JonathanSterne Audible Past Cultural Origins of Sound Reproduction Hello OCR

e o~flare are the tales currently cold: A lexander Graham Bell anJ ThonasO'J.tson hail t leir h rs t t l ep l>one conversation i n z 8 76 M' r . % ' a .csonC ome here l w an t to s e e i rou'" ylied Bc.ll co %'ztson, and t)>e ~vorlds]snok. Thomas Eilison first hearing his morals -'tr f.sry hail a little lanb"-returnecl to hire crom che cylinder ot a plonoyrapl built by hIs assistancsin rH78', anij suddenly the l>unan choice a ined a measure ot i rnnortaj~tyGuplielrno t~farconi's wireless telipraph conquered tire En cl ish c Iannl inI Hcp9. Unsuspecting navy personnel l i rst heard voices cornin~ over chir ra-ilios in t9o6. Eac)s event has been claimed as a turning point in huinan his-tory Before che invent ion of souncI-repro@/uccion teelnoloyies t we are told,sound wi t)ered away. It existed otly as it went out ct ex is tence Once te le-phones, phonographs, and rJdios populated our world, sou.nd hai lost alittle of its cphmerel chzrJccer The voice became a little rebore unmooredfrom t}se boily, znr3 peopl's ears could cake chem inco t le past or across vastcl ks tianccs.

These are pov ertul stor ies because tlcy tell us chic sonethin~ laplwnedto tlc nature, meaningani) proc.tices of sound in the la te n ine teenth cen-tury. But t leyare inconpiete. I t s o u n i l - re ! ; ro i luc t ion technolop ieschanyedthe ~vay ive hear. where di i j t h>' cornc from.' ~ fan> of the pre

sible. desirable, effective, arIct meaning tul In ivhat rni l iu Ji 0 chev d ivIl~Ffo fv and ivhy d id oUIicI-reproduccion cechnolo~, souncI ics]t became an objeic anJa. domain ot t l i oughc ani l p r i c c ic, ~vhefe It hkd p fevsoulv 6eell CDrIccptU-z liztd in cerms ot par t iu lzr ideal ize..d instances liLe voice or music k f e a r -i Iig svm rcconstrucced as a phd siological prccess, a kin(I ot reef:pt i t ity aacfcdpacicv baseiI on ph>'sic. biology. and ri>echanics. Throughtechnique otl isteIiirip, pea@le harnsed, nio Litic:d, .Uid sh~pd t l iei r powers of ~udi to typercepcion in theerv~ce ot rationality. In the modern age, sourid and hear-iIig ivere reconccptuat ized. obj iwcit id, im i u c ed , t r Jntorrned, reproducecl,comrnodified, n~s- produced, and iaditscrialized. To be sure, che trznsfor-nszciorI of sound and hearing, took iveIJ over a century. It is not tlirt.c peoplewoke up one day and founcl everything suddenly dtiffcrent Chan~es insoun~f, Iirenin8 t and hearing, h.-iplmrIcd 6it hy b~t, pIme hy place, practicebi y,ractice t over a long, perianalof tiJiae.

The golden z>e ot rhe ear never erIilcd," wr i ce Alan LourI>cl . "It con-cinue, occluIcd 6y the visual hegemony." ' 7'be .')ri'(ib/e err' te l Is zcorywliere soon J, hearirI~, an J listrIiny, are central to tlat cultural ] iie of niaJ- rnity, w] ierc soun i I , hear ing , nd I i s ccni Iig are fo u n i l a t iona l co m o d rnmarlins of knowledge,culture. arId social organizat ion. I t I~rovide an zlter-

THE b.UDISLE PA5T

Sterne, Jonathan. Audible Past: Cultural Origins of Sound Reproduction.Durham, NC, USA: Duke University Press, 2002. p 19http: //site.ebrary.corn/lib/mcgill/Doc? id=f 01 98386&ppg=f 9Copyright 2002. Duke University Press. All rights Reserved.May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law.

Brent Smith

Brent Smith

Brent Smith

nar>ve to che pervasive riarracive chat says tlxat, in becomingmoderri. %'esc-ern culrure moved @oval tron> a culcure of bar ing co a. culcure of seein There is no doLibt char the ph. losophical l iceratuce of the Eri l iyh tenmentas well a ri>any people's everyday language i s l i c teredivirh l iphr andsighc rmetzphors for t ruth and unt Ierstard i n y . ' B u t , even i t s ight is in somexv.hays che privileged sensein European philosophical JIscourse since the En-liglttenrnenc, it i s t~llacious co think chat sight a lone ar in i t suppoet' Ji f -krence from l>caring expja i r i moJerr t icy.

Tl>ere has ala,ai's beeri a heai)y aut)acicy to the claim char vision is rhrsocial lurt of modernity.%'labile I Jo noc clair' chat l isrening is(6 socialchare ofmodernity, it certainly charts a sipnihcant fidel J at modern practiceThere is always more t han L ne map for z t r r i t t i v , , anJ sound p r o v i des a)Mrcicul.ir patiot hroLty,h history. In some cases as tliis bool w i l l d e m o n -s trate m w3e r n ivays of hearing, prefigured rnmlern evans Dt seein8. I3ur -ing ch Fn h y l x ter iraenc ani l a f cenvart) . che serise al hear ing, became anobjecr ot contempla t i o r i . It w as n~easuret). objecti f ied, iolaced, End sinu -laced. Techrii~lues oE au Jition ctevelope J by doctors and celeyrzphers ivereconstituci e cliaracteristics of scientific mediinc aad early versions of rnod-ern bureaucracy SounJ was coair ixocfified, ir Ibccarne something t lsat can hebotiybt and sol J. These faces trouble the cl iche t in.c rnoilern sciei~ee nd ra-tionalit fI, v ere out roxvths ot visual culture anJ visual chinking. They uvreus to reth ink exact!y v,hat ive mean by the t'~.r JkgL t'l vision and in>ages."To take seriously rhe role of sounJ and hearingin modern life is to croublet he visuzlist deha i t ion o t .ir'acct'srify'

Today. ic is un~lerscooJ acros the hutnu.n science that vis ion ani l v isualcu I Cure are inlpGrtant Ma l ters. Wf uly concemporaf y >fr'fl cl fs In cerete tcl Invarious aspects ot visual culture (or, more properly, visual aspects of vari-ous cultural domains) che arts. Jcsi~n, land4.ape, media, fashion u n-Jerstand thei r i vork as cor icr ibu t i r i to a core set of cheoret ica], cu lcural ,at>J historical t.luestions about i'isior f and in>ages. %'hi!e wr i t e rs interestedin visual r i iedia have for some t im e > es tu recl tov arct a conrepcual iz.i t ionot > isrr.d Lu(tsrxe. ao sucli para)i t.l construct jorrn / trrfrlrf'c or, sinxply, I6/rr>;)ushas has broadly intorrned N:ork on heaririy, or the otlxer senses. %'hilesc)used is coninhered zs a. uniheJ intellectual )problem in some science andetl''.inccrilEg helds, it is less JLvelopcd as an incinerated prob]rrn in the so-ciel and culture.l disciplines.

Sinsilarly, i isual conc'.ms populate many strains of cul t l t ral cheory. TheclUest ion ot f>w gcj=i haunts sex eral schools oE leaxinisrn., crit'ical r;Lce theory,

HELL 0! I

Sterne, Jonathan. Audible Past: Cultural Origins of Sound Reproduction.Durham, NC, USA: Duke University Press, 2002. p 20http: //site.ebrary.corn/lib/mcgill/Doc? id=f 01 98386&ppg=20Copyright 2002. Duke University Press. All rights Reserved.May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law.

Brent Smith

Brent Smith

Brent Smith

psychoanal.ysis, anil pustscru ro r s l ism T h e c u l t ura] status ot 'hL reer age andseeinIIf; occupies great m i nds i n sem i oc ics, f i lm s t u d i es, several schooh o t

literaryan J art-hiscorical interpretation. archicecture, and communication.iVhilc sound may iil.teresc inJividual sclmlars in rhese arras, it is stil l roo

otten considered a I iarochi.il or special ized concern. 6 ' h i l e t I~ere are niariyscholars of sound act ive in con i rno r i i cat ian, t i l rn sr@ Jiest music, and otherl>caiman sciences. sounJ is not usu.ally a central rheoret ical prob lem for rma-

jor schools of cultural chu~; apart trom the priv. le se of the voice in phe-r ioJllcnolop'r' and psyellatrlnalg's I s and irs nL f'ation in de tconscnic rluA.

