Episode 5

Question # 1:
I believe Krukowski wanted to point out that we are naturally affected by music, but the question is if the choice of music is also natural. Big companies like Amazon, Google, Spotify, or other online music servers, serve us all sources of information irresponsibly and are using cookies or other practices to provide or unobtrusively intrude to us the music they wanted to based on whatever is currently most popular or seemingly wanted. That is why are some bands or records pushed aside – marginalized. Then the choice of music we listen to is often affected and not natural. Walking into some store with music doesn’t have to be than just snobbish habits of nowadays, but also our diligence in getting the natural and responsible flow of information and so to form our personalities and opinions.

Question # 2:
Forced Exposure means listening to the opinion of those who listened to all of the available records and wrote about them. People picked what they wanted to listen to based on this information. In contrast, Spotify is choosing for us a source of music based on our listening history by using the algorithms.

Question # 3:
There are algorithms on the internet that are helping us to find precisely what we are looking for. That means no surprises. Spotify is offering the music based on our taste and definitely won’t surprise us with some new kind of music that is not resonating with our current listening history. It is crucial to be aware of that because even Spotify is an efficient tool, it can impoverish our discoveries or experiences. Discovering music can, on the other hand, be very surprising and bring us something new, unexpected, and exciting.

Episode 6

Question # 1:
The signal is one part of the sound on which is our hearing apparatus concentrating at the specific moment the most. Noise is considered all the other sounds going on around, which we don’t care about at the moment. These sounds can be manipulated in the recording studio, by removing all the unwanted noises and adding loudness to these that are chosen as the signal.

Question # 2:
Even the sound considered as noise can be essential in order to get the right impression from music. Manipulation of the sounds in the record studios can be very beneficial to us to listen to the noises of music clearly and as a part of the production.

Question # 3:
In all the episodes, including the one about the noise, are finding out what impact has the digital technologies on our hearing, sensing of sounds and music, and also its impact on our society. Digital technologies are adjusting the sound we are receiving or helping us to avoid what we don’t want to listen at all. Our perception of sound is changed and much less natural. The episodes are exploring these differences and the questions if it is a good or bad thing. We might get more clear sound, but in the end, the digitalized music is already some kind of reproduction, and in my opinion, it will never be the same as the live experience. Also, from all of the episodes, I got the expression that digital and modern technologies are dividing us from each other and creating more distance.

Question # 1:

The microphone provides more authentic experience for the listener, mainly thanks to the sounds in the background and all aspects of the individual voice or environment. The digital transmitting of the voice thru the cell phone is cutting off all nuances of the voice, same as the other sounds, voices, etc. that are happening around us. The microphone allows the speaker to present the mood, exact color of the voice, nuances naturally recognized in the voice as the energy of the person who is talking into the mike. The main purpose of the cell phone is just transmission of the voice without any disturbing elements as clear as possible, only as of the communication canal on very fundamental basics, helping just to understand the message as clearly as it is possible.

Question # 2:

The musical qualities of the voice are even about all the imperfections which are adding extra special value to the voice. Concentration on the tone of the voice and listening deeply, trying to read between the lines and learn more about the speaker. Not only words are important to understand everything. It is one of the natural abilities of the human to use music as a language. Digital transmission is concentrating on the message and clear grammar throughout the far distances. But it’s missing the personal quality and the sense of connection.

Question # 3:

We can listen to the voices or music across the world thru digital transmission. But even it is a very practical and significant possibility, there is still a huge difference if you connect with people and can communicate in person. The emotions, extra feelings that we can experience during live communications are unique and noninterchangeable because they easily transmit to our memories and cooperating with our other senses.

Question # 4:
I think that the digital sharing of musical files is all right. It is a different experience than the live concert, which is usually very expensive. I had the chance to listen to the Czech symphonic orchestra playing in the theater live, but when I listened to the very same thing online, it was never the same experience. I want to say by this, that without the internet, I would have not even idea what the classic music is about or if I want to hear it alive, pay for the concert and share the moment. That is why I think that sharing music digitally could be beneficial for the listeners and the artists as well.

Question # 5:
The music itself is a very important part of our lives. We could have always communicated thru music. In the past, when the languages were not developed yet, and today we can introduce or communicate the different cultures or opinions between each other and thanks to the digital world even across the entire world. Music is connecting people on the multi-sensual level, creating memories, expressing different ideas, opinions, and idealism. It is a big question, if sharing musical files should be charged or not, in the end, I think it should be up to the artists individually.

Ways of Hearing, Episode 1 & 2

Question #1:
The significant difference between experiencing the real world versus the digital time is related to space and time. If we are experiencing the real world, we are in the present moment, part of what is happening around us. In NYC, for instance, we can hear walking people, somebody talking, cars passing by, beeping of cars, barking dogs, etc. We can experience the moment and its atmosphere, the energy of the short while, including sharing the ambiance with people around us, feeling, and sensing similar sentiments. On the other hand, the digital time is practically locking us into our bubbles. We are distanced from the sound and the real energy of the environment. Thanks to the digital gadgets we can manipulate the atmosphere, and drown the real sound with some other, which is better fitting our imagination about the possible sounds of the current environment. Thanks to the digital world, we can adjust the atmosphere to feel better at the moment, but at the same time, losing the authenticity of the sharing of space and time with others.

