Refine
Document Type
- Article (5)
- Part of a Book (4)
Language
- German (9)
Has Fulltext
- yes (9)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (9) (remove)
Keywords
- Inszenierung (3)
- Reality-TV (3)
- Interaktion (2)
- Authentizität (1)
- Dialogisches Prinzip (1)
- Disziplinierung (1)
- Dokumentation (1)
- Fernsehen (1)
- Fernsehformat <Fernsehen> (1)
- Fernsehunterhaltung (1)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (9) (remove)
Reviewstate
Publisher
- VS (2)
- de Gruyter (2)
- Fink (1)
- Laaber-Verlag (1)
- Lucius & Lucius (1)
- Nomos (1)
- UVK Verlagsgesellschaft mbH (1)
Der Musikclip gehört seit den 1980er Jahren zum Forschungsbereich diverser Disziplinen und gilt Vielen als intermediales Phänomen schlechthin. Als problematisch erweist sich allerdings nach wie vor, dass das klangliche Material des Clips, populäre Musik, eine Herausforderung nicht nur für die Musikwissenschaften darstellt – greifbar wird dies mit Blick auf die anhaltenden Diskussionen um einen adäquaten Begriff der populären Musik. Darüber hinaus gilt Musik allgemein als ‚Sonderfall‘ für den Bereich der Medien-, Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaften, da an ihr weder rein medienästhetische noch kommunikations- und informationstheoretische Begriffe in ausreichender Weise greifen. Die Entwicklung eines transdisziplinär nachvollziehbaren Objektverständnisses des Musikclips bleibt daher desiderabel.
Der Beitrag zum Thema „Bild-Text-Ton-Analysen“ resultiert aus einer intensivierten Begegnung von Medienwissenschaft und Musikwissenschaft. Im Artikel wird die Konstitution von Bedeutung im intermedialen Zusammenspiel von Sprache/Text, Stimme und Musik fokussiert. Dies geschieht auf Grundlage einer näheren Bestimmung der Analysekriterien, die im Hinblick auf den speziellen Fall des popmusikalischen Umgangs mit Sprache erforderlich sind. Ziel ist es, die Bedeutungssedimente von vokaler Performanz im Kontext von populärer Musik offenzulegen. Für die Betrachtung des Musikclips ist dies ein wesentlicher Zwischenschritt. Anhand der Darstellung der klanglich-materiellen Vorprägungen gilt es, die Möglichkeitsbedingungen der (nachträglichen) intermedialen Transformation von Sprache auf die Bildebene auszuloten. In finaler Wendung ist es dann möglich, das inter- bzw. plurimediale Amalgam von Text-Stimme-Musik als Generator von Bedeutungsüberschüssen einzufassen.
This paper alms to conceptualize the notion of music performance drawing on concepts from the sociology of knowledge and culture respectively the social phenomenology tradition as well as concepts from performance and theatre studies. Thereby music is grasped as a social event Insofar as music needs an intermediating instance to get perceptible as music. In other words: There is no (auditive perceptible) music without making music. Thus music performance can be understood as a sort of node bringing together the different realms of the musical process. This in mind the present paper discusses first music (performance) as action and interaction arguing that music (making) has an immanent tendency to be perceived as performance. Consequently the notion of performance and the Interrelated notion of staging are considered in the second part of the paper showing what is meant with the terms performance and performance frame. These insights lead to the third and last part which discusses the notion of theatricality to identify features specific for music performances and to show that and how music (performance) is best understood as an »artistic« process.
Körper(-Darstellungen) im Reality-TV. Herstellung von Wirklichkeit im und über das Fernsehen hinaus
(2014)
Musikfernsehsender
(2009)
This paper attempts a critique of the notion of 'dialogue' in dialogue theory as espoused by Linell, Markova, and others building on Bakhtin’s writings. According to them, human communication, culture, language, and even cognition are dialogical in nature. This implies that these domains work by principles of other-orientation and interaction. In our paper, we reject accepting other-orientation as an a priori condition of every semiotic action. Instead, we claim that in order to be an empirically useful concept for the social sciences, it must be shown if and how observable action is other-oriented. This leads us to the following questions: how can we methodically account for other-orientation of semiotic action? Does other-orientation always imply interaction? Is every human expression oriented towards others? How does the other, as s/he is represented in semiotic action, relate to the properties which the other can be seen to exhibit as indexed by their observable behavior? We study these questions by asking how the orientation towards others becomes evident in different forms of communication. For this concern, we introduce ‘recipient design’, ‘positioning’ and ‘intersubjectivity’ as concepts which allow us to inquire how semiotic action both takes the other into account and, reflexively, shapes him/her as an addressee having certain properties. We then specifically focus on actions and situations in which other-orientation is particularly problematic, such as interactions with children, animals, machines, or communication with unknown recipients via mass media. These borderline cases are scrutinized in order to delineate both limits and constitutive properties of other-orientation. We show that there are varieties of meaningful actions which do not exhibit an orientation towards the other, which do not rest on (the possibility of) interaction with the other or which even disregard what their producer can be taken to know about the other. Available knowledge about the other may be ignored in order to reach interactional goals, e. g. in strategical interactions or for concerns of socialization. If semiotic action is otherorientated, its design depends on how the other is available to and matters for their producer. Other-orientation may build on shared biographical experiences with the other, knowledge about the other as an individual and close attention to their situated conduct. However, other-orientation may also rest on (stereo-)typification with respect to institutional roles or group membership. In any case, others as they are represented in semiotic action can never be just others-as-such, but only othersas-perceived-by-the-actor. We conclude that the strong emphasis which dialogue theories put on otherorientation obscures that other-orientation is neither universal in semiotic action, that it must be distinguished from an interactive relationship, and that the ways in which the other figures in semiotic actions is not homogeneous in any of its most general properties. Instead, there is a huge variation in the ways in which the other can be taken into account. Therefore close scrutiny of how the other precisely figures in a certain kind of semiotic action is needed in order to lend the concept of ‘other-orientation’ empirical substance and a definite sense.