It xvoold be Imssible co write a JiHerent book. anc ttxac ex~'Eains ~nJ crir-icizes scholars' preference f' or visual objecrs anJ vis ion as an abject of stud fl.For noxv, it is nautchto note their the eau/t lies wirh boch cultur;iJ tl|eariscsanil scholars of sound. Culrural cheorists coe asily accept pieties about thedorixinance ot v is ion an iI , as a resulc, have el iJeJ d i t t e renccs between t icepriv:leg of v is ion ancI t Iie to ta l i t y o l v i s ion . i~keanwlxile, studies of soundrend ro sh~ a~vay from questionsof saunJ ct I l ture as su.h (w i t h a fe iv no -cable exceptions! and prefc;r instead to ivark ivi rhin o t l ier d isc:ipl i izarq or in-cei Jisci~>linar fI intel lectual dotr ia ins. By! r r( gestur ing back r~ ivarJ a moregeneral le il af guewcioriin~, chi~ i v a r k s oFer an inap l ic-.itly cunsul; ir iv isrepistenaologi' ot tlute history, ot souixcf. The pronaise of con>ulati i ist aj~-proaches is chat ane day v'e vrill ha ie enauyh Isiscorical in format ion to be -gin general iz ing, aboUt society. The I. roblen> ii'ich t lxis Iwrqective is tharsucli a remarkable day is ala ays just aver che hor izcin.'-' It sauncl anil hear-iixg are ini3cwd sipnihcant theoret ical prob lens, chen naw is as ~aoJ a t ingeas any ra begin cIealing at" ich rhem as broad i r i te l Iecroal rnJcters.

Xfany aurhors I>ave i l ainaeil chat hearing is t lute neglected sense in mai l -erriity, a novi I sense for analysis.'" Ic eiulJ perl~ay be polernicaIIy accepr-able ac tlais poinc to lan)enc t ire re]drive lacl o t sc l io larly x iork orI saun JcampareJ iv ich images and v is ion, chart the p ioneers, and chen claim t l>acthis book w i l t,' h'.I che gap I fu t rh rea] i ty is soraeivh.ir ditTerenr. There is avast literacure an the history and Iliilosophq of sounil; per ir rc.-mains con-ccptu.ally trayrnentc4. For rhe i r i teresteJ r i i i Jer . chere is a v eaItlx ot boaI sanJ arcieles availab]e on ditrerenr asI~rs of sounJ wr i r rerf by scholars atcammunicar iori , music, art, arid cul tu re . ' Ekut, ivit l>out some I ind of over-archinyshared sensihi l icy about ivhiat canst i ru res ()lw his'iiy r( j'o'er.(. Jy!ran (eric'(rare. or sr rra;) I irrdiLs, piecinp togetlmr a history ot sound fram tlute bewil-dering array it stories about syp h , music , cechnolci .y, aricI otlxer sounJ-rr]ared pract ices ]ms all t ire promise and appeal at p iec ing coa..ethc.-r a pane

4 TH E b .UDISLE PA5T


Brent Smith

ot shactered glass %'e knvN t ha t t h ; - parts l ine up somhow, ~ve krio~v thatthey can cor inecc, hut we are un sure ot how t l w y a c t u a l l y l i n k c o y echer.W'e h;v e histor ies ot concrt aUJiences, telfy~lm ines, speeches, sound f>lras,soumlscapcs, arid cheories of l.caring. But on]y rarely do the ivricers ot his-tories of soun J su gest how t h e i r w or k co r inects ~sich other, r].iced v'orkoc ~vith large.r intellectual domains 13ecause schUlacship on souncl has riotonsistencly estured to@, ar J more fundamental iind synchet ic t lmarecical,cultural , arid h i s to r ical quest ions, ic has noc beeri able to b r i ny , b roaderphilosophical ( luest ions to bear on the 1arious intel lectual f i e l d t ha t i c i n -hibits. The challenge. chen, is co iraa~ine sound as a p roblemthat movesbeyond its iaxtnediace empi r i cal con text . T ' he history ot" sound is a l reaJyconne tL te(l co the l arger pro j eccs ol the human sciences; it is up to us co Heshout the cnneccioris.

lri posi tin a. history ot soun J, Tr'w'.>(rr Jr'bA' t '.uJ exte nds a long tradi t i onot interpretive aad cricicxl social thought. Some uchors have quote(l theyoung Marx oo i he i iTi~mrcance at sensory history: "T i re form in~ o t che t 'esenses is a labor ut the en t i re ls iscori o t t l a t xvocld Juwn t o t h e p r esent . "hfarx's passage signals tlwc che vr) capacity to relate co the N'orle throU~hone's senses is organized and learned (l iR~rerit ly in di Arene s()cial settings.The serises are culcivatal or brought inco being." A lan l>imself bcconxcsthe object" to be sh.>pe(j and orienteJ through hist()rical and social pro-cess.' ' Before the senses are real, ~wlpahle. con ' r c te , ()r avai lable lo r con-tenaplatioix, thev are a l ready' aRecced and etrecteJ th r ou8 ls the pan i c u l a rhistorical condi t i ons chat iso ic e r i se to the subjecc who possesses tliem%'e erin tul ly cor is ider the seriscs .xs l>iscorical only i f w e co ns ider society,cUlture, techn(~logy,.u;d the &oct a as t henaselves artifacts (!f hurixan history'A truly h is to r ic ist understandi r iy, of thsenses a r o t a particularsensethereforre(~urres a. commitriaeric to chconstructionist anJ c()ntextualiststrairi of social and cul tu ra l thou h t . C o n versely, a vigorous c(:nstcuct iv isn'1and a ~'igofous c()ntexc(ialisnl fet.luire a histoc)' of the seflses. It Is l lo acci-dent char i~farx's discussion of the senses appears in a sccciori ort cotr i tr iu-riisna iri the Ecorwrrrrr .rr;;r Pbi(rabat'tr'.rr;>I;zrrrrJ'crJ" J >)~ r8$ ]. Even t( ) be g inimagining i anocher) society, tice youn~ Marx htJ to consider the historicalJ n.imics of sens;icion itself. As sve in';q;ine the ~possibilitieso social, cul -tura], arid histor ical change in, the past, prserit, or futur e i t is al so ourtask co inaagine histor ies of the senses. It is iiidely aceptLM thar -che indi-vi Juaj observer kecarae an objecc of ir ivesstipati()n ani a locus of krm ivledpebeginning in the fir. t tN' dc&a(les of tile I &Mes an(l ihac, Juicing chat same

HELL 0! 5


Brent Smith

Brent Smith

period, "che stacus ot t l>e obscrvin s ubject divas tra.nsformeJ." ' ' 5o , t u o ,cransformat ions in souixid, hearin , n J listenin ivere part ot no Jssive shiftsii~ the lan dsca>~ cl social and cuttural l ite of the last three centuries.

The en>erL;ence of so@i>8-repro Ruction cechnaloyy in th n ineceentli andcwentiech centuries provides a particularly pood encry inca che lardier IIis-cory ut souml. Ic is, one of che te~v extanc sites in the human sciences v:l>erescholars have acknuivleJ~cd anJ contemplated t he laiscoricit i o t h e ar in~ .As Theodor Adurno, KX'airer Bcnj taniin, and coun t less richer wr i t ers h. iveaq;ucd. che problemut rriucl~anical r ip roJ uccion is cent ral to un ' )erscanJ-imp the changing, shape ut" comniur i icat ion in the late n ineteenth J.nJ erid:t iventiech centur ies. Fur t l>erri, the curnp i l l i n g problemuf sounJ's repro-ducibil i ty, l ike the rel~rodoction ot imaNes, xva ics seemingabscractionC rom che socil ~vorld ven as i t Nas man i fesce J more i lyr iarnically w i t h i nit.' ' Otlxer wvriters h.v, e oA~reJ even stronger c la inxs for sou.nJ repruJuc-tiori: it l>as been describe J as a 'niater ial to i in i la t ion" of the changing sensesot space aniI tinie ac the turn ot the tv ent iech century, part ot a ' perceptualrevolutiant" in the early twentieth ccntur}. SounJ technologies are s.>iJ tuhave zrrip]ified anJ extenJeit sound anJ our sense of hearing, across tingeanJ space." K | /'e are told t l xzc te l rp l i ony a l r c reJ ' che cond i c ions (i f da i t i 'life"; t l iat sound record.'in' r c ..presentLM a monument ivhen 'ever@thin suJ-ines. 5'et LeMal>ieu's n>oresober prose stil l leaves rauri> lar ivooJer noc at t ice revolut ionary >mwerot sound-repraJuctian teel>nulopy, but at its banality It modernity, in part,flandres the ex).'.ycriellcc of rapid social ani l cul t t ire.l chancre,tl~en ics whack-ing emblems" may very wc] l have been taken In st r ide by some of icsf)eu)'tlc

6 TH E b.UDISLE PA5T


Brent Smith

Because sounJ-reproduction ceclinulogy's role in h istory is su easilytreated as seff-evidentlyi /ecisive, ic makes sense tu begin rexvri t in~ the h is-tory of sound by reconsidering the historical si$nihcance of sound telx-noloyies. A. tous an sound-reproduction teel>nulogy has an added advan-tage tur t l>e histor ian ot souni l : dur>n8 t l>eir early veacs, tml inu]og ies leavehuge paper crzifs, thus oui in' t hem especial jy rich resuures tuc historicalresearch In early N ri t i ngs about the te lephone, p.monograph,;snd rai l io, avefind a rich archive ot re Hetiuns on th nature ani l meaning ot 'sound. I lear-inyand f i s ten inL:. Doug las Viahn wr i tes thac, -as s historical object. soundcannot f'urnish a pood scory or consistent cast ut haracters nor can ic val i -date ani ersatz not :un of p ro~cess or generat ional matu r i ty . The h i s tory i sscatterd. meeting,. and highly mediated it i s s pc)oc an ubjecc in any re-specc as sound i t se l f ." ' " P r io r co che tw en t i e th cen tu ry , very l i t t l e uF thesunic past ii as pl~ysially preserved for lciscorical an~lysis at a lacer J Jce. Saic makes sense to look instead at a l)articular tIorn.tin oE practice associacdivitl> sound. The paper trail left by sound-rl)fuduccioo technofugis pro-vi Jes one ustul scart iny, quint fo r a h is tory of suLInJ

