Post by Admin on Jun 27, 2015 15:56:10 GMT
Call and Response Music: How your Music is "Communicating" with Your Ears, Brain, and Driving Your Thought Patterns
Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_and_response
Why is it that the only people that don't know this stuff is the general public, simply because they never bothered to do an internet search using their own FREEWILL?? When you add Music (Call and Response) and Mood Management to the Calculus of Concepts & Message Design Logic Communication Theories: you have Mental Manipulation. It's been used ON us for years undetected by the majority.... especially since the advent of television. Welcome the American public. This is what terrorists are doing to influence our kids. Our government. Our world.
It has been defining our social morals; what we accept and what we reject.
It's time to get smart enough to AVOID this stuff being done to us.
Wake UP.
Call and response is a form of "spontaneous verbal non-verbal interaction between speaker and listener in which all of the statements ('calls') are punctuated by expressions ('responses') from the listener."
In African cultures, call-and-response is a pervasive pattern of democratic participation—in public gatherings, in the discussion of civic affairs, in religious rituals, as well as in vocal and instrumental musical expression (see call and response in music). It is this tradition that African bondsmen and bondswomen have transmitted over the years in various forms of expression—in religious observance; public gatherings; even in children's rhymes; and, most notably, in music in its multiple forms: gospel, blues, rhythm and blues, jazz, hip-hop and go-go. In contemporary African American worship services, where call and response is pervasive, a pastor will call out to his congregants to engage an enthusiastic response.
For example:
Can I get an Amen?
Raise your hands and give Him praise! or Give Him Glory.
Call and response is inherently connected to the historical African religious roots, which served as the foundation for African American religious thought and behavior. It was even noticed by slave masters as early as the arrival of the first slave ships in Virginia in the 1600s.
While slave masters worked diligently to convert their slaves to Christianity, the African slaves still practiced their own form of religious celebration which was called Slave Christianity. Several analysts assessed the ecstatic spirituality of these slaves and noted two major actions during this celebration:
Ring shout: a metamorphosis of exuberant song and dance at the height of tribal or religious celebration, with movement in a counterclockwise circle (the direction the sun moves south of the equator)
Call and response
Call and response (music)
Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_and_response_(music)
In music, a call and response is a succession of two distinct phrases usually played by different musicians, where the second phrase is heard as a direct commentary on or response to the first. It corresponds to the call-and-response pattern in human communication and is found as a basic element of musical form, such as verse-chorus form, in many traditions.
In Sub-Saharan African cultures, call and response is a pervasive pattern of democratic participation—in public gatherings in the discussion of civic affairs, in religious rituals, as well as in vocal and instrumental musical expression. It is this tradition that African bondsmen and women brought with them to the New World and which has been transmitted over the centuries in various forms of cultural expression—in religious observance; public gatherings; sporting events; even in children's rhymes; and, most notably, in African-American music in its myriad forms and descendants including: gospel, blues, rhythm and blues, rock and roll, jazz and hip hop.
Call and response patterns between two musicians are common in Indian Classical Music, particularly in the style of Jugalbandi. Call and response is likewise widely present in parts of the Americas touched by the trans-Atlantic slave trade. It is extensively used in Cuban music, both in the secular rumba and in the African religious ceremonies (Santería).
Folk music
It is common in folk traditions of choral singing of many people, especially in African musical cultures .[citation needed] In the West, it is most readily seen in the sea shanty, African-American work songs, military cadences, Québecois folk songs, and the dance-songs of various European countries including France (particularly Brittany) and the Faroe Islands.
In Cuban music and other Latin music genres such as salsa, call and response between the lead singer and the coro (chorus) is termed coro-pregón.
Classical music
In Western classical music, call and response is known as antiphony.
Popular music
The phenomenon of call and response is pervasive in modern Western popular music, as well, largely because Western music has been so heavily shaped by African contributions. Cross-over rhythm and blues, rock 'n' roll and rock music exhibit call-and-response characteristics, as well. Three examples are The Who's song "My Generation", "Black Dog" by Led Zeppelin,[citation needed] and The Pogues' "Fairytale of New York":
Where call and response is most apparent in the secular music arena is in traditional and electric blues, where the most common 12-bar form is an AA'B pattern where the AA' is the call (repeated once with slight variation), and B is the response. But, each A and B part may itself consist of a short call and a short response, and those 2-bar calls and response may also be divided into 1-bar-each call-response pairs.
To make an attempt at diagramming it:
Twelve bars:
A: 4-bar CALL
(2-bar vocal CALL
[1-bar CALL, 1-bar RESPONSE]
2-bar instrumental RESPONSE
[1-bar CALL, 1-bar RESPONSE])
A': 4-bar CALL (repeated with slight variation)
(2-bar vocal CALL
[1-bar CALL, 1-bar RESPONSE]
2-bar instrumental RESPONSE
[1-bar CALL, 1-bar RESPONSE])
B: 4-bar RESPONSE (repeated)
(2-bar vocal CALL
[1-bar CALL, 1-bar RESPONSE]
2-bar instrumental RESPONSE/turnaround
[1-bar CALL, 1-bar RESPONSE])
Note that each turnaround can be considered a call which the next A section is the response to.
