Organised Sound

http://journals.cambridge.org/OSO

Additional services for Organised Sound:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

Sonic Image and Acousmatic Listening

Daniel L. Barreiro

Organised Sound / Volume 15 / Issue 01 / April 2010, pp 35 - 42

DOI: 10.1017/S1355771809990240, Published online: 11 March 2010

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1355771809990240

How to cite this article:

Daniel L. Barreiro (2010). Sonic Image and Acousmatic Listening. Organised Sound, 15, pp 35-42 doi:10.1017/
S1355771809990240

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/OSO, IP address: 141.217.58.200 on 28 Mar 2015

Sonic Image and Acousmatic Listening*
DANIEL L. BARREIRO
Federal University of Uberlândia (UFU), Faculdade de Artes, Filosofia e Ciências Sociais, Departamento de Música e Artes Cênicas,
Av. João Naves de Avila, 2121 – Campus Santa Mônica, Bloco 1V, Uberlândia (MG), CEP 38408–100, Brazil
E-mail: dlbarreiro@gmail.com
This article explores the concept of sonic image in acousmatic
music. Such a concept is understood as mental
representations motivated by sonic stimuli that reach the
listener in an acousmatic listening situation and that can be
determined by a focus on either the intrinsic or extrinsic
aspects of the sounds – or even a combination of both. The
intrinsic aspects are related to the inner characteristics of the
sounds and are, therefore, accessed through reduced listening.
They are not dependent on the identification of the sources
that caused the sounds or possible meanings and connotations
conveyed by them. The extrinsic aspects, on the other hand,
are the connotations, meanings and references that lay
outside the sounds themselves and that can be related to
human experience in a broader sense, including domains other
than the sonic. Since sonic images are not exclusively
dependent on intrinsic factors, they can be the result of
various kinds of listening attitudes not restricted to reduced
listening. The article highlights the links between ideas
presented by different authors who approach the issue of sonic
image or who present considerations on other issues that may
inform an understanding of sonic image in the acousmatic
context. Since sonic image is dependent both on the intrinsic
and the extrinsic aspects of sound, it is argued that it is a
concept that can integrate (and possibly unify) different
approaches related to acousmatic listening. The
considerations on sonic image presented here touch issues
regarding different listening attitudes, the relationships
between sound and source, and links between sound and
gesture, amongst other aspects. The approach taken here is
focused as much as possible on the perspective of the listener
rather than on the composer, although some considerations
related to compositional thinking are occasionally exposed.
1. INTRODUCTION
The focus on sound as heard as the basis for the
composition of musique concre`te, as proposed by
Schaeffer (1966), reveals his reaction against the ‘excess
of abstraction’ found in the music of the period.
Nevertheless, Schaeffer ‘did not shy away from
‘‘reclaiming’’ the musical abstract. A reclaiming which,
for him, had necessarily to pass through a return to the
concrete’ (Chion 2009: 37). This ‘return to the concrete’
*This article is an extended and reworked version of a paper pre-
sented at the EMS Conference 2009, in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Some of the considerations presented here are also an extension of
the research I carried out during my PhD in Musical Composition
at The University of Birmingham (UK), supervised by Jonty
Harrison and sponsored by the Brazilian Government through
Capes Foundation.
Organised Sound 15(1): 35–42 & Cambridge University Press, 2010.
is based on reduced listening, defined as a listening
attitude directed towards the appreciation of the inner
features of the sounds to the detriment of the identifi-
cation of a sound source or a meaning or any other
kind of extra-musical references the sounds may con-
vey. This listening attitude has the sound object as its
correlate – the object of a listening intention directed
towards intrinsic sonic aspects. The focus on the
intrinsic aspects of the sounds, carried out through
reduced listening, can be jeopardised by sounds that
reveal their source in an unequivocal way or that make
identifiable references of extra-musical nature. If the
reference to a source or a meaning is very strong, a
sound will probably impose difficulties for reduced lis-
tening to be carried out. This was one of the reasons
why Schaeffer considered some sounds as inappropriate
for the composition of musique concre`te, which reveals
the prescriptive side of his approach (see Windsor 1995
for considerations on this respect).
In spite of this belief, the richness of associations that
‘anecdotal’ sounds (and not only ‘abstract’ ones) can
trigger on the listener’s mind has drawn the attention to
the expressive potential they can bring to electroacoustic
music, which can be traced back to the works by Luc
Ferrari, for example. Since then, works by various
composers have shown different degrees of attainment
of Schaeffer’s prescriptive approach, from following it
strictly to following it loosely or even completely dis-
regarding it. In the theoretical field, Trevor Wishart’s
influential book On Sonic Art, for example, was written
with the assumption that all sounds are potentially
appropriate for compositional exploration (Wishart
1996: 8), which shows the possibility of embracing a
wider range of sounds than the ones envisaged by
Schaeffer. Although the use of anecdotal sounds and
the exploration of listening attitudes other than reduced
listening are not new in electroacoustic music, it can be
argued that they have only recently become an impor-
tant trend in acousmatic thinking.
The possibility of combining reduced listening and
listening attitudes focused on the extrinsic aspects of
the sounds has emerged in compositional practice, as
can be attested, for example, by Jonty Harrison’s
comments regarding his own work, as follows:
My acousmatic journey seems to take me down a wide
road. One side of the street has a sign saying ‘rue Schaeffer’
