Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gcmr20

Download by: [Arizona State University Libraries] Date: 15 November 2017, At: 08:03

Contemporary Music Review

ISSN: 0749-4467 (Print) 1477-2256 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gcmr20

Acoustic Ecology 2.0

Garth Paine

To cite this article: Garth Paine (2017): Acoustic Ecology 2.0, Contemporary Music Review, DOI:10.1080/07494467.2017.1395136

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07494467.2017.1395136

Published online: 15 Nov 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Acoustic Ecology 2.0Garth Paine

In this article, I argue for a reassertion of the practice of acoustic ecology. I present anargument for the rejection of the term soundscape in favour of the notion of an acousticecology; along the way, I show how the concept of ecology is a powerful tool in re-imaging the role of sound awareness in the society. I argue, however, that acousticecology as defined by Luc Ferrari and Murray Schaeffer needs refocusing or revitalizing.I suggest a framework that prioritizes community engagement, exploration, andexperience of the sounding world, driven by a desire to build stewardship and agency forchange management in the community. The proposed model draws on the sensibilitiesof acoustic ecology to drive design solutions to anthropocentric sound challenges. Thiskind of work provides for the development of tools that quantify environmentalpsychoacoustic metrics and can be used to design and manage acoustic ecologies thatcontribute to well-being, social cohesion, and quality of life.

Keywords: Acoustic Ecology; Listening; Community Engagement; Sustainability; Sound;Somatic

Every day we listen to sounds in the world to identify their source. The bird or coyotecalls (biophony), the car, motorbike, plane or your sister’s voice (anthrophony), or thewind in the foliage, the water in the river (geophony) … But we do not often listen tothese sounds as a network, a mesh of relationships that forms an ecology. Furthermore,we do not often consider that the sounds we hear are conditioned, augmented, andfiltered by the environment in which they occur—the rich reverberation created bya rock canyon or the glass skyscrapers of a major city, the quiet absorption of adense undergrowth, thick leaf litter, or fresh snow on the ground. Consider alsothat the density of air varies from the cool mountain top or canyon base to the heatof the open desert plane. In these variations, the confluence of sound is conditionedby the density of the air, dispersing the excitation and the fidelity of the sound inwarmer dryer environments more quickly than occurs in dense, cool, heavy air.Here, a uniquely detailed sonic fidelity seems to hang in the ether for an inordinate

Contemporary Music Review, 2017https://doi.org/10.1080/07494467.2017.1395136

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

Dow

nloa

ded

by [A

rizon

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries]

at 0

8:03

15

Nov

embe

r 201

7

period of time. Geographic structure, altitude, and humidity all influence sonic ambi-ence and ecology.If we adjust our listening to engage with the idea of the sounds around us as a set of

dynamic relationships, an acoustic ecology, then we can consider that they tell us agood deal about the health of the environment in which they occur, the bioticecology (biosphere). The diversity and density of species, the abundance of vegetationand the profusion of its foliage (affecting reverberation), and the density of the airdetermined by temperature, all act as key sonic indexes of environmental condition.These indicators change as environments respond to climate change. The soundabsorption coefficient changes as foliage becomes less or more profuse, while thedensity and diversity of the biophony transform with variation in the prevalence ofspecies calls. The wildlife recordist Bernie Krause demonstrates this later pointthrough a comparative analysis of his historical recordings in the Sugar Loaf StatePark (see https://vimeo.com/166,214,601).These forms of critical listening are one of the ways in which acoustic ecology can

assist in raising public awareness of environmental changes. Teaching members of thepublic to listen gives them insight into the richness of the acoustic properties of theenvironments they frequent. It also provides a way to heighten awareness, todevelop stewardship through public engagement, and to support agency in theefforts needed to care for and manage environments subject to climate change. Inaddition, the creative application of field recordings in these environments and thecomposition and performance of musical works derived from environmental soundsprovide accessible ways to develop a creative capital around the value of acoustic ecol-ogies and their uniqueness to each site.

