“This is much, much, stronger than a visual experience, which tacitly distances you, places you in a transcendent, removed position, rather than embodying you at the center of a new context. My question here is: why are acoustic spaces so effective in this regard? What is it about sound that is so potentially immersive? I think it has to do with how we register it—how it affects different areas of the body and mind than visuals do. Affect is a tremendously important dimension of experience, and one of the most difficult to achieve in a visual environment.” (Davis, Acoustic Cyberspace)

The word choice throughout the talk is very sophisticated and gives us an extravagant taste of his opinions. This paper was a complicated read and though I didn’t understand all of it he used good evidence to make his point. Throughout the talk he uses various sources of evidence such as the radio, sounds from earlier years to now, and the different meanings of words to emphasize the importance of sound on our generation. This quote also implies the importance of sound over visual experience. Sound is very important to our generation and has become a way of individualizing ourselves. Individuality and uniqueness are two important topics in our world today and I believe music is one of the many solutions we have created to form an identity for ourselves. But I disagree with the fact that visuals aren’t important because I believe they are just as important as sound. First impressions aren’t made by sounds but by looks, and the way we interpret the world around us is a balance between the visual and the acoustic. It says acoustic spaces affect us in the body and mind but so do visuals. I believe that visuals can equally make me a feel an emotion just as a certain sound or song does. At the end of his talk, Davis says, “all popular music functions, particularly for young people, as a way to construct and define a whole worldview.” And I completely agree but what about visuals? The way we perceive this world isn’t clear-cut into acoustics and visuals. Instead it is a combination of the two. Only with a combination between sounds and visuals can we completely understand the world around and make our interpretations of it. Some may argue that those that are blind or deaf can only perceive one way or the other and that they are successful. I agree but when we have both doesn’t it make it a more wholesome experience? God gave us five senses so why not utilize them all to understand ourselves and our surroundings better?

“For example I quoted Chion in the paper when he says, “Sight is generally what we rely on for orientation, because the naming and recognition of forms is vastly more subtle and precise in visual terms than with any other channel of perception.” I used this quote to explain how when watching movies, we focus on the images and characters that we see. This would lead you to conclude that, “The idea that recognition is more precise in visual terms leaves little purpose and reason for using sound and narration in films.” (Nordstrom, First Major Paper)

Megan directs her paper toward other 121 students and her writing was simpler to understand. Once again this author quotes how visual images plays a vital role in our life but here she says that the visual images impair our ability to pay attention and focus on sound. This may be true, but I believe that sound enhances the visual perception and that the visuals enhance the sound perception. I believe that both sounds and visuals and all of our other senses play a vital role in how we perceive the world. Megan gets her point across by using quotes as evidence. The quotes are sophisticated and help get her point across.

 

Relating the 2 quotes:

Both quotes emphasize the importance of either sound or visuals but neither of them emphasizes the importance of both. I believe that both sound and visuals are vital to understanding the world around us.  

Hey, North Seattle volunteers! Are any of you going to the Wednesday volunteer orientation? Want to meet beforehand to take the bus down together (and take the bus back together afterward)? Just to have someone to walk with after dark, especially given that recent assault just off campus…. e-mail me (krystay@u.washington.edu) or comment on my post if you’re interested.

Now, to my real topic. “Acoustic Cyberspace” went several yards over my head, and I suspect I’m not the only one. The trouble is that it’s written for a much different audience. The complex vocabulary, allusions to subjects such as the Renaissance, and difficult ideas are targeted at very mature, educated, intelligent, and intellectual listeners. Certainly I consider myself mature, educated, intelligent, and intellectual, but not quite to the extent or in quite the same way as the conference attendees. These people are all older than I am, perhaps businessmen, presumably with at least a bachelor’s degree for the most part. Notice that in my previous sentence, I not only say “not quite to the extent” but also “not… in quite the same way.” I am an exceptionally left-brained thinker, so I struggle with “abstract ideas” and “open-ended notions” – which Davis explicitly states to be the topic of his speech. I’m intelligent, but I pick up calculus and computer science much more easily than ideas such as those Davis proposes; I’m intellectual, but I’d rather sit down with a logic puzzle than some of the great classics.

McLuhan’s ideas confused me, but perhaps Davis summarized them too concisely to give them justice. I understand the metaphorical differences between acoustic and visual space: acoustic space, unlike visual space, has resonance and simultaneity. I just don’t understand why McLuhan concludes that, given these differences, electronic media are acoustic and print technology is visual. The idea of resonance is that “a small activity or event can gain a great deal of energy.” Ever heard of a book called Harry Potter? (Granted, McLuhan hasn’t – he died in 1980.) Harry Potter is arguably the strongest example of resonance. A woman nobody’s heard of, struggling to make ends meet in a corner of England, writes a humble little story and – poof – she’s launched a worldwide cultural phenomenon of colossal proportions. All thanks to print technology.

Quote: In discussing virtual reality, Davis writes, “Typically, people relegate acoustic dimensions to the ‘background’—a soundtrack or score that ‘accompanies’ a primary visual experience.” He, however, feels that “an immersive acoustic environment . . . is much, much, stronger than a visual experience . . .” Trying to understand why this is, he proposes that sound “affects different areas of the bodymind than visuals do. Affect is a tremendously important dimension of experience, and one of the most difficult to achieve in a visual environment. ‘Atmosphere’ might be a good way to describe this aspect: sound produces atmosphere, almost in the way that incense—which registers with yet another sense—can do. Sound and smell carry vectors of mood and affect . . .”