Like an exaozinacion ot che sense organs thmsefss, an exani inacion ots()und reclean()logies also cuts to the core of tlat niature,'nurture debate intlsinking about che causes of and possibilit ies tor historical change Eventhe most basi m e c han ical wo r k i ngs u t sounJ - repnx i u c t ion t ec t~nufopiesare fsistorically shaped. As I ivill argue. t ive i iteratingdiaphrapnx ch'ic al-l owed te lephones ani l p h o n og raphs co f u n c t ion wa s i t se l t zn a r t i r ac t t ) tchanging Ltni lerstandings of h u ma n harin So und - reproJuc t ion cchnol -opies are artifacts of Iwrcicul;ir practices anJ relations al l cf>e xvay down;they can be c()nsii jered arch.teul()gical li ; Th e l ) i scury of sounJ techn .) logyotters a route inco a field of con junc tu res mong mate r ial , e ionorn ic, tech-nica], idcital , practical, anJnvirL)nmental c) candies. Situacd as v,.e area mid torrent ia l ra ins otfcapicafist developnxent and marke t ing t ha t p t l t u sivitli new d ig i ta l mach inery , ; t i s both easi and tenxpt in~ tu fo rget the en-during connect ion be tween any techno logy and a l a r "e r cu l t u ra l con tex tTechnolu~ies somet imes ento' a cer tain level ot Jei ficat iun in social theorya nd ultura l h i s to ry, where t l>ey come to be cast as d iv ine actors. In - i m -pdc.c narrat ives, ccflnoloj , ies ; lee mystel l t )us bein>s wi t lx obscure or ig i nst]iac conae down from ihe sky ca impacc" l~unaan relations Such narrativescast technoluyis chmslvs as primary accents uf historical hanye; tecl i -nologicaJ

as a tcirm ut technolog ical t leterm in i sm; they spr ing t rum an i m p o v e r ishecIRutlon of causaljcl,".

Ac the sante t ime, techno log ies are incerestif ly, precisely becaUse cheycan play a sipnificanc role in peupl s l ives. Technologies are repeatable so-c ial. cul tu ral , ann tu tlzis book. Atter q cars ofcondlcjonln~ to cespun J tu a fk n'' in/ ce lel.'rlxone, Lt cakes some etrurt ro I g -nore it and tinish the sencence or paragraph. To study teel>nuloyies in anym ezningl:al sense requ i res a r i c l l se l lse ot t h e i r c u r Ineccion w i r h h u m a npractice, lxabicac, and )tabir. It requires rrentiun to tlat fsclds of cambineclculcural, soi i.tl. and phd sical actin ity x v h at other authors have called >re t'-'c ~r'ks or.u~~!r;bf.'Ignis from v;hich cechnolo ics enaerye ancl of v hich cheyare a pa.rt.-

I he story presented in t lmse pages spirals out from an anJly'sis of tlutemechanical anJ pl~ysical aspects ot che cechnolo ies t l temselves to tlutecechrLiclues, practices, znJ institut ions zssuciarncl erich tlxem. At c.-hach junc-ture in th e a rg u m e I iC, I ShOW hue Sound- reprOduCtiun teChnOlu~r ieS ares hot throogl> ~virh the t e ns io Its, tendencies, ani I cu r rents o t che cu l t u r etron> i~ltich they emerL: eratriyhc on down tu cheir most basic naechani-altunctio l ls . iOur mac cheris?lethal pieties alRuc soUrIJ-repr(bluet!on tec)lllolo-gies for inscance, t l tzr they selx>raced souItds from t h e i r sources or theesooncl recording allcn is us ca hear the choices ut the deaJ >vere not and arenut innocent empirical ctescriptions ot che cechnoloyies' inipa,ct. They wereivishcc chat peu~ le ~rated oIttu mund-reproduction techno]orgiescfishescllat bccarne pro +ranls for J Illluvzr>oil and use.

8 THE b.UDISLE PA5T


Brent Smith

Brent Smith

Brent Smith

F ur mani ' ot t he i r i n ven tors an(I eJ.rlI; users. soun()-reproduct ion t n : h -nuloy,ies encapsulated a..vhule set of beliefs ahouc the age arid place inwhic.h thei' lived. Suond-repro(juctiun tecl~nuIugics represenred tlat prom-ise ut science, rat ional i ty, and indus try and che pol i er of th(- wlaite man toco-opt an(i supersede (Iornains c>f 1ife that v,ere prei iously curisidered tu be

magical.Far their earl's' risers. sound t(:chixolopies wer i r i a ~vora' r n O-em. ' . )fr~(Lrar(y is ut course a cloudy analy t ic cate~or e, frau~br xvich inter-rul cori t radict iuns an(I i r i te l lect t iz l c( in t l ic ts. I ts d iA icu l t y p r o ha6ly scentsfrom irs usefUlness as a. heuristic terra, an(I my use t>t it is deliberately hetir-istic. %''lien I claina chat sound-repruduccion technologyindexes an acous-t ic trioderni ty, 1 du nuc mean qu i t e the sarge t lx iny as the subIects of m)h istory ( h e Au ihb)e P.ui" explures the ivays ir i svhicl i che h is tory ut soundcontributes tu MI develops fcorm tlat 'maelstrom of naudern lite ito returntu Herman): capitalism, colonialism, and the rise ut industry; the growthariJ deveIupnaerfc of the sciences. chat s; in~ cosnaiio~r ies, n>assize popula-tiori shifts (specitically migrationand Urbanization>, new form of collec-tive and corporate poxr, socio.l n>ovemeritsclass scruple i ield the riseut" new rn idd le c lasses, n>ass conanaunicvriun t r iaciun-scates. bureaucra(q;conh(lence in progress, ia universal a6scract lxunaanist stibjecr, an(l t ice worldniarl er; and a reflexive contemplation of the cunsrzncy ot change.-'-' Inrnoderri life, sound bcwumes z p roblem:ari object tu be contemplated,re-constructed, an(I man ipu la ted. sum(.chin~ that can b fragmented.indus-t riafiz(..d. and bought and so ld

But The A,z.fibA Pelf is r iot z s insp]e iTioclerriizzcion narraci~e tor soundarid hearing,. ; l )~IA>' fbi=a(r iri~ can too easily soy, est a br i t c]e k inJ o f L in iver-salisrn, iv)iere tlat spccihc h iscorical devel(i l i rueists rferenced bi or ; t.A>',irri",are transnaugriheil into a ser of h ist(Jriczl st.x~es through ivt>ich alI cul tu resnousc pass In f ohar ines Fabian's apt p)>rase, che idea of rno(Ierni t i as mo d -e rnization ct ime relat ions (.k space re la t i on s becween cu l t u res in t o re -lations of t inge, ii le I ariz n c r ari ex poignant ol a development J I rhe(iry of niude rn ityas 'mocternization," i t i s su r ly a cncral element o f sonae discourses aboutsound reprodt ic t iun that ice w i l l con f ront i t re bore than once in che fol lo iv-

ing pQ~res. A l(iflg l inc uf invericors, scllolars, busi l lcsspeople, phonograI>hicanthrop~)oi;istic, and castial users thnupht ul chc:mselves as partakin~ in amodern wei r of life, as Iivin" at the pinnacl~ of the wurld's progress. TheI,'belie f (;d chat t lmi r e p och r o dt . che cresc ct rn odern i r 'at ion's unstoppablewave. So, in addi t ion tu be ing a useful heur iscic f()r dLmrib ing t he context

HELL 0! 9


Brent Smith

Brent Smith

ot the pru jec:t as a Nhole, ry~Ar0i(i and i r s con jugates are also i rnpur tanccacepozics to hc analyzeil ani l cartul ly caken apart w i chin chis h istory .

The remainder o t t h i s i n t r o i l u c t ion p r o v i des sonic cunccpcual back.-

ground for tlat history that fol]o~vs. TIDAL. ncxc seccion is an excenJed Lon-sideration ot sound as an obj~ oF l i i s t o r i cal scud@: ~vhat Joes it mean tuN'rite a history ut soniethiri~ so apparencly natural and physical as soundanil hearing.' A nidor dccaiIL-J map ut the borak's arpunicnts then fo l l u ivs.