doi:10.1017/S1355771809990240
36 Daniel L. Barreiro
– here the preoccupation is with abstracting musical
data from sound objects (‘objets sonores’), without
reference to their provenance in any anecdotal way y.
The name on the other side of the road is hard to read,
but I am sure that ‘Schafer Street’ – where natural sound
is used precisely ‘because’ of its provenance, and where
signification does not reside in the ‘purely’ musical
(whatever that is) – cannot be more than a block away.
I wander along this broad avenue in a reverie of dis-
covery, often without a definite goal in mind, frequently
stopping without warning to examine (at length!) some
wonderful sound which presents itself along the way.
(Harrison 2000 – also quoted by Young 2007).
Nowadays, therefore, many composers tend to
assume that all sounds can be considered appropriate
for compositional exploration. Since the 1990s we
have also witnessed an increasing interest on listening
attitudes not restricted to reduced listening in the
theoretical field (see Smalley 1996; Mandelbrojt 1996;
Garcia 1998a; Adkins 1999; Atkinson 2007; Young
2007; and Kim 2008, for example). Even though
approaching the subject from different perspectives,
authors tend to converge to an understanding that
listeners (including composers themselves) do not
always adopt a listening attitude focused on sound
‘for its own sake, as a sound object, by removing its
real or supposed source and the meaning it may
convey’ (following the definition of reduced listening,
as presented by Chion 2009: 30).1 This is confirmed
by Atkinson (2007: 120), who mentions that post-
Schaefferian music theory has shifted from the
emphasis on the interactive listening attitude (focused
on spectromorphology) to an acknowledgement of
the indicative listening attitude (related to the
extrinsic aspects of the sounds).2
In this context, Young highlights the awareness on
the role of imagery in recent electroacoustic music
and states that ‘the capacity for electroacoustic music
to project and manipulate sonic images is now
acknowledged as a cornerstone of the medium’s
aesthetic potential’ (2007: 25). Sonic images are
understood as mental representations motivated by
sonic stimuli that reach the listener. These images can
1 is related to Schaeffer’s listening modes three (entendre)
Based on Garcia (1998a, 1998b), it is possible to notice that the
concept of i-sound, proposed by Bayle (see Bayle 1989), can be
understood as a reformulation of the concept of sound object that
widens up its scope to embrace ‘sonic forms, occurrences, accidents
and images that they motivate’ (Garcia 1998b: 273). This concept,
paired with that of acousmatic listening, is a consequence of Bayle’s
adoption of Peircean Semiotics, Morphogenesis and the Cognitive
Sciences as the theoretical tools to replace phenomenology,
acoustics and semiology used by Schaeffer to support his theory.
The concept of i-sound points out to an understanding of the
possible links between sonic experience and experiences related
to the other senses in the appreciation of acousmatic music.
The approach taken in this article, however, is based on con-
siderations presented by other authors.
2
Considerations on the interactive and indicative listening
relationships – as approached by Smalley (1996) – will be presented
later in this article.
be subjected to shifts and changes in accordance to
the sonic manipulations and relationships established
between the sounds in a composition. They are not
restricted to intrinsic (spectromorphological) char-
acteristics of the sounds, however, which opens up
the consideration of the extrinsic aspects related to
sonic experience.3 Sonic image emerges, therefore, as
a concept that can integrate different listening
approaches and provide an understanding of both the
intrinsic and the extrinsic aspects of sonic experience.
2. LISTENING ATTITUDES, INTRINSIC AND
EXTRINSIC ASPECTS
Among the four listening modes articulated by
Schaeffer (1966), the first (e´couter) and the third
(entendre) ones relate to the extrinsic and intrinsic
aspects of the sounds, respectively. The first mode
(e´couter) is related to indexical listening, focused on the
identification of causal relationships between a sound
and possible sources. The third mode (entendre), on the
other hand, is related to the reduced listening approach
and concerns the spectromorphological characteristics
of the sounds. The second mode (ouı¨r) is a passive kind
of listening, deprived of intentionality, whereas the
fourth mode (comprendre) is directed towards the
comprehension of the musical discourse and relates,
therefore, to the relationships established between
musical materials in a work. This listening mode can be
also understood as dealing with the comprehension of
the musical discourse in relation to the musical context
(repertoire) (see Atkinson 2007: 120).
Smalley (1996) combines Schaeffer’s four listening
modes with considerations of autocentricity and allo-
centricity articulated by Schachtel (apud Smalley 1996)
and reorganises the listening modes into three kinds of
listening relationships, two of which concern intrinsic
and extrinsic aspects and are termed as interactive and
indicative relationships, respectively. The other listening
relationship, called reflexive relationship, derives from
the autocentric mode proposed by Schachtel and con-
cerns ‘basic emotional responses to the object of per-
ception’ (Smalley 1996: 82). The interactive relationship
and four (comprendre) and also to Schachtel’s allo-
centric mode. It ‘embraces structural hearing, aesthetic
attitudes towards music and sounds, and Schaeffer’s
concept of reduced listening’ (Smalley 1996: 82). The
indicative relationship, on the other hand, corresponds
to Schaeffer’s mode one (e´couter), although Smalley
highlights that it is not restricted to sound understood
as carrier of mere messages, events and information,
3
A similar definition of sonic image, although strongly focused on
acoustic aspects and termed as ‘auditory image’, is given by McAdams
as ‘a psychological representation of a sound entity exhibiting an
internal coherence in its acoustic behaviour’ (1984: iv).

