Sunteți pe pagina 1din 14

Running Header: AUTO-TUNE AND THE ETHICS OF HUMOR

Auto-Tune and the Ethics of Humor


Camilo I. Leal
University of Florida

AUTO-TUNE AND THE ETHICS OF HUMOR 2


Auto-Tune and the Ethics of Humor
By 1996, Andy Hildebrand, had developed what was to become the Auto-Tune software.
As a former employee of Exxon, Hildebrand had used digital audio technology to search oil by
producing an image of the different subsurface layers of the Earth based on the reflection of the
sound produced by the dynamiting process. Later, once he left the oil industry to pursue a music
composition degree, Hildebrand came to realize that the same technology could be used to
record, reproduce, and manipulate the reproduced image of a singers voice to correct pitch flaws
(McGowan, 2012).
Auto-Tune started being used for that purpose in the music industry, but it was not until
Chers song Believe and its musical video were released that the existence of Auto-Tune became
public and widespread.1 The song featured a very specific use of Auto-Tune that would later
become the new hallmark in the pop and hip-hop industries. When setting the software to correct
the pitch instantly after the voice is recorded, the voice seems to break down into pieces to create
a melodic line more robotic than human. By using the technology in a perceivable way, the
producers had not only suggested the expressive potential of Auto-Tune, but also exposed it
existence as a corrective technology that could have been in use for a while without anyone
besides the producers and the artists knowing (McGowan, 2012).
At this point, theoretical approaches such as those by Adorno and Horkheimer (1944),
Debord (1970), and Baudrillard (1995), would suffice to support a critique of Auto-Tune and the
culture industry.2 That, however, is not the focus of this paper. Now that I have introduced the
1 For an interesting discussion the symbolism of Chers Believe for woman in the music industry

(and what was then believed to be vocoder) see Dickinson (2004).


2 For further discussion on the role of media in the music industry, see Toynbee (2002) and

Rojek (2011).

AUTO-TUNE AND THE ETHICS OF HUMOR 3


technology, I will start to make the transition to the real focus of this paper, which is to
understand the use of Auto-Tune as an instrument of comedy.
What happened in the case of Believe can be called an act of serendipity, which refers
to, in the sociology of science, the discovering of something unexpected (Degele, 1997). In this
way, appropriation of software occurs, and the technology that was supposed to be used in one
way, ends up being used creatively for a different purpose (Degele, 1997). In a video analysis of
Auto-Tune, Weird Al Yankovic and his team describe a cycle of four stages for the use of new
technology within pop culture which, apart from the comedy, is consistent enough with the idea
of appropriation of software. First, the technology is introduced and used by the industry, with
the consequence of fascination both by the industry and by the audiences. Second, the
technology is abused and overexposed, generating theoretical discussion and criticism. Third, the
technology is re-contextualized into a stage of remix and parody. And fourth, a state of retreat,
in which it remain stable and in a more conservative use (Kim, 2015).
This analysis, although not scientific, is pretty consistent with the evolution of Auto-Tune
through its life span so far. However, although it seems that most technologies are, at one point
or another, re-contextualized or remixed, it is not the case for all of those technologies to suit
comedy as well as Auto-Tune. Since The Gregory Brothers and their Youtube series Auto-Tune
the News (McGowan, 2012) to this day, a growing list of remixed music videos created using
Auto-Tune or similar software has arose. In this manner, the theor-ethical discussion on AutoTune goes beyond the critique to the culture industry in its construction of a hyperrealism, to
intersect with the, perhaps less existential, politics of humor.
By the beginning of spring 2015, as I registered for an Anthropology of the Media course,
I had an encounter with an Auto-Tune remix on Youtube. It was Sweet Browns Aint Nobody got