Acoustic Ecology 2.0

In recent years, the community of people interested in the sonic properties of the worldhas grown, but also fractured and then focused around different practice titles. A non-exhaustive list would include Soundscape Ecology (Purdue University, Farina; Krauseand Gage, Pijanowski), Sound/Sonic Ecology (Pailhès and Vogt, Kelman), BioAcous-tics (see the journal Bioacoustics – The International Journal of Animal Sound and ItsRecording, Taylor & Francis), and Soundscape studies (a broad title for a range of prac-tices and pedagogies examining the sounding world).I share with Tim Ingold a dislike for the word ‘soundscape’ because it seems so gen-

eralized as to be meaningless, but I also share his concern that one cannot ‘scape’ amedium—we do not have lightscapes. The acoustic ecology of the world is so rich,intricate, and dynamic, that to refer to the overall gestalt as a ‘soundscape’ provideslittle insight into the phenomena being discussed. As Ingold (2011, p. 157) eloquentlywrites: ‘For sound, I would argue, is not the object but the medium of our perception.It is what we hear in. Similarly, we do not see light but see in it’.The ‘scaping’ of sound is perhaps a result of its complexity, the manifold sources

meshing into a single perceivable gestalt. The geographer Hägerstrand (1976,

2 G. Paine

Dow

nloa

ded

by [A

rizon

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries]

at 0

8:03

15

Nov

embe

r 201

7

p. 332) comments that ‘(t)he big tapestry that nature is weaving, is woven because allthings have a temporal vector that enmesh’. Hägerstrand neatly sums up the verynature of ecology as a dynamic system of interaction, co-dependence, and interdepen-dence, where life itself is made and presenced. To prioritize the idea of an ecology inour discourse about the sounding world is to bring attention to these enmeshedvectors: in our case, the acoustic ecology of the world we share.Sound is a uniquely temporal medium. It is the very temporality that illuminates

transformations and relationships, night into day, year-on-year climate changes,how the environment responds to such pressures. Guided by Ingold and Hägerstrand,in this article I argue that there is value in re-assembling around the term AcousticEcology. I foreground the dynamic vectors of both the individual and the whole: thegeo/bio and anthrophony as well as what I refer to as somaphony, the underlying, apriori sonic signature of an environment.

World Forum for Acoustic Ecology—Acoustic Ecology 1.0

One of the founding precepts of the World Forum for Acoustic Ecology was a desire toprotect and maintain a status quo in the soundmake-up of our environment, that is, towork against any further perceived degradation of the environment. In much ofMurray Schafer’s (1986, 1993) writing, there appears to be a desire to recede totimes past, with discussion about the need for quiet, for musty sanctuaries of thesoul in which one could recover from the sounds of the modern industrialeconomy. On the surface, these seem like lofty ideals driven by a committed beliefthat the increasing prevalence of the sounds of mechanization over the past centuryor so was having a detrimental effect on human well-being.In so far as there had been substantial increases in anthropogenic sound, and urban

and industrial designs were not prioritizing a consideration of our acoustic ecology,these concerns were well founded and formed the basis for a re-awakening of aware-ness of the importance of considering balance and stewardship in the acoustic ecologyof the globe as a whole. It brought with it a push for careful policy development, whilesimultaneously issuing a call for public engagement through projects such as theWorldSoundscape Project. We all make sound and would intrinsically benefit from develop-ing an astute awareness of the role we play in forming and finessing our acousticecology (Figure 1).Reflection on these ideals leads me to the following thoughts:

(1) It is critical that we are conscious of our sound environment and that we playan active role in moderating noise and designing the sonic properties of urban(and all) environments to promote well-being. Humans should develop anacute awareness of their own contribution to the acoustic ecology.

(2) Exposure to loud sounds and noise has been shown to have a negative impacton well-being.

Contemporary Music Review 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [A

rizon

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries]

at 0

8:03

15

Nov

embe

r 201

7

(3) The sounds of our industrialized environment are part of the acoustic ecology;they do not exist in isolation.

(4) Humans adapt quickly. An individual who grows up in a large and active citymay feel uneasy sleeping in a quiet rural setting; there is no single baseline. Theconcept of urban noise for someone who grows up in rural Virginia, or in citieslike Zurich, Munich, Vienna, or Stockholm, differs markedly to the conceptfor a person who has grown up in central Guangzhou, Delhi, or Cairo.1

(5) The generalized use of the word ‘noise’ to define aspects of an acoustic ecologyis a conditioned and value-laden statement rather than a consideration of poss-ible solutions, driven by a sensibility to sound and ecology. Conditioning ismore crucial to experience than experimental baselines or fixed thresholds,and decibel measures should only form part of any useful sound quality metric.

