Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T02:28:16.991Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Understanding Interpretation, Informing Composition: audience involvement in aesthetic result

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2013

Andrew Hill
Andrew Hill*
Affiliation:
Clephan Building, De Montfort University, Leicester, LE1 9BH, UK, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper documents elements of a research project undertaken between 2008 and 2012. Building upon the Intention/Reception project of Leigh Landy (2006) and Rob Weale (2005), the project sought to investigate audience interpretations for works of electroacoustic audiovisual music and to utilise an expanded understanding of the audience – as active participants in interpretation – to subsequently inform the composition of new works. This project combined three distinct research methodologies: empirical data collection, scholarly research and composition. The composed works were both informed by the results of empirical data collection and scholarly research, and adapted (re-composed) throughout the latter stages of the research in order to explore emergent research findings and research hypotheses.

Interpretations were demonstrated to be contingent upon the individual lived experience of an audience member, with aspects of the work's discourse acting to narrow the interpretative potential of the work. The use of mimetic materials (sonic or visual) within works of electroacoustic audiovisual music were demonstrated to be potentially obstructing to an aesthetic interpretation of the work. And the importance of recognising the distinction between physical signal and perceived object was highlighted within the process of composition and the subsequent testing.

Type
Articles
Information
Organised Sound , Volume 18 , Special Issue 1: Audiences and Participants , April 2013 , pp. 43 - 59
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

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

Atkinson, S. 2008. Abstraction, Reality and the Loudspeaker. In: T. Böhme-Mehner, K. Mehner and M. Wolf (eds), Electroacoustic Music: Technologies, Aesthetics, and Theories – A Musicological Challenge. Essen: Die Blaue Eule, pp. 83–92.Google Scholar
Boltz, M. 2001. Musical Soundtracks as a Schematic Influence on the Cognitive Processing of Filmed Events. Music Perception 18(4): 427–454.Google Scholar
Brown, R.H. 2012. The Spirit inside Each Object: John Cage, Oskar Fischinger, and ‘The Future of Music’. Journal of the Society for American Music 6(1): 83–113.Google Scholar
Chion, M. 1994. Audio-Vision. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Chion, M. 2009. Guide to Sound Objects: Pierre Schaeffer and Musical Research, trans. J. Dack and C. North. Available from www.ears.dmu.ac.uk/spip.php?page=articleEars&id_article=3597.Google Scholar
Clarke, E.F. 2005. Ways of Listening: An Ecological Approach to the Perception of Musical Meaning. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, A.J. 2001. Music as a Source of Emotion in Film. In P. Juslin and J. Sloboda (eds), Music and Emotion Theory and Research. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Collopy, F. 2000. Color, Form and Motion. Leonardo 33(5): 355–360.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
Dunsby, J. 1983. Music and Semiotics: The Nattiez Phase. Musical Quarterly 69(1): 27–43.Google Scholar
Emmerson, S. 1986. Language of Electroacoustic Music. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Glass, R., Stevens, C. 2005. Making Sense of Contemporary Dance: An Australian Investigation into Audience Interpretation and Enjoyment Levels. fuel4arts (February 2005).Google Scholar
Hill, A. 2010. Investigating Audience Reception of Electroacoustic Audio-Visual Compositions: Developing an Effective Methodology. eContact! 12(4). Available from: http://cec.concordia.ca/econtact/12_4/hill_reception.html.Google Scholar
Hill, A. 2013. Understanding Electroacoustic Audio-visual Music. PhD thesis, De Montfort University, Leicester.Google Scholar
Hodges, D.A., Hairston, W.D., Burdette, J.H. 2005. Aspects of Multisensory Perception: The Integration of Visual and Auditory Information in Musical Experiences. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1060: 175–185.Google Scholar
Hume, D. 1977. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
James, R.S. 1986. Avant-Garde Sound-on-Film Techniques and Their Relationship to Electro-Acoustic Music. The Musical Quaterly 72(1): 74–89.Google Scholar
Kandinsky, W. 1947. Point and Line to Plane, trans. H. Dearstyne and H. Rebay. New York: Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation for the Museum of Non-Objective Painting.Google Scholar
Keiler, A. 1981. Two Views of Musical Semiotics. In W. Steiner (ed.), The Sign in Music and Literature. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 138–167.Google Scholar
Landy, L. 2006. The Intention/Reception Project. In M. Simoni (ed.), Analytical Methods of Electroacoustic Music. New York: Routledge, pp. 29–53.Google Scholar
Lipscomb, S., Kendall, R. 1994. Perceptual Judgement of the Relationship Between Musical and Visual Components in Film. Psychomusicology 13: 60–98.Google Scholar
Lipscomb, S., Eugene, K.M. 2004. Perceived Match Between Visual Parameters and Auditory Correlates: An Experimental Multimedia Investigation. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition. Evanston, IL.Google Scholar
Marshall, S.K., Cohen, A.J. 1988. Effects of Musical Soundtracks on Attitudes toward Animated Geometric Figures. Music Perception 1(6): 95–112.Google Scholar
Moritz, W. 2004. Optical Poetry: The Life and Work of Oskar Fischinger. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Nattiez, J.-J. 1990. Music and Discourse: Toward a Semiology of Music, trans. C. Abbate. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Newtson, D. 1976. Foundations of Attribution: the Perception of Ongoing Behaviour. In J. Harvey, W. Ickes and R. Kidd (eds), New Directions in Attribution Research, vol. 1. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 223–247.Google Scholar
Peacock, K. 1988. Instruments to Perform Color-Music: Two Centuries of Technological Experimentation. Leonardo 21(4): 397–406.Google Scholar
Prince, G. 2003. A Dictionary of Narratology, 2nd edition. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Schutz, A. 1976. Fragments on the Phenomenology of Music. In F.J. Smith (ed.), In Search of Musical Method. London, New York & Paris: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, pp. 23–71.Google Scholar
Tarkovsky, A. 1989. Sculpting in Time, trans. K. Hunter-Blair. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Weale, R. 2005. The Intention/Reception Project. Unpublished PhD thesis, De Montfort University, Leicester.Google Scholar
Weale, R. 2006. Discovering How Accessible Electroacoustic Music Can Be: The Intention/Reception Project. Organised Sound 11(2): 189–200.Google Scholar

Hill supplementary material

Movie example 1

Download Hill supplementary material(Video)
Video 4.9 MB

Hill supplementary material

Movie example 2

Download Hill supplementary material(Video)
Video 11.3 MB

Hill supplementary material

Movie example 3

Download Hill supplementary material(Video)
Video 54.5 MB

Hill supplementary material

Movie example 4

Download Hill supplementary material(Video)
Video 143.3 MB

Hill supplementary material

Movie example 5

Download Hill supplementary material(Video)
Video 40.3 MB

Hill supplementary material

Movie example 6

Download Hill supplementary material(Video)
Video 53.7 MB

Hill supplementary material

Movie example 7

Download Hill supplementary material(Audio)
Audio 413.5 KB