haturner

April 8, 2019 by haturner

Dining at Davidson: How What We Hear Decides Where We Eat

Abstract

There comes three times in a Davidson student’s day where they make a vital decision on how they will fill their sleep deprived, empty bellies. Most of the time it’s actually only twice (exclude the pre-8:30 a.m. class breakfast). There are, however, a limited amount of options when it comes to this decision. For on-campus dining, Union and Commons are the only two choices. However, when a student makes the daring decision to escape the barriers of Davidson’s campus and enter the town of Davidson’s Main Street, there becomes options galore for dining purposes. One of the most popular destinations for Davidson students is The Famous Toastery. When I embarked on my journey to explore these three different locations, I focused on the different audial connotations and how they each shaped my experience. Bringing in critical context from R. Murray Schafer and Emily Thompson as well as Richard Cullen Rath, I wanted to find out if what I observed and heard in these three spaces gave me a better understanding as to why a Davidson student would choose one over the other on any given day. Each location brought me to very different conclusions, and I found that the audial surroundings in each definitely do affect our decisions, whether we realize it or not.

Each of the three dining options has a very different cultural atmosphere. The histories, physical set up, and social life all contribute to making each space unique. I had some preconceived notions of what each space would tell me going in. However, I allowed myself to focus on what I heard in tandem with what I saw, leading to my conclusions and analysis. R. Murray Schafer emphasizes my understanding by explaining that “a soundscape consists of events heard not objects seen” (Schafer 99). I intended to let my hearing lead the way.

The Alvarez Student Union is full of socializing students, moving back and forth from the cafe itself and to their tables full of friends. However, there remains a cohort of students who use Union as a study space. They sit quietly on their laptops, headphones in, focused on the work at hand. The unique audial choices offer such different experiences: one is full of inaudible chatter and distinct soundmarks, like the yelling of random names like “Jim” or “Sarah” from the chef behind the counter that fill the space with life. According to Schafer, a soundmark “possesses qualities which make it specially regarded or noticed by the people in that community” (Schafer 101). The repeated yelling of these names is heard and noticed by everyone in the cafe, adding to the audial experience of dining in Union. The other audial choice is filled with the music and privacy the headphones give the student, blocking them out from the hectic surroundings. I, for one, chose the more social option of the two and stuck myself right in the middle of Union at a table.

At first, it was hard for me to decipher certain voices and conversations. The open floor plan of Union allows for voices to travel far and wide, creating a space full of indistinct noise. Shafer defines these noises as “the sounds we have learned to ignore” (Schafer 95). I realized this to be true; as I sat at my table, everything seemed to blend together; however, after truly focusing in on my listening, I could pull out different and specific conversations that the people around me were partaking in. I heard a few upperclassmen discussing their “March Madness brackets,” as a friend of mine, William Yeo, strolled by and said hello. He seemed to be in a hurry as he walked towards the doors that led outside to the football field. I then realized that many of the people in Union were only partial occupants; many of them were in and out: grabbing a snack or picking something up. Most of them were out in a matter of minutes, hardly contributing to the soundscape itself at all, keeping to themselves and exiting the premise. I heard the different keynotes: the distant sound of the piano and tv. Schafer describes keynotes as sounds that “are overheard but cannot be overlooked, for keynote sounds become listening habits in spite of themselves” (Schafer 100). All of these sounds contributed and butted into the broader conversing that dominated the space. These people who decided to stay and converse filled the space with energy and vitality, making Union a unique soundscape with three distinctly different experiences unfolding into one environment.

