My Cinema for the Ears

Similarities and differences between Dhomont and Lansky and Important points they
make in the documentary.

Discussions between Lanky and Dhomont can be categorized into three main topics:

1. Similari=es between Electroacous=c musicians with other ar=sts:

Lansky and Dhomont both assert that Electroacous=c composers resemble sculptors, implying
that they shape sounds to align with their musical thoughts. Dhomont echoes Lansky's
sen=ment by sta=ng, “concrete music is about listening to the sound first… any sound is already
a music, and we only need to discover it,” emphasizing the inherent musicality of all sounds. He
further expresses apprecia=on for noise, asser=ng, “there is a certain beauty in noise”.
Addi=onally, in another sequence, Dhomont resembles Electroacous=c composi=on to
filmmaking when he states: “same as a filmmaker works with images and shots, Electroacous=c
composers work with recorded sounds on a media. and then they intervene, as the filmmaker
intervenes with his film”. Dhomont concludes by emphasizing the commonali=es between
Electroacous=c composers, filmmakers, and sculptors.

2. Sounds of City as a source for composi=on:

Dhomont believes that all the ci=es sound alike, and it is difficult to find a sound that is unique.
While Lansky agrees with this perspec=ve, he adds depth by considering the listener's point of
view. Lansky illustrates how the percep=on of city sounds can vary based on the listener's
loca=on, such as from the top of a building compared to street level. He also finds the
randomness and diversity of sound sources (like streets) intriguing. Lansky emphasizes that such
complexi=es are difficult to imitate in acous=c music, highligh=ng the unique rhythmic paQerns
in urban environments.

3. Differences of acous=c and electroacous=c music.

Their primary disagreement is about ambiguity and sound transforma=on. According to them,
the key difference between electroacous=c music and acous=c music lies in the use of speakers.
However, while Lansky preferers transparency regarding the origin of a sound, Dhomont
believes that the music should be ambiguous, believing that there should be a difference
between acous=c and Electroacous=c music. Dhomont sees ambiguity like a “new
orchestra=on” in which the listener may firstly be puzzled by the source of the sounds. He
expresses his interests in sound transforma=on aUer recording, emphasizing its role in crea=ng
ambiguity.
The discission later shiUs to the clarity of the sound. Lansky states that the source of sound
should be evident to listener, as any sound is the result of a physical ac=vity. He believes this
approach aids in the listener's comprehension. Conversely, Dhomont argues that a composer's
gestures need not to be apparent to the audience. Domont’s statement in another sequence
might reveal his insistence in this aWtude: “I don’t want people to hear sound as a music, I want
them to hear the music in the sound”.
What means the director uses to create artistic sequences and contrasting the standard
documentary.

In my idea, selec=ng Vivaldi’s Four Season as the man theme for the documentary was a
highly intelligent choice, Considering the composer's focus on nature as the main inspira=on for
his music. By incorpora=ng this composi=on and its text sonnets, and showcasing relevant
sceneries, the director aims to visually portray both the composi=on itself and Vivaldi's source
of inspira=on. However, as the documentary progresses, the director gradually emphasizes
natural sounds, trying to highlight the type of sounds Vivaldi imitated. Later, in almost the
middle of the movie, viewers may realize that the original natural sounds can stand alone as an
independent composi=on, as Dhomont suggests: “any sound is already music, and we only need
to discover it.”! By the end of the documentary, the audience may come to believe that music
exists everywhere, even in ini=ally non-musical sounds such as airplane noise, which evokes the
sound of universe to C. Calon.

My comments and criticism

In my view, “My Cinema for the Ears” effectively explores various aspects of
electroacoustic music. Structurally, the director initially presents audiences with one of the most
famous and popular compositions in acoustic music genre (Four Season), and then guide them to
explore the similarities and differences between this genre and electroacoustic music.
Throughout the documentary, philosophical discussions on music and the aesthetics of
electroacoustic music are intertwined with conversations, natural and urban sounds, and carefully
crafted artistic sequences. In one humorous sequence, where Dhomont is disrupted by urban
sound pollution such as tractor and airplane while attempting to record the barking sound of a
“faithful dog”, the director is prompting viewers to consider how industrialization has become
intertwined with natural elements. While this portrayal may be somewhat exaggerated, it
effectively highlights the complexities and obstacles within the field. Another interesting point to
note is that although the inspirations for both electroacoustic and acoustic composers have
remained consistent over time, there have been considerable changes in musical tools via
technology.

In the final sequences, where Dhomont assists the violinist to imitate the sound of a dog,
he appears to contradict his earlier statement that "there is no need to show the source of a
sound." This raises the question of why he chooses to play the sound of a real dog for the
violinist if he believes in the notion he expressed earlier! Isn’t an instrumentalist the primary
audience of a composition? This raises the question of why he insists on withholding
explanations or markers for the listeners. Is there a necessity for numerous abstracts and sound
transformations in this genre? Furthermore, to create "music for the ears," shouldn't we
incorporate at least a minimal amount of auditory semiotics in a composition?