tulanewritessound1 - Tumblr blog

[tulanewritessound1]

“Gay- and Lesbian-Sounding Auditory Cues Elicit Stereotyping and Discrimination”

“The Acoustic Correlates of Perceived Masculinity, Perceived Femininity, and Perceived Sexual Orientation”

The Handbook of Language, Gender, and Sexuality

Thesis- Because women are given more room to explore masculinity as they grow up (while men are deemed gay if they act even a little bit feminine), there is no fixed “lesbian sounding voice” but there is a distinct “gay sounding voice.”

Liv Glassman

[tulanewritessound1]

Tumblr Post #4 - Liv Glassman

In conversations about sound studies, one compelling topic has been the how varying sonic techniques are used to persuade audiences. Some scholars, like Eric Anderson, have focussed on  vocality. Other rhetoricians, such as Regina Bradley from Sounding Out!’s article about Scandal, have argued that music is the most persuasive part of the soundscape. And then there’s scholars, such as Evelyn Glenny, who have argued about the feeling of sound. My own view is that a persuasive sound piece is one that uses a combination of these three elements to create a well-crafted argument. 

The argument made by Regina Bradley in “The Hell, the High Wighter, and the Funk of It All: Sounding Power in Scandal” is that the musical soundscape behind Scandal is used to shape viewer’s opinions on the characters. More specifically, Bradley discusses how the background music is a reflection of society’s views about black people, and specifically black women. The show relies heavily on a vintage soundtrack, which includes artists such as Stevie Wonder, Sam Cooke, and Nina Simone. Bradley writes, “One possible and albeit slightly heavy handed approach for thinking through Scandal’s leaning on funk and soul music is to point out how the show uses black cultural forms to invoke power” (Bradley). The author notes that even though Scandal’s main character is Olivia, a powerful, black women, the music behind most of the action scenes are from male black singers. This, Bradley argues, “sonically allude[s] to power as a masculine concept” (Bradley). In conclusion, Bradley’s belief is that even though the focus of this show is on a black woman, male power is still embedded into the core of the show to make this progressive concept more palatable to our society (which views men as dominant over women). 

In my view, Bradley’s argument is very well stated, and I found myself agreeing with her by the end of the article. However, I think she may have overlooked the other elements of sonic rhetoric—such as the vocality and feeling of sound. For example, I would suggest the author discuss how the vocality of the male musicians adds to her argument. Also, Bradley should add how music evokes certain emotions in audiences. Although the author might object because these two elements might confuse the argument, I believe the exploration of vocality and the feeling of sound can contribute to the piece. Therefore, what I would like to add to this ongoing conversation is the intersection of various rhetorical techniques in sound rather than a focus on only one.

[tulanewritessound1]

Tumblr #4 - Cameron Minars

In discussions of sound, one compelling issue has been finding a way to make the known effects of sounds useful in everyday society. On one hand, Amy Fleming discusses how sound is known to change the flavors of certain foods and can be used to enhance the experience of tasting. On the other hand, Lily Hay Newman, adds how certain sounds can be used against protests to manipulate crowds and get them to leave using intense noises that give people headaches. Others like, Justin Sharro and Tim Jonze even believe that we could use sound to torture and fend off enemies. My own view is that sound can be used as a weapon, but could also be used as a way to aid in the creation of memories within a person.

The general discussion made contributed by Fleming in her work is that sound can affect taste and that “abstract sounds can turn tastes up or down by remote control” (Fleming.) More specifically Fleming argues that since we know sound can affect taste we should be making a better use out of this knowledge such as creating foods in an airplane “immune to noise suppression” (Fleming) or giving out foods with certain sounds to listen to while eating such as a “sonic cake pop” (Fleming). In conclusion, this passage is suggesting that we should take advantage of the fact that sound can enhance taste.

In my view, Fleming may have overlooked the way you will remember a taste associated with a certain sound. I want to know more about the memory centers in the brain and if playing certain sounds will enhance the memory of a certain taste and how long it would last. More specifically, I believe that happier music will create a happier experience and a longer memory. Although Fleming may be confused that the sound may not be affecting the taste but the actual memory of the taste itself, I would want to explore that factor. Therefore, what I would like to add to this ongoing conversation is the fact that sound can alter the perception of the experience and how long it will be remembered for.

