CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION

5.1 From Knowledge to Practice, and Vice Versa

The completion of a case study involving methodologies and analytical concepts coming from various approaches to the sound environment provides us not only with a sonic portrait of Commercial Drive and the way it is heard and understood by inhabitants, but it also brings up the interactions between the three models used and synthesised. More specifically, the acoustic communication model, which lacks a formal methodology but proposes a basic analytical framework, can only benefit from the practical, listener-centred methodology designed by Amphoux. In return, a communicational approach to sound as proposed by Truax (1998, 2001) remains necessary to make possible a transition between acoustic analysis (what this case study presents) and acoustic design, and to re-integrate soundscape issues into broader social, political or economic aspects of the environment. After all, “the home territory of soundscape studies will be [or perhaps is] the middle ground between science, society and the arts” (Schafer, 1977c, p. 4)—right where communication studies stand. We will therefore examine in this conclusion some theoretical and methodological connections revealed through the case study, and which emphasise the usefulness of a multidisciplinary approach to the soundscape, before summarising the main components and results of the research.

5.1.1 The Interplay of Sound, Listeners and the Environment

As we have seen, Truax’s model (2001) deals with the soundscape by describing it as a relationship between a listener and an environment, mediated through sound. This creates an analytical framework where what matters is the process in which this triangular relationship is formed and maintained. As Truax indicates, a change in any of the three components—for instance because of habituation, the disappearance of meaningful sound signals or a densification of the population—has repercussions in all aspects of the soundscape. An analysis of a particular acoustic environment therefore requires the study of the three core features (listener, sound and environment), to understand their relationships and the possible points of action. As we have observed in the case study, Amphoux’s tripartite methodological guide (1991, 1993a, 1993b) also provides information concerning the three aspects of the soundscape, as understood from the “point-of-view” of the listener (and therefore in accordance with the initial orientation of the WSP and Truax’s approaches). First, with sonic mind maps and recorded interviews, we were able to re-present the main subjective features of the environment itself (based on the description of specific locations) and the sounds heard (through questions about sound memories and significant or representative sound signals). A general portrait of the soundscape can be established, before moving to a more specific analysis of chosen locations.

Then, with reactivated listening sessions, it is the practices of the listener-in-action that are emphasised; through an analysis and comparison of participants’ comments on the three sequences, we could understand the particular significations attached to various signals and ambiences. In the meantime, the relationships between the listener and the sounds (i.e. the recording) and between the listener and the environment (through personal experiences triggered by the sequence and the interaction between what one hears and what one remembers) are addressed in terms of the qualitative criteria proposed by Amphoux. Actually, these criteria, as various as they are, are concerned directly with the interaction between a sound perception (or the listener-sound relation) and what constitutes a more general knowledge of the soundscape (the listener-environment relation). One obvious illustration of this connection is the observed change in participants’ attitude and evaluation once the sequence has been identified and located. In the same way, the notion of sound effect is used to express particular sets of (listener-sound-environment) relationships that can be identified and, to some extent, abstracted and measured.

The use of a tripartite methodology and the assessment of qualitative criteria can therefore be achieved within a communicational framework, making this merged model coherent and complementary. In fact, a study of the various environmental, milieu and sensed criteria described by Amphoux could be done in parallel with Truax’s types of listening to observe the various relationships between these two types of classification; this may reveal in more detail, for instance, the social or perceptual factors that encourage a listening-in-search (criteria such as compositional clarity, aesthetisation, immersion, etc.) versus those that encourage a background listening (indifferentiation, standardisation).

This subjective process (i.e. listener-centred) must nevertheless be completed with a more objective observation of the environment and its various sounds; this remains necessary for a thorough analysis of the relation between a “reality” and a subjective representation. In the case of Commercial Drive, for instance, comments about the presence of “dead” zones on the Drive could be correlated with a car vs. pedestrian count to assess (at least partially) the cause of this perception—an absence of human soundmaking against a maintaining of car traffic level. The “fresh ear” of the observer can also provide a listening skill quite different from a long-term inhabitant who became habituated to a large number of sounds, which can be unconsciously backgrounded, even during the reactivated listening session.

