OLDING, CHRISTINE J., Ph.D., December 2019 ENGLISH COMPOSING PROCESSES of MUSICIANS

OLDING, CHRISTINE J., Ph.D., December 2019 ENGLISH

COMPOSING PROCESSES OF MUSICIANS: A CASE STUDY APPROACH (189 pp)

Dissertation Advisor: Dr. Pamela Takayoshi

This dissertation’s studies of musicians Les Paul, Marc Feld, and Jans Wagner shed light on, not only what it means to compose sonically, but the parallels between sonic composition and traditional notions of literacy held within the field of Rhetoric and Composition. Though Paul,

Feld, and Wagner do not possess literacy practices in terms of aspects of literacy mediated by text, they do possess literacy practices that are enacted by their own embodied sensory experience and perceptions, as well as their outside musical community’s influence on their composing. Furthermore, this dissertation discusses what it means to compose with the mode of sound and complicates the product/ process binary through its discovery of the above musicians’ use of what I call “mode process”. Meaning, that the process of composition uses multiple modes to create a monomodal product. The findings from my studies of Wagner, Paul, and Feld provide further avenues of exploration for what it means to compose in the 21st century in relation to the college composition classroom.

COMPOSING PROCESSES OF MUSICIANS: A CASE STUDY APPROACH

A dissertation submitted

to Kent State University in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Christine J. Olding

December 2019

Except for previously published materials

Dissertation written by

Christine J. Olding

B.A., University of Dayton, 2007

M.A., University of Dayton, 2014

Ph.D., Kent State, 2019

Approved by

______, Chair, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Dr. Pamela Takayoshi

______, Members, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Dr. Brian Huot

______Dr. Derek Van Ittersum

______Dr. Jennifer Johnstone

______Dr. Clare Stacey

Accepted by

______, Chair, Department of English Dr. Robert Trogdon

______, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences Dr. James L. Blank

TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………iii- v

LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………..vi

LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………...vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS………………………………………...viii

CHAPTERS

1. Why Study Sound…………………………………………………….....1

What I’m Studying and Why………….……………..……………………...1

Research Questions…………………………………………………………6

Participants………………………………………………………………….6

Methods and Analysis………………………………………………………6

Transition………………………………………………………………….10

2. Listen Up! Why Sound Should Matter in Rhetoric and Composition….12

Introduction………………………………………………………………..12

Studies of Sound Composing and Rhetoric and Composition…………….14

Multiliteracies Through the Digital Age…………………………………..31

3. It Takes a Village: Mixed Methodological Approaches to Understanding Sonic Composing Processes…………………...... ………………………………..37

Introduction………………………………………………………………...37

Recruitment of Participants…………………………………...……………38

Observations………………………………………………………………..39

Interviews…………………………………………………………………..43

Archival Data Collection………………..……………………………...….48

III

Discovering Literacy Practices and Patterns of Embodied Sensory Experience………………………………………………………………..58

4 .How Sonic Composing Can Help Us Understand Literacy: Les Paul’s Findings from the Archives…………….………………………………………….68

Introduction………………………………………………………………68

Approach to Data Analysis………………………………………………69

Discussions and Findings………………………………………………...96

5.The Argument for Multimodal Process: The Qualitative Case Study of Marc Feld

…………………………………………………………………………….99

Introduction………………………………………………………………..99

Marc Feld Findings Overview…………………………………………….100

Discussions and Findings…………………………………………………123

6. Divorcing our Notions of Mono and Multimodal: The Qualitative Case Study of Jans Wagner……………………………………………………………….125

Introduction………………………………………………………………..125

Jans Wagner’s Findings Overview………………………………………...127

Discussions and Findings………………………………………………….149

7. Sonic Composing’s Call for Pedagogical Experimentation………….....151

Introduction………………………………………………………………..151

Findings Reviewed……………………………………………………...... 152

Divorce the Visual…………………………………………………………154

Pedagogy= Experimentation………………………………………………157

Radical Revision………………………………………………………...... 162

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………164

APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY…………………………………………………….165

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………...167

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Les Paul……………………….86

Figure 2. Les Paul and Mary Ford………87

Figure 3. Les Paul Equipment…………..89

Figure 4. Marc Feld Notes……………..108

Figure 5. Marc Feld Pedals………….....115

Figure 6. Marc Feld Rig……………….120

Figure 7. Jans Wagner Screen Cap…....147

Figure 8. Jans Wagner Screen Cap……145

Figure 9. Jans Wagner Screen Cap……146

Figure 10. Jans Wagner Screen Cap…..156

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1: Five Foundation Influences On Their Sonic Composing …….8

Table 1.2: Mode Result…………………………………………………...9

Table 2: Multimodal Listening vs Literacy Practices and Embodied Sensory Experiences

……………………………………………………………………………61

Table 3: Shift in Mode and Medium During Composing………………...65

Table 4: Les Paul Materials………………………………………………69

Table 5: Marc Feld Materials……………………………………………100

Table 6: Jans Wagner Materials………………………………………....126

VII

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

“Deep in my heart/ There's a house/ That can hold/ Just about all of you” -Marc Bolan of T.Rex

I would first like to thank my director, Pam. Without her guidance, support, and patience none of this would be possible. She continually pushed me and my project to be the best possible and I am forever appreciative for her dedication and care. I, also, would like to thank my committee members, Brian, Jennifer, and Derek, for their willingness to work on and standby my project.

To my partner, Jay, who was my sounding board, guitar expert, support system, and confidant- thank you. His continual support was vital for my success and I am eternally grateful that he was by my side for this journey. To my friends and colleagues Katie, Megan, Amy, Anna, Beth, and

Mike- I could not have survived this process without the laughs, hugs, tears, mass amounts of cheese, and unconditional love and support from each of you. My past mentors Albino Carrillo and PT who pushed me to be the best writer and thinker. Their never ending support of my quirky ideas led me to where I am today- I am forever indebted to both of you. My current department has been so supportive and their desire to watch me succeed has meant the world.

Lastly, I would like to thank my parents and siblings. Bob and Sally, you have believed in me and pushed me to fly my freak flag high. Your continued commitment to my success and unwavering support has made all this imaginable. To my siblings, Julie and Matt, thank you for being there, encouraging me throughout, and being the best big sister and big brother a weirdo like me could ask for. I am grateful for each person who has been with me on this journey- especially my participants- and am forever grateful to have been on it myself.

VIII

CHAPTER ONE: WHY STUDY SOUND?

I. WHAT I AM STUDYING AND WHY

The past two decades have led way to an expansion of sound studies in the Rhetoric and

Composition field and scholarship. With the first sound studies focused journal volume being released in 1999, Hawk and Rickert’s co-edited Enculturation provided the Rhet/Comp community with an introduction into what it means to study sound as a tangible entity in our field. Rickert and Hawk depict the power of music in terms of building relationships between culture, people, and experiences. “Music is neither composer nor composed; rather, it is a sound- image that composes--creates compositions, assemblages, links. Music composes us when we listen to it and when we write about it” (Hawk and Rickert, 1999). It is not so much that we are studying a piece of music, but we are studying that music and its composition in relation to something else. Later, in 2006, Computers and Composition would also come out with a sound focused volume. Byron Hawk and Cheryl Ball, guest editors of the addition, make a point to readers in their introduction when they say that, “…attention to audio is possible within our field” (p.286). Though sound has been continuously studied within our field, it has been lacking sole focus in our field despite Hawk and Ball’s sentiments (2006). Rhetoric and Composition is the after-thought in sound studies scholarship; focusing itself in the field of musicology and remixing the ideologies of Rhet/ Comp, sound studies has yet to produce a piece of scholarship that is solely focused in our field.

The perceived need for sound studies to live outside the Rhetoric and Composition field of study can be seen throughout the past two decades. From Anderson (2013) who argues for the

definition of voice as encompassing multi-disciplinarian pieces of scholarship to Jeffrey Rice

(2006) using Lyotard to prove the Notorious B.I.G rejected educational literacy to Durst (2012) relating his dissertation writing to him learning how to play Blues guitar and relying heavily on musicological terminology to relate to Rhetoric and Composition, though he does so depending on musical terminology and musicological ideals stating, “The goal then is to reflect on how music and lyrics interact to create a distinct atmosphere, state of mind, or mood” (Durst,

2012). It seems as if scholars in our field, even those who write about sound, view it as not fully fitting into the Rhetoric and Composition scholarly canon. There have been pieces of scholarship that attempt to relate sound and sonic composition to the ideologies of Rhetoric and Composition such as Sirc and Ceraso (2011) who argue for a need to divorce the visual aspect of sonic composition, Alexander (2015) using archived materials of Gould to open a discussion about how to use sound to teach digital literacies, and Hawk and Stuart’s (2018) discussion of experimental pedagogy. Like those who have come before, my own study does provide an interdisciplinary approach. However, it does so by directly relating my data back to the study of composing processes in Rhetoric and Composition and not musicology (which is often seen in sound studies scholarship). For us, as a field, to understand what sound is and how it is composed; we need to view it as more than (h)earing it and ground it in some form of scholarship from our own field. My study does so by grounding it in literacy and composing processes scholarship, by looking at the composing processes of musicians through both qualitative and archival methodological approaches.

My own background as a singer and research and scholarship concerning popular music’s impact on youth culture, provides me with the knowledge necessary to study sound in the form of music. Music is a subsect of sound; since sound, in and of itself, is too big of an entity to study

as a whole. The OED defines sound as “The sensation produced in the organs of hearing when the surrounding air is set in vibration in such a way as to affect these; also, that which is or may be heard.” This physiological definition encompasses many kinds of sound which may be used in a multimodal composition: ambient noise, natural sounds, music, sound effects, and speaking voices. Specifically, in this dissertation, of these types of sound, I am interested in music. Music is a specific form of sound, as Godt (2005) notes: “Music is humanly organised sound, organised with intent into a recognisable aesthetic entity as a musical communication directed from a maker to a known or unforeseen listener, publicly through the medium of a performer, privately by a performer as listener” (p.84). Music is a sound that is composed with intent; in this way, music and writing are both forms of composition. Music composition involves: a human composer’s interaction with sound in a purposeful manner with an intentional outcome and audience. I am studying music to better understand the larger concept of sound and am using musicians composing processes to dissect what it means to compose with sound.

A. WHY IT NEEDS TO BE DONE AND WHY IT MATTERS

The affordances of technology have allowed for writers to be able to have more control over multimodal compositions employing multiple ways of meaning making (i.e. words, images, sound). Currently, some pieces of scholarship in Rhetoric and Composition have moved towards examinations of modes of digital ways of meaning making that may or may not include alphabetic text. Though there has been an extensive amount of scholarship on multimodal composing processes (New London Group, 1996;Kress, 2003; Halbritter 2006; Sheppard, 2009;

Takayoshi, 2011; Hull and Nelson 2014) there is one area that is still underdeveloped in terms of composing; the mode of sound. Though current multimodal scholarship depicts the importance of sound, it is rarely discussed in-depth (Hull and Nelson, 2014; Kress 2003; Lankshear and

Knobel 2011). The current sound scholarship focuses primarily on the implementation of sound composing in the college writing classroom, the use of sonic based software in the community at large, or rhetorical implications for the community at large(Shipka, 2006; McKee, 2006,

Shankar, 2006, Ahren-Fargo, 2013). However, this leaves the actual composing of sound unexamined. We, as a field, have yet to explore fully how to compose with sound. The pieces of scholarship that have come before mine, in terms of sound studies, have shed light on the need for an understanding of how to compose with sound and not just how sound is an additive in multimodal composition.

Recognizing sound as the product and sonic as encompassing both the product and process allows for the study and analysis of how a composition is created, developed, and executed. Instead of focusing simply on the execution or final product, the term “sonic composition” allows me to focus on both the process and product in tandem with each other and in relation to the act of multimodal listening. “Multimodal listening moves away from organ- specific definitions and instead conceives of listening as a practice that involves attending to not only the sensory, embodied experience of sound, but to the material and environmental aspects that comprise and shape one’s embodied experience of sound” (Ceraso, 2014, p.105). The physicality of listening does not just mean it is heard with just one organ, the ear (Ceraso, 2014), but instead is felt and understood by multiple senses (touch, sight, as well). My study sheds light on the embodiment of sensory perception, which is discussed later in this chapter, during the composing process as a way to determine the literate practices of the composers studied The term “sonic composition” is my attempt to unite the fields of music and composition by recognizing the reality that sound is more than just the act of listening and composition is more than just the act of words or images arranged on a page. In this project, I use the term “sonic

composing” to encompass more than just the physical act of listening and as an entity that embodies a more holistic sensory experience.

By studying the literate practices of musicians, I am placing my study in the field of

Rhetoric and Composition, and providing an understanding of the motivations of the composing processes of musicians. By looking at their literate practices, I was able to understand why they composed and how they composed using their literacy in relation to music. I use the definition of literacy practices put forth by Scribner and Cole (1981) as the use knowledge, technology, and skill in a specific context for a specific point and purpose to guide my understanding and analysis of the processes I capture through data collection of my participants. By understanding my participants’ literacy practices and use of mode during composing, my study provides an avenue for recognizing that composing processes can never truly be monomodal and that the act of composing itself is more multimodal than the end product itself. Though I attempted to study sound as a standalone, or mono-modal entity, the act of composing music as seen through my participants, provided an understanding of sonic composing as a multimodal process. My findings, which are discussed at length in the following chapters, shed light on the process/ product binary and complicate what it means to compose using multiple modes. This complication also sheds light on the need for our field to have a more holistic understanding of what it means to compose in the 21st century, and that to compose may or may not include the mediation of alphabetic text.

B. THE DIFFERENCE IN WRITING, COMPOSING, AND LITERACY: HOW I USE THESE

TERMS

The field of Rhetoric and Composition scholars and scholarship often focuses around three main terms: writing, composing, and literacy. All three terms are used in this dissertation

and offer unique perspectives on what it means to create sound. Though the terms all deal with an aspect of communication, it is important to understand the difference in definition each one possesses and why those differences need to be distinguished within, not only my study, but the field as a whole. i. WRITING

The definition of writing, for the purpose of this study, is as follows: writing is a specific type of composing involving the inscription of print-linguistic alphabetic symbols (letters, characters) onto screen or paper. While noting that the context, forms, audience, and purposes can dramatically shape what writings forms, Takayoshi (2015) notes that at its heart, writing might be understood as “the manipulation of a complex symbol system as a means of communicating human thought from one person to others” (pp. 1 - 2). Recognizing that understandings of writing and reading are changing, Lunsford and Diogenes took up the challenge posed by what they call “our vocabulary problem” and constructed this definition of writing: “A technology for creating conceptual frameworks and creating, sustaining, and performing lines of thought within those frameworks, drawing from and expanding on existing conventions and genres, utilizing signs and symbols, incorporating materials drawn from multiple sources, and taking advantage of the resources of a full range of media. (quoted in

Lunsford 2006 171). While Lunsford (2006) acknowledges the difficulties of composing a definition that “does not mirror the reductiveness of current dictionary definitions” (170), the move to more expansive definitions of writing teeter a fine line between specificity and an expansiveness that fails to signify; this lack of signification can be seen within the findings of my own studies done on Paul, Feld, and Wagner (Appendix A).

The term writing, for the purposes of this dissertation, focuses heavily on the idea that writing is a specific type of composing involving the inscription of print-linguistic alphabetic symbols (letters, characters) onto screen or paper. Despite my dissertation studying the sonic composing processes of musicians, the concept of writing appears quite frequently due to the parallels noticed between my studies of Paul, Feld, and Wagner’s sonic composing and the composing scholarship on traditional forms of writing alphabetic text (for both print and screen).

By studying musicians sonic composing, I was able to determine the similarities they share with composers of writing (traditional print-linguistic alphabetic symbols) in terms of process. The composing process similarities are discussed throughout my findings chapters, as well as in the concluding chapter where I further explore what these similarities mean for the college composition classroom.

Throughout this dissertation, I often use the term “writing” in close relation to “literacy”.

In the below section, I provide my definition for literacy, how it is used in this dissertation, and how it relates to but is not the same as writing. ii. LITERACY AND LITERACY PRACTICES

The term literacy is one that is at the center of much of our field’s scholarship and yet it is also one of the most challenging terms to define due to its ever-changing nature. For the purposes of this dissertation I define literacy and literacy practices as the following: Lankshear and Knobel (2011) define literacy practices as what people do with literacy, and they argue for an understanding of literacy as a set of social practices that can be understood from specific events that are mediated from written texts. Furthermore, they state, “Literacy enables human beings to communicate in ways that go beyond voice within face-to-face settings” (Lankshear and Knobel, 2011, p.40). The bottom line for literacy is that it enables meaning-making to occur

and is mediated by symbol systems. Literacy is not just words, voice, images, or other preconceived notions of meaning-making but instead is anything that is mediated by a sort of symbol system. Literacy is a term used to determine a person’s ability to create meaning with or mediated by a symbol system. However, our field tends to equate literacy with the conceptualization of reading and writing (as defined above), therefore I looked at, again, the noticeable parallels between tradtional views of literacy and the findings from my three participants. In particular, their embodiment of literacy practices during their sonic composing process.

As discussed in later chapters, I used the term literacy practices because, though they (my participants) were not enacting traditional literacy in terms of reading and writing, my participants were enacting literacy practices in the way Scribner and Cole defined them (1981) in terms of possessing ‘technology, skills, and knowledge’. Each participant, Feld, Wagner, and

Paul, all actively demonstrated a clear use of technology, skills, and knowledge during their sonic composing processes. Much like with writing, though they did not enact literacy, as we think of, in terms of reading and writing, each participant mirrored literacy practice patterns and attainment through their own sonic composing process. It is this mimicking and parallel that studying musicians’ composing brings to the field of Rhetoric and Composition. The observation that writing, literacy, and literacy practices processes can be seen and attributed within the composing of sound, specifically in the composing of music.

Lastly, the definition of composing will be discussed below. Perhaps the most pertinent term in this dissertation, what it means to compose, specifically with sound, is what unites these studies with the field of Rhetoric and Composition. iii. COMPOSING

Composing is a term grounded in our field, so much so that it is in the title of what it is we study. Rhetoric and Composition scholarship tends to want to know what it means to compose in different settings, genres, modes, and so forth. But in order to understand what it means to compose, you first must know what composing means in the context of the work you are reading. For the purposes of this dissertation when discussing composing, what I am directly referring to is as follows: The Oxford English Dictionary defines “compose” as “to put together, make up.” This definition captures the sense of composing as a process of making, of bringing together different resources and putting them together in a deliberate way. More particularly, in

Composition Studies, composition involves the arrangement of multimodal elements (including words, sound, imagery) by a rhetor/writer in order to persuade, inform, or influence an audience.

Our disciplinary interest in how to best teach undergraduate college students in our composition classrooms led to an interest in empirically understanding writers’ composing processes, and in recent decades, composing processes have come to be modified almost always with as

“multimodal composing.” The OED definition distinguishes nuanced differences in meaning depending on what mediums people use to compose (words, music, painting) (Appendix A). Due to the breadth of definition of the term composing, I further define sonic composing as the following: The term “sonic composition” is my attempt to unite the fields of music and composition by recognizing the reality that sound is more than just the act of listening and composition is more than just the act of words or images arranged on a page. In this project, I use the term “sonic composing” to encompass more than just the physical act of listening and as an entity that embodies a more holistic sensory experience. The physicality of listening does not just mean it is heard with just one organ, the ear (Ceraso, 2014), but instead is felt and understood by multiple senses (touch, sight, as well) (Appendix A).

The difference in composing and sonic composing is made to provide a level of specificity to what it is I studied. Because though I am looking at multimodal ways of composing, I am not looking at multimodal compositions but rather how multiple modes are enacted during the composing process of sound, specifically music. My findings from my studies of Paul, Wagner, and Feld complicate our field’s current understanding of what it means to compose in terms of process and product. As discussed in the definition, to compose something is to make something and captures the notion that composing is a process of creation.

However, when we think of multimodal composing we tend to equate the multimodal aspect with final product and not the process of creation. This is where my studies diverge from multimodal composition scholarship. My studies showed that during the composing process is where multiple modes were enacted to create a monomodal product, thus complication our field’s notion of what it means to compose a multimodal composition. Because if even a monomodal product is made through multimodal means, then you could presuppose that product is, in fact, multimodal. I believe that because sonic composing, in particular, the composing of musicians is so multifaceted in terms of skills, knowledge, and technology that I was able to capture this paradox concerning the process/ product binary. iv. TYING IT TOGETHER

Each term discussed above plays a pertinent role in my studies and the field of Rhetoric and Composition as a whole. How they are defined and used within scholarship needs to be distinguished because each terms possesses certain cultural and contextual understandings and nuances that cannot be assumed by the author. Though these are terms that are foundational in our field, they also come with multiple definitions and uses throughout our field’s scholarly history. Therefore by defining and explaining their use within this project, it is my hope to

provide the audience a better understanding of how I use these terms throughout and how my study of musicians’ composing processes relates to the key terms in our field.

C. HOW I STUDIED THE PROBLEM

The research design of my study revolves around my research questions and was informed by previous composing processes scholarship (Flower and Hayes, 1981; Stedman,

2012). Below is an overview of my research questions, participants, methods, and analysis approach discussed in the remainder of the dissertation.

II. RESEARCH QUESTIONS

My research questions have developed from “what is it that musicians do when they compose music?” to the ones that were posed in the beginning of this chapter. As I began to dig further into the scholarship that shaped this project (literacy, composition, multimodality, and sound studies), I began to create questions that aimed to build upon my original question and the scholarly discussions that shaped my study. From my finalized (if any questions can be finalized) questions, I was able to design my study in a way that best answered my research questions.

My originating question is:

1. What literacy practices do musicians use during their sonic composing process?

Specifically, I am interested in understanding:

a. What communicative modes do musicians use during their composing process?

b. How do multiple communicative modes contribute to a musical composition?

III. PARTICIPANTS

To answer the above research questions, I studied three different types of musicians using three distinct sets of data, Les Paul, the inventor of the solid body electric guitar and modern

recording technology, a local jazz fusion musician, Marc Feld, and a noise musician, Jans

Wagner. Paul, Feld, and Wagner are different types of case studies that are being analyzed to determine a commonality in sonic composing processes.

IV. METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Each data set was gathered using a different method of collection. The three-pronged methodological approach was used to argue that by using more than one method, the researcher gains a more holistic perspective of what it means to compose with sound. I used archival, observational, and think-aloud methods of data collection, focusing on one main method for each participant. Using just one method, such as observation, would only provide a narrow scope of data and understanding of that process. Just observations or just think-alouds would leave out major aspects of what it means to compose with sound; a reality that was demonstrated in my own studies.

However, the use of multiple methods proves to be more time consuming and adds an extra challenge concerning data analysis. Each participant had different directions, constraints, affordances, limitations, and artifacts. With that, the approach to analysis also differed from participant to participant. To maintain a sense of cohesion and commonality among processes, I used the same coding scheme to determine patterns in each data set. Focusing on the embodiment of senses and choice of mode, I used codes to answer my above research questions.

The below tables of codes provide the codes used, definitions, and examples from three sets of data (Paul, Wagner, and Feld), however, the tables also provide a visualization for the relation of the two code tables. The first table titled Five Foundational Influences on their Sonic

Composing is composed of the five most prevalent influences seen during the analysis of Feld,

Wagner, and Paul’s data set. The influences of self and community sponsorship, as well as, the

embodiment of three of the five main senses were consistently present in all aspects of data analysis for Wagner, Paul, and Feld. Though there were other influences that occurred, none of those other influences were detectable during every step of data analysis. Therefore, I chose to focus on these main five influences on Wagner, Feld and Paul’s composing processes. These

Five Foundational Influences on Sonic Composing providing an avenue for understanding non- text centric literacy practices. Wagner, Feld, and Paul demonstrated that their literacy practices were mediated by their embodiment of senses and that that embodiment of senses was directly related to the literacy sponsorships of self and musical community.

Table 1.1 Five Foundational Influences On Their Sonic Composing

Code Definition Example Les Paul Example Marc Feld Example Jans

Wagner

Musical Discussion or depiction of “Discovery of Eddie “Every guitar player I "Other students were community literacy influence of musical ability, Lang led to interest in hear I want to be like” already taking private sponsorship understanding, learning in piano” (34) (17.57) lessons which encouraged

terms of outside people, me to do so as well”

things, objects impact on (8/21/18)

one’s self

Self- Literacy Discussion or depiction of “I learned everything Post- Interview “And I have

Sponsorship one’s own ideologies/ myself” (50:20) Observation Two: “You an intuitive way of doing

abilities and figuring out how know I kind of designed that” (22:27)

to make one own’s thoughts the guitar to be really

tangible resonant” (00.42)

Embodied Use of, direct reference to, or “You talk with your Observation one and two: “So I touch this and it’s experience of the creation with the sense of hands. You have Use of hands to tap on cold” (37:21)

something to say- say it guitar while composing

compositions’ touch and use of one’s with your hands” touch hands. (10:50)

Embodied Use of, direct reference to, or “Amplified voice using Observations one and “This tone is eventually experience of the creation with the sense of telephone mouth piece two: Feld would use his going to get annoying. I compositions’ sound and the reception of stuck on a broom handle voice as a tool to help need to come with a gain sound sound through the ear organ. and ran through him hear how the chords to adjust that” (32:05)

mother’s radio to would sound together

amplify his voice (28)”

Embodied Use of, direct reference to, or “I had those in my book Feld would use sight to “That’s actually one of experience of the creation with the sense of so I [went] through the determine the equipment the motivators for this compositions’ sight and the reception of book until I found which he would use during that project is to see the sight visuals through the organ of one goes with “After composing session unseen in a way” (06.33)

the eyes You Come” (51.00)

Code Definition Example Les Paul Example Marc Feld Example Jans Wagner

Mode: Print Discussion, use, or evidence “WIND (located in First observation, Marc “But it was not until high school

of handwritten or typewriter Chicago- paper header wrote down chord or undergrad that I achieved any

written music or lyrical often used in lyrics/ changes real fluency with reading music”

composition. sheet music in (8/21/18)

archive”

Mode: Discussion, use, or evidence “Les Paul was the Second observation: Marc First and second observation:

Electronic of electronics (use of person who invented a using bluetooth keyboard Jans uses a computer

technology to enhance sonic way of recording this to use guitar to make bass (desktop), minicomputer processor

output/ audio) in music or “layered effect” guitar sound and sensor

lyrical composition. (Jacobson 22)

Table 1.2 Mode Result

Table 1.1 and Table 1.2 represent the two sets of codes used during my data analysis. The arrow that connects the two tables represents the relationship between literacy practices and the use/

creation of mode during the act of sonic composing. The five foundational codes (which represent non-text mediate literacy practices) mediate the use of mode and propel the creation of newer modes, which is what the arrow in the above visualization depicts. The literacy practices enacted by Paul, Wagner, and Feld directly result in the use or creation of a specific mode or modes.

V. TRANSITION

My aim in this dissertation is to depict the composing processes of musicians in terms of their literate practices and communicative modes. To do that, I found it necessary to explore

Rhetoric and Composition’s notion of literacy, specifically focusing on the definition put forth by Scribner and Cole (1981) “as a set of socially organized practices which make sure of a symbol system and technology for producing and disseminating it” (p.236), and the shifting ideology of what it means to compose. Though our field’s current notion of what it means to be literate acknowledges that it is more than just words on a piece of paper, there is still a lot to be done in terms of recognizing the shifts concerning technology beyond just the computer screen. My dissertation builds upon the notion that being literate is more than just recognizing words on a page (Kress 2003) and is more than words or images on a screen but I argue also encompasses the realm of sound beyond an additive form of communication (i.e. sound as part of a visual whole). To further demonstrate this scholarly need, I use the foundations of our field’s sub-set of sound studies scholarship to argue that sound is more than just (h)earing it and that it encompasses more than one sense (Ceraso, 2014). Though sound studies scholarship informs much of my dissertation in terms of describing sound as a viable act of composing, the scholarship thus far does not fully depict how sound is composed in order to include it within the

pedagogy of the composition classroom. Creating sound in the composition classroom is more than just a show and tell from an instructor, and my dissertation builds upon this idea by providing practical implications for how to guide students through the sonic composing process.

Since my dissertation focuses heavily on the act of composing and its process, the work of composing processes scholarship in the field of Rhetoric and Composition is another aspect of literature that has informed my dissertation. Though scholarship concerning composing processes is vast in its makeup, there has yet to be scholarship that focuses on the think-aloud protocols of those who create sound within the field of Rhetoric and Composition. The sound composing scholarship in our field that does exist mainly focuses on how sound is used within the classroom, how it is composed in the classroom, and how it is implemented in class projects.

My dissertation demonstrates how sound is created and composed outside the classroom by those who do it most, musicians, and how their way of composing can inform the college composition classroom.

CHAPTER TWO: LISTEN UP!: WHY SOUND SHOULD MATTER IN RHETORIC AND

COMPOSITION

I. INTRODUCTION

The research questions guiding this dissertation study focus on the literate practices and mode choice used in the composing processes of musicians. My originating question is: What literacy practices do musicians use during their sonic composing processes? Specifically, I am interested in understanding:

 What communicative modes do musicians use during their composing process?

 How do musicians use multiple communicative modes during their composing

process?

I situate this study within three main scholarly conversations: on sound studies, on composing process research, and on multimodal literacies. Scholarship within each of these areas has provided theories of sound composing relevant to composition studies and composition pedagogies as well as models for my own study. While very few empirical studies exist which look at the composing processes of musicians, bringing together the threads of sound studies, composing processes, and multimodal literacies lays the groundwork for my own study.

The act of composing has been studied at length in the field of Rhetoric and Composition with such foundational pieces as Emig (1971; 1977), Perl (1979), Flower and Hayes (1981), Hull and Rose (1986), and Brandt (1992). These works demonstrate the variance in processes of composing in the high school and college composition classroom. However, technological

advances and access to digital spaces have changed the meaning of literacy. Monomodal ways of communication are but one way to converse (Murray, 2014). Recognizing that alphabetic text is no longer the main avenue for effective ways of meaning making, Kress (2003) argues that “We can no longer treat literacy (or “language”) as the sole, the main, let alone the major means for representation and communication” (p.35). In other words, understanding literacy involves treating literacy as more than just the ability to read and write with words on a piece of paper or with words and images on a screen (Kress, 2003). The digital affordances and prevalence of sophisticated composing technologies today allow for the author of communicative works to use more than just words to help depict the untapped world of the unsayable (Murray, 2014). As we move further away from the beginning of the digital age and into an era of constant digital interaction, the need to understand other modes of composition and the processes behind them is becoming increasingly important. The expansion of digital technologies has created new affordances in the inclusion of multimodal (textual, aural, visual) components effectively in ways of meaning making (Bezerman and Kress, 2008; Hull and Nelson, 2014; McKee,

2006; Sheppard, 2009; Takayoshi, 2015; Williams, 2001). Though composing processes has been studied at length, a study of the act of composing sound, and in this case, music has yet to be done. My study provides the first study, using the methods and foundations in Rhetoric and

Composition that examines what it means to compose sonically, with music.

The scholarship focused on sonic composition examines specific instances, programs, or challenges geared towards the college classroom, soundscapes, and musicological understandings of music and sound. Adding to this scholarship, my dissertation studies the composing processes of musicians to understand how the process of sonic composing interacts with and differs from our field’s current understanding of composing processes for other modes

of digitalized technology. Through my case study approach, I focus on grounded practices of sonic composing processes and aim to make suggestions about sonic composing that takes the reader from the community to the classroom. To frame this understanding, I use the conceptualizations of multimodal composing and multiliteracies. To compose multimodally encompasses the practice, creation and implementation of composing using more than one mode of communication. The concept of multiliteracies encompasses the theoretical framework for understanding, recognizing, and studying the shift in what it means to be literate. My studies of

Paul, Wagner, and Feld analyze each musician’s literate practices in relation to their composing processes. Adding to this scholarship, my studies provide an understanding of what it means to be literate in the sonic world. The literature review in this chapter provides an overview of the central scholarship in sound studies, composing processes and multiliteracies influencing and informing this dissertation.

II. STUDIES OF SOUND COMPOSING AND RHETORIC AND COMPOSIITON

In order to explore how sound is created in the form of musical composition, we, as a field, need to understand what sound is and how people create and compose it; and recognize sound as more than just (h)earing it but as something that is, in and of itself, multimodal and composed of more than one sense. With that, I argue the need for our field to view multimodal listening (Ceraso, 2014) as an integral aspect of the sonic composing process and the idea that we use more than one sense to understand and interpret sound, but we also use more than one sense in the act of creating that sound. Many within the field of Rhetoric and Composition are still unsure of where and how sound fits into our scholarly conceptualizations despite its growth in popularity.

