1. The Semiotics of Electroacoustic Media
If we accept that electroacoustic composition is a form enabling ‘various forms of exchange’Footnote 1 (Nattiez Reference Nattiez1990: 17) between composer and listener, resulting in the listener’s reconstruction of meaning,Footnote 2 then we must accept that the compositional strategies used by the composer have at least the potential to act as significant factors in a listener’s perception and understanding of a composition.
Furthermore, it seems reasonable to suggest that these poietic strategies, resulting in the aural experience and eventual interpretation by the listener, revolve largely around the relationships between the sound materials, their aural evolution in relation to the compositional syntax of sound events, and the sound events’ syntagmatic relation to one another. That is to say, most simply, the poietic strategies of the electroacoustic medium are comprised of the use of a particular sound in a particular way (including digital signal processing, filtering, spatial trajectory, etc.) at a particular time, and in relation to other sound events within the compositional time frame. As a result, the nature of electroacoustic music, by virtue of its structuring of sound events in time, suggests a semiotic framework for both the composition and analysis of electroacoustic works.Footnote 3
Admittedly simple a model as this may be, I would argue that interplay within this semiotic framework can quickly create a complex web of relationships of a potentially symbolic nature between various sounds, especially when one considers the listener’s dynamic relationship to each of the above parameters. As well, while this model can be applied to compositions in which the sound material is completely abstract (albeit interpreted with an even greater degree of variation based on personal associations), it is clear that this model can reach its full potential with the use of real-world sounds, or sounds that are perceived as being related to the real world, due to their rich associative qualities (I am thinking here of metaphorical evocation of real-world phenomena achieved using unrelated sound material or processing techniques, such as are found in Truax’s Riverrun and Basilica, as well as Smalley’s Valley Flow and Dolden’s Below the Walls of Jericho).
While the shortcomings of the communicative aspect of classic semiotic relationships between a ‘producer’ and ‘receiver’ (mediated by the work) are well documented in post-structuralist discourse, I will nevertheless suggest that the use of semiotic relationships in electroacoustic composition can be effective in shaping the trajectories of interpretants (in the Peircian sense) on the part of the listener. These arguments, as well as particular strategies towards this end, have been well documented in both Wishart’s and Young’s writings (Wishart Reference Wishart1996; Young Reference Young1996, Reference Young2004) and compositional work (most notably Wishart’s Red Bird, as well as Young’s Inner and Liquid Sky).
However, the notion of sign in relation to electroacoustic music, particularly within the context of compositions which retain a degree of recognisability of sound materials, has primarily centred on the individual sound event; the sound of a bird chirping or a bell being struck is recognised by its spectro-temporal content, and refers us to look up the sound of a bird or bell in relation to our index of experiences and associations. I would like to suggest the notion of the ‘Ecological Model’ (Keller Reference Keller1999: 6, Reference Keller2000: 55) as an additional method of signification that takes place through its syntactical characteristics, and is ripe with artistic possibilities for composers.
2. The Ecological Model: a sign defined by its syntax
It seems that the term ‘ecological model’ alludes to two historically unrelated approaches within the discourse of electroacoustic music. In fact, at first the notion of the ‘model’ – and by extension the physical model, the scientific analysis and re-synthesis of physical sound producing systems – and its emphasis on modelling instrumental sounds, seems diametrically opposed to the notions of acoustic ecology and soundscape composition, with its emphasis on environmental and social issues, as well as social modes of listening. However, this initially puzzling amalgamation of approaches within the discourse of electroacoustic composition are merged together convincingly in Damián Keller’s MFA thesis, Touch’n’go: Ecological Models in Composition.
In his paper, Keller suggests that the field of ecological psychology – the study of ‘acoustic phenomena by observing the physical characteristics of a sound event, the high-order configuration of variables, and the listener’s ability to detect the information provided by the event’ (Keller Reference Keller1999: 11) – provides a framework capable of joining the above-mentioned approaches of physical modelling and soundscape composition. Keller proposes that ‘the ecological approach suggests that time be parsed into informationally relevant events’ and then restructured, using a variety of methods within an artistic, compositional context in order to create ‘a finite event which is feasible, at least in theory, within our day-to-day environment’ (1999: 11). In this manner, Keller suggests, the composer is able to engage the listener, whose ‘perceptual system is constantly searching for new patterns of information’, and through these ecologically feasible events, relate to social and cultural modes of listening (Keller Reference Keller1999: 3, Reference Keller2000: 55).
