Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Leo's Acousmatic Walk

Here is a chronological transcript of my walk:
  • scuff-riff-tear: low frequency, low amplitude, loosely period, reoccurring, but brief
  • humanoid rumble: mixed frequency, low amplitude, droning, continuous duration
  • low fuzz: mid-low frequency, low amplitude, droning, continuous duration
  • oscillating abrupt tone: alternating high-mid frequency, low amplitude, filtered, brief
  • high pitch jingle: high frequency, crescendo to med. amplitude decrescendo low, brief
  • low rumble: low, very low frequency, low amplitude, filtered, drone, continuous duration
  • clop-clop-clop: rhythmic low frequency, low amplitude, resonant
  • mid pulsing fuzz: rhythmic, slowly oscillating frequency, medium amplitude, drone, continuous duration
Major change in acoustic density.
  • ting-ting-ting: quick staccato pulse yet resonant, high frequency, low amplitude, very short duration
  • thud and bang: quick though randomly reoccurring resonant, low frequency, medium amplitude varying duration
  • internal pop: quick pop, low frequency, low amplitude, not resonant
  • brief resonant tones: distinct, deliberate pitches, short, very resonant, varying frequency, medium amplitude, short duration
  • cyclic hiss: low frequency, rhythmic amplitude, not resonant
  • deep-to-high gurgle: low to med frequency pulse, med amplitude, couple minutes duration
  • sharp clop: much more percussive than before
  • delicate jingle: very delicate ting, high frequency, light amplitude, very brief
  • soft clatter: percussive, organized, deliberate, filtered, changing frequency low amplitude, very brief
  • high frequency fuzz: slightly pulsing, high frequency, medium amplitude, continuous duration
  • muted tones: muted tones composing a deliberate melody, low amplitude, very brief
  • stereophonic hum-varying frequency, high amplitude, drone, continuous duration

1 comment:

Trace said...

This takes off on the technical-engineer aspect of Schaeffer's approach. Oddly, though, it does little to convey the sound itself. This experiment presents an interesting paradox, which suggests that the only sonorous object is the sonorous object, and hence the act of sound recording is better at documenting sonorous objects than transcriptions and remediations of this sort. Reading this, or any of these transcriptsions, preferably aloud, simply creates completely new and distinct sonorous objects rather than accurately depicts the original sonorous object. It is similar to reading the note, B#, on a musical score, and hearing a B# on a violin, guitar or piano. Does the same or similar gap exist between hearing a B# on a guitar that you play yourself and hearing a recording of yourself playing that B# on guitar?