Week 2: Schafer and Schaeffer's Sound Stigma

The two articles on which I will focus this week are ones that were written by authors Francisco Lopez and Brian Kane. They are called "Schizophionia vs l'objet sonore: soundscapes and artistic freedom" (Lopez) and "Sound Unseen: Acousmatic Sound in Theory and Practice, about Pierre Schaeffer" (Kane). Both of these articles are very unique and intriguing in their individual ways. In the essay written by Lopez, R. Murray Schafer's main piece of music on which he focuses is called "The Tuning of the World." Lopez mentions that many people consider this piece to be a "bible on soundscapes," due to the way it presents a detailed alternate vision on many of the real sound areas on this planet, and provides a very informative, visional, and believable stance on the analysis of this scenario, including advice regarding what should be done. Lopez's philosophy on Schafer's piece and how it relates to "acoustic ecology" is just plain brilliant, and anyone who is interested in the history of sound media should give this essay a reading without a doubt.

---

..Now for my thoughts on the fifth chapter of the article written by Kane. Kane first mentions Pierre Schaeffer on the seventh page of this chapter, right after mentioning a quote from the late famous English philosopher, Roger Scruton. The quote is the following wording:

"The person who listens to sounds, and hears them as music, is not seeking in
them for information about their cause, or for clues as to what is happening.
On the contrary, he is hearing the sounds apart from the material world. "They
are detached in his perception, and understood in terms of their experienced
order. . . . What we understand, in understanding music, is not the material world,
but the intentional object: the organization that can be heard in the experience."

Kane mentions that the way this quote relates to Pierre Schaeffer's philosophy on sound is that in this quote, Scruton mentions that Schaeffer is a true thinker on this stance, and affirmatively cites this. Kane mentions that because Scruton had an ultraconservative diagnosis on modern music, it was surprising how he affirmatively cited Schaeffer as thinking this. Overall, both Schafer and Schaeffer have extremely detailed and intriguing philosophies on sound, and while they may be different, they are both worth learning without a doubt. There is a key main difference between the philosophies of these two gentlemen:

One of R Murray Schafer's main focuses was the preservation of the acoustic ecology as seen through his World Soundscape Project. Pierre Schaeffer, on the other hand, came from a background of broadcast engineering and acoustician work, which developed his theories of the sound object and acousmatic listening. Both these gentlemen still were, nevertheless, very knowledgeable pupils, and left a huge impact on earth during their time alive.

Work Cited:

1. Kane, Brian. Sound Unseen: Acousmatic Sound in Theory and Practice. Oxford University Press, 2016. 

2. López, Francisco. “Schizophionia vs L'objet Sonore: Soundscapes and Artistic Freedom’ (Lopez) and ‘Sound Unseen: Acousmatic Sound in Theory and Practice, about Pierre Schaeffer.” Schizophonia vs l’Objet Sonore: Soundscapes and Artistic Freedom, 1997.

3. Orondesounds. “Schafer Vs. Schaeffer.” Oronde's Sounds, 18 Apr. 2016, orondesounds.wordpress.com/2016/02/07/schafer-vs-schaeffer/. 

​

---