According to Schaffer (1993), the world’s soundscape is changing rapidly. The rationale is that human activities have brought in new sounds in the world’s soundscape. This implies that the acoustic environment has expanded. The contemporary world’s soundscape is characterized by new sounds that differ in terms of quality and tone from the past acoustic environment. Acoustic designers and ecologists emphasize that noise emanates from our tendency to ignore specific sounds (Traux, 2001). Sounds that people opt not to listen to have led to a global problem of noise pollution. Noise pollution is among many impacts that societies experience due to frequent interaction with their acoustic ecology. Schaffer (1993) argues that noise pollution predisposes global society to a risk of deafness unless governments and communities curb and control the problem. Although experts have embarked on studies that target specific aspects of world soundscape, new sounds affect communities in many ways. Schafer (1977) says that it is essential for people to understand various features of the soundscape, their effects on social welfare, and other aspects of acoustic design to device means of minimizing noise pollution.
A major concern of soundscape analysts is the study of acoustic environment and design. Natural sounds, music, and other sounds produced by the environment constitute acoustic design. Schaffer (1993) articulates that background sounds that are present in an acoustic ecology reflect keynotes. This is a major feature of any acoustic ecology. In other words, Schaffer (1993) compares musical keynotes to background sounds in an acoustic environment. The rationale is that keynotes introduce and identify vital tonality of specific sound composition. According to soundscape analysts, a keynote is the reference point that every sound takes on its specific meaning (Truax, 2001). It is important to highlight that background sounds in an acoustic ecology do not necessarily invite conscious listeners. That notwithstanding, people do not overlook keynotes since they form listening habits. Background sounds in an acoustic environment therefore have a pervasive effect on people’s patterns of interaction, moods, and behavior (Schafer, 1977). To that end, keynotes of a specific geographical area are important since they outline specific characters and traits of the inhabitants. Every society has specific keynotes that typify its ecology owing to different geographical features that produce varied sounds in soundscapes’ background.
Another key feature of an acoustic environment and design is foreground sounds. They are also known as signals. Unlike keynotes, people listen to foreground sounds consciously. The rationale is that foreground sounds aim at sending the specific message that only the intended audience can interpret. People listen to such signals as sirens, whistles, and bells in a conscious way because they issue warnings to specific members of society. According to Schaffer (1993), signals contain complex messages that only specific listeners may interpret. When such sounds typify an acoustic environment, the target audience will listen to them regardless of whether they were participating in active listening of other sounds. However, signals might not elicit similar meanings to specific individuals, groups, communities, and societies living in varied acoustic ecologies (Schafer, 1977). Consequently, they can only outline traits and behaviors subgroups and recipients of the sounds.
A soundscape must possess a sound mark that is an essential feature of any acoustic ecology. As elucidated by Schaffer (1993), it is an equivalent of a physical landmark in a community. While landmarks are visual stimulants that provide meaning and direction to a specific community, sound marks act as hearing stimulants that provide meaning for different groups and societies. Sound marks make the acoustic lives of different communities to be unique and as such, many experts propose that people ought to protect them. To that end, it is essential to elucidate that specific features of acoustic life give sound analysts a reference point in the process of attempting to control apparent noise pollution in society. While acoustic communication is an important way of decoding meaning from various compositions of sounds (natural, artificial, and music) within a society, the effect of acoustic ecology is clear. Expansion of acoustic space has had an impact on the social welfare of human beings.
Soundscape can convey messages and information. The rationale is that the acoustic environment acts as a mediator between the ecology and the listeners. Traux (2001) argues that the deterioration of an acoustic ecology results in reduced awareness of the environment. Subsequently, noise pollution that characterizes contemporary acoustic ecology polarizes various sounds to extremities. For instance, people living in diverse ecologies tend to experience natural noises without experiencing polarization. Indeed, Traux (2001) postulates that indigenous people living in Papua New Guinea can mimic at least one hundred birds. Although they can only visualize and describe only a handful of birds, it is apparent that the indigenous people have a heightened awareness of their ecology. On the contrary, many people in the developed world derive less significance from natural sounds. The reason is that natural sounds have decreased tremendously in industrialized nations owing to the destruction of the natural environment. In other words, people in these parts of the world attempt to block natural noises instead of hearing them. This compromises their awareness of their environments and surroundings. This is instead of the fact that music has been used to control their soundscapes instead of being a part of it. As such, most natural sounds in developed countries constitute noise pollution since they limit the ability of people to listen to music.
