Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T17:34:59.530Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Anacoustic Modes of Sound Construction and the Semiotics of Virtuality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 March 2020

Robert Seaback
Robert Seaback*
Affiliation:
Dakota State University, Madison, SD, USA
*
Email: seaback.r@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article discusses technical and aesthetic aspects of sound synthesis in the context of anacoustic modes of sound construction – a neologism that underscores the unique ontology of information in the digital domain. Anacoustic modes address the computer at its most fundamental level: the syntactic level of information. This changes the nature of signification as sound is considered first as an informational construct rather than a material circumstance, rupturing the front-loaded meaning that arises from our acoustic experience. Following certain concepts encompassed by N. Katherine Hayles’s posthumanism, anacoustic modes can be viewed as an expression of the materiality of information.

Type
Articles
Information
Organised Sound , Volume 25 , Issue 1: Computation in the Sonic Arts , April 2020 , pp. 4 - 14
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press, 2020

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

REFERENCES

Bayle, F. 1993. Musique Acousmatique: Propositions … Positions. Paris: Buchet/Chastel.Google Scholar
Berg, P., Rowe, R. and Theriault, D. 1980. SSP and Sound Description. Computer Music Journal 4(1): 25–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brün, H. nd. A Manual for SAWDUST, ed. Chandra, Arun. https://sites.evergreen.edu/arunchandra/wp-content/uploads/sites/395/2018/05/sawdust.pdf (accessed 4 July 2019).Google Scholar
Brün, H. 1998. Liner notes to SAWDUST Computer Music Project. Albany, NY: EMF CD 00644.Google Scholar
Brün, H. 2004. When Music Resists Meaning, ed. Chandra, Arun. Middletown, CT:Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
Brün, H. and Enslin, M. nd. Traces Left by Ten Dialogues. www.herbertbrun.org/BrunTexts.html (accessed 2 May 2017).Google Scholar
Cook, P. R. 2011. Sound Synthesis for Auditory Display. In Hermann, T., Hunt, A. and Neuhoff, J. G. (eds.) The Sonification Handbook. Berlin: Logos Verlag, 197–235.Google Scholar
Demers, J. 2010. Listening Through the Noise: The Aesthetics of Experimental Electronic Music. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scipio, Di. 1998. Compositional Models in Xenakis’s Electroacoustic Music. Perspectives of New Music 36(2): 201–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Döbereiner, L. 2011. Models of Constructed Sound: Nonstandard Synthesis as an Aesthetic Perspective. Computer Music Journal 35(3): 28–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Floridi, L. 2010. Information: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujinaga, I. 1997. Adaptive Optical Music Recognition. PhD dissertation, McGill University, Montreal.Google Scholar
Hayles, N. K. 1999. How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayles, N. K. 2010. How We Became Posthuman: Ten Years on an Interview with N. Katherine Hayles. Paragraph 33(3): 318–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, P. 2000. The New GENDYN Program. Computer Music Journal 24(2): 31–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holtzman, S. R. 1979. An Automated Digital Sound Synthesis Instrument. Computer Music Journal 3(2): 53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendall, C. 1993. Liner notes to Musica Iconologos. Yasunao Tone. New York: Lovely Music, Ltd. LCD 3041.Google Scholar
Koenig, G. M. 1978. Composition Processes. www.koenigproject.nl/indexe.htm (accessed 20 May 2017).Google Scholar
Koenig, G. M. 1985. Programmed Music. www.koenigproject.nl/indexe.htm (accessed 21 September 2017).Google Scholar
Leman, M. 2008. Embodied Music Cognition and Mediation Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Luque, S. 2009. The Stochastic Synthesis of Iannis Xenakis. Leonardo Music Journal 19: 77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mead, A. 1999. Bodily Hearing: Physiological Metaphors and Musical Understanding. Journal of Music Theory 43(1): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, F. R. 1990. Elements of Computer Music. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Norman, K. 2004. Sounding Art: Eight Literary Excursions through Electronic Music. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Ostertag, B. 2002. Human Bodies, Computer Music. Leonardo Music Journal 12: 11–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powers, R. 1995. Galatea 2.2. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Roads, C. 2001. Microsound. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Serra, M.-H. 1993. Stochastic Composition and Stochastic Timbre: GENDY3 by Iannis Xenakis. Perspectives of New Music 31(1): 236–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shannon, C. E. 1948. A Mathematical Theory of Communication. Bell System Technical Journal 27: 379–423, 623–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smalley, D. 1997. Spectromorphology: Explaining Sound Shapes. Organised Sound 2(2): 107–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tone, Y. 2003. John Cage and Recording. Leonardo Music Journal 13: 11–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xenakis, I. 1992. Formalized Music: Thought and Mathematics in Composition, revised Edition. Stuyvesant, New York: Pendragon Press.Google Scholar