You Can’t Fool All The People All The Time: Why Computer Music Instruments Don’t Make Music Like Acoustic Music Instruments

You Can’t Fool All The People All The Time: Why Computer Music Instruments Don’t Make Music Like Acoustic Music Instruments
Robin Daniel Z. Rivera
Socio 297: Technology and Society
Fr. Tagura
30 August 2002

The debate about artificial intelligence has brought out fundamental questions about what actually constitutes human intelligence, and if this can be replicated by computers. A similar debate can be made about the difference between acoustic and computer music instruments. This paper will attempt to apply the binary nature of the argument to the problem of why virtual computer music instruments are theoretically opposed to natural acoustic musical instruments.

Herbert Dreyfuss is a long time critic of the philosophical basis for artificial intelligence (AI). Much of his criticisms are aimed at what is now called Good Old Fashioned Artificial Intelligence or GOFAI. Ron Barnett describes Dreyfuss’ critique:

“In a tone of almost "I told you so---but why won't it go away?!," Dreyfus tries to lay to final rest the AI approach dubbed by John Haugeland (1985) 'Good Old Fashioned Artificial Intelligence,' or GOFAI. Inspired by a Turing model of intelligent behavior as essentially computational, the thesis of GOFAI is that the processes underlying intelligence are symbolic in nature. More specifically: GOFAI models human intelligence as von Neumann computational architectures that (1) perform computations on abstract symbolic representations, (2) by computations governed by a stored program that contains an explicit list of instructions or rules which transform these symbolic representations into new symbolic states, and (3) in terms of which these computations are performed in serial fashion by a CPU that has information stored in the computers' permanent memory. As such, GOFAI depicts mentality within the context of what philosophers know as the Representational Theory of Mind, according to which the mind is an entity which performs calculations over mental representations, or inner tokens or symbols which refer to features of the outer world. In short, the mind is thus viewed as a symbolic information-processing device, operating in a serial fashion, and governed by rules which are, at base, the language of thought.”(1)

A simple example of a GOFAI isa linear process in which 1) knowledge is reduced to matter in the form of information, 2) information is inputted and stored into to the computer, 3) information is invoked in response to a query for appropriate action, 4) the computer will scan the database of information for an appropriate action based on existing information, 5) the selected action will be carried out by the computer to a connected controlled device, or relayed to the user. More recent types of AI such as Fuzzy Logic (FL) attempts to to incorporate vagueness into the process by deliberately obscuring the precision of both inputted information, the resulting response to queries using this information, and the resulting action. But the model of FL remains serial in nature, and still cannot simulate the essentially non-linear nature of human thought. Dreyfus critiques even more recent AI models such as Parallel Distributed Processing (PDP), or Connectionist, architectures and programming because it still lacks many human variables such as context and relevance. But Dreyfus’ nevertheless argues that intelligence is not just a function of the brain, but of a host of other components that make up the human body, the wealth of an individual’s human experience, and an infinite number of relationships that occur in the interaction of these components and experiences. Dreyfus leans toward a phenomenological take on intelligence, bordering on the metaphysical, that not only basically defies quantification, and suggests that until computers can never be capable of true intelligence as long as rationality remains tied down to positivist empiricism.

The same argument can be applied to the difference between acoustic and computer musical instruments. The basic philosophies in these two types of devices emerge from opposite sides of the spectrum, and despite efforts to forge a compromise, this remains elusive.

One root concept in virtual computer music instruments is the representation of sound as waves of air pressure. This representation was applied not just to CMI’s, but to electro-mechanical, and analog electronic musical instruments as well. But CMI’s take this one step further because the characteristics of the system that creates the sound can be stored in digital memory and called up at any given time. This kind of predictability is one of the virtues of computer control. A single “natural” sound can be dissected and a CMI can simulate or replicate the waveform. The strategy is similar to that of artificial intelligence in that a finite number of sound objects, and all their empirical characteristics are collected to form a database that will determine the range of possible outcomes. There are three popular methods for creating sounds in CMIs, these are Subtractive Synthesis, Additive Synthesis, and Sampling.

In subtractive synthesis, a digital oscillator produces a complex but periodic waveform. The waveform is then subjected to various forms of filtering to until it is deemed usable. The filtering comes in many forms. For example, Timbre (or harmonic content) envelope (or time-related characteristics), or modulation (vibrato) can be manipulated.

Additive synthesis, on the other hand, combines simple (but still periodic) waveforms to obtain complex waveforms. While these waveforms can be further subjected to the filtering techniques similar to subtractive synthesis, the process remains opposed because the sound is a product of the interaction between simple waveforms.

Sampling differs from the two because it begins with a digital recording, or “sample” of a natural sound and not from an oscillator giving off periodic waveforms. Like the other two methods, filtering can also be applied to modify its content. But unlike them, the waveform and be literally “redrawn” into a different waveform.

Whatever method of generation or filtering is used, the basic waveform is always the same. A square wave from a subtractive synthesis digital oscillator will always be the same every time is is invoked. A complex wave from an additive synthesis algorhythm will always be the same when invoked. And a sample, when invoked, will always be the same because it is a recording of a single sound event. Each digitally generated sound is a result of a finite database of waveform information. While such waveforms can be manipulated before, during, and even after performance (in the case of recorded musical performances), the possible variations are inherently limited by the nature of the “basic” waveform. In addition to this, CMI’s can be activated by computer sequencers, which store waveform and performance information in computer memory, and can invoke a stored performance identically, as often as needed. This gives CMI and computer sequencer users a great deal of certainty whenever a musical performance is invoked.