(6) An ecosystem is by nature not static; it is permanently in transition, fluid, andvariable. The morphology so evident in the smooth modulation of the appar-ent pitch of a moving sound, an ambulance, for instance, as it travels past you(Doppler effect), is true of the entire soundfield. Micro-scale variation isalways at play, and as Truax (1978) illustrates so well in the World SoundscapeProject analysis, the patterns of daily change repeats in a stochastic manner,displaying external macro similarities while constantly producing micro-scale, relational variations that are largely unknown and possibly unknowable.

(7) Long-term analysis of trends in the acoustic ecology of both conserved natureand urban environments could lead to insight into vectors of change and sub-sequently provide new tools for environmental monitoring, land management,and urban design.

The initial terms coined by Schafer (1993) to categorize and describe the acousticecology, Keynote sounds, Sound Marks, and Sound Signals, only describe soundingsources. They do not describe the a priori acoustic of an environment and the

Figure 1 A common sign in Athens, Greece, encouraging communal environmental pro-tection action.

4 G. Paine

Dow

nloa

ded

by [A

rizon

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries]

at 0

8:03

15

Nov

embe

r 201

7

relationship therein. Luc Ferrari brought this to our attention through his commentsabout how the ‘sound of the boats on the river describe the streets, houses and form ofthe city and its surrounding landscape’ (Caux, 2013, p. 109). Indeed, this relationshipbetween sound and its acoustic context is central to our perception of both. I havetermed this gestalt Somaphony.I define somaphony as a subconscious listening to the entire soundfield as a singular

gestalt. Reached through a state of deep listening, one moves beyond hearing events,the focus of directed listening, beyond the structures exposed in active listening to aform of passive listening where the scale of the perceived soundfield expandsbeyond the immediate location to include all sound as a confluence of influences.This deeper form of listening is a subtle body awareness, bypassing the analyticalmind; it allows for the lifting of our perceptual filters so that we hear the a priori acous-tic of the environment as an equal influence in the soundfield.

The Listenn Project

These thoughts are encapsulated in the Listenn Project. As a response to climate changeand simultaneously as a community engagement and environmental stewardshipproject, the Listenn Project seeks to document the sounds of the environment in pro-tected national parks and conservancies of south-western USA and with internationalpartners in Germany, Costa Rica, and Chile, for a decade or more. The project runsregular on-site workshops with the aim of building communities of listeners, whothrough monthly field recording sessions become expert observers of how thatenvironment’s sound changes with season and as a result of larger forces such asthrough changes in land usage patterns and climate change. These communitiesmeet regularly to share their insights and have input on proposed changes in termsof land use and policy. The recordings are submitted to an online database (seehttp://www.ecolisten.org/sonic_events.php), and from a large data project, the record-ings are analysed for psychoacoustic metrics, tracked over time as a measure ofenvironmental change. I hypothesize that in developing robust metrics, this workmay form the basis for land management tools which can be applied to naturalenvironments in the near future and possibly also urban environments, as measuresof well-being and human/biophonic interrelationships. Such a tool would provide amuchmore nuanced approach to the management of environmental health challenges,including deafness as a result of ongoing noise exposure. The current World HealthOrganization (WHO) recommendations simply focus on reducing exposure throughthe use of earplugs and noise-cancelling earphones and headphones. The

WHO says that half of all cases of hearing loss can be prevented through publichealth measures, including reducing exposure to loud sounds by raising awarenessabout the risks; developing and enforcing relevant legislation; and encouraging indi-viduals to use personal protective devices such as earplugs and noise-cancelling ear-phones and headphones.2

Contemporary Music Review 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [A

rizon

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries]

at 0

8:03

15

Nov

embe

r 201

7

These interventions assume access to resources, organizational and individual prepa-redness, and economic capacity to adopt such measures. They are insensitive to thecore issue and ignore the dramatic socio-economic inequalities prevalent among thenoisiest cities on earth, from Asia to Europe to the Americas (Figure 2).Figure 2 provided by the WHO illustrates the health impacts of sound stress. The

approach is however very blunt. Individuals respond differently to different kinds ofsounds. We understand that psychoacoustic measures provide more detailed infor-mation on human response than sound pressure measures.And so I ask:

How do we arrive at a better understanding of the sounding world and its impacton our well-being, and a better understanding of our impact on the acousticecology?

How can such understandings be used to develop new approaches to assessmentand environmental and urban design?

Can the arts drive these important and time critical discussions?