I would like to briefly expand on this idea, specifically in relation to the semiotic model detailed above, through an examination of Keller’s approach in relation to Wishart’s concepts of the ‘phenomenology of sound objects’ and the ‘natural morphologies of sounds’ (Wishart Reference Wishart1996: 64, 177), as well as Windsor’s adaptation on the Gibsonian concept of affordance (Windsor Reference Windsor2004: 180).
As Wishart details, based on research conducted at IRCAM by Stephen McAdams (Wishart Reference Wishart1996: 64), our perception of sound and the subsequent attempts to recognise and contextualise sound objects incorporate many of the morphological concepts employed by Pierre Schaeffer in his Solfège (Wishart Reference Wishart1996: 67). One example of this is the importance of similar and coinciding onset characteristics (attack morphology), as well as ‘parallel frequency modulation’ in the perception of a unified sound object (1996: 64). However, Wishart takes this notion one step further in order to propose a ‘natural morphology of sounds’ (1996: 177); that is, the recognition of certain spectral and syntactical characteristics of sound events – or, to borrow Keller’s terminology, various ‘informationally [and ecologically] relevant events’ (Keller Reference Keller1999: 11) – and their suggestion of various real-world sound phenomena, both of a singular nature (turbulence, wave-break, shatter, explosion, to name a few) and grouped nature (Alarum, the Dunlin-effect, streaming) (Wishart Reference Wishart1996: 186).
The relationship between the ‘natural morphology’ of a sound (Wishart Reference Wishart1996: 177) and its perception and signification is developed further by Windsor, through his adaptation of the concept of affordance, taken from ecological psychology. Following Gibson, and working within the similar ecological view that signs are ‘described in terms of the information they offer to a human organism’ (Windsor Reference Windsor2004: 183), Windsor defines affordance to be ‘relational properties which pertain between organisms and their environment’ (2004: 180). The cognitive response of a perceiver to a certain object or action is thus afforded dynamically ‘depending upon the needs and effectivities (capabilities for action) of the perceiving organism’ (2004: 181). While the concept of affordances in the cultural realm becomes more complicated, this ecological view points to the importance of signification in relation to the most basic ‘needs … of the perceiving organism’ (2004: 181), as sound identification and the subsequent significations of that sound is a necessary tool for the organism’s survival (Truax Reference Truax2001: 18, 57, 58). Following from this view, since affordances are learned, ‘discovered, or made, through co-operative perception and action’ (Windsor Reference Windsor2004: 183), and since ‘certain invariant properties of the sound are directly and lawfully related to the physical properties of the causal event, and it is this lawfulness which specifies the event for the perceiver’ (Windsor Reference Windsor1995: 68), it follows that the aural characteristics of a sound phenomenon afford its identity to the perceiver. This form of phenomenological and ecological signification, which by definition of its evolutionary function is more precise than the classical semiotic model, can then be seen to act as a starting point for the semiotic chain of interpretants.
I find this sort of parallel and related exploration undertaken by Wishart, Keller and Windsor, to represent a move beyond the simple semiotic model in which a single sound-event acts as a signifier. Rather, the concepts of ecological models and natural morphologies assert the role of the syntactic, the organisation of sound events over time, as signifier. In other words, signification, and the subsequent process of re-constructing meaning, is achieved ‘through the structure of [sound organization]’ (Truax Reference Truax2001: 55). This seems to reinforce the natural perceptual approaches we use in everyday life; I know that it is raining outside not because I identify the micro-event of the drop as signifier (in fact, the sound of a single drop in the midst of rain is quite far from the platonic ideal of a drop, with its unique pitch glissando, as perceived in a leaking tap) but because I recognise the macro-level syntactic organisation of drops – the ecological model and Poisson distributed density, or the ‘natural morphology’ (Wishart Reference Wishart1996: 177) of rain.
