new adventures in low-​fidelity

Written by . Filed under articles. Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the Permalink. Post a Comment. Leave a Trackback URL.

Music forms an irre­ducible ori­gin, insti­gates the redis­cov­ery of a repressed past and pro­vides an ori­en­ta­tion in time. It is no coin­ci­dence that the gramo­phone ful­fills the same three­fold func­tion in ‘Liv­ing with Music’, as it does in the intro­duc­tion of Ellison’s sem­i­nal novel Invis­i­ble Man (1951). Both the fic­tional novel and the auto­bi­o­graph­i­cal story cap­ture the piv­otal moment in which music re-​enters the protagonist’s life. In Invis­i­ble Man, the gramophone’s intru­sion offers the pro­tag­o­nist an escape from a free but mean­ing­less exis­tence as an out­law. In ‘Liv­ing with Music’, the device trans­forms the sonic chaos of his house into the musi­cal order that the author needs in order to over­come his writer’s block.

Now in this mag­i­cal moment all the old love, the old fas­ci­na­tion with music superbly ren­dered, flooded back. When she fin­ished I real­ized that with such music in my own apart­ment, the chaotic sounds from with­out and above had sunk, if not into silence, then well below the level where they mat­tered. (Elli­son: 193)

By the end of ‘Liv­ing with Music’, music is all of a sud­den no longer an end­less strain to the minori­tar­ian musi­cian any­more, but relieves the aspir­ing author from his con­stant strug­gles by giv­ing him a tem­po­ral sense of direc­tion. The imme­di­ate ques­tion that comes to mind when such a dras­tic change occurs is of course: what has changed? After read­ing Kit­tler and McLuhan, the answer is both remark­ably sim­ple as well as infi­nitely com­plex: tech­nol­ogy. As opposed to Ellison’s own tes­ti­mony, I claim that the nar­ra­tor actu­ally does not redis­cover music… he dis­cov­ers the gramo­phone. “All this plunge into elec­tron­ics, mind you, had as its sim­ple end the enjoy­ment of recorded music as it was intended to be heard.” (Elli­son 194) This new tech­ni­cal medium lures the author with some­thing which he could not achieve with nei­ther the trum­pet nor the type­writer: better-​than-​perfect repro­duc­tion of the past in its full detail.

Sound record­ings improve on both scores as well as live per­for­mances of the same piece of music, because they do not only cap­ture their notes but also the data flows that cir­cu­late in-​between them. The dis­tinc­tive fea­ture of this tech­ni­cal medium is that it does not only store the intended con­tent but also all kinds of other acci­den­tal sounds and dis­rup­tive noises. The abil­ity of the gramo­phone to store all fre­quen­cies and their fluc­tu­a­tions in time leads Friedrich Kit­tler to the wild but pro­duc­tive hypoth­e­sis that the tech­no­log­i­cal device cor­re­sponds to the ‘real’ in Lacan­ian psychoanalysis.

And only the phono­graph can record all the noise pro­duced by the lar­ynx prior to any semi­otic order and lin­guis­tic mean­ing. To expe­ri­ence plea­sure, Freud’s patients no longer have to desire what philoso­phers con­sider good. Rather, they are free to bab­ble. Thus, the real — espe­cially in the talk­ing cure known as psy­cho­analy­sis — has the sta­tus of phonog­ra­phy. (Kit­tler: 16)

Whereas the type­writer can only deal with the sym­bolic, the gramo­phone also reg­is­ters the streams of data that pre­cede and exceed the lin­guis­tic order. This medium does not only record inten­tions, mean­ings, and syn­tac­ti­cally formed utter­ances, but also the slip­pages, mis­takes, and plain noises. In other words, the gramo­phone is capa­ble of stor­ing and trans­mit­ting all the non­sen­si­cal data flows that resist the sym­bolic order of the major discourse.

