Opening Up: A Beginning In Western Audio Culture
Lindsey Bond
What is sound? What is music? What is noise? In this paper I wish to focus my exploration on defining and contextualizing sound, music and noise in contemporary western audio culture. I have felt increasingly dissatisfied with the common use of these words when describing audio work, and wish to challenge and dissect my habitual use of these terms by researching them. I will draw on the work of Henry Cowell, Jacques Attali, Luigi Russolo, Mary Russo, Daniel Warner, and Aden Evens. As I explore these theorists’ writings, I hope to clear up my misunderstandings and ultimately create my own definitions of these words. To deconstruct the common use of each word I will investigate the entire aural experience: the physical hearing sensation, identification, perception, and habitual listening. Do common cultural definitions of sound, music, and noise blanket the conscious listening experience, thus creating assumed aural discourse? In seeking out the various definitions of, and contexts for sound, music and noise the blanket will be thrown back to expose intentional awareness that is integral to appreciating the aural experiences.
In “The Joy of Noise” (2004) Henry Cowell says that harmony, melody and rhythm are the primary elements of music. He goes on to say that if noise were included in this category (it rarely is) it would be a subsection under rhythm. Cowell writes that certain sounds mark and identify the rhythm in (behind) music. These sounds behind the music may be understood as certain periodic sound patterns. (Cowell). When considering the elements that make up music one must deconstruct the role and the affect of rhythm. Rhythmic sounds (beats, patterns in sound) can stimulate the listener, and reveal to him/her a presence or a force behind the music. This ‘force’ could be defined as organized impulses from sound, which physically stimulates an individual’s sense of hearing, and evokes an emotional affect. Sound, according to Cowell is “all that can be heard” and rhythm is the “formulating impulse behind the sound” (23). Is the rhythm in music a constructed concept from a “loud” physical sensation? Is this “force” or “beat” a conceptual construction that falsely informs the meaning behind what music is? When one begins to hear sound vibrations, how does one internalize (perceive), attach meaning, and then communicate this physical sensation? Am “I” hearing music, or am I hearing a rhythmic beat? Is that beat in the music, a sound? Is that sound a noise? What is music – is it noise?
Cowell explains that noise and music have a customary “hard and fast” opposition. He writes that music, in order to be properly scrutinized, must be separated and considered as two sections of thought. The first category is music into sound and rhythm, and the second is tone (a division from rhythm) into melody, harmony and noise. These distinct subsections then form: musical-tone and musical-noise. For Cowell, noise is linked to tone through contrasting structures of non-periodic vibrations (noise), and periodic vibrations (sound). Musical-tone and musical-noise exist inter-dependent with one another: “as musical sound grows louder the noise in it is accentuated and the tone element reduced” […] “Thus a loud sound is literally nosier that a soft one; yet music does not touch our emotional depths if it does not rise to a dynamic climax” (23). Cowell’s point suggests that the amplitude and timbre of the sound and music, affects the audiences perception of the music-noise dynamic, because all sounds that are loud and rambunctious are labeled as noise. Yet Cowell goes on to say that a sound will not evoke an emotional response unless its amplitude is heightened. This statement renegotiates noise’s position of ‘other’ into musical tone -an ‘acceptable’ dynamic- because of the strange cultural definition of noise: as: all sounds that are loud, rather than Cowell’s definition of sound as: “all that can be heard”(23). Therefore the musical tone in sound is connected to the non-periodic vibrations that are noise’s foundation, thus a relationship is formed: noise is the sound that organizes rhythm to form music. When placed in a contemporary context, noise informs music because of the emotional climax that ones needs to experience while listening to music. (“yet music does not touch our emotional depths if it does not rise to a dynamic climax” (23). When this relationship is looked at holistically the music-noise axiom breaks down. The opposition between noise and music parallels the relationship between the ‘force’ behind music (or the rhythm of noise), and the sound or perception of music itself. Music can instead be defined, not as a “force” in itself, but the amplitude, quality, and duration of sound and noise, which ultimately forms an affective aural experience. This experience is a departure point where one can begin to consciously explore the perception of everyday noise sound and music.