Acoustic instruments and sounds come to us from an entirely different lifeworld. It is safe to say that in nature, each individual sound is unique and cannot be repeated, regardless of the source of the sound. This can also be true for the sounds from natural, physical musical instruments. This is because acoustic musical instruments are subject to a completely different set of variables from CMIs. For example, one particular note in an instrument like a acoustic piano, played in apparently the same manner, can never duplicate the exact same sound twice. This is because, among other, the natural environment is always changing, thus affecting the sound as well as the characteristics of the material of the instrument. This is unlike a virtual environment that can controlled and or replicated. Second, the sound of acoustic instruments are usually activated by a human user, and humans are not theoretically known for precise repetition. Human musicians usually approach a level of repetitive precision by regular and intense practice. But no matter how consistent a musician may be, a performance always has an air of uncertainty. CMI’s, on the other hand, can be called to precisely replicate the activation of a waveform ad nauseum. The list of variables goes on and on. So every sound in a natural environment is based on a unique phenomenon with an infinite number of physical variables, the inherent uniqueness of every human action in the activation of the instrument, and an overall sense of uncertainty that preceeds the production of a sound.

Each and every natural sound from an acoustic musical instrument is unique, despite human attempts to make them consistent. While musical virtuosos are valued for their consistency, they are also treasured for their ability to come up with new sounds that defy sameness. This shows the ironic nature of acoustic instruments, sound, and performances. In turn, each sound in a CMI is born from a single instance of a waveform, in spite of massive efforts to create variations. Digital instruments remove at least one important variable in this ability because the root sound is just a repetition of a previously synthesized or sampled sound, and the effort needed to vary a sound is bound by a finite database of variables. While acoustic instruments thrive on uncertainty, virtual CMIs sounds boasts of unhuman consistency and predictability.

Just as the Turing Test attempted to fool some respondents into thinking that they were conversing with a human instead of a computer, CMI’s have managed to fool some listeners into thinking that they were listening to an acoustic instrument. But as the saying goes, you can’t fool all the people all of the time. I will not be as bold as Dreyfus by saying that CMI’s will never possess all the characteristics of acoustic instruments. But until a new computer algorhythm is devised to produce virtual sound in the same model as acoustic instruments, the binary nature of this argument will remain.

Footnote

(1)Ron Barnette.”A Critical Review of What Computers Still Can't Do, by Hubert Dreyfus”. <http://www.valdosta.edu/~rbarnett/phi/dreyfus.html> (20 August 2002, 22:45 PST).


Sources

Barnette, Ron. “A Critical Review of What Computers Still Can't Do, by Hubert Dreyfus ”. (20 August 2002, 22:45 PST).

Dreyfus, Herbert; Dreyfus, Stuart. “From Socrates to Expert Systems:The Limits and Dangers of Calculative Rationality”. (20 August 21:30 PST).

Truax, Barry. Acoustic Communication, 2nd edition. Westport, Connecticut: Ablex Publishing, 2001.


1Ron Barnette.”A Critical Review of What Computers Still Can't Do, by Hubert Dreyfus”. <http://www.valdosta.edu/~rbarnett/phi/dreyfus.html> (20 August 2002, 22:45 PST).

NOISE 2: EXPLORING NOISE AND NOISE, INGAY AND INGAY

NOISE 2: EXPLORING NOISE AND NOISE, INGAY AND INGAY

Robin Daniel Z. Rivera

12 April 2002

Sociology 297

Fr. Pablito M. Tagura

The first paper in this series discussed the various definitions of noise and issues related to these definitions. This second paper will apply two philosophical projects using the issues raised previously. These are 1)Walter Ong’s discussion of orality and literacy, and 2) the counter-narrative to the prevailing use of the word noise. Another goal is to explore and articulate a number of popular attitudes and perceptions that the writer has met along the way in the study of noise. One such dominant attitude that has continuously bothered this writer is that noise is unwanted and destructive, and carries with it a automatically negative connotation. While the previous paper revealed certain passive contexts such as in physical science, empirical knowledge in this field is still used as a weapon to cast noise as a generally destructive entity. This paper will search for other reasons and arguments for issues and contexts such as these.

In this paper, the italicized noise and ingay refer to the specific words, and the un-italicized “noise” refers to the concept or phenomenon.

ETYMOLOGY - ORALITY VERSUS LITERACY

The words used for noise in the English and Filipino languages reveals certain differences within, and between each cultures’ mind set about the phenomenon. The first project that comes to mind is Walter Ong's(1) work on Orality and Literacy. This attempts to distinguish between cultures that are primarily aural versus those that are primarily textual. While a culture might shift from one type to another, Ong  manages to "freeze" each type so that the characteristics might be fully laid out and observed. This presents a potential clue to the context of the terms used to refer to noise. Both the English and Filipino languages have an extensive repertoire of words for noise. But each language has a different proportion of designative versus descriptive terms. This raises the question of the origin of words, and the orientation of the language. 