Finally, this methodological and analytical process provides an interactive overview of the soundscape that goes from the general (the two first sets of interviews) to the specific (the three selected locations), and eventually comes back to a macro analysis with Truax’s notion of acoustic community. The sonic mind maps first provide, as we have seen, a general understanding of the sound environment, the location of potential sites of interest and inhabitants’ appreciation of the various sonic features of their neighbourhood. With recorded interviews (or phono-reputational inquiries), the study becomes more focused on specific locations and their acoustic features, while encouraging a general discussion about perceptual differences among listeners. Then, the reactivated listening provides a deep understanding of both the acoustic features of three representative locations and the criteria shaping listeners’ perception in each case. From this micro-analysis of specific scenes, we finally move back to the community level, to assess the presence of an acoustic community and the way it is maintained based on the three preceding steps and the gathering of objective information on the soundscape itself.
Amphoux’s methodology can therefore provide significant information to be analysed within a communicational framework. The three aspects of the subjective soundscape (as described by the WSP and Truax) are addressed through the various steps of the study, while quantitative tools proposed by the WSP simultaneously provide a more objective representation of the soundscape.

5.1.2 From Soundscape Performance to Soundscape Competence

Central to an analysis of the soundscape from a subjective perspective is the interpretative process of the listener; contrary to a quantitative model, an acoustic communication approach to sound must take into consideration a large amount of information concerning the contextual nature of a perception and the active role of the listener. Truax (2001) proposed, in accordance with previous linguistic and musical models, the notions of soundscape competence and performance. Soundscape competence refers to “tacit knowledge that people have about the structure of environmental sound, knowledge that manifests itself in behavior that interprets such sounds and act upon it” (p. 57). Their listening skills and behaviour is a performance, an expression or actualisation of their competence, notably through the selection of sounds to emphasise, the values or memories attributed to these sounds, and the resulting comments, actions or emotions.

If an acoustic community is said to exist, then there should be a particular type of competence found in the listeners belonging to that community, making them able to recognise particular sounds or groups of sounds and interpret them in a somewhat similar way. While that competence could potentially be described by an external observer based on the similarities found in their daily experience (the common sounds and environments they perceive), these observations would remain quite general, and could not account for the way in which that knowledge is expressed. Amphoux’s types of listening to the sonic world (the E-M-P model) consist of possible ways one can express a tacit knowledge in a given situation. Consequently, it is possible, as we have done through this research, to access the soundscape competence of a group of listeners based on the observation of their performance and an empirical analysis of their various comments. Reactivated listening sessions provide a controlled environment (in the sense that the sequence is known and somewhat ‘controlled’ by the researcher) in which to examine performances of inhabitants faced with an anonymous recording. While this method was central to our current research work, other techniques could be used to access listeners’ competence through their performance.

Nicolas Tixier (2002), with his qualified listening in motion method, proposes such a performative tool. His technique involves walking in a given space with a participant who uses a microphone and headphones to amplify his or her perception of the soundscape, as well as a second recording device aimed at recording the comments of the “amplified listener”. This method, which can be thought of as a ‘live’ reactivated listening, provides a certain mediation without placing the listener in a blind listening position. Andra McCartney (1999) expresses well how this mediation positively distorts one’s perception:

I have an amplified perspective on my surroundings—I am at once closer to the environment as everything is amplified, but also separated from it as my experience is mediated by the microphone's perspective.

Sound diaries, which were used by the WSP during their European tour (Schafer, 1977a), also appear as a potential technique to access listeners’ competence through their performance (expressed in this case in written format). However, this method does not provide the researcher with as much information about the given context of the perception and performance as does the reactivated and qualified listening techniques. On the other hand, diaries provide an access to individual daily practices on a longer term, while encouraging the participant to engage in a self reflection concerning his or her listening practices. These techniques and the way they help in “representing” one’s competence through a set of actions and observations should therefore be integrated to any thorough analysis of the relationship between a listener and a sound environment, as they provide researchers with valuable information concerning the mutual interaction of knowledge and perception.

