Aesthetical Concepts of Music and Technology

(Text by Folkmar Hein for the seminar "Aesthetical Concepts of Music and Technology", SS 2008)

Lets ask first of all: what is the meaning of "Aesthetic" and "Concept":

Aesthetic is the sience of Beautyness, observed by our senses;
concept means brieving of thaughts (must be clear and understandable).

here we may conctruct two subtitles by means of overstatement:

• what concepts are available with help of technology to make music beauty?
• what rules are best for making Kitsch??

incidental remark: Kitsch is something, what appear as more than it is; for example  to simulate properties who are not available - like: showing brass instead of gold; or showing glas instead of diamonds (the reason for that is: gold and diamonds are too expensive); so the appearing of the material by means of a value seems to be more than it is;
but not only the value of the material is interesting to simulate: it is also the social value! (for example to appear in another social group as you are yet - petit-bourgeois want to be a noble).

The word "aesthetic" contains few  aspects what can be misunderstand as Kitsch! This is in any case dangerous, if the aspect "beauty" is isolated from other properties. This other properties are:

• the apperception (ear, eye, nose, body etc.) must be clear and plain!
  This means:
  if you want to show something, show it clear and fulsome!
  if you want to evolve something, develop clear and fulsome!
  if you want to get to the heart of something, make it clear and fulsome!
  In a more practical vieuw it means: use instead of linear functions exponental functions!
  Also mention that there is a priority of the sensing! Often the optical sense dominates the acoustical sense; often the sensing process depends to a prioritie of distance (closer distances has higher priority then far).
• we should understand aesthetics as a part of "logic" (Aesth. is the recognition of the beauty); if understand so as logic: Aesth. is also part of mathematics!
  This shows us:
  use recognisable, distinguishable and coherent structures!
  Beginners like to use all, all the universum! EM has something what says always: all is possible!! - Beware!
  This asks for something like a "strategy of poorness" - to use for example homogen materials to feel always "at home"! But we know that this strategy has a strong limitation where homogen materials become deterministic behauvior - that results in getting boring!
  Interesting excursion could be the music by Iannis Xenakis! We know: he use this kind of homogen material - but it take place very loud and very long (so the ear get slowly over the time another condition!).
• Aesth. has a phenomenological appearence: we alow beside the sensed appearance of the artistical idea also the understanding of the appearence! ("das Schöne ist das sinnliche Scheinen der Idee" (Hegel): beauty is the sensual appearence of the idea).
  We should understand artistical guidelines,
  we should feel (by understanding) expressive gestures / shapes
  EM has added a new kind of sensual Experienc, and have forced this discussion about Aesteticals.
• Aesth. must be understand by means of history! Every epoch has an own meaning of aesthetics; every folk / ethnic has an own appearence of Aesth.
  So we can look to the "Secession-building" in Vienna, where we read:
  "der Zeit ihre Kunst. Der Kunst ihre Freiheit"
  "every epoch there own art; give every art freedom".
  I think that the last 40 years have understand to rate all our cultural deployments by means of there time-epoche - in hope to understand the historical situations in better way.
  For example for our epoche we watch carefully the time in the sonamed "Baushaus-Ära".  We read:
  Ein Ding ist bestimmt durch sein Wesen. Um es so zu gestalten, dass es richtig funktioniert - ein Gefühl, ein Stuhl, ein Haus -, muss sein Wesen zuerst erforscht werden; denn es soll seinem Zweck vollendet dienen, das heißt, seine Funktion praktisch erfüllen, haltbar, billig und "schön" sein. [Walter Gropius (Bauhaus Dessau ca. 1927)]. The translation is not easy!!!
  Interesting fact:
  The Bauhaus never dealt with music and acoustics!!! So we do not find an answer from this era to the question: "something {thats = music} should fit the purpose by means of funcionality, must be used successful in practice, must be solid, cheap and beauty"! - Can we copy the Aesthetics for making a feeling, a chair, a building to the Aesthetics of sound?
  I think it is partly possible, even in the traditions of the Bauhaus'es roots: the "art-and-crafts"-idea in England or the art nouveau elsewhere (that happend 30 years earlier as a strength believe in the release from the kitschig thinking of Historismus about beauty!!!!: for example:
  Cheap: yes, the syntheziser had strong success from his cheapness!
  Material: depends from nature because of beautyness and richness of nature (mention the suitable ideas of musique concrète and akusmatik music!!!)
  Form: we look strictly to a coherence / harmony of form and decor  - this gives an interesting outlook to musical form and sounds in it.
• Here another property appear: the political dimension of the Aesthehtics!
  It comes beside the fear for example of dictatorships against EM!
  In Germany as well the Nazi-dictatorship as the DDR-Dictatorship have prevent EM as a very special inhuman part of contemporary music;
  but interesting is, that both have been very involved in EM-Technology to make sounds beauty!!! I will bring an example later!
  We mention two views to this background:
  artistical freedom against the believing in technical progress! For example the russian Futurism in the 20th last centuary did a great job in dealing with new technologies and in believing in technical progress (machines, electricity, filmindustry etc)! But very soon the technical progress appeared with artistical progress: that was the end!!! (Stalinismus).
  Please mention and do NOT forget: in the DDR EM was forbidden in the 60s and 70s! And by the way: if an islamic political power will reach Europe, first of all EM will be forbidden!!!

