Delalande
An examination of the investigation into listening strategies, conducted by François Delalande at the Groupe de Recherches Musicales in Paris in 1997, proved to be advantageous to the orientation of my research.3 The main objective of Delalande’s listening experiment, conducted with reference to the movement Sommeil from Pierre Henry’s acousmatic work Variations pour une porte et un soupir, was to study, describe and differentiate listening or reception behaviours.
“In listening attentively to a piece of music one adopts, more or less consciously, a goal: one expects something at this moment of listening (which becomes clearer during listening), which determines a strategy and specific focuses on this or that, contributing not only to the forming of a perceptual image of the work with its symbolisations and meaning, but also to the provoking of sensations, and eventually emotions, which in turn reinforce or reorientate expectations. It is this act, where objective, strategy, perceptual construction, symbolisations, and emotions are mutually dependent and progressively adapt to the object, that we call
‘listening behaviour’” (Delalande, 1998: 23).
Methodological considerations for this type of experiment are considerable. An in-depth examination into an acousmatic work is not without its difficulties, as unlike traditional music “[...] this type of music presents the analyst with all problems simultaneously: no score, no system, and no ‘pre-segmented’ discrete units like notes”
(ibid.: 14). Pierre Schaeffer’s4 prior research distinguished between the sound-object5, constructed phenomenologically by the listener, and the physical signal6 to which it is attributed. While Schaeffer focused on the analysis of the sound object, Delalande proposed that the “[...] object of analysis is really the physical signal itself, the material object, the result and trace of the material acts of the composer, even if the method of
3 My preliminary research is summarised in my paper Perception in Electroacoustic Music: A Preliminary Investigation and Expansion of the Reception Behaviours Devised by François Delalande (unpublished, 2001).
4 Pierre Schaeffer, composer and researcher, wrote the Traité des objets musicaux (Schaeffer 1966).
5 In Schaeffer’s first definition of the term, a sound-object “[…] is what one hears when ‘reduced listening’ is put into practice, which means that causal and associative meanings of a sound are deliberately ignored” (Schaeffer in Delalande, 1998: 14).
6 “The physical signal is either the electrical signal obtained by reading the analogue recording, […] the sound file in the case of digital recording, or the acoustic wave emitted from the loudspeaker” (Delalande, 1998: 15).
analysis relies largely on listening” (ibid.: 15).7 My reception behaviours framework, introduced in this chapter, and on which this dissertation is based is, additionally, founded on the investigation of the physical signal, defined here as the acousmatic composition.
In addition to methodological considerations, one must also decide what are the criteria for one’s own, or for that matter any listener’s reactions. According to Denis Smalley, the issue of uncovering pertinent criteria is problematic. He notes, “In trying to analyse electroacoustic music aurally there is always the fundamental problem of uncovering pertinent criteria. What I find depends on what I hear, what I strain to hear, what I choose to hear” (Smalley in Delalande, 1998: 22). The manner in which listeners interpret music is influenced by the interplay of diverse parameters during the listening experience. These include personal background, and culture as well as mood, a capacity for memorisation, and a general level of interest during listening. In addition, Delalande noted that one never hears a piece the same way twice. However, despite obstacles in establishing criteria, Delalande determined that there were consistencies in listening strategies and that there was not an infinite variety of ways a listener could apprehend a piece (Delalande, 1998: 23).
Eight listeners were invited to listen to the movement, Sommeil, by Henry.
Several individuals were electroacoustic composers, others were musicians with some knowledge of electroacoustic music, and one was a novice to the domain. Some listeners heard the movement once and others two or three times. Each listener heard the movement in the company of at least one of the analysts. The environment in which the experiment took place was pleasant and comfortable (ibid.: 24).
Delalande admitted that the small scale of the experiment would prevent the formulation of conclusions about reception behaviours. His aim was to discover if similarities existed and, in regards to listener reactions to Sommeil, he observed a coherence in reception behaviours despite the small sampling (ibid.: 25). The three primary types of listening behaviours revealed in this experiment are outlined. A brief discussion follows that addresses the concept of the listening dynamic.
