Soundscapes
Thought
Piece

MUSI 19 September 20, 2009 Schafer/Soundscapes Thought Piece Schafer asks, “What is the relationship between man and the sounds of his environment and what happens when those sounds change? Soundscape studies attempt to unify these various researches (4).” “Soundscape” is the general term that serves as the umbrella of this phenomenon, and although there will always be similarities and connections, to merge these experiences into one “unified” entity is almost ignorant. The sense of place triggered by music is all about perception. What may be a lo‐fi, obscured, background sound to one person may be the hi‐fi, articulate, foreground sound to another. That’s the beauty of sounds, but we mustn’t necessarily see a soundscape as one coalesced concept. The term “soundscape” must be kept as an umbrella of perceptions. Yes, overlapping interpretations arise, which accounts for the “unifying” factor; however, one man’s relationship with the sounds around him is not the same one of another man. It’s like asking, “You and I see green, but is the green I see the same green you see?” One may even say that the very idea of both of them seeing green, both hearing the hustle and bustle of the street constitutes a keynote, which would then give evidence of an underlying, unified soundscape. However, what we constitute a keynote is just a theory that’s accepted because it has yet to be disproven and has, thus, been given a definition to reach common ground, which I wouldn’t necessarily call unification but a consensus. Therefore, I think the concept of a keynote can only truly be applied to a community. For example, the sound of a coquí in Puerto Rico resonates throughout the island every single night. While an outsider may identify this as a sound distinct to Puerto Rico, which may be true, Puerto Ricans may have an entirely different association with it. The nightly lullaby of a coquí may be a “nothing” to the island’s inhabitants, but making a reference to it surfaces the unconscious understanding of that commonality among Puerto Ricans and may induce nostalgia in Puerto Ricans living outside the island. Here we have a set of four communities: the outsiders observing and documenting the sound as a defining characteristic of Puerto Rico, the island’s inhabitants living with the coquí as a subconscious heartbeat, Puerto Ricans living outside the island connecting it with the home they left, and the collective group of Puerto Ricans having an understood association of the coquí with the island and its people. This concept applies to the call to prayer in Cairo, where its citizens understand it as a signal to stop whatever they’re doing and adhere to their religious loyalty and outsiders recognize it as a common practice among Muslims, and any other sound that’s perceived differently by others—essentially everything. Schafer describes these differences in perception as figure, ground and field—the focus of interest, the context, and the location (152). “Whether a sound is figure or ground has partly to do with acculturation (trained habits), partly with the individual’s state of mind (mood, interest), and partly with the individuals relation to the field (native, outsider) (152).” Beats made by a boy using the dinner table as a drum and his knife and fork as drum sticks may be perceived as unwanted noise by his parents while he Ashley Soto MUSI 19 September 20, 2009 Schafer/Soundscapes Thought Piece perceives it as music. During a class discussion, someone pointed out that sound is invasive and a form of touching, that you have no choice to listen to and be impacted by it. Schafer states, “Any investigator of the world soundscape would benefit from a knowledge of the history of music (155).” Therefore, while you have no choice to listen to a sound, you have some control as to the extent to which you are impacted by it. Schafer goes on to quote Heraclitus by stating, “You never go down to the same water twice (160).” A continuing exploration of soundscapes will undoubtedly produce a never‐ending evolution or morphology of one’s perception and understanding of each individual soundscape and their relations with each other. However, this exploration can never produce any harvest without its documentation. Documentation allows for a soundscape to be recognized as existing in the first place, an exchange of ideas, a dialogue between communities based on perceptions of one’s environment. One can then research a history or even discover their own history. The inevitable change that occurs overtime in a specific area creates two separate soundscapes for a single place. For example, an individual who lived in a relatively uninhabited area twenty years ago and was able to enjoy the natural soundscape of, say, a desolate desert (yes, a desert can be enjoyable) may then feel that a history has been destroyed by new infrastructure in that area. On the other hand, someone who grew up in that “renovated” region may have fond memories associated with the sound of, say, a crossing guard directing traffic by a school. This brings us to the question as to whether these soundscapes are really in the same place although they’re in the same location. Two musicians may record their music at the same recording studio, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the soundscapes are in the same place. The recording studio may become an entirely different soundscape due to the change in atmosphere caused by the music. This change in soundscapes and, in some senses, the schizophonia may only be recognized by the sound technicians and engineers of the studio but nevertheless be recognized. The sense of place associated with a soundscape is all relative and subject to an individual, which brings us back to Schafer’s ongoing question: What is the relationship between man and the sounds of his environment and what happens when those sounds change? It’s possible that the individual who once lived in the desert may have never noticed his soundscape at all had it not been entirely ousted. Had it not changed and, thus, the individual not noticed it, does that mean the soundscape wouldn’t have existed in the first place? Is a soundscape conceived due to change? Or are they all just undiscovered soundscapes? How do soundscapes coexist without all sounding as cacophonous bursts of noise? Because of these seemingly endless “chicken or egg” questions, the idea that Schafer wants to provide a unifying term for sounds that are all perceived differently by each individual is ludicrous to me. However, if we can come to a consensus that soundscapes reflect counterpoint more than they do harmony, then I can lay my case to rest—almost.