Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T01:21:07.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Virtual liveness and sounding cyborgs: John Oswald's ‘Vane’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2012

Paul Sanden
Paul Sanden
Affiliation:
Deparment of Music, University of Lethbridge, 4401 University Drive, Alberta TIK 3M4, Canada E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article presents the concept of virtual liveness and demonstrates its relevance in an analysis of ‘Vane’, one of John Oswald's plunderphonic pieces. It argues that even when encountering a piece of music that lacks a physically co-present audience, lacks largely unmediated acoustic sound and lacks a live performer, the term ‘performance’ may still be usefully applied. In these cases, however, the sense of liveness that invokes this idea of performance is often more virtual than actual. ‘Vane’ sounds not just like a combination of Oswald's two source recordings (Carly Simon's and Faster Pussycat's versions of ‘You're So Vain’), but like a new technological entity: Oswald's manipulations of his source material result in sounds that are decidedly ‘of the machine’, even as they invite us to sing along with Carly Simon's and Faster Pussycat's performances. We enter into a complex network of references between the performances represented in the original recordings and this new, virtual performance – the performance, ultimately, of a sounding cyborg.

Type
Articles
Information
Popular Music , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , January 2012 , pp. 45 - 68
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Auslander, P. 2002. ‘Live from cyberspace: or, I was sitting at my computer this guy appeared he thought I was a bot’, PAJ: A Journal of Performance and Art, 24/1, pp. 16–21Google Scholar
Auslander, P. 2005. ‘At the Listening Post, or, do machines perform?’, International Journal of Performance Arts and Digital Media, 1/1, pp. 5–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auslander, P. 2008. Liveness: Performance in a Mediatized Culture, 2nd edn (London and New York, Routledge)Google Scholar
Balsamo, A. 1997. Technologies of the Gendered Body: Reading Cyborg Women (Durham, NC, Duke University Press)Google Scholar
Barthes, R. 1974. S/Z, trans. Miller, R. (New York, Hill and Wang)Google Scholar
Baudrillard, J. 1981. For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign, trans. Levin, C. (St. Louis, Telos Press)Google Scholar
Braidotti, R. 1994. Nomadic Subjects: Embodiment and Sexual Difference in Contemporary Feminist Theory (New York, Columbia University Press)Google Scholar
Burston, J. 1998. ‘Theatre space as virtual place: audio technology, the reconfigured singing body, and the megamusical’, Popular Music, 17/2, pp. 205–18Google Scholar
Corbett, J. 1990. ‘Free, single, and disengaged: listening pleasure and the popular music object’, October, 54, pp. 79–101Google Scholar
Cumming, N. 2000. The Sonic Self: Musical Subjectivity and Signification (Bloomington, Indiana University Press)Google Scholar
Cutler, C. 1993a. ‘The residents’, in File Under Popular: Theoretical and Critical Writings on Music (Brooklyn, Autonomedia), pp. 75–85Google Scholar
Cutler, C. 1993b. ‘What is popular music?’, in File Under Popular: Theoretical and Critical Writings on Music (Brooklyn, Autonomedia), pp. 3–17Google Scholar
Doyle, P. 2005. Echo and Reverb: Fabricating Space in Popular Music Recording, 1900–1960 (Middletown, Wesleyan University Press)Google Scholar
Emmerson, S. 1986. ‘The relation of language to materials’, in The Language of Electracoustic Music (Basingstoke, Macmillan), pp. 17–39Google Scholar
Emmerson, S. 2007. Living Electronic Music (Aldershot, Ashgate)Google Scholar
Frith, S. 1981. Sound Effects: Youth, Leisure, and the Politics of Rock ‘n’ Roll (New York, Pantheon)Google Scholar
Gracyck, T. 1996. Rhythm and Noise: An Aesthetics of Rock (Durham, NC, Duke University Press)Google Scholar
Haraway, D. 1991. ‘A cyborg manifesto: science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth century’, in Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature (London, Free Association Books), pp. 149–81Google Scholar
Holm-Hudson, K. 1996. ‘John Oswald's Rubaiyat (Elektrax) and the politics of recombinant do-re-mi’, Popular Music and Society, 20/3, pp. 19–36Google Scholar
Holm-Hudson, K. 1997. ‘Quotation and context: sampling and John Oswald's plunderphonics’, Leonardo Music Journal, 7, pp. 17–25Google Scholar
Jones, A. 1995. Plunderphonics, ‘Pataphysics & Pop Mechanics: An Introduction to Musique Actuelle (Wembley, SAF)Google Scholar
Jones, S. 1993. ‘A sense of space: virtual reality, authenticity and the aural’, Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 10, pp. 238–52Google Scholar