Leader/chorus call and response
A single leader makes a musical statement, and then the chorus responds together. American bluesman Muddy Waters utilizes call and response in one of his signature songs, "Mannish Boy" which is almost entirely leader/chorus call and response.
CALL: Waters' vocal: "Now when I was a young boy"
RESPONSE: (Harmonica/rhythm section riff)
CALL: Waters': "At the age of 5"
RESPONSE: (Harmonica/rhythm section riff)
Another example is from Chuck Berry's "School Day (Ring Ring Goes the Bell)".
CALL: Drop the coin right into the slot.
RESPONSE: (Guitar riff)
CALL: You gotta get something that's really hot.
RESPONSE: (Guitar riff)
A contemporary example is from Carly Rae Jepsen's "Call Me Maybe".
CALL: Hey I just met you
RESPONSE: (Violins)
CALL: And this is crazy
RESPONSE: (Violins)
This technique is utilized in Jepsen's song several times. While mostly in the chorus, can also be heard in the breakdown (approximately 2:25) between the vocals ("It's hard to look right") and distorted guitar.
Question/answer call and response
Part of the band poses a musical "question", or a phrase that feels unfinished, and another part of the band "answers" (finishes) it. In the blues, the B section often has a question-and-answer pattern (dominant-to-tonic).
An example of this is the Christmas song Must Be Santa:
CALL: Who laughs this way, ho ho ho?
RESPONSE: Santa laughs this way, ho ho ho!
A similar question-and-answer exchange occurs in the movie Casablanca between Sam and the band in the song "Knock On Wood":
CALL: Who's got trouble?
RESPONSE: We've got trouble!
CALL: How much trouble?
RESPONSE: Too much trouble!
Question/answer in Indian classical music
A distinct section in North Indian classical music is known as sawaal-javaab (question-answer). Primarily an instrumental technique, the sawaal-javaab occurs between two artists. One artist will present a melodically and rhythmically challenging riff which will be either replicated or improved upon by the other artist.
See also:
Responsory
References
Orovio, Helio 2004. Cuban music from A to Z. Revised by Sue Steward. ISBN 0-8223-3186-1 A biographical dictionary of Cuban music, artists, composers, groups and terms. Duke University, Durham NC; Tumi, Bath. p191
Sublette, Ned 2004. Cuba and its music: from the first drums to the mambo. Chicago. ISBN 1-55652-516-8
a b Middleton (1990). Studying Popular Music,[page needed]. ISBN 0-335-15275-9.
External links:
Call and Response in Blues - with references to blues songs and historical evolution.
History of Gospel Music - with references to call and response in black gospel music
Gospel Music History - Gospel Music Encyclopedia citing the origins of the different types of call and response and different gospel music style
Calculus of Concepts
Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus_of_Concepts
The Calculus of Concepts is an abstract language and theory, which was developed to simplify the reasons behind effective messaging when delivered to a specific target or set of targets. The theory aims to maximize the likelihood of desired outcomes, by using messaging elements and techniques while analyzing the delivery mechanisms in certain scenarios. The reduction of uncertainty, but not its elimination, is often cost effective and practical.
Empowered by the Internet of Things (IoT) the framework looks at numerous device such as smart phones, tablets, laptops, hand held gaming devices, GPS devices, automobile Event Data Recorders and other electronic devices as remote sensors capable of providing data channels.
By using elements, the theory discovers underlying key concepts and their relations in order to better understand how messages can by used to elicit desired behaviors through mental model heuristics and biases. The framework does not serve up spam to potential consumers; it is a new paradigm for effective messaging. The nature of the data produced and consumed by devices in the IoT naturally lends itself to location-based awareness.
Just-in-time and real-time broadcasting of key messages gives the framework an extra dimension, putting it at the forefront of behavioral methodologies. Broadcasting can take place across a number of platforms, text, photographic, video, audio or even direct human contact.
The use of anchoring-and-adjustment, framing and representativeness heuristics provides fertile grounds for “re-wiring” the decision making processes to include either positive or mitigating mental models of a given concept or set of related concepts.[6] The “re-wiring” will often produce results that have a significant impact on later decisions and behaviors on the target audience. The framework analyses key factors that influence the effectiveness of messaging mechanisms and how differing approaches can lead to entirely different results.
Background
The Calculus of Concepts framework has been practically implemented utilizing a combination of Naive Bayes classification[8] and Support Vector Machines (SVM) algorithms to actively identify the key components of a messaging campaign and its effectiveness. The effectiveness of a communications campaign is often measured by numerous results including reach, frequency and duration.
The training data set for the model implementation utilized the potential messages and delivery mechanisms with Actors, Actions, Objects, Contexts and Indicia as a few examples.
Each concept within the framework is treated by the practical implementation as either an independent or dependent variable (as applicable) and therefore may have a meaningful effect on the outcome of any communication. As with any machine-learning tool the Calculus of Concepts model implementation inputs can be either nominal or ordinal and depending on the particular case.