Repro­duc­tion is demoted once the past in all its sen­su­ous detail is trans­mit­ted by tech­ni­cal devices. Cer­tainly, hi-​fi means “high fidelity” and is sup­posed to con­vince con­sumers that record com­pa­nies remain loyal to musi­cal deities. But it is a term of appease­ment. More pre­cise than the poetic imag­i­na­tion of 1800, whose alpha­betism or cre­ativ­ity con­fronted an exclu­sively repro­duc­tive mem­ory, tech­nol­ogy lit­er­ally makes the unheard-​of pos­si­ble. (Kit­tler: 36)

The real poten­tial of the record player con­sists in the device’s imma­nent promise of a better-​than-​perfect record­ing. The nar­ra­tor of ‘Liv­ing with Music’ hopes that this mul­ti­lay­ered past of sound record­ings will ulti­mately over­write the offi­cial, text-​based account called his­tory. Rather than pro­duc­ing a fac­tual rep­re­sen­ta­tion of an event, the gramo­phone offers a faith­ful record­ing that is simul­ta­ne­ously actual and vir­tual. He val­ues the gramo­phone for its poten­tial power to break the hege­mony of a con­scious, major dis­course by con­fronting it with its sub­con­scious. The tech­ni­cal device’s capac­ity to phys­i­cally store and trans­mit non-​symbolic data flows dis­tin­guishes it from rival­ing writ­ing sys­tems. All of a sud­den, the back­ground noises and the neighbor’s singing are no longer non­sen­si­cal nui­sances, but turn into man­i­fes­ta­tions of a minor dis­course. “I was obsessed with the idea of repro­duc­ing sound with such fidelity that even when using music as a defense behind which I could write, it would reach the uncon­scious lev­els of the mind with the least dis­tor­tion. And it didn’t come eas­ily.” (Elli­son: 193)

Because of its capac­ity to bypass the sym­bolic order of the type­writer, the gramo­phone trans­fig­ures the rela­tion between a major and minor dis­course. The lat­ter is no longer exter­nal to the first, but has become an inte­gral, though dis­tinct, part of it. Still, it would be too easy to under­stand Ralph Ellison’s appraisal of the record player as a naive utopian stance towards the lat­est tech­nol­ogy. On the con­trary, his enthu­si­asm stems from the pos­si­bil­i­ties that the con­fronta­tion with the gramo­phone — and the realm of knowl­edge that it opens up — offers to his writ­ing. The author does not sim­ply give in to the temp­ta­tion of a tab­ula rasa that new tech­nol­ogy offers, but pro­poses a media–epis­temic plu­ral­ism instead. With­out the gramo­phone he would have never been able resolve the ten­sion between a major and a minor dis­course in a sat­is­fac­tory way. Nonethe­less, sound record­ings do not replace typed texts or live music per­for­mances. The three media, trum­pet, type writer and gramo­phone, are com­ple­men­tary rather than mutu­ally exclu­sive to Ellison.Despite their coex­is­tence, how­ever, these media do main­tain a hier­ar­chi­cal rela­tion with one another. The nar­ra­tor clearly pri­or­i­tizes the gramo­phone over the trum­pet and the type­writer. It is the high-​tech device that allows him to redis­cover the music from his youth, and it is the same machine that helps the author to over­come his writer’s block. “A writer thus cel­e­brates the very oppo­site of his own medium — the white noise no writ­ing can store.” (Kit­tler: 45) In ‘Liv­ing with Music’, new tech­nol­ogy func­tions as an event to exist­ing, rival­ing writ­ing sys­tems. The intro­duc­tion of the gramo­phone chal­lenges and trans­forms the type­writer — and the con­cepts, spec­u­la­tion, tropes, and metaphors that this device brought into exis­tence — with­out actu­ally replac­ing it.

This text is a draft. Please do not quote from it!

Invis­i­ble Man, the title of Ralph Elli­son’s 1952 novel refers to the lack of opac­ity of its main pro­tag­o­nist. Rather than read­ing this book as the exem­plary story of a con­crete, sit­u­ated indi­vid­ual – an African-​American intel­lec­tual before and dur­ing the so-​called Harlem Renais­sance – this article-​in-​progress will con­cen­trate on the fig­ure of thought that this cen­tral char­ac­ter expresses.

