Noise: A Call for Inquiry and Experimentation

While an ultimate Archimedean point to view the world may not exist for human

beings, for reasons both epistemological and pragmatic, there still exists a multitude of

vantage points that are powerfully descriptive in relation to the world. This is to say that

one is able produce some useful predictions, or new understanding, about some aspect of

the world. Further, such a vantage point need not be outside the Earth’s atmosphere, as

can be seen within all of the sciences that are solely concerned with the terrestrial events

on Earth. The vantage point I primarily want to consider here is located within the

acoustic realm of experience.

Now more than ever human beings are able to obtain vast amounts of information

about the world through new media and technologies. However, it is more often the case

that the collection of such large amounts of information leads to more noise than

constructive description about the world (signal). The concept of noise is one that has a

multitude of meanings amongst various disciplines and areas of inquiry, so it is important

to clearly define how the term noise will be used here. In conventional use, noise often

refers solely to the realm of acoustic phenomena. More specifically, the conventional

notion of noise is “any auditory sensation which is disagreeable or uncomfortable”1.

Noise is an ugly, unpleasant, unwanted sound.2 While this conception of noise is useful in

most discussions about noise, the conception of noise that is most useful to discussion

1 Garret Keizer, The Unwanted Sound of Everything We Want: A Book About Noise (New York: Public Affairs, 2010), 24.2 I want to note that I am not aiming to discredit, or replace, any conventional notion of the term “noise”. Rather I just want to make clear that this term has multiple uses (it is itself a potentially noisy term). It is important to note that the conventional use of the term noise is in reference to a purely subjective state of “disagreeable” or “uncomfortable”. This is a very important notion of noise to hold for those who are interested in policies to reduce noise pollution, ecological concerns, etc.

1

here is one that is more akin to a definition from communication and information theory.

The definition of noise I wish to consider primarily: anything unintentionally added to a

signal via the act of transmitting the signal. In this case, noise is an unwanted interference

between some intentional sender of a signal to a competent receiver. Most of the time

this involves human beings, but in principle, it could be any other thing that perceives in

the most basic, or functional, sense.

Quite often it is the case that information collected, especially in large quantities,

is often so complex that it at first appears to be meaningless, and it may certainly be the

case that is sometimes. Though the existence of noise within such large sets of

information, perhaps, exists solely as a relational by-product created by the information,

the means of gathering/producing the information, and our epistemological shortcomings

in interpreting. This is, in effect, to say that noise is not an objective, autonomous, entity

that obscures a signal or recognizable pattern. Rather noise is an inherent product of our

own cognitive apparatus in relation to a certain degree of complexity present within a set

of information.

Further, I will also discuss that noise is, as well, the direct result of the means

(medium) of expression of any signal. There is, as well, the notion of ideal, or true, white

noise. This type of noise is a purely abstract construct, and I believe the fact that this type

of noise is inherently fictional, says something about all types of noise that we encounter.

With this in mind I wish to also consider noise in relation to our own epistemology.

Noise observed within any given system, may inherently provide some positive

descriptions about the system itself that it arises in, as well as, the epistemic properties of

the observer of said noise. Though it is important to note here that the observer of a

2

system can too be considered as a part of a system, and thus a producer of noise within it.

If one focuses upon the nature of noise present within a system, rather than the

desired/intended signal, one can construct positive claims about that system (including

information about the observer) based upon the characteristics of the noise. Noise can

ultimately become a signifier of something meaningful within a system.

Further, I feel that it is necessary to consider the importance of intentionality in

relation to any notion of the term signal. There does exist noise within natural systems

that one would not necessarily consider to exhibit intentionality, or meaningful signals.

Though by acquiring the intentional stance in relation to some natural systems there does

exist the possibility to derive meaningful signals from what appears to be meaningless

noise. While it may not always be appropriate to utilize the intentional stance in relation

to some system, it ought to be recognized as an important epistemological tool for human

beings to understand systems that are noisy to us.