The study of sonic composing has been studied within other fields, outside of Rhetoric and Composition, specifically Dave Collins’ (2008) article, “A synthesis process model of creative thinking in music composition”, explores musical composition processes by relating the process to mathematical problem solving. Collins’ (2008) article works in the fields of musicology and psychology, and provides an overview of scholarship that came before that studied the music composing processes before he depicts his own study’s findings. Collins

(2008) studied one composer for three years using a mixture of interviews, analogue recordings, retrospective verbal accounts, and researcher verification to map the cognitive processes being used during the composing process. The findings of the study were depicted in the implications section of the article stating;

The hypothetical model developed from this study suggests that the musical composition

process may incorporate many moments of insightful behaviour within a particular mode

of general and specific problem solving, together with instances of simultaneity (or so-

called parallel processing in problem solving). Furthermore, set within a paradigm of

large scale ‘problem solving to product’, rather than small-scale problem solving with

single, clearly defined goal tasks, the model allows for the proliferation and branching of

problems and subsequent solutions with associated unclear goals. (p.211).

The study’s findings and discussions are heavily focused within the fields of music and cognitive psychology. Though Collins (2008) provides useful insight into what it means to compose musically, the pieces lack of focus in the field of Rhetoric and Composition and the works emphasis on cognitive mapping, provides me with a model for exploring music composing using think-alouds to determine the composers’ literate practices.

Though Collins’ (2008) and other scholars in music education, musicology, and cognitive psychology (Reitman, 1965; Bamberger 1977;1982; Davidson and Welsh, 1988;

Davidson and Scripp, 1988; Scripp et. al, 1988; Colley et. al, 1992; Kratus, 1989; 1994; Smith and Smith, 1994; Wilson and Wales, 1995; Folkestad, 1996; Folkestad et. al, 1997) do studies dealing with musical composing processes and cognitive processes, these studies are grounded in musciological or psychological thought. The implications from each study are focused on the music aspect of composing processes or cognitive processes. My own studies, unlike the ones discussed above, are using music as a catalyst to study how sound is composed. I am not studying how the music itself is created, but rather how the composer is creating sound.

The subfield of sound studies within Rhetoric and Composition has provided the field with three pieces specifically focusing on the composing of musicians: Stedman (2012), Ceraso (2014), and

Alexander (2015). In her article, “(Re)Educating the Senses: Multimodal Listening, Bodily

Learning, and the Composition of Sonic Experiences”, Steph Ceraso (2014) demonstrates the necessity for understanding sound as a multi-sensory act and not just one that is done with our ears. Ceraso (2014) defines multimodal listening as the following:

Multimodal listening moves away from organ-specific definitions and instead conceives

of listening as a practice that involves attending to not only the sensory, embodied

experience of sound, but to the material and environmental aspects that comprise and

shape one’s embodied experience of sound. Unlike ear-centric practices in which

listeners’ primary goal is to hear and interpret audible sound (often language),

multimodal listening amplifies the ecological relationship between sound, bodies, and

environments. Broadly speaking, multimodal listening is a bodily practice that

approaches sound as a holistic experience. (p.105).

By understanding listening as a multi-sensory and multimodal act, you can understand the sound in its entirety and not just an aspect of the act. Ceraso’s call for multimodal and multi- sensory listening practices is grounded in her study of Dame Evelyn Glennie, a world renowned composer who is deaf. Ceraso’s (2014) focus on Glennie is not to demonstrate how she is an exception to the rule, but rather an example of why and how multi-sensory listening can be implemented and learned by anyone -- especially students in a composition classroom. Ceraso’s

(2014) piece provides a foundation for my own dissertation study in terms of acknowledging and identifying multimodal listening and the implications it has for students in the college composition classroom in terms of composing and critically engaging with sound. To further this idea Ceraso (2014) states,

Rather than treat Glennie as a specialized case, I want to show that her multimodal

listening practices are learned bodily habits that can be reproduced in any individual

regardless of where he or she falls on the hearing continuum. Glennie’s multimodal

listening practices exemplify a capacious, inclusive form of listening that has the

potential to change how people think about and interact with sound. (p. 106-107).

The conceptualization of multimodal listening practices as a ‘learned bodily habit’ is important to my dissertation. Ceraso’s (2014) definition of the term ‘multimodal listening’ shapes my own dissertation’s analysis of my participants in relation to my research questions that aim to look at the overall communicative modes of the sonic composing process. Like Ceraso (2014), I view multimodal listening as a holistic experience that allows the listener to do more than (h)ear sound. I also view multimodal listening as an integral aspect of the sonic composing process.

Ceraso’s (2014) research and work concerning Glennie provides a look at the role of the senses during the act of composing. Though Ceraso’s work is studying one composer with different

abilities, her study provides a jumping off point to further examine what it means to create sound and do so through a holistic bodily experience.

The closest piece of scholarship to my own study, in terms of sonic composing processes, is the dissertation of fellow sound scholar Kyle Stedman. Kyle Stedman’s (2012) dissertation,

Musical Rhetoric and Sonic Composing Processes, demonstrates the need to investigate the rhetoric and processes behind musical composers. Stedman (2012) frames this work using a historical approach of rhetoric in music from a Musicology perspective and a data collection and analysis of interviews with 11 composers with a vast array of experience in the field.

Stedman’s (2012) approach aimed to answer questions concerning communicative rhetorical aspects of composing. His use of interviews was supplemented with outside textual components to help the audience better understand the language used by the interviewees;

That is, a composer might tell me about her invention process in a way that was

interesting but hard to characterize efficiently in a transcript. In these situations, the

edited (and occasionally indexed!) words of composers from published collections helped

fill out the issues I found needed to be discussed. (Stedman, 2012, p.15-16).

His interview approach involved using semi-scripted interviews to help answer his original research questions. Stedman’s (2012) theoretical focus in this piece relied more on Musicology than Rhetoric and Composition due to his epistemological perspective of needing to understand music from a music standpoint. However, Stedman’s (2012) work helped to create an avenue within composition studies to provide a foundation for understanding the similarities and differences between composition and musical composition. Unlike the pieces discussed before his, Stedman (2012) attempts to bridge the theoretical backings of musicology and music composition with rhetoric and composition- by studying the people who compose the most (at

least in the academy) musicologist. However, Stedman’s (2012) work relied on retrospective interviews that forced him to recreate the moments without witnessing the process itself.

Stedman’s (2012) work provided a solid foundation for my own study. From his work, I determined the best methods for my own study in terms of relying on the methods of the early composition process scholars with think-aloud protocol to allow the makers voice to be heard over my own.

Jonathan Alexander's (2015) article “Glenn Gould and the Rhetorics of Sound” explores the work of musician and radio documentarian Glenn Gould and Gould’s own use of sonic manipulation to move beyond the use of text in the creation of sound. Alexander’s (2015) look into the work of Gould provides an avenue for connections to be made concerning pedagogy and sound creation.

Taking the necessity of working pedagogically with multimodality and multimedia as a

given, what I want to do in this essay is turn a critical ear to the particular ways in which

sound and voice are picked up, used, and considered in teaching of digital literacy and

multimodal compositions. (p.74).

Alexander’s (2015) analysis of archival footage of Gould created an argument for studying sound outside of the classroom for implications inside the classroom.

Attention to such work might help us consider what can be done with sound and voice in

the production of multimedia texts where sound and voice act beyond the textual - not

just as metaphors for textual meaning making, but as materialities with their own

particular rhetorical and affective affordances and dimensions. (p.75).

By looking at the work of those who create sound, in this case Glenn Gould, we recognize the importance of using sound as a way to express and communicate in a way that the textual is incapable of doing. Words can only say so much, sound can help to fill in the breaks.

Alexander’s (2015) work, like my own, makes a clear argument for the need to view sound as a viable communicative artifact in the field of Rhetoric and Composition. Making the claim that things like visuals and texts are held to a higher level than sound at times; “While infrequent, such privileging of textualities isn’t surprising, given that composition has traditionally foregrounded the production of alphanumeric texts as its primary goal, if not reason for existence as a scholarly and pedagogical discipline” (p. 76). The lack of credence given to other communication outside the realm of the textual, as Alexander puts it, is not surprising.

However, with the shift in technology, access, and literacy our understanding of what the field’s goal should be in terms of mode production needs to be shifting as well.

These three studies have greatly influenced my own studies of Wagner, Feld, and Paul.

Each piece has provided me with foundational knowledge necessary in order to study the composing processes of musicians using a mixed methods approach. My attempt at using these three previous studies as guides for my own studies, allowed me to build off of previous scholars’ works while opening up new scholarly discussions concerning sonic composing. Sound studies evolution over the past two decades has led way to the study of composing processes concerning musicians, however, the study of sound has not always been so composition focused.

At the turn of the 21st century, Thomas Rickert (1999) edited a special issue of

Enculturation that provided a space for scholars interested in music, writing and culture to express their ideas, findings, and calls for further investigation. This unprecedented issue was the first collective grouping of scholarship to discuss sound within the field of Rhetoric and

Composition. In the introduction to the issue, Rickert and Hawk (1999) argue music and composition share the ability to use us, humans, as an avenue for change,

Music composes us, but not solely on the basis of who we are as an audience, as a social

body, as a culture; rather, its compositional force stems precisely from its muteness, its

demand to evoke from us both speech and affect. Its power lies precisely in its

incommensurability with language, but this incommensurability cannot nevertheless be

said to preclude its compositional force as a form of cultural writing. (Hawks and Rickert,

1999).

Rickert and Hawk depict here the power of music in terms of building relationships between culture, people, and experiences. It is not so much that we are studying a piece of music, but we are studying that music and its composition in relation to something else. Rickert and Hawk’s

(1999), and Erickson’s (1999) discussion of music and specifically our interpretations of music, pinpoint useful theoretical discussions that help to bridge the gap between composition, musicology, and music criticism. Relying heavily on musicological terminology, however, their focus is not on composing with sound but rather like others (Rickert and Hawk, 1999; Erickson,

1999, Rice, 2006; Durst, 2012), they are interested in music as an interpretive act and not a process. My study analyzes the process of composing sound (both using archival and qualitative methods) and how that process impacts the field of Rhetoric and Composition’s view of what it means to compose and write viable communicative artifacts.

In 2013 Gunn, Hall, and Eberly drew upon sound studies scholarship from multiple disciplines to provide an introduction to scholars, like myself, who are interested in bridging sound and composition studies. Their article provides a literature review of material that introduces the scholar unfamiliar with sound studies while also depicting their theories on the

rising popularity of sound studies and how it ultimately relates to rhetoric. They begin the article by providing an explanation of sound studies growing popularity,

We think that sound studies is thriving in part because it is relatively ‘‘new’’ compared to

other ‘‘studies’’; in part because academic discomfort with unstable objects and multiple

methods has become tolerable; and in part because the scholars who affiliate with sound

studies consistently problematize its object’s presumed stability and resist

methodological orthodoxy. Finally, despite its ubiquity, sound has been relatively little

studied—arguably, repressed—for the last several decades as a respectable scholarly

topos in many areas of communication and rhetorical studies. (Gunn et. al, 2013, p. 476).

The authors of this piece paint a picture of the scholars who do sound studies as a sort of rebel without a rhetorical cause- the scholars who abandon rules and refuse to be held down by the expected scholarly outcome. Sound scholars do not presuppose the answer to their works or attempt to follow the guidelines of methodological approaches laid out in our field; mainly because its newness leads to a greater sense of academic uncertainty. The variety of types of scholarship that is composed in the realm of sound studies is extremely vast and impacts the type of methodological approaches researchers take. My own dissertation is an example of this. Much like sound scholars that came before me, I created a mixed method approach for my own study to answer a question that had not been fully explored before. Using both archival and qualitative methods, I explored a question that has no previous answer because it has never been studied before. I was unable to presuppose any sort of answer based from the scholarship that came before my study, because none of it was exactly what I was studying. Gunn et al (2013) discuss the reality of archival research and the fact that though it might only yield written text, that does not mean the researcher should only pay attention to the written word,

Words-on-a-page are sometimes all an archive yields. In such cases, rhetorical scholars

might not need to listen—although even here, we would argue, listening would be

inventional. When we ‘‘read’’ without listening to rhetorical artifacts that have or had

sound—and what artifacts are soundless, given the concept of soundscapes?—we do so at

our own risk. Sound signals can help us better understand our shared predicament.

Listening can serve as a complement to seeing and reading. Sound can serve as the

‘‘more so’’ to and of rhetoric. (p.487).

Gunn, Hall, and Eberly’s (2013) piece explains how and why sound scholarship differs from the scholarship in multimodal texts that predates the movement. Their piece also provides a succinct introduction to the work in the sub-field of sound studies.

Comstock and Hocks (2017) position sound studies as one having enough theoretical backing to be explored within the field. They view sound as a holistic experience with implications for the composition classroom: “Rhetorical scholars, particularly those working in digital media, are now well positioned to theorize sound as a primary compositional modality and to develop strategic uses of technologies” (Comstock and Hocks, 2017, p.136). This provides the foundation for their own composition course(s) based in sound that teaches students to compose using sound by focusing on resonance and reduced listening: “We have developed an approach to listening and voicing that acknowledges sound not just as a narrative or affective layer within a multimedia project, but also as a vibrational interaction with a complex environmental system” (Comstock and Hocks 2017, p.137). The authors are championing an instructional method that puts sound at the forefront, however they are not without the awareness of the constraints sound composition may have. When composing with sound, the technologies themselves and their visual representations within the digital interface can allow for both limited

and increased possibilities. Every sonic representation builds upon the affordances of sound but is also constrained by the interpretative methods being foregrounded. (Comstock and Hocks,

2017, p.137). It should be stated that composing sound in non-digital spaces also occurs in the college classroom, however it is unlikely a student is going to bring his acoustic guitar to class and play as he speaks over the music or remixes his own notion of what it means to create sound.

The view of sound put forth by Comstock and Hocks (2017) as having a “vibrational interaction with a complex environmental system” (2017, p.137), builds from Ceraso’s (2014) notion of sound as being more than just (h)earing it but as a holistic bodily experience that is impacted and affected by outside influences. Though Comstock and Hocks (2017) piece heavily influences my own study, its focus on the implication and impact of sonic composing on the college composition classroom differs from my own study in terms of my study’s emphasis on how we can transfer non-academic sonic composing to the college composition classroom.

In her 2009 article, “The Movement of Air, the Breath of Meaning: Aurality and

Multimodal Composing,” Selfe calls on educators, scholars, and the field of Rhetoric and

Composition to recognize the importance of breaking down the intellectual barriers that have separated sound and writing. She argues that there needs to be an understanding of the semiotic power of aurality as a rhetorical meaning-making tool within the classroom. Selfe describes how sound is often viewed in our field,

Sound, although it remains of central importance both to students and to the population at

large, is often undervalued as a compositional mode. Further, I argue that a single-minded

focus on print in composition classrooms ignores the importance of aurality and other

composing modalities for making meaning and understanding the world. (p. 617-618).

Literacy pedagogy, Selfe suggests, has had a historically mono-situated ideal of what it means to use language. By mono-situated I mean the issue of contraction in our own scholarship versus practice. We acknowledge that literacy is socially and culturally situated but we continue to view it in one light, a light that makes us feel most comfortable, therefore our view of literacy pedagogy is mono-situated it is situated in one view, our individual view.

However, some view Selfe’s call as valid but more complicated then she presents it in terms of practical application. Doug Hesse (2010), in his response to Selfe, argues that we need to first determine what our field does in the classroom and what is at stake in terms of curricular boundaries and purposes: “In composition - as- rhetoric, a wordless cartoon or a minor- key melody may be an acceptable target discourse. In composition- as- writing, they would not

(though an intermingling of word and image in some fuzzy ratio and relationship would)”

(p.603). Hesse’s (2010) distinction between composition possessing two parts, rhetoric and writing, is where the issue for me lies. By separating composition into either rhetoric or writing, you are limiting the scope of what composition is in a way that ignores the impact rhetoric has on writing. You cannot always separate rhetoric and writing, when the end goals, are ultimately the same: to communicate with a specific audience. However, by breaking composition up in the way Hesse (2010) does allows for a clear distinction in the role of rhetoric and writing in our field. But I view this distinction as unnecessary and unhelpful when determining what it is we as a field study and do. In her response to Hesse, Selfe (2010) argues that having literacy education that focuses too much on the traditional view of writing produces too narrow of an understanding of what to expect in the world and of who the audiences are that will read or respond to their work: “I want students to think about such people and to compose communications that might convey meaning appropriately and effectively to various groups of individuals” (p.607). Much

like Selfe (2010), I view the purpose of education as providing useful and effective tools for students to use in their actual lives. Selfe (2010) provides much needed support for broadening what it is we, as instructors, teach in the composition classroom as a rhetorical tool:

From my own ethical perspective, I have found it increasingly difficult to understand why

we think writing is the only rhetorical tool composition specialists should teach or

deploy, and why we have come to believe that “writing is not simply one way of

knowing” by rather “the way”. (Dunn, p. 15, qtd. in Selfe, 2010, p. 609).

My own dissertation begins with this shared view of writing on paper or screen as but one way- not the way-to communicate. Like Selfe, I am interested in how other modes, specifically sound, employ important rhetorical meaning making abilities that need to be fully explored in the classroom setting.

Even though we as a field are getting close to viewing sound as more than (h)earing it, we still have more to undertake in terms of how sound is created and the full impact of its multimodal composing process. It will not be until we, as a field, understand what sound is and how it is composed that we will be able to effectively teach it in the college composition classroom in a way that is more than just pedagogical ‘show and tell’ (Shipka, 2006; McKee,

2006, Shankar, 2006, Ahren-Fargo, 2013). My dissertation attempts to ‘show not tell’ with its study of the composing processes of musicians in terms of their literate practices in relation the to the scholar in the field of Rhetoric and Composition. The following discussions of multimodal composing and literacy throughout the digital age, provide an understanding for the relation between sound, composition, and literacy that guides my dissertation research questions.

II. MULTIMODAL COMPOSING

The field of Rhetoric and Composition acknowledges the shift in what it means to compose in the 21st century but the scholarship tends to focus more on visual or image-based processes and treats sound as an adage or as an aspect of pedagogical ‘show and tell’. My own dissertation, through the examination of the use of multiple modes while sonically composing, demonstrates sound as a standalone entity and not simply an adage to a multimodal whole. Sound depicts the act of its creation as multimodal in and of itself.

The term ‘multimodal’ was coined by the New London Group (1996). The term itself emphasizes process over product and is used by the Rhetoric and Composition scholarly community in such a way that “There is a greater emphasis on design and process in the classroom, which makes the term multimodal more suitable in that context…” (Lauer, 2014, p.23). Though not explicitly stated, Lauer’s definition of multimodality as process over product parallels the writing process scholarship of the past two decades. Understanding writing as a process is key to understanding multimodality as a process as well. It is in the act of the creation where the meaning is made and not only in the final product itself. Much like the ideological definition for literacy, Bezemer and Kress (2014) define mode as, “socially and culturally shaped resource for meaning making” (p. 237). With that understanding, Takayoshi and Selfe (2007) define multimodal texts as, “texts that exceed the alphabetic and may include still and moving images, animations, color, words, music and sound” (p.1). Therefore, to compose multimodally encompasses the practice, creation and implementation of composing using more than one mode of communication. This understanding of composing multimodally provides a clear connection to my own research questions for my dissertation. It is this view of multimodality that allowed me to determine the use of modes during the composing processes of my case studies.

Though my own study focuses on multimodal composing processes, the field’s depiction of composing processes has become static. The act of composing has been studied at length in the field of Rhetoric and Composition with such foundational pieces as Emig (1971; 1977), Perl

(1979), Hull and Rose (1986), and Brandt (1992). The concept of composition put forth by

Flower and Hayes (1983) can still be viewed as relevant in today’s technological world. Flower and Hayes focused on understanding the cognitive processes of writers and demonstrated that the writing process is a set of distinctive thinking processes that writers organize and orchestrate during the act of composing. The composing process is also driven by writers’ goals which are self-created based on purpose and continual knowledge obtainment from the act of writing itself

(Flower and Hayes, 1981 p. 366-368). However, what it means to write has drastically shifted in the past 37 years and is something that has yet to be fully explored in terms of process and how a writer now writes.

Takayoshi (2017) argues that the lack of current scholarship concerning composing processes was caused, in a way, by a turning away from the topic in scholarly discussions over the past two decades. Takayoshi (2017) states,

This premature turning away has not prepared us for understanding in any depth what

writers twenty years later do when they compose with technologies, multiple audiences,

contexts, and purposes which were unimaginable at the height of composing process

research in composition studies. (p. 2).

Despite this lack of scholarly investigation, my study attempts to bring back the original purpose of studying composing processes by asking what it is a musician does while composing music?

What is their composing process? Much like the scholars in the 1980s and before, my dissertation asks, “How writers work and think?” (Takayoshi, 2017, p.5).

Takayoshi’s article (2017) focus on the fields distinct lack of processes representation in its two major journals (CCC and RTE), further demonstrates that we as a field do not have a solid foundation for composing processes in the 21st century. However, when the composition processes boom began in the late 70s and 80s, the studies and findings were vast. Takayoshi provides a succinct overview of the types of writing that was studied while scholars were attempting to dissect how writers wrote:

The field endeavored to understand expertise in writing by studying professional writers

(Berkenkotter and Murray, Catano, Miller, Peterson, Schwartz) and experienced writers

in comparison with “novice” writers (Aldrich; Berkenkotter, “Understanding”; Boice;

Case; Faigley and Witte; Flower and Hayes, “Cognition”; Jensen and DiTiberio;

Knoblauch; Selzer; Sommers, “Revision”). Researchers explored questions about writers’

behaviors by focusing on individual writers in situated contexts (Aldrich; Berkenkotter,

1981; Boice; Case; Faigley and Witte; Flower and Hayes, 1980; Jensen and DiTiberio;

Knoblauch; Selzer; Sommers, “Revision”). In these articles, writing teachers turn to

empirical methods to understand what actually happens in the messiness of composing.

They ask a range of questions centered around writers in the moment of composing:

What do [college students, engineers, middle management, professional writers, poets,

novelists, academics] do when they write? What basic patterns occur during composing?

What is the nature of [pre-text, revision, audience, problem solving, decision-making,

invention, reading] in writers’ composing processes? How do experienced writers and

student writers differ in their processes? What role do computers play in composing

processes? In what ways do cognition and context work together when people write?

(Takayoshi, 2017, p.9).

My dissertation connects to this body of earlier research but instead of viewing writers as composing a monomodal entity, I am viewing my participants as continually composing multimodally due to the purpose and context of their literate practice.

Digital affordances and availability of digital composing tools allow for the author of communicative works to use more than just words to help depict the untapped world of the unsayable (Murray, 2014). The expansion of digital technologies has created new affordances in the inclusion of multimodal (textual, aural, visual) components effectively in ways of meaning making (Bezemer and Kress, 2008; Hocks, 2003; McKee, 2006; Sheppard, 2009; Hull and

Nelson, 2014; Takayoshi, 2015; Williams, 2001). Hull and Nelson (2014) argue that we, the scholarly community, should not impose a hierarchical view of differing modes of reading and composing. We should not view multimodal composing as a lesser than in comparison to traditional print-text, it should be viewed as an equal; a new way to contribute concerning new forms of literate traditions and already available means of subsistence (Hull and Nelson, 2014, p.458-459). Understanding writing in this way means that using more than one mode while composing entails a differing type of goal from the person who is composing. Each mode, in and of itself, represents a singular aspect and when put together to make a multimodal product makes a different kind of signification that would not be executed in the same way or carry the same significance using monomodal representation. Things like images, written texts, sound/music all impart a different kind of meaning that are more easily and naturally understood in certain goal driven contexts than others (Hull and Nelson, 2014,461).

Along with Hull and Nelson (2014) there are other pieces that depict the composing process in the digital era (Graham and Whalen 2008; Pigg, 2012; Steiner, 2013; Takayoshi

2015). However, we, as a field, still do not have a strong enough foundation for understanding

how and why people write in the 21st century. Not only do we not have that foundation, we do not have any study or piece of scholarship that depicts the study of sonic composing processes that is grounded in Rhetoric and Composition scholarship, something that will be further discussed in the next section. My study is the first of its kind in our field that depicts the sonic composing processes of musicians using think- aloud protocol. My study provides a needed additional layer to understanding composing processes. As a field we acknowledge that what it means to compose is different in the 21st century. However, as Takayoshi (2017) points out,

A lot has changed in the world of writing since composing process research last

captivated our field, and disciplinarily, we have yet to account for the effects of those

changes on what people do when they write and the role writing plays in acts of meaning

making across the human landscape. (Takayoshi, 2017, p.3).

My dissertation aims to provide at least one piece of current scholarship that depicts the effects of change on what people do when they compose and what it is they are now composing, how and why; something our field has been lacking for the last 30 years.

III. MULTILITERACIES THROUGH THE DIGITAL AGE

In Literacy in the New Media Age (2003), Kress argues that the mode and medium for communication are expanding from traditional print forms and the written alphabetic word and shifting towards the screen and the image.

The dominance of the screen as the currently most potent medium - even if at the moment

that potency may still be more mythical than real - means that it is these practices and

these conceptions which hold sway, and not only on the screen but in all domains of

communication. (Kress, 2003, p.6).

The key words screen and image encompass much of the focus of our field’s understanding of what it means to be literate now in the 21st century. Being able to navigate a computer screen or understand the impact of visual imagery is often championed in our scholarly discussions but understanding the communicative implications of sound is often left out in the Rhetoric and

Composition starter guide for what it means to be literate in the 21st Century. Even though that might be the case, Kress’s work makes my own work possible because Kress fights for a scholarly interpretation and understanding of literacy as something that moves beyond the alphabetic word. Even though he discusses the shift in the screen being the primary mode, Kress still is arguing for a shift beyond a piece of paper. He argues for a shift in understanding literacy beyond alphabetic text and the need for us, as a field, to understand that “the former constellation of medium of book and mode of writing is giving way, and in many domains has already given way, to the new constellation of medium of screen and mode of image” (Kress, 2003, p.9).

Though this argues for the transition in seeing the main way of communication as now image based, Kress is still arguing for a shift in understanding due to technological change. The shift in understanding that is proposed by Kress (2003) has limitations because his focus is on the screen.

However, Kress’s focus being solely on the mode of the screen allows for other scholars (like myself) to argue for a need to view other aspects of technological communication as a viable and important communicative mode(s). The goal for Kress is thinking about this technological shift and the implications it has for social and cultural understanding of what it means to be literate.

Much like Kress, my study is not trying to prove an overarching claim but instead is an exploration of the social and cultural implications of viewing sound as a communicative mode that is having more and more influence in our own literate lives and understanding of what it means to be literate.

Conceptualizations of literacy shifted with the work of scholars in New Literacy Studies

(NLS). The scholarly discussion within Rhetoric and Composition changed with the ideological understanding of literacy. Bazerman’s (2004) call to understand the shift of what it means to be literate in the 21st century involves broadening the scope beyond just the screen: “The material technologies that mediate literacy have changed the conditions of literacy and enabled expanding creative uses of the written word” (2004, p. 436). Bazerman argues that the shift in what it means to be literate and what is considered literacy is a demonstration of the cultural and social changes. Furthermore, his proposed understanding of literacy lends way to what should be accessible in terms of literacy and literacy acquisition. In line with the call from Bazerman, Huot and Stroble (2004) discuss scholarly pursuits surrounding the term multiliteracy as further depicting the ideological view of literacy: “Freeing literacy from a specific site or set of practices allows us to see it as generative, as a way to consider and recognize the experiences, memories, and histories of those who use literacy to make meaning in their lives, regardless of their group or personal identities” (p.4). These two pieces argue for a broader understanding of what it means to be literate and to encompass an ideology of multiliteracies, a significant movement toward how literacies are multiple and layered across people’s lives.

As instructors we teach our students about two important aspects of rhetoric: purpose and audience. If we, as instructors and writers, do not begin to recognize the shift in purpose and audience in the digital age then we are not only dis-servicing ourselves but our students as well.

This notion of writing as something always done for a specific purpose, context, audience, and so on is best demonstrated in the work of Barton, Ivanic, Appleby, Hodge, Tusting (2012), where the authors argue for the need to recognize people’s relationship with formal literacy and informal literacies throughout their lives as reflective of other aspects of social and cultural

realities (i.e. economic standing, political factors). The recognition that “We always read and write something for a particular purpose, in a particular way, in a particular time and place”

(Barton et. al, 2012, p. 17) further builds upon my own study’s notion that how we write (or compose) is dependent upon the particular purpose and audience the musicians are communicating their message to.

Lankshear and Knobel (2011) define literacy practices as what people do with literacy, and they argue for an understanding of literacy as a set of social practices that can be understood from specific events that are mediated from written texts. Furthermore, they state, “Literacy enables human beings to communicate in ways that go beyond voice within face-to-face settings” (Lankshear and Knobel, 2011, p.40). The bottom line for literacy is that it enables meaning-making to occur and is mediated by symbol systems. Literacy is not just words, voice, images, or other preconceived notions of meaning-making but instead is anything that is mediated by a sort of symbol system.

It is these discussions that have allowed my own dissertation study to develop. Without the shift in understanding what literacy is and the impact and influence of social and cultural implications, I would be unable to make a convincing argument concerning sound as a viable aspect of literacy. However, though the shift towards technological ways of meaning-making has impacted our field’s notion of what it means to be literate, it still has not fully explored other aspects of technology beyond the screen in their entirety.

In her 2004 CCCC’s Chair’s Address in San Antonio, Kathleen Yancey discusses the shift in what it means to write and compose in the college classroom, the fate of the English department, and the need to reevaluate our own individual knowledge obtainment. Though what

Yancey argued for is on its way to happening with multimodality being an aspect of most

English departments’ current curriculum, her argument provides an analogy for my own project’s emphasis on the lack of sound in the college composition classroom. Yancey uses the

19th Century Enlightenment movement as an analogy for what is happening currently within the field of Composition and beyond. Her explanation for the relation between these two-time periods is that certain types of communicative artifacts are being obtained and learned outside of a school setting- and are positioning educational environments to quickly become archaic. I use

Yancey’s analogy as an analogy for my own project’s place in our field. I view the use of sound as a viable communicative mode and one that students use on a daily basis through social media platforms, presentations, etc., and yet we as a field do not find these ways of communicating valid in an academic setting. And thus, our view of what it means to ‘write’ or ‘compose’ has the danger to become archaic in the eyes of the students who walk through our classroom doors.

Furthermore, Yancey depicts how we, as instructors, not only need to widen our own understanding of what it means to write, but we must begin to widen our understanding of non- academic resources. “Given a dearth of resources-- from hardware to professional development, from student access to what Gail Hawisher calls the bandwidth digital divide- many of us continue to focus on print” (Yancey, 2004, p.307). Thirteen years later, this is an issue that can still be seen within English departments across the country;

Suppose that if instead of focusing on the gatekeeping year, we saw composition

education as a gateway? Suppose that we enlarged our focus to include both moments,

gatekeeping and gateway? And further suppose, to paraphrase Elizabeth Daley, that we

designed a curriculum in composition that prepared students to become members of the

writing public and to negotiate life. How might that alter what we think and what we

do?” (Yancey, 2004, p. 306).

I argue that it is our jobs as instructors, educators, and scholars to continue our own growth as writers. If we want our students to be literate in the 21st century, then we too must be literate in the 21st century.

It is a fact that literacy does not share the definition that it had 40 years ago. However, I feel it is also safe to argue that the definition of literacy cannot be the same as it was even five years ago. Technology, society, and culture have shifted too much to continue to ignore things like sound as a viable communicative mode that demonstrates a different type of literacy attainment. In most English Departments across the country stating that literacy is not just being able to read words on a page but is also about being able to read and interpret images on a screen would be received with little to no resistance. However, if you were to include other communicative modes such as sound as a standalone entity as a way of literacy attainment, the pushback would be more prevalent. My dissertation aims to depict the importance to view sound as an aspect of literacy and a viable communicative mode to use and teach in the college composition classroom. In the following chapter, I describe my methodological approach for my case studies. I address the methodological problem within archival studies and explicate my methods for data retrieval concerning Les Paul, as well as my methodological approach to the qualitative case studies of my participants Marc Feld and Jans Wagner.

CHAPTER THREE: IT TAKES A VILLAGE: MIXED METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH

TO UNDERSTANDING SONIC COMPOSING PROCESSES

I. INTRODUCTION

The methods focused on in my dissertation study are three separate approaches taken that determined the types of data collected. My use of case studies allowed me, as the researcher, to collect hyper specific information concerning three different musicians and entailed three different kinds of data collection to provide a more holistic picture of what it means to compose with sound. My first data set consists of archival material (primary and secondary documents) that aid in the explanation of Les Paul’s composing process. Paul’s set of data will be investigated further in this chapter. The second data set consists of in-person interviews, in- person observations, and field notes taken of and with a musician by the name of Marc Feld

(name changed due to anonymity) that then aid in the explanation of his composing process. The third set of data consists of e-mail interviews, videoed observations, and screen capture of the composition being created by musician Jans Wagner (name changed due to anonymity).

This chapter will discuss this project’s recruitment process, an explanation of the qualitative methods and archival methods used, as well as a more detailed explanation of my coding scheme that was introduced in the first chapter (see Table 1).

To begin the discussion of my methods, I pose my research questions as they guided my research design, chosen methods, and analysis.