but includes ‘a wider frame of references to experience
outside and beyond music’, establishing a ‘relationship
between musical experience and our experiences of
living’ (Smalley 1996: 83).
Following Atkinson (2007), it is possible to notice
that the interactive relationship is related to Jakob-
son’s concept of introversive semiosis, understood
as the references established between each sonic event
and the other events in a work. Therefore, it is
interesting that the interactive listening relationship
proposed by Smalley integrates Schaeffer’s modes
three and four, embracing not only the apprehension
of the inner features of the sounds (through reduced
listening), but also the musical relationships estab-
lished between different sonic events (structural
hearing). Extroversive semiosis, on the other hand,
relates to the indicative relationship and concerns the
links with aspects of the world that lay outside the
work and the sounds themselves.
Smalley emphasises that the relationship between
intrinsic and extrinsic aspects does not need to be
restricted to ‘sounding experience’, but can also
embrace other kinds of perception related either to
‘human physical movement y or environmental
experiences’ (1997: 110), or even human experience in
a broader sense, which resonates with considerations
regarding the nine indicative fields or networks pre-
sented in Smalley (1996). The indicative fields or
networks are gesture, utterance, behaviour, energy,
motion, object/substance, environment, vision and
space. The reference to experiences rooted in the non-
sounding world can be noticed in several of these
fields. Gesture – which will be discussed later in the
context of the considerations presented by Godøy
(2004, 2006) – is related, for example, to the ‘con-
sequences of the energy-motion trajectory’ (Smalley
1996: 84), to human relationship (interpreted in terms
of force and gentleness) and also to perception of
effort and resistance in broadly terms, which ‘does
not stop with the physical act since tension and
resistance also concern emotional and psychological
experiences’ (1996: 84). Sounds of the voice or pro-
duced by the vocal tract (related to the utterance
field) can indicate human presence. The behaviour
field concerns the relationships established between
the sounds in a work in connection to general refer-
ences of human behaviour, manifested as dominance/
subordination, conflict/coexistence and cause/effect,
for example. Energy and motion can be associated
with the creation and release of tension and present
connections with the gesture field. These fields can be
manifested in many different ways, such as spectral
motions ‘detected both in external contour and
internal, textural behaviour’ (1996: 88), among other
possibilities. In the object/substance field ‘the popular
sense of ‘‘thingness’’ is intended’ (1996: 89), which
can be related, for example, to the notion of tactility
Sonic Image and Acousmatic Listening 37
presented by some sounds – mentioned by Young
(2007) in relation to the notion of sonic image. The
appreciation of the sonic qualities presented by differ-
ent environments and the identification or the imagi-
nation of an environment concerns the environment
field, which presents obvious links with the space field.
The vision field has connections with many of the other
indicative fields, such as gesture, object/substance and
space. It concerns analogies between the sonic and
the visual domains and presents obvious links with the
notion of sonic image. The space field is related to
three main areas, namely: ‘the use of space to articulate
sounds and musical structure’ (Smalley 1996: 90);
sound diffusion, understood as ‘the articulation of
the composed spatial content in public performance’
(1996: 90); and ‘the affective interpretation of space’
(1996: 90) – related to the perception of intimacy and
immensity, confinement and vastness, among other
references related to human experience. These indica-
tive fields or networks, therefore, support the under-
standing of sense modalities other than listening as
cooperative elements in the perceptual process, helping
‘to extract meaning from what we hear in our envir-
onment’ (Godøy 2004: 56). This notion supports the
understanding of human audition as a phenomenon
that benefits from experiences related to other areas of
human perception and experience, thus supporting the
view of human audition a cross-modal phenomenon.
The identification of listening attitudes directed
either to the intrinsic or to the extrinsic aspects of the
sounds can inform an understanding of how they
operate in relation to each other in acousmatic lis-
tening. Smalley approaches this issue by stressing the
importance of the intrinsic aspects as the ‘carrier’ of
extrinsic relations. He mentions that ‘the intrinsic
qualities and relations as created by the composer
determine the impact of extrinsic messages’, and ‘an
extrinsic foundation in culture is necessary so that the
intrinsic can have meaning’ (Smalley 1997: 110).
The appreciation of an acousmatic work as the
result of the interplay between different listening
attitudes is a core aspect of Kim’s theoretical work
(Kim 2008). He highlights that, while listening to
electroacoustic music, listeners carry out what he calls
acousmatic reasoning based on the continuous
interplay between a semiotic listening mode (centred
on sonic images motivated by the identification of a
signification or references the sounds may convey)
and a spectromorphological listening mode (centred
on the identification of the inner qualities of the
sounds and related, therefore, to reduced listening).
Semiotic listening, in this case, is related to the
depiction of sonic images highly determined by the
references of ‘Body’, ‘Place’, ‘Non-body’ and ‘Non-
place’ as the poles of a quaternary framework that