My answer to the above questions draws from a practice of listening. Refining ouraural acuity is central to these questions and is a sensibility that acoustic ecologists,composers, musicians, and individuals who practise listening are uniquely positionedto bring to such challenges. These skills are central to both reframing the challengesand driving new proposals for solutions.

Figure 2 The WHO pyramid of health effects due to prolonged noise exposure: the severityof health effects of noise and the number of people affected.

6 G. Paine

Dow

nloa

ded

by [A

rizon

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries]

at 0

8:03

15

Nov

embe

r 201

7

The Practice of Listening

Listening is one of the most powerful tools for engaging with and understanding ourenvironment. Often ignored or underrated, simple active listening, that is, being trulypresent in the environment, can reveal an immense spectrum of information. Thisincludes, among other things, information about relationships between the vocaliza-tions of species present—their daily phases of activity, their spectral niche, theirspatial proximity, the relationship of their calls to the acoustic qualities of the land,rocks and flora, the reverberation time and frequency spectra of the reflective orabsorptive context of their habitat, and the interplay and impact of geophonic andanthropocentric sounds. However, the listening experiences that yield such infor-mation require time. For instance, durational listening (several uninterruptedhours) will expose transitions, night into day and vice versa, revealing the transitionfrom nocturnal to diurnal species and weather patterns.Listening is itself a form of knowledge, an embodied knowledge. Merleau-Ponty

(1962, p. 273) pointed out that ‘(m)y body is the fabric into which all objects arewoven, and it is, at least in relation to the perceived world, the general instrumentof my comprehension’. After spending long periods with indigenous people inPapua New Guinea, the anthropologist Steven Feld (Kruth & Stobart, 2000, p. 184)coined the term acoustemology, writing that ‘by acoustemology I wish to suggest aunion of acoustics and epistemology, and to investigate the primacy of sound as amodality of knowing and being in the world’.Feld refers to listening as being the base for an acoustic epistemology, writing ‘how

sounding and the sensual, bodily, experiencing of sound is a special kind of knowing’(1996, p. 97, 2005)—‘Just as “life takes place” so does sound’ (2005, p. 4). It is note-worthy that Feld arrived at this knowledge through observing indigenous peoples. It islikely that many forms of knowledge about how we exist in concert with the ecology ofwhich we are part have been lost to urbanized western societies.To demonstrate the above point about embodied listening, I would ask you—

readers of this article—to engage in what I call memory-based listening. Please closeyour eyes, and for a few minutes, go to a place full of sounds that you like. Listen care-fully to the atmosphere and the close and distant sounds that come to you. Memory-based listening demonstrates the manner in which sound is embodied, retained in thebody as a kind of visceral experience. It points towards whole-body, somatic listening,that is, somaphony. Feld touches on this when he explains the concept of acoustemol-ogy and the role of sound recordings. He writes: ‘Implicitly … recordings ask what itmeans to live and feel as a person in this place. Voiced in a more contemporary way …

recordings signal that the concept of “habitus” must include a history of listening’(2004, p. 462). The use of the word habitus, while gesturing to Bourdieu (1984),implies an embodied disposition as a filter to perception. Sound is the resulting sonifi-cation of life. Everything sounds.I cherish such listening experiences each time they occur. However, their power as a

tool for social change really comes through the training and mentoring of public

Contemporary Music Review 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [A

rizon

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries]

at 0

8:03

15

Nov

embe

r 201

7

volunteers as citizen scientists, to both broaden awareness and engagement with theacoustic ecology of local environments, build stewardship and agency for change man-agement in the community, and by repeated documentation (personal and crowd-sourced recordings) of these sonic environments over several years, building largedata collections (e.g. monthly for 10+ years) of regular sound recordings in selectedsites as data sources for environmental sound analysis.

The Listenn Project Framework

The Listenn Project is the first large-scale citizen science project where all soundrecordings are made in ambisonic format,3 because it provides a spatial map ofevents and atmospheres. Volunteers are provided with a Brahma in Zoom,4 A-format recorder, while the Listenn team uses a Soundfield SPS2005 microphone andSound Devices 788 recorder with a Schoeps Double M/S set-up as a secondary hori-zontal recording technique. Ambisonics is also critical in such a long-term project,as we do not know in advance where and how environmental change may takeplace. Stereo techniques would imply a fixed point of view in the recordings, butthis may therefore miss crucial sonic signatures associated with environmentalchange or changes resulting from evolving land use or management policies.Alongside the Listenn Project, the EcoSonic project utilizes the Listenn projects’

