Dear earminded,

I thought I'd pass on Peter Cusak's comments (& my responses) to the WFAE
and UKISC lists in the hope it might spark further discussion. Peter writes:

>  May I add my thanks to all those involved with SOUNDSCAPE. I
> enjoyed reading it very much. As a way of finding out what others in this
> scattered field are thinking and doing it is very valuable. I always
> appreciate project reports and  news from across the globe. Good to see the
> tradition of the  Soundscape Newsletters continued in this respect.
>
> So to some thoughts on reading it:
>
> Gernot Bohme's writing was quite new to me. (Are there any web
> adresses where his other articles can be read?) I found 'Acoustic
> Atmospheres' very stimulating and original. So much so that it crystalised
> some of the doubts that I've felt about the soundcape scene in recent times
> to the point that I'm writing now. My concern is less to do with what is
> said than with what isn't.
>
> Where is all the critical debate, lively disagreement, alternative
> thoery, polemic even, which one could expect if ideas are moving forward
> and breaking new ground? Am I alone in missing this? The basic tenets of
> soundscape thought, ground breaking as they were in the 70s, seem these
> days to be more often repeated than refined. This does concern me. Maybe
> I'm guilty of liking change for change's sake and that the basic ideas are
> fine 25 years on. But are they?

I agree that there is not enough critical debate occurring within the AE
community. I know that this was one of the reasons why the WFAE editorial
board decided to invite authors like Bohme to comment on AE from their own
specialist perspectives, in the hope that it might further debate. (And it
has worked :-) I think that one of the reasons for this lack of critical
debate that Peter mentions is because AE hasn't really spread much further
than the Schaferian tree - if I can call it that [and I include myself here,
somewhere in this tree, albeit uncomfortably perched on an outermost
branch!]. One of the main reasons for this is that Schafer's philosophy as
set out in 'Tuning of the World' is overly aesthetical, musicolological,
(I've called it 'phonocentric', others 'sonic imperialism' even) to the
extent that it does not properly address the social, cultural, political and
ecomonomic issues at the root of our sonic surroundings. Schafer's 'Tuning'
sits awkwardly, if at all, with these sciences and appears grandiose, naive
and impracticable. (I always think of it as analogous to wanting to change
the sound of an instrument without changing the design or construction of
the instrument itself).

Schafer's opinions today do not seem to have evolved. Is he content to
cocoon himself in the ideology he set out some 25 years ago? Whatever, the
AE community at large hinders itself by the lack of any current AE criticism
or polemic (as Peter points out). Schafer and 'Acoustic Ecology' are still,
unfortunately, somewhat synonomous. I feel that this is changing however and
different modes of thinking and practice are emerging. Critical voices are
being heard now. But here I don't want to discredit Schafer's work, which
has certainly given purpose to, and engendered the current work of, other
researchers and practioners who are further questioning and refining
Soundscape Studies.  Furthermore, such is the multi-diciplinary scope of the
Soundscape research that I'm sure that much work relating to the sonic
environment is being carried out people who have never heard of Murray
Schafer - and that it isn't termed 'Acoustic Ecology' or 'Soundscape' for
that matter. This is the type of work that one more likely to learn about
and exchange through the WFAE and its Journal, as its grows more independent
of its Scaferian roots.

> 1) Should we really try to hear the acoustic environment as a musical
> composition when it clearly isn't? (free improvisation would be a more
> accurate musical analogy if one is needed). Can the acoustic environment be
> listened to with the same criteria as one listen to music? What are these
> criteria anyway?

I think that trying to hear the acoustic environment as a musical
composition may help some people to listen more attentively than they
otherwise would. It aims to situate the individual as someone who is
responsible for the soundscape - a 'composer'. But this is incredibly over
simplistic: the question is not a musical or acoustical one, it's really a
socio-politcal one: I might be responsible (have control) over my domestic
sonic situation to an extent (like how loud I play music), but the main
factors determining the affects on my immediate soundscape are outside of my
control and governed by a small but powerful group of Politicians /
Economists / Industrialists.

