Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T02:25:52.770Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Imagining through Sound: An experimental analysis of narrativity in electronic music

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2016

Anil Çamcı
Anil Çamcı*
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Chicago, 842 W Taylor, Chicago, IL 60607, USA
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The highly rewarding experience of electronic music persists throughout our daily lives. Our immediate environments are replete with events that emit sounds that are extremely complex. Electronic music engages with the listening habits we take for granted in our everyday lives, and reveals how intricate they can be. Inspired by such intricacies, I have conducted a series of listening experiments with 80 participants over the course of three years to explore the cognition of electronic music. In this article, I will first present the method and the results of this experiment, including a categorical analysis of mental associations evoked by different works of electronic music. Next, I will offer a discussion of narrativity in electronic music supported by these results and diverse perspectives on narrativity from a number of disciplines. I will then construct a definition of gestures as narrative units in electronic music in relation to events in the environment. In doing so, I will bring together various theories on electronic music with not only the findings of the current study but also existing research on auditory cognition.

Type
Articles
Information
Organised Sound , Volume 21 , Special Issue 3: Sound and Narrative , December 2016 , pp. 179 - 191
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adorno, T. W. 1997. Aesthetic Theory. Ed Gretel Adorno and Rolf Tiedemann, trans. Robert Hullot-Kentor. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Ashline, W. L. 1995. The Problem of Impossible Fictions. Style 29(2): 215–234.Google Scholar
Bal, M. 1997. Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. 2nd edn. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Ballas, J. A. 1993. Common Factors in the Identification of an Assortment of Brief Everyday Sounds. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 19(2): 250–267.Google ScholarPubMed
Bar, M. 2004. Visual Objects in Context. Nature Reviews, Neuroscience 5(8): 617–629.Google Scholar
Brazil, E., Fernström, M. and Bowers, J. 2009. Exploring Concurrent Auditory Icon Recognition. Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Auditory Display. Copenhagen, Denmark 18–22 May 2009.Google Scholar
Bridger, M. 1989. An Approach to the Analysis of Electro-acoustic Music Derived from Empirical Investigation and Critical Methodologies of Other Disciplines. Contemporary Music Review 3(1): 145–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunia, R. 2010. Diegesis and Representation: Beyond the Fictional World, on the Margins of Story and Narrative. Poetics Today 31(4): 679–720.Google Scholar
Coker, W. 1972. Music and Meaning: A Theoretical Introduction to Musical Aesthetics. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Çamcı, A. 2012. A Cognitive Approach to Electronic Music: Theoretical and Experiment-based Perspectives. Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference 2012. Ljubljana, Slovenia, 9–15 September: 1–4.Google Scholar
Çamcı, A. 2013. Diegesis as a Semantic Paradigm for Electronic Music. eContact! 15(2). http://cec.sonus.ca/econtact/15_2/camci_diegesis.html (accessed 15 June 2013.Google Scholar
Çamcı, A. 2014. The Cognitive Continuum of Electronic Music. Ph.D. dissertation, Leiden University.Google Scholar
Delalande, F. 1998. Music Analysis and Reception Behaviours: Sommeil by Pierre Henry. Journal of New Music Research 27(1–2): 13–66.Google Scholar
Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. 1994. Percept, Affect, and Concept. In Clive Cazeaux (ed.) The Continental Aesthetics Reader. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dubois, D. 2000. Categories as Acts of Meaning: The Case of Categories in Olfaction and Audition. Cognitive Science Quarterly 1(1): 35–68.Google Scholar
Dubois, D., Guastavino, C. and Raimbault, M. 2006. A Cognitive Approach to Urban Soundscapes: Using Verbal Data to Access Everyday Life Auditory Categories. Acta Acustica United with Acustica 92(6): 865–874.Google Scholar
Emmerson, S. 1986. The Relation of Language to Materials. In Simon Emmerson (ed.) The Language of Electroacoustic Music. Houndmills: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Fraisse, P. 1963. The Psychology of Time. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Gaver, W. W. 1993. How Do We Hear in the World?: Explorations in Ecological Acoustics. Ecological Psychology 5(4): 285–313.Google Scholar