We may look now for a reason to make or make NOT  aesthetical concepts ("Rezepte").

There are several chapters where we can access aesthetical concepts. Lets go for a while to the question of "music and space" .

Reductions in stereo & surround: why?

Looking into a “common” EM production, it is striking at first sight, that the used original sounds were recorded in mono or mostly stereo. True surround recordings, meaning sounds recorded using a multichannel system, are rather rare. A consequence of this fact is that there is no get away from the stereo sound.

From this follows a “left-right” thinking, which becomes apparent in multichannel assignments: the left channel remains on the left, the right channel on the right. There is hardly ever a center choice nor a sum up on one channel. We easily recognise assignments in quadraphonic or octophonic works where the loudspeaker arrangement is set in “pairs left – right” without a center in the front (or in the back). From this follows the problem of assignments in the surround standard: it is difficult to find a convincing octophonic channel assignment that takes into account the center channel. Therefore it can be said that the surround standards contradict the traditions of EM by using the even-numbered and by four divisible quantities of audio channels.

If we look now at the EM usual LS arrangement for quadraphonic and octophonic reproduction, then we can find substantial assignment problems, particularly in octophonic works.

Of course, everybody knows that these surround standards are intended for cinema and frontal picture projections which predominantly orientate in a rather frontal way and put the surround channels in a second level of importance. An orientation usual in EM and equal in all directions is not at all intended. Think of the lonely LFE-channel which works rather ineffectively because each of the 4, 8 or 16 loudspeakers should cover a full range, and thus, if at all LFE, then at least a pair or even several pairs! 

Now the following question: why does EM use these rather useless industry standards anyway? And: why do we constantly use spaces and technical facilities we actually reject? Is it only due to finances? Or could it be because these technical standards are not at all so relevant?

First of all we should point out: art production does not take technical possibilities from the point of view of technicians, scientists and theoreticians, but quite practically from its own perspective. This perspective, as is well-known, sets the main focus somewhere else, perhaps surprisingly away from techniques.