Practical example
Between 2005 and 2012 one of the largest oil companies in China attempted to buy the twelfth biggest oil company in Canada. Initial proposals and takeover plans were rejected due to a number of issues surrounding political tensions.
Stakeholders identified Environment, Context, Domain, Event, Condition, State, Decision, Relation, Actor, Action and Object concepts that needed to be in place to have the key decision makers utilizing the mental models needed to secure the takeover.
Over the next 7 years messaging activities were fielded by the Chinese company and it’s authorized agents, specifically designed to elicit Ideations and Decisions that would result in the takeover going through. In 2012, the takeover was completed after a coordinated and concerted field messaging activity.
References
Jump up ^ Cialdini, Robert B. (2007). Influence : the psychology of persuasion (Rev. ed. ed.). New York: Collins. ISBN 006124189X.
Jump up ^ Ashton, Kevin. "That 'Internet of Things' Thing - RFID Journal". RFID Journal. Retrieved 30 April 2013.
^ Jump up to: a b "Calculus of Concepts Case Study - February 2013" (PDF). Hubris Analytics. Retrieved 30 April 2013.
Jump up ^ Klien, Gary (2011). Streetlights and Shadows: Searching for the Keys to Adaptive Decision Making. MIT Press. ISBN 0262516721.
Jump up ^ Associati, Casaleggio. "The Evolution of Internet of Things" (PDF). Casaleggio.it. Retrieved 30 April 2013.
Jump up ^ Lopes, Lola L. The Rhetoric of Irrationality.
Jump up ^ Holiday, Ryan (2012). Trust Me, I'm Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator. Portfolio Hardcover. ISBN 159184553X.
Jump up ^ Zhang, Harry. "The Optimality of Naive Bayes" (PDF). University of New Brunswick. Retrieved 30 April 2013.
Jump up ^ Corinna Cortes; Vladimir Vapnik (September 1995). "Machine Learning" 20 (3). Retrieved 30 April 2013.
Further reading
The process of communication: an introduction to theory and practice David Kenneth Berlo (1960)
The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America Boorstin, Daniel J (1992)
Social Engineering: The Art of Human Hacking Hadnagy, Christopher (2010)
Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior Brafman, Ori, Brafman, Rom (2009)
Message design logic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Message_design_logic
Message design logic is a communication theory that makes the claim that individuals possess implicit theories of communication within themselves, called message design logics. Referred to as a “theory of theories,” Message Design Logic offers three different fundamental premises in reasoning about communication. As author Barbara O’Keefe describes, Message Design Logic is “the kind of communication-constituting belief system the message producer relies on in reasoning from the goals sought to the message design used.” These three premises — Expressive Logic, Conventional Logic, and Rhetorical Logic — are belief systems that communicators might utilize when designing messages. The message design logics, therefore, represent “internally consistent and developmentally ordered stages in the acquisition of working knowledge about the systematic properties of verbal messages.” As O’Keefe describes further, each premise is “associated with a constellation of related beliefs: a communication-constituting concept, a conception of the functional possibilities of communication, unit formation procedures, and principles of coherence.” The underlying idea behind O’Keefe’s work is that “communication is not necessarily a uniform process.”
Components
The three components of Message Design Logic are based on "individuals’ levels of cognitive complexity," and are expressed in messages that vary in organization, content, and effectiveness. Whether these components represent different levels of communication effectiveness is labeled as debatable by other communication scholars.
Expressive design logic
Seen as the simplest form of message production, the fundamental premise of Expressive Design Logic is that “Language is a medium for expressing thoughts and feelings.” This premise is the simplest of the three logics and explains that someone says what they feel. As long as this feeling is conveyed in the message, the message is deemed successful. O’Keefe gives two reasons why individuals who operate under this design logic are very literal when it comes to impression in message design and interpretation. “First, they fail to appreciate that in communication, the process of expression can be made to serve other goals, and second, they interpret messages as independent units rather than as threads in an interaction fabric.” Individuals that communicate expressively do not recognize the idea that messages might be designed to induce particular reactions by the receiver. They believe that messages are taken straightforwardly by a receiver who has thoughts, feelings, or reactions that are to be communicated back to the sender.
Through this idea there are only two possible relationships that can be held between the speaker's intentions and messages;
1) To fully and honestly express the speaker’s current mental state.
2) To convey a distorted version of the speaker’s mental state though editing or lying. Due to the extreme straightforwardness of expressive messages they may contain multiple facets that can be viewed as negative when discussing communicative effectiveness, such as pointless content (excessive knowledge of what the speaker feels or wants), redundancies (due to a thought being recycled), noncontingent threats or insults (simple announcements of punishments), or inoffensive but inappropriate comments (complimentary personal remarks inappropriately delivered). Ultimately, individuals using Expressive Design Logic believe that the element that unites a speaker’s messages is simply what is on the speaker’s mind, whether they are items of information from one encounter or items from a complex chain of associations.
