Comments for medial operations

Comment on oh baby, i like it raw by AK

AK — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:47:46 +0000

Hello, I’m doing my masters in Sound Arts and I find this (and apparently other articles around here) very interesting and surprisingly relevant to what I’m working on nowadays. It seems you talk about this link I was missing! Unfortunately the book ‘Sonic Mediations: Body, Sound, Technology’ cannot be found in my Uni’s library and the link you posted for the article you wrote about this takes you back to this page.. Can you direct me to the article? Also, I couldn’t find contact details.. how can one reach you on your email?

Thank you very much

Comment on (don’t) listen to the one by Rhythmic

Rhythmic — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 15:56:05 +0000

Wow, I’ve never seen anything like this before!

It’s impressive.

Comment on get on the good foot by Rhythmic

Rhythmic — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 15:43:41 +0000

Wow, what an in-depth analysis of the rhythm of a song!
I never considered trying to put something like this into words.

Comment on get on the good foot by charlotte

charlotte — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:57:06 +0000

Eerlijk gezegd ken ik, als musicus, geen mede-musicus die het tellen van de maat verwart met het weergeven van een ritme — commentaar op citaat Lefebvre.
Verder boeiend stuk, tot zover.

Comment on towards a new intellectual by marijke

marijke — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 11:04:31 +0000

Hello,
Actually, autotune is often confused with synthesizer type effects (such as the talk box and vocoder mentioned above). When it was used as an effect in Cher’s “Believe” the producers also claimed that they had used a vocoder in order to protect their technique. However autotune is a signal effect processor in which the voice is the signal that is being processed — whereas in talk boxes and vocoders, the voice is used as the modifier of another signal (guitar or synthesizer mainly).
Also, multi-track recording is not necessary for autotune; it is very often used in live performances. The advent of the digital age however was necessary for the algorithmic signal processing.

It could be argued that the autotune has many precursors in the sense that it was not the first medium to transform the subject in a musical (or auditory) sense. However, I would argue that autotune (especially when used in its intended way) is unique, and has had a unique effect in music in that it enables mediocre singers to sound good in a not-so-obviously processed way. I would find this effect more of the order of the photoshopped magazines of this age than of the exuberant experimentalism of the digital pre-1990’s.

Comment on towards a new intellectual by yeehaa

yeehaa — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 22:28:32 +0000

Hi Zuh! I would say that autotune is actually an assemblage that combines many technologies (multi-track recording, synthesizer, sampling) and therefore has a lot of precursors, such as the talk box and the vocoder. Just think of Zapp or Prince's Camille project. Wax Poetics had a great story on the talk box (Check out the Stevie Wonder clip!) a couple of months ago. Actually, don't agree with Gramsci on this one. I'm a big believer in serendipity and contingency. In my opinion, true transformations (revolutions) are hardly ever the result of intended actions; they are usually their accidental side-effects. That does leave some room for agency but takes out any causality between intention and effect.

Comment on towards a new intellectual by Zuhirah

Zuhirah — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 04:31:21 +0000

West's dialectic is limited. Limits, frames allow for a mastering of a moment, a subject, a life. For West it is this very protection of life that the african american community demands of "its" intellectuals that tips the scales in that direction.. and results in a simplified analysis of Gaye and thus limited space for the new intellectual to occupy. However the concept of "signifying" in AA community speaks to the type of multiplicity media enables and it's odd that West does not allow intellectuals this "doubled and re-doubled" identity. The capacity of the media to view the human differently cannot be denied. i however struggle with privileging media. While a multiplicity is possible via the use of media, it seems often incongruous with life. This confrontation of multiplicity by artists, while seemingly therapeutic, seems also to torment them and lead often to drug abuse when it can only exist in a studio/on wax/book/film and cannot be embodied. the reassertion of the human subject in art forms like hip hop, highlight the need to live ('keep it real') and the assertion of a subject over multi-layered tracks is a triumph - and then there was autotune (transforming the subject via media- were Gaye's layers a precursor?) and Jay's subsequent DOA;). gramsci said a new intellectual was a 'strategist for life and death'. social transformation is something lived, is it not? the privileging of the MC/subject over the track, while acknowledging and needing it's multiple layers for expression goes further, i think, than an over-reliance on media in this new intellectual project Obama may be, or has been imagined as, an embodied multiplicity. social media was a way to synthesize this multiplicity, but his presidency , i dont know.. he may need a better track over which to rhyme/signify.. and there we are back to your media..