Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-tq7bh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-23T07:23:09.774Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sound Objects and Spatial Morphologies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 May 2019

Ulf A. S. Holbrook
Ulf A. S. Holbrook*
Affiliation:
University of Oslo, RITMO Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies on Rhythm, Time and Motion, Department of Musicology, PO Box 1017 Blindern, 0384Oslo, Norway
*
*Email: u.a.s.holbrook@imv.uio.no
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One of Pierre Schaeffer’s achievements in his musical research was his proposal of the sound object as a basic unit of musical experience and his insistence on listening as a main focus of research. Out of this research grew a radical new music theory of sound-based composition. This article will draw on this extensive research to explore the spaces where this music is heard and present the claim that the space in which music is experienced is as much a part of the music as the timbral material itself. The key question here is the changes made to timbral material through acousmatic spatial listening and the subjective analysis affordance of the listeners’ placement and perspective. These consequences are studied from a phenomenological and psychoacoustic perspective and it is suggested that Schaeffer’s research on timbral and musical concepts can be extended to include spatial features.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Organised Sound , Volume 24 , Special Issue 1: Perceptual Issues Surrounding the Electroacoustic Music Experience , April 2019 , pp. 20 - 29
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Augoyard, J. F. and Torgue, H. (eds.) 2014. Sonic Experience: A Guide to Everyday Sounds, trans. A. McCartney and D. Paquette. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s Press-MQUP.Google Scholar
Baalman, M. A. 2010. Spatial Composition Techniques and Sound Spatialisation Technologies. Organised Sound 15(3): 209–218.Google Scholar
Barrett, N. 2002. Spatio-Musical Composition Strategies. Organised Sound 7(3): 313–323.Google Scholar
Bayle, F. 2007. Space, and more. Organised Sound 12(3): 241–249.Google Scholar
Bishop, C. 2005. Installation Art. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Blauert, J. 1983. Spatial Hearing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Blesser, B. and Salter, L. R. (2007). Spaces Speak , Are You Listening? Experiencing Aural Architecture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bregman, A. S. 1994. Auditory Scene Analysis: The Perceptual orgaNization of Sound. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chion, M. 2009. Guide to Sound Objects: Pierre Schaeffer and Musical Research, trans. J. Dack and C. North. Paris: Buchet Chastel. https://monoskop.org/log/?p=536 (accessed 10 October 2017).Google Scholar
Chion, M. 2016. Sound: An Acoulogical Treatise. Durham and London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Cox, C. 2017. Sonic Thought. In B. Herzogenrath (ed.) Sonic Thinking: A Media Philosophical Approach. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Desantos, S. 1997. Acousmatic Morphology: An Interview with François Bayle. Computer Music Journal 21(3): 11–19.Google Scholar
Ekeberg, F. 2013. Manipulating Space, Changing Realities: Space as Primary Carrier of Meaning in Sonic Arts. In K. Cleland, L. Fisher and R. Harley (eds.) Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium of Electronic Art, ISEA2013, Sydney.Google Scholar
Godøy, R. I. 1997. Formalization and Epistemology. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.Google Scholar
Godøy, R. I. 2006. Gestural-Sonorous Objects: Embodied Extensions of Schaeffer’s Conceptual Apparatus. Organised Sound 11(2): 149–157.Google Scholar
Godøy, R. I. 2018. Sonic Object Cognition. In Bader, R. (ed.) Springer Handbook of Systematic Musicology. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Griesinger, D. 1997. The Psychoacoustics of Apparent Source Width, Spaciousness and Envelopment in Performance Spaces. Acta Acustica United with Acustica 83(4): 721–731.Google Scholar
Griesinger, D. 1999. Objective Measures of Spaciousness and Envelopment. Audio Engineering Society Conference: 16th International Conference: Spatial Sound Reproduction. Rovaniemi, Finland.Google Scholar
Halmrast, T. 2000. Orchestral Timbre: Comb-Filter Coloration from Reflections. Journal of Sound and Vibration 232(1): 53–69.Google Scholar
Halmrast, T. 2011. More Combs. Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics (UK). Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
Halmrast, T. 2015. Acoustics in between: Perception of Sound in Rooms Beyond Standard Criteria. Psychomusicology: Music, Mind, and Brain 25(3): 256–271.Google Scholar
Harley, M. A. 1998a. Music of Sound and Light: Xenakis’s Polytopes. Leonardo Music Journal 31(1): 55–65.Google Scholar