As I travelled to my next location, Vail Commons, I walked in thinking about the unique social and historical context Commons offers compared to other dining options. Commons is somewhat of a landmark on campus, being one of the most recognizable and popular buildings for students and visitors alike. It is also one of the older buildings on campus and has a richer and longer history than that of Union, contributing to a more communal feel. As I walked in and began listening at my table, I noticed the larger groups of people that filled the seats around me. Commons is set up with long tables that seat around 20 people, and many of these tables fill up as bigger groups of friends, teammates, and classmates sit together and form more group oriented conversations. As I focused on my listening, it was harder to pull out distinct conversations and soundmarks. Similarly to Union, Commons has a wide open floor plan, allowing for sound to travel and mix together and create a soundscape that is full of noise. “Like a landscape, a soundscape is simultaneously a physical environment and a way of perceiving that environment” (Thompson 117). Thompson argues here that the physical space around what I hear affects how we hear things. This physical set up, combined with the larger conversations, created an environment that emphasized community more so than Union. I noticed people coming in in flocks, listening to large groups of at least 5 or 6 students who seemed to share some type of connection. Whether it was a group of teammates after practice or a large group of friends after class, it was clear that these groups planned together to eat at Commons. One asked, “How did that test go for you? I thought it was hard.” Immediately, different replies were given by his classmates, all discussing their experience that happened minutes before. I then turned to my left to hear the laughters of multiple students come together to create a simultaneous laugh, one you hear on corny television shows with the automated recordings of laughter. I then was interrupted by a keynote, the clattering of pans and dishes behind the serving counters as chefs and servers worked in close quarters to the students who ate only feet away from their workspace. It quickly became apparent to me that Commons brought a more communal atmosphere than Union did. No one was in and out for a snack or even silently typing away at their computers. It was a space encompassed by group and community, arguably the only place on campus that offers this type of environment, making Commons an extremely unique addition to Davidson’s campus and dining options.

Lastly, and possibly the most different option of the three, The Famous Toastery was my last destination for my analysis. First and foremost, leaving Davidson’s campus will automatically cause a different experience for students. Straying away from the privacy of a small liberal arts campus and going into the public adds a new level to the dining experience. When I walked into Toast, I first noticed the lack of students there. Although there were a few familiar faces here and there, the restaurant was filled with adults and families who come from outside the bubble of Davidson College. The lay out of the restaurant immediately presented a different audial experience than that of Union or Commons. Tables of only two to four people, rarely bigger than that, were close together and compact, filling a small room and tight space. As I sat down at a table for two with my friend, I quickly noticed how easy it was to pick up on nearby conversations. The table next to us, inhabited by a young man and woman (probably high school age) as well as their mother, discussed the boy’s last basketball game, going over his performance and the team’s win. I was interrupted by a signal coming from our waitress, asking us what we would like to drink. “Signals are foreground sounds… which must be listened to because they constitute acoustic warning devices” (Schafer 101). After she left, I heard her ask the same question to the aforementioned family, coming to the realization that although her generic question may have been a signal for me, it can become a soundmark when not directed towards my table. I would actively listen to her question when it was asked towards me, but would only notice it if asked towards another table. Consequently, the smaller room made the sounds that the customers produced louder, but the conversations were more private. It didn’t feel like a group affair where everyone in the restaurant shared similar experiences, but rather was encompassed by several separate individual conversations taking place all around me. I heard laughter coming from different tables, the setting down of plates and glasses nearby, and the cash register clinging when ringing up an order. Everything was easier to hear, but harder to contribute to. While being more of an investment to patronize for a Davidson student in terms of distance and money, Toast offers a more privatized environment that caters to people who desire to eat and converse with one or two other individuals. For these reasons, the Famous Toastery is very distinct from the other two on-campus choices.

