This week, Weird Vibrations will review two new books together: Gordon Hempton’s 2009 “One Square Inch of Silence” and Steve Goodman’s 2010 “Sonic Warfare.” The books offer contrasting viewpoints on acoustic ecology – the first is a naturalist’s travelogue, the second a philosophical critique of military-industrial soundscapes. Both call for increased attention to our planet’s sonic environment, but they take radically different stands on where to go from there.
Before publishing the review, I want to poll you on a couple of questions. First, is understanding sound as an ecosystem practical? In other words, can this formulation help us deal with noise in a just fashion? How does the ecological metaphor sit with you?
Second, does acoustic ecology’s focus on “natural” preservation make it essentially conservative? This is a charge that’s latent (if not explicit) in some recent Sound Studies work that foregrounds technology. What do you think?
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. (I have ESP, but type them out for others’ sake, please.)
There's also an essay worth reading here
good questions. in the "natural" world, there is surely a community of sound. whether it stands as a separate "ecology" from the rest of the ecosystem is questionable. but the "ecosystem" of sound is a key element for many animals: not just communication, but also listening for movement of other animals (both predators and prey need to hear the others movements). The US NPS has recently done some pretty groundbreaking new work on this, focusing on what they call the "effective listening area"; see http://aeinews.org/archives/573
Of course, as Hempton (and I suppose Goodman in his way) point out, human sounds become a key part of many habitats. Gordon is very focused on "natural quiet", but many others in the field of acoustic ecology are interested in more diverse ways about questions regarding the WAYS that human-made sounds become part of the local soundscape; this comes from a place that does not separate humans from nature, or considers and is interested in "nature" inclusive of the human presence. this is somewhat more common in sound art communities, and to some degree among some of "traditional" acoustic ecology.
Yet, underlying questions that are interesting to folks from many different perspectives include things like, what does it mean to listen, or to be aware of sound, in our environment (urban and wild)? how does listening interact with our other sensory (and textual) perceptual avenues? and the like….so in these ways, it's not inherently conservative.
(note, i am currently working within a fairly focused subset of acoustic ecology that IS largely concerned with "natural" soundscapes and their integrity; yet previous work with EarthEar and others certainly has informed my perspectives on the bigger picture)
Thanks for your thoughtful response, Jim, and especially for the National Parks Service Sounds Program research link.
I agree with you that the adjectives "inherent" or "essential" are probably too absolutist – just as in conventional ecology, acoustic ecology can take many forms and be motivated by many different concerns. It's useful to hear from you about the diversity within the discipline.
I'm actually a bit bothered by the conservative aspects I perceive in acoustic ecology. Although I'm not as immersed in the subject as many here, I've noted what seem to be various biases towards "natural" (or at the very least, traditionally "calming") types of sounds in the literature. An increased awareness and attentiveness to our aural environment is a good thing, but not if it's only for nostalgia's sake.
For me, there definitely is what i might frame as a Deep Ecology level to my experience of acoustic ecology. That is, I do feel that there is an inherent and substantive value and purpose in being connected with and a participant in a larger ecological context that is sometimes called "nature" but which I believe is an essential larger context within which human (and all other) lives take place and have a meaning within. From that perspective, attentiveness to and care for "natural soundscapes" is not so much nostalgic as reverential or even experientially fundamental.
This doesn't preclude an interest in, and recognition and fascination with, the human soundscape in all its forms. But it seems that it's potentially just as limited (?wrong word?) to consider "natural" sounds to be conservative/nostalgic, and thus to frame acoustic ecology's interest in human sound and interactions between humans and their sonic environment as the central theme, as it is when natural-sound-centric folks set up a dichotomy between "natural quiet" and "human noise."
I'm not sure where you find a focus on "calming" types of sounds within acoustic ecology. This is perhaps the case among some "nature sounds" communities, but most who identify with acoustic ecology, and even many or most of those interested in natural sounds, are equally fascinated with odd sounds, compelling/jarring soundscapes (like crazy frog choruses), or transformations of field recordings (though some, including me, perhaps preferring such studio techniques to retain a recognizable sense of the source material). Among the sound artists who identify with acoustic ecology, there is a strong current of urban and "direct sound experience" (ie without reference to sources) as well, that focus on the daily human experience of sound, and/or on sounds for their own sake.
I agree that there are a good lot of us whose tastes and interests easily cross into multiple areas such as those you've described. I don't suppose I would have grouped transformative recordings utilizing field recordings into this discussion, though, and frankly I'm not at all certain if this is an appropriate distinction for me to make.
