Source Association

A fundamental distinction between electroacoustic music and purely instrumental music is the potential to incorporate the sounds of real-world phenomena. Acousmatic musical works can feature sounds heard in ‘everyday’

situations that are not traditionally considered the property of musical exploration. The inclusion of such material brings with it the possibility of source recognition, which may be accompanied by various associations with real-world experience. ¹⁹ This will influence the perception of that sound’s identity, and these associations may have a significant effect on the interpretation of the work. Furthermore,

spectromorphologically inclined identities are not necessarily devoid of source association, and may well exhibit hints of a possible origin.

Windsor observes that, in terms of ecological acoustics, sounds provide

organisms with information that can be used to locate and interact with food sources, predators and members of its own species. Sounds “are seen as providing unmediated contact between listeners and significant environmental occurrences” (Windsor 2000, 10). Emmerson has suggested that the connection of sounds to possible sources is an instinctual listening behaviour, and has devised the concept of the Darwinian Ear (1998,

18 Spectromorphology addresses issues including gesture and texture, expectation, structural levels, structural functions, motion and growth process, behaviour, spectra, and space and spatiomorphology. These concepts will be defined and referred to when relevant in the forthcoming discussion.

19 The various memory processes discussed in 1.3.2 form the basis of recognition, which can be described as “the automatic activation of some particular contents of long-term memory that have some relation or association with current perception” (Snyder 2000, 10).

136). He proposes that the evolution of human survival processes has conditioned our listening response to describe and interpret sound events in a single activity. When a sounding system has energy applied to it, as well as perceiving the sonic event our listening process tries to discern the nature of the activity causing that sound, asking questions at a subconscious level: what materials, what shape and size, how set going, where and why (Emmerson 1998, 136). Assuming this is the case, attempts to connect sound materials to real world experiences are likely during acousmatic listening.

Smalley’s concept of source bonding highlights “the natural tendency to relate sounds to supposed sources and causes, and to relate sounds to each other because they appear to have shared or associated origins” (1997, 110). Such bonding will influence the perception of a sound’s identity and its musical significance. Indeed, listening responses focused on the presumed sound source may be unavoidable, and this must be considered in both analytical and compositional practices based on recurrent sound identities.

Definitions of ‘source’ and ‘cause’ deserve clarification at this point. Young refers to the source as “the actual vibrating physical entity” and to the cause as “the means by which the sound is initiated . . . (application of some form of energy to the source)”

(1996, 75). Ten Hoopen’s definitions are also useful:

By source I mean “the origin from which the acoustic signals can be created”. By cause I refer to “a force whether this is a person, animal or natural phenomenon that

occasions something, actively or passively or that intervenes in an already ongoing sounding flow (Ten Hoopen 1996, 29).

The definitions of both authors make similar distinctions between the sounding

‘thing’ and the activity or force that occasions the sound, and both notions of cause accommodate, without being restricted to, physical human gesture. Ten Hoopen rightly states that in some cases the distinction between source and cause is not useful, particularly for environmental phenomena such as the sea. Attributing the cause of

‘wave’ sounds to wind and gravity is ”abstruse,” she suggests, since “there is an

identity in this case between the source and the cause in the creation of the sonorous effect” (Ten Hoopen 1996, 29).

Imagination becomes a significant factor in the apprehension of sound sources.

Wishart defines the ‘landscape’ of an electroacoustic work as “the source from which we imagine the sounds to come” (Wishart 1986, 43). ²⁰ Similarly, Ten Hoopen suggests

“that a source in electroacoustic music should be defined as what the listener may deduce from the sounding flow—an apparent source rather than an actual source”

(1996, 29). Both views suggest that a source is what the listener perceives and imagines it to be, whether or not the sound material actually originates from that perceived entity. ²¹

Apparent source–cause connections may facilitate the easier apprehension and categorisation of the sound identities experienced within a work. The degree to which a sound is lodged in memory will depend, in part, on (i) the strength of any

perceivable source–cause relationship and/or (ii) the extent to which that sound can be related to some previously experienced archetype or schema, to use Bregman’s

terminology (see 1.6.1 above). As the individual’s mental library of sound archetypes increases, the categorisation and retention in memory of a greater variety of sound materials becomes more feasible.

