Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T11:10:57.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pop Materialising: Layers and topological space in digital pop music

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 August 2022

Anders Reuter
Anders Reuter*
Affiliation:
Independent researcher and writer.
*
Email: andersreuter@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article argues that pop music’s increasing assimilation of hip-hop and EDM (electronic dance music) practices combine with computational automation and this has substantial consequences for musical space. Traditional ‘space-makers’ such as reverb or delay are subject to other functions such as frequency filters and compression that interrelate processual layers of textures. Instead of an active-listener-orientated sonic space with distinct source-bonded entities, it is based on a particular sonic materiality. With a new media theoretical approach, I consequently argue that this new type of space can better be understood as a mediatised topological materiality.

Type
Article
Information
Organised Sound , Volume 27 , Issue 1: Commercial Music and the Electronic Music Studio – Influence, Borrowings and Language , April 2022 , pp. 59 - 68
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Bergson, H. [1889] 2004. Time and Free Will: An Essay on the Immediate Data of Consciousness. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Brøvig-Hanssen, R. and Danielsen, A. 2013. The Naturalised and the Surreal: Changes in the Perception of Popular Music Sound. Organised Sound 18 (1): 71–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brøvig-Hanssen, R. and Danielsen, A. 2016. Digital Signatures: The Impact of Digitization on Popular Music Sound. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, M. J. 2006. Unlocking the Groove: Rhythm, Meter, and Musical Design in Electronic Dance Music. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Butler, M. J. 2014. Playing with Something That Runs: Technology, Improvisation, and Composition in DJ and Laptop Performance. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chapman, D. 2017. ‘That Ill, Tight Sound’: Telepresence and Biopolitics in Post-Timbaland Rap Production’. In Perchard, T. (ed.) From Soul to Hip-hop. London: Routledge, 177–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, E. F. 2005. Ways of Listening: An Ecological Approach to the Perception of Musical Meaning. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cox, C. 2011. Beyond Representation and Signification: Toward a Sonic Materialism. Journal of Visual Culture 10(2): 145–61.10.1177/1470412911402880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Errico, M. 2015. Off the Grid: Instrumental Hip-Hop and Experimentalism after the Golden Age. In Williams, J. A. (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Hip-Hop. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 280–91.Google Scholar
Devine, A. and Hodgson, J. 2017. Mixing In/and Modern Electronic Music Production. In Hepworth-Sawyer, R. and Hodgson, J. (eds.) Mixing Music. New York: Routledge, 153–69.Google Scholar
Fink, R. 1999. Going Flat: Post-Hierarchical Music Theory and the Musical Surface. In Cook, N. and Everist, M. (eds.) Rethinking Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 102–37.Google Scholar
Fisher, M. 2016. The Weird and the Eerie. London: Repeater Books.Google Scholar
Future Music. 2012. Interview: Calvin Harris on Software, Hardware and Hit-Making. MusicRadar. www.musicradar.com/news/tech/interview-calvin-harris-on-software-hardware-and-hit-making-530744 (accessed 21 July 2020).Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Godøy, R. I. 2009. Gestural Affordances of Musical Sound. In Godøy, R. I. and Leman, M. (eds.) Musical Gestures: Sound, Movement, and Meaning. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis Group, 103–25.Google Scholar
Großmann, R. and Hanáček, M. 2016. Sound as Musical Material: Three Approaches to a Material Perspective on Sound and Music. In Papenburg, J. G. and Schulze, H. (eds.) Sound as Popular Culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 53–64.Google Scholar
Grote, F. 2016. Interfaces for Sound: Representing Material in Pop Music Productions. Proceedings at 13th Sound and Music Computing Conference, Hamburg, 193–6.Google Scholar
Harten, Z. Van. (2020). Touching Your Ears : Towards a Materiality of Sonic Intimacy in ASMR Videos. Master thesis, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kassabian, A. 2016. Listening and Digital Technologies. In Papenburg, J. G. and Schulze, H. (eds.) Sound as Popular Culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 197–203.Google Scholar
Krims, A. 2000. Rap Music and the Poetics of Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lacasse, S. 2000. ‘Listen to My Voice’: The Evocative Power of Vocal Staging in Recorded Rock Music. Doctoral dissertation, University of Liverpool.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lawrence, T. 2003. Love Saves the Day: A History of American Dance Music Culture, 1970–1979. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Lury, C. 2017. Proximity as the Moving Ratio of a Topological Culture. In Dinesen, C. R. et al. (eds.) Architecture Drawing Topology. Baunach: AADR/Spurbuchverlag, 31–41.Google Scholar