Conventional design logic
The fundamental premise of Conventional Design Logic is that “communication is a game played cooperatively, according to socially conventional rules and procedures.” As opposed to the expressive design logic, the communicator using conventional design logic distinguishes between thought and expression. In this design logic, language is viewed as means of expressing propositions that are “specified by the social effect one wants to achieve.” Those who practice conventional design logic consider various contexts as having fixed parameters and therefore design messages based upon what is most appropriate to the context. This message designing is done under the format of cooperation between the speaker and hearer. Using this logic is particularly valuable to achieve particular goals. Communication then is the means by which the goals are achieved. For example, someone constructing a conventional message would relate the message most to the context (the particular situation at hand) in order to achieve certain goals.
Rhetorical design logic
Seen as the most elaborate way of constructing messages, the fundamental premise of Rhetorical Design Logic is that “communication is the creation and negotiation of social selves and situations.” For communicators using this logic, messages are designed to portray what the speaker wants reality to reflect. Under this belief system, O’Keefe explains that “all meaning is treated as a matter of dramaturgical enactment and social negotiation.” As opposed to the conventional design logic, which says to design messages relevant to the given context, rhetorical design logic seeks to create the context using the designed messages. This creating of the context is accomplished using coordination and negotiation. For coordination, rhetorical design seeks to repeatedly solve coordination problems in order to create the social reality. For negotiation, communication operates under the presumption that it can “strategically exploit” meaning. Rhetorical message producers always “seek to achieve consensus and social legitimation for the reality they speak,” thus having the possibility of negotiation always available. Their messages are proactive rather than reactive, so they are designed towards effects rather than in response to the actions of others. Rhetorical messages also normally contain “elaborating and contextualizing clauses and phrases that provide explicit definitions of the context.” Lastly, O’Keefe summarizes the internal coherence of rhetorical designed messages as deriving from “the elements being related by intersubjectively available, goal-oriented schemes.”
Verification and other uses
Many other scholars have verified and used O’Keefe’s work for their own research . For example, Peterson and Albrecht uses Message Design Logic to posit the relationship between superiors’ and subordinates’ message design logic types. Likewise, another study done explored the relationships among individuals’ message design logics and their levels of social well-being. Dr. Gwen Hullman used Message Design Logic to help in the study of perceptions of communication competence. The conclusion of her research in relation to message design was that, “speakers of rhetorical regulative messages were perceived as more effective, more appropriate, and were rated as more competent.” These findings reflect the ideas O’Keefe stated in her original work in that rhetorical speakers can better align their goals with their partner's goals.
O’Keefe’s Message Design Logic has also been used in a study done in 2005 by Carmen Cortes, Chad Larson, and Dale Hample. Their study was designed to see if the difference in interpersonal construct differentiation reflected the sophistication with which they designed their messages. In addition to Dr. Hullman’s study, this article resulted as O’Keefe had predicted in her 1988 study, in which O’Keefe said that people who are more differentiated also tend to employ more sophisticated logics in a challenging situation. What Cortes, Larson, and Hample found is that “differentiation reflects the sophistication with which a person perceives others, and a Message Design Logic is a knowledge structure regarding communication.”
Criticism
While critics of this theory are hard to find, Joy Hart of Louisville University reviews and examines O’Keefe’s work, including a full critique of assumptions she believes are being made. Hart claims that O’Keefe “assumes a developmental continuum for communication skill.” She examines the assumption that individuals may progress to the rhetorical message design logic, which is the highest level of development. She critiques this assumption as it is seen through cultural and intercultural differences. A specific assumption which Hart criticizes is the proposition that if a person is surrounded by a social environment or culture in which negotiation is possible, then that person will proceed more quickly to the rhetorical message design logic.
References
^ Jump up to: a b c Edwards, A. P., Rose, L. M., Edwards, C., & Singer, L. M. (2008). An Investigation of the Relationships among Implicit Personal Theories of Communication, Social Support and Loneliness. Human Communication, 11(4), 445-461.
^ Jump up to: a b c Hart, J. (2002). Cultural Assumptions Underlying Message Design Logic: Premises of Development, Preference, and Understanding. Intercultural Communication Studies, XI(4), 109-120.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p O'Keefe, B. J. (1988). The Logic of Message Design: Individual Differences in Reasoning about Communication. Communication Monographs, 55(1), 80.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e Peterson, L., & Albrecht, T. L. (1996). Message design logic, social support, and mixed-status relationships. Western Journal Of Communication, 60(4), 291-309.
^ Jump up to: a b c O’Keefe, B. J. (1991). Message design logic and the management of multiple goals. In K. Tracy (Ed.), Understanding face-to-face interaction: Issues linking goals and discourse (pp. 101-117). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jump up ^ Hullman, G. A. (2004). Interpersonal Communication Motives and Message Design Logic: Exploring Their Interaction on Perceptions of Competence. Communication Monographs, 71(2), 208-225.
^ Jump up to: a b c Cortes, C., Larson, C., & Hample, D. (2005). Relations Among Message Design Logic, Interpersonal Construct Differentiation, and Sex for Mexican and US Nationals. Journal Of Intercultural Communication Research, 34(1/2), 108-118.
Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_and_response
Why is it that the only people that don't know this stuff is the general public, simply because they never bothered to do an internet search using their own FREEWILL?? When you add Music (Call and Response) and Mood Management to the Calculus of Concepts & Message Design Logic Communication Theories: you have Mental Manipulation. It's been used ON us for years undetected by the majority.... especially since the advent of television. Welcome the American public. This is what terrorists are doing to influence our kids. Our government. Our world.
It has been defining our social morals; what we accept and what we reject.
It's time to get smart enough to AVOID this stuff being done to us.
Wake UP.
Call and response is a form of "spontaneous verbal non-verbal interaction between speaker and listener in which all of the statements ('calls') are punctuated by expressions ('responses') from the listener."
In African cultures, call-and-response is a pervasive pattern of democratic participation—in public gatherings, in the discussion of civic affairs, in religious rituals, as well as in vocal and instrumental musical expression (see call and response in music). It is this tradition that African bondsmen and bondswomen have transmitted over the years in various forms of expression—in religious observance; public gatherings; even in children's rhymes; and, most notably, in music in its multiple forms: gospel, blues, rhythm and blues, jazz, hip-hop and go-go. In contemporary African American worship services, where call and response is pervasive, a pastor will call out to his congregants to engage an enthusiastic response.
For example:
Can I get an Amen?
Raise your hands and give Him praise! or Give Him Glory.
Call and response is inherently connected to the historical African religious roots, which served as the foundation for African American religious thought and behavior. It was even noticed by slave masters as early as the arrival of the first slave ships in Virginia in the 1600s.
While slave masters worked diligently to convert their slaves to Christianity, the African slaves still practiced their own form of religious celebration which was called Slave Christianity. Several analysts assessed the ecstatic spirituality of these slaves and noted two major actions during this celebration:
Ring shout: a metamorphosis of exuberant song and dance at the height of tribal or religious celebration, with movement in a counterclockwise circle (the direction the sun moves south of the equator)
Call and response
Call and response (music)
Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_and_response_(music)
In music, a call and response is a succession of two distinct phrases usually played by different musicians, where the second phrase is heard as a direct commentary on or response to the first. It corresponds to the call-and-response pattern in human communication and is found as a basic element of musical form, such as verse-chorus form, in many traditions.
In Sub-Saharan African cultures, call and response is a pervasive pattern of democratic participation—in public gatherings in the discussion of civic affairs, in religious rituals, as well as in vocal and instrumental musical expression. It is this tradition that African bondsmen and women brought with them to the New World and which has been transmitted over the centuries in various forms of cultural expression—in religious observance; public gatherings; sporting events; even in children's rhymes; and, most notably, in African-American music in its myriad forms and descendants including: gospel, blues, rhythm and blues, rock and roll, jazz and hip hop.
Call and response patterns between two musicians are common in Indian Classical Music, particularly in the style of Jugalbandi. Call and response is likewise widely present in parts of the Americas touched by the trans-Atlantic slave trade. It is extensively used in Cuban music, both in the secular rumba and in the African religious ceremonies (Santería).
Folk music
It is common in folk traditions of choral singing of many people, especially in African musical cultures .[citation needed] In the West, it is most readily seen in the sea shanty, African-American work songs, military cadences, Québecois folk songs, and the dance-songs of various European countries including France (particularly Brittany) and the Faroe Islands.
In Cuban music and other Latin music genres such as salsa, call and response between the lead singer and the coro (chorus) is termed coro-pregón.
Classical music
In Western classical music, call and response is known as antiphony.
Popular music
The phenomenon of call and response is pervasive in modern Western popular music, as well, largely because Western music has been so heavily shaped by African contributions. Cross-over rhythm and blues, rock 'n' roll and rock music exhibit call-and-response characteristics, as well. Three examples are The Who's song "My Generation", "Black Dog" by Led Zeppelin,[citation needed] and The Pogues' "Fairytale of New York":
Where call and response is most apparent in the secular music arena is in traditional and electric blues, where the most common 12-bar form is an AA'B pattern where the AA' is the call (repeated once with slight variation), and B is the response. But, each A and B part may itself consist of a short call and a short response, and those 2-bar calls and response may also be divided into 1-bar-each call-response pairs.
To make an attempt at diagramming it:
Twelve bars:
A: 4-bar CALL
(2-bar vocal CALL
[1-bar CALL, 1-bar RESPONSE]
2-bar instrumental RESPONSE
[1-bar CALL, 1-bar RESPONSE])
A': 4-bar CALL (repeated with slight variation)
(2-bar vocal CALL
[1-bar CALL, 1-bar RESPONSE]
2-bar instrumental RESPONSE
[1-bar CALL, 1-bar RESPONSE])
B: 4-bar RESPONSE (repeated)
(2-bar vocal CALL
[1-bar CALL, 1-bar RESPONSE]
2-bar instrumental RESPONSE/turnaround
[1-bar CALL, 1-bar RESPONSE])
Note that each turnaround can be considered a call which the next A section is the response to.