Noise is something we can learn from phenomenologically, epistemologically,

and environmentally. Lastly, I wish to consider some artificially constructed systems that

explore noise in relation to meaningful acoustic signals. These systems I wish to consider

are pieces of music/ sound art developed by composers of experimental music. The

pieces I will be discussing: Alvin Lucier’s I am sitting in a room (1969), David Dunn’s

Mimus Polyglattos (1976), and Ryan Maguire’s The Ghost in the MP3 (2014). These

works are exemplar of systems that focus upon noise in varying ways, and in turn,

provide one with meaningful information.

I wish to begin by discussing the notion of “pure”, or “ideal”, white noise. In a

sense, I claim that this type of noise exists in a similar manner to the Kantian noumenal

3

realm. The existence of white noise is purely ideal. That is to say that it is not truly a part

of our world of possible experience. White noise “runs the whole infinite length of the

frequency spectrum itself”.3 Further, white noise exhibits equal energy amongst the entire

infinite set of frequencies. “So pure or ideal white noise exists only as a mathematical

abstraction. It cannot exist physically because it would require infinite energy”.4 With

this in mind, we can effectively claim that there exists some kind of pre-existing

“morphology” to all of the possible expressions of frequencies, because of the limited

amount of energy in the universe, and how it is distributed throughout the universe. This

does not suggest that there is some kind of permanent structure or form, but rather the

possibility of the existence of a finite set of possible states throughout time. Though it is,

perhaps, fallacious to postulate the total characteristics of some “complete-morphology”

of noise.

Human beings’ innate apparatus for experiencing acoustic phenomena can only

perceive the realm of twenty to twenty thousand Hertz. Human beings necessarily exist

within a limited realm of possible experience. Though we can augment our perceptual

apparatus through various media and technology, and thus expand the amount of possible

information we can obtain. However, this does not suggest that we can claim total

understanding of all possible experience.

I wish to maintain all discussion of noise outside of the realm of metaphysics, and

keep it grounded within the realm of possible experience. I hold a conception of noise

that will be used in further discussion that is aligned with that of philosopher Michel

Serres: noise is “a set of possible things, it may be the set of possible things”.5 Even

3 Bart Kosko, Noise (London: Viking Penguin, 2006), 664 Bart Kosko, Noise (London: Viking Penguin, 2006), 665 Michel Serres, Genesis, (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1995), 22

4

though there does not exist an “ideal’, or “pure”, noise, the world is still inherently noisy

to human beings, as well as, any other perceptual apparatus/system.

Noise then is something that arises in relation to something that “attempts” to

make sense of the world (“the set of possible things”) through a particular perceptual

apparatus. It, as well, appears to be the case that the physical properties of any given

apparatus (system), including those that can perceive, have an inherent relation to the

characteristics of noise produced within it. As pointed out by critical theorist Greg

Hainge: “…any material entering into expressive relations (which is to say, of course,

everything) necessarily enters into a systematic process with its own material ontology

(read medium).” 6 Hainge, as well, furthers this notion by considering electrical resistance

in the transference of an electrical current (signal). The electrical current’s “expressive

potential can only be actualized in a material assemblage formed between the system and

the expression that reconfigures both of them.”7 This is an excellent example of the

relational nature of noise in a system. Noise, as seen within an electrical current, is, as

well, not strictly limited to metal circuitry and insulators. This kind of noise can be

extended into biotic systems of organisms, and their perceptual endowments (brains and

nervous systems). What I am suggesting is that one can think of the type of noise present

within electrical currents as analogous to kinds of noise present within perception. The

mind8 is not an inherently passive entity that merely receives external stimuli. Rather the

mind, as well, actively contributes to perception.

6 Greg Hainge, Noise Matters: Towards an Ontology of Noise, New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013), 177 Greg Hainge, Noise Matters: Towards an Ontology of Noise, New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013), 178 I realize that here I am making a contentious equation between the physical brains and mind. Any mention of mind within this paper is referring to mind as a purely physical entity.