In many cases we notice that:

• everybody thinks that stereo is better than mono (that was the fact decades ago) and that quadro is better than stereo and that 5.1 surround is even better than stereo!!
• the experienced person also knows that one can arrange five surround channels quite differently as prescribed by the norm. And also, that it mainly depends on the relative connections to our own experiences/perceptions/wishes/expectations: Everything is becoming better, more beautiful and faster in comparison to something less quick and less beautiful … but what could that be??
• at reducing standards, artists and producers become strangely soft, lax and willing: they are terribly fond of publishing the production (even in view of painful restrictions) !!  Publication is the dominant criterion which sets aside other reasonable criteria.!
• some EM composers have found a way out by fundamentally rejecting the multichannel option and persisting on the classical stereo option (this point of view e.g. is represented by Trevor Wishart  - and for this I admire him very much – his only multichannel piece, the quadraphonic version of Vox 5, is, by the way, more dull than the stereo version!). 

It is really absurd when complex spatial works like for example Nono's Prometheo appear in stereo version on an audio-CD. (A surround version is at the moment being released. It is a bit nicer than the stereo variant, but, of course, it does not at all meet the intended concept of the work nor the  ideas of the composer) !! In the best case such publications can only be considered a documentation, but it is interesting to see, that they are fully accepted! In a more or less radical way this applies to almost all works that are reduced from their original multichannel realisation to a stereo version. This ranges from publications on vinyl records and CD to, and above all radio broadcasts. Radio is on the one hand the biggest obstacle and on the other hand represents the ultimate big financial source – a source we absolutely do not want to lose!! But it is also fair to mention that radio stations are not doing this “stereo terror” because of bad will!. Since some time some editorial staff (especially from the radio art sections) are financially supporting multichannel productions. Although these productions are not broadcast in their original conception, there are from time to time public concerts where multichannel productions are premiered “on the spot” for an interested audience (we can name for instance the Ars Acoustica in Cologne).

From all this I gather: alternative infrastructure and atmosphere are as important or even perhaps much more important for EM than the concert hall with its acoustics and its superlatives stemming from the traditional concert business! We are even willing to accept considerable reductions to create an adequate concert experience with a pleasant atmosphere!

We accept plaster coming off, unstable and decaying seats, floors not swept. We accept that there is no cloakroom, that porters are missing, and that the missing elevators are too small or don’t work. And finally we do not keep standards in slavery. We have a nice atmosphere to encourage interesting and maybe new thoughts, as well as loudspeakers and technology that we place around the audience!

Now the question is whether this list of different functions can contribute to new or different lasting hearing experiences.

“… more beautiful”

We believe that with the technical revolution in studio technology the sound in general has “improved” (see above). In this context, the word “better” is defined: an improvement is a change of an older state. It is doubtful whether it really is an improvement and whether the former state is really “worse”.

E.g.: The old voluminous studio technology is associated with mysterious qualities. The old analogue vinyl is preferred by some fans to the digital CD/SACD etc. Indeed, this is a special issue that brings up strong and deep feelings. It is interesting to notice that time goes on and new generations won’t be able to understand why people were so fond of what once was considered “better”. In other words: the next generations won’t be able to understand neither the sound aesthetics nor that, that was considered “beautiful” – now it does not seem to be more beautiful anymore (mention the fairy tale “the emperor’s new clothes”).

Example:  Funkausstellung Berlin 1932; Prof. Leithäuser explains :
My translation:

"The soundboard (of a violin) is a difficult matter; we have problems with the mechanical processing of the wood. On the other hand we know exactly the technique of the electric amplifier. Therefore it is much easier to produce beautiful and loud sounds (as loud as you like) with the electrical amplifier....."

I therefore draw the conclusion that future generations won’t understand what once was considered “more beautiful” and “better”. This also means that the argument “beautiful” or “better” is not good! For example, over and over again classical music is published using always “better” recording techniques to, so to speak,  make these recordings permanently “more beautiful”. This concept is particularly striking in new editions that are only a remix of the same old material by just using “better” tools! Remember: after the replacement of the vinyl record, the same recordings are embellished and published on CD. A generation change is now approaching and we are eager to know whether everything will repeat again. This process might happen again and again, because tools are being improved and improvements are being made all the time – although music remains the same!