After visiting and listening to these different soundscapes, I first thought about how my experience shaped my conclusions. For instance, there is a stark difference between what I came to see versus what I came to hear. My initial findings and conclusions were based on what I observed with the people who made up the soundscape; however, these inclinations were either shifted or confirmed after solely focusing on what I heard. For instance, the people coming in and out of union: that was observed by my own eyes; however, the large conversations I listened to at Commons were heard by my ears. I combined these different observations and listenings to create what I thought was a good synopsis of each location. When focusing on the physical space itself I pondered the idea of how the set up of the area was chosen. Were Commons and Union purposely set up to create an environment that pushed community? Or was what I heard the reason for this set up? I wanted to pay close attention to how that affected my experience. Richard Cullen Rath discusses the origins of this acoustic observation when examining the past historians who studied it: “They carefully attended to the audible world when they created and shaped public–and in some cases, not so public–spaces” (Rath 131). Although it is hard to come to a sound conclusion on this question, the debate itself aided in my understanding of my surroundings. Clearly Commons and Union share many similarities in terms of being large spaces that push community and togetherness. However, what I discovered was that there are many different types of audial experiences in each location. Would a hungry Davidson student who needed to finish a paper go to Commons or Union? The answer can’t be blanketed over the entire student body; however, after observing and listening to each location, Union seems like the more viable option. Would a hungry Davidson student who wanted to get lunch with only two other friends go to Commons or Toast? After focusing on the acoustics at each location, Toast seems like the more favorable answer. Although these dining options all share similarities and differences, it is important to recognize that what we experience audibly in these locations has some type of effect on where we all decide to go eat. Sometimes it’s not the food itself that makes your decision, but rather the experience that surrounds your food.

Works Cited

Schafer, R. Murray. “The Soundscape,” in The Sound Studies Reader, edited by Jonathan Sterne, 95–103. New York: Routledge, 2012.
Thompson, Emily. “Sound, Modernity and History,” in The Sound Studies Reader, edited by Jonathan Sterne, 117–29. New York: Routledge, 2012.
Rath, Richard Cullen. “No Corner for the Devil to Hide.” In The Sound Studies Reader. Edited by Jonathan Sterne. London: Routledge, 2012.

March 24, 2019 by haturner

How Drake’s “Nice for What” and Taylor Swift’s “September” Show the Differing Implications of Sampling and Covering

Most of the music one listens to today is unoriginal. With the changing landscape of the music industry, and the struggle artists face to sound different, most of the music heard today draws from many previous songs. The most obvious forms of artists’ use of other songs are samples and covers. Samples use only parts of older songs, whether it is lyrical, musical, or the direct copy and paste of a sound bite from the song. Covers, on the other hand, rework the entirety of the song: keeping the same lyrics but usually changing the music behind them, recreating an entirely new sounding song. The difference between the two is obvious; however, the implications each bring can be cloudy. Samples are inherently less risky: taking only a section of a song and placing it within a larger piece of work comes with less scrutiny, and in some cases, requires more creativity. However, with covers, keeping the exact lyrics and changing the feeling and sound behind them often times leads to controversy and subsequently requires more thought. Songs like Drake’s “Nice for What” and Young Thug’s “High” effectively sample the brilliance of both Lauryn Hill and Elton John, bringing the best out of their work and making it sound unique. However, covers like Taylor Swift’s “September” not only makes a fun-loving song a tear-jerking one, but also brings with it some serious cultural connotations that leave many listeners feeling uncomfortable due to its racial implications. These examples affirm the notion that covers are riskier than samples, and as a listener or an artist, one must think critically towards a piece and ask if it truly honors the song used.

Drake’s “Nice for What” finds new meaning in a historically famous song by sampling its most recognizable hook with creativity and homage. Using Lauryn Hill’s acclaimed anthem “Ex-Factor,” Drake reworks her previously introspective and regretful tone and forms it into an empowering, upbeat dance song for everyone to get down to. “Nice for What” is “weightless, but pounding, and vitally participatory,” and finds joy where Lauryn Hill seemed to find little (Peters). The message of her song surrounds the internal struggle she faces with a man for whom she keeps falling but who does not treat her with respect. The song is relatable for many women who find themselves in situations where men take advantage of them, and the song highlights the feelings many of these women are left with. However, twenty years later, these sentiments should be mute. Drake has created a song that, put into today’s social context, is one that many women can play and feel empowered through.