My originating question is:

1. What literacy practices do musicians use during their sonic composing process?

Specifically, I am interested in understanding:

a. What communicative modes do musicians use during their composing process?

b. How do multiple communicative modes contribute to a musical composition?

II. RECRUITMENT OF PARTICIPANTS

My three participants for this study, Les Paul, Marc Feld, and Jans Wagner were all recruited and studied for different reasons that were related to the method of data collection for each case study. Les Paul’s case study was an archival study. Les Paul was chosen due to his influence on modern recording technology. Paul also happened to have a large amount of archived materials. The amount of material was determined by the head archivist at the Rock

Roll Hall of Fame Archives (RRHF Archives). She suggested that, because Paul had the most physical artifacts, his material would provide more holistic narrative of his process. Marc Feld, a local musician, was recruited in part to his surface similarities to Les Paul. Feld, like Paul, is a musician who focused on guitar and was not a note reader. He also works for a guitar pedal company and creates his own musical components. Both men focused on guitar playing using their own musical components as enhancers to their sound.

Jans Wagner is a noise musician located in the Southwest region of the United States.

Because Paul and Feld are so similar, I wanted to have an outlier participant to demonstrate that my findings concerning composing processes were either similar or different depending on the type of composition being created. Wagner was a classically trained musician with a background in musicology and music theory and what he composed was wildly different than my other two participants. Wagner mainly composes with computer and electronic modes of production. The pieces that Wagner creates are using unconventional sounds, sonar decimals, and synthesis to create a product that mirrors some other sensory phenomenon. Wagner’s familiarity with

recording technology and being familiar with being watched while composing, is another reason

I chose Wagner as a participant for the think-aloud portion. Due to his own academic background, Wagner was able to understand the process of think-aloud and perform it virtually in a way that captured his composing process while also providing, me as the researcher, with a screencast of what it was he was composing.

All three participants were recruited and chosen for different reasons. The variety of participants, along with methodological approach benefited my study in terms of determining patterns in my findings. Each person, each study provided an insight into the composing process of musicians that would not be able to be captured by just one of my above participants or methods. I needed all three to be able to provide succinct findings with serious implications for the field of Rhetoric and Composition

III. OBSERVATIONS

To study the composing process of my participants Marc Feld and Jans Wagner by studying their composing in action, I was guided by the foundational text of Flower and Hayes

(1981). In their study of writers processes they used a protocol analysis which they described and explained as, “thinking aloud protocols capture a detailed record of what is going on in the writer’s mind during the act of composing itself” (368). This reasoning guided my own use of think-aloud protocols with Feld and Wagner. My design of the think-alouds and observations were also guided by Smagorinsky (1989). Smagorinksy (1989) provides compelling evidence for the use of protocol analysis but still is unable to say with absolute certainty that it is a valid method because he views the information on protocols as incomplete. However he is able to provide four conclusions concerning protocol analysis:

1. Although imposing unnatural writing conditions, the standard protocol method of

recording a subject’s utterance with prompts in a given time period can describe

composing processes that parallel those that take place under natural conditions.

2. The method of protocol analysis should emerge from a theoretical framework

underlying the problem the researcher is trying to study.

3. As has been frequently noted (i.e., Flower and Hayes, 1980; Hayes and Flower,

1983; Swarts, Flower and Hayes, 1980), the identification of processes must be

substantiated by several forms of evidence.

4. The researcher should identify variables that affect the subjects, and thus

influence the content of the protocol transcripts. (p. 475-476)

These four conclusions are ones that I used in my study to make my protocol analysis as valid and reliable as possible. I made sure that both Feld and Wagner composed in their natural environment to make sure that it would parallel their composing under normal circumstances. I decided upon the use of protocol analysis because it best answered my research questions concerning musician composing processes; this relates to the theoretical framework of composing process scholarship in the field of Rhetoric and Composition (which is outlined in my literature review). I also collected other types of data that would help triangulate the protocol analysis findings (such as interviews, a written piece of composition, photographs, and video).

And finally, I depicted variables that affected Feld and Wagner’s protocol analysis below. Using both Flower and Hayes (1981) and Smagorisnky (1989), I created my study to make my use of protocol analysis as reliable as possible based on my study’s research questions and design.

A. DATA COLLECTION FOR FELD AND WAGNER

I decided the most efficient way to obtain accurate information on Wagner and Feld’s composing processes was to have them do a think aloud session (s) where they would compose

while I videotaped their composing. The videotaping allowed me to capture both the audio of the think aloud, as well as the physical act of composing itself which aimed to help answer my research question(s) pertaining to mode of composition. During these sessions, I did not talk or interact with Feld or Wagner and instead attempted to be as non-intrusive as possible. Before our first observation, I explained to Feld and Wagner the basis of a think- aloud protocol. After my explanation, I gave Feld and Wagner time to ask questions for clarification before we started our observation. I decided to give the directions and basic understanding of protocol analysis right before our first observation. That way the instructions were fresh in their mind and they did not have to worry about remembering them later (see Appendix B for instructions).

During my study’s data collection using protocol analysis, I recognized three issues and differences. First, Feld and Wagner were not used to speaking their process out loud. This caused me to ask more clarifying questions about their process in the follow-up interviews because Feld, in particular, did not fully explain certain steps during the think-aloud observation(s). Second,

Feld was not used to having essentially a stranger in the room during composing, whereas

Wagner was recording himself in an open studio with others continually around. During the first observation Feld stopped and asked if he was, “doing okay”. I had to explain to him that he was doing great and there was nothing he needed to do in addition to talking through his process. Wagner was much more comfortable with this because of the experimental nature of his composing, he was used to composing in front of others. Finally, neither was used to composing in a set time frame. Due to time constraints, we would sometimes have to stop the observation in the middle of a piece of composition. Neither Feld nor Wagner were able to complete a finished product during our observations. This was not ideal (for either myself as the researcher or the

musician) because it was not a natural moment of stoppage for either musician and was a forced interjection by me, as the researcher.

Both Feld and Wagner provided me with roughly 90 minutes worth of videoed observational data (Feld 92.07 minutes and Wagner 86.39 minutes). Because of my ability to watch Feld, in person and in real time I was able to gain a lot of data from my observational field notes (21 pages) that helped to fill in the gaps missing from his think-aloud(s) data. Wagner’s think- alouds were the main source of data for me, along with his screencasts. However, I also took field notes (15 pages) while watching the pre-recorded videos that were used as data but more of a support and not the main source of finding like with Feld.

Feld’s think-aloud observation took place at two different locations (one for each observation). The first was in a basement of a family member of Feld and the second was in

Feld’s own residence. In both observations, I placed myself off to the side and used a tablet to record the observational data. I also used a handheld recorder (just in case the video was illegible) and took field notes. I acted as a strict observer with no interaction (unless directly asked a question) and made sure the environment was as natural as possible for Feld composing.

I transcribed the video and recorder data for analysis.

Wagner provided me with videos of his composing and also with screencast videos of his composing in real time (which resulted in 86.39 minutes of screencasts). Since Wagner uses computer programming during his sonic composing process, he was able to record the composing in real time. This provided me with a set of data that fully captured Wagner’s process and allowed me to study, in-depth, the choices and moves he made while composing because I was able to watch the choices being made in real time. The screencast, just like with my other approaches to data collection, provided certain affordances and constraints. As

discussed above, the screencast provided me with a recorded, real-time view of his composing and the choices being made. However, because of the sophistication of the software being used I, at times, was unable to fully grasp the rhetorical choices Wagner was making and had to ask for further clarification of not only the think-aloud, but the screencast images in my post-observation questioning.

It is important to note that Feld and Wagner were able to produce useful pieces of composition during our think-aloud sessions. I say that it is important because it demonstrates a level of validity to my methodological choices and data collection. Because both Wagner and

Feld were able to create viable pieces that were worked on during my observations, demonstrates that my data collection methods were not as intrusive or disruptive to their processes as originally anticipated. After our last observation, Feld sent me a video of him playing the song that had the chord progression he was working on within it. Feld also began to tailor what he worked on depending on how long we had for our observations; he began working on smaller pieces of composition sometimes even just a single chord progression. He did this with no guidance or instruction from me. Not only was Feld a willing participant, he also began to treat our sessions to explore more in-depth certain chord progressions he was working on. This allowed me to have a better understanding of the intricacies of his processes due to the level of attention on micro aspects of his music. Wagner, on the other hand, was working on a major project that he would allow me to view. Unlike Feld who would just begin to compose pieces because I was there, Wagner was working on a project and would let me observe him working on this project and would continue to work once we were done. The difference in approach to the observations themselves provided a more holistic understanding of composing.

IV. INTERVIEWS

The foundation of the qualitative methods used in my studies of Feld and Wagner were guided by the works of Stedman’s (2012) dissertation that studied the composing of musicologists and undergraduate music composition students. Though other pieces of scholarship also guided my study (Ceraso, 2014; Silverman, 2013; Huot and Williamson, 2012;

Yin, 2009; Smagorinsky, 2008; Grbich 2007; Haswell, 2005; Smagorinsky, 1998; Brandt 1998),

Stedman’s (2012) study directly related to how I created my interviews for Wagner and Feld. In

Stedman’s (2012) dissertation, he studied the composing processes of musicology professors and undergraduate music composition students using semi scripted interviews (a study I discussed more in-depth in the literature review portion). He conducted his interviews both in-person and over the phone, “In the end, I conducted phone or face-to-face interviews with eight non-student composers, supplemented by email interviews with two more composers who preferred to discuss these topics asynchronously” (Stedman, 2012, p.11). Stedman’s (2012) use of interviews to determine the composing process was a methodological aspect I found to be helpful in aiding in the discovery of the processes of the 16 participants he studied. However, the lack of representation of their actual composing processes made it challenging for Stedman (2012) to explain the processes conveyed in interviews:

Yet on the other hand, the nature of a semi-scripted, conversational 16 interview means

that on some topics, it was sometimes hard to find quotations that could be easily

communicated to an audience who wasn’t at the interview with us. That is, a composer

might tell me about her invention process in a way that was interesting but hard to

characterize efficiently in a transcript. In these situations the edited (and occasionally

indexed!) words of composers from published collections helped fill out the issues I

found needed to be discussed. (p. 15-16).

Stedman would use language from other publications to more easily relay the participant’s processes. I found that to avoid this type of issue (as much as possible) I would need to study the actual composing process of the musicians so that their own words during the process could explain. Instead of a constructed narrative of the individual’s composing process from memory, I would use interviews to provide information on Feld and Wagner, their playing, and clarification for what I had observed, however, I would not use them as the main method to determine processes and answer my respective research questions. I did use Stedman’s (2012) approach to interviews as being semi-scripted to allow my participants to have more stake in their own narrative. Unlike Stedman (2012), I did not so much want to be the sole ‘molder’ (p.14) of their data and create Feld and Wagner’s composing processes. Rather, I wanted Feld and Wagner to show me their processes to answer my research questions. The main reason I relied so heavily on

Stedman’s (2012) study over others is because he is the only other person in the field of Rhetoric and Composition to study the composing processes of musicians. For this reason, I looked to his study to determine what worked and did not work (based on my own reading and discussions with Stedman concerning his study). From there, I determined the best way to conduct the interviews for the purpose of my study and research questions.

Both Feld and Wagner were interviewed by me throughout data collection. Each participant was interviewed before their first observation and after each consecutive observation. They were both given the same pre-observation interview questions and the post observation questions for both, were a way for me, as the researcher, to have a better understanding and clarification of what it was each participant was doing during the observation. However, how each participant was interviewed differed and provided me with two different types of data sets, despite the similarities in their rationale.

I interviewed Feld before his first observation at an agreed upon place and used a handheld recorder and took field notes during the interview. The interview was structured more like a casual conversation and not overly formal. I wanted to make sure that Feld felt comfortable with answering the questions and with me as the researcher. So I aimed to make each interview as low stakes as possible in order to get the most genuine answers and data set.

The pre-observation interview provided me with a foundational understanding of Feld as a person and a musician. His pre-observation interview paralleled my experience with Paul in the

Archives; both allowed me to obtain a contextual understanding of who they are/ were as musicians. After each observation, I also interviewed Feld to provide me with an understanding concerning terminology, finger positioning, choices in pedals and other choices being made that needed clarification. I wanted Feld to provide the answers to my research questions as much as possible and not present information that was biased by my understanding of something.

Therefore instead of assuming what Feld was doing, if I was unsure I used the post-observation interview as a place for me to clarify and gain a better understanding of his composing process.

Though Feld’s pre-observation was semi-scripted because it was used to provide me with contextual details needed for my understanding of who Feld is as a musician, his post- observation interview questions were based off my own lack of understanding concerning aspects of the observation(s). For the first post-observation interview, I went back and re- watched the video of the observation and formulated questions based on my own need for clarification. Whereas the second post-observation interview was done directly after the observation because of time constraints, which caused me to write down my questions for clarification while I was observing. Despite the difference in approach to the writing of my post- observation interview questions, they still focused on the same objective: clarification for the

researcher. Each post-observation interview was conducted in an agreed upon space and time and a handheld recorder was used to capture the interview (to later be transcribed) and field notes were also taken during each post-observation interview. There were no time limits placed upon any of the interviews conducted with Feld, which allowed me as a researcher to gain a deeper understanding of Feld’s process and who he is as musician and person (interview one 58.03 mins, interview two 34.56 mins, and final interview 22.48 mins; 30 pages total transcribed data).

The semi-structured questions used for Feld’s and Wagner’s pre-observation interview are in Appendix A. Below are examples of questions of post-observation interviews.

Post-Observation Example (First Observation)

During my first observation, I noticed Feld would switch between differing pedals while composing and I was unsure as to why he was doing so. I did not want to assume any aspect of his process and instead wanted him to explain why he was doing what he was doing. Therefore, I asked him, “How did you decide to use specific pedals/ equipment? Do you pre-determine the equipment before composing?”. That way, he was telling me why instead of me providing a why.

Post- Observation Example (Second Observation)

During this observation, Feld stated during his think-aloud that he had a ‘melody in his head’ and I had noted that in my field notes for post-observation questioning. Therefore, I asked

Feld, “Are you always thinking of differing parts while composing?”. This allowed him to provide me with clarification and an answer to this aspect of his process. Feld provided me with

114.01 minutes of interview data that was transcribed and used for data analysis.

Due to constraints of time and space, with me being in the Midwest and him being in the

Southwest, Wagner provided me his answers in the form of emailed responses. I asked him the same pre-observation questions as Feld and he provided me with his answers in a typed form.

Wagner’s answers being typed and not spoken provided different affordances and constraints than Feld’s tape recorded interview(s). Since he was able to type his response(s), Wagner was able to think about the questions in more depth and provide answers that reflected who he is as a composer of sound in a more detailed manner. Wagner was also able to provide specific examples from texts and authors that he might not have been able to if he was asked questions in person with little time to respond. However since Wagner’s answers were typed and not spoken in conversation, I was unable to follow up with or elaborate on what he said in real time. Instead if I needed or wanted even more clarification, I had to email him and ask him again. Wagner provided me with three written interviews from e-mail that were later printed off and coded for data analysis. Wagner did not have a required time frame to return the interviews (but usually did so within 3-5 days). This approach to data collection was, in some ways, more time consuming but also provided me with a hyper- specific in-depth account of Wagner’s process and his history as a sonic composer.

V. ARCHIVAL DATA COLLECTION

Unlike other forms of data collection, Archival data collection has no set processes to guide the researcher in how to go about collecting archived material (Clary-Lemon, 2014). Like

Clary- Lemon (2014), I too believe that there are no clear cut methods for archival researchers but there are still certain aspects that A/ archival researchers should take into account no matter the type of A/archive they are working with and within. Though there may never be a set of concrete steps for archival researchers to follow in terms of methods, there can be an overarching

conceptualization that we all work towards and from. The differing types of Archives and archives1, the reasons we research, who and what we research, what is available, the types of documentation, whether we can copy said documentation and many more limitations hinder us from ever truly having a clear set of guidelines for methods. However, if we are transparent in our collection of data, depiction of the A(a)rchive, our own processes for determining data, and recognizing our own subjectivity and bias while attempting to silent our own voice so the voices of the archived can be heard, we (archival researchers) may be able to come closer to what a clear ‘method’ in this field would begin to look like.

The scholarly work set forth by other Rhetoric and Composition scholars also aids in my framework for the A/archival approach in this study. Working from the ideals put forth by

Smagorinsky (2008) concerning the methods section as the epicenter in social science research, I argue for similar approaches to archival research as other research projects found in the field of

Rhetoric and Composition from a social science perspective. Smagorinsky (2008) states, “I don’t think that replicability is necessary in the conventional sense, that is, of conducting an identical study with identical results, which serves to corroborate the quality and veracity of the study being replicated and the validity of its findings” (p.393-394). It is important to note that like

Smagorinsky, I am not arguing for replicability (Haswell, 2005), but instead for transparency.

Replicability is an unattainable goal for social science research due to the shift in contextualization that can occur over time. However, that does not mean the aspect of transparency should be ignored. Smagorinsky uses the metaphor of a recipe to demonstrate the importance of transparency in methods sections; saying that if a person reads a recipe that calls

1 Archives signifies a traditional Archive in the sense of one that is created and maintained by archivists and an archive is an unexpected archived space that provides materials in a non-sanctioned space (i.e. a basement of a grandparent).

for flour, oil, and eggs to be cooked at 350 degrees, the baker has no conceptualization of what it is they are cooking, for how long, or even the type of food that will come out (2008, p.393). The same thing goes for a methods section, if the reader is unable to determine how the researcher got from point A to point B in their study, then how are they supposed to trust the findings put forth? The conceptualization of transparency is at the core of my own methodological approach for this study.

However, because of the constraints of Archival research, the differences in Archives themselves, the lack of knowledge concerning the material the researcher will find, the types of material the researcher finds, differing levels of access to materials, and so on, it makes it nearly impossible to provide a generally applicable methodological approach for Archival methods.

Because of this my methods for my Archival data collection relied heavily on the perceived notion of what A/archival researchers should do when they collect data and how to collect that data in a way that best represents the voice of the original ‘author’. My methods for my case study of Les Paul’s archived materials was guided by three concepts presented throughout

Archival scholarship.

1. The conceptualization of the original intent and purpose of archived materials:

The original intent of the archived material was something that shaped my own collection of data. As I collected information on Paul and later analyzed that data, I had to continually ask myself if what I was saying was what Paul wanted someone to find. Since Paul’s archived material was given by his estate after his death, I was unsure whether or not Paul had intended to donate these materials or if it was his family’s choice. Therefore, during collection and analysis I wanted to maintain accuracy in what was be presented and not delve too much into what the materials were missing. Yin (2009) states, “When archival evidence has been deemed relevant,

an investigator must be careful to ascertain the conditions under which it was produced as well as its accuracy” (p.106). Archival records were created for an intended audience and an intended purpose; the original audience and purpose must be taken in consideration and appreciated when interpreting the usefulness and accuracy of the records and/or data being collected. These were things I considered during my collection of Paul’s materials. Despite Paul having the largest collection of archived material at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Library and Archives, he was not the one who donated those items. Because his family donated the items after his death (as mentioned earlier) does not mean or suggest that researchers (like myself) were ever his intended audience. Therefore, any findings from the primary sources needed to be corroborated with other forms of information. This leads me to the second concept that guided my methods approach.

2. Data corroboration:

The need for corroboration assists in ensuring that Paul’s original intentions for the documents are respected, his voice is not lost, and the findings and/or arguments I am making have some ground beyond assumptions made about pieced together archival materials. “The researcher needs to find a claim that is internal to the document and corroborate that claim. The claim also has to be compared to claims of the same or similar merit in other documentation”

(Connors, 1992, p.57). Furthermore, Connors (1992) states “not a one [artifact] can stand as the complete and trusty truth- not even the statistics. And so, a process of comparison and corroboration is central work for the historian” (p.57). For these reasons, I collected more data at the Archives then just primary sources to add secondary support to the claims and arguments I am making about Paul’s composing processes. To avoid a skewed version of Paul’s history, corroboration of findings is critical (Gaillet, 2012). The concept of archival

corroboration led me to collect information beyond the Archives to ensure the reliability (as much as possible) of my findings and make Paul’s voice speak louder than my own.

My 30 hour in-house Archive work was based upon the notion that, as archival researchers we never really know what we will find in the Archive and what might be useful to our research later on (Gaillet, 2012).Even though the RRHOF Library and Archives has a database system that I used to search all of Paul’s documentation, I was still unsure as to what those documents actually were (for instance was sheet music original handwritten notes or a

Xeroxed copy for a 5th grade orchestra; these were things that were not entirely clear based on the database entry). Therefore, I had to look at all the boxes because I was unsure what they housed. I wrote down or copied almost every piece of information that I thought could be useful

(from actual handwritten pieces of music to someone else’s typed up biography they did for a school project). Though only around a third of the data was applicable for this study, I did not know in 2016 when I started this project what I would need today.

Even in an Archive as profound as the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, it was still impossible to know, with 100% certainty, what I would find and how those findings would impact my study and research questions. However, this uncertainty that many researchers face in the Archives allows them to create a foundational understanding of who or what they are studying in a way that would be impossible to obtain in other circumstances. My time in the Archives provided me with an understanding of Les Paul, a man I would never meet, that I would never obtain from simply reading a book about his life and music. I treated my time in the

Archives as the ‘pre-observation interview’; it was a chance for me to understand how Paul was a person and musician and how he became this almost God- like figure in the world of music.

Oftentimes, archival historians and researchers are viewed as spies who are gaining access to information without the permission of the original author (Ritter, 2012). The

A/archives should be used to give a voice to those who are being studied and not a voice for the researcher. The archives should be used to explore a specific person, time period, artifact, and so on in a way that allows that person or thing to speak about their importance. They should not be used as a facade for the researchers own ideas of what those people or things represent or adding their own biases to the things they are finding in these Archival spaces. For example, Paul’s lack of material concerning his ex-wife and at one time music partner Mary Ford could lead me to say that Paul held a grudge against her because he did not include her in the record of his successes.

Since the materials do not say that directly, I cannot draw that conclusion based on my own suspicion. My time with Paul’s writings and belongings provided me with a context of who he was and why he did the things he did, a context I would otherwise not be aware of. Whenever you are surrounded by someone else's things, you begin to understand who that person is, what they like, what they do not, and so on; the Archives allowed me to be surrounded by Paul’s belongings in a way that allowed me to begin to understand him as a person and not just a figure in a book. Again, the concept of corroboration and collecting more data than I used in the final representation put me, as the researcher, in a position to gain a more holistic view of who Paul was and in the context of NLS, this ‘extra’ research was necessary for me to understand the socially constructed context of Paul’s literacy practices.

3. The notion of transparency:

Archival methods can lend way to biases and a sense of hijacked findings (creating answers that are not really present) because the researcher is not working with an actual live participant but instead is working with the items the participant left behind; there is not a live

being that the researcher is working with that forces them to make sure they are dotting all their

I’s and crossing all their T’s. Working with a live participant provides checks and balances to the researcher’s own interpretation that is not present in A/archival work. Therefore, it can be easy to manipulate the materials to answer the questions you have perfectly if the researcher is not careful or cognizant of their own biases. I was guided by Gaillet’s (2010) ideology concerning transparency to ensure I did not do this with my own study. “The researcher’s interests, prejudices, selection of subject matter, research questions, and biases inform and guide the research, and the researcher should inform readers of these factors up front” (Gaillet, 2010, p.36). Here I will attempt to be as honest as possible concerning the choices made with Les Paul in terms of him as a participant and my collection of data.

A. PAUL’S DATA COLLECTION EXPLAINED

Paul’s archived materials were looked at closely for a total of 30, in-house, hours at the

Archive. His materials were both copied (in terms of Xerox and by hand) for further examination outside of the Hall of Fame. Not all of his materials were able to be copied or taken out of the

Hall of Fame; therefore, I had to make sure that the information from these sources was adequately discussed in my research journal and field notes. I collected the data by using the database (which can be accessed at home) to find materials that were housed on-site for me to see in person. I had to make choices as I researched about the value of the documents I was requesting copies of why and how they would aid in the answer of my research questions (which have changed a great deal since I began researching Paul in the Spring of 2016). Therefore, the use of my notebook and field notes became of the utmost importance during my archival research. If I thought something was interesting but not necessarily applicable to my research questions at the time, I would write it in my notebook with the proper archival citations. After I

collected my data set for Paul, I determined that the only information I could code for patterns was the information that was either stated directly by Paul (in interviews or personal writings), written about Paul (with corroboration from materials found), or video of Paul discussing his music. I felt that since the hand-written pieces of composition, though fascinating and could lend support to my analysis did not possess enough validity because the answers I would depict from these pieces would be based on assumptions and not reality.

Much like Gaillet (2010), L’Eplattenier (2009) also calls for a transparent methods section, writing that “a good methods section, will give readers a sense of what was examined, how it was examined, and where it is currently located” (p.175). The last item

L’Eplattenier states might seem out of place, ‘where it is currently located’. However, for

A/archival researchers this seems rather important because where an item is located and/ or housed provides information for the access, the usability of that research site (for instance does it have searchable database that is accurate), whether or not it is open to the public, whether or not is viewed as a traditional Archive (for instance the Library of Congress) or a found archive (for instance your Grandparent’s attic); all of these aspects greatly impact the what and how the researcher collects and examines artifacts. Therefore, I view L’Eplattenier’s third point as perhaps the most important. By providing detailed explanation for the methods used for the archival portion of my dissertation, I attempted to provide a sense of validity to my findings by demonstrating a step-by-step approach and reasoning for my data collection and analysis.

Les Paul’s archived collection consisted of five one foot by one-foot office boxes (that were cataloged) and two larger boxes (that were not cataloged- with no depiction as to why they were not included in the catalog). Before I began looking through the boxes, I looked at the digital archive library to determine what kinds of documents I had available and where they were

housed. I first looked at the digital record of the documents (an open-access search tool through the RRHOF Library and Archives) to see if I could determine what would be needed for my study. I requested materials based solely on their digital description and soon realized that those descriptions, though detailed, could not provide an adequate explanation of what it was I was going to be looking at. For instance, when choosing what orchestrations to use, I originally had picked orchestrations that were the longest because I thought the more information the better and soon discovered that some of those orchestrations were reproduced sheet music sets for school orchestras. I had to request every orchestration to see which ones an original piece of writing and which ones were reproductions. The original handwritten or typewritten pieces of music provided support for my findings in ways that reproductions of the music could not because Paul would make notes on the original copies that provided insight for the reasoning made behind differing parts of the song and sometimes differed from the recorded version. Due to copyright laws, I am unable to provide examples for the reader of this type of evidence of original revision. This provided me with secondary support for findings concerning his processes in relation to my research question concerning the literate practices employed in sonic composing. For instance, I would use the handwritten sheet music or lyrics to show that he would use multiple modes during his process (a piece of paper with handwritten lyrics and then the use of a typewriter and relating that to a discussion about that particular song in an interview and how it was recorded). Due to the cost of data collection at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

Library and Archives, between .15 cents and 100 dollars depending on material (from paper copies to intricate copies of outdated recordings), I took extensive field notes that varied from questions I had about some materials and writing direct quotes from the archived material I was researching. I was unable to copy Paul’s handwritten and typewritten sheet music in my

notebook, so I had to pay for those copies even though they were used as secondary support and correlation for my findings. Therefore, some of the data I coded was information that was written in my notebook. Each quote in my notebook possesses the original location of the material it comes from. Some of the information in my notebook is from biographies while some of it is from original newspaper clippings, interviews, and the actual music itself that was all housed on- site. I only copied material in my notebook that was able to be directly reproduced (quotes from books, newspapers) or was my own understanding of songs, questions concerning certain materials (such as who is Red which turned out to be Paul’s nickname), and notes on what to re- request. It was the material in my notebook, as well as, the interviews, direct words from Paul (in the form of autobiography) that I coded to determine Paul’s composing processes. After each visit to the Archive, I would type my notes and save them into a Google Doc and write a memo that depicted the questions, concerns, and hypothetical findings I had come across. This allowed me to view my notes in a cataloged way and made it easier to then determine patterns from.

Since I did not want to assume information from his lyrics or sheet music, I used his actual words (from interviews and autobiographies and biographies) where he discussed composing as the primary data set and the other archived material (actual lyric/ song sheets, magazine articles) to corroborate my findings.

The head archivist at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has been a crucial asset to my data collection process. Not only has she made herself available to me and responded to my inquiries within a 24-hour period, she also helped me navigate the Archives and provided useful information concerning ‘hidden’ realities of the digital database. For instance, in the database not only are you able to research specific documents but you are also able to find out where the documents came from. Not all databases for Archival research have this aspect, which

allowed me to provide a sense of validity to my findings. The researcher can determine where the archival items came from; whether it be from an artist or estate donation, a private donor donation, or a foundation purchase. I found this information to be particularly useful in terms of determining the validity of the archival resources. For instance, all the archival documents in the

Les Paul Collection were directly donated by his estate after his passing in 2009 and helped me, as a researcher, stake claim in the validity of the items I collected due to them all being physically possessed by Les Paul himself. The head archivist acted as a resource for my study.

She made herself available to me, physically, every time I was in the Archive. She would also make sure to come and talk with me about my research and questions that I may have had. Her role was vital in the success of my data collection of Les Paul’s materials. I looked at every piece of archived information twice before requesting copies and watched each documentary once unless it was requested for copy. All information requested for copy or recorded in my journal were necessary for me (the researcher) to depict Paul’s composing process and his history as a musician and inventor in the most objective way possible.

VI. DISCOVERING LITERACY PRACTICES AND PATTERNS OF EMBODIED SENSORY

EXPERIENCE

The coding scheme that was used during the analysis of data collected from Paul, Feld, and

Wagner was born out of a pilot study I had completed in the Spring of 2015. The study of Mick

Richards provided me with a foundation for understanding how I might approach the study of sonic composing processes. Richards’ patterns were based from my interest in determining the role of multimodal listening in sonic composing that was inspired by Ceraso’s (2014) study and patterns that continually emerged throughout my analysis that would aid in the answering of my original research question, what do musicians do when they compose? My study of Richards’

data set provided me with an understanding of sonic composing as a process that relied heavily on the senses and was directly impacted/ influenced by the knowledge that Richards obtained from others and his own natural ability towards music. Despite having found some interesting patterns concerning Richards’ process, I felt like I did not really determine what his composing process meant. Richards’ study provided me, as the researcher, with an avenue for exploring what the use of senses and choice of mode meant in terms of sonic composing. During my beginning analysis of Wagner, Feld, and Paul I began to recognize their own use of senses and mode choice but knew that how those things were being enacted shed light on their literacy practices while composing. Richards’ study provided the beginning coding scheme for my dissertation and allowed me, as a researcher, to delve deeper into the patterns that arose in the data of Wagner, Feld, and Paul.

Scribner and Cole (1981) define literacy as, “a set of socially organized practices which make use of a symbol system and a technology for producing and disseminating it” (p.236); and view literacy practices as possessing and using skills, knowledge, and technology (not necessarily digital) “in a specific context for a specific purpose”(Lankshear and Knobel, 2011, p.36). Using those definitions as a foundation for shifting the design and execution of the study of Feld, Paul, and Wagner in tandem with the data collected from their studies, I reevaluated the codes used for Richards to determine if they could still be used in the analysis of the new data collected. Since the coding scheme used in Richards study provided me with the avenue for exploring non-text mediated literacy practices for the studies of Feld, Wagner, and Paul, I knew that it was possible that they could be applicable during my data analysis. However, I also recognized that the codes used for Richards were born out of his study were unique to what I had discovered from his data. I began to look over the data collected for Paul, Wagner, and Feld and

noticed, that like with Richards, they too were constantly enacting their own sensory perception while composing or talking about composing. During my analysis of data of Paul, Feld, and

Wagner I realized that they were also enacting similar patterns to the ones that arose in Richards findings. Using Richards coding scheme I revised the terminology and definitions to better apply to the data collected of Paul, Wagner, and Feld and in relation to my research question(s).

My originating question is:

1. What literacy practices do musicians use during their sonic composing process?

Specifically, I am interested in understanding:

a. What communicative modes do musicians use during their composing process?

b. How do multiple communicative modes contribute to a musical composition?

The revised terminology for patterns in my analysis are instances in my data sets that continued to arise. Though my codes originated from Richards’ study, the final coding scheme used in the analysis of Wagner, Feld, and Paul represents a pattern that relates to my research questions. The codes demonstrate a lack of text based literacy practices and the use of multiple modes during composing. Therefore, the codes themselves focus on non-text based literacy practices (such as embodiment of sensory experience and literacy sponsorship), and the types of modes that were used during my data collection of each participant. To provide a sense of validity to my findings, I first analyzed Paul, Wagner, and Feld’s data sets separately without the application of codes to determine if the patterns I recognized earlier concerning their use of senses and the impact of outer and inner influence were, in fact, repeated themes throughout all data sets. I looked at the data sets of Paul, Wagner and Feld separately to make sure that those themes were repeated throughout each set and if they were only seen in one of the data sets, what might I need to do to address that issue. Once I was able to recognize my original observation concerning their

use of senses and impact of outer and inner influences on Wagner, Feld, and Paul’s processes, I began to reevaluate, revise, and refocus the coding scheme used in the analysis of Richards’ data set to determine the literacy practices at hand. The below table provides a side by side of how the first set of codes shifted in terms of terminology.