5.2 Towards a Global Appreciation of the Soundscape

The initial motivation of this research was to combine three approaches to the sound environment to examine the way they interact and complement each other. As the case study progressed, our emphasis shifted from one model to the other, to eventually express a more “global” understanding of the way a soundscape is heard and experienced by its listeners. The need for such collaborative or comparative work is necessary not only to build from existing research, but also to facilitate the establishment of a general vocabulary and research framework.

The components retained from each approach contributed to an analysis of the soundscape focused on the subjectivity and complexity of listeners’ perceptual experience and the eventual existence of a shared knowledge of the sound environment (what Schafer first called an acoustic community). Furthermore, the ways in which Amphoux’s methodological framework can be used in conjunction with Truax’s communicational approach have been discussed in terms of their handling of the listener-sound-environment structure and the relation between soundscape competence and performance.

The WSP provides us with an underlying philosophy that places the listening experience in the centre of any study of a sound environment. Schafer’s soundscape is not ‘out there’, separated from us; it is rather the result of soundmaking and listening practices that both need to be addressed when investigating any acoustic space. The various terms and descriptors employed by the WSP however tend to emphasise the actual features of a soundscape, while lacking a further exploration of listening behaviour and attitudes. This results in a methodology aimed principally at the sound environment itself (with sound counts, measurements, visual and acoustic descriptions through soundwalks and drawings).

With his communicational approach to the soundscape, Barry Truax has emphasised the contextual nature of acoustic and electroacoustic exchanges and the active role of the listener (notably with his levels of listening attention). He also provides an exploration of the features of good acoustic communities and the way electroacoustic communication can radically transform these structures. While Truax has also elaborated a deep analysis of both the role of electroacoustic technologies in the marketing of communities and the design imperatives of electroacoustic communication, our focus on the everyday acoustic soundscape in an urban setting does not require such analytical tools. Truax’s model also necessitates a supporting methodology, an aspect of soundscape research that is not directly covered in Acoustic Communication (2001). It is therefore provided in our case by the methodological tools of the WSP and those developed by Augoyard and Amphoux.

Amphoux’s methodology was primarily designed to achieve a comparative study of three European cities. It tries to establish the sonic identity of these cities based on the descriptions and comments of various types of inhabitants/listeners, and their empirical analysis leading to the establishment of qualitative criteria. The process has therefore been slightly adapted to the smaller scale of our current work, while keeping every component as it appears in Amphoux’s guide (1993a). In conjunction with Jean-François Augoyard’s sound effects (Augoyard & Torgue, 1995), the use of qualitative criteria has helped in understanding how inhabitants perceive their environment and perform subjective descriptions of their own experience based on various criteria linked to their type of listening, their knowledge of the soundscape and their individual values and judgements. This analysis of perceptual, listening practices therefore complements Schafer and Truax’s analysis of the properties of the physical soundscape.

5.3 The Soundscape of Commercial Drive

The three-month case study conducted in the Grandview-Woodland district of Vancouver allowed us to describe the various acoustic features of Commercial Drive and the way it constitutes an acoustic community. By combining Amphoux’s methodological process with other tools supplied by the WSP and the acoustic communication framework proposed by Truax, we have produced a critical description of the sonic environment itself, the inhabitants’ perceptions and the various sound signals that link them.

The sonic identity charts, which describe three specific locations chosen after a process including the analysis of sonic mind maps and recorded interviews, provide us with a synthesis of the various comments and descriptions and a list of qualitative criteria used by listeners in their interpretation of the sequences. The reactivated listening sessions emphasised the role of memory in the selective perception of sounds (notably through the criteria of intentionality and indifferentiation), and the influence of values and judgements (with metropolisation and naturalisation) in the identification and evaluation of the sequences. Another important issue revealed by the charts is the role of acoustic features in the establishment of public or social spaces. For each sequence, the level of “publicness” of the space was determined on the type of exchange encouraged by the space and the degree to which all types of soundmaking (for instance traffic noise vs. vocal exchanges, nature sounds, music making…) coexisted.