Naturally, source associations may stimulate connections that markedly

influence how the identity is regarded due to, for example, its cultural, geographical, or subjective significances. Ferreira proposes the categories of symbolism and ontological meanings when considering identity and the imagery evoked by sound entities (1997,

20 The term ‘landscape’ covers the “various characteristics of the sound experience related to our recognition of the source of the sounds” (Wishart 1986, 42), e.g. for Wishart the landscape of Tchaikovsky’s Manfred symphony is “musicians-playing-instruments” (1986, 42).

21 Although Ten Hoopen and Wishart refer to ‘electroacoustic music’ in the quoted texts, the respective discussions indicate specifically acousmatic listening contexts i.e. “hearing sounds with no visible cause on the radio, records, telephone, tape recorder etc.” (Chion 1983b, 11).

(Translation: John Dack and Christine North.)

99). ²² Symbolism “is proposed as a level of archetypal imagery related with cross-cultural symbols alluded to through sound” while ontological meanings “comprise all other imagery that arises from the listener's personal holistic experience, accounting for the most idiosyncratic and less intersubjective aspects of listening” (Ferreira 1997, 99).

These categories encompass culturally informed and personal interpretative responses that may become integral and striking aspects of the perceived identity.

The strength of identity of sounds that do not bear strong source or cause relationships is of particular significance in the acousmatic realm. The exploration of spectromorphological features and the ambiguity of possible source association can become the subjects of musical play. For such sound materials the perception of dominant spectromorphological characteristics aids the apprehension of similarities among instances and the recognition of recurrent phenomena. As a result, there may be a biasing of listening focus that establishes the sound’s identity separately from any specific source–cause associations. For example, listening may concentrate on spectral make-up, morphological profile, or textural detail.

2.3.4. Gist

The detailed description permitted by spectromorphological terminology and the consideration of source association facilitate discussion of the wide range of sound material encountered in acousmatic works. However, degrees of detail are not

necessarily apprehended immediately when many concurrent events occur, yet a sense of the most striking events and their main features can still be grasped. Kendall notes that listening in detail can often make demands that exceed the listener’s mental resources at that moment. Accordingly, he proposes that “even when ‘events’ cannot be completely assimilated, the listener can hold onto the ‘gist’ of ‘events’” (Kendall

22 Ferreira provides a conceptual framework, Elements of Coherence, for the identification and description of sonic structures, consisting of spectral type, morphology and motion, surrogacy, character, spatial imagery, symbolism and ontological meanings (Ferreira 2002). Many of these categories are spectromorphological in origin, or can be described using that terminology.

2008, 7). Gist can be described as “what the perceiver acquires from a brief glimpse of something and usually includes the most salient features of the situation” and “its content typically includes perceptual features and conceptual relationships” (2008, 7).

This suggests that musical contexts are quickly assessed and abbreviated based on the features that are perceived as most important or striking. Indeed, these features might determine impressions of distinctness and identity in the first instance, and influence how sound entities are subsequently appraised and interpreted.

Harding, Cooke and König (2007) propose that auditory gist gives a ‘bottom up’, approximate impression of an auditory scene, which they believe is considered a single source unless there is evidence for segregation. “Early processing would indicate the likely number of sources and category of each source, but top-down processes would focus on the attended source and analyse its detail (the ‘listening’ stage), determining the features of the attended stream” (Harding, Cooke et al. 2007, 412). They propose the activation of templates, which help determine the gist of an auditory scene, based on previous listening experience. ²³ This view of auditory stream segregation implies that dominant features are assimilated quickly and are used to assess and categorise the auditory input. There is a notable similarity between templates and the schemas discussed by Bregman (see 2.2.1 above), both suggesting that prior listening experience is an essential factor in distinguishing identities.