In “The Art Of Noises: Futurist Manifesto” Luigi Russolo writes also about the different qualities between noise, music and sound. Russolo argues that noise reveals the immediate familiarity of life. Noise is found in every corner of life, and due to this fact, noise has the power at once to recall life itself. However, for Russolo, sound is always musical (a combination of melody, harmony and rhythm), therefore sound becomes alienated from noise’s relationship with life: “Sound, estranged from life, always musical, something in itself, has become for our ear what for the eye is a too familiar sight” (13). An opposition again plagues music and noise. Russolo’s solution is to challenge the timbre of sound by creating compositions with noise. To properly confront the negative cultural context that is attached to noise, (noise has a non-periodic structure, and thus a “problematic” sound), Russolo warns that one must not reproduce the everyday noise, but explore the different timbre of noise, and organize them to achieve a fresh aural experience. The static melody of music is re-born through diverse combinations of ever-changing timbre. The “art of noises” is an acoustical revelation that does not limit itself to imitative reproduction but enjoys an “ unsuspected pleasure of the senses” (13). This unsuspected pleasure is inherent in the different timbres of instruments that are beyond the four or five classes of instruments in a regular orchestra. Russolo writes how sound carries with it an inherent “tangle of sensations” that leads to listener boredom. Sound confuses sensation because when one listens to music one does not truly listen, but merely hears the cultural classification of music (a complete result), thus individual perception is made invisible because of music’s innate monotonous cultural definition. Only through encountering and arranging the irregular confusion of noise can one refresh the unsuspected qualities of noise, and destroy the well-exhausted structure of music. (Russolo) The different timbres in noise challenges the ghastly mundane qualities of sound that “does not satisfy our ear”, thus noise compositions call for “ ever greater acoustical emotions” (11). Russolo uses sound as an adjective describing music as a finished product. Noise, the wild card, mixes up and clears out the stuffy tradition of western music. According to Russolo, if one collaborates different noises together to form a new sound in music, these different qualities of noise push music forward to build a revolutionary western sound. By challenging the cultural meaning of music, Russolo creates his own definitions for music, noise and sound. His attention to the new sound of noise articulates a gesture, which crushes normative assumptions about western sound and reveals conscious listening.
In “Noise and Politics” Jacques Attali writes that with music is born power and subversion, and with noise is born disorder and its opposite, the world. Noise is in opposition to the world because its problematic binary. Russolo states that noise is inherent in life, where as Attali states that “listening to music is listening to all noise”(7), thus confirming the negative dialectic between music and noise. Attali states that noise can signify codes of life: sound is what noise becomes after shaping noise into music. Music can be defined as an organization of sounds into terms or a code, which reflects the relations between man and his community. Attali states that territory is controlled not by the disorganized vibrations of noise alone, but through the decision to ban subversive noise. Why is noise banned because of its elemental state? The autonomy of the community or state cannot withstand the disorganized vibrations of noise? Noise is all around us, as Russolo states, yet if one uses the noise of everyday life to compose a new genre of musical-sound a renewed perception of auditory stimulus and ultimately conscious listening would result. This new direction in listening could lead to different or conflicting ideas; the exact reason why Attali states that noise in being all music and sound, is consequently revolutionary, and thus must be banned. With the introduction of any new sound or music, the state power weakens, as it does not accept the infiltration of the new sounds. The process of noise becoming normalized into sound or music completes the circle of definitions for what is accepted listening material. Noise “ is the source of purpose and power, of the dream – Music.” (7).
In contemporary western culture, popular music seems to constrict the definition of music to a singular state of meaning. Do the amount of people listening to a specific genre of music dictate what subversive noise is? Attali writes “ to listen, to memorize - this is the ability to interpret and control history, to manipulate the culture of people, to channel its violence and hopes”(8). The common understanding of music, as organized instrument sounds with harmony, melody, rhythm and usually vocals, restrains and controls the common understanding of music. If many people listen to one kind of music, and only a few people listen to what is categorized as “loud” noise (the other to music), does this affect how sound is really heard? The standard for evaluating sound has changed the way listeners define what music, sound and noise. If one considers Cowell’s definition of how sound is “all that can be heard” (23), and compares it with the controlled listening (conformed cultural meanings), sounds “force” seems to shrink down to one code of meaning, music: “a disguise for the monologue of power” (8) Music can then be defined as a mask that conceals the status quo and inhibits or pushes the individual to explore different sounds and noises to influence an innovative aural experience.