[tulanewritessound1]

Tumblr post #4

Garrett Ressa

In discussions of how music can be used, one controversial issue has been the practice of using it as a weapon. On the one hand, Justin Sharrock and Tim Jonze discuss how music can be an effective way to achieve institutional goals. We see music used in prisons to “induce sleep deprivation, “prolong capture shock,” disorient detainees during interrogations—and also drown out screams” (Sharrock).On the other hand, Tim Jonze adds that although music is being used as a weapon, the way that the British military employs it is actually more peaceful when defending themselves from pirates than their other methods which entail using guns and harpoons to drive them off. Others like Justin Sharrock and Tim Jonze even believe that music is being used properly in these two methods. My own view is that music is something so pure and unique that it can be used for almost anything, so why is it being used to do harm against people. I love music and I enjoy sharing music with other people, so I would never want someone to have a bad experience with music. For example, music offers people a healthy way to express so many emotions that can otherwise not be expressed. This raises the question of whether or not we should give music a bad reputation for the sake of avoiding other methods that were already installed for years. 

  The general discussion contributed by Tim Jonze in his work, Britney Spears’ music used by British navy to scare off Somali pirates, is that music can be used in so many ways. He shows us an example of this through the ways in which the British navy practices it. More specifically, Jonze argues that merely the use of songs will drive the pirates away off. He writes, “These guys can't stand western culture or music, making Britney's hits perfect. As soon as the pirates get a blast of Britney, they move on as quickly as they can.” In this passage, Jonze is suggesting that music can be used as an alternative to violence. He states that the music takes the place of guns and harpoons, both which are tools that physically cause harm to the robbers. In conclusion, Jonze’s belief is that with the application of music the navy no longer has to kill or severely damage the pirates, instead all they have to do is blast some pop music and go on with their mission. 

In my view, Tim Jonze may have overlooked the fact that this will not drive away every pirate that approaches British ships. He also might have forgotten that once the pirates are exposed to this tactic over and over again, they will find a way around it whether its with something as simple as ear plugs, or more advanced because if they don’t they will most likely die. More specifically, I believe that stealing is how these pirates bring bread to the table and if it was up to me to provide for my family, a little pop music is not going to stop me from doing so. For example, what happens if the pirates don’t flee the ship. Although Jonze might object that the use of Britney’s music is a solid one, I want to explore the chance of the pirates making it on to the ship. What do you do when they are pointing guns at you and screaming over sound of Ms. Spears? Therefore, what I would like to add to this ongoing conversation is another method in which to divert the pirates. I think that the use of drones could really aid in the safe passage of ships. The drones could be used to scout the upcoming waters and could also be used as a distraction the the pirates. If you had a fast enough drone, you could get the pirates to follow you for miles out of any ships course. This would avoid the confrontation, and would lead to safer travels. 

[tulanewritessound1]

Tumblr Post #4 - Josh Eisen

In discussions of sound in modern culture, one compelling issue has been sound’s effect on emotion. On the one hand, Lily Hay Newman argues that sound can be used to invoke fear and panic among protestors. She writes that sound (in the form of sound based weapons) can be as effective as real firearms, and can have a serious emotional effect on listeners. On the other hand, Amy Fleming makes clear that sound can be used to create happiness by altering or improving the taste of one’s food. She offers multiple different examples for how sound can improve – it is indisputable that sound has a large effect on how people perceive taste and therefore a large effect on how people feel. Others like Jonathan Sterne and Gus Stadler even discuss sound’s effect on the conversations around death and race relations. My own view is that sound can have endless applications and can create a wide spectrum of emotional effects. There is not one application for sound, nor does sound ask for one type of reaction from the listener. Sound, as a medium, is incredibly versatile. Limitless possibilities. Limitless reactions.

Dialogue with one author:

The general point made by Lily Hay Newman in her work, “This is the sound cannon used against protestors in Ferguson,” is that sound can be a very effective tool for police to use for crowd control. More specifically, Newman argues that (in some circumstances) sound can be as powerful as normal guns, if not more so. She writes, “LRADs may look like dopey satellite dishes, but the SWAT teams in Ferguson on Wednesday definitely brought out the big guns when they turned on the deterrent tones. Not to mention their actual guns.” In this passage, Newman is suggesting that sound should be considered as dangerous and effective as traditional firearms. In other parts of the article, she details how sound based weapons have evolved from being used for long range communication to tools in natural disasters, and to devices for crowd control. Newman clearly recognizes the danger that these sound based weapons represent. In conclusion, Newman’s belief is that sound can be a remarkably powerful tool to invoke fear and panic – so powerful that it should be considered “the big guns,” even when compared to bullet-firing weapons.

In my view, Newman may want to know more about the use of sound in torture because this use would support her argument that sound can be used to invoke fear and panic. More specifically, I believe that sound is a dangerous (almost scarily dangerous) tool that can be used to make people feel uneasy, uncomfortable, or even scared. For example, sound (and music) has been used to emotionally abuse U.S. prisoners for years. Although Newman might object that sound can be as dangerous as I believe it is, I want to explore sound’s use at the very limit of the law and at the human limit of tolerance, both in volume and in content. Therefore, what I would like to add to this ongoing conversation is that sound, in addition to being used to keep the law, can be a highly dangerous tool when it is used to torture, abuse, and take people to the extreme edge of emotion.