Leader/chorus call and response
A single leader makes a musical statement, and then the chorus responds together. American bluesman Muddy Waters utilizes call and response in one of his signature songs, "Mannish Boy" which is almost entirely leader/chorus call and response.
CALL: Waters' vocal: "Now when I was a young boy"
RESPONSE: (Harmonica/rhythm section riff)
CALL: Waters': "At the age of 5"
RESPONSE: (Harmonica/rhythm section riff)
Another example is from Chuck Berry's "School Day (Ring Ring Goes the Bell)".
CALL: Drop the coin right into the slot.
RESPONSE: (Guitar riff)
CALL: You gotta get something that's really hot.
RESPONSE: (Guitar riff)
A contemporary example is from Carly Rae Jepsen's "Call Me Maybe".
CALL: Hey I just met you
RESPONSE: (Violins)
CALL: And this is crazy
RESPONSE: (Violins)
This technique is utilized in Jepsen's song several times. While mostly in the chorus, can also be heard in the breakdown (approximately 2:25) between the vocals ("It's hard to look right") and distorted guitar.
Question/answer call and response
Part of the band poses a musical "question", or a phrase that feels unfinished, and another part of the band "answers" (finishes) it. In the blues, the B section often has a question-and-answer pattern (dominant-to-tonic).
An example of this is the Christmas song Must Be Santa:
CALL: Who laughs this way, ho ho ho?
RESPONSE: Santa laughs this way, ho ho ho!
A similar question-and-answer exchange occurs in the movie Casablanca between Sam and the band in the song "Knock On Wood":
CALL: Who's got trouble?
RESPONSE: We've got trouble!
CALL: How much trouble?
RESPONSE: Too much trouble!
Question/answer in Indian classical music
A distinct section in North Indian classical music is known as sawaal-javaab (question-answer). Primarily an instrumental technique, the sawaal-javaab occurs between two artists. One artist will present a melodically and rhythmically challenging riff which will be either replicated or improved upon by the other artist.
See also:
Responsory
References
Orovio, Helio 2004. Cuban music from A to Z. Revised by Sue Steward. ISBN 0-8223-3186-1 A biographical dictionary of Cuban music, artists, composers, groups and terms. Duke University, Durham NC; Tumi, Bath. p191
Sublette, Ned 2004. Cuba and its music: from the first drums to the mambo. Chicago. ISBN 1-55652-516-8
a b Middleton (1990). Studying Popular Music,[page needed]. ISBN 0-335-15275-9.
External links:
Call and Response in Blues - with references to blues songs and historical evolution.
History of Gospel Music - with references to call and response in black gospel music
Gospel Music History - Gospel Music Encyclopedia citing the origins of the different types of call and response and different gospel music style
Calculus of Concepts
Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus_of_Concepts
The Calculus of Concepts is an abstract language and theory, which was developed to simplify the reasons behind effective messaging when delivered to a specific target or set of targets. The theory aims to maximize the likelihood of desired outcomes, by using messaging elements and techniques while analyzing the delivery mechanisms in certain scenarios. The reduction of uncertainty, but not its elimination, is often cost effective and practical.
Empowered by the Internet of Things (IoT) the framework looks at numerous device such as smart phones, tablets, laptops, hand held gaming devices, GPS devices, automobile Event Data Recorders and other electronic devices as remote sensors capable of providing data channels.
By using elements, the theory discovers underlying key concepts and their relations in order to better understand how messages can by used to elicit desired behaviors through mental model heuristics and biases. The framework does not serve up spam to potential consumers; it is a new paradigm for effective messaging. The nature of the data produced and consumed by devices in the IoT naturally lends itself to location-based awareness.
Just-in-time and real-time broadcasting of key messages gives the framework an extra dimension, putting it at the forefront of behavioral methodologies. Broadcasting can take place across a number of platforms, text, photographic, video, audio or even direct human contact.
The use of anchoring-and-adjustment, framing and representativeness heuristics provides fertile grounds for “re-wiring” the decision making processes to include either positive or mitigating mental models of a given concept or set of related concepts.[6] The “re-wiring” will often produce results that have a significant impact on later decisions and behaviors on the target audience. The framework analyses key factors that influence the effectiveness of messaging mechanisms and how differing approaches can lead to entirely different results.
Background
The Calculus of Concepts framework has been practically implemented utilizing a combination of Naive Bayes classification[8] and Support Vector Machines (SVM) algorithms to actively identify the key components of a messaging campaign and its effectiveness. The effectiveness of a communications campaign is often measured by numerous results including reach, frequency and duration.
The training data set for the model implementation utilized the potential messages and delivery mechanisms with Actors, Actions, Objects, Contexts and Indicia as a few examples.
Each concept within the framework is treated by the practical implementation as either an independent or dependent variable (as applicable) and therefore may have a meaningful effect on the outcome of any communication. As with any machine-learning tool the Calculus of Concepts model implementation inputs can be either nominal or ordinal and depending on the particular case.