By changing Lauryn Hill’s hook into a fast-paced, fun-loving anthem, he shows women that they should never feel dragged down by the men in their life but instead find joy within themselves. In the music video for “Nice for What,” “[Drake] assembled a plurality of Women Doing the Damn Thing,” showing famous women in pop culture, sports, and other areas dancing with confidence (Peters). Not only in the actual song, but in the portrayal of the music video is Drake making his point clear to women across the world. With the changing context surrounding women in society today, contrary to Lauryn Hill’s era, Drake’s song can also be seen as a lesson on social change: “you can peel back the feel-good vibes to reveal the circuitry underneath — how could something like this not play well in the thick of the #MeToo moment?” (Peters). Similarly to the #MeToo movement, Drake gives women a voice and a strength that previously may not have been found in much of the hip hop and rap heard today, where many songs patronize and disgrace women. With this sample, Drake changes the feeling behind Lauryn Hill’s words, transforming them into an inspiring and uplifting song for all women to hear and walk away feeling special. At a time where women may seem vulnerable due to the continuous discoveries of heinous acts of sexual assault, Drake shows them that finding power in their own voices can take them farther than ever. He, undoubtedly, created a song worthy of the praise it has already received.

On the other hand, Taylor Swift’s cover of the classic hit “September” fails to pay homage to and respect the greatness of Earth, Wind & Fire and creates a cultural conflict where there never should have been one. First off, Swift’s version of the groovy dance hit fails to make anyone feel energized. Like a classic Swift song, it dwells over a lost boy with whom Swift never made it with and “strip[s] the song of its iconic funk elements, its soul, [and] its rhythm.” (Craven). When previously this song made everyone, especially the black community, feel uplifted and ready to let loose, Swift turns it into a sad love song, inciting an opposite feeling in its listeners. Although there is nothing wrong with changing the meaning of a song, it becomes an issue when the original has a meaning for a group of people. She, for more reasons than one, does not possess the tools to recreate this song effectively: “Swift lacks the passion, the liveliness, the rhythm and, frankly, the soul to properly honor the song.” (Craven). Swift’s musical style does not meet the standards for what this song’s intention was, and covering a song to repurpose the entire meaning of it eventually can lead to larger issues.

Aside from the conflicting message the song offers, the creation and misuse of the cover caused many to feel angry and betrayed. Primarily because Swift is a white woman who is not apart of the black community that holds this song in such high esteem as a culturally inspiring anthem, she frankly does not have a place to be recreating it. The fact that “September” was used, altered, and profited off of by a white artist who made the song sound inherently white, raises issues surrounding the validity of Swift’s version: “A white person strips something of its blackness and packages it for a white audience. It’s as old as America.” (Craven). Swift lacks the firsthand understanding of the history of the black community and is coming from a perspective of privilege. Crossing racial and cultural lines that divide music, or any type of art form for that matter, can always lead to issues of appropriation and a lack of empathy. This is precisely why covers are so difficult to pull off. If the original works so well, why change the feeling and mood behind it, especially for an entirely new audience? It is almost like misquoting someone: if you want to sound uniquely original, use your own lyrics.

These two examples of contrasting results highlight a broader claim surrounding samples and covers: covers bring with them a larger cultural context that the artist must take into consideration. For example, although Drake in part changes the meaning of “Ex-Factor,” the fact he didn’t use the entirety of the song limits how many issues the artist or others can take up with the sample. He, however, changes the meaning in a positive and topical context. Other samples like Young Thug’s “High” and Kanye West’s “Blood on the Leaves” also honor the original artists’ work by placing their intentions within modern day sound. When it comes to covers, it is harder to clarify the intentions of the artist due to the fact it is the same exact song lyrically, and there is less room for new creativity: “‘respect’ and “authenticity” are a subset of a more general, and deeply problematic, conception of “intention,” and determining the intention underlying one artist’s recording of another is fraught with substantial philosophical difficulties.” (Mosser 12). It is hard to create something that is original and came from solely one’s own creativity, so when someone else uses it and completely changes the meaning of it, it is hard not to be critical. Covers like Britney Spears’ “I love Rock n’ Roll” and Justin Bieber’s “Let it be” also fail to respect the original hits from Joan Jett and the Blackhearts and The Beatles by not adding a clear new perspective with substance, but instead seem to be lazy one off shots at making an extra dollar. There is also something to be said about crossing genres. When covering or sampling a song in a completely different genre (i.e. what Taylor Swift does with “September”), there is even more room for scrutiny. Whether it is because of a social restriction or an obvious failure of creativity, society will always be quicker to attack covers for their lack of ingenuity. And although many covers work fine in today’s world, we must be careful moving forward as a society and as artists to always remember to strive to respect our past hits and artists: because it’s getting harder and harder by the day to create completely original work.