 -Josh Eisen

[tulanewritessound1]

#4 - Nicole Lincoln

When it comes to the topic of weaponizing sound, most of us will readily agree that using sound as a way to actively harm and abuse is immoral. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the basis that sound is somehow less violent than other forms of state-used weapons. Some believe that using sound is an effective, yet non-lethal, tool that is free to be used by the state, but others – myself included – are not sure how to feel about institutionalized violence through the means of sound. The topic discussed in Lily Hay Newman’s article, “This Is the Sound Cannon Used Against Protesters in Ferguson” is that the LRAD sound cannon used by SWAT forces to “pacify” large crowds may be a more violent than peaceful solution to crowd-control. Originally used in naval military campaigns, the sound cannons “cause immediate headaches and pain" by emitting powerful sound waves. Newman continues, her tone neutral yet mildly criticizing, “Since LRADs can blast above a person’s 120-decibel discomfort mark, and their 130-decibel threshold for potential hearing loss, there’s no telling what the consequences of encountering a LRAD may be for protesters.” This suggests that, although Newman feels that the sound cannon is one of the less lethal options for crowd-control, that it unfairly, permanently damages large swaths of people who don’t necessarily deserve it. In essence, her belief is that we should look to other solutions for large-scale crowd control, and that causing pain and/or damage to those crowds is not the way to go about that task. In my view, Newman may have wanted to go into harsher detail about the LRAD sound cannon and critique it to a further point, as her tone feels just barely restrained from outright objection. Being a security reporter, she’s not allowed to write an opinion piece, though she can shift the direction of the information through careful word choice. For example, she describes the Ferguson as a “peaceful demonstration” that seemingly only devolved into chaos once the police arrived (a clear idea of where she stands on that particular debate), and highlighted the fact that the institution brought their “actual guns” along with their metaphorical “big guns”, showing that the police weren’t afraid to use genuine violence alongside faux, “sound-based” weaponry. Although Newman might have not been able to go into grittier detail for the sake of her job, I think that the critiquing of arguably inhumane, institutional solutions to crowd control should be a regular part of journalism, and that just because the LRAD is sound-based doesn’t make it any less harmful than pepper spray or tear gas. Therefore, I would like to add to the conversation that we shouldn’t treat sound as a “soft” option for anything, just because it’s not the first thing we think of when we think “violence”. Sound can be just as harmful as a rubber bullet or a SWAT bat. Even if conveying a polar opinion in an article meant to inform isn’t strictly allowed, I believe that Newman (and everyone else reporting on this particular issue) should write an independent piece meant to bring attention to the true nature of using sound as a weapon, and not let it hide behind the curtain of innocence that sound allows.

[tulanewritessound1]

Toshi Garces - Tumblr Post #4

The general argument made or contributed by authors MacCoun and Reuter in their work, Drug War Heresies: Learning from Other Vices, Times, and Places, is that the legalization of marijuana will cause an extreme increase in the use of the substance for recreational use. Rather than legalizing the substances, the authors propose a more European-style approach — do not enforce drug prohibition as strictly. More specifically, MacCoun and Reuter add that, like in the case of the legalization of gambling, the legalization of marijuana for medicinal use would significantly increase the use of the substance and that the effects of legalization are unknown. They write, “the moral debasement of state government is a phenomenon that only a few academics and preachers bemoan” (MacCoun and Reuter) when addressing the moral implications of legalizing the Schedule I Drug (dea.org), specifically marijuana. In this passage, MacCoun and Reuter is suggesting that legalization is not the answer, but lessened prohibition is. In conclusion, MacCoun and Reuter‘s belief is that Legalizing marijuana would impact society in a negative way.

In my view, MacCoun and Reuter may have overlooked the main reason for the legalization of medicinal marijuana is stated in its name — it would be used as a medicine. More specifically, I believe that the general public does not see medical marijuana being primarily used for medicine. For example, popular culture portrays medical marijuana dispensaries as easy ways to get marijuana for recreational use; an example would be the popular Netflix show “Disjointed.” Although MacCoun and Reuter might object that the optimistic viewpoints of many medical marijuana proponents, I want to explore the range of people who would benefit from the use of medical marijuana who are currently not allowed to due to the state they live in. Therefore, what I would like to add to this ongoing conversation is the effects of a countrywide legalization of medical marijuana are unknown; furthermore, those who would benefit from this form of treatment are being treated unjustly.

