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.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, March 23, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