Question #2:
I think that Krukowski wanted to say that listening to what is going on around us is very important. We can sense the energy of the space base on the sounds as well. We are not listening to our environment, and we are losing real connection with space. For example, if we walk down the streets with headsets on, we won’t hear the beeping car or shouting person, or possibly even something positive, what could attract our attention.

Question #3:
They were talking about public space today and back in the ’70s. And about the difference between how New Yorkers could use all the public space today and how it was back in time. In the ’70s, public space was for everybody and free expression of oneself. People were, for example, skateboarding on the street and a little further along the way, there was a street band. People could use public space as they pleased. That’s how New York and its public spaces were and how they were used. Today, if anybody will try to do something like that, they will be probably noticed by a security guy from some of the stores around and will be asked to go away, like, for instance, at the Astor Place. Today, we can use only specific places for specific activities and we are told where we can do certain things. The freedom of expression is, in a way, almost gone.

Question #4:
Concert halls were developed and designed for the sound distance from the street/city sounds to be able to hear the music or actors. It was isolation for better sound. Thanks to these halls, we created space, where we can enjoy the not interrupted music. But the earplugs are creating our own space in our heads. It is a different dimension. Earplugs are providing the space free of the noises, but also free of other people and are robbing us of the shared experience with all the other possible sounds added to the memories.

Question #6:
I think the key ideas were related to the fact, that by creating a personal bubble around ourselves by listening to some of the music in our earplugs, we have different sensing of the specific space or happening around us. The picture of our surroundings could be manipulated by the music, that we are listening to in our earplugs. If I imagine watching the streets of NYC while listening to some death metal music, it will create a different memory about the city then if I would listen, for example, Frank Sinatra or just the city sounds itself. But what is important the most is that we are more stalled from the natural environment and our instincts by this, and it is having a bigger impact on us. We don’t know how to socialize as we used to. We share fewer experiences, we don’t talk to strangers, hence we are losing a chance to get some nice memories and interactions. In the end, our experience of life is unnecessarily impoverished.

Question #1:
Customers are influenced by advertising because they are surrounded by them everywhere they go. All kind of these images are an integral part of our lives and that is why is practically impossible to completely avoid them. We are swallowed by the commercials, and all of those images are stimulating our imagination. Propagation of the product appeals and concentrates on the viewers’ ego. The purpose of the modern way of how we perceive the pictures is to make us believe, that if we get a specific product, not only we could become better people, but we will become the most precious pleasure of the company/society. The only thing we have to do is spend our money and possessed the goods, but that is very misleading and false.

Question #2:
In the old oil paintings, there wasn’t a pictured way, how the person achieved the success or assets. It was rather a celebration of already achieved success. According to Berger, advertising is promoting the product itself but in some desired context of life to attract a buyer. It is very important because many of us unconsciously believe, that by buying the advertised product we buy the acceptance of society as well as a certain lifestyle. I think that nowadays we think success is mainly about possessing some goods and that is not good.

Question #3
A good example of what Berger used was skin. By purchasing promoted products, we are not going to look more beautiful, as it is pictured in the commercials. But many people are imagining, that by buying and using that product their skin and also themselves, will become more desirable and in the center of the attention of others. They believe they will become more popular. But unfortunately, they just became manipulated by the nice pictures.

Question #1

The importance of the difference is about the perception of the nudity of the pictured women. Are we looking at them as at the sexual objects or the objects to be judged? Or, on the contrary, are we looking at naked women as at them, just for their simple being, without any male interference or interest and judgment? In my opinion, these differences apply to images of today’s western society in a very similar way as back then. Ladies are in an all-source of media often presented as an object, in position to try to catch the attention by the visual perception by looking submissive, available, and ready.

Question #2

The role of the women depicted as a beautiful thing to look at, whose biggest interest is to be pretty for the men. Women were just sexual objects, which were even more attractive if they were submissive without their own opinion, quietly following the men’s demands. The position of women in modern society is more and more equal to the position of men, but we can still see many situations nowadays where are the same old rules still applied. For instance, magazines or photos on social media are presenting women’s nudity without any artistic relevance, or intellectual overlap. Even some very intelligent, successful women still believe that they are not fully accepted by society without positive judgment of their physical beauty by men.

Question #3

The beauty of women was ranked by interest and judgment of men’s enjoyment. Women at the paintings were looking at themselves in the mirror, thinking about how they look and how they are looking at by men. Mirror was also used as a symbol of the vanity of women. The hypocrisy of the men was hidden behind the moral condemn of the women for their vanity in order just to look at the naked women’s body. We can see a kind of parallel between the women naked bodies pictured in old paintings and photos of naked women in every other magazine today. Women are often seeing as a sexual object without any other interest than to be pretty and accepted by men.