supports acousmatic reasoning. Kim mentions Klang,
by Jonty Harrison, as an example of work that plays
38 Daniel L. Barreiro
with ‘Body’ and ‘Non-body’ as references. ‘Body’, in
this case, emerges as a sonic image related to the
initial sounds that suggest the presence of a human
agent who plays with a metallic object. As the work
unfolds, however, processed sounds depart from this
initial frame of reference and do not support the sonic
image of a ‘performer’ playing with the metallic
object anymore, which guides imagination towards
the axis of ‘Non-body’.
According to Kim, sonic images are derived not
only from the elements that our perception collects
from the sounds, but also from the contribution of
our imagination in completing what is missing in the
representations we elaborate based on the sounds we
hear. Imagination also contributes in elaborating
relationships between sonic images and expected
ways they may unfold through time in a work.
Although Kim argues that his semiotic listening
mode concerns the signifying process related to issues
of source and context identification, and that it is not
related to processes of introversive and extroversive
semiosis, it is possible to notice a proximity between his
two listening modes and the indicative and interactive
listening relationships proposed by Smalley.
Based on the considerations presented by both
authors it is possible to identify the potential of sonic
image as a concept that provides an understanding
about acousmatic listening (even though the concept
of sonic image itself is hardly mentioned by Smalley).
It is plausible to assert that the concept of sonic
image can articulate the different listening approa-
ches in an integrated manner. The focus of attention
during the listening process can change continuously
from the intrinsic to extrinsic aspects, but the result of
such a process, anyway, is the emergence of sonic
images that can change, adapt and be related to each
other in different ways during the listening process,
providing connections between the sonic events and,
ultimately, articulating viable understandings about
the musical discourse.
3. SOUND AND SOURCE
Sonic images can be motivated by any kind of sound.
Some sonic features, however, tend to stimulate lis-
tening attitudes oriented towards the appreciation of
references that lay outside the sound itself, which
offers the extrinsic counterpart that contributes for
the emergence of sonic images. Among these features,
the identification of plausible or imagined sound
sources plays an important role. One usual way of
classifying sounds in relation to a source is to call
them either as ‘abstract’ (when a source is not easily
identifiable) or as ‘anecdotal’ (when the source is
evident). This classification, however, is too simplistic
to embrace the complexity of the sound world put
into place in an acousmatic composition. ‘Abstract’,
on one hand, and ‘anecdotal’, on the other hand, are
only the extremes of an opposition that can have
many intermediate levels.
The concept of ‘source bonding’, formulated by
Smalley (1997), approaches this issue in a more refined
fashion as it deals with ‘the natural tendency to relate
sounds to supposed sources and causes, and to relate
sounds to each other because they appear to have
shared or associated origins’ (1997: 110). Smalley
highlights that source bonding results from the inter-
action between intrinsic and extrinsic aspects associated
with the sounds and that the ‘imaginative and imagined
extrinsic connections’ are encouraged by ‘the wide-open
sonic world of electroacoustic music’ which relies,
amongst other things, on ‘the variety and ambiguity of
its materials’ (1997: 110). In this respect, it is important
to notice that associations may happen not only in
relation to sounds that clearly reveal their sources but
also in relation to sounds that do not present an
obvious reference to a source – which can potentially
stimulate the listener’s mind to find associations with
possible sources (either known or imagined) that may
correspond to the spectromorphological characteristics
identified. Sonic images, in this case, can be motivated
by this exercise of searching for a plausible or imagined
source.
One interesting approach concerning the sound–
source relationship in acousmatic music is presented by
Adkins (1999) under the notion of acoustic chains. As it
will be mentioned later, this approach can offer ele-
ments for understanding the notion of sonic image
and the listening activity in acousmatic music. Adkins’
conceptual apparatus is based on the distinction
between the sound of a concrete object – which is
termed a ‘sounding object’ – and its perception within
an acousmatic context – termed a ‘sound object’. In
other words, ‘the term ‘‘sounding object’’ refers to the
physical source of the acoustic stimuli, and the term
‘‘sound object’’ to a phenomenological unit given
‘‘meaning’’ within the context of an acousmatic work’
(Adkins 1999: 1).4 According to Adkins, the notion of
acoustic chains is an appropriation of Lacan’s meta-
phor of the signifying chain, which is defined as a
group of signifiers that are linked in some culturally
determined manner. Likewise, ‘individual sounding
objects within an acousmatic work have the potential
to stimulate references within another’ (1999: 2),
establishing an acoustic chain between different works.
Adkins highlights that acoustic chains can even happen
when the sounding object is not exactly the same, but
presents some similarities or, using Gibson’s terminol-
ogy (mentioned by Adkins), when a similar affordance
4
The page numbers provided for this reference follows the order of
the pages in the article (number 1 for the first page, number 2 for
the second page, and so on), as the file available online does not
present page numbers.