The Invis­i­ble Man’s most strik­ing fea­ture is his ongo­ing strug­gle for social and medial recognition.

You ache with the need to con­vince your­self that you do exist in the real world, that you’re a part of all the sound and anguish, and you strike out with your fists, you curse and you swear to make them rec­og­nize you. And, alas, it’s sel­dom suc­cess­ful.” (Elli­son, 7)

In fact, as a con­cep­tual per­sona, the Invis­i­ble Man is the ele­ment that is unrec­og­nized by dom­i­nant discourse.

The flip side of the Invis­i­ble Man’s trans­parency is his extreme adapt­abil­ity. In Ellison’s novel, the main char­ac­ter goes through sev­eral meta­mor­phoses: he starts as a naive coun­try boy who sub­se­quently becomes an uppity stu­dent, a fac­tory worker, a civil right activist, a preacher, a pimp, until he finally real­izes that he is in fact defined by an inher­ent absence of a pos­i­tive identity.

So after years of try­ing to adopt the opin­ions of oth­ers I finally rebelled. I am an invis­i­ble man.” (Elli­son, 462)

The main pro­tag­o­nist of Invis­i­ble Man is a con­cep­tual per­sona that can­not be pos­i­tively rec­og­nized within dis­course. He does not appear to have any other intrin­sic fea­tures but neg­a­tiv­ity and arbi­trari­ness. Fol­low­ing this line of argu­men­ta­tion, one could argue that the func­tion of the Invis­i­ble Man in dis­course is com­pa­ra­ble to that Jacques Der­rida’s dif­férance in texts; an irre­ducible absence that pre­cedes and obstructs any kind of meaning.

As opposed to dif­férance, how­ever, the absence of the Invis­i­ble Man is only appar­ent. Even though the main pro­tag­o­nist is excluded from all forms of dis­cur­sive rep­re­sen­ta­tion, this bare fact itself already pre­sup­poses his exis­tence. As such, his invis­i­bil­ity is a mod­i­fied form of pres­ence rather than an absolute lack. The few remain­ders of this persona’s pres­ence in dis­course can there­fore be cre­atively trans­formed into some­thing dif­fer­ent and expressed in another medium. The nar­ra­tor of Invis­i­ble Man dis­cov­ers the eman­ci­pa­tory poten­tial of adap­ta­tion while lis­ten­ing to a jazz record.

Per­haps I like Louis Arm­strong because he’s made poetry out of being invis­i­ble. I think it must be because he’s unaware that he is invis­i­ble. And my own grasp of invis­i­bil­ity aids me to under­stand his music.” (Elli­son, 11)

It is the medial trans­la­tion from the (in)visible to the audi­ble – from texts and images to sounds and music – that can be inter­preted as a solu­tion to the prob­lem of recog­ni­tion in Ellison’s novel. The process of adap­ta­tion has the power to ren­der the unseen heard (and the unheard seen).

So under the spell of the reefer I dis­cov­ered a new ana­lyt­i­cal way of lis­ten­ing to music. The unheard sounds came through, and each melodic line existed of itself, stood clearly from all the rest, said its piece, and waited patiently for the other voices to speak. That night I found myself hear­ing not only in time, but in space as well. I not only entered the music but descended, like Dante, into its depths.” (Elli­son, 11)

Louis Armstrong’s adap­ta­tion of trans­parency into jazz makes appar­ent that the Invis­i­ble Man is not really an empty, arbi­trary posi­tion in dis­course but an unrec­og­nized space that is actu­ally filled with poten­tial mean­ing. Through his descent into the depths of music, the Invis­i­ble Man dis­cov­ers that by pos­tu­lat­ing presence/​absence as an absolute and fun­da­men­tal dichotomy this promise is actu­ally over­looked. There is never com­plete absence, because even at empty spaces there is still mate­ri­al­ity. As a mat­ter of fact, it is the medium that by def­i­n­i­tion resists absolute negation.

