Archives for September 2018

Whitney Houston’s I Will Always Love You is a timeless classic. It is recognized as one of the most beautiful love ballads of all time, fourteen weeks as number one on the Billboard Hot 100 List. While everyone knows the song, and most people know the movie that popularized it, very few people know that it is a cover. I Will Always Love You was a song written by Dolly Parton and released almost 20 years before Whitney Houston covered it for her film, The Body Guard. Dolly Parton’s version of the song is different. Her song is almost two minutes shorter, and it’s a country song, it is just barely slower and it is lighter on the instruments. Whitney Houston’s cover is over four minutes long, and there is more soul and R&B, and it adds amazing instruments, like the saxophone (who’s solo literally gives me shivers). It is remarkable feat, what Whitney Houston accomplished, cover songs usually pale in comparison to their originals. Whitney Houston’s version of I Will Always Love you, however, is objectively better than Dolly Parton’s version. Houston has a stronger voice and a wider vocal range and the message of the benefits from being told through the genres of soul and R&B. Houston’s version is not just a cover, but a total reimagining, something “Take Me On: The Art of the Cover Song,” recognizes as a way to make “a great cover song.” Whitney Houston’s I Will Always Love You, is arguably the music industry’s best cover song, proven by the fact that most people do not realize that it is a cover song.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKsQR72HY0s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9nPf7w7pDI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ke4480MicU Julia Michaels

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7urUjFX-1ig Niall Horan

Niall Horan covered Julia Michaels “Issues”. It is clear that Niall Horan completely rearranged the original. The time signature is different as well as giving it a country mix, with different instruments than the original. To me, he makes it sound less electronic/technological and more authentic. This could be due to the tempo being slowed down and the different instruments (guitar) being used. Because Niall Horan’s cover sounds a little more “technologically innocent”, Weheliye suggests that this could increase the “humanity” and “soulfulness” to the singer’s voice (513). He slows it down and thus really creates a new feeling to the song. However, we also have to look at these changes through the ears of Julia Michaels. Horan changes/puts a twist on the original. The 1A podcast “Take Me On: The Art of the Cover Song”, discusses what makes a great cover song. They talked about the importance of conveying the original intent of the song. Though Niall Horan changes the pace and the overall sound, I think he does a good job keeping things authentic to Michaels original. The podcast discussed how covers can change songs as long as the “original skeleton” is still there. I think Horan does this and respects the original all while putting his own twist on it as well. The cover was seen as a positive to a lot of the listeners, one comment being: “I hated this song, but when I listened to Niall’s version I started loving this song”. Just like they mentioned on the podcast, covers that are the best can be superior to the original. Horan still appreciates the lyrics but he made it his own by doing something a little different.

Al Green – Take me to the River: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGD8aQ2GKr0

Talking Heads – Take me to the River (cover): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ar2VHW1i2w

 

The original was fantastic, a soul-cleansing bad love masterpiece. I believe the talking heads’ cover is a great song in its own right, successful as a cover because it takes the song in a different direction – a firmer, more defined groove, funk-inspired synths – without being sacrilegious with respect to the original.

 

I grew up with the Talking Heads version. In fact, I didn’t know it was a cover until today. I’ve always loved the song and have to confess I prefer the cover to the original. As I was listening to the Al Green version for the first time, I scrolled down to look at the comments, and right at the top was user “Jerell Allen” with the following:

 

“So many white people in my life telling me that the TH version is better than this. But they don’t know they don’t know what it felt like growing up with this one.”

 

For me, this is a perfect example of an idea that Stoever is trying to express during the introduction to The Sonic Color Line:

 

Rearticulating music as a culturally and historically conditioned form of sound in political relation to (and flowing from, and toward) other sounds— none of which exist, as Gustavus Stadler reminds us, “outside of [their] perception by specifically marked subjects and bodies within history”— offers a deeper understanding of how and why music means, and to whom.

 

Being that Jerell Allen and I are different specifically marked subjects and bodies within history, the two most prominent versions of “Take me to the River” have distinctly separate meanings to us. In both cases, we prefer the version of the song that was a part of our acoustic environment at home, as kids. Jerell is exactly right when he says white people who prefer the TH version don’t know what it was like to grow up hearing Al Green ask you to take him to the river instead of David Byrne. Jerell also doesn’t know what it was like to listen to the Talking Heads version at full volume with my father and my brother – in the car, in the living room, anywhere there was a speaker. This is what Stoever is talking about. This is how music means different things to different people.