Rethinking Sov nd's Nature :Df Forests, Fallen Trees, ahd Phenornenologles

Al] this ta]k of muLIerni ty, h is tory, and suuni l t l i t " qalchougli perhaps chishoul J), instead pre(err! n> to ~i richis tor ies ut -v isu. il cul tu re ,~images,"iisuzlici." a nd rhe l i ke . B rackLcing l i g l ic in t avor ut t h c v i s u a l " m . i i b

a defensive n ianeuver since t l ic var ious v isual te rms conven~encli b rackcci luescions ut" the nature o f na ru re . But , bes ides sound ing g o od , hub ris ty(jozaril zlreaJ t'ctTibodics a harI-tu-grasp buc necessary pzraJux of nature andculcure central tu everyth ing thar fo l l ows in tl i ts book. Ac i ts cure, che I.lic-nunicnun ut soun J anil the I i tscory of ~ound rest at che in-between po in t o tculcure anJ nature.

tt i s >mpmsib le co r merely describe" the tacul t i u f h e a r in~ in i t s na tu -ra) stare. Ever> co try is tu pretend that languagehas nu figurJcive dimn-siori of its ov ,n. The l anguage thac ~vr. use to Jescr ib sounil and hear ing,comes ~L'i~hted JuN n N'ich decades ur centur i ; -s uf cultu re!l bz~a ~ c . Con-sider che careers of twoadjwtivis associateiI ivith th ear in the Lny l i sh Ian-

J(u'li'c T ILL remit !$1't''(( beL'an )rs liiscoc)' in I 8$ ~ nleanin' ' o f u f p c l tz in l l l p'to t lie ufp lli uf nearinp", i t d id it ic appear in pr int Jnot in', soniet l isnp "rc-cclve J or pcrccii e J by che ear" un t i l t H6a . P r io r co that pc r io i l , ch termcAvfhtrI (r was used co describe soniethirio t or p e r t a in ing co che ear" orperceived bi' che ear. ' Th is, divas not a merc smantic d iRrencc. der.f terr).'srcarried with i c connota t ions ot ti rzl crzdic ion and I>earsaiy as well as tlix.-ccrrIal features ol the ear v is ib le to che naked eye ( t l ie to lJd mass of sk inchar is ctten synecd~lu l ly refcrrecl to as che car is tchnically citlicr che zv-

lO TH E AUDIBLE PA5T


Brent Smith

rii'A.. cheprnrzcs. or the uri'n L.ci ) . AfrrrzF. meanNhi le, carr ied iv ich i t bio con-natations of oral craJition and refrred specificallyco the mick3le ear, cheinner ear. and th i ierves t l izc corn v ib rzcicfns inco ~vhat ch brain perccivsas sottnd IIas in;orrz(.~urgciq ). The idea cff che aural and its Jecidedly medi-cal i n tlection i s a part of t he li iscorical era nstt irrnat ioti chat I rLlescri be i a chefol jc wiriu pai .es

Generally. wl ien v r i t ers invoke a b inary coup l i ny, bete eeo cul tuce aridrecure. i t is wi th che i i l ca chat cul tu re is char i ih f ch ch i t i y es cfvcr t ime ai idthee natuc is that which is perriaaneac, timeless, anJ unch.uiyiny,. Tlirt na-ture.'culture b inary cfEers a chin v iew ot na t u re, a convenient s t rav ' t igu refor soc ial const ruc t ion" argun in ts. " I i > che case of sound, che appeal tosoniethin stJ.cic is ajso a tr ick of t l i l anguage. 8 'e c reat sound as a natu-ral phenomenonexterior to ~~ p i c . bu t it s very dehn ic ion is anthr

i8entihe J by physiciscs ati J physioloyists s universal nd unchaaginIIf;. Byour Jeti i i i t i or I ot sound . rhe t ree m.i l es a n t i ise whether or i io t an yone i sthere to hear i t . B u t . e ven l i e re, ave are deal ing i n a n ch ropmceticric del>-tiicions. 6'hen z 6ig t ree tells, t lie vibracions excend oucside the audibleratiye Th e b o i I ndry be tween v i b racion chat i souni l and v i b r a t ion t h . i cis noc-sound is noc derived from any i luamicy ot the vihracioti in itself orthe air thac conveys tl ie vibra t io t is. Rather, the bounJ r i ; be tween sc>ulida nil noc-soutii l i s based on che u n d erstood possib i l i t ies of che facu l t y c thiaririy, w het h e r w e ate ta l l ; i n bcfuc a person or a si lu i r rel . Therefore,as people anat squirrels chan~re, so too wril l sound b y dehni t i o i i . Speciesllavc h l s tc>r J es.

Sound hister , i I i dexes cJianges in homan nature ancl lloivi ii~ che it' i~ iI O'J.r. The cor foec-t iaris aniotiy, caii I i in>, en lha ] ming,ancl sound r i c o r i ) in ' r e c l u i re t l iac wecoilsldef pf i lc t ' ice ot soUnd ceproi luct Ion I l l r e la t ion cD ocller b lx l i l y p l zc-tices. fn a plirase. che hiscory ot soun,d irIiplies a history of che bcxly.

Bool.ly experience is a produi t o f t l i e par t i cu lar conJ i t i ons of social l ; fe,r iot someching that is g iven pr io r to ic . M ichel I nucaulr hashawt i t l i ac, inthe eiyhceench arIil nineceenth ceticuries, the body became ar> ok>jere ancetargec ot [)oxver" Th e m o d ern b oJy is c) ic body t h . i t i s ' i s n i a r f ipu la t~d,shaped. trai t ieJ," t l izc "obeys, responds, kiecm~a skill fUl and inc reases icsforces." Like z mac l i i ne, it is bu i / t and r ebu i l t , ope ra t iona l izeil anil f i iodi-fied.-" Beyond ard b e f o re Foucaulr, the re are scores ot aut lmrs iv l >o reachsimilar conclusioIis. Already in t Sot, a Dr Jean-~iarc Gaspard fczrd can-c ludei), on chi - basis of h i s i n t e rac t ions w i t l i a y o u l i p b o v t o u n d l i v i n ~' tvilJ" in t l at ivotxls, chat audi t ion is l earned. I t a l ti a m e i l che boy V i c to r .Bein~ a ~i ild child, Victor dicl noc speak a nd h is silence led to ijuescionsabout his abi l i ty to hear. Itard slaJiamed doors, jingled keys, anJ made tJthersounds co test Victor's lierin~ T l i e boy everI fzi l~4 co rect ivl ien I tard shoeotra. p uti near his heail. Buc ~'iccor was not deaf: the young Joctor surmisedtht tlat boy's Imari' ivas just hne. ~'ictor sinspl i hooved no interest in thesame sounds m, "civilized" French people. ' "

%'hile che youn>er Mn a r g ued that the h is tory of t l ie senses v zw corecomponent c >inhuman histor~, the o]der hfrx argued thac the physical con-

I X TH E AUDIBLE PA5T


Brent Smith

Jit ions under >which laborers " reproduced ' ch en isL-ivesi voulJ vary t r o n>society to suLiet y t hat t he i r b o L l ies and needs were h i s tu r iLz l ly Jecer-n')illd.-" Tlie FreJiclir antliropolug ist M i r e l i l f kuss, ollc of FouciiLilt s R')an/'

inHitences. overed t l iac "man's tirst and n iosc nacurt l cechnical ab ject, andat che danie time reel>nical means. is his body." %'h;tt lfa luss called,.wP; )Lcb-0;qveJ >vere -one ot the tLjndaniental n io r i>eries ot history itself. ducat iuno t che vision, educat ion ir i wa.lk ing @s c en( l i ny , descending. ru nn i n g . " " ''To Al.iuss's list Ne could i i eld cheduc;icion anJ sliapiny, ut;iudit ion. Phe-nornenolog}" alwa fI, s presupposes cultic, power, pr~ccice, .tnd episcemol-ugy. Everychiny, is kiio~wledge, and chis is tlie tirst reasin whi there is nosavL;e cxperiencL t l l re ls r iot ll,ill/ Beneath or p r io r io k n o Q'ledge.

The hiscoci uf sound p t ov ides surete af che best vidence for t ( l ynz t r i ich istory ot che bodl,' because ic travrses chc nature ''culture J i v i t le : i t dem -onscr~cs tliac che tr~nsforra~cion uf peop le's pj iysical atcr ibuces is pact utcultural history. I'uc e) mptL, indttstrialszatiun and urbanization dcreasepeopl's physical capacities tu hear One ut t l ie evans IIi ivhich adUlcs losethe uppc.f rJnge of thei r l i ezcing is th rough encounters mich loud n i zchi n-ety A j ackhammer here, a siren there, end che cop edge of herin be8instu eco(le. Cant lie. cs over ~whse does aiid dues nut ct~nst icuce L.nvirunrneri telnoise re tl>e'nisejves bticcles over svhat sounds are admissible in the n i (x I -erri lan(escape.'- As Nieczsche would h.ive it. ji>ahern;cy is a connie and placewhre it becomes possible tur people Co he IiaeasurLQ." 1t is 'i lso a placev;here the honu.n-bu i l t nv i ronm eac mod ihL.s the l iv ing heel@.

lf our oal is co descr;be tlat hiscor>ca] Jynamisri> of sound or toconsidersou rd t rom ch vance poinc uf cij lcur i l chLory, we Ii>usc move just beyondics shifcing borders jusc o u t s iLI soLinLl inca tli vase xvurld ot th ings chatwe chink ot as inc bL'ing about souiid c all . Th h is tory ot sound is at ( l ' i f:ferent moments s t r angely s; lent. strar i~cly y,ory. scrali I I ,' vtsLia.l, zn() al-e ,zis ccntexcul This is because tlirt elusive insie soci Jl anJ cul tu ral grounds of sonic experience. The-xcerioritI,'" of sound is this book's primary ohject ut scudy. lf sourid in ic-self is z vtr iab)e rather chan a constanc, t l ien che l i isc(ry of sound is of i ie -cessitq. an e)(ternalisc and cantcxtua l iscnJc.-avor. Mund is zn ar t i i acc of chenaessy and ~~l. t icaj hum.in sphere.

