Not P but DFW: Richterish-looking sound wave

[Mike Jing]

I'm not blaming anybody, and I'm not accusing you of anything. I was just
describing what I had encountered and how I felt about it.  It's perfectly
OK if we can't come to an agreement, and like always, I freely admit that I
could be wrong. Again, I wasn't trying to attack anyone and didn't mean to
offend. If I inadvertently offended anybody, I do apologize and hope no
real damage has been done.

On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 9:57 PM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:

> MIke JIng:  Bad waveform, so to joke, Mike:  ""while almost everyones
> refuses to even entertain that possibility."
>
> I will speak not only for myself but for the other pleisters, esp those
> who did respond to you.
>
> I do not like being accused of something I don't believe I deserve. I did
> take tit seriously, hence wasted my time---but
> nothing is ever wasted---researching it all....I found his works were
> called Rickterish but also the more usual...I looked up his paintings...
>
> Like all of us in general, you think you've got something right and it is
> difficult to feel others don't see it that way.....Stand tall and srop
> blaming others...
>
> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>