 

This only becomes an issue when we make the mistake of thinking our personal histories as bodies receiving vibrations can in any way inform objective value judgements.It is not fair to say that the Talking Heads’ cover is “better” than Al Green’s original, or vice-versa. Let’s agree to revel in the joy of getting dropped in the water, whoever the river belongs to.

The Boxer – Simon and Garfunkel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3LFML_pxlY)

The Boxer- Mumford and Sons (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAl-vZsswb4)

 

“The Boxer” by Simon and Garfunkel was recorded and released in 1969. This ballad about a young poor man’s journey in a new city trying to build a life for himself has a melancholy tone to it. The softness of the singers’ voices underscores that the song is meant to be a sad one. The most energy that comes from the song is when they are repeating the chorus “lie la lie.” In 2012, Mumford & Sons released a cover of “The Boxer.” The two bands share the same genre so the folk elements of the original song were still echoed in the cover version through the instruments used. However, this band adds more voices and therefore more energy to the chill original. They remove the fourth verse which talks about growing older. This could be to place more emphasis on the last verse which talks about the making of a boxer and the fighter within the young boy. Mumford & Son’s version seems to add more energy to the idea of the man as a fighter by increasing their volume when they sing about it and adding more instruments to accompany their voices. Simon & Garfunkel’s original seems to put more emphasis on his journey as a whole being a sad one rather than on a specific piece of the journey as the cover does. They do this by keeping the volume of their voices relatively the same the whole time, and there does not seem to be a build up from the instruments that there is in the cover. It is interesting that the same song telling the same story can have two different takeaways. Adriana Cavarero talks about the importance of the uniqueness of the voice. She says “The voice, however, is always different from all other voices, even if the words are the same.” The two songs are an example of that idea because while the words are the same the way they choose to use their voices emphasize different words, creating a different narrative.

I will survive, originally sung by Gloria Gaynor in the 1970s, is a powerful song that Gaynor sang when she was on a quest to find personal strength. It has a powerful voice that every woman, or even man, can identify with in their journey for self-realization. The words spoken are more powerful than the melody; they create a certain intelligence that people can connect with. This idea of voice is exemplified by Aristotle, who emphasizes the importance of the intent of voice over the sound of it. For instance, “Voice is a kind of sound characteristic of what has soul in it… “(Aristotle, 669). Gloria’s voice is a powerful anthem that was used for empowering women and gay men in the AIDS crisis; it’s an inspiring song that resonates with people everywhere.

In the 1990s the song was used as a cover song by Cake and had been transformed with a completely different meaning. Gaynor’s lyrics and melodies encourage the listeners to feel strength, while with Cake the sound of the guitar and the way the lyrics are delivered in a speech-like manner seem to suggest that the empowerment stage had already been reached. Gaynor shows that she will survive and Cake seems to finish the song by implying that they have already survived and are feeling the effects of survival. Cake’s use of profanity, “I should have changed my f***ing lock…”, asserts the newfound strength. Both songs utilize the same lyrics, except for the previous line, but the method of delivery is different, and it’s brilliant that it impacts how the song is interpreted. Further, the songs seem to challenge Aristotle’s view as the intent changes based on the delivery, which shows that there is more to a voice than clarity.

Gaynor: https://youtu.be/ZBR2G-iI3-I

Cake: https://youtu.be/0iGi_atvgyg

Crawford expands our current definition(s) of voice and adds a more modern aspect. This breaks through our current definitions of voice. Aristotle defines voice as a noise coming form a body that possess his definition of soul. Crawford analyzes a new definition of people having a voice through written texts, specifically online. In reference to her idea of contributing a voice online she says “Speaking up’ has become the dominant metaphor for participation in online spaces such as blogs, wikis, news sites and discussion lists (Karaganis 2007; Bruns 2008).” (p. 80) Crawford aims to express voice to be more about having and sharing an idea, or contributing something to a conversation, rather than distinguishing between voice and mere sound.

