RE: [microsound] Money/Mouth

[David Fodel <DFodel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

yeah yeah yeah...

but ask anyone where the sound at a "laptop performance" is coming from and
they'll tell you:

from the laptop :)

beyond that it's all academic.

David Fodel
Publishing Systems Manager
Wild Oats Markets
3375 Mitchell Lane
Boulder, CO 80301
Direct: 720-562-4831
Fax: 303-938-8474


> ----------
> From: 	Christopher Sorg
> Reply To: 	microsound
> Sent: 	Thursday, May 16, 2002 3:53 PM
> To: 	microsound
> Subject: 	RE: [microsound] Money/Mouth
> 
> 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
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> website: http://www.microsound.org
> 
>