kebushick

In David Byrne’s “Playing the Building”, the sound produced is very specific to that individual building. If he set up the same strings and techniques in another building, due to difference in architecture, the same sounds could not be reproduced. This idea of sound being specific to certain spaces is similar to Rath’s idea about sound in churches. However, Rath differs a little bit from Byrne as he goes on to make the claim that depending on the culture/religion, certain soundscapes can be made. He writes about how in the European church, the medieval chancel is constructed so the priest was “facing away from the congregation, [his] voice never carried directly to the listeners in the nave. It began its trip toward them as an echo, reflected several more times before reaching any ears” (131). Different from the European church, for the Chesapeake Anglicans, in their Jamestown Chapel, “sounds were projected along the length rather than the breadth of the chapel. Where one was seated was an indicator of social standing. Those in the front heard more of the direct signal. Those in the back heard less of it, and thus more reverberation” (135). For each of these different peoples, their religious structures were built differently according to their separate cultures, religions, and religious beliefs. This idea of sounds being unique to spaces and being deliberately made for the separate religious buildings can connect to Blesser and Salter’s idea of earcons in “Ancient Acoustic Spaces”. An earcon is defined as “a sonic event that contains special symbolic meaning not present in the sound wave” (187). Looking at the deliberate creation of spaces for sounds can show us greater meaning of the sound itself. Blesser and Salter wrote that “the Mayans has a heightened auditory spatial awareness”. This was evident to many people at a Mayan ruin, including a visitor who observed “distinct howls and whistles from stone structures when wind arrived from a particular direction, as if it were giving early warning of imminent storms and hurricanes” (189). This shows that there are deliberate actions of building certain spaces to make meaningful sounds. The idea of sound being unique to spaces created by Byrne and enforced by Rath and Blesser and Salter also leads me to continue to explore the question of if a soundscape is a place you go versus a thing you make.

Stoever discusses the idea of racism not just being a visual thing, but also coming from sound. People have an idea of what a “black” voice sounds like and these ideas and stereotypes are racializing. Stoever incorporates the idea of a sonic color line stating: “the sonic color line describes the process of racializing sound—how and why certain bodies are expected to pro- duce, desire, and live amongst particular sounds—and its product, the hierarchical division sounded between “whiteness” and “blackness”” (7). This idea is all about having different views from different sides. There is a clear divide between these two which is maintained in our daily lives. This color line is prevalent when listening to music. In the 1A podcast, they talk about Michael Bublé being “the whitest singer”. As a society, we have taken this idea of a color line and applied it to everyday things such as music. There is a big racial component to songs as well as artists. As a society we have created a “norm” in our minds and in our ears to how certain types of people should sound depending on where they come from. For example, because Iggy Azalea is a white female many people believe she should not rap. I question this. Should certain people not be able to create certain music due to their identity/background? I understand the respect wanted for cultures and histories, but I also believe that no matter your culture, race, or background, you should be able to express yourself in the ways you desire rather than the ways that are the “norm”.

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.

In Crawford’s piece “Following You: Disciplines of Listening in Social Media” she touches on how “online participation has tended to be conflated with contributing a ‘voice’” (80). This is true in such examples as tweeting your opinions or commenting your thoughts, and I believe still holds true today, in 2018. However, she also discusses the idea about listening and social media. I think this is a concept that has been changed throughout time. To me, I take “listening” to be more of a quiet role and a few years back, in the early 2000s the word for such a person was a “lurker”.  She talks about how linguistically, “lurker” has such negative connotations, but “listener” is more positive. Today in social media, more attention is given to those who “speak out” and therefore have a voice, but I think it is also very important to be a listener. Being a listener and having a voice are actually connected as Crawford writes, “The concept of listening… invokes the more dynamic process of online attention, and suggests that it is an embedded part of network engagement- a necessary corollary to having a ‘voice’” (82). Even if the world is changing to a more “online” sphere focused on social media, the ideas of voice (sound and speaking) and listening are still important to human interaction and are a part of sound studies. As time goes on, change is inevitable, along with more technology, but as Sterne put it, “sound studies today is certainly an intellectual reaction to changes in culture and technology” (SSR, 3). The ideas of sound, listening, speaking, and voice will continue to be important even as social media continues to change our daily lives.

https://beta.myvoice.lyrebird.ai/g/3s_ln2unek

“Multiple Voices” by Cavarero and “Aristotle on Voice” both touch on the idea of voice and what one should take away from it. From the story of the king and the palace we learn that, “words… do not count for their semantic valence but only for their phonic substance” (Cavarero, 520). To me, this means that one should just listen and not always try to interpret. In other words, ignore the semantic and concentrate on the vocal. Looking back at Lucier’s written text and performance from this perspective might give us the idea to simply listen. In a way, the performance forces us to do this because as the recording goes on, the words go away. Though it is still the recording of Lucier’s voice playing, all we begin to hear is just a sound. This connects to Aristotle’s idea that “the sound we hear is always the sounding of something else, not the origin itself”. Lucier said it himself when he spoke about playing the recording so many times that the semblance of his speech is destroyed, but something else can come out of it. Maybe we can’t hear the words of Lucier as the recording goes on, but it is still his voice. From Aristotle’s perspective, Lucier’s voice has soul. They suggest that we should pay more attention to the soul of the voice, than the actual words, as it could lead us to find the “hidden and most genuine part of the person” (Cavarero, 522).

A recent sound related experience from my life was at the beach a few days before I left for Davidson. I was laying out on the sand, listening to one of my favorite sounds, the crashing waves. The waves repeatedly coming in and out followed by the crash on shore is a calming noise to me. But this was not the only sound I was hearing. From one side of me I was hearing screaming children as their dad tried to cover them in sunscreen. On the other side was a big group of teenagers blaring music from a speaker. In addition to the music, I heard the varying tones of each individual voice singing along. The combination of all the voices, the screaming and the singing, created a type of craze. Usually, this type of busyness would have the power to make me feel overwhelmed. However, focusing back on the sound of the waves helped me tune out the other noises and focus on the peaceful sound of the crashing waves.

Listening to Lucier’s “I Am Sitting In A Room” was an interesting experience. Obviously, it was the same lines repeated in a loop, but as it went on my experience with it changed. Starting out, I could hear the words and think about the meaning behind them since the enunciation was clearer. However, as the recording kept playing back the sound changed from clear words to muffled words to blurred words and then to a whole different sound. This sound reminded me of windchimes or instruments, kind of like music. I found myself lost in thought when the recording was playing but I was then brought back by the “empty space”, or the pause after each recording was replayed. It was neat in the way that the first recording was the same exact words as the last recording played, but the sound was so different. I believe this experience can be summarized by something that Lucier said in the commentary on his own piece, “…revealing sounds that are always there but you don’t hear them exactly.”