AUTO-TUNE AND THE ETHICS OF HUMOR 4


Time for That (theparodyfactory1, 2012). Being an English learner studying in the United States
for a couple of years, I found the song, and the speech in which the song is based, to be
reflective of my perception on how African Americans express when they are speaking in slang. I
decided to learn what really Auto-Tune was about and started a blog in which I started to gather
information about the software, its uses, and its evolution. As we discussion in class on culture
industry literature, Auto-Tune showed its potential to illustrate many of the theories we were
reviewing. As I started to update the blog, and in the need to keep the discussion flowing without
going too theoretical, I started to focus more and more on the use of Auto-Tune for comedy
purposes, and a research question emerged: What do we laugh about when watching these
videos?
I do not think I will be able to answer this question categorically and on
scientific/theoretical bases. There are probably many aspects and reasons why we laugh on these
humoristic products. Some of the remixes satirize politicians, and fit in the category of political
parody. Other videos feature famous people in awkward moments during interviews. Other
videos feature just ordinary people being interviewed on the news report or a Youtube streaming.
The parodic concept was so successful that even official media related to broadcasting
corporations, like PBSs Youtube channel, started using it to recycle some of its outdated shows.
So I kind of get it: It is funny to hear the natural speech being re-contextualized into a song. But
of all the categories I made, the one that proved to be more problematic was that about what a
regular being interviewed.
Some of those interviews could be seen as funny because the event itself was seen as
almost unreal. For instance, there was a news report on a hitchhiker who attacked the driver that
was giving him a ride because the guy (the driver) started claiming he was Jesus and, according

AUTO-TUNE AND THE ETHICS OF HUMOR 5


to the hitchhiker, he started to ambush people with the car (schmoyoho, 2013). The seemingly
lack of astonishment with which the hitchhiker described the situation and his reaction could be
considered as almost unrealistic, or incongruent, and therefore be the motive for humor. But such
an incongruent news report was not always the case. To use myself as a case study, I would say
that the real reasons I laughed for were (1) the exaggerated use of slang, (2) the style of narrative
as anecdotal story telling (which disrupted my notion of what makes it to what one could
consider a serious news report), and (3) the moments in which the song could catch the essence
of the natural speech cadence, blurring the boundaries of speech and song. To be able to
scrutinize my own perception of the fun factor when watching these videos, to explore a bit of
psychology of humor shall prove useful.
In his book Comic Relief, Morreall (2009) makes a survey through a variety of theoretical
approaches to humor, to be sure, (1) the superiority theory, (2) the incongruity theory, (3) the
relief theory, (4) the relaxation theory, and (5) the disengagement theory. The theory claims that
laughter is the expression of a feeling of superiority, that is, laughter would happen as the
consequence of someones reaction to the perceived inferiority of other. Thus, when we laugh
about drunkenness and cowardice, we are laughing about things that we perceived as inferior and
which, according to some of the defenders of this theory, deserve being ridiculed. In the
incongruity theory, laughter happens when we perceive something as incongruous. Incongruity
happens when there is a mismatch between a concept and a perception of the same thing (p.
12).
The relief theory states that of humor being caused by a sudden relief, and that it acts like
a pressure valve. When our body prepares to express an emotion, due to feelings such as fear,
anger, or sadness, it accumulates tension and optimizes the bodily functions that are needed to

AUTO-TUNE AND THE ETHICS OF HUMOR 6


react to such feelings. If we are scared, then we prepare our bodies to run, and if we are angry,
we prepare ourselves to strike. When we found out that our emotions are unappropriated for a
situation (perhaps a perceived incongruity) we release the accumulated energy by laughing.
Morreall (2009) criticizes the three aforementioned models because none of these models
fully explains why we laugh, but instead each model plays a part in explaining a complex
phenomenon. He goes on to introduce the theory of humor as relaxation. According to this
theory, there is no need for an emotive reaction because what is needed is a previous state of unrelaxation, which is the default state of every normal person. What occurs then is a cognitive
shift which renders their attention, anticipation, or effort pointless, and they relax quickly
through laughter (p. 25).
Finally, Morreall introduces his own theory of humor as disengagement. According to
Morreal (2009), humorous amusement, as opposed to has been commonly believed, is not an
emotion. He argues that emotions have the components of (1) beliefs and desires, which cause
(2) physiological changes, which motivate (3) adaptive actions. While humorous amusement
produces physiological changes, it does not imply true beliefs or desires, and are not conducive
to adaptive action. Moreover, he contents contents, the more amused we are, the less capable we
are of any action at all, and Wallace Chafe has even argued that the biological function of
laughter is to disable, to incapacitate us (p. 31). To this process Monreall calls disengagement.
Thus, emotions like anger and fear are opposed to humorous amusement, and one cannot be
angry or afraid towards something and amused by it at the same time.
In his theory of disengagement, Morreal incorporates a social element to humor: Humor
is mainly a social phenomenon. We laugh much more when we are with others than when we are
alone. Monreall (2009) then draws on the field of ethology to conceptualize laughter as a play