Practical example
Between 2005 and 2012 one of the largest oil companies in China attempted to buy the twelfth biggest oil company in Canada. Initial proposals and takeover plans were rejected due to a number of issues surrounding political tensions.
Stakeholders identified Environment, Context, Domain, Event, Condition, State, Decision, Relation, Actor, Action and Object concepts that needed to be in place to have the key decision makers utilizing the mental models needed to secure the takeover.
Over the next 7 years messaging activities were fielded by the Chinese company and it’s authorized agents, specifically designed to elicit Ideations and Decisions that would result in the takeover going through. In 2012, the takeover was completed after a coordinated and concerted field messaging activity.
References
Jump up ^ Cialdini, Robert B. (2007). Influence : the psychology of persuasion (Rev. ed. ed.). New York: Collins. ISBN 006124189X.
Jump up ^ Ashton, Kevin. "That 'Internet of Things' Thing - RFID Journal". RFID Journal. Retrieved 30 April 2013.
^ Jump up to: a b "Calculus of Concepts Case Study - February 2013" (PDF). Hubris Analytics. Retrieved 30 April 2013.
Jump up ^ Klien, Gary (2011). Streetlights and Shadows: Searching for the Keys to Adaptive Decision Making. MIT Press. ISBN 0262516721.
Jump up ^ Associati, Casaleggio. "The Evolution of Internet of Things" (PDF). Casaleggio.it. Retrieved 30 April 2013.
Jump up ^ Lopes, Lola L. The Rhetoric of Irrationality.
Jump up ^ Holiday, Ryan (2012). Trust Me, I'm Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator. Portfolio Hardcover. ISBN 159184553X.
Jump up ^ Zhang, Harry. "The Optimality of Naive Bayes" (PDF). University of New Brunswick. Retrieved 30 April 2013.
Jump up ^ Corinna Cortes; Vladimir Vapnik (September 1995). "Machine Learning" 20 (3). Retrieved 30 April 2013.
Further reading
The process of communication: an introduction to theory and practice David Kenneth Berlo (1960)
The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America Boorstin, Daniel J (1992)
Social Engineering: The Art of Human Hacking Hadnagy, Christopher (2010)
Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior Brafman, Ori, Brafman, Rom (2009)
Message design logic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Message_design_logic
Message design logic is a communication theory that makes the claim that individuals possess implicit theories of communication within themselves, called message design logics. Referred to as a “theory of theories,” Message Design Logic offers three different fundamental premises in reasoning about communication. As author Barbara O’Keefe describes, Message Design Logic is “the kind of communication-constituting belief system the message producer relies on in reasoning from the goals sought to the message design used.” These three premises — Expressive Logic, Conventional Logic, and Rhetorical Logic — are belief systems that communicators might utilize when designing messages. The message design logics, therefore, represent “internally consistent and developmentally ordered stages in the acquisition of working knowledge about the systematic properties of verbal messages.” As O’Keefe describes further, each premise is “associated with a constellation of related beliefs: a communication-constituting concept, a conception of the functional possibilities of communication, unit formation procedures, and principles of coherence.” The underlying idea behind O’Keefe’s work is that “communication is not necessarily a uniform process.”
Components
The three components of Message Design Logic are based on "individuals’ levels of cognitive complexity," and are expressed in messages that vary in organization, content, and effectiveness. Whether these components represent different levels of communication effectiveness is labeled as debatable by other communication scholars.
Expressive design logic
Seen as the simplest form of message production, the fundamental premise of Expressive Design Logic is that “Language is a medium for expressing thoughts and feelings.” This premise is the simplest of the three logics and explains that someone says what they feel. As long as this feeling is conveyed in the message, the message is deemed successful. O’Keefe gives two reasons why individuals who operate under this design logic are very literal when it comes to impression in message design and interpretation. “First, they fail to appreciate that in communication, the process of expression can be made to serve other goals, and second, they interpret messages as independent units rather than as threads in an interaction fabric.” Individuals that communicate expressively do not recognize the idea that messages might be designed to induce particular reactions by the receiver. They believe that messages are taken straightforwardly by a receiver who has thoughts, feelings, or reactions that are to be communicated back to the sender.
Through this idea there are only two possible relationships that can be held between the speaker's intentions and messages;
1) To fully and honestly express the speaker’s current mental state.
2) To convey a distorted version of the speaker’s mental state though editing or lying. Due to the extreme straightforwardness of expressive messages they may contain multiple facets that can be viewed as negative when discussing communicative effectiveness, such as pointless content (excessive knowledge of what the speaker feels or wants), redundancies (due to a thought being recycled), noncontingent threats or insults (simple announcements of punishments), or inoffensive but inappropriate comments (complimentary personal remarks inappropriately delivered). Ultimately, individuals using Expressive Design Logic believe that the element that unites a speaker’s messages is simply what is on the speaker’s mind, whether they are items of information from one encounter or items from a complex chain of associations.