5

All things within the world are necessarily expressed through, and within, a

material medium. Further, all expressions produce noise. Any notion of expression that

suggest otherwise appears to be inherently nonsensical.9 Thus, perception is itself an

expression of a system, and inherently noisy. If one accepts that our own

phenomenological experience is inherently noisy, one should turn towards the presence

of noise in order to further understand the nature experience.

Though this leaves one with an important question: how does one determine

signal from noise? How does one define perceptual noise? This question is, in a sense,

leads to a kind of reframing of the debate between those who claim that patterns in nature

(including perception) are real, versus those who claim them to be purely instrumental.

This debate will certainly not be settled here. Rather, an instrumental, but not necessarily

anti-realist, stance towards patterns, or meaningful signals, is sufficient to further

discussion here. My stance on this issue is akin to the view put forth by philosopher

Daniel Dennett in regards to centers of gravity: “…we should be- more interested in the

scientific path to realism: centers of gravity are real because they are (somehow) good

abstract objects.”10

Noise, in relation to perception, I claim, is that which obscures one’s ability to

find meaning within a given system (including the mind), and inhibits the ability to form

useful predictions based upon said meaning. This is, in effect, not much different from

the conception of noise given from the perspective of communication and information

theory. However, that conception implies the notion of an intentional sender. I am

9 By nonsensical I mean precisely that such a notion would be unable to be sensed, and effectively indescribable/incommunicable.10 Daniel Dennett, “Real Patterns”, The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 88, No. 1. (Jan., 1991), pp. 27-51.

6

making a distinction in relation to intentional signals. Human beings are not always

receiving information about the world from an intentional sender. Though we do engage

in the process of actively creating relational systems in which we cast out our own

intentional signals, via the process of experimentation. How such signals become altered

or noisy, says something inherent about that relational system, and can offer a greater

understanding of our phenomenological experience of that system, as well as, how our

own epistemology is relative.

“Is noise subjective? Could we not instead say that noise has to do with the

subject: that which occurs as/at the limit of the subject; that which signals an immanence

outside the subject/object divide, however reclothed in phenomenology?”11 If some

intentionally cast signal within a system is made noisy via the signal’s own means of

expression, we must also note that that noise exists relationally to the perceiver of that

system. Thus, noise is something that exists amongst a relational system that includes a

perceiver as a constituent member of the system itself. It is only by actively initiating a

signal within a system that one can determine what the relationship between signal and

noise truly is. By just merely observing some phenomena, it appears to be just that. In a

sense, the noise is a part of the expression. Though it appears to be that case that only

once some expression becomes cognitively partitioned into having some set of qualities

that are favored (signal), and some unfavorable, can one say that noise truly exists within

a system. To discuss noise one must necessarily include a perceptual entity as a part of

the system in which noise is present.

11 Paul Hegarty, “Full With Noise: Theory and Japanese Noise Music”, ctheory, a097 (2001), http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=314

7

It is important to note that when constructing such systems of creating signals we,

as well, often adopt the intentional stance in relation to various organisms, and in some

cases, larger systems, to derive meaning informing useful predictions. By attempting to

understand a system based solely upon its physical characteristics and behavior, it is often

so complex that is perceived purely as noise. Thus, utilizing the intentional stance is, in a

sense, an act of “noise reduction” within a system. The intentional stance is, as well,

useful when considering bioacoustics information. Consider when a grasshopper is

observed to be producing sounds within a limited band of frequencies, caused by the

friction of its appendages. It is not inherently meaningful to us, and thus noisy. Though

the intentional stance allows us to reframe such an observation in a way that it does have

meaning, by then understanding the grasshopper to be communicating. “The intentional

stance explains what is going on, regardless of how we answer that question.”12 It is

important to note that any meaningful signal, derived or not, is still a functioning signal

for something/someone. By either adopting the intentional stance, or by implementing

some correlational heuristic, one can effectively transform what was once noise into

something that is a meaningful signifier within a system.