Richards Code: Feld, Wagner, and Paul Code:

Influence: Inward Self- Literacy Sponsorship

Influence: Outward Musical Community Literacy Sponsorship

Tactile Embodied experience of the compositions’ touch

Sonic Embodied experience of the compositions’ sound

Sight Embodied experience of the compositions’ sight

Table 2: Multimodal Listening vs Literacy Practices and Embodied Sensory Experiences

The shift in terminology from Richards’ codes to the codes for Wagner, Feld, and

Paul was influenced by the patterns that arose concerning the data sets’ reflections of Feld,

Wagner, and Paul’s literacy practices. To not only use more descriptive language, but to provide clear connections between my findings and the field of Rhetoric and Composition, I chose specific terminology that was already rooted in our field that helped to further my own understanding of the findings that appeared. Below I will breakdown each revision in Table 4

(in the order they are presented) and provide a definition and reasoning behind the switch of terminology from Richards original coding scheme.

Self- Literacy Sponsorship:

1. Definition: Discussion or depiction of one’s own ideologies/ abilities and figuring out how to

make one’s own thoughts tangible

2. Reasoning: The term inner influence did not provide enough information or explanation for

what that code represented or that codes connection to the research question. Drawing from

the definition of ‘literacy sponsor’ as presented by Brandt (1998) that depicts a literacy

sponsor as, “agents, local or distant, concrete or abstract, who enable, support, teach, model,

as well as, recruit, regulate, suppress, or withhold literacy -- and gain advantage by it in some

way” (p.167), I used the term self-literacy sponsorship to provide an understanding of Paul,

Wagner, and Feld’s self-agent ability to teach, model, and enable their own musical ability

through sonic composition. Wagner, Paul, and Feld taught themselves aspects of music,

musicianship, and technological applications that furthered their own understanding

of music, sound, and composing. Feld and Paul, ‘taught, modeled, regulated’ their own

ability and understanding of musical composition. Whereas Wagener,

used theoretical applications and computational media to shift his own understanding of what

sound and music encompass. Self-Literacy Sponsorship acted to track how Feld, Wagner,

and Paul’s own understanding of music mediated their composing processes and

technological creations.

Musical Community Literacy Sponsorship:

1. Definition: Discussion or depiction of influence of musical ability, understanding, and

learning in terms of outside people, things, and objects impact on one’s self

2. Reasoning: Also drawing from the above definition of Brandt’s (1998) literacy sponsors,

the use of the term musical community literacy sponsorship aimed to provide

understanding of the impact outside influence had on Paul, Wagner, and Feld’s ability to

create, compose, and understand music. Instead of using different codes for each type of

outside sponsor, I decided to use one term to signify each musical community literacy

sponsor that influenced or impacted Wagner, Feld, and Paul. The reason for this choice is

I began to notice that it was oftentimes challenging to separate out the outside sponsors

and the individual impact each sponsor had on Wagner, Paul, and Feld in terms of their

understanding of music. For instance, one of Feld’s sponsors, Miles, was a local, concrete

agent that enabled, taught, supported, and modeled how to play, understand, and compose

music for Feld. Miles was not a unique case for my findings and demonstrated that if I

coded for each individual type of musical community literacy sponsor, I would have

ended up with an umbrella term for each code in the long run. So, instead, I decided to

use one code for Wagner, Feld, and Paul’s musical community literacy sponsors that

possessed one or more of Brandt’s criterion for something or someone being a literacy

sponsor.

The reasoning for the use of the terminology for examining the senses was the same for touch, sight, and sound. The definitions are also the same except each definition directly states which sense it is referencing. I chose to use only three senses (sight, touch, and sound) instead of all of the main five senses (sight, touch, hearing, smell, and taste) because those three were the senses that were continually discussed, referenced or used in the data sets of

Paul, Wagner, and Feld. Below, I will provide the definition of each sense and the reasoning for the shift in terminology.

Embodied Experience of the Compositions’ Touch:

1. Definition: Use of, direct reference to, or creation with the sense of touch and use of

one’s hands.

Embodied Experience of the Compositions’ Sound:

1. Definition: Use of, direct reference to, or creation with the sense of sound and the

reception of sound through the ear organ.

Embodied Experience of the Compositions’ Sight:

1. Use of, direct reference to, or creation with the sense of sight and the reception of visuals

through the organ of the eyes.

Reasoning for Switch in Terminology of Senses:

1. The original code terms of ‘tactile’, ‘sonic’, and ‘sight’ that were used for Richards were

not specific enough concerning what it was I was actually noticing in the data

set of Wagner, Feld, and Paul. I needed codes that depicted what was actually happening

during the process or conversation about the use of the sense of touch, sound, or sight and

used language that both supported the concept of multimodal listening but also

demonstrated a new aspect of the use of senses. A new understanding of the role of

senses during the composing process and discussion of composition that would provide a

new avenue for understanding the literacy practices enacted during sonic composing.

Thus, I decided to use the terminology of embodied experience of the compositions’

touch, sound, and sight to provide an explanation for the patterns that arose concerning

the tangible importance that sensory perception had concerning the process of composing

for Wagner, Feld, and Paul.

I quickly began to take note of the importance that the type of mode used while composing impacted the process of Wagner, Feld, and Paul. During my time in the Archives with Paul’s material and my time observing Wagner, and observing and interviewing Feld, I noticed that each musician created and manipulated their choice of mode to enact a specific sonic output.

However, I was unsure at the time of data collection what those creations, manipulations, and choices meant for the composing processes of Wagner, Feld, and Paul. I also began to notice that the possible literacy practices of Paul, Wagner, and Feld determined and fed into the modes of composition they used. Below is a table that depicts the shift in the terminology used between

Richards’ codes and the codes used for the studies of Paul and Feld.

Richards Mode Codes: Wagner, Feld, and Paul Mode Codes:

Mode Mode: Writing Medium Print

Mode: Sound Medium Electronic

Table 3: Shift in Mode and Medium During Composing

The use of terminology and the definitions of the codes that were used during my data analysis of the study of Wagner, Paul, and Feld, were influenced by the data that was collected, the patterns of mode usage that arose, and possible connections to aid in the answering of my research questions. Below, I will explain the definitions of my second code table, and the reasoning for the shift in terminology and definition.

Mode Writing Medium Print:

1. Definition: Discussion, use, or evidence of handwritten or typewriter written music or

lyrical composition.

2. Reasoning: During my beginning times at the Archives, I noticed that Paul had a lot of

tangible, of what I thought was, evidence of his use of written text. Only to discover later,

that Paul was unable to read or understand written music in any formal way. However,

the use of print or lack thereof for Paul was something that would lead, hopefully, to and

understanding of Paul’s non-text mediated literacy practices. Much like Paul I at first

thought that Feld would use the mode of print during his process because he wrote down

a few chords during my first observation. However, after all data for Feld had been

collected and I began reading over the transcripts, I recognized that his use of print was

not a necessity for his composing process or for the creation of an end sonic product. The

use of text for Wagner was practically non-existent but the discussion of his past

experience with musical notations made it challenging to separate out the mode of text

entirely. I found there was still value in coding for the use of print because it allowed me

to determine how print was used (if at all) during the process and what took the place of

text as the mediator for Wagner, Paul, and Feld’s literacy practices.

Mode Sound Medium Electronic:

1. Definition: Discussion, use, or evidence of electronics (use of technology to enhance

sonic output/ audio) in music or lyrical composition.

2. Reasoning: The data sets of Wagner, Paul, and Feld demonstrated the importance of the

use of electronic modes during their composing processes. Not only was the use of

electronic modes used during each observation of both Wagner and Feld’s composing

processes, electronic modes were also prevalent during my analysis of the archived

materials that were collected concerning Paul. Not only did Wagner, Paul, and Feld use

electronic modes of communication (such as electric guitars and computers) during their

composing processes, they both also created and manipulated electronic modes to

enhance their own understanding of sound through amplification. Due to the importance

of the use of electronics (in some form) to the composing processes of Paul, Wagner, and

Feld, I decided it necessary to code for electronic modes of communication to determine

the how and why this type of mode was a necessity.

The terminology used to describe the patterns that arose during my analysis of Paul, Wagner, and

Feld and the definitions that those codes held were directly related to my research questions for the investigation of Feld, Wagner, and Paul’s composing processes.

VII. TRANSITION

As a field, we tend to think that text has to mediate a person’s expression of their literacy.

We, rhetoricians and compositionists, have moved away from the original definition of literacy practices put forth by Scribner and Cole (1981) that did not presuppose the use of text, to understanding literacy practices as something that is mediated always by text (Barton and

Hamilton 1998). However, the patterns depicted from my beginning analysis of Wagner, Feld and Paul’s data sets, champion for a retrograde in our thinking of what it means to enact a literacy practice. The following chapter depicts my approach to data analysis, findings, and implications for the studies of Wagner, Feld, and Paul.

CHAPTER FOUR: HOW SONIC COMPOSING CAN HELP US UNDERSTAND LITERACY:

LES PAUL’S FINDINGS FROM THE ARCHIVES

I. INTRODUCTION

Les Paul’s sonic composing processes shed light on the parallels between what we, as scholars, think of as literacy and what Paul enacted during his composing. Literacy is thought of as something that is often synonymous with the idea of writing or “the manipulation of a complex symbol system as a means of communicating human thought from one person to others” (Takayoshi, 2015, p.1-2). Though music does use a complex symbol system, that symbol system was not one that was actively used throughout the process of composition for Paul.

Despite that Paul still enacted literacy very much in the way that it is enacted with writing and traditional alphabetic text, an idea that will be further discussed below.

Not only was Paul enacting a parallel literacy experience during his sonic composing, he also was demonstrating a process/ product binary that demonstrates the complexities that come with the conceptualization of composing processes. Paul’s engagement with tools, skills, and knowledge (in terms of his literacy practices) resulted often in the creation of new tools, mediums, and modes for sonic output. These technological inventions not only shifted Paul’s process but the process of sonic composing as a whole. Paul’s creation meant that he would often employ more than one mode and medium at a time during composing, meaning that his process would be multimodal and his product would be monomodal. Though Paul’s literacy practices were not text mediated, they still impacted the use of text throughout his composing process and

resulted in an understanding of sonic composing as being embodied by sensory perception and heavily influenced by outside sponsorships. Paul’s composing process complicates what it means to compose in relation to the field of Rhetoric and Composition and it is this complication that will be further discussed in the findings below.

II. APPRAOCH TO DATA ANALYSIS

Since the types of data collected varied from Paul to Feld and Wagner, the approach to analysis differed for each type of data set. Because I had collected Paul’s data set first, he was the first to be analyzed. Table 4 is a table of the number of physical items I collected from the

Archive. This table does not include every note that was made in my notebook but instead focuses on the data collected from the Archives in hard copy and the memos created post collection.

Types of Archived Archived Documentaries Auto/Biographies Post- Field

Material Articles Sheet Collection Notes

Music Memos

Number of 10 9 2 3 7 38 pgs

Materials

Les Paul Materials Table 4

Considering Les Paul was unable to provide me with any interviews, the ability to watch him compose, or the capability of deciding what material I viewed for this study, I had to decide how to analyze the data in a way that would let his voice come through. Therefore, when I began to code the data set I decided to only code data that included Paul’s words directly and not assumptions made on the part of me (the researcher). The data coded included: autobiographies,

interviews, and documentaries. I decided against coding Paul’s sheet music or the newspaper articles I collected. I felt it unethical to code Paul’s sheet music and draw conclusions from it because he was not physically able to do a think-aloud process depicting how he wrote that piece of music. Therefore, as the researcher, I would be making findings based on assumptions and false claims of knowing. Because the newspaper clippings collected often were drawn over and had Paul’s name circled; I was not able to decipher what some of the clippings stated. Since I was not able to determine what was being discussed, I felt it as unnecessary to code materials where I would be ‘guessing’ at the content. Therefore, I used the clippings and sheet music as support for things discussed in the autobiographies, interviews, and documentaries. Along with the data set I used my field notes as further support to what the data set was saying. Because some of my field notes were actual quotes from materials not able to be photocopied or digitally copied, some of my field notes were used to code (if they were from an autobiography, interview, or documentary). The uncoded field notes were used as further secondary support in analysis.

My analysis of Paul’s materials was based upon the three cornerstones of archive methodologies that were outlined in more depth in an earlier chapter. Those three concepts are:

1. The conceptualization of the original intent and purpose of archived materials

2. Data corroboration

3. The notion of transparency

Paul’s materials that were both collected from and studied at the Archival site painted a picture of Paul as a man that stood above the rest. There were boxes upon boxes of information without a negative word, description, or even a hint of critique. This can be attributed to where the materials came from: Paul’s estate. All materials that I studied and collected and later

analyzed, were kept by Paul himself. He was creating his own narrative perhaps without even realizing it at the time. Upon my research, I came across hundreds of newspaper clippings that had been completely crossed out except for Paul’s name that was circled in red pen. I had no way of knowing why Paul did this and instead of placing my own bias on Paul’s choice I decided to not concern myself with why he would have kept the materials he did or treated them the way he did. Since I wanted to maintain the original intent of the materials being studied and corroborated the findings from the materials with other materials, it may seem to some that the narrative being presented of Paul is one of an unflawed, genius. And that may be true. However, that narrative is the one that presented itself to me during my 30 hours of archival study at the Rock and Roll

Hall of Fame Library and Archives. The rhetorical choices made by Paul in terms of what he kept from his career provided a one-sided perspective of who he was as a person. For that reason,

I wanted to make clear that the narrative I present below concerning my findings of Paul’s composing process, is not one that is purposefully biased but is one that is biased because of the material collected. One can argue that my lack of attention to these biases could cloud Paul’s composing process. For instance, Paul’s lack of attention given to Mary Ford or his other collaborators in his archival materials demonstrates that this is not the narrative he wanted to be preserved. Paul’s own inherit bias in his archived materials, demonstrate a bigger issue with archival data, that it is often one sided and portrays a limited picture of the person in question.

Despite this, I chose, as an archival researcher, to remain true to the narrative that Paul was presenting or rather to provide the conceptualization of the original intent and purpose. With that,

I also maintained that what I was discussing and what I did find was corroborated with other data and attempted to be as transparent as possible concerning Paul’s own narrative presented in the archives. It is Paul’s narrative because he was the one who kept the materials that were archived

and thus was creating for an audience a specific narrative of himself. It is possible that Paul did not ever intend for these materials to be put into the Archives and thus how he kept, recorded, and maintained these articles were never meant to be put into question or to be seen by an outside audience. This complicates the narrative of Paul because it is one that might have never been intended to be written. However, as an archival researcher, I attempted to remember Paul’s original intent and audience, and corroborate my findings throughout the data analysis process. I am not writing the narrative of Paul that I came up with but rather am writing the narrative of

Paul that he provided me. With that, I attempted to write the narrative that Paul presented to me and not the narrative of Paul that I came up with based on my own biases. I am not saying or arguing that my narrative of Paul is exactly what he would want to be displayed to a wider audience, however I attempted to use the information he presented to me to shape and compose the narrative that arose from his artifacts.

A. OVERVIEW OF PAUL’S FINDINGS

Paul’s findings are condensed in the following answers to the research questions. The sections to follow will further dissect the research question answers and provide implications for the field of Rhetoric and Composition in terms of what it means to compose with and without text and how sound and music composition can help us, as scholars, to explore the affordances and constraints of modes by understanding them through different lenses.

RQ 1: What literate practices do musicians use during their sonic composing practices?

Les Paul’s data analysis demonstrated that his literacy practices pertaining to sonic composing are non-text mediated and are mainly driven by his embodiment of sensory experience, use of mode, self and/or musical community literacy sponsorship. Though Paul’s literacy practices are not mediated by texts, texts still are unable to be separated from Paul’s

process. Paul’s use of text in his process is guided not by text in terms of musical notation but rather texts in terms of invention (brainstorming chords) or for memory purposes (not to forget ideas). Though text is not a mainstay of Paul’s process, it is still present in the form of his notebook of licks and has its own place in Paul’s composing.

Paul’s literacy practices, in terms of his sonic composing, mimic those practices in terms of possessing specific knowledge, skills, and technology (Scribner and Cole, 1981) despite not being mediated by text. Paul’s literacy and literacy practices are still being mediated by outside factors that impact and influence what it is he created. Even if he is not enacting literacy in the traditional sense, his relationship and composition with sound and music parallels how we compose with traditional texts.

RQ 2 and 3: What communicative modes do musicians use during their composing processes?

How do musicians use multiple communicative modes during their composing process?

My analysis of Paul’s data led me, as the researcher, to determine that Paul mainly used electronic amplification as his primary medium and the mode of sound for sonic creation.

However, Paul also would use multiple tools (i.e. taperecorder, Monster, guitar, etc) during his composing processes. And with that, he would oftentimes create new tools and even modes of creation that would enact his notion of music and ultimately, sound. Paul would enact what I called ‘mode process’ throughout his composing process. He would use more than one mode during the act of composing itself to create a monomodal product. Therefore the act of composing itself was multimodal but the product was monomodal. This finding complicates our field’s current understanding of the process/product binary. Specifically concerning multimodal products. Oftentimes, as a field, we discuss the creation of multimodal products without recognizing the multimodality of the process itself. It is not necessarily that, we as scholars and

instructors, need to teach students and inform each other of multimodal creations but rather that the creation of the product is in and of itself multimodal.

In the remainder of the chapter, I detail Paul’s sonic composing in relation to his literacy practices. In particular, I assert that the data reveals Paul’s literacy practices, like with reading and writing, possess mediating factors that influence and impact how and what it is a person is composing. I then conclude by describing how Paul innovatively created tools and mediums to enact his own notion of sonic output.

B. LES PAUL BACKGROUND

Les Paul is the originator of modern recording technology and perfected the electric guitar and amplifier. All the information in this section is directly from sources I gathered during my research at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Library and Archives. They are from primary sources that discussed directly who Paul was as a musician and person. Since I was unable to talk to Paul, I used these resources to provide me with the context for understanding how Paul learned how to play and create music. Les Paul was born in 1915 in Wisconsin and made his first instrument modification at the age of 9 with a used harmonica given to him by a laborer in his hometown. Paul decided that he wanted the instrument to sound different than everyone else and dipped it in water to create a different sound and went on to create a harmonica holder that allowed him to play guitar without accompaniment (Archived Biography,n.d.). This was his first step in creating what would later be called the “New Sound” (Archived Biography,n.d.). By the time he was 14 he had already obtained a job at local radio station which impacted his musical creativity and by the time he was 17 he was playing on national radio programs (Archived

Materials, n.d.). Also during his teenage years, Paul created the first ever electric guitar using his family’s phonograph (Archived Materials, n.d). Over the next two decades, Paul traveled the

country playing on radio stations in Chicago, New York City, and in California, while continuing to perfect the ideal solid body electric guitar sound. Paul’s drive for the ideal electric sound was born out of his desire to have the same power as other instruments in a live setting,

And now that I was through with the piano, I was taking my guitar and sitting in

at Jazz clubs every night, playing with the greats, and learning from every one of

them. This was when I began to get serious about amplifying my sound because

with just an acoustic guitar, it was impossible to cut through the horns and drums

and noisy, juiced-up crowds who came to dig the music. I wanted to be heard, and

I knew the electric guitar was the way to go going all the way back to Beekman’s

Barbeque Stand. So, these were the problems I had been working on all this time. I

wanted to be able to record what I was doing, so I could hear it and judge it and

make it better, and I wanted to be heard without having to beat my guitar to death.

(Paul, 2008, p. 70).

Paul’s first electric guitar prototype was created in 1941(five years before Fender’s) and by 1966 it was Gibson’s number one selling guitar (Paul, 2008). Several years later in California, the first process of modern recording technology transpired. Paul decided that he wanted to build his own studio in his home and wanted to create a sound that made it seem like a one-man orchestra. He began researching the process of creating the sound recording technology necessary and in 1948 he created the first ever multitrack recording (Archived Biography, n.d.). The “New Sound” of recording technology took popular culture by storm and paved the way for modern recording technology. With this, Paul would shift the way he and other musicians composed for years and decades to come.

C. SONIC COMPOSING PARALLELS OUR UNDERSTANDING OF LITERACY

Les Paul gained his music literacy through his embodiment of senses and from musical community literacy sponsors. Paul is not enacting ‘literacy’ in terms of reading or writing, but rather the ‘literacy’ that he is enacting, composing with sound and music, mirrors how we compose with literacy. Paul learned how to play guitar by watching and listening to those around him. Paul was very adamant that he did not know how to read music and thus learned how to play music from watching others. His playing was self-guided and demonstrated a self- sponsorship that showed an innate ability and talent. In his autobiography Paul discussed how he would watch a neighbor play guitar, “I started listening and figuring out what he was doing and making it mine” (Paul and Cochran, 2009, p. 71). He would use visual, tactile, and sonic sensory processing to play what he heard and saw and shift the sound to make it unique to him. The use of multimodal listening, using more than one sense to understand sound (Ceraso, 2014), enabled

Paul to learn how to play the guitar and begin his own composing through the shifts he would create to “making it mine”. To further support this Paul states directly how he learned how to play, “That year I taught myself to play guitar by watching a neighbor as he played” (Lawrence and Paul, 2008, p. 2). I argue that Paul would have to enact a multi-sensory approach to learning to play and thus result in the gaining of a sensory driven literacy practice. Though he was using visual processing to determine finger placement, he would also have to be using sonic processing to see how it sounded, and tactile processing to see if his own fingers were in the same place on the fretboard as the neighbor to ensure he was, in fact, playing the same thing. He would need to use multiple senses to ensure his playing was mimicking that of the neighbor. The use of multiple senses, or a multi-sensory approach to learning to play guitar also depicts an aspect of

Paul’s literacy practices.

The above example of Paul’s literacy practice directly correlates to the scholarship of

Scribner and Cole (1981). Though Paul was not enacting his ability to read or write, he was using his knowledge, technology, and skill in a specific context for a specific point and purpose

(Scribner and Cole 1981). Paul’s literacy practices are not in terms of reading and writing, but rather are in terms of his musical and sonic composing processes. Paul’s point and purpose was to create sonic output and he did so through his use of knowledge of how to play (that he attained through his senses), the use of technology (the guitar), and skill (his ability to ‘make it his own’).

The specific context for Paul is a place in space and time where his intention is to create sonic output. The context of the situation may shift, in terms of people, place, feeling, etc., for Paul but the point and purpose does not. Lankshear and Knobel (2011) concisely depict Scribner and

Cole’s expectations for literacy when they state, “ rather engaging in literacy involves bringing technology, knowledge and skills together within some context, point, and purpose” (p.36).

Through the understanding of literacy presented by Lankshear and Knobel (2011), Paul’s musical and sonic composing, like with literacy rely on his use of knowledge, skill, and technology.

Paul’s literacy practice not being mediated by text is a “socially developed and patterned ways of using technology and knowledge to accomplish tasks” (Scribner and Cole, 1981, p.236).

Paul’s literacy practice being mediated by his embodiment of senses and musical community sponsors is a socially developed and patterned way of using knowledge and technology to accomplish the task of playing and making music resulting in sonic output. The creation of sound, whether it be music, or simply having a conversation is not mediated by texts because you do not have to have texts to accomplish the task. It is not uncommon for musicians to not be trained, in the sense that they are unable to read musical notations, and instead learned much in

the same way that Paul did through their embodiment of senses (specifically sight, touch, and sound) by watching others in the musical community enact their use of skill, technology, and knowledge. Paul’s embodiment of senses drove his knowledge obtainment concerning playing guitar, or his chosen technology, and the sponsorship from his neighbor allowed for the action of music creation to occur.

Paul put his musical literacy in action through his senses and outside sponsorships. Paul’s understanding of music did not come from written text, but instead came from both his own innate understanding of sound and others in the musical community. For example, Paul would use others’ music as a way to create his own; “I was taking my guitar and sitting in at Jazz clubs every night, playing with the greats, and learning from every one of them” (Paul). The sponsors, in the form of other musicians, helped to shape how Paul learned how to play, compose, and understand music. Though he gained his sense of music literacy from the musicians around him, the literacy practices he enacted during composing were presented through his senses and self- sponsorship (his innate ability).

The literacy practices enacted by Paul and others in the musical community are but an aspect of the social and cultural context. “You can no more cut the literacy out of the overall social practice, or cut away the non-literacy practices from the literacy parts of the overall practice, than you can subtract the white squares from a chessboard and still have a chessboard”

(Gee, 2012, p.41). Paul’s practices would not be literacy practices without all aspects that they entail including the social and cultural influences. The way that Paul talks about his music creation, his belief system concerning music, the belief system of the larger musical community- all impact Paul’s literacy and literacy practices and they cannot be separated from each other.

Even though, Paul and the community he found himself in, do not automatically use text does

not mean that text can be completely left out of the equation because it is used for a specific purpose- even if that purpose is not for communication with others. Even though Paul was able to move away from text, we cannot erase text from the literacy equation because it serves a purpose and is part of the literacy whole for Paul, even if it is an addition and not a necessity.

Paul’s literacy practice though mediated by non-text centric entities, cannot be separated completely from text due to texts role in the larger social practice and context. Therefore, though

Paul’s literacy practices are non-text centric, in the sense that they are comprised of embodied sensory experience and sponsorship, the use of text was still present in aspects of his process.

Even if that presence was not necessary for Paul to create or complete his sonic process or product, such as his notebook of licks. Text is still present in a non-text based composing process. Paul’s use of text cannot be eliminated from his process. Like with literacy, in terms of reading and writing, text is always present however its influence over the process and product differs in terms of composing with music and sound. Composing is composing, whether it be with sonar waves or the ABCs but what mediates the process differs between modes.

Paul’s use of text was discussed during an event at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Paul discusses how he carries around a notebook full of licks that were written by him. When discussing how he used these licks he stated, “The little ones I wanted to play these little cuties. I had those in my book so I [went] through the book until I found which one goes with “After You

Come” (min 50, Music Masters). During this discussion, Paul mimics playing these licks by implementing an air guitar. This further demonstrates Paul’s use of his hands and the sense of touch during his composing process. He would physically write down certain licks to remember, use them as a point of reference, and then see how it would play using an air guitar. Paul’s embodiment of senses and self-sponsorship concerning his drive to create music and music

technologies, are the literacy practices he enacted during his composing process. Paul’s notebook of licks also further demonstrates that the use of texts were not a necessity in his composing process, but were instead an addition or part of the revision process and not the original act of composing. During an interview for a news outlet in an undated Archival article, Paul’s memory process concerning the “New Sound” is further elaborated,

To make a record, Les has to hold up his musical memory all the parts he wishes to

record. Then he records the least important, or background part, first, knowing that some

of this will be lost in the final version. He plays back the tape and accompanies it with a

second tape. If the second round is satisfactory, he then transfers Part No. 2 on top of Part

No.1 on the first tape, and so on, recording the melody and very delicate sounds, such as

the tinkle of a bell, at the very last. (Porter, n.d., n.p).

Paul’s ‘musical memory’ is what allowed him to maintain his compositions after they were composed, along with his own technological creation that enabled Paul to hear what he was playing while trying to remember the parts. It is almost as if Paul invented the ‘New Sound’ as a way to further separate himself from the musical note readers that he so much despised. While discussing Mary’s lack of ability to read notes he states, “I’d be afraid to marry a note reader”

(Porter, n.d., n.p.). This statement further supports Paul’s outward dislike of using traditional notation within sonic creation and the perceived lack of influence musical notation had on his composing process. Though Paul was outwardly against using musical notations during his composing, they were still present in the archived materials, again demonstrating that text is still present, that reading and writing is still present but the influence of writing as a mode is not necessarily mediating the composing process of Paul.

The “New Sound” was a new type of recording technique that enabled the musician to play multiple parts at once through multi-track recording. One such clipping I found during my research in the Archive depicts the impact of multi-track recording on the process stating,

When they make their multiple recordings with what sounds like a dozen or so guitars

and as many voices- all done by Les and Mary- they must keep in mind all the

background instrumental and vocal parts that will accompany the melody. Using

several taperecorders, they put the background parts on tape first. After taping their first

background part (generally the least important one, because of the deal of it will be

indistinguishable in the finished- record), they play it back and accompany with another

background part. If the second part meets their approval, it is blended on the recorder

with the first part. They proceed in this manner until all the background parts are done

and then they do the melody. When Les first started out, he tried to economize by using

only one tape recorder; however, when he made a mistake, say on the eleventh recording,

he had to throw out all the previous recordings and start over again. (Goldberg, n.d., p.

114).

This discussion of Paul and Mary Ford’s (his once wife and music partner) process of recording depicted the impact this new form of using multiple recordings to create a single track had on the musician and their process. Goldberg even discusses that while they are recording one part they must be cognizant of the other parts coming up that they will have to record. Not only was Paul composing multiple coinciding parts at a time, he also had to play those multiple parts and be aware of the sound he was currently making and what it would sound like with the sounds he was going to make.

Paul’s creation and use of technology, arguably, shifted his understanding of what it means to compose. With the creation of the ‘New Sound’ and The Monster, Paul could use technology to preserve his musical vision and continue to move away from any use of text during or after his composing process. With Paul’s creation and use of technologies, his understanding of composition shifted because what was available to him during composing changed. When he was 14 years old he did not have access to the solid body electric guitar or The Monster, so how he composed would rely upon the tools and technologies available to him at that time. However with his creation of The Monster, solid body electric guitar, and many other inventions and creations, Paul had to readjust how he composed based upon what was available to him. For instance, the invention of The Monster created a multimodal composing process because he had to use multiple modes and tools to create one composition. Just like how writing with a pen and paper and writing on a computer screen have different affordances and constraints on the writer’s process, so too does tools and technology used while composing sound and music. Paul’s creation and use of new technologies and tools were born out of his musical literacy practices and mirror the shift in composing process in terms of writing traditional alphabetic texts.

If we view literacy practices in the way Scribner and Cole (1981) did in terms of possessing ‘technology, skills, and knowledge’, then Paul’s use of senses demonstrates his innate knowledge concerning his understanding of sound (he taught himself, visually and sonically to play the guitar), he created the technology he needed to enact his understanding of sound, and the skills he possessed were born out of the sponsors from the outside musical community, his sensory understanding of sound, and his innate talent towards music that drove him to become his own sponsor. Paul’s own understanding of sound drove his desire to create the tools and technology needed to disseminate that sound to a wider audience. For instance

when Paul first started to play at the BBQ stand in his youth, he created a sort of amplifier so the sound could reach people in the back and his sound could be heard (Archived Materials, n.d.). Or with his creation of The Monster, he wanted people to be able to hear an orchestra in one recording (Goldberg, n.d.) and so he created the tools necessary to create that sound. All of those aspects cannot be separated from each other and provide an understanding of what Paul did with his musical literacy while composing; he used things besides text to aid in the creation of his musical pieces.

Understanding Paul’s literacy practices and composing process, can allow us as literacy researchers and scholars, to understand the parallels between our notion of literacy and other forms of composition’s literacy (i.e. Paul’s literacy being enacted during his composing process).

Paul’s use of skills, knowledge, and technology to enact his musical and sonic composing process demonstrates that like with reading and writing, there are mediating factors that influence and impact how and what it is a person is composing. Along with that there are certain tools, modes, and sponsors at play that impact a person’s composing process. In the next section,

Paul’s creation of technology and tools will be further discussed in relation to our need, as scholars, to understand composing processes in a multimodal world through the lens of communication outside the written word to aid us in our understanding further the affordances and constraints of composing with words versus other modes of communication.

D. PAUL’S CREATIONS AND HIS UNDERSTANDING OF SOUND

How Paul’s literacy practices are used to determine technological creation and additions

(tools) to modes is the focus of this portion of the chapter. Much like literacy practices themselves, Paul’s mode usage feeds into itself and is born out of their knowledge, skill, and use/ understanding of technology. Again, just like with writing (in the traditional sense) a person’s

use of technology, skill, and knowledge is dependent on the mode and the mode is dependent on the technology skill, and knowledge of the writer. The same can be said with the composition of music and sound. Paul’s creation of tools to enact his understanding of sound, was born out of his own skill, knowledge, and understanding of technology. By recognizing these similarities, we as scholars, are able to gain our own knowledge concerning the inherent affordances and constraints of each individual mode.

Through my data analysis of the data collected from my time in the Archives with the Les

Paul collection, I determine that Les Paul mainly used the mode of sound through the medium of electronic amplification during his composing process. When a specific aspect of that mode was not creating Paul’s own notion of sound, he would shift what that mode was comprised of and either create an entire new mode or modal resource. Paul’s continuous creation of new electronic amplification mediums, thus new ways to interrupt sound as a mode and modal resources, also meant that Paul was using more than one mode during his composing process. He was not just using a guitar, but also was using The Monster, and a tape recorder. He was shifting what sound was to encompass his own understanding of the mode. For the first time, for Paul, sound could be manipulated and captured through digital analogue in a way that had never been done before.