Lury, C., Parisi, L. and Terranova, T. 2012. Introduction: The Becoming Topological of Culture. Theory, Culture & Society 29(5): 3–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manovich, Lev. 2001. The Language of the New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mcadams, S. and Goodchild, M. 2017. Sound and Timbre. In Ashley, R. and Timmers, R. (eds.) The Routledge Companion to Music Cognition. London: Taylor & Francis, 129–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milner, G. 2010. Perfecting Sound Forever: The Story of Recorded Music. London: Granta Books.Google Scholar
Møller, A. R. 2012. Hearing: Anatomy, Physiology, and Disorders of the Auditory System, 3rd edn. San Diego: Plural Publishing.Google Scholar
Moore, A. F. 1993. Rock: The Primary Text : Developing a Musicology of Rock. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Moore, A. F. 2012. Song Means: Analysing and Interpreting Recorded Popular Song. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Moylan, W. 1992. The Art of Recording: The Creative Resources of Music Production and Audio. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
Moylan, W. 2015. Understanding and Crafting the Mix: The Art of Recording, 3rd edn. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
Poerio, G. L., Blakey, E., Hostler, T. J. and Veltri, T. 2018. More than a Feeling: Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response (Asmr) Is Characterized by Reliable Changes in Affect and Physiology. PLoS ONE 13(6): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Popelka, G. R. and Hunter, L. L. 2013. Diagnostic Measurements and Imaging Technologies for the Middle Ear. In Puria, S. et al. (eds.) The Middle Ear: Science, Otosurgery, and Technology. New York: Springer Science, 211–51.Google Scholar
Reuter, A. 2021. Pop as Process: The Digitalization of Groove, Form and Time. Dancecult: Journal of Electronic Dance Music Culture 13(1): 2–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reuter, A. 2022. Who Let the DAWs Out? The Digital in a New Generation of the Digital Audio Workstation. Popular Music and Society 45 (2): 113–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, T. 1994. Black Noise, Rap Music and Black Culture in Contemporary America. Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
Schloss, J. G. 2004. Making Beats: The Art of Sample-Based Hip-Hop. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, U. 2011. Musik og Design: Phil Spector og Lydfladens Medialisering (Music and Design: Phil Spector and Soundscapes Mediatization). Kultur & Klasse 1(III): 127–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smalley, D. 2007. Space-Form and the Acousmatic Image. Organised Sound 12(1): 35–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Softky, W. 2019. How Science Got Sound Wrong. Fair Observer. www.fairobserver.com/more/science/neil-young-vinyl-lp-records-digital-audio-science-news-william-softky-39078/?fbclid=IwAR3tXKmspHTpbEORDH25GITBTRON9vfZt5yqigYN8WZl4WSAQE7SiiDyV4I (accessed 20 July 2020).Google Scholar
Solberg, R. T. 2014. ‘Waiting for the Bass to Drop’: Correlations between Intense Emotional Experiences and Production Techniques in Build-up and Drop Sections of Electronic Dance Music. Dancecult 6(1): 61–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sterne, J. 2014. ‘What Do We Want?’ ‘Materiality!’ ‘When Do We Want It?’ ‘Now!’ In Gillespie, T., Boczkowski, P. J. and Foot, K. A. (eds.) Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society. Cambridge, MAs: MIT Press, 119–28.Google Scholar
Sterne, J. 2015. Space within Space: Artificial Reverb and the Detachable Echo. Grey Room (Summer): 110–31.Google Scholar
Taylor, R. W. 2017. Hyper-Compression in Music Production: Agency, Structure and the Myth That ‘Louder Is Better’. Journal on the Art of Record Production (11). www.arpjournal.com/asarpwp/hyper-compression-in-music-production-agency-structure-and-the-myth-that-louder-is-better (accessed 6 March 2020).Google Scholar
Théberge, P. 2016. Listening as Gesture and Movement Introduction: The Look of Sound. In Papenburg, J. G. and Schulze, H. (eds.) Sound as Popular Culture: A Research Companion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 243–9.Google Scholar
Tingen, P. 2012. Noah ‘40’ Shebib: Recording Drake’s ‘Headlines’. Sound on Sound. www.soundonsound.com/techniques/noah-40-shebib-recording-drakes-headlines (accessed 7 July 2020).Google Scholar
Vickers, E. 2010. The Loudness War: Background, Speculation and Recommendations. 129th Audio Engineering Society Convention 1: 135–61.Google Scholar
Wong, M.-S. 2013. Listening to EDM: Sound Object Analysis and Vital Materialism. Volume! 10(1): 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zagorski-Thomas, S. 2010. Real and Unreal Performances: The Interaction of Recording Technology and Rock Drum Kit Performance. In Danielsen, A., Hawkins, S. and Burns, L. (eds.) Musical Rhythm in the Age of Digital Reproduction. Farnham: Taylor & Francis, 195–212.Google Scholar
Zagorski-Thomas, S. 2014. The Musicology of Record Production. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zak, A. J. III 2001. The Poetics of Rock: Cutting Tracks, Making Records. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Zeiner-Henriksen, H. T. 2010. The ‘Poumtchak’ Pattern: Correspondences between Rhythm, Sound, and Movements in Electronic Dance Music. Doctoral dissertation. University of Oslo.Google Scholar

VIDEOGRAPHY

Native Instruments. 2016. Noah ‘40’ Shebib on Producing Drake. www.youtube.com/watch?v=cl23qnQQ3J0 (accessed 31 July 2020).Google Scholar