Onomatopoeia and Orality

The most noticeable things about various dictionary entries for either noise or ingay in contemporary Filipino dictionaries (either English-Filipino and Filipino-Filipino) is that one can be besieged by an avalanche of onomatopoeic terms. This is clearly not the case in all-English dictionaries. Gaboy(2) lists, among others, the following onomatopoeic terms for noise

Noise - n. - ingay, kaingayan, ngasngas, ngawngaw, kiyaw-kiyaw, ngakngak, pambubuliglig, bulahaw, pambubulabog, pangngingimbal, lagislis, laginit, ingit, hugong, ugong, lagunlon, dalagdal, dalugdog, kalantong, kalantog, pagkupkop, uko (ingay ng kalapati)

The wealth of such onomatopoeic terms for noises suggests that Filipino is a language still biased towards sound and orality. That these words are based on a spoken imitation of a specific sound makes it easy tosuspect it springs from an oral culture.

Oral cultures are held to operate using mnemonic patterns, and parallel closely the occurrence of phenomena in the "human life world". Onomatopoeia operationalizes  this by creating words based on the vocal imitation of actual sounds. This uncanny connection fulfills most of the characteristics of orality set down by Ong. For example, onomatopoeic words refer closely to the "human life world" because of their imitative nature. Then, it enhances memorability because it is, in a sense, redundant of the original phenomenon. Finally, onomatopoeia is also expressive and situational, as opposed to analytical and abstract. All of these strengthen the argument that onomatopoeia is a characteristic of a primarily oral culture. 

Transition: Some Strange Ironies

Another noticeable thing about the onomatopoeic terms for noise is that they seem to posses a remarkably high level of descriptive precision because of their mimetic nature. But precision is tricky, it  may apply to one word but not to a language in general. For example, because of the lack of an exact equivalent word, ugong can only be described in English a low frequency droning sound. A question arises when one wonders if ugong and ingay actually share the same conceptual definition. The closest English equivalent of ugong would be either rumble or hum. But rumble and hum, at least in English dictionaries, are not necessarily synonymous with noise. English definitions for noise tend to be  more conceptual than descriptive. So although some Filipino words may have more descriptively precise words in its arsenal for certain types of sounds than in English, the English culture may seem to have more precision in articulating the dimensions of abstract concepts such as noise. This leads to the clash between contexts of noise. 

Designative Terms and Literacy

As is the case of the dominant English term noise, the generic Filipino word ingay can be hypothesized to emerge from a more literate, abstract, and designative language framework. The word has no derivative sonic equivalent in the human life world. And they can be argued to emerge from the designative, textual, and abstract nature of the present day English language. Such abstraction leads to a number of contexts. The previous paper presented four contexts within noise was defined, these were 1)physical science, 2)communication, 3) environmental policy and 4) art aesthetics. Does ingay exist in these contexts, or does it have others? 

CONTEXT - WORD

Aural - descriptive: ngasngas, ngawngaw, kiyaw-kiyaw, ngakngak, pambubulabog, lagislis, laginit, ingit, hugong, ugong, lagunlon, dalagdal, dalugdog, kalantong, kalantog, uko (ingay ng kalapati)

Aural - designative: ingay, tunog, lingal, linggal

Disorder: gulo, panggugulo, iskandalo, komosyon

Interference: istorbo sa tunog ng radyo

Aggression: pagkupkop

Based on contemporary dictionary entries, the above context categories emerge. One may observe that since some of the these sources are trans-language dictionaries, the entries contain synonyms rather than “definitive statements”. Interestingly, the above terms include a fair number of non-aural related terms, like the category of Physical/Social Disorder. While English dictionaries may refer to the disorder caused by the sound of noise, it seems that in this case, noise and disorder are one. Where does this seemingly abstract relationship of sound and disorder come from? Charles Niggs(3) early twentieth century dictionary entries gives us an even more perplexing set of categories. 

WORD - DEFINITION

Noise - n - gulo, ingay, tunog

Ingay - n. - noise, carousal, revelry, romping, scuffle, racket

Gulo - n. - perplexity, confusion, disturbance, turmoil, tangle, chaos, chayos, discord, dissention, din, revolution, sedition, scrape, agitation, shindy, discomposure, disquietude, disquietness, entanglement, ado, pother

- a.- reverse- intricate, tangled, confused, chaotic

Tunog

- n. - sound, noise, report, clank, clang, ring, resonance.

First, Nigs defines noise by laying down three Filipino synonyms, ingay, gulo, and tunog. But are these three synonyms referring to noise the word, or to noise the phenomenon? Translating ingay back to English finds three categories of contexts, 1) the abstract concept of noise, 2) aurally intense social interaction, and 3) extreme and random natural or  man-made sound. Gulo, on the other hand,  cites all sorts of negative, offensive, undesirable, and unnatural social and physical conditions. Finally, tunog curiously includes not only the general concept of sound, but the seemingly specific noise, as well as a few onomatopoeic terms for what seems like the heck of it. This tangled web of synonyms confirm that in Filipino, as in English, ingay has its own inventory of abstract conceptual contexts. The existence of such contexts suggest that ingay, like noise emerges from a literal, designative mindset. 