There was no linear progression of the composing process and instead the process was driven by the composer themselves. Paul’s own preference for what the piece should sound like drove how mode process was completed. For instance, he would add an extra riff to a song after it was composed or shift the pace and therefore the sound of an instrument depending on what his vision for the multi-instrument piece might be.

Just like with composing with words, Paul would keep his goal of his notion of sound as the paramount for how and what he composed. Flower and Hayes (1981) also demonstrated during

their study of composing processes that “the act of composing itself is a goal-directed thinking process, guided by the writer’s own growing network of goals” (p.367). Paul’s own composing process was driven by his goal of his ideal sound. Like with composing with traditional alphabetic text, composing with sound and music is driven by a ‘goal-directed thinking process, guided by the writer’s own growing network of goals’ (p.367). Therefore, by understanding how we compose with words we, as scholars, are able to understand how we compose with sound.

The parallels between writing with words and sound/ music are similar on a theoretical level. On the surface, composing with sound and composing with words seems drastically different but when dissected in relation to composing process theory and scholarship, the processes enacted are very similar. Paul’s goal driven composing process also resulted in his creation and choice of communicative modes during his process of composing.

Using the definition of mode put forth by Bezemer and Kress (2014) as, “socially and culturally shaped resource for meaning making” (p.237), I argue that the communicative modes that were used by Paul were dependent upon and a result of his literacy practices. Though he seemingly employed the modes of writing, sound, and imagery (or visuals), how he enacted those modes through his composing processes was dependent upon his perceived use of that mode during the process. For instance, as discussed above, the use of text was not a mode of communication that was used during the act of composing but was rather used as a support to the piece of composition. Paul’s notebook was not the primary influence on musical creation but was used as support to add certain riffs, melodies, or sounds. Without the notebook, you can argue, his sound would not be the same because he would not have the visual and written cues to reproduce a specific sound. The use of print/text was a secondary aspect of Paul’s composing process, however, it was still needed to support Paul’s composing even though his composing

was not necessarily mediated by it. However, the mode of sound and the medium of electronic amplification not only was necessary to Paul’s processes but was shaped by the literacy practices enacted during his composing. The use of the modes of sound and visualizations oftentimes fed into the need to expand the mode of electronic amplification for Paul.

Paul’s invention of musical technology (tools) created a new contextual space for the use of electronic modes of manipulation that affected his and future musician’s literacy and literacy practices. Paul’s desire to compose and create music that had never been heard before allowed him to invent, implement, and streamline technological advancements that shape how music is made today. By the age of 14 he had already manipulated sonic output by dipping his harmonica in water to create a new affect and creating his own way to amplify his voice using his family’s phonograph and telephone. Paul’s need to expand his audience's understanding of sound in terms of what he envisioned for his own music shifted not only what it meant to compose and record music during the mid-20th century, but also the trajectory for musical recording technology.

Even though recording technology has come a long way since Paul’s original machine that enabled the 1948 release of the first multi-tracked singles (Figure 1, Paul and his original multi- track recorder), the same basis for technology exists.

Figure 1 (Creative Commons, 2007)

Paul’s original multi-track machine provides the foundation for current recording technology.

Though what the tools for recording and composing no longer resemble what Paul was using, the tools are still there. Understanding mode as something that is a ‘socially and culturally shaped resource for meaning making’ (Bezemer and Kress, 2014, p.237), in tandem with Paul’s technological advancements allows for a discussion concerning the importance of Paul’s creation of differing electronic tools that manipulated modes.

From an early age, Paul’s innate talent towards music and his sensory perception of sound pushed him to create new resources for meaning making by manipulating available materials and technologies. Paul’s literacy practices while composing resulted in the creation of the solid body electric guitar. By the time Paul was 16, he had mastered the guitar enough to realize that he was dissatisfied with its sonic output. In 1933 when Paul was 18, he bought his first Gibson L50 for $45 and would use that guitar as the foundation for the creation of a new mediumof communication, the electric guitar. Paul put a road rail into the guitar and used the

Epiphone factory (ironically) to build and alter the guitar; he placed a wood stick (the guitar log) into an amplifier and play it in a club. “I invented a device that could give me a consistent reference points for my experiences” (Paul, 2008, p. 30). Paul’s invention of the solid body electric guitar allowed for his literacy practices to be enacted during his composing processes

(Figure 2 Les Paul and Mary Ford playing guitar in their home studio).

Figure 2 (Creative Commons, 2007)

Before the electric guitar, Paul was unable to transfer his conceptualization of music from his head to the fretboard. However after the electric guitar Paul was able to use his new medium, to not only enact his own literacy practices but sponsor future musicians’ literacy practices as well.

Paul’s own goal-driven process for composing his ideal sound, resulted in Paul creating new mediums for communication. Paul’s creation of the solid body electric guitar was not just a medium for self- consumption but was soon put into the spotlight and would be used by musicians for decades to come. Paul was the first person to deliver the solid body electric guitar into the airwaves of American homes; “And it was particularly satisfying to be the first to really put the electric guitar in the spotlight on national radio” (Paul, 2008, p.92). Paul’s knowledge concerning guitars, his skill on the guitar, and self-taught understanding of technology propelled

Paul to create a new resource for meaning making in the form of the electric guitar.

Paul’s creation of the solid body electric guitar, in some ways, is similar to current sound creators’ use of different tools to manipulate the sound of their communicative artifact. Like

Paul, who used differing tools to alter the guitar and build a new medium that produced a new sound, current sound creators and musicians use tools to transform the sounds of instruments and other mediums and at a constant. For instance, my other participants use of tools to manipulate the sounds of their artifacts while simultaneously composing. Oftentimes, we forget that new media and new technology is not something that is actually new but rather a part of our cultural and social history. Alexander (2015) states, “In our rush to embrace “new” media, we sometimes forget the work of those who have gone before, who can challenge us with robust histories of multimedia production” (p.74). Alexander’s (2015) investigation in to the works of Glenn Gould can serve as a parallel exploration to my investigation into Paul’s composing process. Even

though Paul was creating new tools and mediumss of sonic creation, he was also using multimedia/ multimodality in the overall creation and production of his communicative artifacts.

Paul’s composing and inventions might have been more than a half century ago, but they still enact the same aspects of ‘new literacies’ and ‘new media’ that we, the field of Rhetoric and

Composition, praise as an ever growing trend due to fast technological advancement. Moreover

Paul’s creation of new modes for sound creation and tools that aid and propel sonic manipulation, can be viewed as the first type of ‘new media’ that allowed for the manipulation of sound to be captured in multiplicity through analog recording technology with the creation/ mainstreaming of the multi-track recorder.

Figure 3 (Creative Commons, 2007)

Between 1945 and 1946 Paul built a studio (Figure 3) in his California home using the information he learned from the books he brought home. “When he couldn’t buy needed equipment, he invented it” (Archive Biography, n.d., p.3). Paul did not limit his vision by what was available but instead was driven by his ability to create the things that were yet to be available, again demonstrating his goal-driven composing process to enact his notion of sound.

Paul’s home studio is where his technological creations and composing processes became a united front;

He now had a studio but no ideas until one night with a gathering of friends arranging

was discussed. The idea was brought upon how wonderful an orchestra would be if all

played like one. Again, the light lit in Les’ mind...if he could play all the parts -- rhythm,

melody, harmony, backgrounds, it would be an orchestra playing like one… in fact it

would BE one. To think this is to do so out to the studio he went. The final step in the

formation of the “New Sound” had arrived -- after several experiments “Lover” and

“Brazil” were recorded. (Archive Biography, n.d.,p. 3).

Paul’s inward notion of sound and sound creation along with his self-taught knowledge on recording technology allowed for the creation of yet another mode of communication, the “New

Sound” or multi-track recording technology. Despite Paul’s musical literacy practices not being mediated by text, his literacy practices concerning the actual building of these new modes was mediated by texts. “He’d stay up all night reading. They weren’t music books-- sound engineering, physics, electronics, recording and similar topics were the subjects” (Archive

Biography, n.d., p.3). Paul’s ability to create music was mediated by non-text centric literacy practices, while his ability to create the technology needed to enact his vision of sound was mediated by text-centric literacy practices. Paul’s shift in literacy practices show that though text-centric literacy practices are still prevalent, they are not the main focus of all aspects of someone’s processes. Paul’s need to build his recording studio and recording machine, “The

Monster”, were enacted by his literacy practices. In an article found in the Archives, the author describes the event when Paul spoke his mind concerning the need to better recording technology, “Finally in 1942, during a recording session with Bing Crosby, he declared his opinion the stuff just wasn’t right, he said. A singer shouldn’t sound as if he had his head in a rain barrel” (Leslie, 1958, n.p.). According to that same article, this was the moment that pushed

Paul to research and create his “New Sound”. Paul’s own understanding of sound (self- sponsorship) and relation to his perception of sound (through his senses) mediated Paul’s need to create a mechanism that would provide the sonic output he envisioned for his and others musical abilities.

The reason I call Paul’s invention of the “New Sound” a new mode of communication is because using the definition put forth by Bezemer and Kress (2014) as “a mode is a socially and culturally shaped resource for making meaning” (p.237) it constitutes as a mode. The “New

Sound” was a culturally and socially shaped resource that enhanced Paul’s own inner-notion of meaning making. It also provided a new type of “modal resource”; “These differences in resources mean that modes can be used to do different kinds of semiotic work or to do broadly similar semiotic work with different resources in different ways” (Bezemer and Kress. 2014, p.237). Just like with tools of creation (i.e. a pen), modes of creation possess different rhetorical choices. The purpose of a communicative artifact and the expectations of the audience are driving forces behind the choice of modal resource used by the author. However, what Paul did was create a new type of modal resource that provided a new range of rhetorical choices for the creator and the audiences. Paul’s “New Sound” or multi-track recording system provided new mode, media, and modal resource to the maker of sound by creating a new way to manipulate sonic output. Paul’s own understanding of sound (self-sponsorship) and relation to his perception of sound (through his senses) mediated Paul’s need to create a mechanism that would provide the sonic output he envisioned for his and others musical abilities. The ‘New Sound’, as depicted in the above section, was a recording technique that allowed Paul and Ford to record more than one part onto a disc. In an article found in the Archives, the author, Leslie, discusses Paul’s process of creating this ‘New Sound’ in more technical detail stating,

The tape would now have two parts on it, and the process could be continued as long as

desired so that the finished tape might have Les playing a dozen or more guitars. (The

maximum number of parts recorded on a single tape was 24, and 21 parts were recorded

on a disc in the pre-tape period.). (1958, n.p.).

Paul’s vision of being able to be a one-man orchestra had become a reality. Driven by his own understanding of sound and sensory driven approach to his musical creations, Paul’s literacy practices allowed for the creation of yet another mode for communication.

The modes that Paul created directly relate to the idea of ‘mode processes’. ‘Mode process’, is the act of composing in a nonlinear fashion that enacts the use of more than one mode during the composing process to create an end product. Just like with Paul’s creation of modes, his use of those modes during his processes were a result of his literacy practices. Paul’s creation of new modes of meaning-making (such as the “New Sound” or the solid body electric guitar), further demonstrate that he would use more than one mode during his composing processes. Even though, again, the modes he created fell under the umbrella of electronic amplification they still created a new modal resource for communication that was socially and culturally situated. During Paul’s composing process, he would enact mode process to create a monomodal end product. An example to support Paul’s mode process discusses how Paul had a trick that he would use during the composing and recording process that would cut down the time from ordinary re-recording,

To get that effect of many instruments, Les changes speeds. If you play back a tape at

half the speed at which it was recorded, you get a deep fiddle sound… If you speed up

the playback, you get a higher pitch, and a trumpet sound. By changing speed, you can

change a part from the key of C to the key of F. (Porter, n.d., n.p.).

According to the above excerpt, Paul would have to use more than one mode to create the end product of sonic output. He would first have to use the electric guitar, record the multiple parts, listen back to the parts, and shift the sound of each part to match his specific view of the sound.

He would enact the use of sound, visuals, and writing during his recording. He would use sound to ensure that the product was what he envisioned, visuals to ensure that the levels, placement and so on were where they needed to be, and writing to add any frets or licks to the composition itself. Even though the basis for the song would be in place before recording, the song itself would shift based on the manipulation Paul would use post-recording. Paul’s process used more than one mode of communication to create the monomodal product of a song. Paul’s process is multimodal while the product he is creating is monomodal. He uses more than one resource for meaning making (guitar, tape recorders, The Monster) to create his understanding of music

(shaped by his own sensory perception and sponsors) that results in the end product of a song, which only uses one mode, or one resource for meaning making, to enact its message.

Paul’s manipulation and creation of new modes for sonic output provided an aspect of materiality that directly impacted the mode of sound (as a whole). Before Paul’s creation of multi-track recording (or at least the streamlining of it), the materiality of the mode of sound was static and singular. The creator could only make one sound per recording and would not be able to translate the sonic output in real time to the analog recording because the creator could not capture more than one track (i.e. a band could only record all parts at once and hope that the sonic output translated). Though Paul created a mode that provided the ability to translate a multi-part musical composition to analog recording, the product itself did not shift because the product for both single-part and multipart compositions is a communicative artifact that is defined by sonic output. It is the process of the creation that changes and not the product

itself. Paul’s use of ‘new media’ and creation of a new ‘mode’ shifted the context for what it means to create sound.

Exploring the embodied, affective dimensions of sound is most obviously relevant to

rhet/comp because in the digital age, our involvement in experiencing and producing

texts is more complex and much richer than discourse alone. We are not just producing

texts; we are creating increasingly interaction, immersive environments that we don’t

have a fully developed language to describe or understand yet. Because of its relationship

to embodiment and affect, composing with sound provides a productive starting point for

explorations of non-discursivity in rhet/comp. This is not to say that we should privilege

aural modes of communication; rather, we need to pay attention to how all of the material

and affective elements are orchestrated in a given text/environment/ performance. (Sirc

and Ceraso, 2011, p.78-79).

Using the above call by Sirc and Ceraso (2011), I argue that Paul’s creation of modes and tools of manipulation for the process of making sound and the product of sonic output, provide a

‘language’ that explores the ‘non-discursivity’ of non-textual based modes of meaning making.

Paul’s creation of the ‘New Sound’ provided a new definition of sonic output, which resulted in a new type of language for communication. For the first time, people who created sound were able to create a sonic output that possessed more than one type of modal resource.

As discussed earlier in this chapter, Paul’s creation of the ‘New Sound’ not only was a creation of a new mode but also possessed new modal resources. Modal resources are different uses of resources within the same mode; “These differences in resources mean that modes can be used to do different kinds of semiotic work or to do broadly similar semiotic work with different resources in different ways” (Bezemer and Kress, 2014, p.237). Paul used the mode of

electronic amplification to enact new uses, or a new language (Sirc and Ceraso, 2011), to provide a new avenue for meaning creation. Not only was Paul’s creation of the ‘New Sound’ an avenue for new modal resources, so was his creation of the solid body electric guitar.

Les Paul patented the solid body electric guitar in 1959 (U.S. Patent, 3018680A, 1959).

Just like with the creation of the ‘New Sound’, Paul enacted his own understanding of sound to shift the mode of electronic amplification by manipulating the tool (the guitar) used to create sonic output. According to the patent (1959) the solid body electric guitar is explained and categorized as,

This invention relates to improvements for a stringed musical instrument having a

magnetic pick-up, the improvements more particularly residing in a novel technique of

employing the magnetic pick-up to convert string vibration into electrical variations, and

in a novel arrangement of parts for carrying out this technique. The principal object of

this invention is to produce tones without the harshness and metallic sound usually

produced by most electrical instruments. (U.S. Patent, 3018680A).

The patent describes this invention as one that shifts the semiotic work of the original guitar by shifting the sonic output. “The principal object of this invention is to produce tones without the harshness and metallic sound usually produced by most electrical instruments” (U.S. Patent,

3018680A). The invention, in and of itself, was created with the purpose of shifting the modal resource of electronic amplification to create a new communicative sonic output that changed what it means to create and compose sound. Without the metallic sound, the user of the guitar would have to adjust how they compose and play the instrument to ensure they are getting their own desired sound. This shift, just like with the creation of the ‘New Sound’, would result in what Sirc and Ceraso (2011) call for as a ‘language’ that explores the ‘non-discursivity’ of non-

100

textual based modes of meaning making. Paul used and created multiple communicative modes to enact his own understanding of sonic output that was influenced by and because of his non- text mediated literacy practices. Paul’s inventions of the ‘New Sound’ and the solid body electric guitar, further demonstrate the impact his own self-literacy sponsorship and the sponsorship of his musical community had on his understanding of what it means to create sound.

Paul’s creation of these tools and technologies not only impacted his composing process, but demonstrate the affordances and constraints of composing with sound, specifically composing with music. Though Paul was able to create these tools and technologies to aid in his process, they were his creation that enacted his understand of sound. Like with words, my use of language depicts my understanding of a topic and Paul’s creation of tools enacted his. Though another person can manipulate those tools to enact their own understanding of sound, the basis of sound is still the same. However, Paul’s creations also led way to a revolutionary understanding of what sound, specifically music could sound like that would shift the music world and audiences’ understanding forever. Though these tools and technologies might be seen as limiting another creator’s process, these tools and technologies also opened the door for what is possible in term of sonic and musical composition. Language can only say so much. And sound can only express so much. Each are limited by themselves due to their inability to inhabit more than themselves. It is understanding these limitations, especially in terms of choice of mode during composition lends way to grasping a composers intent and goal for their piece and audience.

III. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS

My findings for Les Paul move away from text-based mediated literacy practices and into a realm of multimodal process with monomodal product, that complicate the current process/product binary within the field of Rhetoric and Composition. Paul’s move away from

101

text-based mediated literacy practices and shift to literacy practices mediated by embodied sensory experience further demonstrates the relationship that sonic composing has with the composing of alphabetic text. Both are influenced by outside mediating factors that determine what it is that is being composed. The difference is in the mediating factors, which help determine not only the process that will be used but the product mode output. Due to the nature of sonic composing, Paul’s creation of new tools and mediums was mediated out of the need to compose something that emulated the sound he envisioned. One affordance sound and music have over traditional alphabetic text is their ability to be manipulated to fit a particular person’s vision. There are only so many ways you can arrange letters on a page to invoke your own vision. The tools used to create alphabetic text in the form of communication are limited by the mode of writing itself, whereas the mode of sound lends way to the creation of new mediums and tools to provide the ultimate personal product.

Using archival methods, provided me with an insight into Paul that I might not have gotten using another type of methodology. However, the use of those methods also provided me with an understanding of Paul and his composing process that was one-sided and completely provided by and manufactured by Paul (since the artifacts I was studying were from his estate). The inherent bias of archival research is one of the biggest hurdles in collecting valid data and thus recording valid findings. My lack of ability to talk with Paul about what I had found or ask him questions concerning issues I had with my findings, proved to me that when studying the process of sonic composition the researcher must look at it from more than one methodological angle. If I were to just look at it from an archival point of view, I would not be able to provide what the composing process looks like in action. Since I was unable to view Paul composing in action, and had no contact with him personally, I was piecing together his process from the documents, videos, and

102

interviews that I was given access to at the archival site. However, though I was able to corroborate my findings and was as transparent as possible in terms of my data collection, as well as, with my findings still does not provide me, as the researcher, or you, as the reader, with an understanding of the sonic composing process in action.

The next two chapters will explore, in-depth, my findings from two other case studies using two other methods for data collection. The studies of Wagner and Feld provide the missing pieces of data necessary to, not only answer my research questions fully but also provide a more holistic understanding of what it means to compose sonically. The composition process is something that cannot be studied using just one type of method due to the differences and complexities used by each person. Therefore, my studies of Paul, Feld, and Wagner provide an in-depth understanding of what it means to compose with sound through the use of different methodological approaches.

103

CHAPTER FIVE: THE ARGUMENT FOR MULTIMODAL PROCESS: THE QUALITATIVE

CASE STUDY OF MARC FELD

I. INTRODUCTION

This chapter is meant to explore the findings from my qualitative case study of Marc

Feld to aid in the answering of my research questions. This part is broken two main sections with subsections that explore the key findings and implications from Feld. Like with Paul, I will provide an overview of the answers to the research question for each, background information, and exploration of the parallels between literacy and music and sonic composition, as well as the impact of mode and medium creation to aid us, as scholars, in better understanding multimodal composition.

My data collection for Feld led to data in terms of interviews, observations, field notes, and pictures. I used all interviews and think-aloud observations from Feld’s data set. Because I recorded the think-aloud observations using both video and tape recording (approved by IRB), I was able to transcribe the tape recording of the observations and watch the video for secondary support (i.e. bodily movements that supported Feld’s process). Table 5 provides an overview of the types of data that I collected concerning Feld.

104

Type of Interviews Observations Field Notes Pictures (music

Materials and instruments)

# of Materials 114.01 minutes 92.79 Minutes 21 pgs. 7

Marc Feld Materials Table 5

The transcripts for Feld were created with timestamps that paralleled the length of a speaker segment. For instance, if Feld or Wagner were discussing one aspect of playing for 15 seconds then I would make that entire 15 seconds would be a single timestamp. I viewed this as helpful in assisting my coding process because it allowed me to visually see when the topic was being shifted either by me (as the researcher) or Feld; therefore, I was able to comprehend the discussions more holistically than fractured and code in a cleaner more succinct fashion without having to re-read the same sentence and attempt to figure out its relation to the question asked. I then used my field notes, photographs, and video as secondary support and clarification to further demonstrate the connections I was making during coding in relation to my research questions.

II. MARC FELD FINDINGS OVERVIEW

Through my analysis of Feld’s dataset, I was able to gain a sense of similarity between my findings from Paul and Feld, and later between my third participant Jans Wagner. However, there are still aspects of the composing process that might be missing. Since Feld was unable to fully offer a coherent think-aloud during my observations, the process of his composing itself was pieced together through interviews and observations. Like with the work of Stedman (2012),

I, too, felt like there were times where I was creating a narrative. Though unlike Stedman (2012), who solely used interviews to recreate the composing process, I did have access to Feld’s think- alouds. My data collected from Feld provided an insight into sonic composing that I was unable

105

to obtain from Paul. I was able to watch Feld compose in real time, in the same space, and ask questions to further expand my understanding of his composing. My ability to physically watch

Feld play and compose led to my findings concerning the need to shift our field’s definition of multimodal, away from product centric and focused more so on the process of product creation.

Feld’s data demonstrated a need to expand the definition of multimodal because though he was creating a monomodal product, in the sense of sonic output in the form of music he was doing so by using a multimodal process. Therefore, we, as a field, need to view sound and music as multimodal, not because of the end product but because of the process itself.

Below are overviews of my research questions to help guide readers to the main findings of my study of Marc Feld.

RQ 1: What literate practices do musicians use during their sonic composing practices?

Feld’s literate practices are non-text mediated and are heavily influenced by both musical community literacy sponsorship and self- literacy sponsorship. Feld is not enacting literacy, in the traditional sense, but instead my findings demonstrate that Feld mimics literacy practices in terms of reading and writing during his sonic composing; that is why throughout this chapter when discussing Feld’s use of technology, skill, and knowledge (Scribner and Cole, 1981) I will be using the term literacy practice.

As a field we tend to compartmentalize modes as standalone entities, however my study of Feld provides an overlap between the modes of sound and writing that have not been discussed at length in previous scholarship. Sound, specifically music, just like with writing traditional alphabetic text enact skills, technology, and knowledge to create a final product of communication. The goal of the creator determines the tools used to create their own purposeful piece of music, writing, or sonic creation. The tools of creation determine what it is that is going

106

to be made and is guided by the purpose of the creator. Though sonic composing and written composition have their differences they also possess similarities and it is these similarities that will be the focus of my findings in this chapter in relation to Feld’s literacy practices.

RQ 2 and 3: What communicative modes do musicians use during their composing processes?

How do musicians use multiple communicative modes during their composing process?

Feld predominately used the mode of sound and the medium of electronic amplification and tended to use multiple tools while composing. Feld would create new modes and tools of creation to enact a specific type of music and ultimately a sound that he was ‘looking for’. The study of Feld has demonstrated that it is not simply the final mode product that needs to be acknowledged, it is also the modes that are used during the process of creation as well. How a composition is created does not foreshadow what the form of its end product will be. The goal, purpose, and audience for a specific piece of composition is what foreshadows the form of the end product, not its creation. Using the definition of multimodal text put forth by Takayoshi and

Selfe (2007), as “texts that exceed the alphabetic and may include still and moving images, animations, color, words, music, and sound” (p.1), I argue that the field of Rhetoric and

Composition has presupposed that a multimodal text has to be more than one of those non-text centric artifacts in a final product. However, my findings as discussed above shed light on my final research question and provide an alternative to thinking that something is multimodal if and only if the product possesses more than one mode.

If we think of multimodal composition as resulting in a multimodal text always, we, as scholars, are neglecting a major aspect of writing; an aspect that we drill in the mind of our students, the reality that any piece of composition is driven by and created with a goal in mind.

107

Though that goal might change, that goal is what shapes the final form of the composition. If, like with Hull and Nelson’s (2014) study, the goal of the piece of composition is to enact multiple ways of mean making as a significant aspect of the final product, then yes using more than one mode while composing would result in the end product also being multimodal.

However, if goal of a piece of composition is to create a monomodal product but do so using multimodal text (as defined by Takayoshi and Selfe), does that mean that the end piece is not an example of multimodal composition? If we, as a field, answer that question with a yes, we are ignoring the processes of creation using those multimodal texts. Just because the product is monomodal does not mean that the process to get there is also monomodal. Much like

Takayoshi’s (2015) study on the short-term interactive writing done on Facebook, my own study also demonstrates the reality that, “writing studies needs more detailed, systematic understandings of the writing processes of writers as they compose in the technologically mediated, networked, and multimodal landscape of literacy now” (p.4). Feld’s mode process approach to sonic composing provides a new avenue for further exploration concerning the importance of revisiting composing process scholarship.

In the below sections I provide background information to provide context concerning

Marc Feld and in-depth exploration of my findings concerning Feld in relation to the idea of multimodality and literacy practices. My findings demonstrate and argue for the need to expand our definition of multimodal and the parallel relationship between sonic composing and traditional notions of literacy in terms of literacy practices and sponsorship.

A. FELD BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Marc Feld is a local musician in a small mid-western town. At the time of my study of him, he was 26 years old and was working for a company that created guitar pedals. Though Feld was

108

not the one who invented the different pedals, he did build them and had a unique understanding of the inner workings of the manipulations of guitar pedals. Guitar pedals are often used as additive tools that shift the sound of the guitar to provide a certain sonic output. Feld did not have a background in music notation or traditional musical training. In fact, he did not learn guitar until he was around 14 years old and was introduced to the instrument by his uncle. “He just gave me a guitar and amp for like three weeks and told me to just fool around and try to make some sounds on it. And then he came and we started doing a little lessons.” (M.Feld,

Personal Communication, October 2016). His uncle taught him how to play and Feld stuck to more traditional classic rock for the first few years of his playing. Though Feld would have lessons with his uncle, his uncle was not a trained musician and instead only had a few lessons himself. Much like how he was teaching Feld, his uncle learned by playing with others (M.Feld,

Personal Communication, October 2016).

It was not until he went to college for music production that he began to have a deeper understanding of music notation and theory. His introduction into this new understanding of music was brought on by a teacher and mentor by the name of Miles. Miles not only introduced

Feld to the world of reading and understanding musical notations but also to different types of music such as jazz fusion. Miles’ influence on Feld could still be seen during my time spent with him. During the observations of Feld, he was working on pieces that encompassed more of a jazz fusion style than a classic rock vibe. He was also using specific stylistic choices for jazz fusion such as tapping on the guitar fretboard. It was Miles who not only opened Feld up to new ways of making music, but also allowed him to begin to compose music.

Met a guy named Miles Provo* a jazz guitarist who was teaching at that school. And he

started teaching me things and I took theory classes as well and he started teaching me how

109

to build different chords, more about modes. And stuff like that a little more about music and

then he introduced me to fusion. Like Jazz Guitar. That's when I think I really started

composing. Because before and in bands I was in I was never really allowed to write. It was

kind of weird like there were two guys who wrote in the band and I kind of tried to be like I

want to be part of the process. They just told me no. I was in this rut of like I'm the lead

guitar player. But. I was fast- I was able to play quick. That's when I actually started

composing, when I started going to school. And I was able to quit that band. And took like a

year off and then got back to it and was like I don't have anybody telling me not to [write].

So I started writing a lot. (M.Feld, Personal Communication, October 2016).

Feld’s relationship with Miles was the turning point in his musical career. Feld went from being a guitar player to being a composer. Miles’ influence on Feld is something that is further explored in this chapter in relation to Feld’s literacy practices. Marc Feld’s non-technical introduction to guitar mixed with his introduction to music theory and technology later on, provides him with a unique perspective and take on what it means to compose sonically.

B. SONIC COMPOSING’S MOVE BEYOND THE TEXTUAL

My time with Marc Feld allowed me, as the researcher, to gain a different perspective of what it means to compose with sound. The impact of musical community sponsorship on Feld’s literacy practices and his seemingly easy transition into the creation of new modal resources, further demonstrate that like with Paul, Feld’s literacy practices were non-text mediated. These non-text mediated literacy practices also were dependent upon and because of the modes and modal resources that Feld enacted during his composing process. Marc Feld’s literacy practices are non-text mediated and are instead mediated by Feld’s own embodiment of senses, use and determination of mode, and self and/or musical community literacy sponsorship. The analysis of

110

data that was collected, transcribed, and coded of Marc Feld’s sonic composing processes.

Through Feld’s data in the form of transcriptions, I, as the researcher, determined that the non- text mediated literacy practices were the most prevalent aspect of my findings and were seen throughout my data sets of think-alouds, observations, and field notes. Feld’s ‘literacy’ is not

‘literacy’ in terms of reading and writing, but rather parallels the interactions that are often associated with reading and writing attainment. Feld’s use of non-text mediated literacy practices demonstrates that like with literacy Feld is reliant on his skill, knowledge, and tools to create music and sonic composition.

Marc Feld showed me his literacy practices during composing were not mediated by texts. Because I was able to view Feld’s composing process in action, I am able to discuss how

Feld approached the act of composing. Feld’s literacy practices were not mediated by texts and provide an understanding of the impact of mode - in terms of technology- on process (an aspect that will be further explored in relation to my research question(s) concerning usage of modes).

When I observed Feld, I did so at two separate locations. Each location had its own specific ‘set- up’ of the instrument and technologies he was going to use. For the first observation, Feld had his gear set-up, with his pedals, amp, stand, and guitar. He was sitting in a chair and was holding his guitar with it gently sitting in his lap. During the think-aloud, Feld would move his head and body while discussing what it was he was doing. It was almost as if he was using his body to determine the best way to enact the sound. He would often move his head in a forward motion while tapping his feet to the beat and humming. The second observation was not much different, in terms of body placement and gear used. Except, this time, Feld had a new set-up that included a different rig that created what he called the sound of a ‘one-man analog band’. Much like the earlier observation, Feld was sitting down with his guitar resting on his lap with his gear set out

111

and ready to use. The gear used was pre-determined and guided his process. Feld’s use of pre- determined tools that guided his process, parallels what it is we do with literacy. When composing using traditional alphabetic text, the tools guide and impact the process of composition and are determined by the goal and purpose of the writer. A writer would not use a crayon to compose a scholarly article and musician would not use a saxophone for a guitar solo.

The tools used are dependent upon the author’s goal for creation for both writing with text and composing with sound and music. If we think of what students create in a classroom and the tools that they use to create final products, each student will pick a different tool for their own individual process. “Student writing processes are highly variable. When we ask students to write in a classroom with computers, markers, crayons, and the paper and pens they bring to class, they choose different technologies for different purposes” (Cushman, DeVoss, and Grabill,

2015, p.2). The same can be said for Feld. The tools he uses are dependent on the purpose of the product he is creating.

Feld’s composing set-up cued me in instantly about something that was not present (at least readily) written texts. He had his technology of choice laid out, used his senses while composing (moving his head or humming), and demonstrated his skill on the guitar using a variance of techniques but he only used text once, and like Paul, it seemed to be more for memory and not an aspect of the composing process itself. The notion of using text as a way of not forgetting was something that Feld discussed further during an interview, where I specifically asked him about the use of text in his process; “I’ll write but it usually happens after a section has been developed” (M.Feld, Personal Communication, November 2016). Just like with Paul,

Feld’s use of text is not part of the process but is a way to make sure that what was created during the process is not forgotten. Again, text is still present during composing but its influence

112

and impact on the process differs from composing with traditional text because the goal for composing is different. During my first observation, Feld wrote down a few chords on a scrap piece of paper (Figure 4) and did so, so he ‘wouldn’t forget’ (M.Feld, Observation, October

2016).

Figure 4 (October 2016)

The act of composing itself was done without the use of text. It was not until the act of composing was completed that he would even consider to use text and would only do so for fear of forgetting something he had created.

Instead of text being the goal of composing, like with traditional literacy enactment, it was used in order not to forget the goal of composing. Perhaps Feld’s minimal use of a textual component is due to how he composes with sound;

Things come from improvisation for me and even if it's just me sitting down and just

starting from a chord that I just played, you know, I don't know why I put my hands

there. But I just put my hands there and subconsciously maybe that's what I wanted to

hear but it's not necessarily something I think of. And from that I'm just kind of like try to

go where I immediately want to go from there. (M.Feld, Personal Communication, 2016).