AUTO-TUNE AND THE ETHICS OF HUMOR 7


signal, a gesture by which we indicate to others that our intentions are not serious but just
playing. According to him human play signals evolved from facial displays from earlier
primates (p. 37). One was the silent bared-teeth display, which could be associated with
smiling, and the other, more related to laughter, the relaxed open-mouth display, which is
accompanied by a ahh ahh ahh vocalization. By using these gestures, primates signal that
fighting or chasing actions were not serious, but a game, so other participants do not think they
are being attacked or chased and act accordingly.
For humans, laughter can be an unequivocal signal that, by disabling us, can help us from
taking extreme action in the case of a false alarm or could save a life in the event of a
misunderstanding. Then, humor features the following pattern:
1. We experience a cognitive shift a rapid change in our perception or thoughts.
2. We are in a play mode rather than a serious mode, disengaged from conceptual and
practical concerns.
3. Instead of responding to the cognitive with shock, confusion, puzzlement, fear, anger,
or other negative emotions, we enjoy it.
4. Our pleasure at the cognitive shift is expressed in laughter, which signals others that
they can relax and play too. (Morreall, 2009, p. 50)
The disengagement component is further developed by Morreall on its potentially positive and
negative implications. Disengagement has been historically useful to avoid the consequences of
unnecessary stress, which becomes relevant in a modern society in which stress is so pervasive.
But disengagement can also three harmful effects. First, by disengaging ourselves from what we
are doing, we can become irresponsible. Also, by disengaging ourselves from compassion, we
might avoid a necessary action or insult someone who is suffering. Finally, by disengaging
ourselves cognitively from the object of amusement, we might become indifferent to the truth
(Morreall, 2009, p. 106), and therefore we may promote prejudices. Sexist or racist jokes are not

AUTO-TUNE AND THE ETHICS OF HUMOR 8


told because the joke teller truly believes what he is saying is true (if we were to, probably we
would not laugh). But when joking about it, we are disengaging ourselves from the fact that
those stereotypes are real. We are disengaged cognitively and practically from the stereotype
(p. 106) and we do not reflect on the fact that some people actually believes that those who are
being targeted truly possess, in a less degree, some of the rather exaggerated but still undesirable
features described in the joke. Even in the case of political parody, which we often associate with
a way of criticizing and countering official discourses, humor can have a disengaging effect, as
discussed by Mole (2013) in her article on humor and cynicism in Berlusconis Italy.
In the case of an Auto-Tune remix, a song featuring Nick Clegg, a British politician,
apologizing for having made promises he could not keep (The Poke, 2012). As a consequence of
the remix, Nick Clegg was given TV coverage, and one of his interviewed even joked that the
song may be slightly more effective than the original apology (2000guineas, 2012). In the
same interview, Nick Clegg managed to capitalize on the success of the song by publicizing that
he accepted the release of the remix on iTunes on the condition that the money raced by it would
be donated to a charity, particularly a childrens hospital.
Now we can go back to the analysis of my humorous amusement with Aint Nobody got
Time for That. Why the original interview was deemed funny (to immortalize it in a song) in the
first place? The first two reasons I found for my laughter on the Auto-Tune remix were the
exaggerated use of slang and the rather atypical style of narrative as anecdotal story telling. In a
quick analysis of the 20 comments in the first page, nine were about the way Sweet Brown
spoke. Some recalled parts of the speech that were considered to be funny. Some were distorted
or exaggerated spelling of the words, in what could be interpreted as an attempt to express why
that particular part was perceived as funny (theparodyfactory1, 2012). In a similar analysis on the