crowd-sourced recording database (all publicly available online6) for psychoacoustictime series analysis, driven by the hypothesis that psychoacoustic measures mayhelp us track changes in environmental conditions much faster than current scientificmethods. This approach has been championed by Bruel and Kjaer7 as an industrialdesign tool addressing consumer perceptions of build quality, image, and so on.The scaffolding of the development of environmental monitoring tools onto the

community engagement aspects of the Listenn Project substantially expands thesocial and long-term impact of the citizen science data collection and, we havefound, deepens the volunteer’s commitment to monthly recording sessions. Thetools we are developing will be impactful for both land management of natural pre-serves and the analysis of urban environments in terms of wellness metrics, forinstance, to assist in the development of urban parks and sanctuaries so they have posi-tive psychoacoustic metrics, so encouraging positive well-being metrics and contribut-ing to social cohesion and quality of life for urban inhabitants.It is important however to realize that many people are unable to access the cele-

brated splendour of the National Park networks in the USA and across the globe.Access is impeded by health and ability, socio-economic factors, or simply, in manysettings, age (i.e. young people or the elderly) and gender. To expand access to thesepreserves, the Listenn Project developed the EcoRift8 virtual reality system, bringingvirtual reality nature experiences to those lacking access to natural environments(but with access to the Internet). The virtual reality system is built using panoramicphotographs of the same locations that are regularly recorded by citizen scientistsand the Listenn Team in ambisonic format. EcoRift is designed to act as a context

8 G. Paine

Dow

nloa

ded

by [A

rizon

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries]

at 0

8:03

15

Nov

embe

r 201

7

for listening. The image space is kept as static photographs, in order to direct attentionto listening. Felds wrote of listening ‘as place is sensed, senses are placed; as placesmake sense, senses make place’ (1996, p. 91, 2005), a wonderfully poetic way of encap-sulating place making through personal listening. I suggest that virtual reality projectssuch as EcoRift achieve this extension of the mind or being into the world around us.The visual context encourages active listening in a manner that would not take place

if the user was simply provided with a spatial audio file. In an ocular-centric world, theimmersive visual perspective provides points of reference for animal calls, underlyingacoustic (i.e. reverberation of a canyon, or the openness of a large alpine grass plane)and anthropogenic sounds (i.e. roads, aircraft, settlements, etc.). It also engages the lis-tener with each site in a manner that underlines the value of the national parks beingpresented and provides for the scaffolding of pedagogy for young people and broadersustainability and ecological learning for all.The final part of the Listenn framework is Ecomusicology. In this context, Ecomu-

sicology provides a platform for critical discourse, the development of theoretical fra-meworks and the sharing of research in practice, as well as various embodiedexperiences of being present in the land (Figure 3).

Conclusion

In this article, I have proposed the prioritization of the concept of ecology in environ-mental sound. I argue that the inherently temporal nature of sound communicates anenmeshment of all within it, and set of relationships and interactions that form anecology: an acoustic ecology. I have also outlined the importance of listening, andthe many forms listening (and hearing) can take, from immediate (events) to deeply

Figure 3 The Listenn Project, community embedded Acoustic Ecology 2.0 model.

Contemporary Music Review 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [A

rizon

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries]

at 0

8:03

15

Nov

embe

r 201

7

embodied (memory based), to the all-inclusive apperception of the sonic environment(somaphony). I have outlined the ways in which these layers of perception, practice,research, and community engagement with an acoustic ecology can be interdependent,and argued that they afford new opportunities to support a range of cross-disciplinaryresearch, place making, artistic production, and broad community development andpedagogy on such activities.This composite module forms a dynamic, multi-modal, and embedded approach to

acoustic ecology that prioritizes community engagement, exploration, and experienceof the sounding world, driven by a desire to build stewardship and agency to build thecapacity for change management in the community, especially in local, often remotecommunities adjacent to large nature preserves. I draw on the sensibilities of acousticecology to drive design solutions to anthropocentric sound challenges and argue thatsuch work provides for the development of tools that quantify psychoacoustic metrics.These can be used to design and manage acoustic ecologies that provide ways of linkingsound environment to well-being, social cohesion, and quality of life.I have argued that this model be considered as Acoustic Ecology 2.0. It forms a

wholehearted acknowledgement of previous work in acoustic ecology, while seekingto raise the profile of acoustic ecology practice and embedding projects such as theListenn Project directly within communities, in ways that resource and empowerlocal inhabitants to facilitate both place making and scientific research. AcousticEcology 2.0 also seeks to place the sensibilities of acoustic ecologists at the heart ofurban design solutions and solutions to anthropocentric sound challenges. It doesso by building on the power of crowd-sourced recordings over many years, to buildlarge data-sets that correlate the psychoacoustic sound properties of the environmentalsound and climate change, in other words, by seeking to apply Feld’s use of the conceptof ‘habitus’ as including a history of listening and embodied listening knowledge,Acoustic Ecology 2.0 addresses real-world challenges with innovative solutions notavailable elsewhere.

