3 discussing the importance of memorization to education. Teachers demanded that students memorize and recite statements (55-56). I can recall having to recite my phone number and address and The Pledge of Allegiance in Kindergarten, and later the Preamble to the Constitution. However, it’s been a long time since I’ve had to recite anything from memorization. Ong believes, “Writing has to be personally interiorized to affect thinking processes” (56), which makes me wonder: How does our reliance on writing and independence from memorization affects our thinking and our learning?

I ask this question in part because lately I have found myself talking about how my memory has weakened and how it fails me. I have trouble remembering the plots of stories I’ve read within the past year, and I have trouble remembering which authors wrote which articles and what they are about. I am now beginning to think that my memory seems weak because I have not trained it nor kept it in good use and practice. I don’t have to remember cell phone numbers or email address because they can all be saved. I don’t have to remember much of anything because I can write it down. Now in graduate school, I no longer have tests for which I must memorize mathematical formulas or any other class material. I can write, look back at my notes for reference, and keep moving along. I’m known to say that I know how to use my resources and look back to documents to find what I need to know. Reading Ong makes me think I’m relying too much on writing and current technologies, and therefore letting my mind take it easy. When in reality, using memorization more often may help me use other parts of my brain and strengthen my mind. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I think engaging in more memorization will improve my thinking and my ability to learn in ways that all the writing in the world may not be able to do (and I am not, in any way, putting down writing or saying less should be practiced).




Question 2: Ong states in Chapter 4, “Writing is always a kind of imitation talking, and in a diary, I therefore am pretending that I am talking to myself. But I never really talk that way to myself. Nor could I without writing or indeed without print” (101). I am not completely convinced that I never talk to myself the way I write in a diary. I admit that I have a conversational voice and a writerly voice. However, I feel like I can talk to myself the way that I write, especially the way I write in a diary. So I ask, does are writerly voice naturally differ from our oral/speaking voice? Does it depend on our purpose for writing and the audience we’re addressing? Can we even know the difference since writing is such a standard and (at least right now) seemingly natural part of our lives?

Multiple Types of Silence and No Relations: Just Enough to Confuse Me and Give Me Another Reason to talk about Barthes

A bunch of questions, a stream of consciousness. It seems that writing, music, and poetry, can be just that according to Cage (41-52). I’m right on board with most of our authors as I read them, but then when I start thinking about noise, silence, poetry vs. music all together, it gets even more complex.

This set of readings brought me back to my question from earlier in the week about what constitutes poetry. I’m beginning to think that the definition is arbitrary and based on the reader’s/listener’s ideas and interpretations when listening, and the performer’s/writer’s point of view when composing or performing.

Question 1: Sticking with silence for my first question, I wonder – how can there be more than one type of silence? In “Unheard Music,” Dworkin notes Whitehead’s six types of silence. Though, isn’t silence, silence? Even if devices are put on mute or pause or silent mode, I don’t believe they are necessarily without sound. If there’s any sounded lull or interference, wouldn’t that be noise?

Question 2: How can the idea of relation be truly absent in music or any other composition?

In “Introduction to Selected Gathas,” MacLow expresses relationships between his works and others (like Pete Rose and Anne Tardos) and encourages the performers of his gathas to “produce speech elements or tones in relation with all they hear” (649). Evidently, MacLow acknowledges inspiration and relation while composing and performing and wants others to do the same. This idea makes sense to me. It’s hard for me to imagine anything I compose not having relations with other things and being purely unique. When thinking of intertextuality, like Barthes, relationships are innate and unavoidable.

For these reasons, I have a problem understanding Cage’s idea that it is “possible to make a musical composition the continuity of which is free of individual taste and memory” and with which “the idea of relation being absent, anything may happen” (Imaginary Landscape #4). I may be able to grasp this concept once I have a better understanding of Cage’s composing process and product, but for now I can’t wrap my head around pure authenticity and lack of relation. Even if mistakes are impossible and “beside the point” in such compositions, they still must come from somewhere, right? Don’t they still have an instigation or relation? Cage’s composition process seems very precise with 12 radios and 24 performers, and so on. Though the performance occurs without individual taste or memory or value judgments and with opportunity for uncertainty (Imaginary Landscape #4), I still think relation exists and can never truly be absent (although I’m very likely to change my mind after learning more about Cage and his compositions).

More unknowns: What is a poem? Is sound more valuable than speech?

1. Just as I found myself trying to define “noise” last week, this week I find myself trying to define “poem”. In my Literary Research class on Thursday, we took time to differentiate between prose and poetry, noting that poetry has rhythm, meter, sometimes rhyme, stanzas and incorporates meaning-dense language. However, for this class we are reading about sound poetry and other non-traditional types of creating poems, like the turtle poems and other visual poems, including photocopying and painting. Thus, for my first question (which I’ll leave unanswered in the blog) I ask: What does it take for something to constitute a poem?

2. Chopin makes chaos sound pretty good in “Why I am the Author of Sound Poetry and Free Poetry” by framing it as a way to make us more alive as opposed to the “all powerful Word” that deadens so many. When I read “Word” with the capital “W”, I automatically think of the Christian Bible. However, I think much of what Chopin has to say can also relate to our use of speech (words) in general. Given that and what Chopin has to say about the significance of sound, here is my question: Is it more important to listen to the sounds people make (tone/pitch/rate of speech) rather than what is being said (words/meaning)? Likewise, is it more important for us to be aware of our own sound when reading (and writing) in addition to focusing on meaning?