Davis’s educated audience is evident in these phrases. He uses elevated, professional/scientific diction (“relegate,” “vectors,”) where more accessible words would be sufficient. For instance, he could say “emotion” or “feelings” (thanks, dictionary.com) instead of “affect” when he uses it as a noun. The tone, consequently, is scholarly, intellectual, and perhaps even pompous - he almost seems to try too hard to show off his vocabulary.

In this quote, Davis laments that sound is underrated. Movies and TV push sound to second place, using it as a supplement to humbly enhance the visual. People obsess over video game graphics, yet I’ve never heard gamers get so passionate about the games’ music. And yet, sound is so emotionally powerful – a classmate once commented that the time people break down at funerals is when the music starts. To return to the video game example, when you’re rushing to complete a timed challenge, don’t you get much more worked up if the music is fast and has a “tick-tock” undertone? In Davis’s words, sound creates “affect” or “atmosphere.” The tremendous power of sound and the lack of emphasis it currently receives is one reason sound needs to be studied. Likewise, studying sound technology can help us use sound more effectively, better channeling its power and potential.

Megan Nordstrom’s portfolio, of course, was much more readable. Not only was it directed at 121 students, but it was written by someone at our level – meaning she probably couldn’t have written an argument as over-our-heads as Davis’s if she wanted to.

At one point, Nordstrom says, ” ‘It was obvious that the director wanted the audience’s main focus on the narrator’s voice instead of on the images’ (3). I observed that the visuals played a ‘background role’ to the vocals in the scene.” I thought this was interesting because Davis discusses how sound is unfairly used as the background to visuals. In the movie clip Nordstrom analyzes, the roles are actually reversed.

Quote: Nordstrom writes: ” ‘The narrator generates a picture of the “old fashion American man” in our heads, who could possibly remind us of our grandfather or even FDR’ (1).” Later, she also adds: ” ‘It is not necessarily what the narrator says about the production of car, but how he says it. He uses a slow, knowledgeable approach that helps gives a feeling of “Old America” ‘ (2).”

This quote has a much more familiar, casual tone than the quote from Davis. It doesn’t use elevated diction, instead using accessible wording (“helps gives a feeling of”). The colloquial phrases “old fashion American man” and “Old America” contribute to the informal air, as does the reference to “our grandfather” – inspiring feelings of familarity.

What I like about these quotes is that they show the importance of sound in narration. A major component of narration is the words themselves, which can be written on paper (or shown on the screen as captions) and thus stripped of any relation to sound. Nordstrom could have chosen to focus her analysis on the narration’s words and believed she was discussing sound, since narration is associated with sound. Instead, she cleverly avoids falling into this trap. She notes that in this movie clip, the words are not what matter - what matters is the fact that they are heard, not just seen. Her astute observation strongly demonstrates the importance of sound and, likewise, the importance of studying sound.

“We find an emphasis on the cosmic, on spatial disorientation, on transport, on affect, on the nonhuman. The acoustic spaces of electronic music aren’t limited to the organization of affect and narrative that define much popular music, with its highly personalized structures of love and loss.” (Davis, Acoustic Cyberspace)

This quote seems to separate electronic music and popular (regular) music into two very distinct and different entities, which I do not agree with. Davis seems to say throughout the entire paper that electronic music automatically transports the listener to a world of the eerie, and, as is highly emphasized, the nonhuman. Of course, electronic noise is associated with machines, and thus with robots, and such (which humans are very intent on dissociating from themselves), but that does not necessarily mean that all electronic music is about nonhuman things– there are some very good, electronic songs that are about BEING human (e.g. Mr Roboto), and human emotions, such as “love and loss”. After all, humans created machines, and there thus must be an inherent human component to electronic sounds.

“If the voice over had been on a live scene of the movie’s characters, I feel like the audience would have paid less attention to the sound and more to the visuals.” (Norstrom, 1.2)

In contrast, I fully agree with this quote. Although sound is very important in a movie, and adds a lot to it, one of the highest impact uses of sound is when there is no live action, or, at the very least, when the action is not centered on people (e.g. storms, etc.). People tend to focus on people. If the most human element they can find is a voice, that is what they will focus on. By removing all visual traces of people, the director can make the viewer do less viewing and more listening.

 to relate this to the other quote– maybe that is why there is less electronic music than regular music? of course, it is more expensive to make and all, but most people do associate regular music far more with people than something electronic, and perhaps that is why they are drawn to it.

What’s service-learning, and now what’s sonic culture? For Tuesday’s class (on January 15th), you’ll be reading a talk by Erik Davis, as well as Megan Nordstrom’s English 121 E-Portfolio.

As you read, compose a blog entry, which can include your notes on, questions about, responses to, and frustrations with the texts. As I’ve mentioned, your blogging needn’t be formal.

When you are finished reading, please include in your post (perhaps after your notes, etc.):

• At least one quote from each text that you consider—for whatever reason—important.
• Your response to HOW each quote is written (e.g., the tone, word choice, or the type of evidence used) and the implications of the quote, and
• Your understanding of how each quote relates to the importance of studying sound and sound technologies. (Note that how the texts differ quite significantly. They serve different purposes and audiences.)

If you would like to come to class even more prepared, then you can expand upon how your two quotes intersect. Together, in conversation, what do they suggest about sonic culture studies? (Throughout the quarter, we’ll refer to such conversations as “intertextualizations.” How English is that?)

Let me know what questions you have, and please categorize this thing under “Blog 2 – Sonic Culture?” and post it before Tuesday’s class.

Also, please read and comment on at least two posts by your peers. What do you like about their readings of the texts? How have they helped you better understand approaches to sonic culture?

Thanks again!