It is through this articulation of syntax as signifier that I find myself somewhat expanding beyond Keller’s stressing of the cultural and societal context in the interpretation of music (Keller Reference Keller1999: 1, Reference Keller2000: 55). Though cultural and societal context is obviously of immense importance to the interpretation of signs, I find that the use of ecological models as signifiers may transcend some cultural barriers in the realm of initial signification (as opposed to the following chain of interpretants, in which contextual elements are of utmost importance) due to its syntactical recognition. If we, as suggested above, perceive sound events and generate their affordance by comparing both spectral and, more importantly in this context, syntactical characteristics, to our perceptual index of ‘ecologically feasible’ (Keller Reference Keller1999: 16) sound phenomena, can we not regard some ecological models which most have experienced and thus indexed (such as rain, as well as phenomena of breaking, bouncing, etc.) as effective means of generating the process of meaning-construction on the part of the listener? This is not to suggest that these ecological models are capable of signifying or transferring the composer’s intent of a particular meaning to the listener, but rather I would like to suggest that since these are near-universal, perceptual and ecologically cogent phenomena, they exist in most perceptual indexes and thus form a common vocabulary which listeners have the potential to recognise. Thus, the use of ecological models as signifiers does not guarantee a particular meaning, but it does particularly guarantee a meaning, or at least the process of generating meaning in relation to the affordance created by the interplay of a recognisable sonic signifier, a particular environmental and cultural context, and a particular listener.
3. Several approaches to Ecological ModelLing
Implicit in any attempt to model a physical system for compositional use in an electroacoustic context is both the reliance on the computer (though related concepts were theorised and in some cases realised by Xenakis on analogue means) and, by extension, the interdisciplinary nature of the process, since the skill set required for the necessary programming of complex models may be out of the reach of composers. Though this interdisciplinary process results in complex and effective models, the documentation of the collaborative process often lacks integrative analysis that addresses both the technical and artistic considerations involved. Despite this fact, I will attempt to describe several approaches to ecological modelling from precisely this perspective, detailing the relationship between technical construction and artistic implementation. However, as this process is a speculative one, these explorations should be read in relation to my specific premises and intentions, described at the start of the essay.
3.1. Ecological models through micro-sound approaches: Truax to Keller and Staccato
The emergence of the concept of micro-sound seems to have been important in relation to the idea of ecological models. This seems fitting, as many of what we consider to be unified real-world phenomena are in fact comprised of micro-events.
Arguably, one of the first pieces explicitly using an ecological model is Truax’s seminal granular synthesis piece, Riverrun. While Truax describes the relationship between the granular synthesis technique and the sound-image of the river as a connection which arose through the process of exploring the technique (Truax Reference Truax2002: 5), and thus not a classical physical modelling approach of analysis and resynthesis, the connection between the means of sonic production and the means of the river’s mechanisms clearly remains. As a result, the granular techniques applied in the piece sound like running water precisely because the granular technique operates like the model of running water; various granular streams (note the terminology in relation to ecological modelling) consist of variable amounts of grains, or in this case drops, structured in both synchronous and asynchronous syntax.
Damián Keller, who completed his MFA under Truax, developed this approach to ecological models in relation to micro-sound while introducing his own unique methodology to the application of said models.
Using models of analysis (both perceptual and using FFT analysis), Keller’s investigation of natural phenomena of a micro-event nature, such as the bounce, scrape and break phenomena, yielded several important observations. Acknowledging that ‘both spectral and temporal characteristics of sound events need to be accounted for in the modeling process’ (Keller Reference Keller1999: 16), Keller stresses the perceptual importance of interaction between levels of model organisation: ‘Organization at one level influences the others. Therefore, this is neither a top-down nor a bottom-up process, but a pattern-formation one’ (1999: 13). This is exemplified in how ‘the micro level characteristics of a sound grain influence the meso and macro properties of the sound event’ (1999: 13), resulting in an aural product that is ‘characterised by emergent properties, which are not present in either global or local parameters’ (1999: 31).