is stimulated.5 He advances with this notion and for-
mulates an understanding of the emergence of sig-
nification during the listening process, especially when a
work is being auditioned for the first time. In such
cases, ‘as insufficient information is available to the
listener y [he or she] is forced to assign to the sounding
object affordances and signification from previous
know models, be they from other acousmatic works or
environmental or socio-cultural models’ (1999: 5). This
attribution of signification can be later reformulated by
the listener as the work progresses and reveals other
possibilities of signification.
Since the identification of a sounding object can
play an important role in the emergence of sonic
images, it can be argued that Adkins’ considerations
can be easily appropriated for approaching the notion
of sonic image. In this case, different sonic images
conveyed in the context of a single work or in different
works, or even in relation to environmental sonic
experiences, can present similarities that connect them
together in a chain, contributing to the assigning of
signification in the appreciation of a work. A certain
sonic image can, therefore, be linked by the listener to
other more familiar sonic images from his or her
repertoire of sonic experiences and guide him or her
through the audition of an acousmatic work. How-
ever, there are occasions when sonic images do not
necessarily derive from the identification of a sounding
object, but from other factors – for example, when a
sonic image derives from intrinsic aspects presented by
‘abstract’ sound not necessarily related to specific
sounding objects. Even in such cases, relationships
with familiar sonic images can be established in the
listener’s mind generating chains that link different
sounds and different works together.
4. GESTURE–SOUND RELATIONSHIPS
AND SIGNIFICATION
Besides the relationships established between a sound
and an identified or imagined source, there can be
associations between a sound and the physical gesture
(or gestures) that may have caused it. In this respect,
the concept of gestural surrogacy, also devised by
Smalley (1986, 1997), can shed some light on this
issue and highlight the role of gesture in suggesting
sonic images. Gestural surrogacy refers to the asso-
ciation between spectromorphological characteristics
of the sounds and physical gestures acting upon
sound sources that may have caused them. Smalley
(1997) presents four different levels of surrogacy that
reveal a process of increasing remoteness from the
identification of the source and gestural cause of the
5 enactment of the gestures we believe belong to musical
James Gibson’s notion of affordance was originally formulated to
interpret visual culture. For considerations on this notion adapted
to the acousmatic context, see Windsor (1995).
Sonic Image and Acousmatic Listening 39
sounds (first- and second-order surrogacy), passing
by the cases ‘where a gesture is inferred or imagined’
(third-order surrogacy) towards the level of remote
surrogacy that happens when ‘source and cause
become unknown and unknowable as any human
action behind the sound disappears’ (1997: 112).
In an acousmatic work, the presence of sounds that
suggest first- or second-order surrogacy alongside
sounds related to third-order or remote surrogacy can
potentially motivate different listening perspectives,
causing the attention to move continuously between
sounds that are strongly connected to gestures and
sounds in which this connection is blurred or
apparently absent. Sonic images strongly related to
gestures can be, therefore, interwoven with sonic
images related to other kinds of associations (when
the relation to a gesture is not apparent).
Considerations on sonic image as a perceptual
phenomenon are sometimes approached in connec-
tion to considerations on mental imagery, which is
defined by Finke (apud Janata 2001), as ‘the mental
invention or recreation of an experience that in at
least some respects resembles the experience of actu-
ally perceiving an object or an event, either in con-
junction with, or in the absence of, direct sensory
stimulation’ (Janata 2001: 28).
Godøy (2004) highlights the links between musical
imagery and gesture (motor) imagery, and also
between sound and gesture in music perception and
cognition. The links between musical imagery and
gesture can be noticed when one mimics sound-
producing movements as a way to trigger images of
musical sound while trying to recall a piece of music,
for example. Godøy mentions that the use of non-
invasive methods in neurophysiological researches has
shown that there is a ‘close resemblance between the
neuronal apparatus involved in actual actions and/or
perceptions and in the imagined actions and/or per-
ceptions’ (2004: 56). This research also shows that
‘certain motor areas of the brain seem to be activated
when imagining sound, hence that action imagery is
activated concurrently with tasks of musical imagery’
(2004: 56). Such evidence demonstrates that our
experiences in the world inform an embodied knowl-
edge about the relationships between the role of actions
(gestures), the resonant features of sounding bodies
and the acoustics of different environments in the
perception of sounding events. Motor imagery can,
therefore, be understood as a component of musical
imagery, based on the fact that ‘there is a mental
simulation of sound-producing gestures going on when
we perceive and/or imagine music’ (Godøy 2006: 155).
This points out to ‘understanding perception, cogni-
tion and imagery in music as an active, embodied re-
sound’ (Godøy 2004: 61). Perception, therefore, ‘is not
a matter of abstract processing of sensory data, but
40 Daniel L. Barreiro
rather a process of re-enactment of whatever we per-
