RE: [microsound] Money/Mouth

[Christopher Sorg <csorg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 16 May 2002, David Fodel wrote:

> The acousmatic properties of a laptop can be similar to a Radio, if they are
> representational sounds, in the sense that they are visibly divorced from
> their source. But if the sound is generated within the laptop itself by some
> natively occuring processes, isit still acousmatic? 

Well, that's a good question, isn't it?  Is the screen still there?  The
audio is a signifier pointing to what?  The gap exists because the source
*could* be recorded sound, algorithmically-generated audio (from sine
waves to entire compositions, could be gesturally-adjusted filtering of
live sources, or it could be the performer stuck a CD in the laptop
player).  The sign (the laptop) is difficult to define, it's meaning
indeterminant in confounding ways.  Whereas the traditional instruments
(including voice) have fairly distinct sign-signifier relationships.

> Is the spoken word acousmatic because I can't see the vibrations of the
> speakers vocal chords? Or the thought processes by which the words were
> formed and transmitted?
> 
> I don't think so.
> 
> David Fodel

I hope you're being facetious.  I have a hard time believing that anyone
socialized with human beings would have a difficult time originating the
source of vocal emanations, especially spoken word.  And I suppose you
could take "acousmatic" to be a phenomena, but I believe it to be more a
mode of presentation.  And certainly a speaker's vocal chords are not the
entirety of the vocal instrument.  The sign-signifier relationship is
clear.  Not so in an acousmatic presentation.  The signifier, the spoken
word, is detached from at least one of the signs, the speaker's
body.  Although this is probably an idyllic notion,  to completely detach
the source from the emanation (althought it seems to work pretty well with
a laptop :), behind a screen the source *could* be a radio, a computer, a
human being.  So, no, spoken word is not acousmatic, as long as the
speaker is standing in front of you.  Again, acousmatic means "hidden from
view".

The attempt to obscure the sign from the signifier has social and
political ramifications as well.  Take an extreme example, two speakers of
different races.  Unfortunately, the visual cues become an issue that
affects the speaker's content.  How would Roosevelt fair today in election
campaigns?  His physical handicap was a non-issue for the radio-driven
politics of the day, but when he appeared on film his handicap was
carefully hidden.  

What if you found out that Stephen Hawking wasn't really talking at all,
that it was a recording or a voice synthesizer remotely controlled by
NASA? (bwahahahahah)  The mode of presentation isn't just a minor issue,
authenticity itself is being questioned again, just as when the first
words were written rather than spoken, as when people first thought that
photography, audio recording and animation were tricks.  And just when you
believe in its authenticity, it fails you.  Like Milli Vanilli.

This is an age-old argument in Western philosphy, the authenticity of
spoken versus written (recorded) word.  And I realize that it is largely
academic, IMHO, the educated philosopher trying to edge out the bard as
his time as social and historical educator comes to an end.  It's just
interesting to think of how the laptop is genuine and ingenuine
simultaneously, like a silicon version Derrida's concepts (and, please,  I
don't mean postmodernism).

In fact, I'm didn't even write this.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      Christopher Sorg
    Multimedia Artist/Instructor
  The School of the Art Institute of Chicago
    http://csorg.cjb.net
      csorg@xxxxxxxxx
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~