|
CHAPTER 2 ANALYSIS
OF THE MODELS
2.1 Aims and Fields of Application
From the outset, the World Soundscape Project (WSP) proposed a ‘global’
approach to the problem of noise pollution, in contrast to the growing
specialisation of traditional disciplines dealing for instance with
acoustics and acoustical engineering. The WSP inscribed itself in
the wave of ecological movements that grew through the 1960s and
70s, in response to contemporary environmental problems related
to important technological innovations. For Schafer, “it is
a fact that the human organism is becoming more and more separated
from its natural environment as each new convenience, tool, and
technological system enters the human community” (1977b, p.
82). The flow of new devices and tools introduced through the Industrial
and Electric Revolutions created an “overpopulation of sounds”
(1977c, p. 71), which not only contribute to noise pollution but
also encourage a behaviour of avoidance and habituation; citizens
do not know how to listen to their environment. The WSP therefore
proposed a new discipline, acoustic ecology, which would deal with
these particular environmental issues and provide a common ground
to unite all disciplines dealing with sound and the sound environment.
For the WSP, the growing problem of noise pollution can only be
solved by taking a ‘positive’ approach, opposed to the
negative process used in noise abatement: “Only a total appreciation
of the acoustic environment can give us the resources for improving
the orchestration of the world soundscape” (Schafer, 1977c,
p. 4). By defining the soundscape as a “great macro-cultural
composition, of which man and nature are the composer/performers”
(1977b, p. 82), the WSP establishes its second main conceptual reference:
the musicality of the soundscape, and the consequent compositional
and listening role (as well as responsibility) of humans. These
two paradigms, ecology and musicality, will be reflected in the
main epistemological approach of the WSP, as well as the concepts
and definitions proposed through their work.
The specific aims of the WSP were defined as early as 1970, when
Schafer completes a grant proposal submitted to the UNESCO (Torigoe,
1982). In this document, five objectives are clearly established:
(1) To undertake an intensive interdisciplinary study of contrasting
acoustic environments and their effects on man.
(2) To suggest ways of changing and improving acoustic environments.
(3) To educate students and field workers in acoustic ecology.
(4) To educate the general public in acoustic ecology.
(5) To prepare reports as guides to future studies. [emphasis mine]
(quoted in Torigoe, 1982, p. 15)
The interdisciplinary nature of the proposed model constitutes not
only an answer to the traditional isolation of academic and professional
disciplines, but also a step towards the integration of science
and arts in the everyday environment; for Schafer, the “revolution
will consist of a unification of those disciplines concerned with
the science of sound and those concerned with the art of sound”
(1977c, p. 205). Together, these will create what the WSP coined
acoustic ecology and acoustic design.
The role of education in the re-establishment of a positive soundscape
is also brought forward in the proposal to UNESCO. Schafer’s
strong interest in music education will resonate in the general
orientation of the WSP activities and the nature of their publications.
Ear cleaning exercises and soundwalks (Schafer, 1977b, 1977c) become
ways to re-connect with the soundscape and initiate acoustic design.
For Schafer, “if such an aural culture could be achieved, the
problem of noise pollution would disappear” (1977c, p. 181).
For the WSP, the issue of soundscape design and assessment must
not simply be left to specialised professionals; it must be integrated
into everyday practices and knowledge.
With Acoustic Communication (2001), Truax wants to establish a general
model to discuss sound from an interdisciplinary and communicational
perspective. In 1984 (the publication year of the first edition
of his book), Truax had been supervising the acoustic research profile
at the School of Communication of Simon Fraser University since
1975, when Schafer left the direction of the WSP (Torigoe, 1982).
While a lot of the material used in Acoustic Communication comes
from the work of the WSP, the new approach taken by Truax and the
central discussion of electroacoustic sounds and processes (especially
in the second edition) provides a new theoretical ground, an established
communicational approach to sound and acoustic as well as electroacoustic
systems.
The model aims not at understanding acoustic phenomena in particular
situations or through specifically defined paradigms (as with acoustical
engineering, musicology, noise studies…), but rather “attempts
to understand the interlocking behavior of sound, the listener,
and the environment as a system of relationships, not as isolated
entities” [emphasis his] (Truax, 2001, p. xviii). The three
main components defined by the model (listener, sound and environment)
reflect the communicational framework in which the analysis is set
up. Such an approach is required, according to Truax, since previous
models cannot be merged due to their objective-subjective dichotomy
(1998).
Before outlining the different concepts developed through the model
of acoustic communication, Truax highlights some of the problems
or limitations of traditional approaches to sound. Similarly to
the WSP, he does not condemn objective models; nor does he reject
the contrasting subjective account offered by the WSP itself. In
fact, to expose the limitations of various models serves as a point
of departure in the quest for an interdisciplinary and systemic
approach to the sound environment—a communicational model that
links these various paradigms together.
Two objective models are first described and discussed in relation
with contemporary issues. The energy transfer model, which describes
“acoustic behaviour as a series of energy transfers from source
to receiver” (Truax, 2001, p. 5), has been widely used not
only in acoustics and noise studies, but also in psychoacoustics
and even in certain social and cultural models such as the transmission
view of communication (Carey, 1998) and the message transmission
theory (Leiss, 1991), in which energy is replaced by a message.