ceive’ (Godøy 2006: 155).
Based on this information, it seems relevant to
understand that approaching sonic images as mental
representations does not necessarily correspond to
considering them as something related to the abstract
processing of sonic stimuli, but that these mental
representations are the result of a perceptual process
that connects the sounds with embodied experiences –
in this case gestural (motor) experiences.
Godøy also shows that ‘there is a gesture compo-
nent embedded in Schaeffer’s conceptual apparatus’
(2006: 154), since several of the typomorphological
categories from the Schaefferian solfe`ge demonstrate
links with, and can be described by, sound-producing
gestures on a general and basic level. The implicit
gestural components related to the typomorphologi-
cal categories are general and have a certain degree
of abstraction ‘in the sense that they may be applied
to many rather different sounds’ (2006: 154) and
that they can be ‘transferable from one setting to
another, both with regard to effectors (i.e. hand, fist,
finger) and instrument (drum, string, metal sheet,
computer)’ (2006: 155), which is termed as motor
equivalence.
These considerations could raise questions regarding
the kinds of sound–gesture connections that may take
place in the case of heavily processed sounds that do
not seem to be linked to known gestures as their causes.
Such sounds – that could be understood as examples of
third-order surrogacy, using Smalley’s terminology –
may well be just appreciated in terms of spectro-
morphology (focused, therefore, on their intrinsic
aspects). On the other hand, they could also be related
to imagined causes by the listener, in which case it
would be interesting to understand the main associative
reason that supports such a relationship. Also, it would
be interesting to know if the attribution of an imagined
cause is supported by the kind of embodied cognition
mentioned by Godøy. In other words, since sound–
gesture connections are not so obvious in such cases, it
seems plausible to wonder about the human experi-
ences that may support the associative process between
the sound and an imagined source. One possible
hypothesis is that more general aspects of movement –
not necessarily related to sound-generating gestures,
but somehow connected to them – are the basis for
these associations. The answer is hinted at by Godøy
when he mentions that ‘motor imagery draws on
knowledge of various biomechanical and motor con-
trol constraints, meaning that we also have included
kinematic and dynamic images, hence also images of
effort, of chunking, of coarticulation, etc., in short,
images of real-world movement elements, in our
images of musical sound’ (2006: 155).
The gesture–music links explored in motor theory
support the view, according to Godøy, that our
images of musical sound tend to be structured as
gesture units, which enables us ‘to understand music
as organized not only by traditional principles for
pitch, harmony, consonance-dissonance, motives,
melodies, thematic development, etc. but equally
well by principles for motor cognition, i.e. action-
units or action-gestalts, motor programmes, motor-
hierarchies, coarticulation, etc.’ (2004: 58). The
approach taken by Godøy is, therefore, not restricted
to pointing out that the relationships between gesture
and sound are based on an embodied knowledge of
sound-producing gestures and that, based on the
concept of motor equivalence, these relationships are
general and abstract enough to include ‘kinematic and
dynamic images y in our images of musical sound’
(Godøy 2006: 155). In addition to an understanding
about the basis on which gestural sonic images are
conveyed, his considerations support the notion that
these sonic images are the perceptual meaning and
content of music. In Godøy’s own words, ‘meaning or
content of music is actually a matter of gestural
images: images of effort, velocity, contours, trajec-
tories, gait, etc., could all be understood as gestural
phenomena, as gestural images transmitted by sound
and ‘‘decoded’’ in listening back to a gestural language’
(Godøy 2004: 57).
The relationship between sonic image and meaning
in music can be also understood from the perspective
of indexical and iconic processes that take place in
acousmatic listening, as presented by Windsor (1995)
based on Peirce’s semiotics. Among the three types of
sign – icons, indices and symbols – Windsor high-
lights that ‘indexical and iconic forms of semiosis
may be equally important in defining extrinsic refer-
ence in music’ (1995: 52). An index signifies through a
causal relationship with an object. Sounds may con-
vey images of effort interpreted as musical meanings
due to a causal relationship between gesture and
sound. In this case, an indexical form of semiosis
takes place. If a sound’s causation is otherwise more
ambiguous – for example, in cases of remote surro-
gacy – ‘the listener is forced into a metaphorical
relationship’ (Windsor 1995: 53), which is not based
on the identification of the sound’s causation, but on
other aspects such as the resemblance of the sound to
a trajectory or the ‘resemblance to prosody in speech
or emotive bodily gestures’ (1995: 52). In such cases,
an iconic form of semiosis takes place.
Sonic images, therefore, can emerged in an acous-
matic listening situation as the result of either
indexical or iconic processes. The prevalence of one
process over the other is determined in each case by
the intrinsic aspects presented by the sounds in rela-
tion to their extrinsic references. The result of such a
process is the emergence of sonic images that can
change and establish links with other sonic images
during the listening situation.
 Sonic Image and Acousmatic Listening 41

