Not P but DFW: Richterish-looking sound wave

Thu Feb 19 13:25:48 UTC 2026

I was right that I couldn't persuade you...the key argument is Richter's
work does not define itself in one way like the Richter scale does
and Wallace would not use Richterish for any one or style within all his
work,..,,IMO

On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 1:14 AM Mike Jing <gravitys.rainbow.cn at gmail.com>
wrote:

> First of all, I would like to point out that the word "bits" used here has
> nothing to do with anything digital, but simply refers to different parts
> of the picture (and parts of the audio that they represent)  that can be
> manipulated in the audio editing software. It definitely has nothing
> whatsoever to do with seismographs, digital or otherwise.
>
> Secondly, here are some examples where the word "Richterish" is used to
> refer to the art style of Gerhard Richter, one is a newspaper article dated
> 2004, so the word had already been in use in the media back then:
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2004/mar/30/1
> https://www.jeffmidghall.com/printmaking
> https://www.frieze.com/article/albert-oehlen
>
> Now, to summarize, the case against Gerhard Richter the painter being the
> Richter referred to here is basically:
> (1) nobody has heard of him outside a small circle of art enthusiasts,
> (2) none of his paintings looks particularly like sound waves.
>
> I have already addressed (1), but obviously you disagree, and not much
> more can be said in that regard.
>
> As for (2), since we don't know exactly what kind of picture Wallace saw,
> it's difficult to know for sure whether it looks anything like a Gerhard
> Richter painting or not.
>
> On the other hand, the case for Charles Richter the seismologist is almost
> the exact opposite:
> (1) everybody knows about the Richter scale, at least the name,
> (2) waveform display in typical audio editing software looks very similar
> to seismograms,
> (3) since the Richter scale is derived using seismograms, voila,
> "Richterish-looking" must be referring to the general look of seismograms.
>
> To me, (3) is where this line of reasoning breaks down: the connection
> between seismograms and the Richter scale, though close, is insufficient to
> warrant the use of the word "Richterish" to describe a seismogram. Like I
> said, this is more of a gut feeling of mine than anything else, and I'm
> very surprised to find out that it's a feeling almost no one shared. So
> far, I have only found one person who thinks Gerhard Richter is the one
> referenced here, while almost everyones refuses to even entertain that
> possibility. To them, it's completely sufficient that audio waveforms look
> like seismograms and seismograms are related to the Richter scale and
> that's the most famous Richter they know. I find it rather astonishing that
> no one shared the same uneasy feeling I had about this usage.
>
> In any case, if neither side can be persuaded, we'll just have to agree to
> disagree.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2026 at 11:52 PM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The usual word is Richteresque, I learn.    [like Kafkaesque, Daliesque,
>> Pynchonesque]    But Richterish is used...
>>
>> from Google:  However, there is a slight "clash of definitions" here
>> because Richter’s style is actually the opposite of a shaky seismogram.
>>
>> And look at some of Richter's paintings, a whole lot---most?---are not
>> like sound waves AT ALL....so where would Richterish-looking sound waves
>> even  come from?...one usually doesn't usesome part of an artist's work to
>> generalize even loosely about...
>>
>> "individual bits"?    Who talks about a whole Gestalt artwork that way?
>>
>> Google definition: The only time you’d hear about "bits" in this context
>> is if you are talking about *digital seismographs*.
>>
>> Nobody knows anything about Richter but the scale that is part of the
>> phrase. Almost no one knows about the artist then, no matter that he was
>> 'hot'  then and Wallace would NOT use it like that in a magazine for smart
>> general readers...I argue.....and an editor would not let him IF he would
>> follow the editor.....(and they do for the best magazines although not
>> necessarily for books...)
>>
>>
>> Visualizing Sound Waves
>>
>> When you look at your screen while editing, you aren't just seeing
>> "noise"; you're seeing a mathematical representation of air pressure over
>> time.
>> 1. The Waveform (Time Domain)
>>
>> This is the standard view you see in almost every editor. It shows the
>> *amplitude* (loudness) on the vertical axis and *time*on the horizontal
>> axis.
>>
>>    -
>>
>>    *Sine Waves:* The simplest form of sound—a smooth, repetitive
>>    oscillation. It sounds like a pure, clear whistle or a tuning fork.
>>
>>    -
>>
>>    *Square/Sawtooth Waves:* Common in synthesizers; these look "jagged"
>>    or blocky and sound buzzy or harsh because they contain more harmonics.
>>    -
>>
>>    *Complex Waves:* This is what human speech or music looks like—a
>>    messy, organic-looking forest of peaks and valleys.
>>
>> 2. The Spectrogram (Frequency Domain)
>>
>> Some high-end software (like iZotope RX) allows you to see a
>> *spectrogram*. Instead of just seeing how loud a sound is, you see which
>> *frequencies* are present.
>>
>>
>>    -
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 12:03 PM Mike Jing <gravitys.rainbow.cn at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Upon further reflection, I'm all but convinced that Gerhard Richter is
>>> indeed the intended reference here. What's being talked about here is a
>>> picture or waveform of a soundwave, showing its amplitude vs. time,
>>> displayed on a computer screen by audio editing software. Although it looks
>>> very similar to a seismogram, I find it odd to describe it as
>>> "Richterish-looking", because although a seismogram is closely related to
>>> the Richter scale and thus to its namesake and co-creator Charles Richter
>>> the seismologist, it's not quite the same as the relation between an artist
>>> and his work. For one, the seismograph/gram was not actually invented by
>>> him, nor does it hear his name. This is where I think the use of
>>> the name-derived adjective breaks down. It's far more likely the
>>> "Richterish" here actually refers to an artist, in this case a painter, due
>>> to the visual nature of the comparison. In fact, a google search of
>>> "Richterish" yields several results that refer to Gerhard Richter the
>>> painter.
>>>
>>> Furthermore, Gerhardt Richter had a good deal of play in the early
>>> 2000s, and many in art circles raved about his work. A writer like Wallace
>>> was likely exposed to his work. And this particular essay was published in
>>> the *Atlantic Monthly*, whose readership may very well be more
>>> knowledgeable in such matters than the general public. So it's not out of
>>> the realm of possibility. Actually, I think it's quite probable, for the
>>> reasons given above.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Feb 14, 2026 at 2:07 PM Mike Jing <gravitys.rainbow.cn at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> That's what I went with originally, and I was going to reject the
>>>> suggestion out of hand due to the simple fact that I've never heard of the
>>>> artist or his work. Then I looked him up and it turns out he is sort of an
>>>> important figure in contemporary art, so I thought I'd better ask in case
>>>> it was my own personal ignorance.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for replying, Mark.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 2:54 AM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It refers to the Richter scale....jagged sometimes earthquake-like
>>>>> size....
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 1:18 PM Mike Jing <
>>>>> gravitys.rainbow.cn at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The following excerpt is from David Foster Wallace's *Host*:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NexGen (a Clear Channel product) displays a Richterish-looking sound
>>>>>> wave,
>>>>>> of which all different sizes of individual bits can be highlighted and
>>>>>> erased in order to tighten the pacing and compress the sound bite.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was suggested by a proofreader that the Richter here refers to
>>>>>> Gerhard
>>>>>> Richter, a German painter, and the picture of the sound wave
>>>>>> displayed by
>>>>>> the NexGen software looks like some of his abstract paintings. I've
>>>>>> never
>>>>>> heard of the artist before but it does sound plausible, and the word
>>>>>> "Richterish" is similar to "Picassoesque". Does anyone care to
>>>>>> confirm or
>>>>>> refute this?
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>>>>>>
>>>>>