I think that a multichannel production combined with the argument of “embellishment” does not have a lasting existence! Only the music is really lasting!!

Space and movement

Arguments have already been provided about the fact that the perception of space is experienced from the perspective of the listener and not from the perspective of the developer (in other words “what we should hear”). Space in itself seems to us the field in which small and/or clear changes of time take place:

small changes happen in the sense of

• nearly static, rather unnoticeable location changes. Reverberation masks to a certain degree tonal details which are sort of “removed” or pushed away.
• minimalist spatial movements of sound objects which make clear their position for location and sound. Without these minimalist changes of musical / sonic parameters the result remains totally static / synthetic. This is – by the way – a characteristic which has always been associated with and blame EM. 

clearly changes that happen in the sense of:

• moving sound objects which are naturally and very intensively captured and experienced by the ear and other senses (each acoustic movement signals a certain danger, the closer the more threatening!).  The movement of sound objects is a very rare procedure in traditional music as well as in contemporary instrumental music (how could music instruments move??). However, it is a common means of expression and common effect in EM and film. It is now and again used with excess.
• sound objects racing through the space – similar to those cinematic exaggerations where small animals on the IMAX screen acquire huge and menacing proportions.

It has to be pointed out here that the multichannel option is hardly NOT necessary for the representation of "small" changes. As stated earlier it only provides a certain "embellishing” effect.

Performances that make a meaningful use of sound movements are exactly those the multichannel option need! This applies especially to film or theatre or radio play! It also applies to what is called "cinema for the ear" and it is EM in its special facet of radio plays, film music and acousmatic music with its requirement of spatial diffusion or projection.

Since a couple of years we are observing that image production and sound production are getting more and more close to each other due to common computer tools. Today an audio workstation is also a video workstation. More and more audio software integrates video and video software offers increasing audio comfortable facilities. Could the consequence be that  audiovisual works will dominate our EM world in the future? At least it should be planned that spatial as well as media technology / architecture are able to work together smoothly.

Let’s affirm: film / audiovision / cinema for the ear: these are the real customers of our acoustic performance with its apparent movements where a multichannel setting is suitable. But this is probably not the case for the more static instances of instrumental music and of many EM works.

What parameters play a shaping role in "clear" movements?

the objects change their position, so that auditory and optical  localisation plays a role in every case. The motto for localisation is: the more loudspeakers the better!

the objects move in different distance ranges with certain characteristics. Of course, close movements happen quickly and distant movements very slowly (that is one of those characteristics of distance). The distance ranges are:

• the immediate, quite unpleasant and dangerous vicinity which automatically causes defensive reflexes.  These are distances of a few centimetres (near field) where, e.g. a fly or a wasp causes violent defensive reactions. It is also the distance of "whispering". The smallest movements of our head lead to different perceptions.
• the distance of interpersonal communication, in which we notice each detail of the sound attentively and without fear. This range lies approximately between 1 and 8 metres and represents so to say our living room characteristics; it could be considered to be a chamber music distance. It is a distance within the reverberation radius where the senses perceive each movement of the sound object, even with head movements.
• the middle distance is the acoustic area in which there is no direct communication. It is the "normal" distance of presentation in classical concert halls, with a specific mixture of direct waves (almost plane waves) and reflections. The listener is partly situated within the reverberation radius and partly outside of it. Movements of one’s own head become unimportant for localisation, but provide details about the space response.
• I define the area existing beyond this middle distance as "acoustic horizon". It lies outside any acoustic communication, beyond the sounding radius. It exists "outdoors" in nature or in very big spaces (cathedrals). Our urban life is incessantly polluted by "noise coming from all directions " from the acoustic horizon. Its level is usually soft. It can even be "ignored". Consciousness gets used to it and in the end does not perceive it any more. Sometimes this horizon is also called "Athmo". The waves that affect the listener are plane. The listener’s head movements are hardly of any importance.