Central to this interaction between levels of organisation, as well as to the notion of ecologically feasible models, is the technique of algorithmic generation, as opposed to the construction of a specific, singular ecological event. ‘When developing ecological models, the emphasis is not to obtain exact resynthesis of a given sound but to approximate the behavior of a class of sounds’ (1999: 27) in order to satisfy the perceptual system’s ‘[constant search] for new patterns of information’ (1999: 11), which are nonetheless classified as the same kind of sound. Once again, this is directly related to our perception of an authentic, environmentally feasible sound; it is improbable that the phenomena of shattering glass will occur the exact same way twice (Keller Reference Keller2000: 59). On the other hand, it is improbable that the meso-level of particle density, for instance, will deviate too far from a statistical mean of particle density calculated for a certain size of glass object shattering on a certain surface.
In terms of practical methodology, Keller’s analysis and algorithmic mapping of phenomena was applied using such tools as Cmask, AC composer and Alcaulcil (Keller Reference Keller1999: 30), and exported as Csound scores. When one such model, in this case the glass breaking model, is analysed, several layers of organisation become apparent. The macro-level, encompassing the entire event, is divided into three meso-layers, or sub-events (1999: 38–9): the initial, instantaneous wide-bandwidth attack, followed by 35 ms of a noisy cloud, and the final 1.5 sec consisting of sparser collisions of glass particles. Accordingly, Keller varies micro-level parameters such as grain onset (i.e. the syntax or position of an individual grain on the time axis), grain duration, as well as pitch and amplitude variation using various tendency masks (1999: 37), corresponding to the results of his analysis.
However, Keller departs from the classical method of physical modelling, as well as Truax’s approach in Riverrun, by choosing to use an adaptation of sampled sound, rather than additive or frequency-time approaches to synthesis, in order to recreate the macro-level sound event. In the glass-breaking example, he uses numerous short fragments (approximately 7 to 100 ms) of sampled sound, in this case derived from several samples of glass breaking, and ordered according to spectral content (noise vs. pitch) (1999: 38). These samples are then loaded as function tables in Csound, and are recalled using tendency masks from the score, corresponding to the initial spectro-temporal analysis. In this method, Keller is able to create incredibly complex sound events which are both aurally and perceptually realistic in terms of sonic content and syntax, while having the ability to generate numerous variations of each event using the algorithmic mask generation process. This period of research then culminated with the production of Touch’n’go, a fixed-media composition constructed of a series of movements, each exploring ecological approaches to composition (Keller Reference Keller1999: 40, Reference Keller2000: 57–8).
Several years later, and unrelated to Keller’s research, similar studies were undertaken around research on ‘Statistical Event Modeling’ (Cascone, Costello, Porcaro, Stilson and Van Duyne Reference Cascone, Costello, Porcaro, Stilson and Van Duyne2001) at an American commercial video-game design company – Staccato (Neville Reference Neville2000). As detailed by Kim Cascone, who worked at Staccato at the time, this research was undertaken in order to create realistic game environments, in which each car crash, for example, seemed realistically to comprise initial crash sounds, followed by ‘metal buckling, glass breaking, glass shattering and falling, impacts, metal falling on asphalt etc’ (Cascone: personal correspondence, 2008), while the algorithmic dispersion of sound events would guarantee a singularity, and thus enhanced realism, to each unique crash. Once again, similarly to Keller, the research in Staccato involved the use of sampled sound, dispersed ‘like grains in granular synthesis’ (Cascone, personal correspondence); once again, using higher-level controls such as intensity (rate of events), wave (sample) selection, pitch, pan and amplitude distribution (Cascone et al. Reference Cascone, Costello, Porcaro, Stilson and Van Duyne2001).
In a strangely complementary way, it seems that the striking similarity of this commercial enterprise to Keller’s research in many ways validates both his methodology and, more importantly, his notion of the artistic potential of ecological models. If the aleatoric variation of real-world events such as glass breaking is deemed important enough (from a business model, bottom-line perspective) to create realism for the average video game consumer, then it certainly can be deemed as important within the context of an engaging artistic enterprise, specifically with relation to the aural engagement of both specialist and novice listeners. Furthermore, the importance of pattern recognition to the average listener seems to strengthen my argument for the use of syntax as signifier within a semiotic compositional framework.
