Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T02:39:21.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Computational Designing of Sonic Morphologies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 March 2020

David Worrall
David Worrall*
Affiliation:
Columbia College Chicago, USA
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Much electroacoustic music composition and sound art, and the commentary that surrounds them, is locked into a materialist sound-object mindset in which the hierarchical organisation of sonic events, especially those developed through abstraction, are considered antithetical to sounds ‘being themselves’. This article argues that musical sounds are not just material objects, and that musical notations, on paper or in computer code, are not just symbolic abstractions, but instructions for embodied actions. When notation is employed computationally to control resonance and gestural actuators at multiple acoustic, psychoacoustic and conceptual levels of music form, vibrant sonic morphologies may emerge from the quantum-like boundaries between them. In order to achieve that result, it is necessary to replace our primary focus of compositional attention from the Digital Audio Workstation sound transformation tools currently in vogue, with those that support algorithmic thinking at all levels of compositional design.

Type
Articles
Information
Organised Sound , Volume 25 , Issue 1: Computation in the Sonic Arts , April 2020 , pp. 15 - 24
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press, 2020

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

Barad, K. 2007. Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Beghin, T. and Goldberg, S. (eds) 2007. Haydn and the Performance of Rhetoric. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Berlioz, H. 1855. Grand traité d’instrumentation et d’orchestration modernes (abbreviated in English as the Treatise on Instrumentation (sometimes Treatise on Orchestration). Paris: H. Lemoine.Google Scholar
Brazil, E. and Fernström, M. 2011. Auditory icons. In Hermann, T., Hunt, A. and Neuhoff, J. (eds.) The Sonification Handbook. Berlin: Logos Verlag, 325–38.Google Scholar
Brentano, F. [1874] 1995. Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint. In Descriptive Psychology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Brooks, R. 2002. Flesh and machines: How Robots Will Change Us. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Cage, J. 1961. Silence: Lectures and Writing. Middletown, CN: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
Cancellaro, J. 2017. Personal communication.Google Scholar
Coessens, K. 2013. The Agile Musical Mind: Mapping the Musician’s Act of Creation. In Veale, T., Feyaerts, K. and Forceville, C. (eds.) Creativity and the Agile Mind: A Multi-Disciplinary Study of a Multi-Faceted Phenomenon. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton, 335–54.Google Scholar
Cox, C. 2011. Beyond Representation and Signification: Toward a Sonic Materialism. Journal of Visual Culture 10(2): 145–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, N. 1982. Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies 3(4): 221–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Degara, N., Nagel, F. and Hermann, T. 2013. SonEX: An Evaluation Exchange Framework for Reproducible Sonification. Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display (ICAD). Lodz, Poland: Lodz University of Technology Press, 167–74.Google Scholar
Delmotte, V. 2012. Computational Auditory Saliency. PhD thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta.Google Scholar
Döbereiner, L. 2014. How to Think Sound in Itself? Towards a Materialist Dialectic of Sound. Proceedings of the Electroacoustic Music Studies Network Conference, Electroacoustic Music Beyond Performance. Berlin, June.Google Scholar
Eppe, M., Maclean, E., Confalonieri, R., Kutz, O., Schorlemmer, M., Plaza, E. and Kühnberger, H.-U. 2018. A Computational Framework for Conceptual Blending. Artificial Intelligence 256: 105–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farnell, A. 2010. Sound Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. 2001. Conceptual Blending and Analogy. In Gentner, D., Holyoak, K. J. and Kokinov, B. N. (eds.) The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 255–85.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. 2002. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Goehr, L. 1994. London: The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermann, T. 2008. Taxonomy and Definitions for Sonification and Auditory Display. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Auditory Display (ICAD). Paris: IRCAM.Google Scholar
Hiller, L. and Isaacson, L. 1959. Experimental Music: Composition with an electronic computer, 2nd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, P. 2009. Music Out of Nothing? A Rigorous Approach to Algorithmic Composition by Iannis Xenakis. PhD thesis, Technischen Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
Iverson, K. 1980. Notation as a Tool for Thought. The 1979 ACM Turing Award Lecture. Communications of the ACM 23(8): 444–57. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm (accessed 31 July 2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwinter, S. 2008. Far from Equilibrium: Essays on Technology and Design Culture. BarcelonaL Actar.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Núñez, R. 2000. Where Mathematics Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Le Sound. 2017. https://lesound.io/technologies/ (accessed 31 July 2019).Google Scholar
Matthen, M. 2019. Is the Eye Like What it Sees? A Critique of Aristotle on Sensing by Assimilation. Vivarium 57(3–4): 268–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGookin, D. and Brewster, S. 2011. Earcons. In Hermann, T., Hunt, A. and Neuhoff, J. (eds.), The Sonification Handbook. Berlin, Germany: Logos, 339–61.Google Scholar
Menges, A. and Ahlquist, S. 2011. Computational Design Thinking. Chichester: Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, M. [1945] 1962. The Phenomenology of Perception. Oxford: Routledge & Kegan Paul (Smith, C. (trans.) Phénoménologie de la perception. Paris: Gallimard, 1945).Google Scholar
Piaget, J. and Inhelder, B. 1956. The Child’s Conception of Space, trans. Langdon, F. J. and Lunzer, J. L.. London and New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Roads, C. 2004. Microsound. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Roddy, S. and Bridges, B. 2019. Addressing the Mapping Problem in Sonic Information Design through Embodied Image Schemata, Conceptual Metaphors, and Conceptual Blending. Journal of Sonic Studies 17.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, P. 1967. Musical Impressions: Selections from Paul Rosenfeld’s Criticism, ed. Liebowitz, Herbert A.. New York: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
Schön, D. and Wiggins, G. 1992. Kinds of Seeing and Their Functions in Designing. Design Studies, 13(2): 135–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schorlemmer, M., Smaill, A., Kühnberger, K.-U., Kutz, O., Colton, S., Cambouropoulos, E. and Pease, A. 2014. COINVENT: Towards a Computational Concept Invention Theory. The 5th International Conference on Computational Creativity (ICCC), Ljubljana, Slovenia.Google Scholar
Stefanou, D. 2018. The Way We Blend: Rethinking Conceptual Integration through Intermedial and Open-Form Scores. Musicae Scientiae 22(1): 108–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuuri, K. and Eerola, T. 2012. Formulating a Revised Taxonomy for Modes of Listening. Journal of New Music Research 41(2): 137–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varèse, E. 1938. Sound, the Raw Material of Music. Unpublished lecture, Edgard Varèse Collection, Paul Sacher Stiftung.Google Scholar
Varèse, E. 1967. Music as an Art-Science. In Schwartz, E. and Childs, B. (eds.) Contemporary Composers on Contemporary Music New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Wikipedia. 2019. Treatise on Instrumentation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatise_on_Instrumentation (accessed 31 August 2019).Google Scholar
Wishart, T. 1985. On Sonic Art. York: Imagineering Press.Google Scholar
Worrall, D. 2019. Sonification Design: From Data to Intelligible Soundfields. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xenakis, I. 1971. Formalized Music: Thought and Mathematics in Music. Indiana: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Zbikowski, L. 2002. Conceptualizing Music: Cognitive Structure, Theory, and Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zbikowski, L. 2018. Conceptual Blending, Creativity, and Music. Musicae Scientiae 22(1): 6–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zbikowski, L. 2019. Music, Metaphor, and Creativity. In Hidalgo-Downing, L. and Kraljevic-Mujic, B. (eds.) Performing Metaphor and Creativity across Modes and Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar