#phonographies

[wildewonderlands-blog]

[zukunftsound-blog]

Hydrophone Recording of Burning Embers Underwater - Richard Devine 

[honkandwave]

From Consumer to Producer: The Complexities of Musical Creation

Going through Alexander G. Weheliye's Phonographies: Grooves in Sonic Afro-Modernity, I was floored by the last chapter of the book, specifically the section that concerned the Afro-German group called Advanced Chemistry (who, of course, I had never even heard of prior to reading the book). While the focus on the group's conflict with the complexities of their own identity definitely intrigued me, I found myself totally consumed by how one of the group's members, Torch, was drawn to hip-hop:

I still know exactly how it all began. "The Message" by Melle Mel was like a telegram for me and although I could not understand a single word, I recognized the fire burning in his words...The torch within me was ignited immediately. My whole life passed before me in a single night, seeing the path of history, my head swayed, nodded to the speed of the measure. (167)

The text also notes that "The Message" was only available to Torch, who was in Germany, due to the song's presence on the global market, which introduces an interesting concept: what marks the evolution from consumer to producer.

With today's social media, the evidence of musical consumerism is apparent everywhere, even in my own blogs. Looking at my own personal Facebook, at least 75% of my posts revolve around my consumption of music, through either videos, lyric posts, or pictures of physical records. In addition, straying away from the #Freedom's Mixtape tag on my Tumblr takes through a stream of early-00 pop-punk lyrics and images. While this is definitely anecdotal evidence, just a quick look at a normal Feed on Facebook shows that people constantly post song lyrics and YouTube links to their favorite music videos or live performances. A brilliant example of this consumerist mentality can be seen in the "Like" feature of Facebook: want an easy conversation starter with cute indie girl that's in your 8AM? Make sure that you "Like" Yo La Tengo, The Mountain Goats, and Grizzly Bear--maybe even Best Coast, that's pretty mainstream. A person's likes on Facebook are the new equivalent of band t-shirts: you're shaping your public persona through the evidence of your musical consumption. Scott Seviour, Epic Records' senior vice president for marketing emphasizes that “in this day and age, artist development is about how do you turn 10 Facebook likes into 100, into 1,000” (Sisario).

Pair this example of cultural consumerism on social media networks like Twitter, Tumblr and Facebook with the age-old idea that music is used as a form of expression. As shown through the constant use of songs and lyrics on social media networks, these practices seem to embody the idea that is emphasized so well in "Night Drive" by Jimmy Eat World: "now's the right time for a good song; got something to say what I can't." More than ever before, users are using music on Facebook to mediate their thoughts and conversations. One of the general myths surrounding the idea of social media, according to Ben Ziegler, a social collaboration consultant, is the idea that "I’m on Facebook, I’m on Twitter, but I have nothing to say." So, pressured by a medium that encourages constant activity and participation, many resort to mediating their own feelings and thoughts through some already created form: quotes from books and songs, pictures, videos, etc. While this is not always the case, I believe that it can be argued that this mediation, the instinct to "let the song say what I can't" is one of the major flaws that comes out of the complex relationship between commodity and expressive culture.

So, when it comes down to it, many are resorting to imitating another voice instead of using their own (I know that I'm certainly guilty of it). While there is no strict evidence to suggest that creativity is being totally stifled by social media (many argue against that claim), I do believe that there is a danger in the typically one-sided consumerism of Facebook (which, I believe, is emphasized through the presence of conglomerates like Wal-Mart in the social media sphere). As shown through the now infamous study that suggests that Facebook users are lonelier than those who do not use social media, many are becoming dependent on the constant mediation of relationships and communication, and I do believe that this involves consumption and expression of music, as well.

Even while looking at the boom of Myspace, specifically Myspace Music, in the beginning of the social media craze, one can see that there was a huge population on both sides of the fence: while many established bands and artists were getting their exposure on Myspace, many up-and-coming artists also found their breakthrough moment through ease and accessibility of the platform; paired with the ease of programs like Audacity and GarageBand, small artists and bands were able to get their music into the world as well, making just as many waves as already-huge artists. However, following the waves of the social media revolution (and the practically-dead state of Myspace Music, which has been replaced by a number of platforms including SoundCloud, Bandcamp, Facebook, and many,manyothers), I argue that there is a definite saturation of the market. Now that everyone can (and, for the most part, has) put their music into the digital space with ease, it's hard to get anyone to actually listen. If you've "Liked" a smaller artist on Facebook, you've probably seen numerous posts by them begging followers to share their music with their friends; even in these cases, consumerism is rearing its ugly head.

So now, we're seeing somewhat-stagnant waters on the digital music scene. While platforms like SoundCloud have a tremendous amount of traffic and a lively community, it's hard for anyone who isn't "in the loop" to get their music playing in the ears of potential fans, which is a shame considering the possibilities involved in social media. Social media is now less about the discovery of a new frontier, but instead a race to see what companies can grab your attention first (and for how long). So, instead of eagerly making music to post on social networking sites, many potential artists just find themselves mediating their own interests and endeavors through the art that's already been established by people who got into the game when the going was good. As shown through the trouble I had with the promotion and distribution of my own band, Miss Joshua Patricia Ray, it's hard to get anyone to actually listen. For us, it definitely hindered our creative process. While there's definitely an admirable quality in producing art-for-art's-sake, those of us who lack the monetary or professional background can only do that for so long before reality calls once again, forcing us to reevaluate priorities.

So, creative catalysts like the one seen with Melle Mel and Advanced Chemistry are still out there, that's for sure, but what happens to those of us who are looking to create on a smaller scale? I don't really know the answer, so I'll go ahead and keep playing air guitar to my favorite Reggie and the Full Effect records while watching old YouTube videos of my band.