113

Feld’s lack of writing could be linked back to the reliance his process has on improvisation. If he is unsure what he is going to play or end up with, why would he write it down during the process itself? During his think-aloud observations, Feld would often question what it was he was trying to play and how it would relate to other pieces of music (M.Feld, Personal Observation, October

2016- May 2017). Feld’s use of text as a tool for memory depicts his own non-text centric literacy practice. If literacy practices “refer to the broader cultural conception of particular ways of thinking about and doing reading and writing in cultural contexts” (Street, 2000, p.1), then

Feld’s composing reflects the broader cultural thinking about reading and writing sound- which in this case, does not necessitate traditional alphabetic texts. His compositions would still exist without text, but what was recorded could be different. The compositions that end up being recorded exist only in a digital format; and not in a format that deals with any sort of inscription in terms of traditional written artifacts. Though Feld does not enact text during the composition process (i.e. does not actively write out musical notation during his process), text is still present in the form of musical memory. “Literacy practices are almost always fully integrated with and interwoven into the very texture of wider practices that involve talk, interaction, values, and beliefs” (Gee, 2012, p.41). Feld uses text as an additive for memory purposes but also as an act of recording that demonstrates Feld’s own values and beliefs concerning what should be done during the act of composing; there should be some written aspect to the composition, even if it is just for memory. The influence of text on Feld’s composing was there but not in the same way it would be while composing traditional text; meaning that Feld was not relying on text to create the communicative artifact but was rather using writing not to forget aspects of the further creation. Because the mode of creation is sound, the tools in which Feld used to compose to

114

enact a musical and sonic composition, were dependent on the main mode of the product of composition.

His values, beliefs and interactions are of the utmost importance and influence on his literacy practices. His interactions, especially, shape Feld’s literacy practices. Not only is he interacting with his instruments, recording devices, and own notion of sound but is also constantly interacting with other members of the musical community. My observations and conversations with Feld provided me with an understanding of his literacy practices as being mediated and enacted through sponsorship and sensory perception. Though text is not the mainstay of his literacy practices during his sonic composing, he is still enacting knowledge, skills, and technology in way that creates a specific communicative artifact. Thus, Feld’s sonic composing mimics the literacy practices of traditional writing demonstrating the similarities between mode creations. For example, Feld’s ability to visualize the music he is making is a direct result from his relationship with one of his musical sponsors. Miles [name changed] was the most discussed sponsor and, in terms of our communication, the most influential. Miles provided Feld with a basis for composing and composing for jazz guitar (which is his preferred genre). “So, he started teaching me kind of how to make music and how to correspond what's in your head to what's on the fretboard and to really like how to navigate the fretboard because I only knew like the one way. You know what I mean?” (M.Feld, Personal Communication,

October 2016). Miles’ teaching is what allowed Feld to be able to compose. Miles’ sponsorship cannot be separated from Feld’s process because he is the one that taught him how to transfer what he had in his head to what he wanted to output sonically. Before Miles, Feld was unable to compute the idea he had about sound to the guitar. He just had these sounds with no way to compose or make them a reality until he was taught how to go from his head to the fretboard.

115

Feld’s knowledge, skill, and use of technology was mediated by Miles, one of his sponsors, and essentially enabled the creation of the beginning of Feld’s literacy practices. Like with traditional notions of literacy, Feld’s (musical) literacy sponsor introduced him to new technology, skills, and knowledge that allowed Feld to enact his notion of sound. Feld discussed how he did not gain an ability to understand musical notations until his college experience; meaning, that Miles initial impact on Feld’s ability to visualize his musical compositions occurred before Feld gained textual practice,

So after I started learning how to like associate what was in my head to what was on the

fretboard. Like mapping out the fretboard. That's when I was able to start taking the

music back. I could now hear what's in my head and can find it on the fretboard even if I

don't know exactly what it is. I know where it is at the same time. Sometimes I'll just like

play this weird chord. And I do not remember- my fingers just go there. I mean but it is

exactly what it was in my head. And it's not as fluid as I'd like it to be. I mean I don't

think it's ever going to be. But I've definitely noticed that I can just like not think about it.

I can just play guitar and it'll just kind of happens sometimes. And then that's when I kind

of like look at it and I can learn from that. Does that make sense? Like he [ Miles] taught

me how to how the fretboard sounded in my head. And vice versa kind of. How things in

my head sounded on the fretboard. (M. Feld, Personal Communication, October 2016).

Feld’s literacy practices, though mediated by sponsors (such as Miles), also are unable to be separated from those interactions with his sponsors. He would not have the same music literacy or literacy practices if we ignored those outside influencers (such as interactions, values, and beliefs).

116

Feld also relied on his embodied sensory experience when it came to composing his music. Since

Feld was not a very strong note reader, like Paul, he relied heavily on his senses to rely how something should be played and how something should sound. Feld relied on his hearing and sight to guide his process of creating or in some cases recreating a specific sonic output.

Now sometimes things will pop in my head and all. But that's more almost more of a

transcription thing for me kind of like if I were to go and learn like you know Jimi

Hendrix's Voodoo Child solo or whatever you know anything. It's almost more of a

transcription where it's like I hear it in my head and I'm actually not good enough to just

play it right off the bat. So I have to like hear thing out and like think a little more. That

was a little like the last time we met up. I was like conceptualizing what I wanted to

happen and then trying to figure it out on the fretboard. (M. Feld, Personal

Communication, November 2016).

Feld’s ability to conceptualize these transcriptions of sound is a direct result of his literacy practices. Feld’s non-text mediated literacy practices in the forms of embodied senses and musical and self- literacy sponsorship, provided him with a way to enact sound that would result in his understanding of the instrument’s sonic output.

Like Paul, Feld’s literacy practices move beyond the textual to create a communicative mode that does not require an alphabetic textual intervention. This idea is one that is not new and has been explored in other pieces of scholarship in Rhetoric and Composition, specifically in

Jonathan Alexander's (2015) article “Glenn Gould and the Rhetorics of Sound”. Alexander

(2015) explores the work of musician and radio documentarian Glenn Gould and Gould’s own use of sonic manipulation to move beyond the use of text in the creation of sound; “one in which we might begin to hear how working with sound and voice might exceed the textual or perform

117

rhetorical work that the textual does not-- or cannot” (2015, p.78). Like Alexander’s analysis of

Gould’s work, I too have found that both Paul and Feld’s working with sound moved beyond the textual. However, the textual cannot be completely eradicated from the process. Since, the textual is still an aspect- even if it is not a necessity but an additive- it cannot be separated from the non-textual aspects of Paul and Feld’s composing processes. Therefore, just like literacy practices and events that are mediated and based around texts cannot ignore outside influencers that are non-text based, non- text based literacy practices and events cannot ignore outside influencers that are textually based.

C. REDEFINING MULTIMODAL: FELD’S MODE PROCESS

Feld’s use of multiple modes throughout his composing process, ‘mode process’, is dependent upon his literacy practices (as discussed in the previous section). For instance when

Feld would be composing, he would oftentimes switch between certain guitar pedals to enact a specific sound from his guitar. However, under the same umbrella of the mode of sound and medium of electronic amplification (the mode and medium used to code the data set of my participants), the pedals (a tool used in mode creation) allow Feld to manipulate what is being amplified and the result of the sonic output. Feld’s switching between pedals is dependent upon and born out of his literacy practices. Without Feld’s knowledge and skill concerning guitar pedals (their build and function), he would not be able to manipulate the technology in a way that would aid in his notion of sonic output. Feld’s literacy, in terms of his ability to manipulate technology to create a sonic output, relates to Gee’s (2012) notion of literacy. Gee (2012) states,

“ Literacy has no effects-- indeed, no meaning-- apart from particular cultural contexts in which it is used and it has different effects in different contexts” (p.77). Feld’s literacy, in terms of music and technology, is heavily situated in the act of composing itself and has no meaning

118

outside of that act. Once the composition is created, and in some cases recorded, the literacy practices being used cease to exist in that context, the context of sonic creation. Much like with literacy, in terms of reading and writing, the creation of compositions with sound and music enact a particular effect and meaning dependent upon different contexts. With that, the literacy and literacy practice being used in a specific context is a direct result of the mode being used to create a communicative artifact. Since Feld is creating the monomodal product of sound his literacy practices are not being mediated by text but rather embodied sensory experience and sponsorship. Whereas if he was writing a research paper, textual mediation would most likely be the main literacy practice enacted. What is being created is both dependent on and a result of the literacy practices being enacted by the creator. For instance, if Feld was writing a research paper, he would not use guitar pedals to manipulate the words on the computer screen. He would use tools that enabled the creation of a specific mode for the specific purpose. The tools of creation are an aspect of the literacy practices being enacted. Therefore, the choice of tool is also a result of the literacy practices that are both born out of and determined by the mode creation.

If I'm playing pedal you know there's different pedals just like different guitars that like

when you pick up a different guitar you’re probably going to play something different

because it's different instrument than you're used to. It's fresh in a way. I mean like I feel

like if you ask any musician, specifically as for me because I'm a guitar player I can

speak from experience. But like when you pick up a new guitar you usually come up with

a couple new riffs. (M. Feld, Personal Communication, November 2016).

Feld’s literacy in terms of music and technology, just like with the traditional notion of literacy in terms of reading and writing is dependent on context and the mode of communication in a particular context.

119

During Feld’s first observation he had one guitar he played, with six pedals on a pedal board, and three amps (Field Notes, October 2016). Feld was insistent that he did not design the pedals but just built them. Feld’s insistency demonstrated his belief that designing something and building something were two different things. Feld would build some of his gear and design other aspects; building it means he would be enacting someone elses’s understanding of sound and designing would mean he was creating his own understanding of sound. Feld’s home built pedals, and his knowledge and skill to do so (from his time working for a pedal company) provided him with the ability create pedals for his specific needs. Feld would re-purpose certain technological aspects to create a new sound or an output that was his version of sound. Instead of inventing the guitar pedal (something that would be more reminiscent of Paul), he would build guitar pedals (Figure 5, Feld’s guitar pedal collection) and arrange them in specific ways to create a sound unique to his playing.

Feld, in essence, would implement new

modal resources (Bezemer and Kress,

2014) that enacted new affordances to

the sonic mode. I noticed during that

first observation, Feld would tend to

Figure 5 (May, 2017) switch between pedals while composing. I asked him to elaborate as to why that was and his description of the why is an example of how Feld manipulated existing technology to create his own version of sonic output;

120

If I feel like I need certain genres of effects, I'll have a certain dirt pedal set up- or I'll

have -whatever- delay pedal I'm doing. Last time I had a compressor going because I

wasn't actually working on the technique of tapping- I'll use a compressor because it's just

easier when you're doing that technique to have a certain amount of compression going.

But other times like I'll be inspired just by an idea of a combination of effects or just

recently I was thinking about like using a certain effect in the pedal I have called a freeze

function where you hold a note and you can step on that note and it's got a bunch of

faders for different voices so you have different intervals that you bring in like up to two

octaves above and then you have like an octave of fifth and the third and the fifth octave

it just kind of like manipulating those through another pedal called the transmisser that

the company I work for just put out which has different functions and just manipulating it

almost- kind of like a soundscape kind of thing. (M.Feld, Personal Communication,

November 2016).

Guitar pedals are meant to shift the sound of the guitar to produce some sort of altered effect, however Feld uses the pedals to create his own understanding of sound. Feld’s manipulation of pedals, tools that aid in sonic mode creation, demonstrates transformation (Bezemer and Kress,

2014) not from mode to mode but from tool to mode that impacts the process of the sonic output;

“...transformation describes changes in arrangement within one mode” (p.241). Even though

Feld’s manipulation of guitar pedals shifts the sonic output of the mode, it does not change the mode itself. He is still using sound to create a sonic product. However, the process in which the sonic product is created is what is transformed to create a rearrangement of how the sound is produced.

121

So when something is distorted you have your enriching the upper harmonics and then

they become much more prevalent. And when I hear that notes and chords become much

richer and intermingle in a much more definitive ways. So I might be hearing certain

dissonances that I want to resolve in different ways you know or even just it's a rich

sound. (M. Feld, Personal Communication, November 2016).

Feld’s knowledge and skill concerning guitar pedals, and his knowledge and skill concerning music allow him to manipulate technology in a way that provides him with a specific effect that may or may not have existed before. However without Feld’s knowledge and skill concerning guitar pedals and his inherent understanding of music, as well as his use of embodied senses to aid in the creation of the final sonic product, he would not be able to manipulate the technology he uses in a way that would allow him to use technology to shift his sound in the same way. The use and manipulation of tools to create a new version of a mode output, is what sets sound apart from the mode of writing. Whether I write words on a piece of paper or write them using a word processor, the words on the page still have the same inherent meaning just in a different form.

However if you use a guitar pedal to add distortion and then play the same chords on an acoustic guitar, the meaning and audience understanding of the sound would shift greatly. This is because though the mode is sound, the sound is not the same. The affordances of sound allow the product to shift based upon the tools used and the mediums enacted, the same cannot be said for the mode of writing. Words are words no matter what. Sound is not the same no matter what because the tools and mediums used effect the end product2. Feld further discusses the impact of the gear used later in that same interview stating,

2 David Bowie’s version of “Man Who Sold the World” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g33-W9t2q2Q Nirvana’s version of “Man Who Sold the World” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fregObNcHC8 Same song but inherently different in terms of sound and presentation because of the tools used during creation

122

So, when I play through different effects or a different amp or, you know, even just with

very minimal like change in the set up that change in tonality and change in feel greatly

affects what I'm going to play and then that's what I'm going to think of. You know what

I mean? Especially when composing. (M.Feld, Personal Communication, November

2016).

The use of gear, for Feld, ‘greatly affects’ what he is going to play and he has to be cognizant of that while he is composing. Even though the type of gear he decides to use, in a way, is a result of his literacy practices (his embodiment of senses and sponsorship) the gear used also affects his literacy practices during the composing process. For example, if Feld is going to be using tapping while composing (a technique of physically tapping on the fretboard) he would use one type of pedal and amp and then through his own understanding of sound, would compose a piece of music that would result in sonic output based on Feld’s own notion of what a piece of music with tapping, that guitar pedal and amp, should sound like. But the notion of what a piece of music should sound like with certain gear is dependent on Feld’s understanding of that gear and how that gear affects his own sense of sonic output and what it should sound like. Feld’s use of a specific medium of electronic amplification and tools impacts how and what he composes but how and what he composes also is dependent upon the medium of electronic amplification and tools he decides to use. Feld’s literacy practices and choice of mode while composing are cyclic in nature and cannot be separated from each other. The same can be said of traditional literacy driving the choice of mode, however, the product no matter written in crayon or calligraphy the words will remain the same and though stylistic choices might shed light on the author, the meaning of the product does not shift. Again, the mode of sound provides affordances that the mode of writing does not allow. Mainly, the range of effects sound can have on an audience’s

123

interpretation of a final product is vast in comparison to the range of effects writing can have on an audience’s interpretation due to the fact that the tools and mediums used within sonic and musical composition have such a power over the final products meaning.

Feld’s choice of tool while composing implement certain modal resources that influence the affordances of the process and product he is creating. “These differences in resources mean that modes can be used to do different kinds of semiotic work or to do broadly similar semiotic work with different resources in different ways” (Bezemer and Kress, 2014, p.237). Unlike

Bezemer and Kress’s (2014) notion of modal resources only being an aspect of the mode as a whole, Feld’s modal resources reflect more upon the tools he is using to implement a certain process of composing that enacts a specific sonic output. Meaning, that unlike a switch from word to image which has a set of affordances depending upon the social and cultural context, the switch from pedal to pedal provides certain modal resources that shift the mode of sound’s process and therefore the final product. For instance, if Feld is tapping and is creating a jazz fusion composition, the affordances of certain pedals (or tools) would shift the process for how he composes (by enacting certain steps for creation with the addition of outside resources) and would shift the sonic output of the product. Feld highlighted this notion in our second interview while discussing the impact the use of different equipment has on his composing,

I want that sound and that's usually for me at least comes after the fact that I've written a

tune and when I'm thinking about the recording process and how I want different tones to

be like switching or pairing or a jarring fashion. Like I might take a certain lick from a

riff when I'm actually in the recording process. I put that through like a little cigar like

Pac amp that like I got for 20 bucks. You know just because it's a cool shitty sound. But

in the creative process it kind of experimenting with different distortion characteristics

124

and you know. Once you start really listening to it. It's very unique. (M.Feld, Personal

Communication, November 2016).

The mode itself does not change but the modal resources and the affordances shift dependent upon the tools of creation needed to manipulate the sonic output to create a final product that is what Feld envisioned.

During my last observation I noticed that Feld was, not only employing different pedals, but had an entire new rig set up and seemingly was able to play multiple parts at once. Feld explained at the beginning of the observation this new system he had created using three different amps and three switches that allowed him to do different things (bass, synth, and guitar) which would result in his ability to play three different instruments through just his guitar(Figure

6, Feld’s new rig).

. Figure 6 (May, 2017)

The last post-observation interview was focused on Feld’s use and creation of this Bluetooth keyboard. When I asked Feld why he decided to create this new rig, he explained that he had gotten his first seven string guitar and it had given him a new found range that was unattainable on his previous guitars. He had also just broken up with his previous band and was writing a lot of his own music. Feld was also playing around with another new type of guitar, for him, called a war guitar owned by a friend of his. A war guitar is a specific type of guitar that has two outputs

125

and those outputs give the ability to play two guitars (or one bass and one guitar) at once. Feld situated the creation of his ‘one- man analog band for me and provided a more in-depth description of the technology;

You get two different signals coming out you have a bass for a given Guitar Rig. And

then it's kind of like how can I, you know, advance that, adapt it to do different things

certain things, you know, thinking of the looping. And then I was like, “oh I have to buy

like two looping pedals and they'll be tap dancing all over the place”, and a guy at work

told me about the software Looper which started getting me into incorporating my

computer which I've been wanting to do for a while. I just really didn’t have like a means

or a kind of a reason to start like that journey of integrating my analog rig into. A

computer digital rig and like. It's like the gear I have does the digital processing in real

time. So it's essentially, kind of like, going through analog. (M.Feld, Personal

Communication, May 2017).

Feld used pre-existing technology to create a new electronic amplification medium which resulted in a manipulation of the sound mode. Just like with the use of pedals, Feld’s creation of the ‘one-man analog band’ enacts new modal resources that shift the affordances of the mode during the process of composition and the final product. However, unlike Feld’s use of pedals, the ‘one-man analog band’ is a new electronic amplification mode, because it is a “socially and culturally shaped resource for meaning-making” (Bezemer and Kress, 2-14, p.237). The creation of the new rig was situated and shaped by the culture of the musical community Feld found himself in. Without his surrounding musical community, the cultural context would not have lent itself to the creation of the ‘one-man analog band’ that shifted how Feld and his musical

126

community heard and processed sonic output. This creation allowed Feld not necessarily to play a new instrument but rather, be able to play multiple instruments at the same time.

Feld’s creation of the ‘one-man analog’ band provided him with the electronic amplification medium and sound mode necessary to play multiple instruments at once. During our last interview, I asked Feld how many parts he anticipated playing on this new mode and he explained:

So I'm kind of starting to think more of like yeah- how many parts can this be? You know

what I mean? I'm envisioning that. The whole point of this kind of like rig is, specifically

with the looping - which is kind of the least exciting thing about the whole thing- but the

most for me in which I think is going to really allow me to do this how I want, is I'll be

able to have each of these voices that I’m trying to come out of the guitar. [The voices]

will be independent. It would be just like a person. There will be almost just like it was a

person. (M. Feld, Personal Communication, May 2017).

Just like with his guitar pedals, this rig allows Feld to use multiple modal resources at once to create his own version of sonic output. However, unlike the pedals Feld is able to manipulate the sound of more than one instrument simultaneously because of the Looper software. “The possibility of having all these different people is really kind of changing the way I'm thinking of writing. Because it's not just the guitar. It can be three people. Or at least two people” (M.Feld,

Personal Communication, May 2017). The multiplicity of instruments being played both complicate and streamline the composition process for Feld. It allows him to compose more than one part simultaneously but that also means he has to know which part he wants to compose and how it will be in direct relation to the next step of his process. Though Feld’s creation of this

‘one-man analog band’ provided a new mode, modal resource, and overall approach to sonic

127

composition, the product of anything composed by Feld using this new creation would not shift, only the process. Even though the product would physically sound different, the product would still be sound. The process of creation, the tools used, and the medium chosen to disseminate the mode of choice, in this case sound, impact how the final product sounds but again, the final product would still be sound, a sonic composition created by a specific person for a specific purpose.

III. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS

My use of different methods for Feld allowed me, as a researcher, to understand sonic composing in a way that both supported my findings from Paul and shed light on new aspects of composition with sound and music. Through my observations and interviews with Feld I was able to determine the need for our field to shift its definition of multimodal to encompass more than just the final product. Our definitions, like our field, cannot be static. We, the field, need to understand things like multimodality and process as shifting entities due to the social and cultural transformation we are constantly undergoing with the introduction and advancement of technological modes. “Any technology, including writing, is a cultural form, a social product whose shape and influence depend upon prior political and ideological factors” (Gee, 2012, p.76). It is simply not just what we, as the field, think is valuable in terms of writing but the demand of our culture and technological expectations of our society that drive the types of communication that are necessary. The shift in technology and the importance placed on the use of those new advancements means that we, as a field, need to acknowledge the importance of these new modes in our classroom beyond text and visual.

My next chapter further discusses the need to expand our understanding and definition of multimodal with the findings from my final case study of Jans Wagner. Wagner, like Feld,

128

provided an understanding of multimodal as being process orientated. The difference in methods used for Wagner’s data collection provide yet another perspective into what it means to compose sonically. The use of three different methods for data collection has provided a more holistic understanding of composing and demonstrates that composing might not be able to viewed wholly using just one methodological approach; this conceptualization will be explored more in the concluding chapter.

129

CHAPTER SIX: DIVORCING OUR NOTIONS OF MONO AND MULTIMODAL: THE

QUALITATIVE CASE STUDY OF JANS WAGNER

I. INTRODUCTION

My study of Jans Wagner further depicts the need for our field, Rhetoric and

Composition, to expand its understanding and definition of multimodal to encompass not just the product but the process as well. Wagner's sonic composing further demonstrates the need to understand multimodality as a process and not just a product. Sound cannot be a standalone mode of communication and needs other modes to be used during the process of creation in order to enact the monomodal product of sound. Thus, making the argument that no mode can truly be monomodal due to the multimodality of the process. The remainder of this chapter further explores the need to understand multimodality as a process and the idea that no mode is, in fact, mono in its makeup. With that, Wagner’s data also provides further evidence for the connection between thoughts of traditional literacy and the literacy practices enacted during the sonic composing process. Below is a discussion of my approach to analysis of Wagner’s data set, followed by background concerning Wagner as a musician and the findings concerning

Wagner’s literacy practices and use of modes during sonic composing.

I collected Wagner’s data set(s) using qualitative methods. Wagner provided me with interviews, observations, screencast of composing, and further scholarship concerning the projects he was working on during data collection. Table 6 provides an overview of the types and amount of data collected for Wagner.

130

Type of Interviews Observations Field Notes Pictures (music

Materials and screengrabs)

# of Materials Three Emailed 86. 39 Minutes 15 pgs. 86.39 minutes of

Interviews screengrabs

Table 6: Jans Wagner Materials

Throughout my coding of each data set (Paul, Feld, and Wagner), I used two main ways to track repeating patterns in the data sets. I used Excel spreadsheets and transcript interviews. I mainly used Excel with Paul’s data set and had a specific color coded system that was used for each code. The color codes allowed me to have a visual understanding of the patterns and provided me with an overview of findings. With the transcript interviews (for both Feld and

Wagner), I also used a color coding system to determine the patterns visually. The color codes were the same for all data sets and provided me with a visual overview of my findings. The color system is how I determined the repeating patterns and thus my findings for the data sets. For example, throughout my analysis of my codes, I noticed that often the colors would overlap, especially in terms of the embodied sensory experience of sight, touch, or sound, and thus I came to the conclusion that embodiment of senses played a heavy role in the composing of the musicians being studied. I then would look at what it was each participant was discussing when this overlap would occur to determine if there was a pattern of repetition of subject matter. This is how I approached all of my data analysis and is what led to the following findings.

It is important to note that the studies of Feld and Wagner are both qualitative case studies. However, due to the geographical location of each participant, their comfort being recorded, and their use of technology during composing, two different data sets with different approach to methods of data collection were created. Despite Feld and Wagner, on paper, having

131

almost identical design (pre-observation interview, observation, post-observation interview, repeat), the differences in how the interviews and observations were collected provide different perspectives on what it means to compose with sound. Feld’s in-person interviews allowed me, as the researcher, to delve deeper into the answers he provided and have a more in-depth understanding of his process and view on music composition. Whereas Wagner’s emailed interviews allowed him to spend time with the questions and pull in outside theories and understandings of sonic composing. Both ways of data collection had affordances and constraints that further demonstrate the need to use multiple methodological approaches to data collection for composition scholarship.

Standalone Paul, Feld, nor Wagner could provide a whole picture of what it means to compose with sound/ music. Each participant provided a different perspective on what it means to compose sonically with music that further shed light on the issues of literacy and multimodality. Because composing varies greatly from person to person, looking at one person and using one type of method would only provide one perspective of what it means to compose.

Using three different approaches to data collection provides the researcher and the reader with a multi-perspective understanding of what it means to compose sonically with music in as close to a full picture as possible. The differences in approaches to composing seen within my studies of

Paul, Feld, and Wagner (which will be further discussed in the below sections) provide a more holistic understanding to sonic composition and the need for our field’s understanding of multimodality to shift.

II. WAGNER FINDINGS OVERVIEW

My study of Wagner, not only correlates with my findings from my studies of Paul and

Feld, but also provides further insight into what it means to compose in the 21st century.

132

Wagner’s embodiment of new literacies in the form of encoded sonic programming, further complicates what is means to compose in relation to the field of Rhetoric and Composition.

However, Wagner’s non-linear, non-discursive multimodal process, resulted in a monomodal product that demonstrates the shift from analogue to digital representations expressed by

Lankshear and Knobel’s conception of new literacies (2014).

As social practices mediated by digital technologies, new literacies differ fundamentally

from conventional print literacies on the basis that their inscriptions are rendered in pixels

on screens rather than by impressions on paper, by means of digital code rather than

material analogue means (whether printed and illustrated/imaged/diagrammed by hand,

typewriter, or press). That is, new literacies involve a shift from material inscription to

digital coding, from analogue to digital representations. (Lankshear and Knobel, 2014,

p.98)

Though Wagner is not creating multimodal products, his use of multimodality throughout his process still provides an avenue for further exploration by those in our field.

One thing that I wanted to work on with this, is to create a sort of sonic feedback. So

what does that mean? Maybe feedbacks the wrong word. I wanted to turn this data into

something and analyze the signal coming from this in such a way that it could be used to

drive different kinds of sound synthesis process or some sort of sonic process. (Wagner,

September 2018, Observation).

Wagner’s own description of the purpose of his composing helps to further support Lankshear and Knobel’s (2014) depiction of new literacies, while also giving credence to the dwindling binary of process and product in composition. For Wagner, the product feeds into the process to

133

enact yet another product, or as he calls it a ‘sonic process’. Below is an overview of Wagner’s data’s answer to the research questions.

RQ 1: What literate practices do musicians use during their sonic composing practices?

Wagner’s data and data analysis demonstrate to me his literacy practices were not mediated by text but were rather influenced by embodied sensory perception and self and musical community literacy sponsorship. Wagner was trained on musical notation, however he chose to turn away from notation in favor of a more ethereal understanding of sound. Wagner’s rejection of text mediation in his process of sonic composing provides an understanding of the power that embodied sensory experience has during the creation of sonic output.

Much like with alphabetic text during the writing process, embodied sensory experience is the cornerstone of sonic composition. Wagner’s rejection of text in favor of a more embodied sensory mediated process provides an understanding that text may not be necessary but sensory perception is when it comes to sonic composing. If we view text as the cornerstone of the mode writing, we can view sensory perception as the key mediating factor for sonic creation. Just like with traditional notions of literacy where literacy practices are mediated by textual interventions, literacy practices of sound are mediated by embodied sensory perceptions and experiences. It is this parallel between sound and writing that asserts a need for understanding the power of both modes, not as one more so than the other but as equal in terms of valued ways of communication.

RQ 2 and 3: What communicative modes do musicians use during their composing processes?

How do musicians use multiple communicative modes during their composing process?

Wagner’s composition process provided an avenue for understanding sounds role in multimodal composition as part of the process to enact a final product. Sound is part of the

134

process and the product. However, sound is unable to work alone and needs to be created using multiple modes of communication but is able to be produced as a monomodal product that, in certain situations, is more effective than a multimodal counterpart. This is because sound can provide an understanding that is lacking in other modes of communication. Alexander (2015) uses the work of Sirc and Ceraso (2011) and Selfe (2009) to succinctly depict what it is that sound can bring to the compositional table.

Sirc and Ceraso’s call to compose with sound because of “its relationship to embodiment

and affect” seems precisely the missing piece in Selfe’s otherwise challenging claims for

paying attention to sound and voice. If so, then composing with sound and voice might

allow us more robust ways to understand relations amongst rhetorical discursivity,

somatic experiences, emotional persuasion, and the complex knowledges of embodied

identities. (p. 79).

Wagner’s use of sound during his composing and as a result of his composing provides the human being with a sonic understanding of a static object through the sensory channel of heat differentiation. Sound provides Wagner as the composer with a “somatic experience”

(Alexander, 2015, p.79) in a way that no other mode could accomplish.

Sound is used in multimodal composition, for the purposes of my studies, as a monomodal product enacted by a multimodal process. As a field, we tend to look to technological advances as ways to enhance the textual but do not fully embrace those advances outside of the textual realm. Our field is based in orality (with Aristotle’s teachings on Rhetoric), yet is so hesitant to embrace sound as a standalone mode of communication. However the new literacies that are emerging, impact what it is we, as a field, do or rather need to do.

135

As social practices mediated by digital technologies, new literacies differ fundamentally

from conventional print literacies on the basis that their inscriptions are rendered in pixels

on screens rather than by impressions on paper, by means of digital code rather than

material analogue means (whether printed and illustrated/imaged/diagrammed by hand,

typewriter, or press). That is, new literacies involve a shift from material inscription to

digital coding, from analogue to digital representations. (Lankshear and Knobel, 2014,

p.98)

Wagner’s embodiment of new literacies in the form of encoded sonic programming, further complicates what is means to compose in relation to the field of Rhetoric and Composition.

However, Wagner’s non-linear, non-discursive multimodal process, resulted in a monomodal product that demonstrates the shift from analogue to digital representations expressed by

Lankshear and Knobel’s conception of new literacies (2014).

My study of Wagner, not only correlates with my findings from my studies of Paul and

Feld, but also provides further insight into what it means to compose in the 21st century. Though

Wagner is not creating multimodal products, his use of multimodality throughout his process still provides an avenue for further exploration by those in our field.

One thing that I wanted to work on with this, is to create a sort of sonic feedback. So

what does that mean? Maybe feedbacks the wrong word. I wanted to turn this data into

something and analyze the signal coming from this in such a way that it could be used to

drive different kinds of sound synthesis process or some sort of sonic process. (Wagner,

September 2018, Observation).

Wagner’s own description of the purpose of his composing helps to further support Lankshear and Knobel’s (2014) depiction of new literacies, while also giving credence to the dwindling

136

binary of process and product in composition. For Wagner, the product feeds into the process to enact yet another product, or as he calls it a ‘sonic process’.

In the below sections, I assert that Wagner’s data shows the need for the widening in definition of what it means for something to be multimodal in our field to encompass the process of creation and not just the product. I also argue for the distinction between one mode to another

(i.e. writing and sound) to not be focused on what is different but rather what is similar and how we, as a field, can use those similarities to widen our own composition of communicative artifacts.

A. WAGNER BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Jans Wagner was 29 years old during my study of his sonic composing and was working on completing his PhD in Media Arts and Sciences with a certificate in Critical Theory.

According to his university’s degree website, “ Media, arts and sciences doctoral students train in translating, transporting and combining knowledge across disciplines for the development of innovative, experiential media systems and accompanying theoretical models”. Wagner’s previous degrees (both Bachelors and Masters) were held in music related fields of study.

Wagner’s PhD focuses more so multidisciplinary approach and understanding of sound and how it can be transferred and enacted using motion and thermal sensors. The project Wagner was working on during my study was funded by his school’s Synthesis Center. The Center’s mission and vision statement expands upon their goal for research by stating,

Computer-driven media now circulate and activate images, sound and objects at

densities greater than human limits of comprehension. We face the limits of effectively

managing the technologies that activate our everyday world. Our challenge is how to

build and inhabit environments that leverage the power of emerging technologies for

137

shelter, sociality and play. We pursue our mission by developing new practices for

imagining and creating worlds that do not burden but enliven experience. We design

technologies and techniques for animating environments that are richer but not more

complicated, by asking how can we create worlds that we would want to live in? (2019).