Works Cited

Craven, Julia. “I Listened to Taylor Swift’s ‘September’ Cover so Y’all Wouldn’t Have to.” Huffington Post, 13 Apr. 2018, https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/i-listened-to-taylor-swifts-september-cover-so-yall-wouldnt-have-to_us_5ad0ff15e4b016a07e9c4d82, Accessed 18 Mar. 2019.
Peters, Micah. “Nice for What” Is Another Inevitable Victory for Drake.” 9 Apr. 2018, https://www.theringer.com/music/2018/4/9/17215998/nice-for-what-drake-single-video, Accessed 20 Mar. 2019
Mosser, Kurt. “Cover Songs”: Ambiguity, Multivalence, Polysemy” Popular Musicology Online. https://ecommons.udayton.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1023&context=phl_fac_pub, Accessed 20 Mar. 2019.
Drake “Nice for What,” Vevo. 6 Apr. 2018. https://www.google.com/search?q=nice+for+what+music+video&oq=nice+for+what+mus&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i60l2j69i57j0l2.4500j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8, Accessed 19 Mar. 2019
Swift, Taylor. “September,” Youtube. 14 Apr. 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnDnphYTb0Q, Accessed 24 Mar. 2019.

February 20, 2019 by haturner

Nice for What and Ex-Factor: What makes Drake’s Sample so Effective

There is much to consider when examining a cover and its original. Completely changing the feel of a song, but maintaining the exact lyrics is a hard task to accomplish, and is always vulnerable to criticism and sometimes controversy. In some instances, many covers sound the exact same as the original, leading to a boring repeat of a song that was previously effective. On the flip side, an artist sampling a piece or section of an original song, in my opinion, is less risky. Using a line or two and remixing the sound behind that lyric allows for more unique creative expression from the new artist. With more room to alter and expand the selected part of the song, artists can create something truly unique. An example of an extremely effective, fun, and energetic sample is Drake’s “Nice for What,” where the dynamic pop/rap/r&b artist brilliantly samples Lauryn Hill’s “Ex-Factor” and turns its catchy hook into an even more catchy song.
Lauryn Hill’s hit song, “Ex-Factor,” is full of soul and feeling as she dives into her own love story and the internal struggles she faces in her relationship. The song is on the “slow-side” but still maintains a head-bobbing rhythm behind its meaningful lyrics. Its hook “I keep letting you back in, how can I explain myself?” doesn’t come for two and a half minutes into the song. However, it is definitely the most recognizable lyric in the song. Drake begins “Nice for What” with this line and hits the listener with a strong, up-tempo beat directly after the sample. The feeling of the song immediately makes you want to get up and move, dance, and become lost in the music. Although the theme of “Ex-Factor” deals with is not the happiest of sorts, Drake “[holds] onto the spirit and joy of the original” as the rhythm of the song is still energetic. However, Drake’s creative spin is “designed to get you moving and smiling” and “adds a new dimension” to the previously more lyrical driven song. After the hook, Lauryn Hill adds some more rhythm to the song, repeating lines with more emphasis and flow. Drake uses this repetition later in his sample, adding choppy fast beats to really get his listeners moving.
Drake beautifully uses “Ex-Factor” to create a song everybody can enjoy. While Hill focuses on the meaning of her lyrics and the message behind them, Drake turns her stunning voice into a song full of flow and tempo that really anyone can enjoy. As said and focused on in many of the analyses regarding covering and sampling, “there’s nothing wrong with putting your own spin on something,” and Drake does so with enthusiasm and positivity, bringing the best out of Lauryn Hill’s already beautiful song.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9BwWKXjVa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V89ZjRwMlvM