evmitchell

The Davidson sample sound map allows listeners to walk through Davidson, hearing the different sounds of different areas and understanding that specific soundscape at that certain moment in time. When listening to the different soundscapes, the listener is able to fully comprehend the complexity of a certain sound, ranging from the small murmur of people working in the library, to birds chirping in the trees, to the cacophonic sounds of construction and vehicles at work. The sound map allows people to more intimately listen to their surrounding environment and look more closely at noises they may entirely ignore without it. This closer look at the soundscapes that are found at Davidson allows listeners to understand the intricate aspects of daily sound, such as the quiet songs of birds or the rustling of a squirrel in the trees, but perhaps more than that it connects sound to sight. Accompanied with a Google Maps view of the campus, our sound map effectively pairs visuals with sound and allows the audience to have a more complete understanding of their surrounding environment.

Hildegard Westerkamp does a similar thing in her sound walk called “Kits Beach Soundwalk”. In this sound recording, Westerkamp allows her audience to notice the sounds of her surrounding environment, even the less significant sounds that may be previously overlooked. To materialize and emphasis these beach sounds, such as the trickling of water over barnacles or the ducks quacking over the horizon, Westerkamp mentions the city and the contrast between urban and organic sounds. With this comparison she emphasizes the beauty of our sonic environment, saying that the urban sounds drown out the acoustic nature of the environment making it “hard to listen”. Westerkamps emphasis on the environment reflects the same emphasis that is seen in the Davidson sound map, comparing different sounds in order to allow the listeners to hear the small nuances of the environment.

Fredrick Douglas, a former African American slave, writes about sound in the context of slavery in the Narrative of the Life. He talks about sound in all sorts of contexts, such as the sounds of the slave driver’s horn, of the overseer’s voice, and the noises of the slaves themselves. Douglas explains that the slaves would use song as a coping mechanism and as a “testimony against slavery,” writing, “they (slaves) breathed the prayer and complaint of souls boiling over with the bitterest anguish” (Douglas 14). Slaves used song as a way to deal with their pain and unhappiness and Douglas explains that it’s a common misconception that slaves would sing songs of contentment. Similarly, Stoever explains the concept of the “sonic color line” in the introduction of her study called The Sonic Color Line. She talks about the racial politics related to sound and the racial barrier that is set by society to create various groups of sound, more specifically black and white. This method of discrimination dates back to American slavery, which Douglas clearly explains when he talks about the relationship between slavery and music.

Today, this divide undoubtable still exists. There are countless examples of the “sonic color line,” that is defined by Stoever, in modern music. Some of these examples include how white Americans react to songs such as “Work” by Rihanna. Rihanna uses patois in the chart topping song “Work”, which a lot of white Americans ignorantly called “nonsense” instead of opening their mind to different black cultures. While white listeners may hear Rihanna’s “broken” English lyrics and think it’s gibberish, she is actually crafting a cultural dancehall song using language from Barbados, which is where Rihanna is from. White ignorance is outdated, yet so societally prevalent and this idea of a “sonic color line” seems to be an unfortunate and unavoidable method of separating cultures. I am curious if this sound base form of segregating different groups of people could ever be avoided. Could society ever unite with something as beautiful and unifying as song, or will races and cultures continue to be separated?

Future Hendrix, an extremely well known rapper/ songwriter, uses a sample from Tommy Butler’s “Prison Song” in his Billboard Top 100 song “Mask Off.” Future takes the flute melody from the beginning of Butler’s “Prison Song” and loops it throughout his rap. While the two songs are different, contextually and thematically, this almost mystical flute harmony is seen predominantly throughout the two. The greatest difference between the two songs is their context. Tommy Butler wrote “Prison Song” in 1978 as a part of his musical Selma. This song, and Selma in its entirety, serves as a testimony to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement. On the other hand “Mask Off” has a much less sentimental meaning, talking not about civil rights, but about drugs, sex, and money. “Mask Off” uses “Prison Song” for the entire premise of the song, regardless of their alarmingly different subject matters. However, Future chose to sample from Butler purposeful and in order to incorporate black culture into his song. This deliberate inclusion touches on the concept of the “sonic color line.” The sonic color line is defined as the connection between sound and the racial divide in American culture. Butler, and Future with his sample, craft songs that embody the culture and history of African American people in America. Future allows his listeners to understand the serious and emotional nature of “Prison Song,” which gives a voice to struggling African Americans, while straying away from the more serious subject matter of the song. “Mask Off” is a modernized way of portraying black culture through sound, using the sample to truly show the discrimination and color divide that even stretches into the sonic world. On the other hand, this sampling could be seen as disrespectful, taking a song drenched in emotional context and making it about drugs. Personally, I don’t think Future made “Mask Off” in a disrespectful manner, but it is important to note the contextual differences of the two songs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=21&v=rMB-wx7LmdQ