It would be interesting to create an etymological timeline for terms related to noise because this would reveal the development of the words and concepts associated with noise/noise. What  can be concluded for now is that Filipino, having developed both a wealth of concepts and words for noise/noise, has  passed/is passing through periods of both orality and literacy.

THE HEGEMONY OF THE NEGATIVE, AND THE POSITIVE COUNTER-NARRATIVE

One of the most bothersome contextual variables of both noise and noise, is value. In spite of Western science’s relative neutrality, the bluntness of the Western environmentalist's definition of noise as " unwanted sound" sweepingly discredits the phenomenon and renders both the word and the concept indelibly negative. Most definitions point to noise as a phenomenon that is extreme in various ways such as bandwidth, loudness, interference, and order. Unlike silence, which is on the opposite end of the sound spectrum, noise and noise represent the undesirable extreme that results in damage, overload, chaos, and loss of communication. 

At one point, it seemed that the musical Avant-Garde movement took up the challenge to articulate the counter-narrative to tonal music by reminding people that noise is not always necessarily undesirable, just one of a myriad of sounds available to both musicians and listeners. The use of mechanical, and mechanical-sounding noises resulted in several decades of serious re-examination  of tonality. The emergence of Popular music, be it Rock, Pop or Dance styles provided an important critical mass to the idea that noise could actually be desirable. Lately, professional entertainment (e.g. professional sports) have given rise to noise not just as a product of performers, but as a vital feedback mechanism for the audience . These media-based,  contemporary forms have come to consider noise as an important canon. But while these positive operationalizations of noise may have become the norm in these specific contexts, what is surprising is that both noise and noise have not seem to have freed themselves from its negative connotation. 

It is tempting to reach into the bag of Marxist power-relation analysis to find the roots of the  negative concept of noise. The environmental lobby in the West is a powerful political entity that has changed the course of technology and infrastructure for about half a century.  As mentioned earlier, the bluntness of their attitude dooms noise as unwanted. This attitude is such a “matter of facet” that  there can be said to be a lack of genuine discourse about the value and application of noise. To make matters worse, as radical as environmental lobbyists are perceived, they are strangely aligned with conservative politics, and even critical theorists in denouncing even popular music, popular culture, and the noise that is so much a part of it. It is a strange situation when despite the seemingly hegemonic dominance of Western popular culture, it is in the West where the noise is still the subject of the most vigorous political control, regulation, and continuous assault. This  begs the question: which is the “real” grand and counter-narrative?

Popular art, after all, is viewed more as an industrial paradigm that is short on subjectivity  and long on objective formulas. This puts it well within the realm of the industrial revolution, which is widely held to have corrupted nature by controlling and eventually overwhelming it. But popular art is dynamic in the sense that while there are canonic formulas that have remained throughout the 20th century, it may also be characterized by unceasing change. So while environmentalist’s effort are largely to restore nature to pre- or early- industrial levels, popular art has constantly tried to reinvent itself and the environment around it. This makes incumbent popular art forces a mild but fully articulated form of counter-narrative because, however late, it still positions itself as a challenge to the past. Each new formulation of popular music, for example, represents the next higher level of spectacle, brightness, loudness, and noisiness. The incremental increase in loudness and noise levels for popular music performances and recordings may not seem apparent on a year-to-year basis. But when one compares the disparity between popular music of today with that just ten years ago, one will immediately notice a big difference. It should therefore be no surprise that each new generation of centrist politics would resist the challenge brought about by incumbent popular art and culture. 

Given this scenario, it should not also be surprising how noise/noise, despite its apparent application and affirmation by popular art, remains a concept and a word dogged by negative connotations. Will noise, or noise ever be able to shake its negative persona? If things continue as they do, the answer might be no, that is, in the West. The Philippines is another matter altogether. 

Referring again to dictionary entries, there does not seem to be an important distinction between noise as a force of nature versus noise as a result of technology in the Filipino language. This is unlike the West where nature and machine are engaged in constant battle, with man presiding over the proceedings. Noise  is never defined as something di-kanaisnais or nakakasama. Its value is never really questioned or challenged. And from the looks of things at present, it is not something people are not too keen on controlling. One possible reason for this situation brings us back to Ong. He states that oral cultures are “participatory rather than objectively distanced”. We can take this to mean that because people are participants in noise, it makes little sense to control noise unless one wants to control or deny himself. Participation in noise is quite different from either inflicting it on others, at or having others inflict it on you. The question of the noise as a meta- or counter- narrative in Filipino becomes moot therefore, because of the absence of control, infliction, and conflict. 

AFTERWORD

The exploration in this paper is by no means complete or even definitive. The use of dictionary entries is one source. But it has, however limited, already revealed some fundamental clues. It has suggested that orality and literacy may not only occur sequentially, but can overlap or happen simultaneously in a culture. Another discovery is that identifying  meta- and counter- narrative players, concepts and politics is not always as simple as it seems. Simple polarity is not always an accurate structure to use in such cases. There is even the odd chance that the meta- counter- narrative polarity does not even exist at all in some situations. These perplexing and intriguing discoveries are substance that will hopefully lead to a more comprehensive theory and concept of noise and noise, as well as ingay and inlay. 

FOOTNOTES

(1) Based on the report on Walter Ong’s “Orality and Literacy: Technologizing the Word” by Jennifer Marie C. Sunga, 8 February 2002. 