Wagner’s project during my observation, dealt with using thermal sensors to transmit data to a computer program to map out the changes in temperature which resulted in sonic output. This project, as according the above mission statement, would be a technology to animate environments through the use of transferring thermal information to a sonic output. Though

Wagner’s use of sound and music in his current projects and studies is more experimental and interdisciplinary, his relationship with sound and music started more traditionally at a younger age.

Wagner participated in school based music programs such as orchestra from elementary to high school. It was not until high school that Wagner began to experiment with music when he joined a band with some friends who also happened to be musicians. Wagner’s experience with music and music notation mirrors that of a classically trained musician, meaning he was trained in notation and aspects of music theory from a young age. Though Wagner went on to continue his study in music in his pursuit for higher education, he began to shift his understanding of what it means to create music and sonic output.

B. COME ONE COME ALL: THE MODES OF COMMUNICATION AND LITERACY

Jans Wagner’s shift in literacy practices, based upon his indoctrination into a new musical community, along with his own self- driven understanding of sound and the purpose sound has, allowed him to use experimentation as the basis for his compositions. Again though

138

Wagner is not enacting literacy in terms of reading and writing, his reliance on skills, technology, and knowledge mirrors that of traditional literacy. Wagner obtained his understanding of music and sound creation from his embodiment of sensory experience and members of his musical/ sonic community through literacy sponsorship. Wagner learned how to play music in the traditional sense (through notation) at a young age due to his involvement in music lessons and school orchestra programs (Wagner, October 2018, Personal Communication).

However, it was not until high school that Wagner began to experiment with sound in terms of using improvisation. “Already in high school, I was playing in bands on bass or keyboard which

I would improvise quite a lot. We were also collectively composing fixed pieces which often involved improvisation in different ways” (Wagner, October, 2018). Wagner’s understanding of what music and sound are/ was and is heavily influenced by others within his musical community.

My experience with collective modes of composition flourished in undergrad. I was

exposed to different music (from experimentalist Fluxus to New Music to Minimalism to

Electroacoustic music, etc.). This was alongside and a part of my Bachelor of Music

program of study, which also furnished me with a deep appreciation for sacred and

profane corpuses (symphonic, chamber, choral, etc.). (Wagner, October 2018, Personal

Communication).

The exposure of different musical styles provided Wagner with an understanding of sound and music moving away from the traditional notions of Western musicality. Wagner’s new found knowledge helped to shape and determine the style of music, rather sound, composition that he would later find himself doing. The introduction of a new way to speak about sound and music, or a new social language, provided Wagner access to a new a musical community According

139

to Gee (2012), “Each and every language is composed of many sub-languages, that is, many different styles or varieties of language” ( p. 87).Wagner’s introduction to a new social language that provided a new understanding of what sound/ music is and could be demonstrates the influence that his music and sonic community had on his own view of the mode of sound.

Wagner’s introduction to this new social language and musical community grew deeper as his education and self- curiosity continued. During Wagner’s Masters Program, he began using “program environments (Max/MSP/Jitter” which allowed him to “deal with microsound”

(Wagner, October 2018, Personal Communication). The concept of microsound is one that was explored in the book of the same title by Curtis Roads. Roads was a professor at MIT and is currently working the Centre for Research in Electronic Art Technology at the University of

California (Glasper, 2003). According to Glasper (2003),

Roads' involvement with granular synthesis began in 1972, and his research in the field

has resulted in him eventually developing his own software. Granular synthesis deals

with sound at a 'quantum' level: the sonic atom being the individual sample (any one of

the 44100 taken in a second at the standard sampling rate). To be audible as anything

other than a click, samples need to be grouped together to form grains of sound. These

grains are typically anywhere between three and one hundred milliseconds in length.

Granular synthesis is concerned with the organisation and processing of both samples and

grains to create sounds that are often far beyond the range of more traditional methods of

synthesis. The technology and software required to manipulate sound at this level is now

commonly available. Popular programs like Reaktor and Max/MSP offer in-depth

granular facilities, and Roads' own programs, Pulsar Generator and Cloud Generator, are,

as you might expect, specifically designed for this sort of application.

140

Glasper’s explanation of Roads and his works help to shed a light on Wagner’s own process and use of microsound, granular synthesis, and codable programs (such as Max/ MSP). Roads work, much like the work he did during his Masters and PhD program, acted as a sort of musical community literacy sponsor for Wagner. Wagner’ was impacted and influenced by the work of

Roads and the need to explore sonic output through the use of computer produced sounds.

These codable programs are part of Wagner’s process in what I observed. During those observations, Wagner used mini computers, sensors, and a desktop to create his output. He coded and programmed mini computers (Raspberry Pi) that communicated with another computer

(laptop and/or desktop) the sensory output/input of a temperature driven static object, which in turn would create a sonic output. Wagner’s current process was directly impacted by the social language used in his Masters that views music as more than traditional western instrumentation.

Wagner’s literacy practices, then, were heavily impacted and shaped, to an extent, by these new social languages being introduced that allowed a shift in his understanding of what it means to create music and sound. In the pre-observation interview, Wagner detailed his practice and process which demonstrated the ongoing influence and impact of the social language(s) that shaped his current literacy practices.

As part of my practice, what we might traditionally consider “instruments” are created in

code (often based on techniques endemic to electronic/electroacoustic music eg fm

synthesis, granular synthesis, concatenative synthesis, etc.). But importantly these

instruments are implemented in responsive media systems which are perhaps more like

an apparatuses tuned to particular phenomena of interest (aspects of movement such as

coordination or cooperation). These instruments are driven by sensor data (from a

camera, movement sensor, microphone) streaming through system. Ultimately, our

141

experiments with these may produce some insights about the phenomena of interest

which is worth sharing with relevant communities. Art performances or installations may

sprout off along the way as different modes of encounter with the questions guiding the

inquiry and may generate different kinds of ideas. (Wagner, October 2018, Personal

Communication).

Wagner’s depiction of his current process for the project I observed, demonstrates the impact his musical community has had on his literacy practices. During his high school years, he was beginning to improvise and experiment but still heavily relied on Western notions of music and sound. During his undergrad and Masters he was exposed to programming and sound theorists and philosophers (such as Heidegger, Deluzes, and Cage) that challenged his notion of what sound and music is and how it can be created. During his PhD, Wagner continued to use more electronic ways of sonic output but focused more so on computational and reactionary/ responsive media. With each level of education and self- discovery, Wagner became more and more immersed in the social language(s) used within the sonic and musical community he found himself within.

Wagner was enacting specific skills, knowledge, and technology while composing and are situated within the sensory and sponsorship from their respective musical communities.

Wagner has the skills of a classically trained musician with the self-taught and guided understanding of the programmatic connection between sound and other sensory experiences.

Wagner’s knowledge is based in musicology and in computational media. He has the ability to use technology in the forms of traditional instruments and through intricate software programs.

Wagner’s past musical endeavors provided him with one set of literacy practices. While his current practices of composing provide him with another set of literacy practices. Though

142

Wagner’s current composing process champions the sensory and sponsorship influence over the textual component, his past literacy practices revolved around musical notation and understanding. Wagner’s literacy practices evolved and shifted throughout his educational career, so even though he may not base his compositions off of a textual based understanding of music and sound, that is still an inherent part of his understanding of what music and sound is/are. Wagner had the ability to reject musical notation during his composing processes, because he was given the knowledge necessary to view sound and music as something beyond the page.

Wagner’s rejection of traditional text during his composing process, further demonstrates the key aspect that sensory perception plays during sonic composing. Without sonic literacy practices being mediated by sensory perception and experience, the creation of sonic output would not exist. Much like if text was not mediating traditional literacy practices, the output of writing would be non-existent.

Wagner’s rejection of text based musical notation is not only indicative of his indoctrination into a new musical community but also of his literacy practices. Literacy practices are “socially developed and patterned ways of using technology and knowledge to accomplish tasks” (Scribner and Cole, 1981, p.236). Wagner developed his current practice of composition through a social language that emphasized experimentation and sensory experience that could be understood through the creation of a computational program to enact the relation between the senses and outside environmental factors (i.e. temperature). Unlike with traditional literacy, music literacy and sonic composition allows the composer to choose whether or not text is the main mediation in creation of the final product. In terms of writing (as the main mode), the composer cannot just say that they no longer want to use written text and still be able to create a product with that mode. However, with sound a person is able to determine whether they want to

143

enact the use of musical notation and/or text during the process of creation. Whether or not text is used does not necessarily have an impact on the final product or the process of creation as it does with the mode of writing. The mode of sound allows the creator more affordances in terms of how and what they compose and the tools and mediums used to enact a final product than the mode of writing and the notion of traditional literacy.

Wagner’s practice is also informed through his own understanding of what tools are needed to create sound.

To be sure there are limitations of each instrument; this understand leads us down the

road to an “instrumental” understanding of technology which Heidegger warned against

in his seminal essay on the subject. Instead I might understand instruments as sets of

inexhaustible potentialities. As part of my practice, what we might traditionally consider

“instruments” are created in code (often based on techniques endemic to

electronic/electroacoustic music, (e.g. fm synthesis, granular synthesis, concatenative

synthesis, etc.). But importantly these instruments are implemented in responsive media

systems which are perhaps more like an apparatuses tuned to particular phenomena of

interest (aspects of movement such as coordination or cooperation). These instruments

are driven by sensor data (from a camera, movement sensor, microphone) streaming

through system. Ultimately our experiments with these may produce some insights about

the phenomena of interest which is worth sharing with relevant communities. Art

performances or installations may sprout off along the way as different modes of

encounter with the questions guiding the inquiry and may generate different *kinds* of

ideas. (J. Wagner, Personal Communication, August 2018).

144

Jans Wagner’s literacy practices, and in turn composing, mixes technology, skill, and knowledge in a way that demonstrates his ability to consciously move away from the textual. Unlike traditional literacy and the notions of reading and writing, Wagner’s reliance on technology, skill, and knowledge pushed him away from the mediation of texts during his process of sonic and musical composing. Though the textual cannot be completely eradicated from the literacy practice equation, for Wagner the textual was unable to provide him with the necessary tools to create his understanding of sound.

The literacy practices that were demonstrated to me by Wagner were non-text mediated and were in the form of his embodied sensory experience, relationship with the musical community in terms of literacy sponsorship, his own self-literacy sponsorship, and the use of modes during his process. Unlike my previous two studies, Feld and Paul, Wagner’s literacy practices shifted throughout his life to reflect what I witnessed during my observations.

However, at the beginning of Wagner’s musical career his literacy practices were, arguably, text mediated due to his dependence and relation to musical notation. Wagner’s introduction to music was based in the ability to read and play musical notations. It was not until Wagner was introduced to different social languages pertaining to music and the study of music, that he was able to separate himself from the importance of musical notation in the creation of sound.

Therefore, though Wagner’s practices are non-text mediated currently, they have not always been. The shift in social context of where Wagner found himself in attributed directly to his shift in literacy practices.

C. COMPLICATING THE MULTIMODAL PROCESS/ PRODUCT BINARY

Wagner’s ability to compose with objects and computer programs to create a sonic output, was driven by his current literacy practices (embodiment of senses and literacy

145

sponsorship) that were in turn sponsored by his musical community of computational and reactionary media. The process by which Wagner composed was non-linear, non-discursive, and was driven by the modes of communicative creation. Bezemer and Kress (2014) define mode as a, “socially and culturally shaped resource for meaning making” (p.237), I argue that Wagner’s use of modes was dependent upon the literacy practices enacted during his composing process. Wagner’s mode choice was and is dependent upon his literacy practices. As discussed earlier, Wagner’s growth as a musician and scholar impacted not only how he viewed music but how he created music and sound. He went from using print as a way to enact sonic output

(during his childhood) to print as a way to remember a tweak to a program that creates sound as a reaction to sensory input and output. Wagner’s theoretical understanding of the textual notations of music allowed him to reject the textual in favor for a more ethereal understanding of the human experience unable to be understood with just text alone.

During my first observation of Wagner, he was working on a computational reactionary project that encompassed not only more than one mode, but more than one technological tool.

This process is called granular synthesis which is very common in electroacoustic music

or electronic music real time sound composition. So on that side, I’m not innovating or

making anything new. Actually then the task here and maybe this is what we could call

composition, is adjusting the parameters of this synthesis engine and or mapping my

incoming signal which is cold in this case mapping that strategically to the parameters of

the synthesis engine so that the sound is reflecting the interaction in a way that is maybe

aesthetically pleasing or reveals some aspects of the sense phenomena which are

otherwise invisible. (Wagner, September 2018, Observation).

146

Wagner’s granular synthesis was created by him, along with the programmatic functions of the mapping that would lead to sound being created. Wagner implemented new modal resources.

“These differences in resources mean that modes can be used to do different kinds of semiotic work or to do broadly similar semiotic work with different resources in different ways”

(Bezemer and Kress, 2014, p.237). Though Wagner was using a synthesis, which is a common tool in electronic based music, and mapping which is a common tool in programming, he used them in tandem to create a sonic output that would not have been able to be created otherwise.

The manipulation of the electronic medium was necessary to result in sonic output. Even though

Wagner is not ‘making anything new’, he is using the electronic medium in tandem with tools

(synthesis and mapping) to do different semiotic work than what those things were originally intended for to create a specific sonic output. Wagner is essentially remixing the tools and mediums being used to create a new version of sound.

Wagner’s modal resources, in turn, created a new mode of composition for Wagner’s specific purposes. Wagner uses mode process throughout his composing and does so with the help of a newfound mode. The mode of temperature and the tool of object. The mode of temperature and the tool of object, for Wagner, encompasses the use of both hot and cold objects during his composing process. If we think of modes, like Bezemer and Kress (2012), as socially constructed then Wagner using temperature driven objects could be considered a new mode of communication because those objects driven by temperature readings determine the sonic output.

The mode of temperature and tool of object is socially constructed by the research of Wagner.

Reactionary and computational media use temperature driven objects as primary modes for communication (McHugh and Kitson, 2018; Bratt, 2018). In the work of McHugh and Kitson

(2018), they discuss how thermal sensations transcend objects (both human and inhuman).

147

“There can be no resistance, no counteractualizations, no sci-phi imaginaries of peoples and worlds to come, in the absence of thermal sensations, touching, affecting, and moving all bodies of this earth” (p. 1). McHugh and Kitson (2018) are making an argument that heat transcends all beings on planet Earth and therefore each object that is housed within the realm of our existence is effected and manipulated by some aspect of heat or thermal sensation.

The laws of thermodynamics tell us that heat fluxes and flows, always moving through,

perpetually affecting and producing effects. In our way of thinking, heat is not only

expressed in physical processes of radiation, conduction, and convection, but also in

bodily sensations, language, talk, memory, and imagination. Becoming thermotropic

refers to energies moving across entwined modalities: electromagnetic waves and

radiation, charged affective atmospheres, vibrating bodies. (McHugh and Kitson, 2018,

p.2).

The work of McHugh and Kitson (2018), like the work of Wagner, uses temperature to demonstrate the effect and affect on both human and nonhuman entities. Therefore, according to them, and Wagner’s social language and community as a whole, the temperature of an object drives the creation of its communicative output.

However, the mode of temperature is a mode that might not exist outside of this social and cultural context of this community and social language. Unlike the mode of print or the use of alphabetic text and inscription to convey a communicative artifact that can transcend social and cultural context, the mode of temperature may only exist within a specific social and cultural context. Meaning unlike print that can be seen as a viable mode of communication that transcends time and context (the use of print as a mode in both fields of English and Physics and in the English Language and Arabic language), the mode of temperature might only be a viable

148

and useful mode for communicating in the community that Wagner finds himself in. Outside of that realm, for instance within the field of Literature, the mode of temperature to enact a communicative mode might not be viable because it lies outside the social and cultural context of that field. Therefore, an argument can be made that modes are created and live within specific socially and culturally situated contexts that are unable to be transferred outside of those realms.

The mode of temperature is one that plays a key role in Wagner’s composing process, however that does not mean that it plays a role in other’s sonic composing processes. However, this discovery does further demonstrate the need for more than one mode of communication during the process of sonic composition.

During the first video think-aloud observation, Wagner was using a cold pack instead of a hot cup of tea as the mode object to drive communication between his sensors and programming.

Much like with the hot cup of tea, the data that was shown during the screengrab demonstrated a visual change on the screen which would implicate a shift in what was being captured by the sensor. The below figure depicts this shift in color and further supports the mode objects drive in terms of communication. Without the mode temperature, the shift in sensory data would not occur and would not result in a sonic output. Instead, it would remain static with no output.

Figure 8 (August, 2018)

The light blue square is the scene that demonstrates the shift in temperature which is then computed to sonic output. The dark blue is the shift and the intensity varies based upon the

149

variables set forth by Wagner. The variables are set by him and determine the type of sonic output that will be heard. Wagner shifts those variables based upon his own idea of what the sonic output should be (J. Wagner, Personal Communication, September 2018).

Not only did the screengrab data allow me to see what Wagner was seeing and describing during his think-aloud, but also provided me with an insight into his use of modal resources during the composing process. Wagner’s use of multiple computer programs at the same time meant that not only was he using more than one mode during his process, but also more than one modal resource at a time. The below figure (Figure 9) clearly depicts Wagner’s use of more than one program that shifts the work of the mode of electronic amplification. The scene is a visual representation of the semiotic work of the sonic output and the granular synthesis creates the specific sound that is heard during the sonic output. Wagner is also able to not only see in color but also through visualizing sound waves while manipulating the incoming sensory data.

Figure 9 (August, 2018)

The first screen is a reflection of the data being inputted into the granular synthesis and the boxes represent the variables that shift how the sonic output actually sounds. Beyond that, is the scene

(which is more clearly shown in Figure7). In order to manipulate the synthesis values, Wagner first be able to understand the sensory data that is coming in, in the form of the scene. He has to

150

use both of these in tandem to shift the sonic output that is being transmitted to them through the object. The use of modal resources or differences within the mode of electronic amplification, shift the semiotic outcome.

The electronic mode alone cannot provide the sonic output needed for the type of composition Wagner is creating. During my second observation, Wagner was now using a hot cup of tea as the temperature driven object for his sensors to transmit data to the computer program. Wagner was discussing, during his think aloud, how the sound would shift dependent on the temperature and shift in temperature.

It will be interesting to see how it’d react to a slower change, like you know if I were to

put this here [places cup in another spot]. It’s also, I think, too abrasive but it’ll be

interesting to see how it would behave to a slower change like if this tea were just

allowed to reach room temperature. (Wagner, October 2018, Observation).

The sound is driven by the temperature of the object that is being read by the sensor. The mode of electronic cannot be enough to create the sonic output of Wagner’s project. The temperature of the object is the driving force behind the sonic output. The temperature of the object determines what sound will be created, the loudness of it, and how it will enact the computational embodiment of the senses (Figure 7). Therefore, in Wagner’s case, the temperature of the object is just as much of a communicative mode as the electronic.

151

Figure 7 (August, 2018)

The above figure of a mapping scene from Wagner’s sensory data demonstrates how the temperature drives the sonic output. The dark blue is the shift in temperature over time that is being recorded and transmitted by the sensors that are housed within the mini computers.

Wagner’s use of more than one mode (electronic and temperature) simultaneously shows his enactment of mode process during his composing. The mode of electronic and the mode of temperature work in tandem to create a mono-modal product that is sonic output. The change in the object’s temperature also creates a compositional tension for Wagner because the temperature of the object will inevitably change. This causes a shift in how the sensory samples are shown and mapped, and the sound of the sonic output.

I just went and changed something because I’m thinking ahead because I’m going to have

all these different samples and I’m going to want to be able to like select different points

of this sample for different cameras and because it’s going to be different samples.

Basically, I’m building infrastructure so that I can make these kinds of decisions in the

future. But now I am going back and thinking about this particular sample here. (Wagner,

September 2018, Observation).

152

Wagner’s composing process is non- linear and is reliant on the modes of communication he uses, which in turn, are reliant on the literacy practices that he enacts. The outside influences of

Wagner’s musical community and his own notion of sensory embodiment determine how, why, and what he composes musically and sonically.

The use of mode process during Wagner’s composition can be seen with the use of mode object and electronic to create a sonic output that reflects the sensory experience of his programming. Below Wagner depicts this process during his second think-aloud and observation. During this recording, Wagner was working with a hot cup of tea and playing around with the rate of change in temperature in tandem with the output of sound.

The first thing I’m looking at in this sensor data, even though it’s looking at a very small

scene, there are some fluctuations here in the sensor data. And I open this up and take a

look at the sensor data, at the actual numbers. So here it is eight by eight. We see that it is

changing. So there is some change here. Now there is some question about whether this is

actually what would be traditionally referred to as noise whether it’s like sound. In

frequencies of electrical current that are running between the computer and the sensor,

which are causing interference which are causing the sensor to be, I don’t know, like

infrequent or non-periodic or not entirely periodic rate. If we assume that the sensor is

correct, which we are sort of forced to do. (J. Wagner, Observation, October 2018).

Wagner’s above discussion demonstrates the relation between the modes of the electronic to the mode of temperature. The sensory data compiled from the temperature of the object (the tea cup) is transferred through electronic waves to the program that outputs sonic waves which result in noise. Without the two modes of electronic and temperature, there would be no communicative artifact in the form of noise/ sonic output.

153

III. DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS

Wagner’s shift in literacy practices, based upon his indoctrination into a new community, along with his own self- driven understanding of sound and the purpose sound has, allowed him to use experimentation as the basis for his compositions. Wagner’s ability to compose with objects and computer programs to create a sonic output, was driven by his current literacy practices (embodiment of senses and literacy sponsorship) that were in turn sponsored by his community of computational and reactionary media. The process by which Wagner composed was non-linear, non-discursive, and was driven by the modes of communicative creation.

Wagner's sonic composing process asserts the need to understand multimodality as a process and not just a product. Sound cannot be a standalone mode of communication. Sound needs other modes to be used during the process of creation in order to enact the monomodal product of sonic output.

The next and final chapter, explores what my findings of Paul, Feld, and Wagner can provide in terms of pedagogical implementation in the college composition classroom. Using the work of Sirc and Ceraso (2011), Alexander (2015), and Hawk and Stuart (2018), I argue that what can be gained from my studies is not a step-by- step process for creating sound but rather a need to explore the importance of experimentation in the writing classroom due to the malleable nature of sonic composing.

154

CHAPTER SEVEN: SONIC COMPOSING’S CALL FOR PEDAGOGICAL

EXPERIMENTATION

I.INTRODUCTION

The study of sound and aurality has been on the rise since 1999 with the release of the

Enculturation special edition on the use, study, and impact of sound both inside and outside the

classroom. Since then, Computers and Composition (2006) also released a sonic based issue that

provided more articles connecting sonic creation to composition pedagogy. Most recently,

Alexander and Rhodes (2018) co-edited a book that depicts digital writing in all forms with

articles discussing the importance of sound and sonic experimentation within composition

studies. It hasn’t been just collections or edited books, it has been standalone pieces also

(Yancey, 2004; Elbow, 2006; Selfe, 2009; Durst, 2012; Stedman, 2012; Anderson, 2013; Gunn

et. al, 2013; Ahren Fargo, 2013; Ceraso, 2014; Comstock and Hocks, 2016; 2017) that have

made a call to include sound into the composition conversation on what it means to write,

compose, and guide students to create products for the 21st century that reflect these new ways

of meaning making. Though there is a clear push towards the inclusion of sound into the field of

Rhetoric and Composition, both inside and outside the classroom, that push does not necessarily

explore the why in its entirety. The argument has been made that sound provides a new avenue

for communication, it encompasses the shift in 21st literacies, and provides an embodied

understanding of our sensory experience. However, why does that matter? The question is a

simple one yet we, as a field, are having trouble to piece together the answer.

155

I believe the answers lies in how sound is created. As the previous chapters have discussed, the creation of sound is one that’s literacy practices are focused on the sensory, sponsorship, and mode process of the composer. Though alphabetic text cannot be completely removed from the act of sonic composition, it is no longer the end all be all marker of literate practice. The works of Sirc and Ceraso (2011), Alexander (2015), and Hawk and Stuart (2018), explore the why in a way that directly connects to what I believe the answer is. Sound is more than just words on a page or a visual linear projection of notes on a staff, it is an embodied experience that lives in the realm of experimentation. Sound provides the ‘what-if’ to situations that only have an either/ or and provides the composer with a new way to communicate that might not be available with the use of other modes. Throughout this chapter, I argue that the purpose of studying how sound is composed is not to provide a step by step guide to how to make sound in a classroom setting, but rather to explore the concept of experimentation in the college composition classroom to create products that are unable to be made any other way. I will show the impact of the concept of experimentation using sound through the use of my studies of Paul, Feld, and Wagner in tandem with the articles by Sirc and Ceraso (2011),

Alexander (2015), and Hawk and Stuart (2018).

II. FINDINGS REVIEWED

I want to revisit the findings from my studies of Wagner, Feld, and Paul. Though I mentioned them in the above introduction, I want to provide a more in-depth explanation for what my findings are as a basis for connection those findings to the works of Sirc and Ceraso

(2011), Alexander (2015), and Hawk and Stuart (2018). Paul’s literacy practices, in terms of his sonic composing, mimic those practices in terms of possessing specific knowledge, skills, and technology (Scribner and Cole, 1981) despite not being mediated by text. Paul’s literacy and

156

literacy practices are still being mediated by outside factors that impact and influence what it is he created. Feld's sonic composing process demonstrates our field's need to expand what we mean by multimodal texts. Though Feld's product is monomodal in nature (with the creation of a musical song) the process in which the monomodal product is created is multimodal. Therefore, by looking at sonic and musical composing as creating a multimodal entity, we as a field, are not only expanding what it means to compose multimodally but are providing different avenues for multimodal composition that encompass singular modes. Wagner's sonic composing further demonstrates the need to understand multimodality as a process and not just a product. Sound cannot be a standalone mode of communication and needs other modes to be used during the process of creation in order to enact the monomodal product of sound. Thus, making the argument that no mode can truly be monomodal due to the multimodality of the process. Sound can provide affordances to communication that are unavailable with just the use of text. Sound is able to provide an element of human experience and emotion that is not able to be properly communicated through just text alone. Sound and music allow the audience to have their own connection to the composition that allows for a more holistic and ethereal interpretation of a piece of communication.

The composition style of Feld, Paul, and Wagner differed greatly and in some ways can be measured on a spectrum of experimentation. With Paul being on one end and Wagner being on the other with Feld somewhere in the middle. Paul, who invented the solid body electric guitar and mainstreamed multi-track recording, set the precedent for what it means to compose instrument driven music. By instrument driven music, I mean music that possesses the use of physical, tangible instruments such as a guitar, drums, and bass for example. Where Wagner is on the opposite end of the spectrum with the creation of his own computing sensory system and

157

use of ‘music’ and sonic output to provide an out of body embodied sensory experience. All three are creating the same product in the sense that the product is a sonic output and even the processes are similar to a certain extent. All three use more than one mode while composing, rely heavily on sensory perception, and are driven by both self and outside musical literacy sponsorship. Though Feld, Wagner, and Paul are not enacting literacy in the sense of reading and writing alphabetic text, they are still demonstrating a strong reliance on the skills, technology, and knowledge of their sonic and musical compositions. Text is not the mediating influence for the sonic and musical composition of my participants, however it is still present. The mode of creation determines the hierarchal importance of text in the composer’s process. With sound, though text is still present it is not the main mediating factor. The main mediating factor in the process of my participants were their embodied sensory experiences and self and community musical sponsorship.

III. DIVORCE THE VISUAL

In their article, “Digital Lyrical”, Sirc and Ceraso (2011) explore the idea that we, as a field, too often associate the visual with the sonic and the alphabetic and by doing this we are ignoring the non-tangible aspects of composing such as embodied experience, feeling, and flow.

Despite the recent attention that rhet/comp has been giving to sound and music in the

2000s, we often treat composing with sound merely as another form of composing with

alphabetic text. For example, because we tend to spatialize writing on the page and the

screen, we don’t talk about texts as moving language- as language that moves and affects

people through rhythm, pitch, intonation, etc. (Sirc and Ceraso, 2011, p.1)

There is a reason that we, as instructors, tell our students to ‘read their writing out loud’. It is because you can hear the aspects of language that make you’re writing sound awkward or

158

choppy or nonsensical in ways that simply reading would not be able to decipher. As discussed in earlier chapters, writing on the page will always have the same meaning until it is given another mode to communicate through. Reading the words “I love you” and saying those words out loud carry a different weight and understanding depending on the person’s tone, loudness, and overall expression. Sound provides the ability to expand other modes’ communicative abilities. Sound should be equally as valued as the visual aspect of composing. How something looks only matters insomuch of how it sounds. “The visually- dominated composition process that we tend to cling to as a discipline often ignores the feeling, the time, the music of language; the affective elements of composition” (Sirc and Ceraso, 2011, p.1). Sirc and Ceraso (2011) point out a flaw in our, scholars, thinking about what it means to compose. We claim to be concerned with the process of composing but in truth we are only concerned with how the thing we are composing can be manipulated to serve a purpose- how can we make it tangible? Not what is in the unseen? We tend to ignore the human experience of what it means to compose and how that can impact how, what, and why we are composing an artifact. The lack of attention to human experience can be translated to a lack of attention concerning process. We, as a field, tend to study the final product and have moved away from studying the process of creation. By understanding the human experience, we may also begin to understand the breadth of the process and what is in the unseen. For the studies of Paul, Feld, and Wagner what was in the unseen was the use of multimodality during the process itself to enact a monomodal product.

The divorce from the visualization of the composition process was seen throughout my studies of Wagner, Feld, and Paul. Feld and Paul’s visualization was fixated on the actual playing or learning to play of the music they were creating. Whereas Wagner was using visualizations to make sure that his product was in the desired realm of sonic output. Though

159

Wagner worked primarily on a computer and looked at a screen to guide his sonic output, the act of visualizing the sound was limited to a color gradient and not a linear process for manipulation.

Wagner’s use of visualization was also a result of the product he was trying to create. In order for the sound to be created, he would need to be able to visualize the temperature’s sensory experience (Figure 10). The below figure is a picture taken of a screengrab that Wagner was recording while he was composing during one of our think- aloud observations. The screengrab provided me with a deeper understanding of how the visual acted as a catalyst for him to physically see the unseen factors of the sensory data. The visual was not a way for him to manipulate or rearrange the final product of sound, but was instead a way for him to experience the sound as an embodied sensory act. The visual, just like the alphabetic (text) cannot be completely separated out from the sonic. However, the visual and alphabetic cannot be the main focus of all compositional products and processes. The embodiment and creation of sonic communicative artifacts need to have their own focus.

Figure 10 (August, 2018)

Much like the compositional products of Wagner, Feld, and Paul, the conceptualization of sound as something beyond the text and beyond the visual provides an avenue of investigation outside of the two predominant modes. “Exploring the embodied, affective dimensions of sound is most obviously relevant to rhet/comp because in the digital age, our involvement in

160

experiencing and producing texts is more complex and much richer than discourse alone” ( Sirc and Ceraso, 2011, p.3). We, as a field and society, have too many technological paths for meaning-making to continue putting emphasis on text and visuals and only using sound as a support tactic for multimodal products. “We are not just producing texts; we are creating increasingly interactive, immersive environments that we don’t have a fully developed language to describe or understand yet” (Sirc and Ceraso, 2011, p.3). Our lack of ability to adequately describe certain technological creations, further demonstrates the necessity of sound and sonic creations as an avenue for experimentation. We can use sound as a way to explore non- discursive, non-linear ways of meaning making and provide description to the alphabetic and visual indescribables. We need to use the modes in tandem with each other to understand the creation of each mode. Visualizations and texts cannot always be presupposed as the main mode of communication, when during the creation of sound they are often, as discussed above, support in guiding sonic output. The concepts of multi and monomodal are becoming blurred and outdated and the studies of Paul, Wagner, and Feld demonstrate that through their uses of mode process to enact a monomodal product predominately driven by sensory experience and perception.

IV. PEDAGOGY= EXPERIMENTATION

The non-discursive realm of sonic composition provides an avenue for experimental exploration of what it means to write in the 21st century. In their article, “English Composition as a Sonic Practice” Hawk and Stuart (2018) provide an argument for the use of experimental sonic pedagogy in the composition classroom based off of the music performance class taught by

Stuart. Hawk and Stuart argue that both performance and composition have set ways of doing things and presenting themselves. However, when students in either are forced to go outside of

161

those expectations they gain a new perspective of understanding (p.43). In Stuart’s course, he takes students who come from similar backgrounds and understanding of what music and musicology is and instead of lecturing, he immerses them into the material by forcing them to perform in experimental ways. The course is based upon the compositions of experimental compositionist and music theorist John Cage and influenced by French philosopher Gilles

Deleuze. The students being forced to compose in-class provides them with more understanding.

