Tag Archive | mixtape

Pushing Record: Labors of Love, and the iTunes Playlist

Borrowed from allwomentalk.com

Last month as my sister and I drove to the store, she started to joke with me. “You’re crazy,” she began, “you’re so high-tech, with your computers, and XBOX. You love music. But, you’ve got a cassette player in your car.” I shot her a look. “So what? I like it.” I said, hoping that she would back off. “So what!” she proclaimed in response, “don’t you want a CD player? Or a jack for your iPod?” I responded, “But how will I play my tapes?” She stared at me. “Who cares? They sound like crud. You’re crazy.”

Here at Sounding Out! we’ve featured a number of articles about analog tape. It persists in popular culture (Jennifer Stoever-Ackerman’s Play it Again (and Again), Sam: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3), underground communities (Matt Laferty’s On Hand Made Music), and even our personal histories (Gus Stadler’s Pushing Play). Even though tape is generally understood to be obsolete, niche, and just plain noisy – I will insist that, despite my sister’s concerns, there is something special (even forgotten) about the medium itself. I had tried to articulate this in last year’s article What Mixtapes Can Teach Us About Noise. But, when I re-read it, I can’t help but think that I somehow missed the point. Let me try again with a new question: What is the difference between a mix on cassette tape and an iTunes playlist?

Care is the difference. The material limitations of the cassette recorder demand that care is taken during the act of inscription. In other words, cassette mixes cannot be automated like an iTunes playlist. The practice of recording a mix on cassette requires, at minimum, that some attention is paid to the moment a song begins (as record is pushed), and the moment a song ends (as stop is pressed). The cassette must be tended, as it were, during the encoding process. It is impossible to program a cassette mix otherwise.

Borrowed from velvetron.com

After tracks have been chosen and messages encoded, frequently cassette mixes are shared, or gifted. If the receiver chooses to listen to the cassette, they must locate, first, a cassette player. This was not a problem in 1990 when cassette players were a more or less ubiquitous technology. But, in the present day, they are notably rare. Furthermore, even if some care has been taken to locate a listening platform, the tape is far more treacherous than the CD to navigate. Awkward transitions governed by the fast-forward and rewind buttons, encouraged listeners to listen through all but the most wretched sequences of a cassette mix. And, let us not forget, how leaving a cassette in the wrong player could result in a mangle of 1/8″ tape. Or, how speakers, magnets, and poor weather all eventually erode at the contents of poorly stored tape. Care had to be taken in maintaining and storing a good cassette mix; tapes are a fragile technology and that, for me at least, serves to valorize the labor at stake in their creation.

Am I giving the playlist enough credit? Even though the platform may not limit its listeners, and producers, in the same ways that cassette recorders have, who is to say that any less care is taken when producing a playlist? To this point, I must bring up a question of labor. While, the receiver of a cassette mix knows that at least an hour (as cassettes are generally 60 minutes or more) of work has been put into its construction, the receiver of a mix CD, or playlist, cannot be as certain. iTunes playlists can be constructed in five minutes or less. Implicated within this labor divide is both an emerging and ephemeral culture of listening.

As Sterne (2006) has argued in his paper, The MP3 as Cultural Artifact, our bodies respond to MP3s in a way that is fundamentally different than listening to a tape, or record. “[The MP3] represents a liberation of just-in-time sound production, where systems give listeners less and ask their bodies to do more of the work” (p.838). If the very compression algorithms that constitute MP3s make demands on the brains and bodies of listeners, it is interesting to think of the iTunes playlist in parallel. The iTunes playlist makes comparatively few demands on the body of the producer. This, paradoxically, results in a culture that does not valorize the labor of its constituent producers. Most apparent in the nebulous legal credibility of Mashups, the mix exists predominantly within an economy of care. Unfortunately, the digital turn toward playlisting conspires to render the labor of care, in this context, invisible.

Borrowed from downloadatoz.com

Is there hope for iTunes? Can we trust our playlists to be received with the love that was put into them? Some theorists like Hardt (1999) see an upside to caring labor. As he points out in his essay, Affective Labor,  “Caring labor is certainly entirely immersed in the corporeal, the somatic, but the affects it produces are nonetheless immaterial. What affective labor produces are social networks, forms of community, biopower” (p. 96). Sharing is caring, the accessibility and ease of production that playlisting provides, is, at least, a way to foster community. I am not so optimistic. For caring labor is not adequately valued, at least not in the context of building a playlist. Playlists rely on an audience to value them, they provide no guarantees. The labor at stake in their construction may only become visible to those who listen. The cassette mix, on the other hand, has care inscribed into its magnetic tape. The listener knows that some work has been put into making the mix, even before play is pressed.