Genette, G. 1980. Narrative Discourse. Trans Jane E. Lewin. New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Gerrig, R. J. and Egidi, G. 2003. Cognitive Psychological Foundations of Narrative Experiences. In David Herman (ed.) Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. 1986. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. New York: Taylor & Francis, Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Gritten, A. and King, E. 2006. Introduction. In Anthony Gritten and Elaine King (eds.) Music and Gesture. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Guastavino, C. 2007. Categorization of Environmental Sounds. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 61(1): 54–63.Google Scholar
Gygi, B., Kidd, G. R. and Watson, C. S. 2004. Spectral-temporal Factors in the Identification of Environmental Sounds. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 115(3): 1252–1265.Google Scholar
Gygi, B., Kidd, G. R. and Watson, C. S. 2007. Similarity and Categorization of Environmental Sounds. Perception & Psychophysics 69(6): 839–855.Google Scholar
Hatten, R. S. 2006. A Theory of Music Gesture and its Application to Beethoven and Schubert. In Anthony Gritten and Elaine King (eds.) Music and Gesture. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Herman, D. 2009. Basic Elements of Narrative. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Huron, D. 2006. Sweet Anticipation: Music and the Psychology of Expectation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, J. J. 1985. Acoustic Information for Objects, Places, and Events. In William H. Warren, Jr. and Robert E. Shaw (eds.) Persistence and Change: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Event Perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Kendall, G. S. 2010. Meaning in Electroacoustic Music and the Everyday Mind. Organised Sound 15(1): 63–74.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. 2003. Metaphors We Live By. 2nd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Landy, L. 2007. Understanding the Art of Sound Organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marcell, M. M., Borella, D., Greene, M., Kerr, E. and Rogers, S. 2000. Confrontation Naming of Environmental Sounds. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology 22(6): 830–864.Google Scholar
McCartney, A. S. J. 1999. Sounding Places: Situated Conversations Through the Soundscape Compositions of Hildegard Westerkamp. Ph.D. thesis, York University, Toronto.Google Scholar
Meyer, L. B. 1956. Emotion and Meaning in Music. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mikkonen, K. 2011. ‘There is No Such Thing as Pure Fiction’: Impossible Worlds and the Principle of Minimal Departure Reconsidered. Journal of Literary Semantics 40(2): 111–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nattiez, J. 1990. Music and Discourse. Trans. Carolyn Abbate. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Özcan, E. 2008. Product Sounds: Fundamentals & Applications. Ph.D. thesis. Delft Technical University, Industrial Design Department, NL.Google Scholar
Özcan, E. and van Egmond, R. 2007. Memory for product sounds: The effect of sound and label type. Acta Psychologica 126(3): 196–215.Google Scholar
Roads, C. 2015. Composing Electronic Music: A New Aesthetic. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ryan, M. 1980. Fiction, Non-factuals, and the Principle of Minimal Departure. Poetics 9(4): 403–422.Google Scholar
Smalley, D. 1997. Spectromorphology: Explaining Sounds-shapes. Organised Sound 2(2): 107–126.Google Scholar
Stockhausen, K. 1989. Four Criteria of Electronic Music. In Robin Maconie (ed.) Stockhausen on Music: Lectures and Interviews. New York: Marion Boyars.Google Scholar
Thomas, N. J. T. 2010. Mental Imagery. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/mental-imagery/ (accessed 20 May 2014).Google Scholar
Truax, B. 1984. Acoustic Communication. 2nd edn. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Truax, B. 2012. Sound, Listening and Place: The Aesthetic Dilemma. Organised Sound 17(3): 1–9.Google Scholar
VanDerveer, N. J. 1979. Ecological Acoustics: Human Perception of Environmental Sounds. Ph.D. thesis. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
Warren, W. H. Jr., Kim, E. E. and Husney, R. 1987. The Way the Ball Bounces: Visual and Auditory Perception of Elasticity and Control of the Bounce Pass. Perception 16(3): 309–336.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weale, R. 2006. Discovering How Accessible Electroacoustic Music Can Be: The Intention/Reception Project. Organised Sound 11(2): 189–200.Google Scholar
Windsor, L. 2000. Through and Around the Acousmatic: The Interpretation of Electroacoustic Sounds. In Simon Emmerson (ed.) Music, Electronic Media and Culture. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Wishart, T. 1996. On Sonic Art. Ed. Simon Emmerson. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Çamcı supplementary material

Sound files

Download Çamcı supplementary material(File)
File 28.8 MB