additional comment to the "acoustic horizon":

• as mentioned above the acoustic horizon acts from all directions mostly in a similar shape. He concists of thousand sources. We know this for example from a soccer stadium with tenthousand of people; the sound of wind going through the wood; the sound of waterfalls, the ocean, fire. All this sounds feature a extremly impression of space, where the individual sources cannot be localized; it is rather the general impression of numerous non-descreet sources - mention above the definition of the WFS-Loudspeaker! The listening to that emergences is fascinating to pur ears, we can hear to them for long!
• The EM is able to generate similar processes, we use them more and more: dense soundclouds / sounddust composed of numerous self-similar sources made first of all by granulation. Minimal changes by chance are used - same as in the examplesabove (water, fire, soccerfield).
• Waveoverviews of different channels of such works seems to be very similar, but they contain a fabulous space image.

• Such EM have the same feature we have descibed to the acoustical horizon - but the sound can reach high levels by contrast to the normal acoustical world.

It is interesting that all the above mentioned areas or ranges can be represented with the loudspeaker and that of course EM operates intensively with this. A palette of different loudspeakers, differing in depth (installation of loudspeakers varying from a few meters apart up to very far away "at the walls") can simulate these ranges or areas (acousmatic performance). Alternatively one can simulate different distance ranges by sound manipulation and reproduce them through wide distant projecting loudspeakers. These loudspeakers should, if possible, be set up evenly and at equal distance around the listener. This is, so to speak, the standard case in EM performance: the optimal listener's  “sound image” is found in the middle, the sweet spot. The acoustic response of the performance space restricts the possibilities of range representation.

Another parameter for the understanding of movement is the one that works permanently in our acoustic everyday world and for which hearing provides a good experience: it is the Doppler shift. Without this phenomenon a movement seems unnatural, even when many loudspeakers are used.

Let’s briefly listen to the historical piece "Turenas". Besides Frequency Modulation, John Chowning uses for the first time reverb-algorithms as well as algorithms to describe sound object movements in a quadraphonic space:
The dominance of the Doppler shift is impressing: the "movement" takes place for our ears even if the channels are interchanged. It still works, if the all-round acoustic projection is reduced to a line, if it is reduced to stereo, and even if it is switched to mono. The Doppler shift dominates the perception of movement!
Chowning cleverly used reverberation for the perception of distance, where very well selected sound objects move constantly in and out of a fictitious space. In that way a feeling of space size is transmitted.

The power of imagination by means of loops / repetition

The example of “Turenas” shows how eagerly the ear gets involved subjectively into experiences which have appeared in the course of life or got established in the learning process, even in a chronologically short succession of repetitions.

Having a look at a typical EM production, the process of repetition is omnipresent. One checks the sounds over and over again, one repeats passages to correct them or to be able to understand them. In our context it has to be considered that the repetition of sounds and sound passages triggers a habit process.  Exaggerated, we can say that a structure we do not listen to only once or twice but instead a hundred times also works differently. Our attention concentrates on recognising or re-recognising certain characteristics / patterns. In this process certain expectations become gradually fulfilled. For example the expectation that a sound, by means of using a particular tool, should perform a circular movement.  After repeated listenings and a willing attitude this movement is definitely perceived by the listener as a circular movement. This is something which possibly does not work at all when listening only once, or something that an inexperienced listener will not be able to understand.

Looking back at the development from mono to stereo and to multichannel – we honestly have to admit that we have imagined a great deal. At least I am claiming this for my person. While listening to older works produced by myself, I am often surprised with the fact that my memory differs from what I am listening to now. It is also a cover-up of inferior quality reproductions; during the seventies in the Quadro-space created by those monster loudspeakers, we were convinced that sounds would travel through space because theoretically we did the right production.  The truth of perception results from the faith that the technical realisation is perfect. But technical possibilities develop from one perfectionism to the next one. Therefore it has also to be questioned again and again.