Although cassette tapes may have all but disappeared as a way to share music, the caring labor involved in their production might be salvaged in other forms. Taking a page from Andreas Duus Pape’s recent, Building Intimate Performance Venue’s on the Internet, podcasts (produced on platforms like Garageband or Audacity), provide a viable alternative. Like cassettes, they subject their listeners to a linear play style. And, there is a certain degree of care taken by the producer when splicing, cross-fading, arranging, and sequencing a set of tracks. It is implicit in the construction of a Podcast that some degree of care was taken during its development. Of course, I will keep the cassette player in my car. I have a special tape adaptor, which lets it play music from my iPod.

-
Aaron Trammell is co-founder and multimedia editor of Sounding Out! He is also a Media Studies PhD student at Rutgers University.

It’s Our Blog-O-Versary 2.0!

..........Click the Cassette Tape to Download Our Free Blog-O-Versary 2.0 Mix!........ (Image by miss_rogue; tunes suggested by our writers and editors!)

Happy Blog-O-Versary 2.0 to our amazing community of writers, readers, and listeners! Sounding Out! has finished an incredible second year of growth, exploration, and accomplishment.  ‘Scuse us while we blow our own vuvuzela a bit:

·      We Got Organized: Can we re-introduce you to our editorial collective: Jennifer Stoever-Ackerman (Editor-in-Chief and Guest Posts Editor), Liana Silva (Managing Editor), and Aaron Trammell (Multimedia Editor)? Thanks!

·      We Got Regular: Every Monday @ 9:00 EST, you’ll see a new post up on the site. You’ll also notice two new regular contributors on our rotation, Osvaldo Oyola Ortega, and Andreas Duus Pape.

·      We Hosted Guests: This year ­Sounding Out! began dedicating the last Monday of each month to guest writers from across the field and the globe (shoutout to Binaural in Lisbon, Portugal!). SO! has worked hard to recruit the finest work from a variety of voices— artists, professors, graduate students, sound practitioners like singers and radio voices —as well as introducing you to the up-and-coming scholars in the field.  You know that special sound studies issue of American Quarterly  (edited by Josh Kun and Kara Keeling) that you can’t wait to get your hands on? We can’t either, but until September rolls around, read postings from four of the contributors on Sounding Out! : Tara Rodgers, Nina Sun Eidsheim, Dolores Inés Casillas, and our own Jennifer Stoever-Ackerman.  To see the full line-up of our bad ass writing roster, click here. We couldn’t be more thrilled with our guests and we look forward to more.

·      We’ve Been Linked:  Not only have we been added to many excellent blogrolls, like  Designing Sound, Weird VibrationsPreservation Soundand Hear is Queer,  but posts from Sounding Out! have been mentioned in Media Watch, Pandagon, threadbared, Sonic Terrain, Blogging Ethnomusicologists, Parallax View, Pullquote, The Long Harvest, True Chip Till Deathand Game Culture.

·      We Pushed Our Coverage:  Thanks to the brilliant work (and excellent prose) of our writers, we sounded out even more audio-cultural terrain this year in the contexts of  queer studies, politics, hip-hop, television, film, sound art, sound walks, comics, and audio technologies both digital (ipad, video games) and analog (tape recording, synthesizers). We even dabbled briefly into the sound of #tigerblood but we swear we can stop at any time.

·      We’ve Had Beef:  You wanted head-to-head posts debating the cultural meaning of Bob Seger? Girl Talk and Mash-Up Culture? Classical Music? The Sounds of the Southern Black Church? Yeah, we hosted all that.

·      We Were There: Editor-In-Chief Jennifer Stoever-Ackerman scoured the programs of the national meetings of three major academic organizations (the American Studies Association, the Modern Language Association, and the Society for Cinema and Media Studies) to give you the freshest picks in sound studies research presentations.   Look for expanded coverage (and more live-tweeting!) in the upcoming year.

·      We Became More Searchable:  Hey, folks, our soundwalk is a marathon, not a sprint.  Dedicated more than ever to becoming your long-term go-to guide for emerging thought in sound studies, our Managing Editor Liana Silva has been working hard to preserve Sounding Out!’s back catalogue by keeping older posts current with our newer categories so you can always find everything that you need.