H LLQ! I I


Brent Smith

Brent Smith

Brent Smith

To borrow a p h r ase t ron> M i c lm l C h i o n . I air r i t o " d i s e n gage suu l idchink.irIg . .. frora i ts nzcur i l i scic n i t . " ' ' WfanI, cheurists snJ h i s to r ians ifsounJ. )i ' p r i v i / eyed t l )e static and t ranshistor i i a l . t hc is, the.-nscurl,"qualities ut sound anj liearing as a basis for sound liiscory. A sLirprisirilylar c propircioa Df the bvul s nI artic les;wri t ten bouc sating] begin iv i thanargument ch;it souiij is i n some Ni a ' s~~i a ] case" tur st . i a ] ur cul tu ra lanalysis. The -specie} cas" argument is accomplished throu@I> n ap[)c.a] tuche interior nat t i rc ut soinicl: it is argi inl t h ee sound s natural or phenurac--nulogical traits recluire a special sensibility and spc~ ill vocabulary iuse in COnStru~tii i j If; a Culturl theory OtsouriJ. Ccrta in l ' , i t sscrts a universal human si ih jm.t , buc ive iv i . l see thatthe problem is less in the unii rsal i ty lmr se chan in the un iversal izat ion ota set e t particular relip ioLis prejudices.itwut the role uf hearin~ in salvation:n.That these ri l i > i i ius preju i l i ces are embed Jcd at t'ai very center oF K('sternl l ite') lcctU,'il hlsturl,' mal es thence all the n lo fe in tUf t ive, ubvio i i s, of u the r -lv ise fwrsU'isive.

To otrer a gross generalization, assertions about the difference betweenhearirig nd seeinq iLsu'il)y appear together in the fornax of a list.'"' Tliey be-gin at the level of the individual human being (both physically' anil psy-

l4 TH E A UDIBLE PA5T


Brent Smith

Brent Smith

choloyical ly) . They move o l i t t f o f n c l lefe to conscAl t a cu l t t i rJI theory o fthe senses These i) i ftL.rences betv een hearing and seein are often consid-ere J as biologic'il, psyclxologial. and p hysicaltee:ts, tive impl icat ion be ingthat chey are a necessary startin point for che cu)coral analysis of sound.This l ist st r i kes nie as z l i ta izy an i l I u s e t hac cern> de)iberat : ly becauseof its rheology,i ial overtones so I v i l I p r esent i t as z l i t any lmre.

hearing is spherical, vision is dircccional,hear lnL, iRinlerses irs subject,vislofl GHefs a pefspi ccivc,soonds come to Us, but v i s ion cravels ta its object ' .hearing is concerned ivich interiors, vision is concerned ivith surfaces,hearing invo lves physical contact iv i t h th e oucside ~world, v is ion re-qtiires di stance trom i c,hearing, places its inside an event, seeing gives us a perspccrive on rheeven c,hearinghearini;phd a.nd

hearini, is about;~tect, i ision is about io te l l ecc,hearing, is a primarily remporal sense, vision is a pr imarily spatial

tends co ivarJ subjeccivicy. vision rends toNard ob Iectivity,brings us inco che li~ in@, ivor)d, siylxc moves us cow zr) acro-) earh;

sense:hearini, is a sense thzc inamerses us in the ivor)el, vision is a sense thatremoves us trotri ic."

The audiovisual litany a s I w : l l hereafter call ic idcalizes hearin (and,by extension, speech) as naanifescin8 a I iiM et( pure interiority. It alcer-n.iceli' denigrates anil e levJces i ision: as a lal)en sense, vision takes us outot the ivor)d. But i t a lso bathes us in the clear l igh t o f reason (?ne can a.isosee the sami kinJ of t l i ink ing at ivork in Romantic concepcua):rations ofmusic.f ari I Flinn prices rhat nineteen:nchwentury Ronaanciciun pronxoci4the belief thzc -music's imnxaterial ntacure lends it a cranscenJent, mystica(c) lL3lit~', a Imprint thar chen makes it qu i te d i 6 c u l t fo r m u s ic to speak to con-crete realit ies. . . Like a)l g reat arc' so construed, i r takes ics place outsideot history where it is considered cinaeless, universal, tunccionless, o)wrac-ing hcion3 the m arke tp lace n J rhe scan J.ird soi,il relat ions of consi imp-tion and production." ' O u t l i n ing the ' ( i ( ( irevsies between sight ani) hear-in' beys he prior quescion f ivhat ~re mean ivhen i ve t a lk a b o ut c he i rn'~cure. Some aUthors refer b;ick to ph y s ics; others refer back to cranscen-Jencal p)lenoll letMtlog'l' or even cog l l l t i vc psyc) io lo i y . I n c aela case, choseicing the ticany do so co demarcate tlat purporteJ)i special capacities of

H LLQ! I 5


iach snse as the scart in@, point for histor ical nalysis l nscead ut olTeri nI; usan entry inco che history ut the serIses, che audiovisual l i tany posits historyas sonicthir Ii. that happetis be t'ai~lj t he senses As a culture tnuves trojan tlirtdominance ot one s imsc ta chat o t a n o t lmr , i c c h anges. The ao d i uv i su ' i l]itarIy renders cbe t>istory ot the senses as a zero-sum garne. >vlmre the cIutri-inanci- of one sense bI,' necessity leads tu the dec l ine ot . inucher sense. Butthere is Im scienti f ic basis fur assertin that chc use ot one sense atrophiesanurher. fn add i r iun t u i t s s p ec ious zero-sun>rezoningche audiovisual)itany carries wich it a ~rutxl deal ot ideoloy ical ba i ;~aye. Even i t t hat we rcnut so, ic ivouIJ sci l I nuc ke a very gouJ e tnp i r i ca l account ut serisacioli orjw fcepciofl.

The audiovisual l i t any is ideolog ical in i lm u l i l e st sense ot che xvurd: i tis derive J frcirii r i l i g i ous t) ulema. It is essentially a rescacerjient uf i l ie luny,-stariding sp i r i t ' l e t te r d i s t i n c t ion i i i ny, antj I ife-giv ing i t lea J s co s;i lvat iun T l i c l i t t e r is dead and iner t -ic leads tu darnnai ion S p i r i t a n t i l e t te r have sensorI; analogues: heariIi l eads a. soul to spi r i t , s igh t l eaJs a sool tu the l e t ter . A t l i eory t i t r c l i~ iouscommuni i-at iurI chat posies sound as li fe-p ivin sp i r i t can bc t raced back tuthe hn anil the iv r i t i n~s c t Sa in t A u g u s t i ne . These C.hriscianideas abuur speech arId hearing, c'in in curn b trireme haik to Placo's dis-cussiun of speech aIid writ ing in the Phrs')rural. "' The haring-spirit.~siyht-] etcer lranaewurk f inds i t s n i os t coherent conceIi ipurarq scatement i n c l i eIvurk uf l( ' a ] reer Onp, whose later iver itin> I,especial ly Ores)if; r'Irz ( J r)c r;'ay) isst i l l iw id'. l y ci ted as an au t liori cari ve dc. sc ripI ion af rhe phermmerIol uy,y aridps) cho lordly ot sound. Because OrIg's later N'urk is so ivi Jel}' ci ted I.usuallyin igj ioranci. of the connect ions between l>is ideas on sound and h is, theo-]opica] v r i t i ngs) , ani l because he mal es a pos.r ive starenienc of cl ic audio-visual litany such a central part oi his aq;ument about cul tural hi story;~3n 's 1vurk is arraIits some consi Jeracion here.

