VOICE HAS MANY SPECTRAL COMPONENTS
VOICE IN HARMONIC SINGING HAS PLENTY OF GRAIN
VOICE IN EMPHATIC SPEECH HAS PLENTY OF GRAIN
N.BOBBITT
>From: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
>To: [log in to unmask]
>CC: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Against the Grain
>Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 16:15:44 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
>
>This discussion of 'grain' seems to be a rather lonely business - and I
>think with good reason. I'm not even sure that I go along with Barthes
>notion of grain at all. It seems to me the voice doesn't have 'grain',
>but rather that the grain is the voice itself. The voice doesn't have
>grain - it simply has voice. The voice is that which is voiced.
>
>Even if you don't agree with me on this one, re-grafting the visual
>notion of grain back onto the visual of film via a shaky sonic concept
>is problematic, even if we think it might eventually have value as an
>exercise. Concepts, metaphors, conceptualisations can't be simply
>handed from the sonic to the visual and made to fit - we are always
>talking about something else, we always have to begin again. Sarat
>Maharaj has talked of the notion of cultural translation, and of our
>misconception of translation as being something akin to stacking sheets
>of glass one on top of another. Here, I think the problem is with the
>original choice by Barthes of the notion of grain. The problem lies in
>how he was 'translating' the sonic into the written by way of the
>visual. So it seems to me we're stuck with this crappy word and we're
>being lead along by it. If there's something there in film we haven't
>thought about previously, then all well and good. But searching for
>the 'true' grain of film seems to me a doomed project.
>
>I blame Barthes.
>
>Andy Birtwistle
>----------------------
>[log in to unmask]
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|