I find this piece by Erik Davis, titled “Acoustic Cyberspace”, extremely unique in that it offers both a revelation and a caveat. Its revelation is that sound helps people explore different realms and possibilities while visual things typically display what we already know. What we see is usually something definite. In contrast, what we hear is up to more interpretation, and a close listening can reveal that. The caveat given by Erik Davis is that the messages sent through sound can be distorted and even become so complex that we lose a sense of “self” and are ultimately shaped by the ‘cyberspace’. For example, “It is no accident that you find the logic of youth subculture most strongly articulated around music.” You can ask anyone in our class and he or she will have an adamant stance on the type of music he or she tends to listen to. Music shapes us now more than ever. Artists and bands have views that we share with them and we turn to them when our families or friends don’t listen or don’t understand. Our generation thinks with sarcasm and cynicism, two products of contemporary and classic rock.

Upon analyzing Megan Nordstrom’s Response Paper 1.2, I found her emphasis on audience very interesting. The point of knowing your audience is simple, they must be able to understand what you are saying. Even though her emphasis on audience was solely to fulfill one of the outcomes of the class, it also pertains to her argument. She claims in her paper that  she “showed how narration changed the feeling of the clip in the three angles I looked at”. Without the narration the message of the clip would have been vastly different, and the clip itself would seem quite empty. Nordstrom’s quote offers a different perspective that is supported by the purpose of the paper. It seems in both cases, one for the class outcomes and one for the actual argument of the paper, that tone sets the mood which in turn changes the outcome of the message.