Kate Crawford interprets sound with an entire new perspective in her sound study titled, “Following You: Disciplines of Listening in Social Media.” In Crawford’s discussion of sound she focuses on the listening aspect, categorizing listeners into individuals, politicians, and corporations. Taking it even further, she clarifies the three different types of listening; reciprocal, background, and delegated listening. By specifically classifying these modes of listening, Crawford defines the most dominant aspect of social media as she considers the positives and negatives of communication advancements. On one hand, new social media platforms have completely changed how the public utilizes their voice. An online presence allows any person to have a “voice” and to “speak up,” which is what Crawford defines as participating online. However, the public may not be benefiting so positively from the ubiquitous voice found in social media, which may be inaccurate and misleading. Additionally, this concept of “background listening,” which Crawford defines as listening without actually absorbing information, results in the inability to differentiate between specific facts and their validation.

This concept of “voice” stems from democratic politics, where every individual is entitled to their interpretation of truth. Crawford talks specifically about the political voice in social media, using Barack Obama’s Twitter page as an example. Obama practiced delegated listening when running for office in 2008, only posting about campaigns and not responding to direct messages or comments. However, when we compare Obama’s use of Twitter the to current President Trump’s use of Twitter now we see tremendous differences; whereas Trump practices reciprocal listening by having a very dominating online presence. These differences are important to note since different politicians use their interpretation of an online “voice” in different ways.

For me,  social media is a way to stay connected with the people I have created relationships with. A lot of the time I find myself being the “lurker,” which Crawford defines as someone who doesn’t actively utilize their online voice, but rather listens and encourages others to make online contributions. However, when it comes to my friends and family I am very active on social media and utilize my online voice tremendously. I suppose these differences in how people use their online voice is what makes social media such a diverse method of communication, especially today when the online presence is such an enormous aspect of society.

To hear an artificial voice that sounded so similar to mine, while knowing that it was far from my actual articulations, was a strange and even mind boggling experience. These text-to-voice technologies, such as the software developed by Lyrebird, are as fascinating as they are dangerous.

This voice cloning phenomenon poses serious threats to the political world. In a society where “fake news” is so prevalent, technologies that can be the source for forged information can be a consequential danger. The uprise of computerized voices, as talked about in NPR’s article “Can You Believe Your Own Ears?“, makes way for a whole new era of attempting to verify falsified information. With systems like Lyrebird publicly available, it has become increasingly easy to claim that true information is inaccurate and vice versa.

While these technologies pose a great threat to the political world, since it generates a wider range of public information that may not be valid, they are extremely beneficial to the medical field. As talked about in The New York Times’ article, “Helping My Nonverbal Son Find His Voice”, people with diseases such as cerebral palsy can use these text-to-voice programs in order to generate sound, something that they otherwise would never be able to do. This sort of aid is revolutionary, since the toll of losing your ability to have a voice can be detrimental to mental health and development in children.

Sound is omnipresent. Even in a silent room, human ears pick up on distant sounds, whether they be from your pen scribbling against a piece of paper or the hushed buzz of the central air system in your house. These sounds flood our listening ears, creating environments composed of small, almost imperceptible noise. The Northern Spring Peepers became my favorite artists, singing as soon as the sun began to creep down the sky. Listening to them was a pastime and being able to hear their chirps evoked feelings of contentment. Growing up on the East Coast, the beach is where I found my solace. That is where life was simple, observing the gloomy Atlantic water as it crashed onto the rocky shores, full of seaweed and aquatic life. The sounds of the ocean being pulled in and out, swirling around jettied rocks as it struck the sand, composing the most harmonious songs. That was where my peace was built, constructed like the beach houses around me. These noises, the small and often disregarded rhythms, sing to me louder than any other melodies.

These melodies exist in Alvin Lucier’s “I Am Sitting In A Room,” especially as the feedback loop becomes more potent. As soft spoken Lucier’s repeated speech gets continually played, his words begin to echo and mix together. What starts out as a clear, slowly drawn out, almost ariose speech steadily transforms into nothing but melodic noise. While Lucier’s audience is aware he is repeating himself, his words begin to blur together as he becomes less and less comprehensible. By the 15th minute, he is barely coherent and his voice ceases to create cognitive words. By the 25th minute, you seem to forget that he is speaking all together, as lyrical sounds resonate into an almost magical melody. His song is organic and fluid, reminding me almost of the cavernous sounds of whale calls and an oceanic domain.