To describe the balance sharc of the senses, Gng oseJ t l ie ivordsca'sorrurir.a physiumupicat ccrm chat denoted a pa.rcicular rcpian r>t the brain iliat wast hou h t co con t ro l al l pe rceptual accivi ry. 5c!afrriir!!r fell out o l f avor in t h elate nineteenth century as ph} 'siu/ugists l rarnecl th..it thtre Is l lo s i lch cel l-t er in rhe brain ( ) a 's, Use of the term shoul

senses is explicitly Jri ! en by theological concerns: -Th quescion ot chesensor~un> rn the Chr is ti accords co che >vora' ot GodanJ chus io some rnysccrious way co sound itself. a primacy already sui;-gesced i' che Old Testmene pre-Clrriscin [sic) cradition, " " For O ny, d i -vine revelacion icslt . . i s i n d eed tnscr ted in a parcrcirlar sensorium, a par-t icLjlar nsixture of th e sensory act i v i t y t y p i ca l o f a g i ven c u l t u r e . " O n g ' ~blance-sheet h istory r>t che senses is clearly nd u r e n t l y l i n k c J t u t heproblem ot" hoxv co hear rhr >vore.l af Gud in the naodera age. Tlw sonic di-mension ot exper ience is c losest to d i v i n i ty . V i s ioQ suj;Qescs distncc tldw isent;agenaent. On@,'s hiscory uf the rnuve f rock sound-haseJ ural cu l t u reto sir;ht-based l i terate cul ture is a history ot -a certain si lencing uf God" i nmodern I.fe. On@,'s assercions abouc the difference beret'een tlute world ot-oral man" and the "h f j /percrophy ut t l>e visual" that nxarU che muderrr ageprralli l pc.ftectly tice satiric.~fetter dist inct ion in C~t lxolic spi r : rua l isna. tc isasophisticateand iconuclscic antimodernist CuchrJlicisrm. Still, Ong wr-y,ups chat r.he a.udiovisttal l i t any t r anscends t l~ log i c l d i t t e renccs Iaichor no. !!'e nl lLi,c all cleal 9'ich the snlc l id.ta.

(3f course, parts of th aud iov isu.i l l i t any I>ave conae under lxeavy cr i t i -cism. The xvurk of Jacques DerriJz can be read s an inversion ot Ong'sv alue syscem O n g h i m s i ] t suggests s >much.'-' DerriJuses his well-k llo Ivn phra.iit (8'z //)J'c ('fp'k)'fly r 3y p'czar )A' L' to cri chic I zc'land d i snl an't li che con-nn.ciuns zn>orLp speech, suunJ, v r ) ic, nd p resence in K( 'c.stern rhoug j i c .Altlmu8h De-rrida's mosc celebrateJ crrtii lues ot l~resence tinsel ltim trry'-ing !! it)> EcIn>und Flosserf's transcendental phenomerLolopy. I erdinand deSzussuri-'s simiut ic c)>corp, anil i~lartin f l e i Jegger's rincoli)pq; his cr i t i c i smsare certinly pplicabme tu r.~ny,'s rhought as wel'I. On argues for exactlythe mctaplxysics o) presnce chat Jacilues Derr ida t tzck as u n t o t l zeoloy,-icsl," as a creeping Christian spiri t~ l i srn chat inlxabics western phi losu-l~l>y: -Tice livings art, the life-giving, acc [l>ezrirrg oneself sp:ak), the l Lhn-Lhgkrit'. which animates the bed@ of the signitrer nd transforms at into ameaningtul expression, che soul of landau;iL:e, seen>s noc to seprace icse]tf rom i t se lf , t rum i t s o !vn self-presence.' " E 'u r D c..rridz, che elevat ion r>tspeecl> s the center of subjcct ivstp rd che pornr uf access into ch div inei s -essential co the h i s t o ry o t" the ' !Vesc, therefore to r necaphystcs in i c s

encirety, even ivhen ic professes co be atheist." " Derrida uses this positiontu argue fo r t h e v i s ua l s ide o f t h e u d i o i ' i su.

anJ refusing boch speech-based metaphysicsnd presence-baseI posiriv(..se f clons.

I)ere, I: ivanc co niake a slightly i l iHerenr rnov: che auJiovisual litanycarries ivich ic ch tl icoloyical ivei~hr of che durable ssociation amoriys oijniI, speech, and J i v i r I i ty , even in i t s sc ien t i f i c y i j i se R a t he r t han i n -vercing t)ie aUJiovisual ticany, why noc redeemriscin Joctr ine, t l tere is no law ilivine or othre ice

re(loir ini ; us co assunm the inter io r icy of sound and che connect ion betweensound, subjective selt-presence, and intersubjeccive experience. %'c; do nocneed to assume char sound draws us inro the ivorld awhile vision separccsus trom ic '5'e ca@ r iopen the qoest ion ot che sources of ra t i ona l i ty andn mdern ways ot k r iosx'in' . I I h i s t ory ex i s t s . r ,r(rbifj t ice senses as wi l l as k -t"riven' them, tlxen we need not be8in a history ot sound with an assertion otthe cranshist(Jriial cl inaensions of sound

MI,' crmticisrn ot chc audiovisual l:tang ~oes tar beyond the questions otessencilistTI or socil construc t ion , w h ich u sua l ]y depenrace into p l t i l o -sophical hI, picnics Even if ive prnt chc possibilicy ot a rranscendental sub-ject ot sensation, che audiovisual I itny fl] s slxorc on its own t rrris Despici.all chr appials co nacure in rhe nan>e of tlat ticany, the phenosneno)ogy itri-I'liciI by the audiovisual litany is l>iyhly selective i t s r a nds on sl~aky em-I'iridial (and cransienJncal) ground. As RIc:I Al rnan has argued, clairrtsab(JUt t he trnsh istori cal and trnscu I turzl chraccer ot t he senses ofcen de-rive tltcir support f rons rul t i jrally and his t ( )r icI]y specit ir evi Jence l i tr i -i ted evidence at chat. In t }xe auJio i isual I.t nest -an pparencly oncclo~icalclaim about the role off soijnJ [or vision) has been allowing to cake prec-Jence over zccual analysis of souitd's funct ion ing. " " C o n s i i lr che purpmrr-edly uni( IUe ceraporal ant i spat i .i l i ha ractel (sties ot au()icory phenomeno l -

oyy. On~ argues t l~at -sound is more r e a l or e x i s tenc il than o th er senseot j ets, despite che tcr t lxac it is also morc ex anesc:enc Sound i tse lf is re-lated to present aicua l i ry ra ther than to pa st or fU tu re ", sot tncIs exist onlfIas thiy o o u t o t ex i s tence." ' 1)ut, srr iccl~ speal in' , O n p 's c la i rIx is cru torany event z n y p r e .c~~ thac you can possiblyexperience n d so ic is noca clualitI f speci.tl or uiiique co sound. To say thar ephemerality is a specialgtl'll i t~' ot sou ll&, rachef chafl a ()ua' leg' en Jc.mic to any f()rm of )pe rc eptiblet riotion or event in r i me , is to engage in a verI, select ive form o t non i i n a l -isra.' The same criticisrri can be made of the litany's actribucion of a sur-face"-orierited spacial it I,' to vision as opposecl to an ' i n te r ior" o r ien tat>on tosounJ. it is s very selmr ive nocion of sul Alee. An f l oRe who Ilas heafil t ingr-nails an a chalkboari I o r doorsteps in a concret l ta l l~vaq I'or on a xv /(~Ien

I 8 THE AUDIBLE PA5T


Brent Smith

Hour) can recognize chat lisceniny, has the l~ocential to yield a grc.at deal otinformation abuser surfaces very quickly. The plris BALl other sou n J-syn t hes istechnologies from che seventeerich to che nineteenth cenruries. So whati diferent about telephones, plaonoyraplxs. radios, and otlwr techno)u-gics common))'conjuredu p as "soun~l reproduct ion . ' A n u m ber of w r i t c t sluve oRred semiexper iencial de t in ic ions o t r n uderr i suunJ - reproduc t iontechnologies based on their power co sequencea sound frorTi its "source."

Hf LLO! I 9


Brent Smith

Brent Smith

S ince che poNer to sp l i t s o u rces anJ cop ies is thc most c o m mon d e h n i -t ion ot sound- reproduc t ion t echno logy, i t w a r r ants some scru t i ny . P ie r reW ltzetTer. chc composer wvho pionere J rrcJ'c~frJ'Be' ANi.i'~pe'. afyuc J chat soun J-

reproJuction technologis producd "acousmaric" sourids s o u nJs theeoric I>ears N,ithout seeinp t h e i r sou rce. J .jhn Corbct excends the l i ne o fthou ht by usiny, n explicit(v psychoanalyci tran>ev ork co call about re-pM!Iuced soun J in terms ot visual lack: " l t is t tm lzI of the v isual. endemicto reordd se)und, that in it ibices desire in. relation co ch popularmusic ob-ject." '" far Corbett. aur inabil ity co see che reordinalleaJs us to avant i t ,to ~ccnial co it. Barry Truant aiid R. i~furray &chafer have coined th termjcbi=rrpbtyn~.r to describe the "spli t bet ivn an orig inal soUnd and its electra-acoustic reproducion" enzblecl, by sounJ-reprUJuct ion cehnolo i es . ' TiceGrek pr ttx.hi=r.- mans -spl i t" nd a lso has a convenient conr ioracion otpsst 'choloylcal &bc'rratlol l t o r t h ese authors T r uax a l i t Sc.h Jtef also argue

that reprcxlucti()n removes sound from its, original context.By my own h istoricization ot praccires and id allies ot sound, ane

