Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T08:27:55.774Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Transgressive Sound Surrogacy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2011

Michael Pedersen
Michael Pedersen*
Affiliation:
Jeagersborggade 48 st.th., 2200 Copenhagen N, Denmark
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This four-part exposition revisits Denis Smalley's concept of sound surrogacy from a critical constructive approach. In the first part, Smalley's article from 1997 serves as a point of origin for a close investigation of his concept. We examine the precise definitions and demarcations in his concepts and we attempt to systematise the model. In the second part of the investigation we attempt to solve some of the problems in Smalley's model by suggesting a new surrogacy model originating in Smalley's idea, but with a more formal structure and obvious demarcations. Having presented this new surrogacy model, with references to Georges Bataille's theories on base materialism as well as anthropological studies, we attempt to create a new order of surrogacy that in its object relation is positioned beneath Smalley's first-order surrogacy (as the remote surrogacy order is placed above the third-order surrogacy) – an impossible/paradoxical category that will be termed transgressive sound surrogacy. In the fourth part we demonstrate this new surrogacy order in a series of examples found in art and culture.

Type
Articles
Information
Organised Sound , Volume 16 , Issue 1: Denis Smalley: his influence on the theory and practice of electroacoustic music , April 2011 , pp. 27 - 35
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bataille, Georges. 1985. Visions of Excess, Selected Writings, 1927–1939, ed. and trans. Allan Stoekl, with Carl R. Lovitt and Donald M. Leslie, Jr. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Christensen, Erik. 1996. The Musical Timespace. Aalborg: Aalborg University Press.Google Scholar
Danielewski, Mark Z. 2000. House of Leaves. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Douglas, Mary. 1966. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Leach, Edmund. 2000. The Essential Edmund Leach, ed. Stephen Hugh-Jones and James Laidlaw. Vol. II. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Rudolph, Kurt. 1987. Gnosis: The Nature and Structure of Gnosticism, trans. and ed. Robert McLachlan Wilson. San Francisco: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Smalley, Denis. 1986. Spectromorphology and Structuring Processes. In Simon Emmerson (ed.) The Language of Electroacoustic Music. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Smalley, Denis. 1992. The Listening Imagination: Listening in the Electroacoustic Era. In Companion to Contemporary Musical Thought. London and New York: Routledge. Reprinted in Contemporary Music Review 13/2 (1996).Google Scholar
Smalley, Denis. 1997. Spectromorphology: Explaining Sound-Shapes. Organised Sound 20(2).Google Scholar