Simon Emmerson: Living Electronic Music
Simon Emmerson: Living Electronic Music
复制标题
西蒙·艾默森：活生生的电子音乐
DOI：
10.1162/comj.2008.32.4.83
复制
发表时间：
2008
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Stephen Lee
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Stephen Lee
有关本文的更多信息，请参见https：//muse。jhu。edu/article/254440在这些空间中发生的活动。作者追溯了声学空间的发展，从史前洞穴到大教堂，到音乐霍尔斯，再到iPod。这些空间不仅在声学上塑造了它们所包含的声音，而且还影响了音乐风格，因为作曲家试图优化他们的音乐以适应该空间。然后，新空间的建筑模仿那些被认为在声学上成功的旧空间，这在很大程度上取决于它们的社会功能。Blesser先生和Salter女士通过研究文化和经济因素的作用，强调了这种相互关联的复杂性，这些因素有时足以阻碍空间的有效声学设计。听觉建筑师的定义是相当灵活的。在整本书中，它可以指一个真正考虑声音的建筑师，一个影响空间创造及其使用方式的委员会，一个用声音“照亮”空间的居住者，甚至是“一个抽象的人”。不过，这种灵活性似乎是适当的。每一个声学空间都是多种力量的产物，有些力量比其他力量更无形。声音本身是无形的，神秘的，短暂的。有了音频，最干净的答案不一定是最好的。空间说话有一种深度，来自一个谁花了多年沉浸在他所说的领域。Blesser先生和Salter女士向读者传达了一种强烈的感觉，即听觉建筑是至关重要的，尤其是因为它在当今社会中通常被忽视。作者带着某种渴望谈论过去的听觉建筑，有一种感觉，我们的社会已经失去了一些东西，由于我们越来越关注视觉。与此同时，他们提供了一些例子，比如20世纪20年代和30年代流行的观点（随后被拒绝），即混响是一种讨厌的东西，而不是对音乐的理想增强，表明态度可以波动，损害往往可以消除。作者希望我们关注听觉结构，因为我们有能力改善或降低它，也许这在现在尤为迫切，因为技术正在以越来越快的速度分离和缩小我们的听觉空间。
For additional information about this article https://muse. jhu. edu/article/254440 activities that occur in those spaces. The authors trace the development of acoustic spaces from prehistoric caves, to cathedrals, to concert halls, to iPods. These spaces not only acoustically shape the sounds that they contain, but also influence musical styles as composers try to optimize their music for the space. The architectures of new spaces then imitate those of older spaces that are judged to be acoustically successful, which is largely contingent on their social function. Mr. Blesser and Ms. Salter highlight the complexity of this interrelatedness by examining the role of cultural and economic factors, which are sometimes enough to hinder the effective acoustic design of a space. The definition of an aural architect is rather flexible. Throughout the book, it can mean either an actual architect who takes sound into consideration, the committee that influences the creation of a space and how it is used, the occupants who “illuminate” the space with sound, or even “more of an abstraction than a person.” However, this flexibility seems appropriate. Every acoustic space is the product of a multitude of forces, some less tangible than others. And sound itself is inherently intangible, mysterious, fleeting. With audio, the cleanest answer is not necessarily the best one. Spaces Speak has the kind of depth that comes from one who has spent many years immersed in the field of which he speaks. Mr. Blesser and Ms. Salter impart to the reader a strong sense that aural architecture is vitally important, all the more so because it is typically neglected in today’s society. The authors speak with a certain wistfulness about the aural architectures of the past, and there is a sense that our society has lost something as a result of our increasing focus on the visual. At the same time, they provide examples, such as the view prevalent (and subsequently rejected) in the 1920s and 1930s that reverberation was a nuisance rather than a desirable enhancement to music, showing that attitudes can fluctuate, and damage can often be undone. The authors want us to pay attention to aural architecture, because we have the power to improve or degrade it. And perhaps it is especially urgent now, as technology separates and shrinks our aural spaces at an ever-increasing rate.