·      We Branched Out: You can now add us on Networked Blogs, subscribe to us on iTunes, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook!  Not only will you receive information on our latest releases, but our feeds also feature live-tweeting from sound studies events and feature links to all sorts of interesting info for sound heads. Think of us like your own sound studies clipping service; we are always listening.
.
·      We Started Podcasting: While our audiovisual explorations remain the keynote of Sounding Out!, we decided to expand into the sonic dimension by producing a podcast series.  Our first podcast is a lecture and Q-and-A by Peter DiCola, co-author of Creative License (with Kembrew McLeod) and the guest writer who brought you “What We Talk About When We Talk Girl Talk”.   The second is a self-reflexive inquiry into why people podcast, by Andreas Duus Pape called “Building Intimate Performance Venues on the Internet.”  And the third? Our annual Blog-O-Versary Mix-Tape, a Team Sounding Out! collabo produced and engineered by Multimedia Editor Aaron Trammell on the theme “Awesome Sounds from a Future Boombox.” You can download it for free here or on iTunes, where you can also subscribe to our series.
.
·      We Called You Out: Hit these links if you’d like to pitch a guest post or a podcast and become part of Team Sounding Out!  We are also kicking off a special “Call for Posts” competition for our 2011 Halloween guest slot and we would love for you to give us your sonic tricks and audio treats.  Pitches are due September 1st.  Click here for complete details.

Awesome Sounds From a Future Boombox (photo by Katie Dureault)

·      We Listen to You!: Never content to ride out the same groove, Sounding Out! wants to bring it even harder in year 3.0.  That’s why we are passing the mic to you, Dear Listeners, and asking you to complete our (very brief) Survey Monkey survey to find out how our site has been resonating with you and what we can do to fine-tune the vibe even more.  Think of our killer Blog-O-Versary 2.0 mix, “Awesome Sounds from a Future Boombox” as a thank you bonus for your time as well as the soundtrack for what is already shaping up to be another great year together.  Let’s rock on into the future with our bad selves.

Click here for Sounding Out!‘s Blog-O-Versary Survey

 

Click here for Sounding Out!‘s Blog-O-Versary 2.0 mix with track listing

(Just in case you missed last year’s party–and mix–click here)

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Like This!

What Mixtapes Can Teach Us About Noise: Reading Shannon and Weaver in 2010

One of the most consistently fascinating aspects of sound culture studies is an exploration of the redemptive characteristics of noise. Instead of assuming a dismissive attitude toward the role of noise in society (See our exposé on John Leicester and vuvuzelas), or an uncritical but positive stance (Marianetti, 1909, “The Futurist Manifesto“), sound culture scholars work to provide a reflexive perspective which contextualizes the various nuances of noise in all aspects of society. In a recent seminar, focusing around communication, media, and information science, I was provided with an excerpt from Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver’s 1949 book, The Mathematical Theory of Communication. This was a dry but exciting read; it was a very influential text. Not only did academics specializing in communication theory explore it because of how well it helped to define transmission model communication, but Bell Labs funded Claude Shannon and used his research to help establish the global information networks on which we rely today. Telephone wires, cellular transmissions, modems and even instructional manuals all owe this work a debt of gratitude. Simply put, Shannon and Weaver explain that less noise results in a better transmission, so several mathematical algorithms are posited to reduce noise in communication technology.

The Mathematical Theory of Communication, pg.7

The present day information society has defined itself, and has even been constructed upon technologies which require noise reducing mathematical algorithms. These algorithms are so prevalent that we rely on them every day without necessarily noticing or understanding them. As a researcher, I wonder where people embrace noise, as these sites provide clues to the limits of information’s value. Although I can think of many, in light of our recent Blog-O-Versary Mix!, I choose to examine one of my most treasured – the mixtape. The mixtape exemplifies a site of resistance specifically because it is 1)a measureably inferior sonic format to CD, MP3 and vinyl, and 2) often mixtapes are used to encode messages meant for an ideal listener. The communities, couples and individuals who circulate mixtapes embrace its status as an obsolete technology, – they perceive its affiliations with noise as a strength, a contour, definition. Mixtapes are a form of symbolic currency where the message is often secondary to the communal connotations encouraged by its form. Noise can be read as a tactic, a space of densly coded inferences which resist traditional modes of authority. To understand a mixtape is to understand the community and contexts within which it circulates; no other explanation could ever prove adequate.

Shannon and Weaver constructed noise as a problem for communication in 1949, and this has certainly had a strong impact on the term’s meaning, supporting its negative connotations even today. Noise is a space of social resistance and identification, an organic model of social encoding and decoding where authority is subverted to a subcultural set of rules and rituals. Reading Shannon and Weaver makes me question the sociological: how indebted is today’s society to information, and does noise truly serve as a foil?

Here’s the essay Claude Shannon Submitted to Bell Labs: A Mathematical Theory of Communication.

Cassette From My Ex is a site which explores some sites of identification in information resistance.

AT

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Like This!