STUDIO

COMPOSITION
MANFREDI
CLEMENTE
ESSAY: ON SONIC
ART
1423371
1

Wishart claimed that throughout his musical career, other musicians and
musicologists, on the basis that it is not music, had rejected some of his work.
His aim in sharing this was to widen the musical debate, highlighting the
prejudices against electro-acoustic music (although the are prejudices against all
types of music) and this idea of music snobbery. The age-old question of what is
music must be posed in order to contribute to this debate.

Using the above definitions of the word music, one could justifiably shun
Wisharts works of not being music. Other such definitions of music, state music
as simply being sounds. This would correspond with the books assumption that
that there is no such thing as an un-musical sound object. I believe music to be
an extremely personal thing and something almost indescribable due to its
subjective nature, and therefore would say that many un-musical sound objects
exist. Music has many functions on a global and very personal level. However, it
could be said that the purpose of music, despite its function, is to convey and
evoke emotions, and quite often a sense of community and belonging. This can
be found amongst different genres, continents, and periods in history: African
2

tribal music using songs to initiate young men coming of age into the tribe
evoking pride and a sense of family. Songs sung during the war promoting hope
and comradeship and classical composers such as Sibelius depicting their home
land as well as pride and togetherness.

With this in mind, can we agree that the work of Wishart and other sonic
engineers is music? What emotions does one feel when listening to such pieces?
Upon listening to a number (albeit, a relatively small number) of examples of
acousmatic/electro-acoustic pieces, I personally found it difficult to tell what
emotions I was feeling. I was preoccupied it seemed, by thinking about what it
was I was hearing. I was both intrigued and confused and it is possible that this
confusion shrouded my emotions or simply replaced them all together. I then
concluded that the level of uncertainty and unpredictability affected the musics
ability to move me in a similar way to what a Beethoven Sonata or Michael
Jackson song could for example. I then thought that an understanding of the
music, whether that be a lyrical understanding or merely experiencing the music
metaphorically and thus conceptualising it in someway, contributed to the
emotions one would feel.
I felt that there was no rhythm to hold on to, no key to feel safe in, and no melody
to tell the story, something that other genres of music have made me accustomed
to. I entertained the idea that it was my ignorance that had lead to me to feel this
way, and that my intrigue would allow me to try and understand the music for
what is was (or is to me) in the future; and that then it may evoke similar
emotions to what other music has done in the past. To me, I think electro-

acoustic music is music, but perhaps is to be consumed on a more intellectual

level than a personal or communal level.

Wishart seems to talk rather negatively about the notation of music and how it is
limited. I agree that notation is limited in the sense that not all parameters can be
accurately documented in way for a performer to be able to play the music. Even
if this could be achieved, not many humans could play it accurately enough to
justify such a radical change in the notation system. So, humans wouldnt be able
to play it but what about a computer? In modern day sequencers, we are able to
set the parameters for a synthesizers and MIDI sounds. Problem solved, right?
Well, that depends. There are so many different genres of music out there in the
world, with those genres having sub-genres and so on. A lot of those genres are
heavily based on synthesised sounds and the detail of the notation (although
some may argue whether the act of inputting of data and the moving of virtual
sliders is strictly notation), is appreciated and enjoyed by those who listen to
that particular genre.
There is still a big push however on achieving a humanised sound digitally
through synthesis. Techniques such as randomising the velocity of the sequenced
notes or not quantising them are used in an attempt to do this. Despite the lack of
control one would have using a synthesiser, the sound achieved through
recording a musician seems to be preferred by the mass. Perhaps it is the
computers inability to evoke emotion into the music it produces and the
artificial, manufactured sound that is inferior to that of a human. Notation then
could simply be described as an intermediary device, interpreted from to
composer, to the musician(s), and from musician(s) to the listener. In that case,

notation does not need to be massively complex to achieve this goal and to
complicate the system would lead to a potentially inferior perceived sound and
interpretation.
Chapter 2 concludes with a final comment shedding a light on the potential to
which the computer and its power does, will and could have in the field of sound
architecture. Exploration and experimentation of this power will allow greater
analysis and synthesis of sound. Looking this deep into music and sound at this
level is a relatively new in the context of music history. Music in all aspects of the
word could be benefactors from this process. Hopefully, the debate Wishart
hoped to widen closes somewhat due to this, a temporary fix for the meantime
may be to embrace to subjectivity of music and acknowledge peoples unique
taste and let the music do the talking.