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.
