Transcript What the Hills Are Alive With:

What the Hills Are
Alive With:
In Defense of the Sounds of Nature
John Andrew Fisher
Introduction


We have approached nature appreciation in the
same manner that we approach art appreciation
Some of these parallels do not exist when
evaluating the sounds of nature
Music is viewed by theory
 It can be perfectly reproduced


It is a mistake to assume that the Aesthetics of
Nature will parallel the Aesthetics of Art.
Soundscapes and Soundscape Events

A soundscape is all of the sounds in a given
environment.
Can be natural, manmade, or mixed
 Contains all theses sounds as they occur temporally
and spatially.
 So we refer to the soundscape of a certain location
through a set time.
 This is what Fisher believes is the appropriate object
for the aesthetic appreciation of sounds.

Individual Sounds

Why can’t we remove one sound and appreciate
it?
Like in the object view, we may perceive an object
differently when it is removed from the
environment.
 Sounds vary greatly from place to place, such as the
sounds of wind, rain, or surf.
 Sounds also vary over time: be it over the course of
a day or the change of seasons

Soundscapes as
“the Containing Space of Sounds”



May include the full spectrum of sounds or various
subsets over a period of time
Includes typical sounds of a location.
But, Typical does not necessarily mean frequent...


Soundscape of Charleston, SC on Sept 21, 1989
So, What counts?



The traffic outside of St. Peter’s Square?
The airplane overhead in the wilderness?
Wild pea pods popping?
Disregarding Sounds Around Us

We tune out some sounds in order to focus on
others
Ignore traffic to focus on conversation
 This is a learned behavior


We still do, however, value the sounds of nature
Wilderness as “areas with outstanding opportunities
for solitude”
 Kaluli tribe models their music after the sounds of
nature

Music vs. Non-Music




We have come to view any sound that is not
music as its opposite.
Sounds have become a hindrance to musical
enjoyment
Indoor living and “containers of silence”
Just because a sound is not produced to be
pleasing does not imply that it cannot be so.
Sound of the Land

Different parts of a landscape have different sounds



Valleys and Mountains have different sounds.
Collectively, they make up the soundscape of a mountain
range
Unlike a visual image, we cannot take in the entire
soundscape of large natural environments.


You cannot hear the Rocky Mountains as you see them on
the horizon
You must, instead, consider the multiple smaller soundscapes
that make up the larger whole.
Objectivity

People react to sounds in different ways
Some find bird calls to be beautiful
 Others find them annoying



Natural objects are not as easily categorized as
art objects.
Carlson: “Some aesthetic judgments of nature
are objectively true, and others false

Tetons are Majestic vs Tetons are Dumpy
Two Types of Objectivity

Responses should be guided by the object
This is true of any aesthetic judgement
 Fisher accepts this


Responses should be universally agreeable
Usually seen as following from guidance by object
 Fisher disagrees
 Tetons are Majestic because the object helps define
what majestic means
 Other cases are not so obvious, such as bird calls.

Framing


Aesthetic Appreciation is more undetermined
with sound than visual aesthetics
Natural sounds lack many framing norms
No defined length or meter
 No intentional focus
 No defined key or pitches
 No exclusion of certain sounds


We can frame individual sounds, but framing
soundscape events is somewhat arbitrary.
Framing (cont.)

Music can be framed by piece





Each piece of music is reproducible.
Individual performances of a piece are duplicates
Some of the aesthetic value of a natural soundscape
could plausibly be due to its uniqueness.
“It is implausible to claim that we have significant
conventions about how to frame sound events within
soundscapes”
Therefore, responses will be undetermined as well.
Ways of Listening


Even within the same frame, different cultures lack
agreement in the aesthetics of sounds
“Certain Ears” listen in certain ways.



Droning of bagpipes vs Dissonance of steel drums
Tractor as a bass line.
Kaluli as “a part of their environment”


They find overlapping sounds, such as those of the jungle, to be
aesthetically pleasing
Others would find these noises to be “cacophonic”, but have no
problem with the sounds of the hustle and bustle of a big city.
Ambiguity


Roger Scruton – “much of music criticism consists of
the deliberate construction of an intentional object
from the infinitely ambiguous instructions implicit in a
sequence of sounds”
Nature sounds are many times more ambiguous


No relational theory or “music culture”
There are an infinite number of structures we may place
upon natural sounds

As long as they can be justified, then they are all equally
legitimate
Conclusion


Aesthetic appreciation of natural sounds is
appropriate, even though it has even fewer
constraints than appreciation of music or
appreciation of natural visible beauty
What are some of these constraints?
Soundscape event: The location and duration of the
sounds being appreciated
 Framing: Which sounds are focused on, and which
are ignored?

Final Thoughts




Could Heyd’s idea of aesthetic endurance help
one increase the boundaries of a soundscape
event?
Why can you not enjoy an individual sound? Is
there anything wrong with “a sound in a box”?
Given this view, What exactly is the object of
appreciation in a soundscape event?
Sound Sculpture of Nature