(2) Gaboy, Luciano Linsangan. Gabby’s Practical English-Filipino Dictionary. Quezon City: Milmar Soyuz Trading. 1999.

(3) Nigg, Charles. A Tagalog English and English Tagalog Dictionary. Manila: Imp.De Fajardo Y Comp., 1904.

NOISE: A SURVEY OF DEFINITIONS, APPROACHES AND ISSUES

NOISE: A SURVEY OF DEFINITIONS, APPROACHES AND ISSUES

Robin Daniel Z. Rivera

5 February 2002

Sociology 297

Fr. Pablito M. Tagura

Noise is a phenomenon which has received a fair amount of attention from a wide range of disciplines. This paper will discuss, and present counter-arguments to these various definitions and approaches. The main approaches mentioned here represent the fields of epistomology, physical science, communication, environmental policy and art aesthetics. This is the first of a two-part essay, the second of which will deal with the theoretical foundations of each definition in greater detail. 

EPISTOMOLOGY: DESIGNATION VERSUS DESCRIPTION

A survey of english and filipino dictionaries find two categories of synonyms for noise. The first are designative terms for noise. This is prevalent in English language dictionaries. Truax (1999) presents the following epistimology of noise:

“Etymologically the word can be traced back to Old French (noyse) and to 11th century Provenççal (noysa, nosa, nausa), but its origin is uncertain. It has a variety of meanings and shadings of meaning, the most important of which are the following:

1. Unwanted sound: The Oxford English Dictionary contains references to noise as unwanted SOUND dating back as far as 1225. 

2. Unmusical sound: The 19th century physicist Hermann von Helmholtz employed the term 'noise' to describe sound composed of non-PERIODIC vibrations (e.g. the rustling of leaves), by comparison with musical sounds, which consist of periodic vibrations. Noise is still used in this sense in expressions such as BROAD BAND NOISE, GAUSSIAN NOISE, NARROW BAND NOISE, RANDOM NOISE, RUSTLE NOISE or WHITE NOISE.

3. Any loud sound: In general usage today, noise often refers to particularly loud sounds. In this sense a noise abatement by-law prohibits certain loud sounds or establishes their permissible limits in DECIBELs. See: JET PAUSE, LOUDNESS, NOISE POLLUTION, SOUND INTRUSION, SOUND POLLUTION.

4. Disturbance in any COMMUNICATION system: In electronics and engineering, noise refers to any disturbances which do not represent part of the SIGNAL, such as static on a telephone or 'snow' on a television screen. See: BACKGROUND NOISE, SIGNAL-TO-NOISE RATIO. Compare: REDUNDANCY.

The most satisfactory definition of noise for general use is still 'unwanted sound'. This makes noise a subjective term: one person's music may be another's noise. But it also provides the opportunity for a society to come to a general agreement as to which sounds constitute unwanted intrusions.

It should be noted that each language preserves unique nuances of meaning for words representing noise. Thus in French one speaks of the bruit of a jet, but also the bruit of the birds or the bruit of the waves.”

The Filipino language presents another major category of terms associated with noise. These are descriptive, onomatopaeic terms Although ingay may be the common operative term for noise in all Filipino dictionaries, there are a host of onomatopeic terms used in its place. Kalansing, kalabog, ngasngas ngawngaw, kiyaw-kiyaw, ngakngak, pambubuliglig , pambubulabog, ingit, hugong, ugong, lagunlon, dalagdal, dalugdog, kalantong, kalantog are just a few examples of such  terms. The source of these kinds of sounds does not seem to be a major issue here, as either natural and mechanical objects and processes are capable of producing such sounds. This may suggest that Filipino takes a more descriptive, mimetic approach to noise.

NOISE IN THE POSITIVIST VIEW.

Physical science has long identified noise as a specific type of sound. In a nutshell, noise is a sound that has no discrete or discernable central pitch because it normally poseses so many pitches that a listener is unable to localize any specific one. It is often described as “aperiodic” in nature. John Eargle (1980) explains:  “The wave has no period, and thus is called aperiodic. Just as a complex repetitive wave form can be shown to be made up of harmonically related sine waves, noise can be shown to be composed of a continuous band of an unbounded number of sine waves.” This definition is relatively context-free, and relies on quantifiable physical characteristics to determine the categorization of noise as one form of sound. While empirical definitions like this may seem very neat and tidy, one may be nit-picky about the implications of such an description. 

Are aperiodicity and complexity necessarily the synonymous? And if a wave is repetitive, doesn’t that make it periodic?  Could it be that the production of noise is assumed to be aperiodic because there seems to be no apparent organization of spectral content? Could the perception of apreriodicity be born out of an inability of humans to reconstruct such aurally dense phenomenon into a logical form?

One could argue that it is possible to intentionally produce and control sounds that could be result as being noisy. Acoustic and electronic devices such as musical instruments and can be intentionally built and operated for that specific purpose. Electronic devices such as analog and digital oscillators, whose function and operation hinges on predictable, systematic control of electrical current are specially adept at producing “purer” forms of noise. How then can such controllable devices then be so good at producing a type of sound that is described as resulting from “unbound”  processes?