In discussions of marijuana, one compelling issue has been the recent increase of the legalization of the plant for medical use. On the one hand, MacCoun and Reuter argue that the legalization of medical marijuana will have the same result as the legalization of gambling: government legalization of an action that is seen as immoral will not decrease its use, but increase it. On the other hand, the University of Utah counters that medical marijuana does help many conditions such as: cancer, HIV/AIDS, neurological disorders, inflammatory pain, and autoimmune diseases. Others like Dr. Lydia Hatcher, Dr. Craig Leivent, and Dr. William O'Shaughnessy hope for a change in the general public’s views of marijuana’s medicinal properties, as well as their views on legalizing the plant for medicinal use. My own view is that, with strict government regulation, the legalization of medical marijuana across the United States would add a new element to modern medicine. It would expand treatment options for people with cancer, HIV/AIDS, seizures, Parkinson’s Diseases, etc.

[tulanewritessound1]

Tumblr Post #4 - Raj Maity

In discussions of sound studies, one compelling issue has been the strongest way to use sound. On the one hand, Lily Hay Newman discusses its use in crowd control and as a medium to demonstrate authority. On the other hand, Amy Fleming opens the door for sound to be used as a complementary device, more specifically as a medium to make food taste better. Others like Justine Sharrock, Tim Jonze, and Rachel Owens believe that sound is very effective in punishing and torture. My own view is that sound is best used as a complementary device rather than a deterrent/torture device. 

The general argument made by Fleming in her work, "How Sound Affects the Taste of our Food" is that sound has the ability to complement the taste of the food that we eat. More specifically, Fleming argues that sweeter tastes are associated with high-pitched sounds, while bitter tastes are associated with low-pitched sounds. She writes, " researchers [gave] [volunteers] cinder toffee while playing [the volunteers] high- and low- frequency sounds, and asked them to rate the taste on as scale running from sweet to bitter" (Fleming). The researchers found that "high notes enhanced sweetness and low brought out the bitter" (Fleming). In this passage, Fleming is suggesting that when played with the right food and at the right pitch, a mediocre dish could be turned into a quite flavorful dish. In conclusion, Flemings belief is that sound is best used as a complementary device, especially in the food industry. 

In my view, Fleming may want to know more about the use of sound in athletics and academics because I believe that sound has a greater potential to complement in those fields. More specifically, I believe that sound and music can motivate and create drives of passion and desire in athletes pre-game; in terms of academics, I believe that the use of various types of music can enhance the study experience and boost the retainment of information. For example, the use of pre-game warmup playlists for athletes helps get them in the right mindset for the game. The content of many of these songs always focus around a central theme: win, hard work, hustle, etc. In many commercials for headphones like Beats by Dre or Bose, they always star an athlete in the center and show him sweating, and working extremely hard, performing heavy squats, tiring sprints, and loaded bench press lifts. As far as academics are concerned, classical music has been proven by "a number of academic studies [that] [have] recently zeroed in on classical music, showing that 
listening benefits the brain, sleep patterns, the immune system and stress levels. [These] [are] all helpful when 
facing those all-important end-of-semester tests" (Engel). Although Fleming may object that the capacities in the food industry for sound to complement are far greater than those in the academic industries, I want to explore all of the ways that sound is used and all of the benefits it poses to studying. Therefore, what I would like to add to this ongoing conversation is that the uses of sound in academics are far more beneficial and numerous than the uses in the food industry.

[tulanewritessound1]

Tumblr #4

Template #2: When it comes to the topic of sound and its influence, most of us will readily agree that sound makes an impact an overall experience (a presentation, movie, song etc.) whenever it is utilized. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of how impactful sound is and if it is a persuasive device. While some are convinced that sound is just noise that alters a viewing or listening experience in a minor manner, others believe that it is as effective a use of rhetoric as any and is meant to trigger emotion and connect the body to the listening experience.

Here's the two-paragraph template for dialogue with one author:

The general argument made by author Gus Stadler in his work, “On Whiteness and Sound Studies”, is that “race shapes listening” (Stadler). More specifically, Stadler claims that race “shapes sound itself” (Stadler). He writes about instances that include a police siren sounding through an urban neighborhood and how “depending on the listener’s racial identity”, it carries a message of “Rescue or invasion? Impending succor or potential violence?” (Stadler). In this passage, Stadler is suggesting that “our understanding of sound is always conducted, and has always been conducted, from within history, as lived through categories like race.” (Stadler). His goal in this piece is to write to both the African-American and Caucasian communities and try to emphasize the drastic difference race makes on how sound can be perceived. 