In a per­verse way, this analy­sis of Armstrong’s music actu­ally cor­re­sponds with Theodor W. Adorno’s cri­tique of jazz. In his 1935 essay ‘On Jazz’, the philoso­pher deval­ues the often praised dis­so­nance and syn­co­pa­tion in this musi­cal genre as decep­tive. As opposed to the a-​metrical and atonal ele­ments in the music of Arnold Schön­berg and Alban Berg – Adorno’s com­posers of choice – jazz just offers irreg­u­lar mod­i­fi­ca­tions of meter and har­mony. These are not just for­mal dif­fer­ence, since Adorno believes that music tran­scends its aes­thetic mean­ing. He con­ceives the under­ly­ing rigid met­ric and har­monic struc­ture of jazz as sig­nif­i­cant man­i­fes­ta­tions of an omnipresent logic of a dom­i­nant dis­course (In Adorno’s words, cul­ture industry/​global cap­i­tal­ism). Although jazz at first seem to break with this hege­monic sys­tem, it actu­ally con­firms it. In other words, to Adorno jazz fails to be a real nega­tion because the struc­ture pre­vents it.

Despite a sim­i­lar analy­sis of jazz, how­ever, the Invis­i­ble Man does not share Adorno’s rejec­tion of the musi­cal genre. This derives from the fact that the main char­ac­ter of Ellison’s novel has a dif­fer­ent per­spec­tive on dom­i­nant dis­course than Adorno has. This con­cep­tual persona’s point of view is dia­met­ri­cally opposed to that of the German-​Jewish philoso­pher. The pro­tag­o­nist does not want to escape from the total­i­tar­ian logic of a her­met­i­cally closed sys­tem, on the con­trary, he wants to enter it. There­fore, the Invis­i­ble Man does not con­ceive dis­so­nance and syn­co­pa­tion in jazz as failed efforts to implode dis­course from within, but as suc­cess­ful attempts to enter it from the out­side. To him, they are dis­con­tin­u­ous inter­ven­tions of pres­ence in dis­course that – in accor­dance with Adorno’s analy­sis of the musi­cal genre – can­not be negated. Since nega­tion is a nec­es­sary con­di­tion for syn­the­sis, jazz is an odd ele­ment of dis­so­nance that can never be fully anni­hi­lated by the musi­cal con­ven­tions. The Invis­i­ble Man aspires to infil­trate dis­course in a sim­i­lar fashion.

Apart from dis­so­nance, jazz and invis­i­bil­ity also come together in syn­co­pa­tion. The main pro­tag­o­nist empha­sizes that his lack of recog­ni­tion pro­vides him with a dif­fer­ent access to temporality.

Invis­i­bil­ity, let me explain, gives one a slightly dif­fer­ent sense of time, you’re never quite on the beat. Some­times you’re ahead and some­times behind.” (Elli­son, 11)

In this quote, The Invis­i­ble Man brings together two dif­fer­ent senses of time: his own and that of the a hege­monic dis­course; the beat and its devi­a­tion. In other words, a plu­ral­ist con­cept of tem­po­ral­ity is already a given for this par­tic­u­lar con­cep­tual per­sona. Syn­co­pa­tion inevitably implies that time is not sin­gle but multiple.

As the com­bined result of dis­so­nance and syn­co­pa­tion, plu­ral­ism is a given to the Invis­i­ble Man. His real­ity by def­i­n­i­tion con­sists of at least two sep­a­rate domains: dis­course and its other. But this dual­ity as such already pre­sup­poses a third ele­ment, namely the realm in which the ten­sion between inside and out­side man­i­fests itself. The Invis­i­ble Man is this third space; he is the inter­ven­ing medium in which the con­fronta­tions between dis­course and its other are played out. To the Invis­i­ble Man inside and out­side are there­fore not prin­ci­pally sep­a­rated, this dis­tinc­tion only exists in prac­tice. Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guat­tari would say that they are dis­tinct zones on the same plane of imma­nence. In What is Phi­los­o­phy? (1991) the philoso­pher and the psy­cho­an­a­lyst claim that imma­nence is not the flip side of tran­scen­dence, but that tran­scen­dence is only an illu­sion of imma­nence. To them, there is nei­ther an absolute out­side nor an inside; they are both con­tin­gent zones on a so-​called plane of imma­nence. Although Deleuze and Guat­tari ren­der the binary oppo­si­tion between inside and out­side obso­lete, this does not imply the end of all dis­tinc­tions. On the con­trary. it is exactly because of bor­ders that mean­ing becomes pos­si­ble. In other words, they do not only divide but also converge.