3.2. Ecological models as spatial and gestural guides: Smalley and Barrett
I would like to detail in this section several approaches found in British acousmatic music which relate to the notion of ecological models as signs. As would be expected, the connections between the ecological model and the compositional subject matter are, at times, not as obvious as the connections detailed above in Truax’s and Keller’s work, which emerged out of the extended Vancouver Soundscape movement. Nonetheless, I find these to be interesting examples of engagement with the compositional use of ecological models.
I have previously detailed the expansion of the sign to encompass syntax as sign. I would like to expand this idea further, as I find that the use of spatial motion in Smalley’s Vortex acts as a spatial variation of the syntax as sign model. Following Smalley’s terminology regarding indicative fields (Smalley Reference Smalley1992), an analysis of Vortex shows that the piece contains an indicative network centring around the gesture field, and touching on the motion, energy and behaviour indicative fields (Smalley Reference Smalley1992), which refer to the real-world phenomenon of a vortex: a whirling of mass. As the above indicative fields are affected by the syntactical development of certain parameters which are ‘linked to non-sounding experience’ (Smalley Reference Smalley1992: 93) of ‘energy-motion trajector[ies]’ (Smalley Reference Smalley1992: 84, emphasis in original), I suggest that this spatial gesture should be categorised as an ecological model.
The value of thinking of Vortex as utilising an ecological model lies in its suggestion of a transcontextual listening mode (Smalley Reference Smalley1992: 99), in which abstract acousmatic gestures correspond in some way to perceivable real-world phenomena (and perhaps evoking associations related to these phenomena). This mode of listening may help unaccustomed listeners become engaged with what at first could seem to be a complex or unapproachable work (Landy Reference Landy2007: 27). Furthermore, it is likely that the evocation of a referential mode of listening was Smalley’s intent when taking into context the environmental inspiration of many of his catalogued spatial motion archetypes (Smalley Reference Smalley2007: 35–7), his writings on indicative fields (Smalley Reference Smalley1992), as well as the title of the piece, which specifically points to the importance of the Vortex’s spatial trajectory as a sign.
I would also like to briefly discuss some examples of ecological modeling in Natasha Barrett’s work, as her approaches are unique in their combination of scientific rigor and the acousmatic notion of the ‘primacy of the ear’. Though Barrett has used ecological models in music theatre pieces such as Agora, where the spatial morphology of various sounds was determined by a ‘computer simulation [of the traced motion of different] people with different personalities’ and their various interactions with one another within the virtual space (Barrett Reference Barrett2008a), as well as installations such as Adsonore, which engages with sounds occurring within the physical location of a hospital using the model of the human immune system (Barrett Reference Barrett2005: 111–19), I will avoid analysis of these examples as I have never experienced them aurally. Instead, I will concentrate on two examples taken from her acousmatic repertoire.
In the first movement of Three Fictions, entitled ‘In the Rain’, Barrett employs the ecological model of ‘the statistical computation of rain drops falling onto a 2-dimensional surface’ (Barrett Reference Barrett2008b). This model, using a Poisson distribution system, is then mapped using ‘The X co-ordinate [as] translated into left-right space, the Y co-ordinate as front-back space and pitch shift’, with the average density of rain ‘sculpted to increase and decrease in density’ (Barrett Reference Barrett2008b). This syntactical mapping was then imported into a Csound score, allowing for ‘many sound materials [to be] gradually slotted into the mix’ (Barrett Reference Barrett2008b). This notion of maintaining the syntax as sign characteristics of rain while modifying the micro-events of the phenomenon (i.e. the drops) is one which will be revisited in the next section.
