 |
 |
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 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%