Episode 3

  1. According to Krukowski, what are the main differences between a microphone and a cellphone and why is this difference important?
  • All microphones if you speak closely to them, exaggerate the base ear, chest your tone in your voices. And if you back away from them, they highlight the brass ear clearer tones. On the other hand, the sounds of the voices have gotten worse with the switch to digital. We don’t hear each other clearly despite that the miniature mics in our cellphones are sensitive. No matter how close we hold into our mouths, there is no proximity effect in the cell phones. Everyone hears just as near or just as far as everyone else. Cellphones don’t transmit the whole full range of sounds picked up by their mics. Instead, the digitally process that sound compressing it to remove whatever engineers have decided is unnecessary data. Cellphones can transform recordings into mp3, films into YouTube videos. Cellphones are engineered to communicate our words. Roman Mars tried to show the difference between cell phones and microphones. He wanted people to hear what that sound like a difference. He said that the cell phone is a designed quality and so much worse. When calling your being interrupted by something which is sound problem and why lose a chance to sit with somebody and have great moments together because of the cell phone?
  1. What do Krukowski and Gary Tomlinson, the professor he interviews, assert about the “musical” qualities of the voice and how are these changed by digital transmission?
    • Garry Tomlinson believes in our ability to communicate with the nonverbal parts of our voices goes so deep, not only in our memories from childhood, but it’s coded in the genetic makeup of our species. Before we had language, we had utterances with musical qualities that communicated with our ability to survive making social organizations and love. We should encode our language, set it over the internet and make it perceivable. What’s more, what is absent from what gets produced across these technological systems which we have so many these days. Moreover, the miraculous ways in which human beings fill in what is left out. Human beings fill in what is left out hearing you across FaceTime. There’s a lot that is captured from what you’re saying and how you say it. There is a lot of stuff that aren’t there and yet we’re projecting into it, we’re hearing it and instructing you in a way as you are can instruct me, this is an extraordinary capacity. We are always able to recognize voices almost instantaneously even though we are getting a small portion of what these voices would give us if we are standing face to face and hearing them.
  1. What is the significance of Krukowski’s comments on the voice to ideas about community and interpersonal connection?
    • Krukowski’s comments that the digital tools make it possible to share our words across great distances, but he thinks that they fail us in so many ways as we try to communicate one to one. Not often are we often left hanging, speaking into the air on one end and listening to nothing in the other. When it works as it should, the voice of our voice across the digital line is limited. He mentioned that our voices are tripped to the minimum we need so we cannot cross the limits to recognize the voice of the caller and what exactly they are saying.

Episode 4

  1. Krukowski begins by discussing the issue of music file sharing. What is your opinion of this issue? Should music be freely available or should one have to pay? 
    • No one ever had to pay for recorded music, it was always “free” on the radio and the home taping of LPs, the copying of cassettes and CDs made buying music optional. Now, Spotify, SoundCloud and YouTube make music instantly accessible on demand. I don’t think this is fair for the musicians. Musicians invest time, sweat and tears into their music. A chef or a doctor could do the same, yet they are paid for their services. Some people tend to think that being an artist or musician is a hobby not a job. No, it’s a job and every musician or artist should be paid for their work they do. They have a family to take care of so, taking money away from them is like taking their job that they put their whole life into making. I don’t support file sharing at all as artists and musicians take a lot of time and resources to create albums to put out for people to listen to and enjoy and by sharing it online, you’re basically stealing money right out of their pockets. People don’t think about smaller bands who are just getting out there, who don’t have the same money and resources as most big-name artists. These bands must be paid for everything and Traditional musicians, scholars, lawyers, and cultural organizations should work together to change copyright laws.
  2. How does this episode represent the relationships between music, community, and culture?
  • Music helps define who we are, creating our communal self-identity. There are many cultural beliefs and that there are many performance practices and standards. Every community or culture has a way of music and dancing. This diversity enriches our lives, broadens our understanding of the world we live in and deepens our appreciation for the music of our own cultures. Each culture has its own traditions, standards and music. There are many reasons for singing. Some cultures use music as a way of meditation, as a way for diagnosing and healing illnesses. Other cultures don’t use music at all. People should understand the differences between each and every country. These differences between each culture make the world a beautiful place where we should be treated equally.
  1. Does charging money for music impede the formation of communities around this music or does it help support the circulation of music?
  • I think charging money for music helps support the circulation of music. Not paying for something automatically people won’t value it anymore. What’s more, where you spend money shows who you really are. Saying that you love something but not spending money on it is like saying you want a certain candidate to win without voting for them.