A lot could be said in reply to these questions, I think. It would be interesting to rate how much attention we place on sound vs. meaning when listening to others, and how much we take in of others’ nonverbal communication. I know that I take in many messages, verbal and nonverbal, at one time; however, I think I concentrate more on interpreting/comprehending the words being said. Perhaps communication would be more successful if more direct attention was focused on sound rather than word.

Chopin claims that children are “prisoners of the word,” prisoners of education, too, in a way. Often we are directed to focus on what is being said, not necessarily how it is being said. Communication in general may be better if we spent as much or more time thinking about sound and nonverbal elements because we feel emotions, and this transmittance sometimes conflicts with the words being voiced.

When I read Chopin’s statement that “we are slaves of rhetoric, prisoners of explanation that explains nothing,” I at first felt like I was losing job security, but the more I let these words settle, the more I believe teachers have the power to act as agents of change and influence how people tune their attention to or away from sound. People may need to learn how to pay at least as much attention to sound as they do to words. Chopin implies that we need to live. We need to listen to the transmittal of emotions. It would be interesting if we abandoned the use of words in our speech for a day and tried to only communicate with non-word sounds and nonverbal communication. I wonder how difficult or surprisingly successful that might be.

What makes a good performance? And so many other questions.

My questions are very basic this week. I feel like I have so many broad questions at the start of the semester when we’re still trying to define the key terms we’re working with. I hope I find myself asking more specific questions as the semester progresses. In a nutshell, Question 1 lead me to many other questions, as you will see. Therefore, I’m leaving all of those unanswered. As for Question 2, it is one that was continuously in the back of my mind during the first set of listening and reading assignments, and I feel like it also could lead me to additional questions. Here they are…

Question 1: Does reading a poem while listening to it take away from the experience?

I couldn’t help but read the Tennyson on the webpage as the audio was playing, and I felt like I was paying too much attention with my eyes, and not listening closely enough. It makes me wonder: Does reading a poem while listening to it take away from the experience of hearing the reading? Or, does the hearing interfere with our reading? Questions of authority always interest me. Could hearing/seeing a reading implant images and sounds in our minds that take away our authority as readers by providing too strict of impressions? So when we read more poems by the same author, we’ll hear that voice in our heads. Who is the writing/reading for? Does it matter? Is it important to recognize the author’s intention in writing the poem? Not having written too much poetry, I wonder about the composing processes of poets. Do the poets read their ideas aloud as they write, as if the words are to be read later. Or, do they hear the ideas in their heads and write them as if they are to be read silently. Does it matter?

Question 2: What is a good reading? A good performance? For them to be good, must we gain knowledge, find entertainment, or be provoked?

The readings and the listening for today made me reflect on the poetry and literature readings I have heard. Sometimes they seemed like mere readings – not much emotion, not much eye contact with the audience, not much energy. However, others have seemed like pure entertainment where the readers’/authors’ energy emits to the audience.

In the sound clip of Langston Hughes, in between Langston’s three poems, you can hear him thinking/speaking about how the problems of Jim Crow laws and segregation are left behind in northern cities and listen to his reasoning for reading the poem “Graduation” about the girl from Chicago. I feel like we get a sense of Hughes’s thought process and personality in these in between sections, gaining insight about the author. Likewise, in the Robert Johnson You Tube clip, it’s nice that we get to visualize who is singing. Like a reading, the audience is able to put a face with the words on the page or the words/music being heard.

During visual performances, we can also see how the performers get into their work or not. With some, that helps. Energetic performance can be emotional, affective. With others, the performance ruins the music…it makes a distracting kind of noise, if we can think of noise as the noise that occurs in our minds, disrupting our focus and soiling our appreciation. For me, some examples are Celine Dion, Beyonce, and Kanye West. I will listen to some of their music and enjoy it, but when I see them perform, I cannot appreciate the music (perhaps unless I shut my eyes). Though I use singers as opposed to poets as examples, Rothenberg notes that performance (of poetry and I’m assuming otherwise) can be “an art of sound and gesture” (6). In which case, I think the visual and auditory elements of the performance are equally important and help make one successful. However, performance, like any written text, is up for interpretation by the audience. I am a fan of Bob Dylan, after all, and have attended and enjoyed 8 of his concerts even though many people believe his voice sounds awful now. However, when it comes to him, I think it’s more about the words and the legend than it is how well Dylan’s voice sounds. Rothenberg mentioned Dylan as one of the musicians whose music was language-centered in the 60s and 70s (5), he’s been referred to as a poet laureate of America and of Rock ‘n Roll. I’ll probably find another way to discuss Dylan later, but I’m still left with the question of what makes a good performance. Is there a standard? For some audience members, distracting or uninspired performances may not be considered good. Performing has been around for an extremely long time through the use of oral tradition to share stories, poems, and songs before print capabilities developed. What made one of these storytellers effective? Does it end up being about what entertains us? The questions could go on…