Notes

[1] TheWorld Economic Forum ranked world cites for noise pollution. These references fall in linewith some of the quietest and loudest cities in that study. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/03/these-are-the-cities-with-the-worst-noise-pollution/. Accessed 24 August 2017.

[2] See https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/03/these-are-the-cities-with-the-worst-noise-pollution. Accessed 7 September 2017.

[3] A brief introduction to ambisonic audio is provided at https://www.asoundeffect.com/ambisonics-primer. Accessed 24 August 2017.

[4] Brahma in Zoom is a modified Zoom H2N recorder with and A-Format Ambisonic micro-phone installed. http://www.embracecinema.com/gear/product-view.php?slug=brahma-in-zoom. Accessed 24 August 2017.

[5] The Soundfield SPS200 A-Format ambisonic microphone was one of the first to be released thatdid not required main power and was therefore capable of being used for field recording inremote locations. http://www.soundfield.com/products/sps200. Accessed 24 August 2017.

[6] Listen here: http://www.ecolisten.org/sonic_events.php. Accessed 24 August 2017.

10 G. Paine

Dow

nloa

ded

by [A

rizon

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries]

at 0

8:03

15

Nov

embe

r 201

7

[7] See software tools by B&K in https://www.bksv.com/en/products/PULSE-analysis-software/acoustic-application-software/sound-quality/sound-quality-software-7698. Accessed 24 August2017.

[8] For more details on EcoRift system, please see http://www.ecolisten.org/blog/experience/ecorift/. Accessed 24 August 2017.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on Contributor

Garth Paine is Associate Professor of Digital Sound and Interactive Media at the School of ArtsMedia and Engineering and a professor of music composition at Arizona State University, wherehe is also a senior sustainability scholar and co-director of the Acoustic Ecology Lab. Paine’smusical works and interactive installations have been performed across the globe. He is internation-ally regarded as an innovator in the field of interactivity in experimental music and media arts,including giving a keynote address at the 2015 Ecomusicologies Conference, and the keynoteaddress for the 2016 International NIME Conference, at which he performed the opening nightconcert. His current research centres on addressing climate change through community empower-ment and acoustic ecology.

References

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. London: Routledge.Caux, J. (2013). Almost nothing with Luc Ferrari (critical ear). Berlin: Errant Bodies Press.Feld, S. (1996). Waterfalls of song: An acoustemology of place resounding in Bosavi, Papua New

Guinea. In S. Feld & K. H. Basso (Eds.), Senses of place (pp. 91–135). Santa Fe, NM: Schoolof American Research Press.

Feld, S. (2005). Places sensed, senses placed: Toward a sensuous epistemology of environments. In D.Howes (Ed.), Empire of the senses: The sensual culture reader (pp. 179–191). London:Bloomsbury Academic.

Feld, S., & Brenneis, D. (2004). Doing anthropology in sound. American Ethnologist, 31(4), 461–474.doi:10.1525/ae.2004.31.4.461

Hägerstrand, T. (1976). Geography and the study of interaction between nature and society.Geoforum, 7, 329–334. doi:10.1016/0016-7185(76)90063-4

Ingold, T. (2011). Being alive: Essays on movement, knowledge and description. London: Routledge.Kruth, P., & Stobart, H. (2000). Sound (The Darwin College lectures). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception. New York, NY: Humanities Press.Schafer, R. M. (1986). The thinking ear: Complete writings on music education. Toronto: Arcana

Editions.Schafer, R. M. (1993). The soundscape: Our sonic environment and the tuning of the world. Rochester,

VT: Destiny.Truax, B. (1978). The world soundscape project’s handbook for acoustic ecology (1st ed.). Vancouver:

ARC.

Contemporary Music Review 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [A

rizon

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries]

at 0

8:03

15

Nov

embe

r 201

7