1.2.1 Taxonomic listening as a reception behaviour
According to Delalande, this mode of perception is born out of the desire to make a brief, general survey of the work. The listener searches for an overriding structure in
7 Schaeffer and Delalande’s concepts of the term, object differ from the concept of the object in the frame of Indo-Tibetan philosophy, a topic that is introduced in Chapter 2.
the piece, and in addition, shows sensitivity to the temporality of events. Taxonomic listening (ibid.: 26-29) occurs when the listener has a tendency to:
(i) Differentiate the larger morphological sections in a work and identify them.
(ii) Create an overall image of the work that takes into consideration its proportions.
(iii) Search for contrasts and introduce discontinuities in the musical flow.
(iv) Attempt to memorise the data.
(v) Use metaphors in order to label sounds.
(vi) Find this type of listening laborious and less pleasurable than other reception strategies.
(vii) Create an impartial base from which to develop more personal reactions.
1.2.2 Empathic listening as a reception behaviour
The listener who displays this attitude responds to the “physiological” product of the sound and comments first on the level of feeling. Empathic listening (ibid.: 37-40) can be distinguished when listeners:
(i) Describe the events in the music as if they are subjected to these movements themselves.
(ii) Focus attention on the present moment and avoid establishing connections with the musical discourse prior to that instant.
(iii) Do not attempt to score the music.
(iv) Create two sets of metaphors: The first type concentrates on the morphology of the sound, however, the sounds are not simply listed, they “act on each other and, in a symbolic way, also act on the listener” (Delalande, 1998: 39). The second type is organised into perceptions that are more personal. In the case of listener responses to Sommeil, these took the form of “complex narrative images which (clarified) relations and (conveyed) metaphors for the object more explicitly ... like a kind of ... karate in slow motion (...) like the demonstration of martial art” (ibid.: 39).
(v) Use metaphorical descriptions to attempt to develop the object/subject8 association.
8 In Delalande’s definition of object/subject, the subject is understood as the listener and the object is understood as the piece. This differs from the Indo-Tibetan concept of Subject-Object explained in 2.2.1, where the listener is the subject and the listener’s thoughts, feelings, and sensations are objects in addition to any entity or stimulus exterior to the listener, for example, the sound, or the piece.
These descriptions emerge as ‘sensations’, the objective of this listening behaviour.
1.2.3 Figurativisation as a behaviour: a stage for the ‘living’ being According to Delalande:
“Figurativisation relies on a contrast between sonic configurations which are associated with the living being and other configurations which have a contextual function (decor, signal, scene)” (my italics) (ibid.: 47).
“Narrativity is not only […] a metaphor for form but also provides a model for perceptual construction […]”
(ibid.: 52).
Figurativisation (ibid.: 47-50), has characteristic traits in which the listener:
(i) Imagines during listening that various sounds suggest something that moves, ultimately living.
(ii) Searches for a contrast between sonic constructions, which are associated with the image of the ‘moving entity’, and other elements that have a contextual function, for example, the stage, the scene or the decor.
(iii) Does not use metaphors simply to label sounds but, instead, uses them to describe the images which imposed themselves during the listening act.
(iv) Creates metaphors of a second order that are more personal and illustrate the opposition between the central characters in the sound world and the context that frames them.
(v) Describes the musical form metaphorically or, instead, the adventure that the listener experienced while listening.
1.2.4 Incompatibilities in listening behaviours
In addition to these strategies, Delalande also briefly elaborates on the concept of the listening dynamic, centering particularly on the laws that govern listening and the issue of conflicting behaviours. The first incompatibility thus exists between non-listening and all types of listening. Non-listening is an oft noted listening behaviour, which occurs when individuals experience motivations while listening that induce them to
disengage from the listening act. Non-listening often occurs when there is little native interest in the work or when the listener becomes distracted (ibid.: 63).
Additionally, Delalande observes that incompatibility exists between taxonomy and empathy, implying that these strategies cannot co-exist simultaneously. The resolution of the conflict is perceived in the guise of a sudden shift in listening, a type of internal command that the listener issues and follows during the act of listening. The moments that encapsulate the changes often comprise observable emotional responses some of which are recounted by listeners as instances of aesthetic emotion. However, potential incompatibility between reception behaviours is not certain because the dynamic of the listening act requires further study (ibid.: 63).