Such disciplines deal with sound issues by describing the linear
process of transfer, and the way in which the signal/sound can be
altered:
The linear
model from source to receiver translates into a prioritised list
of traditional strategies, starting with reduction at the source,
proceeding to attenuation via the transmission path, and ending
with isolation of the receiver. In other words, the imperative
is to change the sound and its environment, not the listener (Truax,
1998, The Acoustic Environment Model section, ¶6)
With the advent
of electronic means of audio transmission, processing and storage,
came a second paradigm—signal processing. The “black box”
(Truax, 2001, p. 9) model represents electroacoustic systems in
terms of “ ‘fidelity’ between the input and output
signals” (ibid.), thereby focusing on technological components
of a particular system and their influence on the transmission of
an audio signal. These two models not only restrict the analysis
of the sound environment to particular processes and behaviours,
but also make such an analysis a very specialised practice.
For Truax, the approach of the WSP clearly stands in opposition
with the objective models just described: “the soundscape model
deliberately places the listener at its centre and hence it may
be termed a subjective model” (1998, The Soundscape Model section,
¶1). As we have seen, the WSP advocated a return to a perceptual
appreciation of the sound environment, one in which the notion of
context and the capacity to act on one’s environment become
central issues. However, the drastic shift taken by the WSP and
its difficulty to cope with the growing presence of technological
systems (see section 2.3 below) raises questions concerning its
capacity to deal with complex, urban situations in which for instance
too much subjectivity may present tremendous methodological, or
even legislative problems. This is why, Truax argues, it is necessary
“to move beyond [these] polarised approaches” (1998, The Acoustic Community
Model section, ¶1), through the use of a communicational model
“which understands acoustic communication as a system within
which information is created and exchanged” [emphasis mine] (ibid.).
The approach broadly defined here as originating from CRESSON in
France can be divided into two main components, for the sake of
our research interests. On the one hand, there is the description
and applications of the concept of sound effect (l’effet sonore),
an interdisciplinary tool at the core of CRESSON’s work. The
second component is represented by the methodological work of Pascal
Amphoux, who in 1991 studied the sonic identity of three Swiss cities.
Jean-François Augoyard proposed the concept of sound effect
to fulfil the need for an intermediary tool for sound analysis (Augoyard
& Torgue, 1995). According to Augoyard, the two predominant
concepts to deal with the sound environment, the sound object of
Pierre Schaeffer and the soundscape of R. Murray Schafer, are either
too specific or too general, and therefore fail to account for the
complex mechanisms involved in an analysis of the perceived environment.
The sound effect describes a particular sound perception as a result
of specific physical conditions (nature of the sound source, acoustics,
morphology of the environment, etc.), social and cultural contexts
and a subjective perceptive mechanism. Instead of defining specific
objects of analysis, it provides an understanding of a group of
phenomena, their nature and status (Augoyard & Torgue, 1995,
p. 10; my translation).
Sound effects fulfil five main functions, through which they connect
various disciplines and fields of research. Firstly, they complement
objective acoustic measurement, working “as detailed descriptive
tools for forecasting and assessing specific sonic values”
(Hellström, 2003, p. 104). Secondly, they offer interdisciplinary
tools to deal with complex sound situations. Thirdly, they provide
additional supports to representative tools, such as maps and graphs
(Augoyard & Torgue, 1995). Fourthly, sound effects are designed
as tools of urban and architectural intervention and conception.
Finally, they are considered by French researchers as pedagogical
supports serving general, non-expert listening situations, by providing
terms which describe complex mechanisms embedded in our daily lives
(ibid.).
Pascal Amphoux, a researcher associated both with CRESSON and IREC
(Research Institute on the Built Environment, Lausanne, Switzerland),
has developed an extensive methodology aimed at describing and analysing
the sonic quality and sonic identity of urban spaces. This approach
was designed and tested through a comparative study of three European
cities, and which led to the publication of À l’Écoute
de la Ville (1991) (Listening to the City) and L’Identité
Sonore des Villes Européennes (1993a, 1993b) (The Sonic Identity
of European Cities), a set of methodological guidelines from which
specific tools will be extracted to be used in our present synthesis.
This particular methodology emphasises positive aspects of the sound
environment and tries to describe general criteria that can be used
to qualify its features. It does so in a way to fulfil three specific
objectives. First, it tries to “understand and break ideological
blocks of urban authorities” (Amphoux, 1991, p. 9; my translation),
through the integration of notions of acoustic comfort in urban
planning practices. Secondly, Amphoux wants to design simple but
efficient tools to describe the sound environment (ibid.), in a
way to make possible a shift in the traditional visual conception
of architecture and urban planning. Finally, the methodology is
proposed as an analytical approach that accounts for local cultural
features, which often are ignored by legislation but yet remain
central to one’s perception and interaction with the sound
environment. These three objectives correspond to the three dimensions
of the approach: acoustic, topological, and socio-cultural (ibid.).
 |
 |
© David Paquette 2004
|