Still, one has to admit that there is far more of a proliferation of ponds, wind sounds, wildlife, and underwater recordings being made than of things like offices, parking lots, or playgrounds. And while I fully recognize that my apprehension and experience with these recordings may not be as varied as yours, I also wonder about the tendency of so many recordists to "de-humanize" even those things that ARE distinctly human– i.e., empty buildings, the abundance of recordings focusing on factory machinery, etc.
yes, that's a great and very key point: the "de-humanization" of many recordings is problematic. I think some people just like to listen to, say, machinery more than human activity…..it's more interesting, sonically, to them. Not unlike those who prefer to hear birds than traffic, say?
some of the more integrative recordists address these questions directly (I'm thinking of David Dunn for example) or in conversation/interviews when they discuss editing choices.
I suppose, when considering published CDs, we also have to acknowledge that many more people are interested in spending money, and listening repeatedly, to natural soundscapes, than urban ones. Though it's heartening to see how many sound artists are finding ways to share their more human-oriented work in small-run CDs and online paid and free downloads and streams.
In regard to the last paragraph here, i wonder how location effects such choices of what to listen to. What we play becomes mixed with where we are. Far enough away here where birds are one of the strongest elements in the soundscape, i can't imagine a desire to here other recordings of them, perhaps also since they are new birds, it is enough. For years on the other hand, i worked in fairly loud factory environments and often was disappointed with 'industrial' music makers failing to get or reproduce the better qualities there. Usually machinery exist in a large rooms and very little of how it spreads in space is captured or used in spaces of like size.
These are great questions! I do think that understanding sound as an ecosystem is the only way to truly break it down accurately
"An ecosystem is generally an area within the natural environment in which physical (abiotic) factors of the environment, such as rocks and soil, function together along with interdependent (biotic) organisms, such as plants and animals, within the same habitat." wikipedia
It's not a perfect fit but i think if you add machines, which have the ability to emit sound independently of human interaction, to the abiotic aspects of the system then you can think about the soundscape in these terms. Through leading numerous soundwalks in the NYC area as a member of NYSAE over the last 6 years I have gleaned that there are several layers to the urban soundscape. A natural one, I.e. birds, water, non amplified human speech and human power work related sound, small mammals, insects etc, , a man made one, of which i would further break that down into intermittent and drone and would include all machineryand humans interacting with machinery and audio devices, and on a meta level the overall hum of the city which is a combination of all sound but especially internal combustion engines and electric generators.
In answer to the 2nd, i don't think i would count myself in the conservation wing of AE. I'm more interested in exploring it for it's potential to understand our daily existences better and in order to have it influence my personal sound work which it has in numerous ways. Maybe this stems from my background as a musician and sound artist or maybe it grew out of contemplating the soundscape of NYC and realizing that it was so much larger than myself that ways to effect it were not readily apparent. After exploring and understanding the minutia of the soundscape i can see ways to effect change now but they would be small steps in the right direction rather than effecting it in a more far-reaching way.
The question, itself, is way too broad. The permutations of ecosystems are way too complex to address in this forum unless one has some serious earned authority in natural history. That said, the concept of the soundscape plays a role in urban, rural and wild habitats. The soundscape is broken down into three essential components: Biophony – the non-human biological sources of sound in any given environment; Geophony – the non-biological sound sources (weather, water, geophysical, etc.) in any given environment; and, finally, Anthrophony, the myriad sound sources from human endeavor. In terms of sound and the soundscape, it is the special relationship between all of these components that characterizes a soundscape. And silence is most assuredly not what is desired (unless anyone thinks they can survive for more than 5 minutes in an anechoic chamber). Tranquility is the operative word and concept. (See "Anatomy of a Soundscape," Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Jan. 08 http://www.wildsanctuary.com/popv2/jaes.pdf)
Since every living organism (viruses to large whales) creates sound and lives within some kind of acoustic environment, the subtle sonic fabric of that habitat is essential to any organism's sense of place. Despite claims to the contrary, there are many sites across the planet sans anthrophony for long periods of time; nearly a dozen within a 60 minute drive of the rural-urban area where we live. Hundreds throughout North America and lots in Europe and Asia. They're sometimes just hard to get to.
My new book, "The Great Animal Orchestra: How Animals Taught Us to Dance and Sing," (Little Brown) will be published about a year from now and addresses in some depth, aesthetics; human & Other; ecological, human and Other health; noise; music; soundscape ecology (as differentiated from "acoustic ecology"), politics and economics. The sonic world in about 400 pages.