Next, I will examine how noise has been a point of inquiry, as well as, an

instrumental element for understanding, by looking towards examples of music

composition. Each composition deals with noise in a differing manner. Though each

composition is nonetheless inherently concerned with the conception of noise as put dealt

with in this paper.

12 Daniel Dennett, Intentional Systems Theory, http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/papers/intentionalsystems.pdf

8

Alvin Lucier’s composition, I am Sitting in a Room (1969), is a piece of

music/sound art that is one singular process that unfolds over an indeterminate length of

time. The score of I am Sitting in a Room is a relatively simple, discursive algorithm that

produces some rather striking phenomena:  

Use the following text or any other text of any length:“I am sitting in a room different from the one you are in now. I am recording the sound of my speaking voice and I am going to play it back into the room again and again until the resonant frequencies of the room reinforce themselves so that any semblance of my speech, with perhaps the exception of rhythm, is destroyed. What you will hear, then, are the natural resonant frequencies of the room articulated by speech. I regard this activity not so much as a demonstration of a physical fact, but, more as a way to smooth out any irregularities my speech might have.” Record your voice on tape through the microphone attached to tape recording #1. Rewind the tape to its beginning, transfer it to tape recorder #2, play it back into the room through the loudspeaker and record a second generation of the original recorder statement through the microphone attached to tape recorder #1. Rewind the second generation to its beginning and splice it onto the end of the original recorder statement on tape recorder #2. Play the second generation only back into the room through the loudspeaker and record a third generation of the original recorded statement through the microphone attached to the tape recorder #1. Continue this process through many generations. All the generations spliced together in chronological order make a tape composition the length of which is determined by the length of the original statement and the number of generations recorded. Make versions in which one recorded statement is recycled trough many rooms. Make versions using one or more speakers of different languages in different rooms. Make versions in which, for each generation, the microphone is moved to different parts of the room or rooms. Make versions that can be performed in real time.

The composition is inherently an experimental process. While there is a general

understanding of what kind of phenomena the piece will result in, every performance will

yield drastically unique results. Perhaps the most striking feature of the piece is the fact

that one is able to experience the fact that the phenomenon of voice is inherently

dependent upon the space it is produced in. The phenomenological experience of voice is

no longer understood to be the product of a singular intentional speaker. Rather the

9

relationship between the intentional speaker, and the inanimate space that the speaker is

located, form the phenomenon that is voice. “In I am Sitting in a Room, then, what we

hear in the noise emanating from the assemblage of speaking subject-recording

technology-room is the death knoll of Cartesian interiority and the intersistence of

phenomenological or relational subjectivity.”13 Further I am Sitting in a Room exposes

an element of the architectural surroundings (resonant frequencies). The space becomes

articulated by sonic events and becomes, in a sense, animated, allowing listeners to gather

new positive information about the surroundings in which the piece is performed. I am

Sitting in a Room beautifully demonstrates a process in which the distortion of a speakers

voice becomes a new understandable signal.

Composer, and environmentalist, David Dunn’s piece, Mimus Polyglottos (1976),

offers listeners an example of interspecies communication and the formation of new

signals. “I was living at one end of Florida canyon with the famous San Diego Zoo at the

other end. Some nights I would be awakened by the inexplicable sounds of monkeys and

tropical birds from my backyard. It took me a while to figure out that the sounds didn’t

come from zoo escapees but from the mocking birds who travelled up and down the

canyon.”14 In Mimus Polyglottos frequency-modulated square waves, falling within the

average frequency range exhibited by mocking birds, along with ratios of silence that are

characteristic of their song, were played to mocking birds in their environment. The

recordings of this interaction are astonishing. One can hear a process in which the

mocking birds begin to appropriate the electronically produced noises over the course of

13 Greg Hainge, Noise Matters: Towards an Ontology of Noise, New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013), 16014, David Dunn. Nature, Sound Art, and the Sacred. 1997, 6, http://davidddunn.com/~david/writings/terrnova.pdf

10

five minutes, with remarkable precision in imitation. Mimus Polyglottos demonstrates

that a signal was established between the composer and the mockingbird. Some form of

communication was exhibited where there was once just noise. Though it is fair to begin

to question what makes this an example of music, as opposed to pure experimentation.