In my view, Sadler doesn’t go in enough depth about the certain instances that people of non-white races go through when digesting sound. More specifically, I believe that identity matters because of the emotions triggered when listening to sound. Listening to something is an emotional experience, whether it be in music or life. Hearing a trumpet triumphantly blare in the back of a song creates a sense of happiness, while a somber piano may spawn tears. Similarly, the cheers of fans at a baseball game create a joy that completely contrasts the terror one gets from hearing a little girl scream. For example, Stadler refers to the police sirens that may create a different experience for a white person than a black person. Although, both the black and white person may have never interacted with a cop before, both people are aware of the recent incidents between African-American individuals and law enforcement. As sympathetic as I may be, I do not experience the same emotions upon seeing or hearing this news as a black teenager my age  would. As sad as it is to say, it doesn’t directly affect me and therefore the innate reaction is different. Although Stadler might object by saying this is implied, I want to go further in depth into what the experience of being racially profiled is like so a white male like myself can further understand. Whether it be interviews that adds to his ethos (as Stadler is too is a white male) or in-depth accounts, I think the overall passage would have a more impactful message if it appealed to my emotions. Therefore, what I would like to add to this ongoing conversation by saying that it’s important to try and convey emotion to the audience, especially on such an emotionally charged topic.

[tulanewritessound1]

Tumblr Prompt #4 by dr. c

Wed., Oct. 10: No class–Fall Break!

Due by Friday 10/12  at midnight:

Read + summarize: Justine Sharrock. “The Torture Playlist.”

Read + summarize: Tim Jonze. “Brittany Spears’ Music Used By British Navy to Scare Off Somali Pirates.”

Tumblr post #4: Please characterize the conversation so far [use quotes and interweaving to illustrate the conversation as you see it].

Prompt: Please begin with my formulaic structure (below) from a popular textbook called, __They Say, I Say__, which asks students to first know what researchers are saying and then try to enter the conversation. Begin using the formulaic structure, but then go back and make it more your own adding interesting and daring sentences and going into more depth. I have included TWO templates for characterizing the entire conversation so far and ONE for how you might enter into a dialogue with 1 scholar. For this prompt, please first enter the larger conversation in the first part, then in the second part dialogue with 1 thinker. This is a 2-part prompt.

First introduce the ongoing conversation in Sound Studies as you see it loosely using this template:

Introducing an Ongoing conversation in Sonic Rhetoric/Sound Studies:

Template #1: In discussions of __________, one controversial/reoccurring/compelling issue has been ____________. On the one hand, ______________ argues/discusses/avers __________________. On the other hand, ______________ adds/opens/opposes/counters/contributes/makes clear _____________. Others like x, y, and z even believe/discuss/hope for ______________. My own view is ______________.

Template #2: When it comes to the topic of ________, most of us will readily agree/accept/concede that __________. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of _____________. While some are convinced that _____________, others believe that _____________.

Here’s the two-paragraph template for dialogue with one author:

The general argument/point/addition/discussion made or contributed by author X in her/his/their work, _______________, is that _______________. More specifically, X argues/discusses/contributes/add that _______________. She/he/they write, “ _______________.” In this passage, X is suggesting that _______________. In conclusion, X’s belief is that _______________.

In my view, X may have overlooked/forgotten/missed/want to know more about a and b (possibly c) because _______________. More specifically, I believe that _______________. For example, ___________. Although X might object/be confused/ that __________, I want to explore that _______________. Therefore, what I would like to add to this ongoing conversation is _______________.

summary#5 due to Canvas

[tulanewritessound1]

Tumblr Post #3 - Toshi Garces

Sterne’s thesis in “A Resonant Tomb” is, “To understand the cultural significance of “the voices of the dead,” we must question the meaning of death itself. This chapter explores the ways in which sound recording, even as we know it today, bears the residual traces of late-Victorian death culture in the United States and the United Kingdom (and possibly elsewhere)” (Sterne). He continues to explain how the advancement of technology during this time period helped advance the “culture of preservation” (Sterne) that late-Victorian culture was obsessed with. Sterne explains how this culture surrounding death is seen as taboo in our modern society, but in a society engulfed with death, it was seen as a social norm to try and preserve the remnants of loved ones or friends. An example is when Sterne states, “a good funeral was something to which every middle- and working-class person aspired. Therefore, with the advancement of technology, a recording of a deceased person’s voice allowed that person’s ideas to be ephemeral, as well as grant their loved ones some sort of comfort when they did not have them around. A large part of the late-Victorian death culture was embalming. Sterne makes this connection and explains it in this quote, “The connection between phonography and embalming is interesting because, in many ways, attitudes about the voices of the dead are extensions of attitudes about the bodies of the dead” (Sterne). When a person close to you dies, the first thing you wish for is to hear their voice again. I find it interesting that the longing to hear someone’s voice after they have passed has been relevant since it was made possible.