Although he uses – once again – a sonic rather than a spa­tial metaphor, the Invis­i­ble Man expresses a sim­i­lar fig­ure of thought:

Who knows but that, on the lower fre­quen­cies, I speak for you?” (Elli­son, 469)

The sparse inter­ven­tions of his pres­ence within dis­course – the lower fre­quen­cies – simul­ta­ne­ously diverge and con­nect the inside and the out­side of dis­course and thereby ren­der the binary oppo­si­tion between both zones obso­letes. The Invis­i­ble Man is inside nor out­side the sys­tem; he is both at the same time. The lack of recog­ni­tion of this con­cep­tual per­sona turns out to be a bless­ing in dis­guise. He has access to a real­ity that is both larger as well as more diverse than that of those who are an inte­gral part of the system.

Men out of time, who would soon be gone and for­got­ten… But who knew […] – who knew but that they were the sav­iours, the bear­ers of some­thing pre­cious? The stew­ards of some­thing uncom­fort­able, bur­den­some, which they hated because, liv­ing out­side the realm of his­tory, there was no one to applaud their value and they them­selves failed to under­stand it.” (Elli­son, 355)

Although Invis­i­ble Man refers to them as such, ‘men out of time’ are not really out­side of time; rather they are out­side of his­tory. His­tory, how­ever, is only one par­tic­u­lar time track – namely that of dom­i­nant dis­course – amongst others.

They were out­side the groove of his­tory, and it was my job to get them in, all of them.” (Elli­son, 357)

It is no coin­ci­dence that the main pro­tag­o­nist refers to the gramo­phone in this quote. As Friedrich Kit­tler con­vinc­ingly argues in Gramo­phone, Film, Type­writer (1985), the tracks of this tech­ni­cal device – or more pre­cise its short-​lived pre­de­ces­sor the phono­graph – became the model for all other forms of inscrip­tion soon after its inven­tion. These pri­mal tracks not only incor­po­rate but also sur­pass tex­tual ones in many ways. First of all, the gramo­phone actu­ally real­izes the alchemist and poetic fan­tasy of time axis manip­u­la­tion. Records can be sped up, slowed down and even reversed. More­over, how­ever, phono­graphic tracks can store and trans­mit dif­fer­ent voices, instru­ments and noises simul­ta­ne­ously. For that rea­son, the gramo­phone is the plu­ral­ist medium par excellence.

The adap­ta­tion into a dif­fer­ent medium reveals the short­com­ings of the orig­i­nal. The nec­es­sary detour through sound record­ing, makes clear that invis­i­bil­ity is not sim­ply the absence of time but the actual pres­ence of alter­na­tive time tracks. As opposed to text, records are capa­ble of stor­ing and trans­mit­ting such alter­na­tive time tracks in forms more diverse than sheer absence or neg­a­tiv­ity. The Invis­i­ble Man for instance describes his own time as follows.

Instead of the swift and imper­cep­ti­ble flow­ing of time, you are aware of its nodes, those points where time stands still or from which it leaps ahead. And you slip into the breaks and look around. That’s what you hear vaguely in Louis’ music.” (Elli­son, 11)

From this con­cep­tual persona’s dupli­ca­tion of time, it is only a small step towards fur­ther mul­ti­pli­ca­tion. The tracks of the gramo­phone not only ren­der the invis­i­ble rec­og­nized, but also pave the way for a plu­ral­ist phi­los­o­phy of time.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>