coulai seem intuit ivclq plaUsible romany people t()day. BLIt thzcdos noc mal e it t rue-. Rtwzll, xvich Stuart I-fall . t l~ac that xvhirl> is nmsc oh-vious ls mesc ideological: % 'hen pople say to i 'ou Ot course chat's so,isn't it." thar o t cou rse' is chi naost ideoloII;ical monaenc, because that's tiremoment ac w lx ich you' re least airfare that yau are Using a par t i cu lar idea-l ogical trznaework, and that i t" iou useI another framework the th i n s t h a ryoi.l al'e w.lkin abc)ut

a Jisorientiny, Seer on. tlat senses tlmc are otlxenvise orierited orgrounJJ iri coherenc btxiil i ex lw.rience. Tlzc assumption ot priorsensory roberncc requires a not iori of a human ho JI t t ltac exists euc-side hiscof)'. For In i cance, che c I Jlc11 that solllld rcpfo JlKcioA l las"alieriated" rh vo ice f rom th e i >un>art body impliesrhat che voiceaoJ the buJy existed iri some prier hol ist ic, unalienacid, arid si.lf-prsent relation As l h u ' e a l ready argued, phcnonienolo~ical unJer -staiAings of sub jpr iv i t y r i eet.I not p r i v i l ege sele stnrI; l t i n t e r p ersonal i n te rac.ciori isthe presumpt ive-ly pr imary o r - a uchencjc" mode ot conarnunicat inn, t lmnsound reproduction js doonaeJ ro cIeni~ration as inautheritic, disorienc-inp. and possibly even Jangerotis hv v i r tue of i cs 'dcorircxtualizinp"sound trodi i t s p r o ~mr" i nceqx-.rsonal context . But , co begin a theory andhistory ot snur i i l 's reproduc ib i l i cy, v c Jo rw ' n eed h n a l , f u n darnenca1, or

Hf LLO! 1 I


Brent Smith

Brent Smith

t rzashistur iczl answers co quescions aboirc rim re la t ions bccN,een ber i n g ,anil sec>np, bccween technolog ical rcp roduccion anJ sensory u r iencat i i in ,bet tveen orig,inal and copy; and between presence and absence in comImU-nicacion. XX'e can pru~icle more robusc answers ca those quescions by re-considering, them in rim course ut scudyiny, sound rcprcx3uccion. This IIis-tori of sounil begins bq pasicin sounJ, hearing., and listening as hiscoricalprehlems rarher chan as constants on xvhich co bu i l t j a h is to ry .

So lec us cake a r ide on Oc k h a m's razor anJ ivorL t n i m a s i n>pier def i -nicion of saunJ-reproduction technology, one chat dues noc recluire us tupmsic a transcendental sublect ut hearing' .naudern rcchnoloy ies ot sound re-pro J uicion use devices calli il ( /r'I )fs )J'Fct'fs. l~'hich turn sound in co sonxethin~ilsc anil thac soraethinp else back inco soun~l. All souni l - r i p r o i l u c t i on. tech-nologies amur voicei ncu electr ic i ty . sending i c d u gan a p h one l i n e anJ c u r n in8 i c b ack i n t usuullJ ar chc othf. r enJ. Radio ivork on a sim i lar p r i nc i p)e but uses ivavcsinsteail of iv i res. The i l iapliragm anJ scylus of a cy l inder plxono raplichan e sound chrouph a process ot inscription in rintoil,, avax, ur any num-ber ur ocher surfaces Oa playback. the scylus and Jiaphrapni trans duce tluteinscript ions bach into sounds. D i> ical soxind-rcprtJJuccion teclsnotopies lluse cransducers, they simp l I , mid another level ot t ransformat ion . conySICal prin i ipleS thCy ate MISO Cul Cural Zrti f.u: CS. TlaiS iS chere? hL1.'7 rZ-:hb/. P,rsvp begins ics hiscor tI,' of sound

iLhapcer r takes as irs central exhihic the ear phonaucoyraph, a machinefor xvr i t i n~ ' sound N'aves By t u i l o~wing around che device, ics inc entors,anil che ii leas rhat i t operaciunal izeJ, the chapter otTers z gene.-alogy ot neivconstructs of soi inJ and hear ing . Th e ear p lx>nautu>raph used an excisedl>irman miidle ear as a cransducer t anJ che tunct i r fn

the nineteench. The rynapinic tunc t ion emeryed at che incersection of nxcxI-em aioustic.s, otology, and physiology and rhe pedagogy ut the Jcat.

T}le xvays in wh ic l l the n l id die ear conducts v ib ra t ion I ' l g ' seerTl l ike asin>pie mechanical function. something. that ave teel is ~vichuut history. Butthe tyrnp i n i r f u n c t i o n o p ens uLit i nco chang iny, cunsrrucr iuns ot sound ,hearing ., and humanity. Sound reproJucriun is liisrorical all the xvayduwn.'fn acoustics, plzysiolopy, anil otology. sound became a waveforrn ~vhusesource was essentiallI; irrelevant; hearing hecate a mechanical funct ionthat cauld be isolated and bstractLM from che other senses Jnd the humanbody itsell Alchou h these Jevelopnients may un their oivn s~~m nxinor ormerelymatters of teclxnical discovery. theI, ramark a lary,er shift in the his-tu+' uf soLlnil.

Prior to tlat nineceenrh century, philosoplaies of sound usually consicf-iwe J their object th rou h a p a r t i c u lar , ideal ized instance sLich as speech urmusic. %'orks ot ~r ranan>ar an J logic J r i n p u i shed between sign i f icant ant iinsignihcanc suuncls by calling all siynihcanc sounds rrrx v o i ce. ' Otherl'.rlEilosophers took @susie as an idealized theoret ical instance of sound, lead-iny, to tlat analysis uf pitih ani l lu rnxuny, all the wa f j, up to th harmonyut c)>e splices and, for Saint A u g uscin, Gtxl In c o n t r a s t, the iun ceptp~ -

qrcr.rr;) p rev iously developed hy Descartes. hfersimne, and Bernoull iuttered a ~vay tu chink about suun J as a form of motion or i ibration. As rhenotion ol frequency took hold in n i neteenth-century physicsacoustics,uco!ops, and phys iology, these helds broke with the elder phiIusop!ries otsuuiM. O ' l>ere speech or nausic had been the ge neral categor ies th roughwhich suuaJ was um$ersrocd, th e. were nuw special cases c>t th generalphenomenonot sounJ. Tlm emergenceol ch t 1,rripanic tunct ion t hus, cu-inci~lc. d with an inversion of Ill-e ~reneral and the spci hc in philosophiesotsound. Sooted icselt becarae che general category. che ublecc of knowled e,research, anJ praccice." C h a p te r t a l so i n ve rts a h i s to r ical conanaunplacethe ubjecri t icat ion and abstr tct ion ut hearing, and sounil , their construc t ionas bounded anil coherent objects, was a prior conditionfor tl>c consrrucriunot sound-reproJuction technologies; the objectificationot sounJ divas nuc as impl; e H ect " t~r result Df sound-reproduct ion techno]ogy.

6 hile chapter t considers the construction or" sound anil txiariiag, chap-ters an J > otTer histor ies of various prar r ices ur l iscenin,du r ing che s'Une

period. They chronicle the Je~elopnwnt o t iu rc)iA 'ciheiqve. a set of practicesut listenin~ that were articulated ro science, reason, and instrumentalityand that encourage.ed rhe coding and racionaIizacion of what was hearJ. By.

Hf LLO! 1 5


Brent Smith

Brent Smith

Brent Smith

crrfi'isiArvan from ] istenin~ to thei r pat ivnts' speechanil began I is tcn i r iL., rmore closijy to p t i en ts ' boJ ies to (dist ingu ish s igns~t health and il]ness. As it bicarme a symbolof the medicI pr( f tessioiw, tlxiseetlxoscop si~nli J both vi r tuusic anil highly cLchnical l istening ski l ls.Chapter q exp lores hoiv Am e r i c n c (.leyraph o~~rJ.tors from t l i c ~ sq as tut he ASS:s anJ e r l i ' u sers o t sound- repruducr ior i t ecI>nulogirs f rom t i c eiSRos tu the t c j 2o s developsother forms ol audile technique. Telegra-p hers started l isteniny, to their nxzchinis instead ut reaJin~ thei r p r i n t uu t sI rf ~ cacophonous room, t h ey ivould focus un the no ise of t l i e i r t r i . ich i i i ialone and take do~vs te l i g r aphic iTicssages t ever- increasingspeeds. Lis-tLning ski l l w as a. mark o f p r o t essional J i s t i n c t i on in s u u n i l t e l c g rap l>yPhysicians' usi o I s te t lmscopes znJ sound t c l r 8 r aphc~ ' v i r t u o sic messa~Ltakin~ prcfced a much ~iiower disserixination of Judice tichni(~uwith t icetel(.-phone, p honerph. an

q oker a genealogy' of those rechni( lues chat were cencral tor conscruccingsoulMI fepf(i i l l lccloR as lv< kf low >t coJ necworks as purely na tu ral , i ns t rum en tal , or t r ansparent condu ics for