Crawford also introduces a new concept we have not previously studied, which is listening. Crawford’s definition of listening here is more comparable to reading, as she talks mostly about those who observed and read more instead of contributing to online conversations. In reference to these people she defines as “lurkers,” she says “Rather than freeloading, lurkers are actively logging in and tracking the contributions of others; they contribute a mode of receptiveness that encourages others to make public contributions. (81) Crawford further elaborates on the importance of this group in saying “The concept of listening, on the other hand, invokes the more dynamic process of online attention, and suggests that it is an embedded part of networked engagement – a necessary corollary to having a ‘voice’. (p. 82) This concept of listen is parallel to the past concepts of voice we have seen. Just like the “lurkers” who read rather than speak online, without listeners, why would people speak their voice or perform auditory pieces?

Crawford use ideas of sound, listening, speaking, etc. in her discussion of social media by first describing social media use as a “voice.” Voice was described as a privilege, and it was stated that no one voice can speak with unquestioned authority. This is just as revelant if not more relevant in 2018 as it was in 2009. For example, Twitter is a platform where tweeters can use their voice to state their claims, beliefs, and ideas. Essentially on social media, especially twitter, conversations tend to happen and just as any other; there are people who support those claims, beliefs, and ideas stated as well as others who are opposed. A real life example of this happened not too long ago when Serena Williams won a tennis match at the French Open and actually did an interview over the speakers in the stadium in French. The caption was something along the lines of, “I was totally unaware that Serena was fluent in French….” There were obviously people who knew Serena could speak French and supported  the argument by simply liking and retweeting. On the other hand, there were also people who stated that Serena was not fluent in French which caused a huge arguement. In the end, the strongest argument proved to be that Serena could obviously speak French as we all heard it, however, many agreed that she was not fluent because to a native speaker it was clear she was not fluent.  Due to the previous examples Crawford’s idea of sound, listening, and speaking on social media were all present. People  listened used the sound available to them and spoke with their “voice”.

Crawford uses the ideas of sound, listening, and speaking in her discussion of social media as a way for us to have a voice online. What we read, hear, and post all contribute to what we believe and how we feel. We as users, post and “contribute” to the discussions online that we feel most drawn towards or repelled from. The use of social media has grown and expanded the ways that many people can now voice their opinions. The way we speak on the internet may not be how we speak in real life, but Crawford shows us that speech online is what comes from a place within. Social media has grown into a place where many feel free in their ability to express themselves or their ability to observe and interpret what is being said and discussed online. Although the piece was published in 2009 the author clearly had a vision for the growth of social media. Even in 2018, social media plays a crucial role in voice, speech, and listening as it gives people a platform to either step out onto and express themselves or stay reserved and be a “lurker” (Crawford 81). The use of social media today is extremely significant and has caused extreme rise to global issues or trending topics in many aspects of life. Social media gives it’s users the ability to find and develop thoughts that may not have been developed or expressed without the advocation or expressions of someone else.

Crawford is the first of the essayists to bring sound studies into the 21st century, so already she is making connections that we haven’t thought of as much, most notably, the new meanings she brings to voice, sound, and listening.

In Crawford’s essay, social media becomes a platform to be heard and to hear. Now anyone can say anything they want, and anyone can find it. It’s no longer an limited circle of people who we can pick and choose to listen to us, although most social media platforms have an option to be “private.” Our circles have broaden all over the world, and as who’s listening to us has increased, so has the people we “listen” to, and Crawford brings up this point as she discusses the “conversations” we have on social media. She compares our Twitter feeds to the radio, a constant environment of sound that we can always have access to. It’s here that Crawford reimagines what listening is, because she describes our interaction with our Twitter feed as listening. And much like the way we sometimes listen to the radio, Crawford claims that we passively tune into our feeds. Instead of a constant stream of actual sound/noise, our Twitter’s provide us a constant stream of text, and in a way, we passively listen to it, letting the notifications pop onto our screens without focusing on them. Occasionally we will click on a post and read it, but it becomes “background noise” to us.

I think in some ways, this claim is still true, especially in the ways that social media has desensitized our generation by providing unlimited access to things. Hashtags for disasters are just a daily thing, to the point where sometimes it becomes a feeling of “oh, just another one.” For me, a lot of social media just becomes something I can go to when I’m bored or listless and want something in the background.