To break down the cultural codes of music, as a tool for organized listening, one must re-think the recognition and perception of sound and noise. In “Rough Music, Futurism, and Postpunk Industrial Noise Bands” by Mary Russo and Daniel Warner, aural identification, the primary process for recognizing sound, noise, and music, is concentrated into two elements: signal and noise. Wagner and Russo state that both: information theory and western musical discourse center on the signal and noise relationship. Western musical discourse is founded on the structural differences between signal and noise: where “the periodic vibrations of strings” is signal, and “the non-periodic vibrations of ambient or concrete sound” is noise (49). Russo and Wagner write, when noise is used as a component of music, it acts as “a primary perceptual clue for aural identification” (48). The attack period of a musical tone is where signal separates from noise: as one begins to perceive noise, one also begins to hear the signal of musical instruments. The dialectic of noise as an “unwanted” entity in cultural music is renegotiated and noise becomes a departure point initiating the aural experience. As Russo and Warner conclude, noise and signal interact as inter-dependent parts. This relationship reconfirms that beyond the various different theories ultimately noise is inherent in all sound and music.
Finally, Aden Evans, in “Sound and Noise” from Sound Ideas: Music Meanings and Experience investigates noise in terms of absolute and relative noise, thus re-works the whole creative process of aural perception. Absolute-noise is the heard noise of a babbling confused signal, like static in the radio or the air sound behind a recording. Relative-noise is the “unheard”, it is the diffused medium upon which a signal rides (Evens). Relative noise is the “implicated” of sound, that, which can mark where one begins to identify and understand sound, in turn creating a clear perception, or as Evens writes: a conscious sense of sound. As one comes to recognize and define sound, noise becomes detached from its negative binary and begins to modify the aural experience. Evens’ describes noise as a reservoir of sense: noise is senseless, and insensible, noise directs signal. Noise is obscure and is un-contracted by nature, yet through its senseless character, noise inherently modifies or contracts perception: sound is given sense. In the process where hearing becomes listening, sound, music and noise contracts from obscurity to clarity. Evans describes the process of contraction as: “Before frequency is contracted as pitch and pitch as timbre, noise is contracted as the implicated of sound” (14.5). These various degrees of contraction, separation and collaboration of sound, music, and noise makes each term contextualize themselves together. Using timbre, amplitude, harmony or melody as a signal, noise and “the implicated” (or the perception), work together to develop a intentional insight that shapes and deconstructs assumptions about the daily aural experience. The “implicated” or that which connects both signal and noise comes into focus lifting perception to a mindful level where the ‘problematic’ noise contracts and pushes sound and music forward from sensation into a conscious construction of the aural experience.
The journey from Cowell to Evens for me begins to clarify my misunderstandings of how each term, music, noise and sound, functions in western aural culture. The romantic illusion of music as a force in itself solely creating the emotion, or noise as a negative effect from a recording, have been deconstructed and replaced by more questions about the conscious levels of aural perception and a complete affective aural experience. Evens work distinctly clarifies the obscure relationships between sound, music and noise from my western audio culture, because of his exploration into the perception of audio work. My own definitions of these terms may be created from my internalized experience compare to a generic collective assumption. Now with a clear sense of sound, music and noise, I can begin to explore these terms as guideposts, instead of being confined to their common constructed definitions. As exploration is now open I can use these terms as departure points that connect my physical sensation with my own conscious perception ultimately leading to what Roland Barthes explains as a jouissance of the audio experience.
Works Cited
Attali, Jacques, “Noise and Politics”, Audio Culture: Readings In Modern Music, Eds. Christoph Cox and Daniel Warner, New York: Continuum. 2004. 7-9
Barthes, Roland, “The Grain of The Voice”, Image- Music- Text. Trans Stephen Heath. New York: The Noonday Press, 1977 179-189.
Cowell, Henry, “The Joys of Noise”, Audio Culture: Readings In Modern Music, Eds. Christoph Cox and Daniel Warner, New York: Continuum. 2004. 22-24
Evens, Aden, “Sound and Noise”, Sound Ideas: Music Meanings and Experience, Minneapolis: Mit Press. 2005. 14.5-21.3
Russolo, Luigi, “The Art Of Noises: Futurist Manifesto”, Audio Culture: Readings In Modern Music, Eds. Christoph Cox and Daniel Warner, New York: Continuum. 2004. 10-14
Russo, Mary, Warner, Daniel, “Rough Music, Futurism, and Postspunk Industrial Noise Bands”, Audio Culture: Readings In Modern Music, Eds. Christoph Cox and Daniel Warner, New York: Continum. 2004. 47-50
What is sound? What is music? What is noise? In this paper I wish to focus my exploration on defining and contextualizing sound, music and noise in contemporary western audio culture. I have felt increasingly dissatisfied with the common use of these words when describing audio work, and wish to challenge and dissect my habitual use of these terms by researching them. I will draw on the work of Henry Cowell, Jacques Attali, Luigi Russolo, Mary Russo, Daniel Warner, and Aden Evens. As I explore these theorists’ writings, I hope to clear up my misunderstandings and ultimately create my own definitions of these words. To deconstruct the common use of each word I will investigate the entire aural experience: the physical hearing sensation, identification, perception, and habitual listening. Do common cultural definitions of sound, music, and noise blanket the conscious listening experience, thus creating assumed aural discourse? In seeking out the various definitions of, and contexts for sound, music and noise the blanket will be thrown back to expose intentional awareness that is integral to appreciating the aural experiences.