Conventional design logic
The fundamental premise of Conventional Design Logic is that “communication is a game played cooperatively, according to socially conventional rules and procedures.” As opposed to the expressive design logic, the communicator using conventional design logic distinguishes between thought and expression. In this design logic, language is viewed as means of expressing propositions that are “specified by the social effect one wants to achieve.” Those who practice conventional design logic consider various contexts as having fixed parameters and therefore design messages based upon what is most appropriate to the context. This message designing is done under the format of cooperation between the speaker and hearer. Using this logic is particularly valuable to achieve particular goals. Communication then is the means by which the goals are achieved. For example, someone constructing a conventional message would relate the message most to the context (the particular situation at hand) in order to achieve certain goals.
Rhetorical design logic
Seen as the most elaborate way of constructing messages, the fundamental premise of Rhetorical Design Logic is that “communication is the creation and negotiation of social selves and situations.” For communicators using this logic, messages are designed to portray what the speaker wants reality to reflect. Under this belief system, O’Keefe explains that “all meaning is treated as a matter of dramaturgical enactment and social negotiation.” As opposed to the conventional design logic, which says to design messages relevant to the given context, rhetorical design logic seeks to create the context using the designed messages. This creating of the context is accomplished using coordination and negotiation. For coordination, rhetorical design seeks to repeatedly solve coordination problems in order to create the social reality. For negotiation, communication operates under the presumption that it can “strategically exploit” meaning. Rhetorical message producers always “seek to achieve consensus and social legitimation for the reality they speak,” thus having the possibility of negotiation always available. Their messages are proactive rather than reactive, so they are designed towards effects rather than in response to the actions of others. Rhetorical messages also normally contain “elaborating and contextualizing clauses and phrases that provide explicit definitions of the context.” Lastly, O’Keefe summarizes the internal coherence of rhetorical designed messages as deriving from “the elements being related by intersubjectively available, goal-oriented schemes.”
Verification and other uses
Many other scholars have verified and used O’Keefe’s work for their own research . For example, Peterson and Albrecht uses Message Design Logic to posit the relationship between superiors’ and subordinates’ message design logic types. Likewise, another study done explored the relationships among individuals’ message design logics and their levels of social well-being. Dr. Gwen Hullman used Message Design Logic to help in the study of perceptions of communication competence. The conclusion of her research in relation to message design was that, “speakers of rhetorical regulative messages were perceived as more effective, more appropriate, and were rated as more competent.” These findings reflect the ideas O’Keefe stated in her original work in that rhetorical speakers can better align their goals with their partner's goals.
O’Keefe’s Message Design Logic has also been used in a study done in 2005 by Carmen Cortes, Chad Larson, and Dale Hample. Their study was designed to see if the difference in interpersonal construct differentiation reflected the sophistication with which they designed their messages. In addition to Dr. Hullman’s study, this article resulted as O’Keefe had predicted in her 1988 study, in which O’Keefe said that people who are more differentiated also tend to employ more sophisticated logics in a challenging situation. What Cortes, Larson, and Hample found is that “differentiation reflects the sophistication with which a person perceives others, and a Message Design Logic is a knowledge structure regarding communication.”
Criticism
While critics of this theory are hard to find, Joy Hart of Louisville University reviews and examines O’Keefe’s work, including a full critique of assumptions she believes are being made. Hart claims that O’Keefe “assumes a developmental continuum for communication skill.” She examines the assumption that individuals may progress to the rhetorical message design logic, which is the highest level of development. She critiques this assumption as it is seen through cultural and intercultural differences. A specific assumption which Hart criticizes is the proposition that if a person is surrounded by a social environment or culture in which negotiation is possible, then that person will proceed more quickly to the rhetorical message design logic.
References
^ Jump up to: a b c Edwards, A. P., Rose, L. M., Edwards, C., & Singer, L. M. (2008). An Investigation of the Relationships among Implicit Personal Theories of Communication, Social Support and Loneliness. Human Communication, 11(4), 445-461.
^ Jump up to: a b c Hart, J. (2002). Cultural Assumptions Underlying Message Design Logic: Premises of Development, Preference, and Understanding. Intercultural Communication Studies, XI(4), 109-120.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p O'Keefe, B. J. (1988). The Logic of Message Design: Individual Differences in Reasoning about Communication. Communication Monographs, 55(1), 80.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e Peterson, L., & Albrecht, T. L. (1996). Message design logic, social support, and mixed-status relationships. Western Journal Of Communication, 60(4), 291-309.
^ Jump up to: a b c O’Keefe, B. J. (1991). Message design logic and the management of multiple goals. In K. Tracy (Ed.), Understanding face-to-face interaction: Issues linking goals and discourse (pp. 101-117). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jump up ^ Hullman, G. A. (2004). Interpersonal Communication Motives and Message Design Logic: Exploring Their Interaction on Perceptions of Competence. Communication Monographs, 71(2), 208-225.
^ Jump up to: a b c Cortes, C., Larson, C., & Hample, D. (2005). Relations Among Message Design Logic, Interpersonal Construct Differentiation, and Sex for Mexican and US Nationals. Journal Of Intercultural Communication Research, 34(1/2), 108-118.