Your Least Favorite DJ

My first question is about Shannon's "A Mathematical Theory of Communication." What's so interesting about this paper is the incredibly strange quantifiable terms of communication--an aspect of my life I'd always taken as organic and immeasurable in a simple output. To phrase this as a question--what should we do, practically, with this kind of material?

I used to spend a lot of my time focusing on astronomy and astrophysics--a field in which a signal-to-noise ratio has an extremely practical application (if you don't know how much of the light you received is from the star you're looking at versus how much comes from that pesky neighbor's light-polluting spotlights, or, more likely atmospheric conditions, there's not a whole lot to do with your data). In communication--this "noise" is much less definable (as we've seen in the past readings). It's an entirely human quality--what it is that we want to hear versus the things that are getting in the way of that hearing. I'd even go as far as to argue that not all "noise" in human communication is aural at all (next time you're daydreaming and realize someone's been talking to you, you can see what I mean here).

In terms of Shannon's paper, I had a hard time finding any source of actual information outside of the theory. The examples given on page 7 of randomly generated letters following known patterns (and progressively looking more like English) are very interesting, but there's only loose reference to where those things came from. It seems like there is a distinct and logarithmic relationship between S/N ratios and time, as well as a "capacity" for input (so weird), but beyond that I think it's important not to think of this as anything practical in the human sense. These functions could work for a recording device, but there seems to be a logical disconnect transferring that to a human element. Yet Shannon refuses to ever clarify the sources and receivers (and capacitors) as either human or non-human. As has frequently happened in the past, I've attempted to answer a question, and end up not terribly far from where I started. But isn't that how it goes? (Also, just a note: on page two, Shannon gives an in depth description of the change of base forumula for logs. This is 8th grade math, mixed in quite complex calculus. Does anyone else find this extremely strange? Especially since Shannon assumes SO much of the reader, it's strange that this would need to be explained.)

I think it's strange that more than one of these essays referred to sound/noise/recording as a weapon (from both Burrowes and Listening). While Burrowes' suggestions seem elaborate and very intentional, how does this concept work in relation to, say, the Patriot Act, or my former Governor's case, or taking great songs and putting them on commercials?


Finally, regarding the Most Unwanted Music, I felt an immediate connection to these people. I really wanted to hear the Most Wanted version too! I was quickly reminded of anytime my friends and I are hanging out and my friend Danny takes control of the iPod. Almost invariably, everyone berates his choices (Ween, Zappa, Mike Keneally, Dream Theater, Mr. Bungle, and various bits of metal), and while I tend to love many of those things, it's really true. Especially when the scatterbrained screechy falsetto of the Most Unwanted Music sounded like a slightly lesser version of Ween--I really felt like this was an accurate assessment of music fandom. And now my excuse to post a Ween song or two--something particularly "unwanted":

"So many people in the neighborhood"

"Fucked Jam"