AUTO-TUNE AND THE ETHICS OF HUMOR 9


20 first comments for Antoine Dodsons interview (in which the remix The Bed Intruder is
based), five repeated or rephrased phrases from the interview, around five referred to the way
Antoine speaks, and about five more repeated phrases of the interview that probably were
deemed as funny. Interestingly, three comments referred directly to race. Comments like Oh
Black people, always giving white folks something to laugh about or a more naive Black
people are the best race. They are funny, they get all the women, they got big dicks, and they can
be nice people were some the cases in which the stereotypes were more evident (Crazy Laugh
Action, 2012).
Why suddenly I am focusing on race? Because of all the funny Auto-Tune remixes, the
ones that are have been watched more times are those based on interviews in with African
Americans from some kind of housing projects. According to McGowan (2012), by 2012 The
Bed Intruder had been watched more than 100 million times. Until April 16th 2015, Aint Nobody
got Time for that had been watched more than 51 million times (theparodyfactory1, 2012). A
version that includes the interview and the remix has been watched more than 57 million times
(Wilding, 2012), and there certainly are more versions, re-posts, and covers on both songs.
One might argue that other popular Auto-Tune remixes, not about African Americans, are
also based on other stereotypes. The case of Nick Clegg, for instance, relies on the hypocritical
politician stereotype. The difference is, as Morreall (2009) notices, that groups of people that are
in a position of relative power, such as lawyers, physicians, and in this case politicians, are
hardly harmed by the stereotypes of which they are target. In contrast, in the case of poor African
Americans, it can be applied that
Mere repeated thinking of groups in negative stereotypes is enough t to prompt us
to treat real individuals not according to their actual merits and shortcomings, and so

AUTO-TUNE AND THE ETHICS OF HUMOR 10


justly, but as automatically inferior because they belong to those groups. In milder cases,
this mistreatment might involve only condescension, but in other cases, as under Jim
Crow, South African apartheid, and homophobia, it involves malicious distrust, hatred,
oppression, and even murder. (Morreall, 2009, p. 108)
When laugh about African Americans colloquial language, we disengage ourselves from the fact
that there is a historical opportunity gap that poor African Americans have to overcome to be
successful every day (Welner & Carter, 2013). Not only we disengage from the harm caused by
the circulation of stereotypes on African Americans, but also we disable ourselves from valuing
the cultural capital featured by the interviewees.3 As Reverend Charles E. Williams II puts it:
Many laugh when they watch the Charles Ramsey and Sweet Brown interviews,
but the joke is really quite sad. It is unfortunate that people laugh because of what they
perceive as ignorance that may become their amusement, while overlooking the detail
and precision used to make sure the audience they are speaking to understand them on the
most elementary level, thats the real genius. (Reverend Charles E. Williams II, 2013)
By laughing on the stereotype, we immediately dismiss the value of assets such as the rich oral
narrative tradition observed by Sperry and Sperry (1996; 2000) in their ethnographic study on
African American Families in the Black Belt of Alabama. Or the linguistic capital described by
Yosso (2005) and characterized by a repertoire of storytelling skills [that] may include
memorization, attention to detail, dramatic pauses, comedic timing, facial affect, vocal tone,
volume, rhythm and rhyme (p. 79). Or the will for drama and adorn noted by Hurston, the
signifying, loud-talking, and marking described by Mitchell-Kernan, and the stylin out
suggested by Holt (Caponi-Tabery, 1999).
3 For further discussion on cultural capital by people of low income and people of color see

Miller and Sperry (2012) and Yosso (2005).

AUTO-TUNE AND THE ETHICS OF HUMOR 11


But, how is Auto-Tune different with other types of satire? As suggested by the Torress
findings in the case of graphic reporters in Guatemala, the choice of political narrative was also
influenced by a multiplicity of factors including personal predilections, professional interests,
and political affiliations (among other editorial influences) (Torres, 2014, p. 20). Similarly, we
have to understand that graphic media, and in this case audio media as well, implies a narrative.
Since images and audio are iconic codes, they are not the real object that they represent. As they
share some characteristics with the object represented, however, they are easily naturalized and
thus they can be interpreted as being the real object, in this case an impartial account of reality
(Hall, 1980).
Because it is hard to recognize the ideological narrative behind the remix, it is easy to
disengage from the stereotypes in circulation, and to uncritically consume the narrative (the
catchy tune also helps to the perception of impartiality). The narrative is constituted by the
repetition and or exaggeration of specific phrases, the visual context, the context of the mediator
(the news report), which allows for the incongruity to take effect, and so on. All of the
highlighted elements build up the stereotype from which we are disengaged, allowing ourselves
to be uncritical with it and to disregard potential assets.