5. SOME EXAMPLES sounds. Incoming sonic events may determine the

emergence of new sonic images or impose alterations
Regarding sonic–gestural relationships, Young
in sonic images previously conveyed. In either case, as
(2007) mentions that the sensation of tactility – pre-
the context changes, the listener may face new and
sented by sounds that seem to be manipulated or
changing sonic images as he or she reformulates the
played with – is an important reference for estab-
way he or she has interpreted the relationships and
lishing perceptual relationships between sonic images
connections established between different sounds.
articulated in an acousmatic work. Since the extrinsic
The listener may also feel inclined to reformulate his
aspects of the sounds can vary from person to person,
or her interpretation of the role that certain sonic
such general frames of reference tend to assume
images play in the general context of the work – in a
important roles, guiding the listener while he or she
process that demonstrates similarities with the infer-
listens to an acousmatic work (especially when lis-
ences that support the interplay of the listening
tening to a work for the first time). Young also
modes in Kim’s acousmatic reasoning (see Kim
highlights that sonic transformations – devised by
2008).
means of sound-processing techniques – usually cause
Due to the influence of several aspects such as
alterations in the sonic image the sounds convey,
source identification, sound–gestural links, the famil-
since the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic
iarity presented by some sounds, and the listeners’
aspects is altered in such cases.
listening habits and musical background, amongst
Sonic images conveyed by sounds that present a
others, some sonic images may suggest connections
tactile character can be experienced in the installation
with other sonic images conveyed in the same work,
Studies on Canvas (2004), by Pete Batchelor. The
sonic images conveyed by other musical works and
listener/spectator faces a blank canvas behind which
also sonic images related to everyday sonic experi-
there are 30 loudspeakers. The installation presents a
ences. Therefore, a relational process that resembles
series of electroacoustic pieces based on sounds of
the one described by Adkins (1999) regarding the
familiar materials and objects such as stones, wood
acoustic chains takes place.
and water set in motion along the canvas surface.
Sonic images derive from the interplay of many
Since the canvas does not present any visual images,
aspects related not only to the characteristics of the
and since the sounds have a very tactile aspect, the
sounds, possible references to plausible or imagined
images that the spectator experiences are actually the
sources, gestures that may have caused the sounds,
sonic images that emerge in his or her mind based on
the way different sound materials are integrated in
the suggestions presented by the sounds. The listener
the musical discourse, the listeners’ experiences and
is thus ‘invited to ‘‘look’’ into a churning mud-pool in
perceptual habits, amongst other issues. Based on the
bubbles or at a timber frenzy in wood, ‘‘watch’’
theoretical framework that was presented in this
marbles rolling around a bagatelle board and ‘‘gaze’’
article it is possible to notice that the interplay
upon an (apparently) idyllic woodland ‘‘scene’’ in
between intrinsic and extrinsic sonic characteristics
during foot and mouth in Devon’.6
can be conceptually embraced by the notion of sonic
Another potentially rich example of tactile sonic
image. One consequence of this consideration,
images is the eight-channel acousmatic work Free
therefore, is to envisage the integration of the dif-
Fall (2006), by Jonty Harrison. In this composition
ferent listening attitudes around one single concept.
the sensation of ‘free fall’ – experienced when jump-
The different listening attitudes can, therefore, be
ing from an aeroplane – is articulated by sonic images
directed towards ‘sonic image’ as a concept that
related to sounds of the wind and the experience of
unifies the intrinsic and the extrinsic aspects of sound
movement and speed. They are conveyed by very
in the acousmatic listening situation.
tactile sounds of materials such as cloth set in motion
As this paper has tried to highlight, listening to
by the wind and ‘objects’ that sweep through the
electroacoustic music is a multifaceted task which
listening space very fast.
relies on the intrinsic features of the sounds, their
potential extrinsic messages and the interplay of
such aspects in the emergence of sonic images. The
6. SUMMARY
understanding of such processes and their nuances is
In the process of listening to an acousmatic work, relevant for understanding the listening experience in
sonic images are constantly generated in the listeners’ acousmatic music – and it can also inform composi-
mind based both on the characteristics presented by tional practice, not in the form of prescriptive state-
the sounds and on the listener’s imagination which ments, but as an aid to foster new ideas on ways
‘completes’ the musical scene presented by the of integrating and structuring sonic material in
acousmatic music with the aim to providing different
6
See http://www.peterbatchelor.com/canvas.html and http:// perspectives to be appreciated by the listeners in
www.peterbatchelor.com/canvasinfo.html (accessed in June 2009). terms of sonic images.
42 Daniel L. Barreiro