Action leads to more understanding than simply reading something or being talked at about a topic and being an interactive participants provides a more holistic understanding of a specific artifact. (Hawk and Stuart, 2018, p.43). Just like with the studies of Wagner, Feld, and Paul, I, as the researcher, was able to have a more holistic understanding of their composing processes by watching and being an observer than I ever would be by just interviewing them about their process. The act of immersing myself into my participants’ lives, composing, and personal space provided me with a much more well-rounded perspective on their processes. This immersion is one reason why I chose to use three different methods during my data collection. By being able to see how each composed through three different methodological approaches, not only provided me with a better understanding of how sound was composed as a whole but also provided me with a unique perspective of how each composer created their music and sonic output. By being interactive with each participant, even in the Archives, provided me with a more holistic and well-rounded understanding of their individual sonic composing that I could not have gained from simply doing one method of data collection.

Hawk and Stuart are not arguing for an overhaul in what it means to teach composition in the college classroom. Instead they are suggesting to provide students with another avenue of exploration that would provide them with a more well-rounded educational and world

162

perspective. Sound does not have a ‘right way’ in terms of composition and instead of forcing students to follow a set expectation of what it means to compose, composing sound provides a path of experimentation and a new conceptualization of what composing in the 21st century means. The studies of Wagner, Paul, and Feld begin the conversation on how sound is composed and provide a possible process for the “toolkit with no way to measure” (Hawk and

Stuart, 2018, p.43) in reference to sonic composing.

As discussed earlier, the sonic composing processes of my participants have demonstrated to me that sound is composed using a multimodal process to enact a monomodal product. The process of sound creation might lend way to further reinforce the work of

Alexander (2015) concerning the sound composer and radio host Glenn Gould. Alexander (2015) provides argumentation and support for the use of sound in the college composition classroom by providing an in-depth analysis of Gould’s work (through archived materials) and the implication that work might have for students writing in the 21st century. Alexander’s (2015) study of Gould was done to show that, “Attention to such work might help us consider what can be done with sound and voice in the production of multimedia texts where sound and voice act beyond the textual - not just as metaphors for textual meaning making, but as materialities with their own particular rhetorical and affective affordances and dimensions” (p.75). In relation to the work of

Sirc and Ceraso (2011) and Hawk and Stuart (2018), Alexander (2015) also discusses the need to explore sound outside of the textual realm and into a realm of experimentation and embodied experience. A realm that was explored and discussed within my own participant’s composing processes. The textual realm for Feld, Paul, and Wagner was not the mediating factor in their composing but rather a factor that guided their own understanding of what it was they were creating. Both Feld and Paul would use text for memory purposes, whereas Wagner’s use of text

163

came in the form of previous knowledge of notation. Text was not and will not ever be the mediating factor for sonic creation for any of my participants because the mode of creation is not textually based.

Again, the argument here is not that we should completely rid the composition classroom of the visual and textual; but rather we should acknowledge that the visual and textual are not the root of every communicative artifact. In fact, they are incapable of expressing everything we, as humans, are capable of expressing. That in some cases, the only thing that accurately and adequately capture the meaning of something is sound and sonic texts. Including sonic means of composition in our classrooms complicates what is we do and how we define ourselves as scholars. As discussed earlier, the composition processes of Paul, Feld, and Wagner like with the process of traditional text composition, rely heavily on their skills, technology, and knowledge and are guided by their overall goal and purpose for their composition. Though composing with sound provides different affordances and constraints, we as Rhetoric and Composition scholars are not familiar with, does not mean that it is not worth exploring more in-depth in our classrooms. Making ourselves uncomfortable for the benefit of students’ abilities to appropriately and effectively communicate their message to their intended audience might be worth the complications. I fear that if we, as a field, do not begin to take sound seriously as a standalone form of communication, especially in our classrooms we will be doing our field and our students an irreversible injustice.

As faculty, when we we limit our understanding of composing and our teaching of

composition as a single modality, when we focus on print alone as the communicative

venue for our assignments and for students’ responses to those assignments, we ensure

that instruction is less accessible to a wide range of learners, and we constrain students’

164

ability to succeed by offering them an unnecessarily narrow choice of semiotic and

rhetorical resources (Selfe, 2009, p.644).

Selfe’s call for the acceptance and exploration of aurality in the composition classroom was almost a decade ago, and what have we gained in that time? We have gained a look into sonic composing, how it can used in the classroom, and what it is ( Yancey, 2004; Elbow, 2006; Selfe,

2009; Durst, 2012; Stedman, 2012; Anderson, 2013; Gunn et. al, 2013; Ahren Fargo, 2013;

Ceraso, 2014; Comstock and Hocks, 2016; 2017). However, do we enact the findings? Do we, as a field, value that sound, as a standalone communicative artifact, expresses aspects of human emotion that is unable to be communicated otherwise? It is hard to measure the value of sound in our field, but I feel that by understanding how sound is created, by looking at the studies of Paul,

Wagner, and Feld, we as a field can begin that conversation on why sound, and sound alone and separated from visual and textual is a valid and needed mode of communication in our classrooms.

The idea of experimental pedagogy is one that has fueled field of Rhetoric and

Composition. The radical idea that writing is a process and that students should feel empowered by their writing (Murray, 1972; Elbow, 1973) turned our field upside down and made scholars recognize the importance of shifting our, scholars, ways of thinking about what it means to teach writing. The writings of the New Literacy Studies scholars and the New London Group (1996), again, forced our field to rethink its notion of what composition is and the socio-cultural changes that were occurring with the ever growing popularity and availability of technology. However, in the 20 years since the Enculturation special edition on sound, the first of its kind, we, as a field, have yet to fully accept sound as a valid form of communication in and of itself. Sound, for those outside of the niche group of sonic scholars, is still mainly viewed as an additive to a multimodal

165

product or part of the textual and/ or visual, something that my studies of Paul, Feld, and Wagner have begun to discredit. Sound is not just an additive to a multimodal product or enveloped in text and visuals, but rather sound encompasses multiple modes of communication in its very process of creation. Sound is not and has not been viewed by the field as having its own standalone communicative space. Understanding how sound is composed, hopefully, will provide the catalyst needed for scholars to being to explore the validity of sound’s space in

Rhetoric and Composition.

V. RADICAL REVISION

Much like the writing process, outline by Flower and Hayes (1981), and the sonic composing process encompasses a variety of steps that do not necessarily follow a linear, discursive trajectory. However, unlike the alphabetic writing process, the sonic composing process uses multiple modes to create a monomodal product. The composing process, which was studied of Paul, Feld and Wagner, demonstrated to me that sonic composing, just like the writing process, provides the creator with the ability to experiment and create a communicative artifact rooted in their own socio-cultural exposure (i.e. class, gender, access, etc). Wagner, Paul, and

Feld were all creating sound. However, they were all doing so in different but similar ways. They all demonstrated literacy practices (use of skills, knowledge, and technology) that were rooted in sponsorship, mode choice, and embodied sensory experience. None of them actively used alphabetic text during their actual composing process and all relied on a felt sense of what sound was to them to create their final product. Their use of text was passive in terms of their composing and was used mainly as a tool of memory and not a mediating factor for sonic creation and output. They also all revised their work as they played and/ or composed by actively changing aspects of their compositions simultaneously while they composed. Just like with the

166

writing process, there were certain ‘steps’ taken by each and done so in a non-linear pattern. The simultaneous revision while composing mimics the writing processes studied using the computer as the main tool for composition (Takayoshi, 1996; Slaughtery and Kowalski, 1998; Kress, 2004;

Takayoshi, 2015). On the surface, the tools, technology, and skills for creating/ composing sound and creating/ composing text or visuals seem drastically different. However, the differences are only as deep as the appearance. The same theoretical underpinnings are true for sonic, text, and visual composition. Non-linear steps are enacted by the authors’ literacy practices to create a product that is based the rhetorical perception of the creator. Whether it be a pen, pencil, computer, or guitar, whether a person is a college professor, professional musician, or a street performer, and whether the person is a professionally trained musician, self-taught musician, novelist, or journaler- all skills, technology, and knowledge are influenced by and created from a specific person’s literacy practices in relation to the product they are creating for a specific rhetorical purpose.

The steps for each type of composing may be different but why the creator gets from A to

B is similar for each.

And indeed, we exist in just such a world, in which students have the opportunity to

manipulate, edit, and “splice” a variety of “texts” in the pursuit of different kinds of

expression and meaning- making. Such manipulation can form the basis of a pedagogical

approach that takes the materiality of sound seriously as rhetorical possibility in our

composition classrooms. (Alexander, 2015, p.86).

Students manipulate, edit, and splice alphabetic, visual, and sonic texts and do so because of the literacy practices they possess and enact in the 21st century. It should be our goal as instructors to provide students with the chance to explore and engage in experimentation and/or

167

manipulation of varying modes. “Such manipulation can form the basis of a pedagogical approach that takes the materiality of sound seriously as rhetorical possibility in our composition classrooms” (Alexander, 2015, p.86). Manipulation and/ or experimentation of sound in the form of splicing and editing sonic pieces, mirrors that of traditional written revision. Just like with traditional alphabetic text, students are engaging in a reworking of their rhetorical purpose to fit their particular goal. Again, there is knowledge, skills, and technology being enacted through the creator’s literacy practices. Providing students with the ability to enact their multiple literacy practices in our classrooms allows for a new wave of experimental pedagogy that challenges the ‘old’ way of thinking that presupposes alphabetic and visual representations as the end all and be all modes of Rhetoric and Composition.

VI. CONCLUSION

The studies of Wagner, Feld, and Paul have provided me, as a researcher, with a beginning understanding of why it is important to include sound in the scholarly conversation in the field of Rhetoric and Composition. Though, it is not and was never my goal to make wide generalizations about how sound is created, the studies of Wagner, Feld, and Paul can still be viewed as beginning pathways to explain the importance of understanding sound’s creation rooted in the scholarly and methodological conversations of Rhetoric and Composition. Using sound in the college composition classroom provides students and instructors, alike, the opportunity to experiment with what it means to write in the 21st century. It allows the classroom to become a laboratory of literacy discovery instead of a museum of literacy pastimes.

Engaging students and providing them with an outlet for their literacy practices outside of the textual and visual forces them to shift their understanding of what it means to write in the 21st century.

168

APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Definitions of key terms

COMPOSE. The Oxford English Dictionary defines “compose” as “to put together, make up.” This definition captures the sense of composing as a process of making, of bringing together different resources and putting them together in a deliberate way. More particularly, in Composition Studies, composition involves the arrangement of multimodal elements (including words, sound, imagery) by a rhetor/writer in order to persuade, inform, or influence an audience. Our disciplinary interest in how to best teach undergraduate college students in our composition classrooms led to an interest in empirically understanding writers’ composing processes, and in recent decades, composing processes have come to be modified almost always with as “multimodal composing.” The OED definition distinguishes nuanced differences in meaning depending on what mediums people use to compose (words, music, painting).

MODE. The “Glossary of Multimodal Terms” defines mode as: “This term refers to a set of socially and culturally shaped resources for making meaning. Mode classifies a ‘channel’ of representation or communication for which previously no overarching name had been proposed (Kress and van Leeuwen, 2001). Bezemer and Kress (2014) define mode as a “socially and culturally shaped resource for meaning making” (p. 237). Examples of modes include writing and image on the page, extending to moving image and sound on the screen, and speech, gesture, gaze and posture in embodied interaction.” The discussion of mode throughout this dissertation aims to analyze, more in-depth, the relation mode has with the process/product binary and the social and cultural creation of mode for a specific purpose and/or end goal. https://multimodalityglossary.wordpress.com/mode-2/

WRITING. Writing is a specific type of composing involving the inscription of print-linguistic alphabetic symbols (letters, characters) onto screen or paper. While noting that the context, forms, audience, and purposes can dramatically shape what writings forms, Takayoshi (2015) notes that at its heart, writing might be understood as “the manipulation of a complex symbol system as a means of communicating human thought from one person to others” (pp. 1 - 2). Recognizing that understandings of writing and reading are changing, Lunsford and Diogenes took up the challenge posed by what they call “our vocabulary problem” and constructed this definition of writing: “A technology for creating conceptual frameworks and creating, sustaining, and performing lines of thought within those frameworks, drawing from and expanding on existing conventions and genres, utilizing signs and symbols, incorporating materials drawn from multiple sources, and taking advantage of the resources of a full range of media. (quoted in Lunsford 2006 171). While Lunsford (2006) acknowledges the difficulties of composing a definition that “does not mirror the reductiveness of current dictionary definitions” (170), the move to more expansive definitions of writing teeter a fine line between specificity and an expansiveness that fails to signify; this lack of signification can be seen within the findings of my own studies done on Paul, Feld, and Wagner.

169

SOUND. The OED defines sound as “The sensation produced in the organs of hearing when the surrounding air is set in vibration in such a way as to affect these; also, that which is or may be heard.” This physiological definition encompasses many kinds of sound which may be used in a multimodal composition: ambient noise, natural sounds, music, sound effects, and speaking voices. Specifically, in this dissertation, of these types of sound, I am interested in music.

MUSIC. Music is a specific form of sound, as Godt (2005) notes: “Music is humanly organised sound, organised with intent into a recognisable aesthetic entity as a musical communication directed from a maker to a known or unforeseen listener, publicly through the medium of a performer, privately by a performer as listener” (p.84). Music is a sound that is composed with intent; in this way, music and writing are both forms of composition. Music composition involves: a human composer’s interaction with sound in a purposeful manner with an intentional outcome and audience

NOISE MUSIC. : Noise music uses the tension of sound to create a form of music, as Sangild (2002) states: “In music noise is often originally a malfunction in the instruments or electronics (a disturbance of the clear signal), which is then reversed into a positive effect….When you reverse a disturbance into a part of the music itself, it is not smoothly integrated but infuses the music with tension. There is still a play on the formerly negative relation between noise and signal when a noise is legitimated. This tension is an important part of the musical power of noise” (p.5). Noise music is fueled by the tension and misplacement of sound- the unpleasantness and mundane being brought to fruition in the form of a piece of music.

SONIC COMPOSING. The term “sonic composition” is my attempt to unite the fields of music and composition by recognizing the reality that sound is more than just the act of listening and composition is more than just the act of words or images arranged on a page. In this project, I use the term “sonic composing” to encompass more than just the physical act of listening and as an entity that embodies a more holistic sensory experience. The physicality of listening does not just mean it is heard with just one organ, the ear (Ceraso, 2014), but instead is felt and understood by multiple senses (touch, sight, as well).

MULTIMODAL COMPOSITION. Using the definition of multimodal text put forth by Takayoshi and Selfe (2007), as “texts that exceed the alphabetic and may include still and moving images, animations, color, words, music, and sound” (p.1), in tandem with the concept of composition discussed in the OED as “to put together, makeup”, I define multimodal composition as the use of multiple modes (i.e. words, music, sound) that make up a communicative artifact. The term multimodal composition is used throughout this work to study, analyze, and better understand how a creator uses more than one mode during the composing process, specifically through the lens of sonic composing.

170

REFERENCES

Ahern, Kati Fargo. “Tuning the Sonic Playing Field: Teaching Ways of Knowing Sound in First

Year Writing.” Computers and Composition 30.2 (2013): 75–86.

Alexander, J. (2015). Glenn Gould and the Rhetorics of Sound. Computers and Composition, 37,

73-89.

Alexandrakis, A. (2006). The role of music and dance in ancient greek and chinese rituals: Form

versus content. Journal of Chinese philosophy, 33(2), 267-278.

Anderson, Erin. “Toward a Resonant Material Vocality for Digital

Composition.” Enculturation 18 (2014): n.pag.

Andre, S. (1952, February). Recording Tricks of Les Paul and Mary Ford [Unknown article

type]. Archived material

Bamberger, J. (1977) ‘In search of a Tune’, in D. Perkins and B. Leondar (eds) The Arts and

Cognition, pp. 284–389. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Bamberger, J. (1982) ‘Revisiting Children’s Drawings of Simple Rhythms: A Function for

Reflection-in-Action’, in S. Strauss (ed.) U-shaped Behavioural Growth, pp. 191–226.

New York: Academic Press.

Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (1998). Local Literacies: Reading and Writing in One Community.

Bazerman, C. (2004). A Reflective Moment in the History of Literacy. In Multiple literacies for

the 21st century (pp.435-441).

Bezemer, J., & Kress, G. (2008). Writing in multimodal texts a social semiotic

account of designs for learning. Written communication, 25(2), 166-195.

171

Biesecker, B. A. (2006). Of historicity, rhetoric: the archive as scene of invention. Rhetoric &

Public Affairs, 9(1), 124-131.

Brandt, D. (1992). The Cognitive as the Social An Ethnomethodological Approach to Writing

Process Research. Written communication, 9(3), 315-355.

Brandt, D. (1998). Sponsors of literacy. College Composition and Communication, 49(2), 165-

185.

Brandt, D. (2014). The rise of writing: Redefining mass literacy. Cambridge University Press.

Buckley-Ferreira, L. (1999). Rescuing the Archives from Foucault. College English, 61(5), 577

583.

Ceraso, S. (2014). (Re) Educating the Senses: Multimodal Listening, Bodily Learning, and the

Composition of Sonic Experiences. College English, 77(2), 102.

Colley, A., Banton, L. and Down, J. (1992) ‘An Expert–Novice Comparison in Musical

Composition’, Psychology of Music 20(2): 124–37.

Collins, D. (2005). A synthesis process model of creative thinking in music

composition. Psychology of music, 33(2), 193-216.

Connors, R. J. (1992). Dreams and play: Historical method and methodology.Methods and

methodology in composition research, 15-36.

Cooper, J. M., & Hutchinson, D. S. (Eds.). (1997). Plato: complete works. Hackett Publishing.

Plato. (1943). Plato's The Republic. New York :Books, Inc.,

Cushman, E., DeVoss, D., Grabill, J., Hart-Davidson, B., & Porter, J. (2005). Why Teach

Digital Writing?. Kairos, 10(8).

Davidson, J.E. and Scripp, L. (1988) ‘Young Children’s Musical Representations: Windows on

Music Cognition’, in J.A. Sloboda (ed.) Generative Processes in Music: The Psychology

of Performance, Improvisation and Composition, pp. 193–230. Oxford: Oxford Science

Publications.

Davidson, L. and Welsh, P. (1988) ‘From Collections to Structure: the Developmental Path of

Tonal Thinking’, in J.A. Sloboda (ed.) Generative Processes in Music; the Psychology of

Performance, Improvisation and Composition, pp. 260–285. Oxford: Oxford Science

Publications

Durst, Pearce. “The Electrate Blues.” Harlot 7 (2012): n. Pag.

Elbow, P. (1973).Writing without teachers.

Elbow, Peter. “The Music of Form: Rethinking Organization in Writing.” College Composition

and Communication 57.4 (2006): 620-666. Print.

Emig, J. (1971). The composing processes of twelfth graders.

Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College composition and

communication, 28(2), 122-128.

Erickson, G. (1999). Speaking of Music: Explorations in the Language of Music Criticism.

George Mason University.

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College composition

and communication, 32(4), 365-387.

Gaillet, L. L. (2012). (Per) Forming Archival Research Methodologies.College Composition

and Communication, 35-58.

Gaillet, Lynee Lewis. “Archival Survival: Navigating Historical Research.” Working in the

Archives: Practical Research Methods for Rhetoric and Composition. Eds. Alexis E. Ramsey,

Wendy B. Sharer, Barbara LʼEplattenier and Lisa Mastrangelo. Carbondale: Southern

Illinois Press, 2010. 28-39.

Gee, J. (2012). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses.Routledge.

Gold, D. (2008). The accidental archivist: Embracing chance and confusion in historical

scholarship. Kirsch and Rohan, 13-19.

Goldberg, H. (n.d.). Les Paul and Mary Ford [Unknown article type].

Archived material

Glenn, C., & Enoch, J. (2009). Drama in the archives: Rereading methods, rewriting history.

College Composition and Communication, 321-342.

Graham, S. S., & Whalen, B. (2008). Mode, medium, and genre: A case study of decisions in

new-media design. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 22(1), 65-91.

Grbich, C. (2007). Content Analysis of Texts: Written/ Visual Documentation. In Qualitative

data analysis an introduction (pp. 111-123).

Grbich, C. (2007). Visual Interpretation. In Qualitative data analysis an introduction (pp. 155-

169).

Grbich, C. (2007). Semiotic Structural and Poststructural Analysses. In Qualitative data

analysis an introduction (pp. 170-182).

Grbich, C. (2007). Theorising from Data. In Qualitative data analysis an introduction (pp. 185-

194).

Grbich, C. (2007). Incorporating Data from Multiple Sources. In Qualitative data analysis an

introduction (pp.195-204).

Grbich, C. (2007). Writing Up and Data Display. In Qualitative data analysis an introduction

(pp. 205-222).

Gunn, J., Goodale, G., Hall, M. M., & Eberly, R. A. (2013). Auscultating again: Rhetoric and

sound studies. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 43(5), 475-489.

Feld, M. (2016, October). [Personal Communication]. Unpublished raw data.

Feld, M. (2016, October). [Observation]. Unpublished raw data.

Feld, M. (2016, November). [Personal Communication]. Unpublished raw data.

Feld, M. (2017, May) [Observation]. Unpublished raw data.

Feld, M. (2017, May). [Personal Communication]. Unpublished raw data.

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing.College composition

and communication, 32(4), 365-387.

Folkestad, G. (1996) Computer Based Creative Music Making: Young People’s Music in the

Digital Age. Göteborg Studies in Educational Sciences 104. Gothenburg: Acta

Universitatis Gothoburgensis.

Folkestad, G., Hargreaves, D.J. and Lindstrom, B. (1997) ‘Compositional Strategies inComputer-

Based Music Making’, British Journal of Music Education 15(1): 83–98.

Glasper, D. (2018, October 01). Curtis Roads: Microsound. Retrieved from

https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/curtis-roads-microsound

Halbritter, B. (2006). Musical rhetoric in integrated-media composition. Computers and

Composition, 23(3), 317-334.

Haswell, R. (2005). NCTE/CCCC’s recent war on scholarship. Written Communication,22,198-

223.

Hawk, B., & Stuart, G. (2018). English Composition as a Sonic Practice. In The Routledge

Handbook of Digital Writing and Rhetoric (pp. 60-69). Routledge.

Hesse, D. (2010). Response to Cynthia L. Selfe's"The Movement of Air, the Breath of

Meaning: Aurality and Multimodal Composing". College Composition and

Communication, 61(3), 602-

605.

Hocks, M. E. (2003). Understanding visual rhetoric in digital writing

environments. College composition and communication, 629-656.

Hocks, M. E., & Comstock, M. (2017). Composing for Sound: Sonic Rhetoric as Resonance.

Computers and Composition, 43, 135-146.

Hull, G. A., & Nelson, M. E. (2014). Locating the Semiotic Power of Multimodality. In

Multimodal Composition A Critical Sourcebook (pp. 457-485). Bedford St. Martin's.

Hull, G., & Rose, M. (1989). Rethinking Remediation Toward a Social-

Cognitive Understanding of Problematic Reading and Writing. Written

Communication, 6(2), 139-154.

Huot, B.,& Stroble, B. (2004).Introduction. In Multiple literacies for the 21st century (pp.1-15).

Huot, B. & Williamson, M. (2012). A Modest Proposal for Common Ground and Language for

Research in Writing. Practicing Research in Writing Studies: A Reflexive and Ethically

Responsible Research, 31-47

Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2014). Studying new literacies. Journal of adolescent & adult

literacy, 58(2), 97-101.

Kratus, J. (1989) ‘A Time Analysis of the Compositional Processes Used by Children Ages 7 to

11’, Journal of Research in Music Education 37(1): 5–20.

Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. Psychology Press.

L'Eplattenier, B. E. (2009). An argument for archival research methods: Thinking beyond

methodology. College English, 72(1), 67-79.

L’Eplattenier, B. (2009) Working in the Archives

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). New literacies: Changing knowledge and

classroom learning. Open University Press.

Lauer, C. (2014). Contending with Terms: "Multimodal" and "Multimedia" in

the Academic and Public Spheres. In Multimodal Composition A Critical

Sourcebook (pp. 22-41). Bedford St. Martin's.

Lawrence, R. (2008). The Early Years of the Les Paul Legacy, 1915-1963. Hal Leonard

Corporation.

Lawrence, R., (2009). The Modern Era of the Les Paul Legacy, 1968-2009. Hal Leonard.

Les Paul Home Studio. (2009, September). In ShannonPatrick17 (Comp.). Retrieved from

https://www.flickr.com/photos/shannonpatrick17/3969043763/in/photostream/

Creative Commons

Les Paul and Mary Ford Biography [Unpublished biography]. (n.d.). Archived material

Les and Mary and Earl [Article]. (n.d.). Archived material

Les Paul: "I want sound as it really is." (1957, May). Archived material

Les Paul Talks about Latest Musical Trick. (n.d.). Archived material

Les Paul with his first Multitrack Recording Machine (8 Track Recorder). (2009, September). In

ShannonPatrick17 (Comp.). Retrieved from

https://www.flickr.com/photos/shannonpatrick17/3969961178/in/photostream/

Creative Commons

Leslie, E. (1958, October). Les Paul Technician and Musician. Radio-Electronics.

Archived material

Mary Ford and Les Paul. (2009, September). In ShannonPatrick17 (Comp.). Retrieved from

https://www.flickr.com/photos/shannonpatrick17/3969972856

Creative Commons

Mastrangelo, L., & L'Eplattenier, B. (2008). Stumbling in the Archives: A Tale of Two

Novices. Kirsch and Rohan, 161-70.

McHugh, K., & Kitson, J. (2018). Thermal Sensations—Burning the Flesh of the

World. GeoHumanities, 4(1), 157-177.

McKee, H. (2006). Sound matters: Notes toward the analysis and design of sound in multimodal

webtexts. Computers and composition, 23(3), 335-354.

Murray, D. (1972). Teach writing as a process not product. The Leaflet, 71(3), 11-14.

Murray, J. (2014). Composing Multimodality. In Multimodal Composition A Critical

Sourcebook (pp. 325-350). Bedford St. Martin's.

Olding, C. (2016). Field Notes [Les Paul Archived Notes]. Cleveland, OH.

notes taken over 30 hours spent in Archive

Olding, C. (2016-2017). Field Notes [Marc Feld Notes]. OH.

notes taken over interviews and observations.

Paul, Les. (n.d.). Archived Materials. Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Library and Archives

Paul, L. (n.d.). Music Masters [Interview]. In Music Masters: Questions and Answers.

Cleveland, OH: Rock and Roll Hal of Fame.

Paul, L., & Cochran, M. (2008). Les Paul: In his own words. Hal Leonard.

Paul, L. (1959). U.S. Patent No. US3018680A. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark

Office.

Perl, S. (1979). The composing processes of unskilled college writers. Research in the Teaching

of English, 13(4), 317-336.

Pigg, S. (2014). Emplacing mobile composing habits: A study of academic writing in

networked social spaces. College Composition and Communication, 250-275.

Porter, A. (n.d.). Craziest Music You Ever Heard.

Archived material

Prior, P. (2005). Moving multimodality beyond the binaries: A response to Gunther

Kress’“Gains and Losses”. Computers and Composition, 22(1), 23-30.

Reitman, W. R. (1965). Cognition and thought: an information processing approach.

Rice, J. (2006). The making of ka-knowledge: Digital aurality. Computers and Composition,

23(3), 266-279.

Richards, M. (2015, March) [Personal Communication]. Unpublished raw data.

Richards, M. (2015, March) [Observation]. Unpublished raw data.

Richards, M. (2015, March) [Personal Communication]. Unpublished raw data.

Rickert, T., & Hawk, B. (1999). ‘Avowing the Unavowable’: On the Music of Composition.

Enculturation, 2(2).

Rickert, T., & Salvo, M. (2006). The distributed Gesamptkunstwerk: Sound, worlding, and new

media culture. Computers and composition, 23(3), 296-316.

Ritter, K. (2012). Archival Research in Composition Studies: Re-Imagining the Historian's

Role. Rhetoric Review, 31(4), 461-478.

Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Library and Archives (n.d.). Archived Biography. Retrieved March

2nd 2016

School of Arts, Media and Engineering. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://artsmediaengineering.asu.edu/degree-programs/media-arts-and-sciences-phd

Scribner, S., Cole, M., & Cole, M. (1981). The psychology of literacy (Vol. 198, No. 1).

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Scripp, L, Meyaard, J. and Davidson, L. (1988) ‘Discerning Musical Development: Using

Computers to Discover What We Know’, Journal of Aesthetic Education 22(1): 75–88.

Selfe, C. L. (2009). The movement of air, the breath of meaning: Aurality and multimodal

composing. College composition and communication, 616-663.

Selfe, C. L. (2010). Response to Doug Hesse. College Composition and Communication, 61(3),

606-610.

Shankar, T. R. (2006). Speaking on the record: A theory of composition. Computers and

Composition, 23(3), 374-393.

Sheet music, lyrics, orchestrations [Nine pieces of music]. (n.d.).

Archived materials

Shepherd, R. P. (2018). Digital Writing, Multimodality, and Learning Transfer: Crafting

Connections between Composition and Online Composing. Computers and

Composition, 48, 103-114.

Shipka, J. (2006). Sound engineering: Toward a theory of multimodal soundness. Computers

and Composition, 23(3), 355-373.

Silverman, D. (2013). Interviews. In Doing Qualitative Research (4th ed., pp. 44-48). Sage.

Silverman, D. (2013).Audio Data. In Doing Qualitative Research (4th ed., pp. 57-58). Sage.

Silverman, D. (2013).Visual Data. In Doing Qualitative Research (4th ed., pp. 59-61). Sage.

Silverman, D. (2013).How Many Cases Do You Need?. In Doing Qualitative Research (4th ed.,

pp. 141-158). Sage.

Sirc, G., & Ceraso, S. (2011). Digital Lyrical. Currents in Electronic Literacy.

Slattery, P. J., & Kowalski, R. (1998). On screen: The composing processes of first-year and

upper-level college students. Computers and Composition, 15(1), 61-81.

Smagorinsky, P. (1989). The reliability and validity ofprotocol analysis.Written communication,

6(4), 463-479.

Smagorinsky, P. (2008). The method section as conceptual epicenter in constructing social

science research reports. Written Communication, 25(3), 389-411.

Smagorinsky, P. (1998). Thinking and Speech and Protocol Analysis. Mind, Culture and

Activity,5(3),157-177.

Smith, B. and Smith, W. (1994) ‘Uncovering Cognitive Processes in Music Composition:

Educational and Computational Approaches’, in M. Smith, A. Smaill, and G. Wiggins

(eds) Music Education: An Artificial Intelligence Approach, pp. 56–73. New York:

Springer-Verlag

Spaceball Ricochet [Recorded by M. Bolan]. (1972). On The Slider [Vinyl recording]. Tony

Visconti. (1972)

Spinuzzi, C. (2010). Secret sauce and snake oil: Writing monthly reports in a highly contingent

environment. Written Communication, 27(4), 363-409.

Spinuzzi, C. (2013). Topsight: A Guide to Studying, Diagnosing, and Fixing

Information Flow in Organizations. CreateSpace Independent Publishing

Platform. Chapter 7-12.

Stedman, K. D. (2012). Musical Rhetoric and Sonic Composing Processes. University of South

Florida.

Steiner, L. B. (2013). The available means of design: A rhetorical investigation of professional

multimodal composition. Kent State University.

Stone, J. W. (n.d.). Listening to the Sonic Archive: Rhetoric, Representation, and Race in the

Lomax Prison Recordings. Retrieved April 22, 2016, from

http://enculturation.net/listening-to-the-sonic-archive

Street, B. V. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice (Vol. 9). Cambridge University Press.

Street, B. V., & Martin-Jones, M. (2000). Literacy events and literacy practices: Theory and

practice in the New Literacy Studies.

Takayoshi, P. (1996). The shape of electronic writing: Evaluating and assessing computer-

assisted writing processes and products. Computers and composition, 13(2), 245-257.

Takayoshi, P., & Selfe, C. L. (2007). Thinking about multimodality. Multimodal composition:

Resources for teachers, 1-12.

Takayoshi, P. (2015). Short-form writing: Studying process in the context of

contemporary composing technologies. Computers and Composition, 37,

1-13.

Takayoshi, P. (2017). CCC and RTE Composing Processes Article

The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social

futures. Harvard educational review, 66(1), 60-93.

Wagner, J. (2018, August) [Personal Communication]. Unpublished raw data.

Wagner, J. (2018, October) [Observation]. Unpublished raw data.

Wagner, J. (2018, October) [Personal Communication]. Unpublished raw data.

Wagner, J. (2018, November) [Observation]. Unpublished raw data.

Wagner, J. (2018, November) [Personal Communication]. Unpublished raw data.

Who We Are. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://synthesiscenter.net/about/

Wilson, S.J. and Wales, R.J. (1995) ‘An Exploration of Children’s Musical Compositions’,

Journal of Research in Music Education 43(2): 94–111

Yancey, K. B. (2004). Made not only in words: Composition in a new key. College

Composition and Communication, 56(2), 297-328.

Yin, R. K. (n.d.). Qualitative research from start to finish.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Los Angeles: SAGE Publication.