In her relatively recent work, Kate Crawford asks us to look at the matter of social media and how it relates to the concept of voice. Historically, daily communication has routinely taken place by word of mouth. Often, the only correspondences sent by writing were letters, or otherwise some sort of brief note. However, in the 21st century, it is possible to have an entire conversation in real time without opening one’s mouth, across any distance on this planet. The sheer instantaneous nature of communication has made for an interesting landscape for the future, both in terms of the potential advantages and the inherent dangers. As Crawford put it, Twitter is, “a relatively young platform…..where the norms of use are nascent.” On Twitter, as in on social media and the Internet in general, society is still trying to find where to draw the line of what is and isn’t okay to say or do. For instance, one of social media’s many problems is that what is said remains for a long time. If you have a Twitter account for 10 years and you post something discriminatory, hateful, or not well thought out in any other way, that could come back to haunt you for a long time. Even if you delete the offending comment, someone could have retweeted it or taken a screenshot, thereby putting you at the mercy of your past mistakes. Such things can and do affect later opportunities, including jobs and elected positions. Since Crawford’s day, social media has further exploded, with the addition of platforms such as Instagram and Snapchat. Though I do not personally use social media, I am aware by association that social media in a sense depersonalizes voice, making it much easier to do and say regrettable things. Whereas it is much harder to say something uncalled for or offensive to someone’s face, doing so on the deindividuating platforms of social media is almost effortless. In a sense, voice persists still with social media, but the speaker can feel little to no responsibility for their words, often until it is too late.

Crawford’s piece, much like influential writings of sociologists, gives us a new framework by which we can come to understand the complexities of social media. By comparing one’s social media activity to a “voice”, we see that our voice and views can be further projected by the frequency in which we post on Twitter as well as the amount of people that see our “vocal manifestations” in the form of these tweets. Given such a social media platform, Crawford points out that there is an apparent demand for dialogue from user, politicians, and even corporations (85). However, dialogue is not always present as many view social media to serve the purpose of their consumption as opposed to projecting their voice. Crawford points out that these less active/inactive users are not “lurking” in the doldrums of social media websites, but they are listening (as active or as inactive as they please). Much like a radio, these participants may tune into and out of the “idle chatter” of social media – determining what is tweet/re-tweet worthy by their attention (83). This attention is what many corporations, politicians, and social media stars are after as they endeavor to engage these people to listen and advocate their causes with their voice.

Social media is ever evolving and has done just that since Crawford’s piece in 2009. Twitter, in specific, has doubled the character limit per tweet, allowed for embedded videos, as well as to quote tweets since that time. These changes have allowed people to have greater freedom in expressing their voice and given politicians and corporations more “tools” by which they can persuade their audience.

Crawford writes that “listening has not been given sufficient consideration as a significant practice of intimacy, connection, obligation and participation online; instead, it has often been considered as contributing little value to online communities, if not acting as an active drain on their growth”. This, in my experience as a social-media user, is very true. Whenever I see a particularly controversial tweet or post and feel compelled to take a glance at the comments, I am always surprised by what I see. People will comment their own various points of views on the matter suggested in the most personally attacking and demeaning way possible. Sometimes, these comments don’t even pertain to what the original post was about, almost as if the attackers just want to start a fight behind their screen of choice for no apparent reason other than kicks and giggles.

 

As a “budding sound student”, I wonder about the effects of debate through social media. When we engage others through our screens, we are effectively taking the voice, or sound altogether, completely out of the equation. My mother always warned me not to have serious conversations or send risky texts over the phone because of just how warped the recipients perception of the said message can become so quickly. Taking the voice out of a discussion makes it easier for the engaged to ignore the engager and instead focus solely on and push their own agenda no matter how unrelated it may seem to the original opinion.

 

Crawford’s views definitely hold up in 2018, maybe even more so as it has become alarming easier to hide behind a screen and ignore the other end as technology has only improved in the last nine years. Social media users need to re-evaluate how they perceive what they see and work on their listening skills. An absence of a voice has become the new voice, and if people of this new age need to adapt or communication as we know it will crumble.