The impact of the acoustic environment is different in various societies. Schaffer (1993) asserts that music and soundscapes have shaped various social and political institutions of all societies. He argues that societies tend to associate various aspects of soundscapes with the status of their political, social, and economic well-being. For instance, Chinese society believed that sad and sentimental sounds imply that society is experiencing turbulent and challenging times (Traux, 2001). It is important to highlight that various societies value their sound marks especially those that characterize and symbolize significant events and situations of society. Societies that have destroyed and degraded their natural environments prefer music to characterize their soundscapes. This does not only imply that the natural sounds constitute noise in these countries but also they have alleviated the impact of natural acoustic life on their lives. While acoustic environments vary according to social organization, it essential to mention that the destruction of soundscapes leads to noise pollution. Noise pollution is a worldwide problem that illustrates the appalling nature of the interaction between listeners and acoustic environments.
Importantly, the acoustic environment has also led to the potential risk of deafness as aforementioned. As the global population grows, human activities have increased tremendously implying that acoustic life has also changed to accommodate the ever-increasing sounds (Truax, 2001). Consequently, the polarization of soundscapes has implied that different communities and individuals think of any sounds in their extremities. For instance, they categorize sounds as loud or quiet, bad or good among many other extremes. When that happens, Schaffer (1993) elucidates that people tend to ignore the intrinsic aspects of sounds.
In the modern world, the acoustic environment is so complex that the majority of meaningful sounds that could enhance human awareness have been classified as noise. Due to the apparent effects of soundscape on people’s health, people have blocked relevant sounds that are eventually removed by acoustic designers of global societies (Schafer, 2006). This does not only limit the quality and diversity of acoustic ecology but also impairs the ability of the society to utilize unique sounds to characterize their social organization. Schaffer (1993) points out that the rate of expansion of the world’s soundscape is so intense that it has become almost impossible for people to sieve quality sounds from noise.
A diverse soundscape has also had a major influence on the way people tend to redesign acoustics. People have utilized a variety of sounds that are in specific acoustic environments to come up with sounds that relate to their contexts (Schafer, 1993). For instance, the diversity of music and sounds in various societies has allowed musicians and media to innovate and invent new sounds that resonate with people’s situations and conditions. This has in turn led to the reinvention of the soundscape to include hybrid sounds (Schafer, 2006. Besides, acoustic life has also enhanced the ability of societies to introduce institutions that are important in enhancing societal functionalism. In particular, media institution has emerged as an important social institution that allows people to convey messages through realignment of natural sounds to fit the modern acoustic needs of various groups, individuals, and communities (Schafer, 2006). To that end, it is important to emphasize that acoustic life allows human beings to participate in the process of acoustic design. This implies that people end up listening to different sounds that may eventually reduce the effect of noise on society and individuals. This is in recognition of the fact that sounds, which people tend to block and ignore amount to noise.
Personal Experiences
Last year I visited The Listening Place located in Melbourne, Australia. The feature is located in Alma Park and provides members of the Australian community with a contemplative space. In this space, various seats installed with sound systems provide visitors with a new perspective of the intrinsic aspects of the park. The installers of sound systems have included a mix of stories that people tell in different languages when visiting the park. As such, the sound installation is an accumulation of different sounds made by visitors of the park. The place allows people to hear coincidences in voices depicted in the stories of previous visitors. This implies that people ought to listen to each other and that every person has a unique perspective and story to tell others. When the sound of the stories of the park is turned off, the park allows visitors to listen to the natural sounds of the park. Due to the presence of noise pollution present in all societies, the park has a sitting bench where people learn to listen carefully. It is important to point out that the sounds that people hear in the park are dependent on the time of day and other aspects of acoustic ecology such as weather, airplanes, and trains. When seated at The Listening Place, a person experiences a convergence of a myriad of languages of the visitors. I would suggest that the seat is one of the centers of soundscape diversity.
Listening to the sounds when seated in the park prompts a person to wonder how various people and societies coexist. Amazingly, many people who come to the park do not understand one another. While some sounds are quite familiar, others are extremely strange. As such, sitting at The Listening Space allows different people to hear both unknown and known sounds. When listening to the sounds of the park’s soundscape, it is noticeable that the area has a rich sonic diversity. It is essential to mention that the voices and sounds within the park are not only strange but also contain non-verbal information. Nonverbal information allows the listener to understand the various demographic and social traits of previous visitors. I could easily visualize a person’s gender, age, and personal experiences by listening to their tonal variation and pitch qualities. Besides, I could feel the affinity of the visitors’ voices although I did not understand the actual languages they spoke. The lack of noise within the park’s context amazed me. The rationale is that most people who visit The Listening Place possess a major goal of listening to the soundscape of the park.