The article “This is the Sound Cannon Used Against Protestors in Ferguson” is meant to inform the reader about how sound is being used to deter violence, and even peaceful protests such as the protest in Ferguson. Newman’s thesis is simple: “But what’s a noise-based weapon?” (slate.com). The specific model used in Ferguson, “the LRAD 500X-RE” (slate.com), and others like it were created to emit noises above the amount of decibels –120 decibels -- that a human being is comfortable hearing.  “The idea, as Gizmag reports, was to create acoustic technology that could clearly transmit sound, like verbal directions, over a long distance.” The article continues to include other examples of where the LRAD (Long Range Acoustic Device) has been used, and cases where people have sued their cities due to permanent hearing damage or loss caused by the device. It’s scary to think that sound is now being used as a weapon, but to a certain extent it is better than previous methods of crowd control.

[tulanewritessound1]

Tumblr 3

In Towards a Resonant Tomb Sterne makes the argument that not only has sound recording changed the experienced of death, but that "death somehow explained and shaped the cultural power of sound recording". In the article he also explores how sound recording today bears many traces of Victorian death culture, and that to properly understand this culture, we must examine death itself. He brings up a very interesting point, explaining how we often treat Victorian culture as primal and conservative, compared to our "liberal" culture today, but that death to them, was much less taboo than it is to us. Victorian era Brits are considered some of the first to employ sound recording techniques as a way to capture "the voices of the dead", but there were many flaws in their methods. Today, with the significant advances in technology, sound recording can be used in so many different ways and is much more effective. I enjoyed reading this article and being able to relate it to the modern world. I never thought of sound recording and things like music as "tombs", but that is exactly what they are. So much of our personalities and who we are is embedded in our voices. Put simply, what we say is who we are. This is even more true for artists like musicians who use sonic mediums to express such a wide array of emotions and experiences. When we die, our physical bodies lie in tombs, but our personalities and voices live on in two ways: in the memories of the people who knew us, and in direct recordings. I think immediately of the way sound is used to remember and honor those who will eventually pass away. The track "I Love You Dwayne", on rapper Lil Wayne's newest album, is a recording of his mother, Jacida Carter. In one part, she says "but I thank the Lord, because I know you have been through a lot that I don't even know about, Mama love you, I love you Dwayne, with all my heart, You is my life, I live for you, You make sure mama's tooken care of". This recording solidifies Carter's emotion towards her son forever, and also says a lot about Lil Wayne himself. Long after both Wayne and his mother are dead, people will listen to this track and remember this relationship. In rapper Drake's new album, he features Michael Jackson on a song. Though Jackson has been dead for 9 years, we are able to experience his artistry once again, through recording. His music is forever entombed within recordings like these. I was able to internalize the inspiration of Martin Luther King Jr. by listening to a recording of his "I Have A Dream" speech, the peace of Bob Marley by listening to "Could You Be Loved", or the greatness of Pele by listening to a podcast that used recordings of his games and post-game interviews. Using recordings as a tomb should help to lift the fear and taboo that surrounds death, because as Sterne argues, through sound, we are immortal. 

In This Is the Sound Cannon Used Against Protesters in Ferguson Lily Newman discusses the use of sound as a weapon. She describes the use of LRAD sound canons as a method for dispersing protest crowds. Here, it seems that sound is used in such a different way. Unlike recordings, the sound canon isn't designed to be something that is, personal and human, it is meant to be the opposite. The goal of the cannon is to deter humans, to be so unpleasant to the human ear that is it is painful. One thing both have in common is their potential lasting impact on those touched by the sound as she shows with the example explaining how a "woman sued the city of Pittsburgh for permanent damage caused by an LRAD". I think that these methods for deterring crowds could be useful when a protest becomes violent or dangerous. Using sound instead of violence is, in my opinion, better, but until the lasting effects on those who are subjected to the sound is studied, I don't think LRAD cannons should be used commonly. 

avanti

[tulanewritessound1]

Nicole Lincoln

Sterne's chapter "The Resonant Tomb" discusses how we as a society -- specifically the English -- are obsessed with making the impermanent as permanent as possible, even if it means changing the physical form, in terms of both our recorded sound and our dead. Sterne compares recordings to a "resonant tomb"; "The recording is, therefore, a resonant tomb, offering the exteriority of the voice with none of its interior awareness". He means, really, that when we record our voice we strip it of it's original form and replace it with the promise of permanence, in the same way we change the literal, chemical nature of a dead body in order to preserve it for a little while longer. The "tomb" brings the metaphor back around, stringing the idea of embalming the dead and recording the voice together. I feel he's on the mark, here. Just like the quest for immortality, either through eternal fame or literal eternal life, we're always looking for a way to preserve what could be lost or changed. Failing to preserve something in an original form, as we always do, we then look to simply make sure it never leaves our memory. For us, death, and the idea that anything we do is impermanent, is scary. The prospect of shooting our voices into the future -- however changed -- is inviting, as is keeping the dead respectable and pleasant for an open-casket funeral.