If the functional qualities of the source is not the locus of aperiodicity, is noise therefore a factor of the abilities of the receiver?  The absence of one's ability to decipher an unknown sound, and consider it noise until one acquires the familiarity needed to deal with it, leaves one to think that noise is a factor of an  aural training. But the counter-argument to this is that some sounds have come to be interpreted as indicators of specific environmental or social conditions. Thunder, rain and wind may indicate disturbances in the atmosphere. Crowd noise may indicate specific forms of collective action. That some sounds may be identifiable and yet remain physically qualified to be called noise  questions familiarity in the receiver as a clear criterion for the categorization of noise. 

NOISE AS INTERFERENCE

The information theory is touted as one of the earliest theories on communication. Its development coincided with the concept of cybernetics, which seeks to find similarities and relationships between the functioning of machines and humans. In many cases, the theory creates methods of quantifying not only the transmission of information, but message content as well. It cites noise as any extraneous element that obscures the original signal in a communication event. Any addition, subtraction or deviation from the original content is deemed as an effect of the existence of noise in the circuit. 

Given this formula, noise cannot exist as part of an “original” signal.  This implies that the purity of the original signal is ideal, and that noise should be either minimized for efficient transmission of information to occur, or redundancy must be invoked to overcome information masked by the noise. But can noise become the original signal?  Rock music, for example intentionally uses noisy sounds to intensify expression. Some recordings even carry the recommendation to playback the recording as loud as possible to create even more noise and distortion to add to that which is already contained in the recording. In this case, noise is no longer interference, but information. The theory works around this problem by saying that, indeed noise may become information, albeit spurious. The job of separating original and spurious information ultimately becomes the job of the receiver. So noise may never be part of an original signal, but it can become information.

The information theory (and cybernetics, for that matter) is not clear on the role culture, context and content. Because of its highly empical and "grand" theoretical nature, information is measured as value- free units. Its only reference to psyco-sociological issues lies in the definition of information as that which resolves uncertainty. If culture, for example in the form of collective selective perception, effects a modification of an original signal, then it would defninitely fall under the category of noise. But lumping noise  with culture as a threat to a utopian ideal of communication clarity is rather difficult to swallow.

NOISE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

The most common definition for noise is that it is unwanted sound (Suter, 1991). Environmentalists focused almost entirely on this aspect of the definition, and have been known to describe noise as anything that annoys people, disrupts their activities, or is counter-productive. Truax (1999) posits this as most prevalent among many definitions:

“The most satisfactory definition of noise for general use is still 'unwanted sound'. This makes noise a subjective term: one person's music may be another's noise. But it also provides the opportunity for a society to come to a general agreement as to which sounds constitute unwanted intrusions.”

While Truax suggests this definition is a reasonable compromise between various definitions, it is this very subjectivity that may cause disagreement among the various approaches to noise. Non-uniformity notwithstanding, one major target of environmentalist (and in the case of Truax, acoustic ecologists) efforts has been the proliferation of  mechanical noise brought about by the industrial revolution. Since the mid- twentieth century, government and non-governmental organizations in the west have had relative success in advocating for the regulation of mechanical noise levels in the workplace and the environment. This has resulted in legislation recommending noise level ceilings in public environments, and maximum daily noise exposure levels in industrial workplaces. For example, aircraft technology has been forced to develop along the lines of reducing operating noise in order to relieve residents in the vicinity of airports from such phenomenon as engine roar and sonic boom.

But while these developments have made incremental reductions in mechanical noise levels, there still exists a grey area in what constitutes noise. One of the major arguments against this approach is the selective application of criterion on what may be considered unwanted or annoying depending on the environment. For example, indoor recreational activities remain largely unregulated. Sporting events value crowd noise as an indication of excitement and audience involvement. Some stadiums intentionally put sound measuring devices to encourage fans to make as much noise as possible to indicate encouragement for resident athletes. Athlete reactions to this vary widely. Some are indeed inspired to better performance, while others develop coping mecahnisms to selectively block out noise in order to concentrate. The noise levels may often exceed regulations, making it seem apparent that such are exempt from workplace-related laws. This is similar to popular music-related events. While open air concerts must comply with environmental and zonal restrictions, indoor performances are often allowed to exceed maximum recommended levels. Because of this, many audiologists have expressed concern over the long-term effects of such exposure among musicians. Another example lies in the criteria used for environmental impact assessments for land-use  conversion here in the Philippines. The only projections made for the change of the sound environment before, during, and after construction is for level and duration. Other sound characteristics such as timbre, phase and pitch are not included. This renders the criteria not only subjective but incomplete as well.

This approach ironically uses subjective criteria for categorizing sounds as noise, but uses highly empirical but incomplete measurements for determining the quality of sounds in these categories . Because of this, it potentially ignores many culture-bound and context-sensitive elements that may contribute to the disruption of the sonic environment not just by noise, but other types of sound as well.

NOISE IN MUSIC: THE INS AND OUTS

There is a rich discourse on aesthetic approaches to noise specially in music. Much of this  emerged during the twentieth century, and coincided with various art movements such as futurism, the avant-garde, dadaism, and the like. This is generally marked as a period in which such musical movements were exploring possibilities beyond tonality. 

