Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T17:13:22.292Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Maximal–Minimal Model: A framework for evaluating and comparing experience of voice in electroacoustic music

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2013

Andreas Bergsland
Andreas Bergsland*
Affiliation:
Department of Music, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), 7491 Trondheim, NORWAY E-mail: andreas.bergsland@ntnu.no
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article presents a framework for describing, understanding and evaluating the experience of voice in acousmatic electroacoustic music and related genres through the maximal–minimal model. This model, which is inspired by literary theory, theories of radiophonic voice as well as theories of electroacoustic music, presents maximal and minimal voice as loosely defined poles constituting end points on a continuum on which experienced voices can be localised. Here, maximal voice, which parallels the informative and clearly articulated speaking voice dominant in the radio medium, is described as the converging fulfilment of seven premises. These premises are seen as partly interconnected conditions related to particular aspects or features of the experience of voice. At the other end of the continuum, minimal voice is defined as a boundary zone between voice and non-voice, a zone which is related to the negative fulfilment of the seven premises. The two poles are presented as centre and periphery, respectively, with the seven premises constituting multiple axes spreading out from the centre. These features, it is argued, parallel Lakoff's cluster model of categorisation. Lastly, the article briefly discusses the use of the framework in analysis of electroacoustic works with voice, and it demonstrates two ways in which the evaluations according to the framework can be visualised.

Type
Articles
Information
Organised Sound , Volume 18 , Special Issue 2: Best Practices in the Pedagogy of Electroacoustic Music and its Technology , August 2013 , pp. 218 - 228
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

Aoki, N., Ifukube, T. 1996. Two 1/f Fluctuations in Sustained Phonation and their Roles on Naturalness of Synthetic Voice. Proceedings of the Third IEEE International Conference on Electronics, Circuits, and Systems, ICECS '96. Rhodes, Greece.Google Scholar
Bergsland, A. 2006. From Maximal to Minimal Voice: Concepts for Evaluating Vocal Sounds in Electroacoustic Music. Electroacoustic Music Studies Network Conference, EMS05 Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
Bergsland, A. 2010. Experiencing Voices in Electroacoustic Music. PhD thesis, Department of Music. Trondheim: NTNU.Google Scholar
Birnbaum, D., Fiebrink, R., Malloch, J., Wanderley, M.M. 2005. Towards a Dimension Space for Musical Devices. Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression. Vancouver: National University of Singapore.Google Scholar
Bossis, B. 2005. La voix et la machine: La vocalité artificielle dans la musique contemporaine. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.Google Scholar
Børset, B. 2006. Støy og stemmer: radioteknologi og stemme i Nathalie Sarrautes pièces radiophoniques. Det historisk-filosofiske fakultet. Trondheim: NTNU.Google Scholar
Bregman, A.S. 1990. Auditory Scene Analysis. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chion, M. 1988. Du son à la chose: Hypothèses sur l'objet sonore. Analyse musicale 11: 52–58.Google Scholar
Dyson, F. 1994. The Genealogy of the Radio Voice. In D. Augaitis and D. Lander (eds.) Radio Rethink: Art, Sound and Transmission. Banff, AB: Walter Phillips Gallery.Google Scholar
Eco, U. 1989. The Open Work. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Emmerson, S. 1986. The Relation of Language to Materials. In S. Emmerson (ed.) The Language of Electroacoustic Music. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmerson, S. 2007. Living Electronic Music. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Ferrara, L. 1984. Phenomenology as a Tool for Musical Analysis. The Musical Quarterly 70(3): 355–373.Google Scholar
Godøy, R.I. 1997. Formalization and Epistemology. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Halford, G.S., Wilson, W.H., Phillips, S. 1998. Processing Capacity Defined by Relational Complexity: Implications for Comparative, Developmental, and Cognitive Psychology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21(6): 803–831.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Landy, L. 1993. Sound Transformations in Electroacoustic Music. Composers Desktop Project Quarterly.Google Scholar
Norman, K. 2000. Stepping Outside for a Moment: Narrative Space in Two Works for Sound Alone. In S. Emmerson (ed.) Music, Electronic Media and Culture. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Paas, F., Renkl, A., Sweller, J. 2004. Cognitive Load Theory: Instructional Implications of the Interaction between Information Structures and Cognitive Architecture. Instructional Science 32(1): 1–8.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. 1975. Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General 104(3): 192–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. 1978. Principles of Categorization. In E. Rosch and B.B. Lloyd (eds.) Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Rosch, E., Mervis, C.B. 1975. Family Resemblances: Studies in the Internal Structure of Categories. Cognitive Psychology 7(4): 573–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segnini, R., Ruviaro, B. 2005. Analysis of Electroacoustic Works with Music and Language Intersections. ICMC 2005 Proceedings. Barcelona.Google Scholar
Smalley, D. 1993. Defining Transformations. Interface 22: 279–300.Google Scholar
ten Hoopen, C. 1992. Abstract and Mimetic Qualities in Electroacoustic Music: Technology Amsterdam. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thoresen, L. 2007. Spectromorphological Analysis of Sound Objects: An Adaptation of Pierre Schaeffer's Typomorphology. Organised Sound 12(2): 129–141.Google Scholar
Verfaille, V., Gustavino, C., Depalle, P. 2005. Perceptual Evaluation of Vibrato Models. Proceedings of Conference on Interdisciplinary Musicology, CIM05. Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
Wesling, D., Slawek, T. 1995. Literary Voice: The Calling of Jonah. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Wishart, T. 1996. On Sonic Art: A New and Revised Edition. Ed. S. Emmerson. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Young, J. 1996. Imagening the Source: The Interplay of Realism and Abstraction in Electroacoustic Music. Contemporary Music Review 15(1): 73–93.Google Scholar

Recordings cited

Harvey, J. 1990. Mortuos Plango, Vivos Voco (1980). On Various Artists, Computer Music Currents 5: Music with Computers. Mainz: Wergo WER2025-50.Google Scholar
Lansky, P. 1994. Six Fantasies on a Poem by Thomas Campion (1979). On Fantasies and Tableaux. Composers Recordings, CRI 683.Google Scholar
Ligeti, G. 2006. Nouvelles aventures (1965). On Requiem; Aventures; Nouvelles aventures. Wergo WER 6925 2.Google Scholar
Parmerud, Å. 1994. Les objects obscures (1991). On Osynlig Musik/Invisible Music/Musique invisible. Phono Suecia PSCD 72.Google Scholar
Schwitters, K. 1992. Ursonate: Sonate In Urlauten (1932). On Ursonate. Hat Hut Records ART CD 6109.Google Scholar
Stockhausen, K. 2001. Gesang der Jünglinge (1956). On Elektronische Musik 1952–1960. Stockhausen-Verlag Stockhausen 3.Google Scholar
Viñao, A. 1994. Chant d'ailleurs (1992) On Hildegard's Dream. MUSIDISC MU 244942.Google Scholar
Wishart, T. 1992. Red Bird (1977). On Red Bird: Anticredos. October Music Oct 001.Google Scholar