Kenney, W.H. 1999. Recorded Music in American Life: The Phonograph and Popular Memory, 1890–1945 (New York, Oxford University Press)Google Scholar
Leman, M. 2008. Embodied Music Cognition and Mediation Technology (Cambridge, MIT Press)Google Scholar
Manning, P. 2004. Electronic and Computer Music, 2nd edn (Oxford, Oxford University Press)Google Scholar
McGranahan, L. 2010. ‘Mashnography: creativity, consumption, and copyright in the mashup community’, PhD dissertation (Providence, Brown University)Google Scholar
Mead, A. 1999. ‘Bodily hearing: physiological metaphors and musical understanding’, Journal of Music Theory, 43/1, pp. 1–19Google Scholar
Middleton, R. 1990. Studying Popular Music (Philadelphia, Milton Keynes)Google Scholar
Morse, M. 1998. Virtualities: Television, Media Art, and Cyberculture (Bloomington, Indiana University Press)Google Scholar
Norman, K. 2004. ‘Concrete tales and touching times’, in Sounding Art: Eight Literary Excursions through Electronic Music (Aldershot, Ashgate), pp. 3–27Google Scholar
Oswald, J. 2001. ‘Revolutions and Mister Dolly Parton: a vortex of androgyny’, reproduction of article in liner notes accompanying Plunderphonics 69/96 (Pfony), p. 15Google Scholar
Oswald, J., and Igma, N. 2000. ‘Plunderstanding ecophonomics: strategies for the transformation of existing music – an interview by Norm Igma with John Oswald’, in Arcana: Musicians on Music, ed. Zorn, J. (New York, Granary Books), pp. 9–17Google Scholar
Oswald, J., and Igma, N. 2001. Untitled interview, liner notes accompanying Plunderphonics 69/96 (Pfony)Google Scholar
Potter, T. 1996. ‘Concert review of Midori and Joshua Bell’, Strad, 107, pp. 734–5Google Scholar
Sanden, P. 2009. ‘Hearing Glenn Gould's body: corporeal liveness in recorded music’, Current Musicology, 88, pp. 7–34Google Scholar
Sanden, P. (forthcoming). Liveness in Modern Music: Musicians, Technology, and the Perception of Performance (London and New York, Routledge)Google Scholar
Shields, R. 2003. The Virtual (London and New York, Routledge)Google Scholar
Shiga, J. 2007. ‘Copy-and-persist: the logic of mash-up culture’, Critical Studies in Media Communication, 24/2, pp. 93–114Google Scholar
Small, C. 1998. Musicking: The Meanings of Performing and Listening (Middletown, Wesleyan University Press)Google Scholar
Smalley, D. 1986. ‘Spectro-morphology and structuring processes’, in The Language of Electroacoustic Music, ed. Emmerson, S. (Basingstoke, Macmillan), pp. 61–93Google Scholar
Smalley, D. 1992. ‘The listening imagination: listening in the electroacoustic era’, in Companion to Contemporary Musical Thought, Vol. i, ed. Paynter, J., Howell, T., Orton, R. and Seymour, P. (London and New York, Routledge), pp. 514–54Google Scholar
Sterne, J. 2003. The Audible Past: Cultural Origins of Sound Reproduction (Durham, NC, Duke University Press)Google Scholar
Thoresen, L., and Hedman, A. 2007. ‘Spectromorphological analysis of sound objects: an adaptation of Pierre Schaeffer's typomorphology’, Organised Sound, 12/2, pp. 129–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Todd, N. 1995. ‘The kinematics of musical expression’, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97/3, pp. 1940–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toynbee, J. 2000. Making Popular Music: Musicians, Creativity and Institutions (London, Arnold)Google Scholar
Turner, V. 1974. Dramas, Fields and Metaphors (Ithaca, Cornell University Press)Google Scholar
Walser, R. 1993. Running with the Devil: Power, Gender, and Madness in Heavy Metal Music (Hanover, Wesleyan University Press)Google Scholar
Windsor, L. 2000. ‘Through and around the acousmatic: the interpretation of electroacoustic sounds’, in Music, Electronic Media and Culture, ed. Emmerson, S. (Aldershot, Ashgate), pp. 7–35Google Scholar
Zak, A. 2001. The Poetics of Rock: Cutting Tracks, Making Records (Berkeley, University of California Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Discography

Babin, Magali, ‘Petit jardin’. The Freest of Radicals. No Type, IMNT 0201/02. 2002Google Scholar
Simon, Carly, ‘You're So Vain’, No Secrets. Elektra, 75049-2. 1972Google Scholar
Lee, Curtis, ‘Pretty Little Angel Eyes’. Pretty Little Angel Eyes. Collectables, 9152. 1996Google Scholar
Pussycat, Faster, ‘You're So Vain’. Rubáiyát: Elektra's 40th Anniversary. Elektra, 960940-2. 1990Google Scholar
Oswald, John, Plexure. Avan, 016. 1993Google Scholar
Oswald, John, Plunderphonics 69/96. Pfony, 069/96. 2001Google Scholar
Oswald, John, ‘Pre Plex’ Streaming audio file (unspecified formet), <http://www.pfony.com/PerPlex/index.html> Accessed 5 August 2010+Accessed+5+August+2010>Google Scholar