My experience is that listening to the acoustic environment as a musical
composition is fine for those already aware of 20c. avante-garde,
experimental music with its appropriation of envirnomental sound - but the
general public, understandably,find this approach difficult and can't
see/hear the reason for it. Another difficulty I have is that it tends to
abstract the soundscape from its source. ie. the sonic environment is heard
in terms of rhythms, timbres, motifs (is aestheticised) and the processes
that caused the sound, it's ecological context if you like, is lost. I think
there are other ways to encourage people to listen to the sonic environment
outside of music per se, as a part of ones social, cultural and natural
heritage, hearing it as as indicator of changing community values.

> 2) Is the hifi/lowfi duality really adequate? For me there are many
> problems here. I find it:
>
>  a) too static  - taking no account of the fluidity and ever
> changing nature of soundscapes. Even cityscapes, often cited as low fi,
> have plenty of hifi periods and even more varying somewhere in the middle.
>
>  b) mechanistic - dealing only with amounts and types of sound not
> with what people actually like or dislike - a more important consideration.
>
>  c) comes with the inbuilt moral assumption that low = bad and
> hi = good. How many people agree with this assumption?

I agree with all of these Peter and I think that, again, these problems come
from Schafer's phonocentric approach which isn't well placed to deal with
cultural differences, ethical considerations, or subjective likes and
dislikes. Not that we can expect one person, Schafer or anyone else, to
provide the perfect blueprint.

> Personally I like a good lowfi cacophony, eg the London Underground
> which is very rich in its sonic detail. I do  not mind that my aural space
> is reduced. Often this brings about an increase in imaginative space.
> Incidentally the new Jubilee line trains which are smoother and quieter,
> are not an improvement to me in this respect.

I can identify with that too. But then you are aestheticising the sonic
environment - it becomes interesting to you (and me) because of it's
particular detail - we've abstracted it. The crux of the matter is, if you
are negatively affected by the sound (consciously or not), you have got no
choice but to be subjected to it. I would suggest that there is a Tube train
which ran just for people who like to ride it because of it's 'noise' :-)
Again, it comes down to people being able to exercise some kind of control
or choice over their sonic environment. The only option of 'control' being a
defensive one, to wear a personal stereo which as we know creates other
problems - more localised questions of sonic space. Here the individual can
take some responsibility by wearing enclosed headphones at sensible levels.

> For the past 2 years I've been asking Londoners what their
> favourite London sound is. This is not systematic research, just a straw
> poll for my own curiosity. I now have a couple of hundred replies. The most
> popular sounds are London transport sounds, mostly the underground. A close
> second are of the quiet spaces, parks, greens etc. A  popular favourite
> amongst students is the sound of the bass coming through the doors as they
> queue to get into a club - a sound of anticipation. There are a few whose
> favourite sound is the traffic, particularly as it roars away when the
> lights go green. Others have said they have left the city because they
> cannot stand the noise levels. Can we really make such sweeping assumptions
> about people's likes and dislikes?

No we can't. But maybe there is just as much assumptions made in asking such
questions: I think the question of 'favourite' sounds, and this is true for
designating 'soundmarks' to some extent too, is that people in general
aren't aware of the sounds around them 24 hrs a day so their response is
limited to a few favourite experiences or cliches with which they
*associate* a sound. Neither do these individual responses really take into
account the effect of these sounds upon others and the wider issues
underlying the question. I think it's fine if you wanted to make a CD of
'favourte London Sounds' but not the responses one on which to propose
change. And then again, these transport sounds in London predominate anyway,
it is not as if there is much of a diversity from which to choose one's
'favourite' sounds.


> 'Acoustic Atmospheres' excited me particular in that it draws some
> of the above strands together in a quite different and subtle way. It
> appears to have more to reveal about city acoustic environments and is very
> intreging about the relationship between music and the soundscape. More
> please.


Hear, hear.




Gregg Wagstaff

--

UK & Ireland Soundscape Community - (UKISC):
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/soundscapeuk/welcome.html

Touring Exhibition of Sound Environments - (TESE):
http://www.earminded.org.uk/tese

Acoustic Environments in Change (AEC):
http://www.6villages.tpu.fi/

UKISC representative to the WFAE -
World Forum of Acoustic Ecology
http://interact.uoregon.edu/MediaLit/WFAEHomePage


t: +44 (0)1337 841088
e: [log in to unmask]

--





%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%