No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Swamp, Sound, Sign: Reflections on interspecies difference in compositional practice
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 November 2020
Abstract
Soundscape composition and environmental sound art already imply critiques and negotiations of nature/culture divide and human/non-human difference. This article, along with the composition it frames, thinks through a vision of environmental sound art that completes a link between sonic practice and its object. As a project, it navigates human/animal difference through a sonic knowing which is founded on life’s shared constitution in signs. Sounds beyond spoken words, like the signs that dominate non-human life, are foundationally non-symbolic, and the ability of environmental sound art to resemble and evoke networks of icons and indices is in some respects a privileged position of electroacoustic music. The article presents a non-dualistic sonic thinking within the decentred perspective of the environment, which emerges as a plural product of its engagements and participants. A vision for soundscape composition is presented, along with a frame for its interpretation as sonic thought, or phonosophy.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- © Cambridge University Press, 2020.
References
REFERENCES
Aihara, I. 2009. Modeling Synchronized Calling Behavior of Japanese Tree Frogs. Physical Review E 80: 011918.10.1103/PhysRevE.80.011918CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aihara, I., Mizumoto, T., Otsuka, T. Awano, H.,
Nagira, K., Okuno, H. G. and Aikara, K. 2015. Spatio-Temporal Dynamics in Collective Frog Choruses Examined by Mathematical Modeling and Field Observations. Scientific Reports 4: 3891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coles, B. and Coles, J. 1989. People of the Wetlands: Bogs, Bodies and Lake-dwellers. New York: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Deleuze, G. 1994. Difference and Repetition, trans P. Patton. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
DeLuca, E. 2018. Selling Nature to Save It: Approaching Self-critical Environmental Sonic Art. Organised Sound 23
(1): 71–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derrida, J. 2008. The Animal That Therefore I Am, trans. D. Wills. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
Dunn, D. 2008. The Sound of Light in Trees: The Acoustic Ecology of Pinyon Pines. www.aeinews.org/aeiarchive/dunn/solitsounds.html (accessed 5 January 2020).Google Scholar
Feld, S. 2001. The Sound World of Bosavi. https://aeinews.org/aeiarchive/edu/educurrbosavi.html (accessed 15 March 2020).Google Scholar
Feld, S. 1994. From Ethnomusicology to Echo-Muse-Ecology: Reading R. Murray Schafer in the Papua New Guinea Rainforest. https://aeinews.org/aeiarchive/writings/echomuseecology.html (accessed 10 March 2020).Google Scholar
Feld, S. 2015. Acoustemology. In Novak, D. (ed.) Keywords in Sound. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 12–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gayou, E. 2002. Mots de l’immédiat, entretien de Bernard Parmegiani avec Elisabeth Gayou. In Gayou, E. (ed.) Bernard Parmegiani: Portraits Polychrome. Paris: CDMC, INA-GRM, 17–38.Google Scholar
Hirst, D. 2004. An Analytical Methodology for Acousmatic Music. Proceedings of the 2004 International Conference on Music Information Retrieval. Barcelona, Spain: ISMIR, 10–14.Google Scholar
Hirst, D. 2006. The Development of a Cognitive Framework for the Analysis of Acousmatic Music. PhD dissertation, University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
Kohn, E. 2013. How Forests Think: Towards an Anthropology Beyond the Human. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, B. 1993. We Have Never Been Modern, trans. C. Porter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mundy, R. 2018. Animal Musicalities: Birds, Beasts, and Evolutionary Listening. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
Nagel, T. 1973. What Is It Like to Be a Bat? Philosophical Review 83
(4): 435–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roads, C. 2015. Composing Electronic Music: A New Aesthetic. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smalley, D. 1997. Spectromorphology: Explaining Sound-shapes. Organised Sound 2
(2): 107–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smalley, D. 2007. Space-form and the Acousmatic Image. Organised Sound 12
(1): 35–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strogatz, S. and Stewart, I. 1993. Coupled Oscillators and Biological Systems. Scientific American 269
(6): 102–9.10.1038/scientificamerican1293-102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tobin, D. 1999. Passage to the Center: Imagination and the Sacred in the Poetry of Seamus Heaney. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press.Google Scholar
Truax, B. 2002. Genres and techniques of soundscape composition as developed at Simon Fraser University. Organised Sound 7
(1): 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsing, A. 2015. The Mushroom at the End of the World: On the Possibility of Life in Capitalist Ruins. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Westerkamp, H. 2002. Linking Soundscape Composition and Acoustic Ecology. Organised Sound 7
(1): 51–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winderen, J. 2017. Rats – Secret Soundscapes of the City. www.janawinderen.com/exhibitions/rats_secret_soundscapes_of_the_1.html (accessed 30 March 2020).Google Scholar
Wishart, T. 1996. On Sonic Art, ed. Emmerson, S.. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DISCOGRAPHY
Bogert, C. 1958. Mixed Chorus. On Sounds of North American Frogs. Washington DC: Smithsonian Folkways Recordings, SF-45060-CD.Google Scholar
Westerkamp, H. 1996. Beneath the Forest Floor. On Transformations. Montreal: Empreintes DIGITALes, IMED-9631.Google Scholar
Winderen, J. 2019. Discography. https://janawinderen.bandcamp.com/ (accessed 10 March 2020).Google Scholar
Wishart, T. 2000. Red Bird. On Red Bird /Anticredos. Albany, NY: Electronic Music Foundation, EMF-CD-022.Google Scholar
Bertrand Supplementary Materials
Bertrand Supplementary Materials
Audio
75.2 MB