In his 1913 futurist manifesto (from "The Art of Noises"), Luigi Rusollo batted for the inclusion of noise as a main sound element of a new art form, which would later come to be referred to as "noise music". He begins by tracing the evolution of sounds from silence, to what he considers noise. "Ancient life was all silence. In the nineteenth century, with the invention of the machine, Noise was born." He goes on to say that sound was a thing that emerged as a separate, sacred concept as opposed to silence, and that music developed as a "fantastic world superimposed on a real one." Further down the evolutionary path, noise entered the picture together with the development of machines. He defines noise as that which "can be differentiated from sound only in so far as the vibrations which produce it are confused and irregular, both in time and intensity".

Noise, therefore, is something separate from both silence AND sound. Tones (which may refer to sounds with a dominant pitch)  receive only passing attention in this exposition, and may be inferred to be a separate entity in itself. These four things (music, tones, noise and silence), however, are only operationalized within the realm of music. Russolo concludes that musicians should expand the boundaries of music to not only include noise in art, but to develop forms that focuses almost exclusively on the use of noise. 

It is very tempting to argue that Rusollo's framework is rather naive about the stages of the evolution of sounds. His contention that earlier civilizations were only preoccupied with gentleness and tonal purity overlooks the possibility that music has also had an aggressive side. It also mistakenly assumes that machines are not capable of the "purity", and are boxed into a stereotype marked by brutality. He does however predict that machines will eventually be "attuned", something which has, in some cases, come to pass with the development of technology that is both mimetic and/or complimentary to nature. In spite of these, and other shortcomings, Rusollo's effort to renew the perception of noise in the context of art occupies a revolutionary phase in music history, and has had a profound effect on even the most mainstream of today's popular music. 

Unlike Rusollo, Douglas Kahn (2002) takes a separate path by suggesting the promotion of "phonographic" art. This presents the possibility of noise art developing independently of music. Kahn decries its retardation in comparison to "photographic" art due to the lack of the development of aural mimetic art forms. But mimetic sound art forms had to wait for the emergence of the avant-garde (represented by Edgard Varese and John Cage among others) before the dominance of tonal music would meet any serious challenge. And this only happened in the twentieth century. This, once again, clearly illustrates the severity of the isolation of noise from other aural arts before the twentieth century.

Paul Hegarty (2001) suggests a complimentary theoretical line by posing a dialectic argument that states noise is a "function of 'not-noise', itself a function of not being noise.

" He goes on to say that (in a Derida-inspired argument) "noise operates as a function of differance. If this term is what indicates and is subsequently elided, in/as the play of inside and outside (of meaning, thruth language, culture...), then we can form another binary with identity on the one side and differance on the other, but with this difference - that differance is both one term in the binary, and that which is the operation of the binary." 

He also quotes Kahn who states that noise "drifts" between empriricism and abstraction. Hegarty’s article focuses mainly on a contemporary form known as “Japanese Noise Music” and cites the work of Japanese artist Masami Akita (a.k.a Merzbow) as a classic example of such music.

Ironically, it is Akita himself who denies Rusollo and Hegarty’s contention that noise is a discrete entity from sound. In an interview with Billy Bob Hargus (December 1997), he reiterates his stand that noise is just another material used in musical composition:

“Q: How do you see noise? is it a building block?

A: I think of it as colorful inks of an illustrator.

Q: Your use of ambient material- drills, jack hammers, crashes- how does this compare to use of electronic sounds?

A: There's no comparison. I don't think it's very different because it's all just sound material. They're the same materials to me. I use all kinds of different sounds for my work. I'm using actual sounds, just recording sounds then altering it electronic devices. So then it's not very different.

Q: With your use of tapes, are you appropriating, recontextualizing?

A: Tapes are just raw materials to use. When I'm using tapes, I'm just using it as music equipment. I'm always thinking like I'm mixing. Of course, I want to change the original source to something else. 

Q: What led to your use of vocals on Noise Embryo? Do you plan to use more vocals in the future with your work?

A: No reason for use my voice on Noise Embryo. The voice was always meant a part of sound. I've never used vocals for singing- it's just another instrument. I just used it as sound, not really vocals.”

In another interview (2002), Akita states:

“Q: One of the other noisicans I interviewed in the past stated that 'noise' is not really a genre of music, but a separate entity by itself - just because something is released as a CD doesn't make it music. Do you agree with that? What is the connection (if any) between 'noise' and 'music'?

A: There is no difference between Noise and Music in my work. I have no idea what you term "Music" and "Noise". It's different depending on each person. If "Noise" means uncomfortable sound, then pop music is noise to me.”

Akita’s views seem to loop back to the positivist definition of sound as a specific type of sound material among others available to musicians, but recognizes the subjective criteria that is often used to categorize it. 

CONCLUSIONS

The rich variety of definitions of noise presents not only a bi-polar scenario (as in a binary), but a multi-dimensional, “circus-like” arena of both contending and complimentary views. One can expect potentially the same situation that occurs in the context of language, as each approach follows a major philosophical paradigm. As mentioned earlier, a subsequent paper will explore in greater detail the  theoretical foundations of each approach. 

REFERENCES

Books

Everest, Alton. The Master Handbook of Acoustics, 4th edition. McGraw-Hill Professional Book Group, 2000

Lucky, Robert W. Silicon Dreams: Information, Man and Machine. New York. St. Martins Press, 1989.

Severin, Werner J., Tankard, James W. Jr. Communication Theories: Origins, Methods, Uses. New York: Hastings House, 1979.