Harley, M. A. 1998b. Spatiality of Sound and Stream Segregation in Twentieth Century Instrumental Music. Organised Sound 3(2), 147–166.Google Scholar
Harman, G. 2011a. The Road to Objects. Continent 1(3): 171–179.Google Scholar
Harman, G. 2011b. The Quadruple Object. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
Holmes, T. 2008. Electronic and Experimental Music: Foundations of New Music and New Listening. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Howard, D. M. and Angus, J. 2009. Acoustics and Psychoacoustics, 4th edn. Oxford: Focal Press.Google Scholar
Husserl, E. 2012. Ideas: General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology, trans. W. R. Boyce Gibson. London and New York: Routledge Classics.Google Scholar
Kane, B. 2014. Sound Unseen: Acousmatic Sound in Theory and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kendall, G. S. (2010). Meaning in Electroacoustic Music and the Everyday Mind. Organised Sound, 15(1): 63–74.Google Scholar
Kendall, G. S. and Ardila, M. 2008. The Artistic Play of Spatial Organization: Spatial Attributes, Scene Analysis and Auditory Spatial Schemata. In R. Kronland-Martinet, S. Ystad and K. Jensen (eds.) Computer Music Modeling and Retrieval. Sense of Sounds. Berlin and Heidelberg : Springer.Google Scholar
Landy, L. 2007. Understanding the Art of Sound Organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lyon, E. 2014. The Future of Spatial Computer Music. Proceedings of ICMC/SMC. Athens, Greece.Google Scholar
Manning, P. 1995. Electronic and Computer Music, 2nd edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Oliveros, P. 2003. Acoustic and Virtual Space as a Dynamic Element of Music. In J. Malloy (ed.) Women, Art, and Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Palombini, C. 1993. Machine Songs V: Pierre Schaeffer: From Research into Noises to Experimental Music. Computer Music Journal 17(3): 14–19.Google Scholar
Peters, N., Marentakis, G. and McAdams, S. 2011. Current Technologies and Compositional Practices for Spatialization: A Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis. Computer Music Journal 35(1): 10–27.Google Scholar
Pierce, J. 1999. Hearing in Time and Space. In P. Cook (ed.) Music, Cognition and Computerized Sound: An Introduction to Psychoacoustics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001.Google Scholar
Plenge, G. 1974. On the Differences between Localization and Lateralization. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 56(2): 944–951.Google Scholar
Rorty, R. 1991. Objectivity, Relativism and Truth: Philosophical Papers, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rumsey, F. 2001. Spatial Audio. Oxford: Focal Press.Google Scholar
Rumsey, F. 2002. Spatial Quality Evaluation for Reproduced Sound: Terminology, Meaning, and a Scene-based Paradigm. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society 50(9): 651–666.Google Scholar
Sazdov, R., Paine, G. and Stevens, K. 2007. Perceptual Investigation into Envelopment, Spatial Clarity, and Engulfment in Reproduced Multi-channel Audio. AES 31st International Conference, London.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, P. 1966. Traité des objets musicaux. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, P. 2017. Treatise on Musical Objects: An Essay Across Disciplines, trans. C. North and J. Dack. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Smalley, D. 1997. Spectromorphology: Explaining Sound-shapes. Organised Sound 2(2): 107–126.Google Scholar
Smalley, D. 2007. Space-form and the Acousmatic Image. Organised Sound 12(1): 35–58.Google Scholar
Stockhausen, K. (1971) Four Criteria for Electronic Music. In R. Maconie (ed.) Stockhausen on Music. London: Marion Boyars, 1989.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. F., Graham, P. and Russo, F. 2005. Seeing Music Performance: Visual Influences on Perception and Experience. Semiotica 156(1/4): 203–227.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. F., Russo, F. A. and Quinto, L. 2008. Audio-visual Integration of Emotional Gestures in Song. Cognition and Emotion 22(8): 1457–1470.Google Scholar
Traer, J. and McDermott, J. H. 2016. Statistics of Natural Reverberation Enable Perceptual Separation of Sound and Space. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(48): E7856–E7865.Google Scholar
Trochimczyk, M. 2001. From Circles to Nets: On the Signification of Spatial Sound Imagery in New Music. Computer Music Journal 25(4): 39–56.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. and Knoblich, G. 2005. The Case for Motor Involvement in Perceiving Conspecifics. Psychological Bulletin 131(3): 460.Google Scholar
Wishart, T. 1996. On Sonic Art. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Worrall, D. (1998) Space in Sound: Sound of Space. Organised Sound 3(2): 93–9.Google Scholar
Zvonar, R. 2000. An Extremely Brief History of Spatial Music in the 20th Century. https://econtact.ca/7_4/zvonar_spatialmusic-short.html (accessed 5 September 2017).Google Scholar