The idea char sound-reproJuctian cechnoloyies separated souoJs tron>thetr sources turns out co kzse been an elaborate conaruercial and cu l t u ra lp rojecc L'arly audicors of sound- rcpr(x3u cajun technologies i l id no t a lwaysassume chat reproJuccd sound reHecce() an -ariL;inal ' at t lat other enJfn response, manufacturers ard rnzrketers af sounJ-repmJuction cech-nolayies felt tha t t twy hai l to conv i nce audinces char the neo' sounJ n te -Jia betongnl to the same class of'communication as race-to-face speech6'hife ocher rhetorical str~cep,ies may have been p(Jssible, chis rheroric of


LquivalerIce al foN e J ad vertisers co ren der sou ntd-rc-produc cion technologiesin tami!iar cLrnas. Throu')> an evan>inacion of the w-ried t h-,S- > Ly qa), chapter q arL;uis chat early skept ical l is teners essenriallyhail i t r i g h t : s o u n d - reprodt ic t ion t echno log ies are i nseparable t rom t l u tesources" al reprotLju;ed sound. To pot i t a no ther way, the soi i s l o rya n i za-

tiorI c>t souI>d-reproduct ion tLchnotlogy cond i r ione J che possibi l i t y for hathoriginal" ani l " copy" sounds. Performer~ haJ to i l evc lop ~vhole Izc~v per-

ForrI>ance techniilus in order co produce 'originals" suitablL for repfoduL-tiarI Even che very grounds on which the abil ity ot sounJ-reproductiontL'chnalo8ies "faithful ly" to repro J ucL' sound coul J be tested in l aboratorishail to be escablishLd. The ever-shifci ixy, Fiyure at sound t>clL]iti c ryscal l izeda whole set ot problemsaround the LxpLriencL. of reproduci6i]ity, rhe aes-thetics af t echno log i . a l l y r L p r oJ uced sound , an J t h e r e l a t i ons be tweenoriginal and copy. Consider ing sounJ- reproduc t ion technolog ies as artie:u-lated to parcicular cechniilues nJ as media Farces us co ctou6le the sup-posed Qb jetccll' icyot zcallsIllJcic descf ipcions, i t shows t l lLm co 6e h i s to f l -cztl y m ot i v aced.

Chapter 6 otrers.t history oF the audibl; past icsi lf. lc cansidL.rs t ter can-dicionc under xvli icl> recori l inL;s came to be t Inderscood as hiscorical docu-nxents, yiLld in I t n s i L;ht inco the past . A l t h a ugh ca r ly recordtn s w ere fa rfrarI> permanent tecords, early irmzpes ot and overtures to souncl recoiling's~wrmanence and che newfound abil ity to hiar th e vaices of the dead"pfonloced ani l rad u , t l l ' t,' pral& HCJtechnologicaland Inst i tUcio lMl I f lno-vation. Nexv, innovat ive rLLardinp equ i p m en t and m ed i J. ivere devLlopeJi vith che speci fic aim o f p r o d u c in> l o n g e r - last ing, recordings. ln t h i s r e -spect, soun J recof J) n~r ' fol loN'el) innovJ cions in ocher nba jor n inetcenth-

centur> induscries like carIning anJ embalming.I nscitut ions p re~ t h a txvere dedicatei l t o t h e c o l l eLciorI xnJ l ) r eservat ion o l s o un d r e c o rd i ngs .Chapcc:r 6 argues tlute,t through tl>e historical process of making soundrLcordiny, niore -pern>ane-nt" fvhich be~an as noching naore chan a V iL -torian tancasq about a rnachine t l a t h i scorical process was itself altcrexl.As beliefs surrounding death, the preservation at the dead body, transcen-dence, and tern)~ra(icy shaped ar explained sound repro

Atter t.lccadcs of pursuing genoa:ideal polieirs cuxvarJ Xative Amer~cans, cheLt.5. goo crrtmenc anil other a cnc ics benin che i Sgos co employ anchru-~mlogits, Nho ivo i i l i ) use sound record ing tu ' c ap t ure and score" chr rnu -sic and language of their native subjects. Embedded in. this anthrupulugi-cal projectv rrc lol led concept iuns oF Anic. rican cu ltu re zs embuil> i riga universal tendency coxvaril 'progress" thac N:ould simpIy enpult YsciveAmerican lite mais alon che way. As fohanrics I'abian has argued, the ideaut modernity and its r 'o ;c r ine of progress divas utren caken io in>ply the h is -torical superioriti 'of "modern" civil izacion(generally urban. cosiriopiilican,largel >'xvhice, rnidJJ'e-class culture in t)ie Uniced Scacrs and %'cstern Eu-rope! ovrr o ther cu l cures hy cxst in~ t h ose d i&'ercnt iyec accuaIIi ' conccm-

poraneous) cultures as if chey exist% in t he col lec t i ve )~ast of che muderr isThe mil i tary and economic duminacion ut ocher cultures by the t. nickedScates aiMI 5 'cstern Eu ro' ~ anJ t he la r g e r ~)rujec:cs ct racism and co tu -nialisrn b e came explain.ible in che l.ue nineteenth cencury as the prod-ucc ut z JiRert'nce between chat ivhich is modern tM chat N'hich is nmc (yec)modern. Relat ions uf space become rr l zcioas ot t ;me. ' ' The d r ive co bu i l danJ hll phonoyrapliic archives ~vith che sounds uf dying" n.:iciuns ai~J cul-tures, the desire tu m ; :i l e sound record ings pe rmanenc, Na incxcr icablyl inl cd to early . incI>roIx>loyiscs' ambivalent rc.lat ions to h i s tory and che i rsub jKcs P l l onog faph i ' s Gluch-coute J pu'iver co capture Ihe vo ice.s ut chedead divas t)aliis nzcconyrmicaI/i connecced tu che dr ive co Jeh iscoric izc analprese+ e cuft i icrs chat ch U.S. govcrismenc htaJ actively suUght co destcoI;only a ~eiierat ion ear l ier. Permanence in sound record i r iy was much m u i 'ethan a mechanical face, it divas a thorou hip ci ilt i i raI and po l i t ical y ro ran>To a great J c 8 r ee, i n v c n t i ny , rep ruduc i6 i l i t i d i vas about rewonscrucciciy,sound and hearing and dcvejopin~ technologies tu fic and promote thesenevi construct. The idea af suund record ing,'s pecnianence is a str ik ing ex-ample of che muvemenc fcurri ~wish co practice tu technological form

A note on my approach conf.lucles chis incruduccion. Given che scope o) mytaL, I otri.r nu pretense co hnal.tI,' or catalicy in the account chat I ot ter Tr 'w:'iraqi)it'A. P.

we make i i l . Jescribiny, human nature. T/h AzrLhbk P.al o tTers a, s)wcolativeforay into nzomencs xa hen the m' ugly natures of sounding ancl hear in wereobIeccs al practice and rifi .at ion. It is not a complete staternnc on humannature itsrll. nor is my pr inaarI, boa.1 threcovery of lived experience. al-thou h cer ta in ly i ~ )~ l e 's own accounts of thei r exper iences carI pro~ ide in-sight inco t)>e hiscory ot" saund.

Like any intel)ectuJI pnxli jct. this book bears che newark of its zurhorsbiases. Nfy own distaste for che cult of Edison in phonograph hiscori But , more im p o r t a r i t , the h is tory of sound n>Usc move heyoridrecoierin experience to i r i terrogat in~ ch coridi t ions under wh ich chat x-pericnce bccam possib)e in the hrst pl . ice. Experiences are chriaselvcs vari-ahles shaped by che contexts th rough w h i c ls t lxey thea help the i r sub jectsnavii;ate

28 TH E AUDIBLE PA5T


Of cours th question ot experience sril) jin~ers. %'hile acknovrle dyingthe plurality of passibl auJibl p aints, this book ou t l i nes some con>monbases tor n>odern sound cUl ture in the XX'st es~~ ia l l y a round p rac t i cesot sound repracluct ion. Ic is doubi tul that they are tru lv un ive rsals, but they'are sut'calcic:ncl}' general to be ' orch considering. Tl|ere are rercainli ot l ierdominant. rnergeoc, or subjugated conscnic.ts ut soun(), l isteninp, andhearing, beyond the ones coosiJered in these pages. I) iscories nt soundcou]d contribuc co .a much wi Jer range oF then>es in cultural and p(il i t icalhistory than I cover in chis book. As zlxvzys. there are other l>iscories co bewritcen. %'c a i l ] h ave co tvric ch(:rn in order to l . norv i t t h } ' Fundamen-tally lsallenge roy conclusions l>ere

This is noc to succun>b to the Iucal isn>, curnu!Jcivism, and noposi t iv -ism that has r . iyayed much con tern~mrary cu l t u re] h i s to r iography:. Eventsor pl>nomena naercly need to exist to carry' some int l lectuz l sinai>ihcanc,they Jo noc neJ co pass a test oF universa3it}'. Sound history; howevr par-tial. must continually move beteen th immediate aAJ che genera], theconcrete and che abstract. There is a burden ot sounJ history, just as thereis a bur Jen of I~istory, to borrow a p)arm trom I-leyden %~hite. To oFer acompl ling ~ceont of humanity,soon

Documents

JonathanSterne Audible Past Cultural Origins of Sound Reproduction Hello OCR