David Dunn’s response to such questions beautifully captures the essence of

experimental art. “My answer to this question is in part the explicit content of my sound

art work: to recontextualize the perception of sound as it pertains to a necessary

epistemological shift in the human relationship to our physical environment.”15 Dunn’s

response, as well, highlights how turning towards the noise can, in effect, aid in our

stewardship of our environment. “My belief is that there is an important role for the

evolution of an art form that can address the phenomenon of sound as a prime integrating

factor in the understanding of our place within the biosphere’s fabric of mind.”16 Dunn’s

work has put forth an example of how one can broaden his/her own conception of the

environment, as well, as a greater understanding our fellow inhabitants.

Ryan Maguire’s project The Ghost in the MP3 (2014), explores sound, and its

associated noises, in what is perhaps its most pervasive form within the modern world:

the MP3. Maguire’s project has resulted in the formation of a piece of music that, in

effect, explores and comments upon the socio-economic space that has informed the

production of what is arguably the most prevalent format of music distribution today.

This project highlights noise produced in perhaps the largest system considered within

this paper.

15 David Dunn. Nature, Sound Art, and the Sacred. 1997, 3, http://davidddunn.com/~david/writings/terrnova.pdf16 David Dunn. Nature, Sound Art, and the Sacred. 1997, 3, http://davidddunn.com/~david/writings/terrnova.pdf

11

“The MPEG-1 or MPEG-2 Layer III standard, more commonly referred to as MP3, has become a nearly ubiquitous digital audio file format. First published in 1993, this codec implements a lossy compression algorithm based on a perceptual model of human hearing. Listening tests, primarily designed by and for western-european white men, and using the music they liked, were used to refine the encoder. These tests determined which sounds were perceptually important and which could be erased or altered. I ask, however: what have we lost? It is commonly accepted that MP3's create audible artifacts such as pre-echo, but what does the music which this codec deletes sound like? In the work presented here, I consider and develop techniques to recover these lost sounds, the ghosts in the MP3, and reformulate these sounds as art.”17

A simplified overview of compositional process will now be given. A “.WAV”

(lossless) file is saved to the new format of .MP3 (lossy compressed) file. FFT (spectral

analysis) of each file is taken. A basic subtraction operation between each version of the

file is done, and the difference is saved. The remainder of the two files is what was

removed in the lossy compression process. These sonic remainders (ghosts) are then used

as source material for composition.18 What is learned? Maguire’s research and the

subsequent compositions created are the direct result of exploring the noisy artifacts

prevalent within one of the most popular modes of sonic expression (.MP3 files). Further,

this work provides one with information about how the .MP3 was developed, and as well,

how it carves out our sonic experience.

In conclusion, this paper has addressed how noise is necessarily a relational

byproduct that arises from expressions within systems. Further, with this conception of

noise, one can then turn towards noise, and in turn become able to provide positive

descriptions about the system in which the noise arose. The conception of noise within

this paper, as well, has attempted to show that noise is a byproduct of systems in which a

17 Ryan Maguire, The Ghost in the MP3, http:// ryanmaguiremusic.com/theghostinthemp3.html18 For a more in depth and technical description of this process, please visit http:// ryanmaguiremusic.com/theghostinthemp3.html

12

perceiver is a constituent element of the system. Lastly, the artistic explorations of

various composers have elucidated some unique elements of the nature noise in systems

that, perhaps, could have only happened through the arts.

13

14