Suter, Alice H. Noise and Its Effects. 1991. < http://www.nonoise.org/library/suter/suter.htm >  (20 June 2001

Truax, Barry. Acoustic Communication, 2nd edition. Westport, Connecticut: Ablex Publishing, 2001. 

Electronic Documents

Hegarty, Paul. Full With Noise: Theory and Japanese Noise Music (19 November 2001 / 7:08 AM PST).

Truax, Barry. Handbook of Acoustic Ecology, 2nd edition. CD-ROM version 1.1.  Cambridge Street Publishing, 1999.. 

______. Interview with Masami Akita. (30 January 2002, 1:06am PST)

_____. MERZBOW:Interview by Billy Bob Hargus, December 1997 (30 January 2002, 1:05am PST)

Unpublished Sources

Landco - NE Development Corp. Environmental Impact Statement: Proposed Lakewood Golf and Country Club. November 1996. 

_____ . Initial Environmental Examination for the Proposed Happy Homes Subdivision, Sitio Kulasisi, Baranggay San Luis, Antipolo, Rizal. 

Dictionaries

Commission of the Filipino Language. English-Tagalog Dictionary 3rd ed. Pasig, Metro Manila: Anvil Publishing, Inc., 1992.

English, Leo James. English-Tagalog Dictionary. Quezon City: Kalayaan Press Mktg. Ent.,Inc, 1989.

English, Leo James. Tagalog-English Dictionary. Quezon City: Kalayaan Press Mktg. Ent.,Inc, 1986.

Enriquez, M. Jacobo, Quimba, J. Ben. Pocket Dictionary: English-Tagalog-Ilokano Vocabulary. Manila: Philippine Book Company, 1968.

Gaboy, Luciano Linsangan. Gabby’s Practical English-Filipino Dictionary. Quezon City: Milmar Soyuz Trading. 1999.

Institute of National Language, An English-Tagalog Dictionary. Manila: Institute of National Language, 1960.

Instructional Materials Corporation-Institute of National Language. INL-IMC Dictionary (English Filipino. Quezon City: Institute of National Language, 1987.

Manser, Martin H., Angeles, Epifania G. The New Standard English-Filipino Dictionary. Makati: Belgosa Media Systems Inc., 1984.

Nigg, Charles. A Tagalog English and English Tagalog Dictionary. Manila: Imp.De Fajardo Y Comp., 1904.

Panganiban, Jose Villa. Diksunaryo Tesauro Pilipino Ingles: Proyektong Pangwika 1969-70-71, Abril 18 1971. Quezon City: Manlapaz Publishing Co., 1971.

Santos, Vito C., Santos, Luningning E. English-Filipino Dictionary. Pasig, Metro Manila: Anvil Publishing, 1995.

MAKINAO
Disyembre 2001


Ang musika ng MAKINAO ay ginawa bilang sagot dalawang suliraning konseptual.

Noong dekada 1980, napagitna ako sa matinding alitan ng mga musiko tungkol sa makabagong teknolohiya. Sa isang dako, malawak ang takot sa halang ng mga musiko nang umiral ang systemang MIDI, at nawalan ng trabaho ang maraming manunugtog dahil mas mura ang paggawa ng musika gamit ang instrumentong elektronik tulad ng synthesizer, sampler, at drum machine. Sa kabilang dako naman, may mga musikong nalubog sa kagamitan, at naantala sa mga paraan ng pag-papaandar nito. Dahil sa alitan ng dalawang kampo, sobrang naging malambot ang musikang akustic, at tumigas naman ang musikang elektronik. Bagamat may nakapaglikha ng mga lunas, marami pa rin ang naiwang nakaipit sa dalawang kampo.

Ang pangalawang problema ay may kinalaman sa tradisyon. Sa Pilipinas, marami ang nagtangkang ipaghalo ang musikang katutubo sa musikang popular. Ngunit matindi ang inis ko sa karamihan ng gumagawa nito, sapagkat kapansin-pansin ang kababawan ng kanilang tambalan. Halimbawa, malimit ilinalagay lamang and katutubong instrumento sa pasakalye. Ngunit mabilis itong natatabunan kapag umandar na ang mga instrumentong popular tulad ng electric guitars, electronic keyboards, at drum set. Mayroon din mga nagpapanggap na “ethnic” sa pamamagitan ng mala-katutubong kasuotan. Dahil dito, nakakalungkot isipin na ang mga katutubong tradisyon ay pinagkakamalang walang saysay at dapat tabunan, at ang popular ay pinagkakamalang mas makabuluhan at dapat mangibabaw.

Malalim ang paniniwala ko na ang paglikha at dapat maging nakakalayang processo. Kaya sa MAKINAO, minarapat kong ipagsanib ang mga magkasalungaat na gawi. Dito ko nakamit ang kalayaang makapaglikha ng musikang taglay ang aking karanasan sa iba’t-ibang anyo at istilo ng musika, kakayahang gumamit ng angkop na teknolohiya, at paniniwala na pantay ang ugnayan ng nakaraan at ng kasalukuyan.

Sana maranasan nating lahat ang ganitong klaseng kalayaan, di lamang sa musika, kundi sa lahat ng malikhaing aspeto ng buhay.