REFERENCES and H. Jørgensen (eds.) Musical Imagery. Lisse (Holland):

Swets and Zeitlinger.
Adkins, M. 1999. Acoustic Chains in Acousmatic Music. In
Kim, S. J. 2008. Listeners and Imagination: A Quaternary
Imaginary Space: Proceedings of the 1999 Australasian
Framework for Electroacoustic Music Listening and
Computer Music Conference. Wellington, New Zealand:
Acousmatic Reasoning. PhD thesis, University of Florida.
University of Wellington. http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/4273
Mandelbrojt, J. (ed.) 1996. Les unites se´miotiques tempor-
(accessed in June 2009).
elles. Marseille: Laboratoire Musique et Informatique de
Atkinson, S. 2007. Interpretation and Musical Signification
Marseille.
in Acousmatic Listening. Organised Sound 12(2):
McAdams, S. 1984. Spectral Fusion, Spectral Parsing and
113–22.
the Formation of Auditory Images. PhD Thesis, Stanford
Bayle, F. 1989. Image-of-sound, or i-sound: Metaphor/
University, CA.
metaform. Contemporary Music Review 4: 165–70.
Schaeffer, P. 1966. Traite´ des objets musicaux. Paris:
Chion, M. 2009. Guide to Sound Objects. Pierre Schaeffer
Éditions du Seuil.
and Musical Research, trans. John Dack and Christine
Smalley, D. 1986. Spectro-morphology and Structuring
North. http://www.ears.dmu.ac.uk/spip.php?page5
Processes. In S. Emmerson (ed.) The Language of Elec-
articleEars&id_article53597 (accessed in June 2009).
troacoustic Music. London: Macmillan.
Garcia, D. H. L. 1998a. Modelos perceptivos na música
Smalley, D. 1996. The Listening Imagination: Listening in
eletroacústica. PhD Thesis, Pontifı́cia Universidade
the Electro-acoustic Era. Contemporary Music Review
Católica de São Paulo.
13(2): 77–107.
Garcia, D. H. L. 1998b. O conceito de imagem-de-som
Smalley, D. 1997. Spectromorphology: Explaining Sound-
de François Bayle. Anais do Encontro Nacional da
Shapes. Organised Sound 2(2): 107–26.
ANPPOM 1998. Campinas, Brazil: Unicamp, 273–7.
Windsor, W. L. 1995. A Perceptual Approach to the
Godøy, R. I. 2004. Gestural Imagery in the Service of
Description an Analysis of Acousmatic Music. PhD
Musical Imagery. In A. Camurri and G. Volpe (eds.)
thesis, City University.
Gesture-Based Communication in Human-Computer
Wishart, T. 1996. On Sonic Art (second edition, revised by
Interaction: 5th International Gesture Workshop. Genova,
Simon Emmerson). London: Routledge.
Italy, 2003, Selected Revised Papers. Berlin: Springer
Young, J. 2007. Reflections on Sound Image Design in
Verlag, 55–62.
Electroacoustic Music. Organised Sound 12(1): 25–33.
Godøy, R. I. 2006. Gestural-Sonorous Objects: Embodied
Extensions of Schaeffer’s Conceptual Apparatus.
Organised Sound 11(2): 149–57.
DISCOGRAPHY
Harrison, J. 2000. About Évidence matérielle. http://www.
electrocd.com/en/cat/imed_0052/notices/#imed_0052–0001 Batchelor, P. 2004. Studies on Canvas. Unpublished digital
(accessed in March 2009). media.
Janata, P. 2001. Neurophysiological Mechanisms Under- Harrison, J. 2007. Free Fall (2006). On Environs. Montreal:
lying Auditory Image Formation in Music. In R. I. Godøy Empreintes Digitales, IMED–0788-CD.