AUTO-TUNE AND THE ETHICS OF HUMOR 12

References
2000guineas. (2012, September 23). Nick Clegg responds to "Apology" auto tune remix of his
song. Retrieved from Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDrFi5QWnlI
Adorno, T., & Horkheimer, M. (1944). Culture industry: Enlightenment as mass deception. In
Adorno.T, & M. Horkheimer, Dialectic of enlightenment (E. Jephcott, Trans., pp. 94
136). Standford: Standford University Press.
Baudrillard, J. (1995). Simulacra and Simulation. (S. F. Glaser, Trans.) Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.
Caponi-Tabery, G. (Ed.). (1999). Signifyin(g), sanctifyib', & slam dunking: A reader in African
American expressive culture. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
Crazy Laugh Action. (2012, April 11). Antoine Dodson Funny News Blooper (Original).
Retrieved from Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzNhaLUT520
Debord, G. (1970). Society of the spectacle. Detroit: Black & Red.
Degele, N. (1997). Appropriation of technology as a creative process. Creativity and Innovation
Management, 6(2), 8993. doi:10.1111/1467-8691.00054
Dickinson, K. (2004). Believe': voccoders, digital femae identity and camp. In A. B. S. Whiteley
(Ed.), Music, space and place: popular music and cultural identity (pp. 163179).
Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.
Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/decoding. In S. Hall, Culture, media, language: Working papers in
cultural studies, 1972-79. London: University of Birmingham.
Kim, B. (Ed.). (2015). Auto-Tune - Know Your Meme: Autotune feat. Weird Al Yankovic.
Retrieved from Know Your Meme: http://knowyourmeme.com/videos/46650-auto-tune

AUTO-TUNE AND THE ETHICS OF HUMOR 13


McGowan, M. (2012). Auto-Tune's effect on musicians, genres, and culture (Thesis ed.). Otawa,
Ontario, Canada: Carleton University.
Miller, P., & Sperry, D. E. (2012). Dj vu: The continuing misrecognition of low income
children's verbal abilities. In S. T. Fiske, & H. R. Markus, Facing social class: How
societal rank influences interacton (pp. 109-130). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Mole, N. (2013). Trusted puppets, tarnished politicians: humor and cynicism in Berlusconi's
Italy. American Ethnologist, 40(2), 288289.
Morreall, J. (2009). Comic relief: a comprehensive philosophy of humor. Chichester, U.K.:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Reverend Charles E. Williams II. (2013, October 5). I Am Charles Ramsey and Sweet Brown:
"You Do What You Have To Do" and "Aint Nobody Got Time For Dat.". Retrieved from
The Huffington Post: Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/reverend-charles-ewilliams-iii/i-am-charles-ramsey-and-s_b_3248502.html
Rojek, C. (2011). Technology and Media. In C. Rojec, Pop music, pop culture (pp. 175205).
Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press.
schmoyoho. (2013, February 7). smash, Smash, SMASH! (now on iTunes). Retrieved from
Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDQTvuP1Dgs
Sperry, L. L., & Sperry, D. E. (1996). Early development of narrative skills. Cognitive
Development, 11(3), 443465.
Sperry, L. L., & Sperry, D. E. (2000). Verbal and nonverbal contributions to early representation:
evidence from African American Toddlers. In I. U. N. Budwig (Ed.), Communication: an
arena of development (pp. 143167). Northwood, NJ: Ablex.

AUTO-TUNE AND THE ETHICS OF HUMOR 14


The Poke. (2012, September 19). The Nick Clegg Apology Song: I'm Sorry (The Autotune
Remix). Retrieved from Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUDjRZ30SNo
theparodyfactory1. (2012, April 13). Sweet Brown - Ain't Nobody Got Time for That (Autotune
Remix). Retrieved 2015, from Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=bFEoMO0pc7k
Torres, G. M. (2014). Art and labor in the framing of Guatemala's dead. Anthropology of Work
Review, 35(1), 1424.
Toynbee, J. (2002). Mainstreaming, from hegemonic centre to global networks. In D. H. Negus
(Ed.), Popular music studies (pp. 149163). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Welner, K. G., & Carter, P. (2013). Achievement gaps arise from opportunity gaps. In P. Carter,
& K. G. and Welner, Closing the opportunity gap (pp. 1-10). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Wilding, W. (2012, May 2). Sweet Brown - Original Report and Autotune Remix.mp4. Retrieved
from Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh7UgAprdpM
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community
cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), pp. 6991.

S-ar putea să vă placă și