Further, the level of awareness a person acquires from the soundscape is also amazing. I could hear various acoustic environments of the indigenous inhabitants of the area. This is in recognition of the fact that a sonically rich park, allows social and other aspects of the visitors’ sounds to become apparent. As aforementioned, a diverse soundscape allows individuals to increase their awareness about specific issues of the area. It is essential to pinpoint that every sound installation within the park represented a specific sound mark. As such, the residents of Melbourne can relate to various events with particular sounds in the park. Besides, they can experience the diversity of the world’s soundscape and decode various meanings that the sounds elicit. For instance, I was quite surprised to find a native of the area. He explained to me about various aspects of the indigenous sounds depicted in the mix of stories. Particularly, he explained about specific sounds that visitors had made and interpreted their social and mental status. To my amazement, he was not born during the time the sounds were recorded although he could explain the feelings and psychological status of the people depicted.
While I was sitting at The Listening Place, I noticed that the effects and impacts of the park’s soundscape on people and societies were apparent. First, the residents and park keepers have realigned various aspects of sound without creating noise. In other words, natural sound, recorded sounds, and sounds generated from human activities such as driving were more fulfilling in the park owing to the ability of humans to design more fulfilling acoustics. Besides, I noticed the huge amount of income and revenues that the park generated. The revenues do not only directly affect people’s lives but also indirectly. To that end, I went home comparing various features and impacts of a specific soundscape on the societies. In particular, I noticed that the park provided a soundscape that has critical features that are comparable to the world’s soundscape.
Application of Theories and Gained Knowledge
Various issues outlined in the first part of the discourse apply to my experience at The Listening Place. At the outset, it is worth mentioning that various features of the acoustic environment and soundscape of the area have given the residents unique characteristics and traits. The reason is that the unique soundscape of the park contains numerous sound marks of the indigenous people of Melbourne. Schaffer (1993) elucidates that sound marks are similar to landmarks that provide meaning and give direction to a specific society. As such, most of the acoustic designers of the park ensured that the soundscape integrated various sounds that do not only resonate with foreign visitors but also with the local community (Schaffer, 2006). In other words, the sounds of the indigenous people visiting the area elicit specific aspects of social organization. For instance, the soundscape of the area resonates highly with Australian society, and the foreigners can have imagery of the society. Sound marks facilitate the distinction of different acoustic environments from all over the world. Besides, the impacts of soundscape on society are apparent (Vikman, 1999). The creation of the soundscape has allowed people to hear natural and artificial sounds without suffering from noise and unnecessary sounds. Consequently, the area has reduced noise pollution greatly.
Reduction of noise pollution enhances diversity and richness of soundscape (Imada, 2005). The rationale is that people tend to hear numerous sounds without blocking others that might be important. The Listening Place is therefore an important illustration of ways that people can reduce noise pollution while at the same time decoding different messages that the soundscape conveys. While it is true that Australians are in a position to interpret some of the sounds in an effective way than the visitors, the soundscape has a wide array of information (both verbal and nonverbal) for all people. The park is also a demonstration of ways that acoustic ecologists and sound analysts may be able to understand the complex soundscape of the world (Imada, 2005). In consideration of the fact that the increase in human activities has increased noise in some regions of the world, it is important to notice that noise has reduced significantly in some areas.
To that end, the park needs to incorporate other acoustic features of the soundscape. Redesigning the soundscape to cater to many other Australian native communities is essential to create specific archetypical sounds of the society. Nonetheless, constant reconfiguration of the city presents the park with numerous challenges. They include the integration of new sounds that may become too complex for people to interpret (Vikman, 1999). Besides, I would include other soundscape features such as foreground sounds (signals) and background sounds (keynotes). This will not only allow people visiting the park to be in a position to listen to the soundscape consciously but also unconsciously (Vikman, 1999). However, The Listening Place is an illustration of human influence on soundscapes and ways that different societies can recreate their acoustic life to enhance distinctiveness and uniqueness.
References
Imada, T. (2005). Acoustic Ecology Considered as a Connotation: Semiotic, Post-Colonial and Educational Views of Soundscape. The Journal of Acoustic Ecology 6 (2), 45-67.
Schafer, M. (1977). The Tuning of the World. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart Press.
Schaffer, M. (1993). The Soundscape: Our Sonic Environment and the Tuning of the World. New Jersey: Rochester Books.
Schaffer, M. (2006). Voices of Tyranny: Temples of Silence. Journal of Acoustic Ecology, 4(2), 23-56.
Truax, B. (2001). Acoustic Communication. New York: Jossey Bass.
Vikman, N. (1999). Acoustic Environments and Local Identity in European Villages. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.