In The Utility of Space, a looser relationship between the compositional subject matter and the ecological model is apparent. In this composition, numerical data models (as opposed to modelling by observation – Barrett’s distinction) of the avalanche phenomenon, developed by the University of Oslo’s physics department, were used to create both musical gestures and spatial information (Barrett Reference Barrett2000). Once more, a syntactical organisation – the avalanche model – was filled with a variety of sounds ranging from text to numerous sound objects in order to produce gestures. I would argue, however, that the cohesiveness of each gesture and the cohesiveness of various gestures of different intensities used throughout the piece are directly connected to the use of the avalanche syntax as sign, and our general phenomenological knowledge of ‘self organized critical systems’ (Barrett Reference Barrett2000). As Barrett articulates it, the ‘process [or] pattern found in nature … was clearly evident to our perception, and valid on both the macro and micro structural terms’ (Barrett Reference Barrett2000). She then further uses the ecological model of avalanche motion in space in order to affect the filtering and transposition of individual sound materials. While the listener does not perceive this use of the ecological model as directly relating to the avalanche model, I would argue that it provides the musical gestures with a structural cohesion due to its relative familiarity as a cogent natural phenomenon, as well as the effective musical mapping to which this ecological syntax is subjected.
4. Beyond strict Ecological Models: hybridisation of signs
I believe that the above detailing of some of the possibilities of ecological modelling in relation to a semiotic approach to composition, resulting in the use of syntax as sign, have important potential consequences to both composers of electroacoustic music as well as listeners, specialists and non-specialists alike.
Beginning with the composer’s perspective, it is clear that while applications of strict ecological models may be of interest to some (Keller Reference Keller2000: 56), there will invariably be interest in the move beyond strict ecological models and towards what I will term a hybridisation of signs. This notion revolves around the potentially dynamic relationship between micro-event (i.e. drops within the syntax of rain), meso-level organisation (i.e. the ecological model) (Keller Reference Keller1999: 23), and macro-form (overall compositional design, as well as contextual information such as a work’s title). Once more, if we approach composition or analysis from a semiotic perspective, these dynamically changing relationships can act as a transformative agent to the potentially negotiated meaning of each ecological model.
One such approach to a hybridisation of signs is hinted at by Wishart, as he writes of ‘music whose logic is based entirely on the logic of the evolution of natural events as evidenced by the natural morphologies of the sound-objects used [while] the sound-objects themselves might be entirely artificial’ (Wishart Reference Wishart1996: 189), perhaps echoing Xenakis’ stochastic approaches discussed in Formalised Music: Thought and Mathematics in Composition (Reference Xenakis1971). The technique of replacing micro-events within the meso-level organisation of the ecological model is evident, as discussed above, in Barrett’s Three Fictions: In the Rain, where individual sound materials are treated and processed abstractly (that is, without relation to the ecological model of rain) while remaining within the cogent ecological syntactical organisation of rain. However, the full potential of such a transformation can be seen in the extremely evocative transformation of raindrops to drops-of-breaking-glass in Keller’s …soretes de punta. In this example, the interpolation between two recognisable sound-objects, the sound of drops and the sound of breaking glass, within the ecological model of rain points to a very particular and poetic hybridisation of signs. This hybridisation, in turn, causes the listener’s engagement through both the ecological model and the poetics and recognisability of the transforming elements, leading to a negotiation of meaning within a complex semiotic network.Footnote 4
Another approach to the hybridisation of signs, and one which I have not been able to find musical examples for, is the transformation between two meso-level ecological models while retaining the micro-event property of the model. Though Keller’s transformation of drops to glass breaking, detailed above, does partially satisfy this notion (if one considers the ecological model of the drop transforming into the ecological model of glass breaking), I find that this sort of hybridisation of signs is one which requires more study. What are the poetic significations of an ecological model of rain, using drops as the micro events, transforming over a long period of time through some form of interpolated quantisation, to the ecological model of a ball bouncing, while maintaining the drops as micro-events? What are the implications of an ecological model of a glass object breaking turning into the ecological model of turbulent water, while retaining the glass particles as micro-level sound events, on the listener’s negotiation of meaning in a given piece? Possibilities are of course endless in this regard.
