Aurelio Porfiri’s Paper Proposal

THE VOICE AND THE BRAIN How Frank Sinatra appeals the listening brain


Co-author(s): Astri Soemantri

In the past century, Frank Sinatra (1915-1998) was one of the most famous entertainers in USA and we may say, in the whole world. His career as an actor and performer had brought him to a huge success and still enduring until today. But only few people have tried to understand the fascination from his voice on our listening brains. Why does his voice appeal so much to us? What makes his voice so appealing to our listening apparatus? This is a very interesting point to be considered. Indeed the success of Sinatra has to do with his ability to play with our brains, knowing how to create and fulfill expectations (Huron 2008) and how to engage an interesting play with our brains. Being so successful and so appealing to audience of every age, it is interesting to investigate how Sinatra can reach this iconic status but, for the purpose of our paper, how our listening mechanism reacts to Sinatra’s singing. Being this only a short introduction to this topic, an attempt to suggest ways to interpret this phenomenon, we will concentrate on one specific song “All the Way”, one of the biggest successes of Sinatra. We will compare his performance with the performance of other successful singers (Celine Dion, Harry Connick Jr.) to understand how these performances are different from each other and what it means for our listening apparatus.

REFERENCES

– Huron David (2008). Sweet Anticipation: Music and the Psychology of Expectation. Cambridge (MA), USA: The MIT Press

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

6 Responses to Aurelio Porfiri’s Paper Proposal

  1. Thomas Fischer says:

    I am not sure if we share a listening apparatus. What we share more likely is having received generous doses of Sinatra’s singing. May that be more important?

  2. Paulineo says:

    What is a “listening mechanism”? Do we all have one?

    Great subject!

    Just not sure about “listening mechanism” or “listening apparatus”.

    Maybe ears are mechanisms of sorts or an apparatus? In my understanding listening takes place in the brain through neuronal connections, develops and evolves through experiences and memory.

  3. Johann van der Merwe says:

    I strongly believe that the “listening apparatus” is the cybernetic conversation itself, and not (even) the participants, particularly.

    Consequently “listening” happens “in the air between us” (my self-same description of consciousness).

    “Us” can be two people (minimal), or a person (observing system) and any object/subject that is (represents) the not-self.

  4. Randall Whitaker says:

    Sinatra is often cited as the singer who popularized personal styling (as contrasted with simply singing a song ‘as is’). Could his success have more to do with his vocal tactics (intonations; syncopations; verbal glosses; etc.) than his voice per se?

  5. Ranulph Glanville says:

    First, let me say that I really don’t like Sinatra, I don’t like his singing, his laziness and so on. So I’m not one of “our” people!

    I agree with the general tone of the other comments, suggesting it’s not the ear and its acoustic mechanical elements that let us listen and hear, it’s the whole business, the brain, the way we have learnt to understand (no doubt that’s why I don’t like Sinatra), and the connection between performer and audience (which is a circularity).

    I’m suspicious of any linear, cause and effect explanation wherever sentience is involved.

    So, I’m suspicious. But I’ll listen with interest to what you write in response and to what you have to say and play!

    How nice to see so many comments.

  6. Bob Helland says:

    Aurelio:

    I regard Frank Sinatra more as a cultural phenomenon than a musical phenomenon. While I agree with Randall (and Ranulph in regards to taste and linearity), I take it one step further as not only had he introduced his unique style of singing, but that vocal technique was complemented by an image of “class” and “swagger” projected into films and tabloids and into peoples’ brains that way. He was listened to not only by ears, but eyes and celebrity fantasy.

    I consider if Frank Sinatra was paralyzed, and recorded his singing of all songs in his catalog from a hospital bed, same voice and vocal styling, I doubt the “Chairman” would have ever made it to so far as to be a “board member”. (I realize this is a somewhat extreme example, and I mean no insensitivity to persons with paralysis in saying so.) In other words, without “Nathan Detroit”, Frank Sinatra may well have become just another “Guy”. Furthermore, his colleagues added to his popularity; without the “Pack” he may have just been another “Rat”.

    “Ol’ Blue Eyes” was a progenitor of some of the earliest cross-over singer/film star types that eventually include the likes of Elvis and Dolly Parton, as well as your example of Harry Connick Jr. Even Celine Dion probably peaked as a vocalist as a result of being tied to one of the highest grossing films of all time, which turned out to be a sinking ship (Titanic, #2). Their looks, body movements, emotional expression, style of dress, and life-decisions are, I feel, a greater part of our fascination with them as are there singing voices. Perhaps this is the direction your proposal goes in introducing the “package” that is Frank Sinatra to which we listen, as opposed to the voice we hear?

    Now the mediums of film and music have merged into a new medium of music video (thereby “killing the radio star”) and we may never know the fascination a quality singing voice may have as a sole instigator of brain chemistry and wirings, but I am sure there are experiments that can be designed to measure the entanglement of this kind of versatile performer. Thoughts? I’m curious what this will bring.

    ~BH

    (PS I like faceless opera singers myself, so I suppose they’re not all dead… and I now repose myself from making any more obligatory puns!)

Leave a Reply