Lily Hay Newman's article, "This is the Sound Cannon Used Against Protesters in Ferguson" has no direct thesis, yet it's implied that Newman thinks the Sound Cannon is a dangerous crowd-control method that may hinge on the side of violence rather than actual pacification. She begins by describing the Ferguson protest as a "peaceful demonstration" that "devolved into chaos" -- giving the impression that, rather than an angry mob, the protesters are a group of people in a terrifying situation. The tones emitted allegedly cause "immediate headaches and pain" as they were explicitly designed to do, heading over a human's hearing threshold by nineteen decibels, and were originally used as militaristic weapons. None of these facts, though presented in a calm manner, point to a safe or humane method of pacifying a crowd. I fully agree with her idea, but the problem doesn't just include the sound cannon (though it is one of the more egregious examples of militarized violence against protesters). Tear gas -- also mentioned -- is commonly thought to be relatively harmless to protesters, but is actually extremely irritating to the eyes and throat, to the point it has been compared to pepper spray. Police usually throw tear gas into crowds without consideration of if the gas may endanger anyone with sensitive respiratory systems. Also used are water cannons, and actual pepper spray. The sound cannon is just one of many inhumane technologies we have developed for crowd control, and though this article is helpful, I believe there could be more discussion on the problem as a whole.

[tulanewritessound1]

Tumblr Post #3

Garrett Ressa

  In Jonathan Sterne’s “A Resonant Tomb.” he starts out by talking about the reproduction of sound and what the goal of reproducing entails for the music industry. The goal is “to reproduce the fullness of the presence found in the original” (Sterne). Sterne then goes on talking about canned music, which is “the practical and imagined possibilities of recording’s permanence existed as part of a longer history and larger culture of preservation” (Sterne). This is an example of reproduction as the canned music will be used in the future by generations to come. This invention allows for the recreation of songs, speeches and events that happened in the past as pictures allow a second hand viewer to see and feel a certain way about something of the past. This is similar to Newman’s argument because the device she talks about produces and reproduces a very high pitch sound that “achieves maximum sound projection and penetration beyond 2,000 meters and can reach 149 decibels” (Newman). The weapon is used time and time again always reproducing the same sound that it was designed to in the same way that the canned music did. Although Sterne and Newman are talking from two different perspectives, they both are interested in the field of reproducing a sound. Sterne also talks about the negatives a reproducing a sound. He says “songs which a few generations before might have remained popular for decades now rose and fell within a year, or even months” (Sterne). This refers to the reproduction of music of the radio and other technologies that approve playbacks of songs. We see time and time again this in the real world whenever we turn on our car radios and no matter what station you tune into its always the same 5 songs on repeat. This ultimately ruins songs that could be popular for so long if radio stations didn’t overplay songs. After talking about the reproduction of sounds, Sterne goes into embalming. Embalming is when you preserve a body by injecting chemicals into it that keep the body from decaying. This relates to his original argument of reproduction in the auditory field in the sense of preserving something. Embalming allows us to relate on a personal level with what Sterne was originally talking about. Anyone who gets buried usually is embalmed in this day and age. Embalming is tied in with the idea of permanence just how reproduction is in the sound field. I believe that as some people believe embalming threatens the sanctity of people, reproduction threatens the sanctity of sounds in the auditory field.

[tulanewritessound1]

Tumblr Post #3

Garrett Ressa

  In Jonathan Sterne’s “A Resonant Tomb.” he starts out by talking about the reproduction of sound and what the goal of reproducing entails for the music industry. The goal is “to reproduce the fullness of the presence found in the original” (Sterne). Sterne then goes on talking about canned music, which is “the practical and imagined possibilities of recording’s permanence existed as part of a longer history and larger culture of preservation” (Sterne). This is an example of reproduction as the canned music will be used in the future by generations to come. This invention allows for the recreation of songs, speeches and events that happened in the past as pictures allow a second hand viewer to see and feel a certain way about something of the past. This is similar to Newman’s argument because the device she talks about produces and reproduces a very high pitch sound that “achieves maximum sound projection and penetration beyond 2,000 meters and can reach 149 decibels” (Newman). The weapon is used time and time again always reproducing the same sound that it was designed to in the same way that the canned music did. Although Sterne and Newman are talking from two different perspectives, they both are interested in the field of reproducing a sound. Sterne also talks about the negatives a reproducing a sound. He says “songs which a few generations before might have remained popular for decades now rose and fell within a year, or even months” (Sterne). This refers to the reproduction of music of the radio and other technologies that approve playbacks of songs. We see time and time again this in the real world whenever we turn on our car radios and no matter what station you tune into its always the same 5 songs on repeat. This ultimately ruins songs that could be popular for so long if radio stations didn’t overplay songs. After talking about the reproduction of sounds, Sterne goes into embalming. Embalming is when you preserve a body by injecting chemicals into it that keep the body from decaying. This relates to his original argument of reproduction in the auditory field in the sense of preserving something. Embalming allows us to relate on a personal level with what Sterne was originally talking about. Anyone who gets buried usually is embalmed in this day and age. Embalming is tied in with the idea of permanence just how reproduction is in the sound field. I believe that as some people believe embalming threatens the sanctity of people, reproduction threatens the sanctity of sounds in the auditory field.