[ashleyruderman]

Phonographies: A Sound of Her Own

Alexander Weheliye’s “Phonographies” proves itself as the most difficult text I’ve come across this semester. Considering Weheliye offers frequent commentary on the theorists such as Jacque Derrida, Judith Butler, and Homi Bhabha, I wish I would have had an opportunity to brush up on psychoanalytic theory before reading this text. Weheliye incorporates psychoanalytic theory into sonic Afro-Modernity, which I ultimately had a very hard time following. I’m still not sure I could describe Weheliye’s thesis, but he does make the point that music is incorporated into every aspect of black culture, and that sonic technology is integral to that incorporation.

Lisette is able to use music to escape—whether she’s blasting her boombox in the bathroom, or using her Walkman in the city streets— Lisette’s music distracts her from the realities of an incarcerated husband, motherhood, and financial instability. This scene instantly reminded me of Virginia Woolf’s famous quote: “A woman must have money and a room of her own if she is to write fiction,” (Woolf 6). Thus, if Lisette’s access to a sonic space (contained within an actual room, or sonic separation from a noisy landscape) is threatened, she cannot “write fiction.” Although Lisette isn’t necessarily interested in writing fiction, she is interested in making it in the music industry—but she cannot do this without space to listen to music; after all, her entrance into the music industry is dependent upon her knowledge and awareness of artists. The boombox and the walkman are technologies that could be called “transformative,” considering they allow Lisette to cope with her circumstances. Lisette is ultimately able to succeed because of the sonic spaces established by technology. However, does the presence/access of/to technology determine Lisette’s life, or does Lisette’s use of technology allow her to succeed in the world?

As I circle back to the debate between technological determinism vs. technological neutrality, I can see this argument go both ways. On the one hand, Lisette’s interaction with sonic technologies, “seem to be nothing more complicated than an occasional, limited, and non-problematic interaction” (Winner 6). However, on the other hand, it seems as if Lisette’s success would not be possible without sonic technologies. Thus, the boombox and the Walkman, “as ‘mere’ technological entities become much more interesting and problematic if we begin to observe how broadly they are involved in conditions of social and moral life” (Winner 6). To put it in Weheliey’s terms, technology clearly impacts certain landscapes, for better or for worse, but we must interpelate technology as it relates to particular cultures framed by race and socioeconomic status. Weheliye, no doubt, provides a solid introduction to the complex dependency upon technology that black culture maintains. However, I think there is room to consider the ramifications of over-dependence, as over-dependence gestures to a new form of control instilled by the (white) gatekeepers of desirable technology. 

Works Cited

Weheliye, Alexander G. Phonographies: Gooves in Sonic Afro-modernity. Durham: Duke UP, 2005. Print.

Winner, Langdon. "Technologies as Forms of Life." The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1989. 3-18. Print.

Woolf, Virginia. A Room of One’s Own. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1989. Print. 

[whatijustread]

Phonographies : grooves in sonic Afro-modernity (Weheliye)

"[W]hat I am suggesting here is not repetition with a difference so much as the repetition of difference, wherein the original/copy distinction vanishes and only the singular and sui generis becoming of the source remain in the clearing.  This repetition of difference does not ask how 'the copy' departs from 'the sorce' but assumes that difference will, indeed, be different in each of its incarnations" (32).

i like this and its making me ask all sorts of questions, hopefully that i will figure out how to answer.  but some things that come to mind:

how is this process one of repetition?  or, by what means, and by what tools, can we know this as repetition?  what is difference if it is the thing so repeated?  and if we cross-fade (Weheliye's term) Nahum Chandler's engagement of the problem of difference's metaphysics

 The only premise by which such a claim or insistence upon categorical difference could ostensibly or formally be sustained would be to assume, in the metaphysical sense, that in general a distinction could be made absolute, oppositional, or pure (Chandler 361).

with Weheliye's desire to reiterate difference, just what do we come up with? does Chandler's critique of "general distinction" that is made by way of assuming general distinction's possibility clarify, breakdown / cut, augment Weheliye?  

that is, what is difference that it can be reiterated?  Chandler helps me and, thus, complicates my understanding of Weheliye insofar as the notion of difference, philosophically, is of a detectable, metaphysical presencing of purity and i think Weheliye would agree: 

Most readers will recall moments in which the repeated listening to a musical object (and the same can be said of any engagement with a cultural object, reading a novel, watching a film, etc.) exposed new sounds that they had not heard in previous encounters.  These instances of divergence, however, have no home in the representational brand of recurrence, because it only accents what supposedly stays the same; in this differently sounded repetition, however, what remains similar is precisely difference (Weheliye 33).  

each listening, a purity: a unique event that is unmodified, unmixed, free of difference such that difference emerges by way of each event.  free of blemish such that each listening allows difference to emerge by way of the event's particular blemish.  what is so moving and intriguing about the notion of purity is its connection to free/dom, a relinquishment and abandonment of holding and being held; a liberty.  

so i'm wondering how difference and purity move with and against each other.  how Weheliye and Chandler cut and augment each other.  is the repetition of difference possible, where what is repeated is the purity of each event?  this is important to keep in mind because Weheliye is interested in the recorded event, that which has bounds, time limits: the mp3, the film, the phonograph.  sure, i hear new things each time i hear Tweet's "Drunk" but does that mean that i hear divergence inherent to the song, or does that mean that i hear divergence by way of sustained and repressed modes of attention?  am i hearing difference, or am i hearing fullness?