Furthermore, I would like to suggest that these two approaches to hybridisation of signs may be further expanded within the context of a given piece, whether through the macro-form compositional framework or the given title to the piece. As Paul Rudy suggests in his concept of the ‘Triangulation of the Listener’ (Rudy Reference Rudy2008), the listener is in a constant state of negotiating meaning through an engagement with the relationship between the perceptual experience of the piece, the identification (or lack of) of sound-material, the processing of the material, and the context of the piece (Rudy Reference Rudy2007: 7). Thus, the hybridisation of semiotic indicators, both as micro-event sound objects and ecological models as signs, can be further affected through a particularly suggestive title or compositional context. The result is a rich metaphorical web of various semiotic indicators, which may be spun in various ways by the composer as either a central or peripheral component of any given composition.
I would like to use my own recently composed work, Free/Association (finalist, Prix Destellos 2009, Argentina), in order to illustrate a potential use of hybridisation of ecological models (and thus signs) in relation to both title and compositional context. The piece begins with a phonographic recording of a leaky gutter before giving way to synthetic drops, scattered in a Poisson distribution system (both syntactically and spatially) – the work’s first ecological model (Sound example 1). Through increased high-pitched resonation and micro-level sample interpolation, a hybridisation of signs occurs (Sound example 2), as the individual synthetic drops give way to various struck glass objects, which increasingly morph syntactically to the recognisable syntax of striking a glass as part of a delivery of a toast. Thus, the interpolation of micro-level events is combined with a metamorphosis of meso-level organisational pattern, to create a smooth transformation between two unrelated signs.
Other instances of hybridisation of signs using ecological models can be heard in Sound examples 3 and 4, where the ecological model of breaking glass modulates into an underwater stream, followed by a modulation into a flock of birds. These transformations are once again possible through the combination of micro-event interpolation (between individual glass-breaking samples, approximately 10 ms long, and samples of synthesised drops, or in the second example, birdsong) and meso-level organisational modulation between the two ecological models. This meso-level modulation is of particular importance in the latter transformation between glass breaking and birdsong, as modulating parameters such as dispersion density, sample length, amount of glissandi (in order to bridge the spectral gap between the noisier glass samples and sustained high-pitched bird calls) are adjusted over time in order to move away from the model of glass breaking, to the liminal stage between the two models, finally resulting in the bird-flock model. This was achieved using tendency masks in Andre Bartetski’s Cmask, using modified versions of Keller’s glass dispersion models.
These few examples of hybridisations of signs (combining micro-event and meso-level hybridisation) in turn relate to the title and contextual information found in the phonographic opening, as both realism (suggested by the opening, as well as the word association) and free-flowing, surreal transformations (suggested by the words free and free association) serve as reconciling elements for the unnatural transformations (the full piece can be heard in Sound example 5). This potentially allows the listener to negotiate meaning between associative sound identities in a manner quite similar to Paul Koonce’s works from his Walkabout & Back era, as well as many of Trevor Wishart’s works (Red Bird, Vox 5 and Imago).
The use of sign hybridisation, as illustrated above, has several potential impacts on the listener. To begin with, the notion of syntax as sign, and the heightened engagement following the recognition of phenomenological patterns as signs, ties itself to the central concepts of the soundscape movement. As Truax details, two of the four principles of soundscape composition are (1) the listener’s recognisabililty of the source material and (2) the invocation of the listener’s knowledge of the environmental context (Truax Reference Truax2002: 6–7). Could we not postulate that using ecological models will satisfy these requirements due to our ‘soundscape competence’ (Truax Reference Truax2001: 57) even if the micro-level sound events comprising the ecological model have been transformed, as detailed in Barrett and Keller’s works?
Furthermore, in relation to the hybridisation of signs and Rudy’s ‘Triangulation of the listener’ (Rudy Reference Rudy2008), the heightened awareness stemming from the original recognition of ecological syntax can be seen as only the beginning. As the context of an ecological model is established, only to undertake a hybridisation of signs in either way mentioned above, the listener is challenged to move beyond a mode of recognition and into a mode of interpretation, taking into account such macro-level elements such as a work’s title and overall compositional design. Thus, the metaphorical web comprising of various semiotic indicators is not only potentially rich but invariably open, continually oscillating between the compositional intent and listener’s interpretation. It is this simultaneous challenge to both composer and listener, coupled with the recognisability of ecological models and the potentials to undermine them, which will enable a heightened engagement from both listener and composer.