[tulanewritessound1]

Tumblr Post #3

In “A Resonant Tomb,” Sterne argues that there exists a relationship between sound and death, and that the relationship goes both ways: sound has influenced death and death has influenced sound. He writes that “in contrast, the voices of the dead no longer emanate from the bodies that serve as containers for self-awareness. The recording is, therefore, a resonant tomb, offering the exteriority of the voice with none of its interior self awareness” (Sterne 290). He later writes that “for its early users, death somehow explained and shaped the cultural power of sound recording” (Sterne 290). Sterne argues that sound has influenced how people think of death and also how death has made people consider sounds (mainly of those who have died). He also argues that sound offers a sort of immortality in that it preserves the voice for future generations. Sterne, in my mind, is placing himself in the broader sound conversation because he discusses sound’s context within larger concepts, like death, that affect or will affect everybody who reads the article. It is a relatable topic, and one that really shows the importance of sound and specifically sound recording and preservation. I really like Sterne’s argument because his approach of looking not only at the effects of sound on the world, but also on the effects of the world on sound was really interesting to me.

In “This is the Sound Cannon Used Against Protestors in Ferguson,” Newman argues that sound weapons can be as powerful and effective as actual guns, if not more so. She writes that “the SWAT teams in Ferguson on Wednesday definitely brought out the big guns when they turned on the deterrent tones. Not to mention their actual guns” (Newman). Newman gives a detailed background of the LRAD devices and their beginnings to set up her point that they are extremely powerful and can and should be considered as impactful as real guns. In my opinion, Newman is placing herself within the broader sound conversation by very nicely showing real world effects of sound when it is used as a tool or even as a weapon. She almost seems to show the dark side of sound in society – when it is used to be destructive instead of instructive. I like Newman’s argument because the issues she discusses are very current and she shows that sound has the flexibility to be tailored to impact unique situations.

-Josh Eisen

[tulanewritessound1]

Both articles in discussion are similar yet have key differences in their topic of discussion when considering sound recordings.

In Sterne's "A Resonant Tomb" he discusses the history of sound recordings and the effect they have had on our perception of death. Originally, sound recordings lasted only briefly because of the mediums they were recorded on.  He also touches on the fact that, once technology developed, "sound recording did as much to promote ephemerality as much as it did to promote permanence in auditory life." (Sterne). The says this for a reason, due to the possibility to play back a sound multiple times we become use to it and continue to desire new noises and sounds. However, the ability to replay the voices of those who have departed from this world is incredible yet common. "if this experience is unremarkable today, it seems as though it demanded a response one hundred years ago." (Sterne) He also remarks on the power to record voices as 'they set the voice free from the living and self aware body..." (Sterne). Discussing further, he calls this sound a "resonant coffin" in which a voice can be played an infinite number of times and not be self-aware as a living human would be in some situations. 

In Lily Hay Newman's article for Slate, her topic of sound discussion differs. Instead of the benefits of sound recording and the seeming audio immorality it provides, her article has more of a negative connotation. Her topic has to do with riots that occurred in Ferguson, Missouri. After days of protests, the police turned to swat teams to control the crowds. One tool in their crowd control arsenal was a device called LRAD (short for Long Range Acoustic Device). Originally, these devices were used to transmit verbal commands over long distances. They also began to be used as a deterrent, an example of this is when transport ships re-purposed them to produce loud, irritable sounds to ward off pirates at sea. Soon it was also used during riots. The reason it is so effective is that the devices maximum range is 2,000 meters and can reach 149 decibels. For consideration, any noises over 130 decibels can cause permanent hearing loss in a human. 

Sound recording is a large medium that has many purposes. While it can be used to save the voices of loved ones it can also provide non-lethal options for law enforcement to disperse dangerous crowds. As the field continues to expand, the uses for this technology will also. 

- Noah Seiden