Social spaces and events appeared as fundamental in the collective representation of Commercial Drive. This is further expressed in the qualification of human-made sounds (be they vocal exchanges or street music-making) and vocal signs of multiculturalism as soundmarks of the Drive. The particular acoustics offered by the various indoor spaces and their openness onto the street itself also encourage a blurring of traditional private/public boundaries that is considered as another important feature of Commercial Drive. All these signals are interpreted similarly by inhabitants who therefore establish, through their common knowledge and relationship to their sound environment, an acoustic community.
As with most urban communities, Commercial Drive is exposed to traffic noise that diminishes the acoustic profiles of important signals while creating a phenomenon of habituation—a practice revealed by the current work. The continuous presence of a large number of human-made sounds on the street itself is however preferable to a fragmentation of the soundscape into separate indoor communities (a common trend in noisy urban settings). Also, quieter avenues surrounding Commercial Drive provide a more balanced soundscape and a diversity of sounds that may somewhat counterbalance the noisiness of the main street.

5.4 Further Paths of Research

The current research inscribes itself in a study of methodological inquiries in soundscape studies and the multidisciplinary integration of various approaches to the sound environment. Because of the extent of this work, a single location was investigated, and over a relatively short period of time. A historical study of the sonic changes and their relation to social, cultural or environmental transformations could possibly extend the possible work to include an understanding of temporal modifications of the soundscape and the simultaneous adaptation/reactions of inhabitants. Also, the use of Amphoux’s methodological guide could possibly extend the present work, perhaps between various neighbourhoods of Vancouver—as Smith (1993) did, or between Vancouver and another Canadian city.

This methodological inquiry could also benefit from various other techniques that have not been used in the current research; the integration notably of soundwalks, diaries and the “qualified listening in motion” technique could help in further analysing the way listeners inform their surrounding soundscape. Schafer’s educational aim could in the meantime be integrated into such a case study simply by facilitating the involvement of inhabitants in the research process. In each of the steps of our methodology, participants expressed a deep interest in the issues raised by the questions and sequences; this encouraged them to develop their sonic awareness, and some even continued to share their thoughts and observations with the researcher once the study was finished. This shows how soundscape research can integrate into its investigative process an educational component—therefore acting not only on the soundscape but also on its listeners.

On a more theoretical level, an exploration of the value of Amphoux’s qualitative criteria and Augoyard’s sound effects in a communicational context has yet to be fully achieved. There is a need for such perceptual denominators in communication studies, in a way that allows the convergence of knowledge and a common understanding of complex phenomena among various fields of research. Auditory perception, because of its integration with various dimensions of the everyday, requires a generalist approach and a generalist vocabulary but must not fall into generalisations. Qualitative boundary-concepts such as those used in this work fulfil this requirement by emphasising the systematic relations between the numerous components of a sonic perception.

5.5 Hearing is not Listening

The fast-growing amount of research work conducted in the area of soundscape studies and acoustic ecology shows the importance of an understanding of the way humans affect and are affected by their acoustic and electroacoustic environment. It is as if our awareness is developing at a simultaneous pace with the burdening of the urban soundscape and the dramatic changes brought by industrial rhythms and the more recent electronic mediation.
While various research disciplines provide their own specific “framing” of the soundscape (from an architectural engineering study to an ecological critique of noise pollution), they all necessitate an understanding of the way listeners perceive their environment and act upon it. We are back to Schafer’s global composition, in which we are simultaneously audience and composers—especially when considering the dominance of human-caused noise in the contemporary city. And like musical tastes, our soundscape compositional knowledge must be practised for us to develop critical listening skills. It often takes simple actions to trigger the process—in the case of the gentleman who hesitantly approached me at the market, it only required a single word: Listen!

© David Paquette 2004