Results: Chapter 1

Analysis Tools

To successfully delve into the topic of field recordings combined with live instruments I needed to develop some criteria for comparison, parameters, and tools for analysis. Some are from different categories, some can exist in a spectrum, and none apply to every piece. Several key terms from electroacoustic/soundscape genre are included as well. These are ways that I propose one can examine music of the genre under study here.

The hierarchy of layers: Since in field recording the sound is usually continuous and many events happen at once I find it useful to think about the composite sound as being comprised of layers. Layers can be perceived in many ways, divided scientifically by frequency (Hz), or by sound source (children, ocean waves, trees), or another method. Schafer mainly divides the layers into foreground/background, which I apply to my research. Over time I realized that the hierarchy of layers may change during a piece. To add another complication, such layers can also exist between the audio and instruments used.1 

The level of imitation: The level of imitation indicates how much the field sound is the source of the music. For purpose of investigation into the degree of transcription and imitation by acoustic instruments I have devised a scale from 0↔10, with 0 being the least imitative and 10 being extremely imitative. 

The spectrum of reduced listening to contextual listening: For purpose of determining the composer's intended type of listening based on the ideologies of Schaeffer and Schafer. In this case 0 stands for reduced listening and 10 for fully-contextual listening. 

The level of audio processing: How much the recording is processed is a major compositional choice and greatly affects the overall statement of the piece, especially the concept of place. For purpose of analyzing the field recording audio, a scale of 0↔10, with 0 being no processing and 10 being a complete transformation of the original. 

The degree of recognizability of original source: How much can the original field recording be recognized? This is related to the audio processing scale but not the same because a sound source can be unprocessed yet difficult to name. 0 is no recognizability and 10 is fully recognizable. I like keep in mind the connectedness to the original sound source, just as Bob Gilmore said that one must acknowledge the “...evocative quality of field recordings themselves. Place. Memories, etc.”2 Also, Trevor Wishart explores the topic of intrinsic vs. contextual recognition.3

The degree of live interaction: Are the instrument(s) responding live to the soundscape? Does the soundscape respond (such as a mockingbird)? Is the soundscape a live “score”? 0 is none, 10 is fully interactive.

The percentage of tape vs. instrumental presence. Are both elements constant (50/50)? Does one fade in-and-out? In listening to several works I discovered that this parameter influences the relationship and hierarchy of the two elements, and can affect the stability of a piece. A soundscape or field recording is generally a constant, without sudden unnatural silences or sudden on/off type of appearances. As one listens, one can become very absorbed in the atmosphere, so care must be taken if the soundscape is intentionally removed at some point. The same is true for an “instrumental piece” where a soundscape fades in. Of course a composer can apply materials as he or she chooses, but it is interesting to estimate which element is used more.

Other elements to consider when studying this genre

As I studied existing works I made a list of parameters that were particularly dominant or curious to investigate and do not need to be organized on a spectrum.

• Length (Composer's choice, or limited by technology/other factors?)

• Form (Classical form such as passacaglia, variation form, sonata form, single-movement form, and electronic-influenced forms such as loops)

• Place (Single place, places co-existing, creating a new combined place)

• Field recording as:

  • Source for instruments through transcription: ear vs. computer-assisted

  • Source for tape through editing: new soundscape (This involves processing and editing of the field recording(s) in such a way that a new soundscape is created that is not a straight-forward recording of the world.)

• Changing function of sound objects over time: For example, there can be a transformation in the mind while listening to a plane: at first it is clearly a plane but after listening for a while, one begins to hear other details that the plane sound transforms into an object onto itself. The piece by Miya Masaoka further transforms the plane into an instrument as it blends with the cello (see Ch. 2.5).

• Score (What is a score? Is one provided or do players create their own?)

Other terminology

Here are some interesting terms that I think are important to consider because they appear frequently in articles I read and are now relevant to my research.

A field recording is an audio file of a particular sound or environment, especially outdoors, which includes many incidental sounds deemed undesirable in a recording studio. The recorded sound source may or may not be recognizable to the listener. The type of microphone and way the sound was recorded bears the mark (and perspective) of the recordist, as I learned in the “Field Recording Workshop” at the Royal Conservatoire The Hague in Spring 2015 with Justin Bennet.

What is a transcription? It is a translation of one medium into another, and in music it often refers to music being changed to a new instrumentation. For this paper, the field recording is the source music transcribed/translated into notation (or other means) for musicians to reproduce the sounds. The tape is mined for musical material (melody, rhythm, timbre, noise, etc.) and played back with the tape. Transcription may be accomplished by human ears or computer-assisted analysis. I believe this is related to the traditional efforts of notating bird song, but open to a greater variety of sound.

Some useful terms from the soundscape movement outlined by Schafer's 1977 book “Our Sonic Environment and The Soundscape: The Tuning of the World” include keynote sounds (musical term for the note that identifies the key or tonality of a composition), signals (functional foreground sound that is a warning, such as a walk signal or bell), and soundmark (a unique community sound, such as the Parisian taxi horns in Gerschwin's American in Paris).4 Three other elements in a field recording include Figure (signal or soundmark) vs. ground (ambient sounds), plus field (the soundscape) "meaning the place where the observation takes place."5 According to this book, how we hear these three depends on acculturation (trained habits), and mood/interest/relation to field, especially whether the listener is a newcomer or native.

According to Trevor Wishart, a sound-object could be a traditional note or any sound within a specified amount of time.6 This term is useful as words such as phrase or chord do not necessarily apply in electro-acoustic music.

Top

Previous                                                                                                                                    Next

1 Originally I had considered “field recording as background” as a potential category but I soon learned that that is subjective and can change during the course of a piece.

2 Gilmore, Bob. “Tentative Affinities: Field Recordings and New Music”, podcast 2014.

3 Wishart, p. 150.

4 Schafer R. Murray. “Our Sonic Environment and The Soundscape: The Tuning of the World” (1977). “Keynote is a musical term; it is the note that identifies the key or tonality of a particular composition. It is the anchor or fundamental tone and although the material may modulate around it, often obscuring its importance, it is in reference to this point that everything else takes on its special meaning. Keynote sounds do not have to be listened to consciously; they are overheard but cannot be overlooked, for keynote sounds become listening habits in spite of themselves.” (p. 9.)