In “The Joy of Noise” (2004) Henry Cowell says that harmony, melody and rhythm are the primary elements of music. He goes on to say that if noise were included in this category (it rarely is) it would be a subsection under rhythm. Cowell writes that certain sounds mark and identify the rhythm in (behind) music. These sounds behind the music may be understood as certain periodic sound patterns. (Cowell). When considering the elements that make up music one must deconstruct the role and the affect of rhythm. Rhythmic sounds (beats, patterns in sound) can stimulate the listener, and reveal to him/her a presence or a force behind the music. This ‘force’ could be defined as organized impulses from sound, which physically stimulates an individual’s sense of hearing, and evokes an emotional affect. Sound, according to Cowell is “all that can be heard” and rhythm is the “formulating impulse behind the sound” (23). Is the rhythm in music a constructed concept from a “loud” physical sensation? Is this “force” or “beat” a conceptual construction that falsely informs the meaning behind what music is? When one begins to hear sound vibrations, how does one internalize (perceive), attach meaning, and then communicate this physical sensation? Am “I” hearing music, or am I hearing a rhythmic beat? Is that beat in the music, a sound? Is that sound a noise? What is music – is it noise?
Cowell explains that noise and music have a customary “hard and fast” opposition. He writes that music, in order to be properly scrutinized, must be separated and considered as two sections of thought. The first category is music into sound and rhythm, and the second is tone (a division from rhythm) into melody, harmony and noise. These distinct subsections then form: musical-tone and musical-noise. For Cowell, noise is linked to tone through contrasting structures of non-periodic vibrations (noise), and periodic vibrations (sound). Musical-tone and musical-noise exist inter-dependent with one another: “as musical sound grows louder the noise in it is accentuated and the tone element reduced” […] “Thus a loud sound is literally nosier that a soft one; yet music does not touch our emotional depths if it does not rise to a dynamic climax” (23). Cowell’s point suggests that the amplitude and timbre of the sound and music, affects the audiences perception of the music-noise dynamic, because all sounds that are loud and rambunctious are labeled as noise. Yet Cowell goes on to say that a sound will not evoke an emotional response unless its amplitude is heightened. This statement renegotiates noise’s position of ‘other’ into musical tone -an ‘acceptable’ dynamic- because of the strange cultural definition of noise: as: all sounds that are loud, rather than Cowell’s definition of sound as: “all that can be heard”(23). Therefore the musical tone in sound is connected to the non-periodic vibrations that are noise’s foundation, thus a relationship is formed: noise is the sound that organizes rhythm to form music. When placed in a contemporary context, noise informs music because of the emotional climax that ones needs to experience while listening to music. (“yet music does not touch our emotional depths if it does not rise to a dynamic climax” (23). When this relationship is looked at holistically the music-noise axiom breaks down. The opposition between noise and music parallels the relationship between the ‘force’ behind music (or the rhythm of noise), and the sound or perception of music itself. Music can instead be defined, not as a “force” in itself, but the amplitude, quality, and duration of sound and noise, which ultimately forms an affective aural experience. This experience is a departure point where one can begin to consciously explore the perception of everyday noise sound and music.
In “The Art Of Noises: Futurist Manifesto” Luigi Russolo writes also about the different qualities between noise, music and sound. Russolo argues that noise reveals the immediate familiarity of life. Noise is found in every corner of life, and due to this fact, noise has the power at once to recall life itself. However, for Russolo, sound is always musical (a combination of melody, harmony and rhythm), therefore sound becomes alienated from noise’s relationship with life: “Sound, estranged from life, always musical, something in itself, has become for our ear what for the eye is a too familiar sight” (13). An opposition again plagues music and noise. Russolo’s solution is to challenge the timbre of sound by creating compositions with noise. To properly confront the negative cultural context that is attached to noise, (noise has a non-periodic structure, and thus a “problematic” sound), Russolo warns that one must not reproduce the everyday noise, but explore the different timbre of noise, and organize them to achieve a fresh aural experience. The static melody of music is re-born through diverse combinations of ever-changing timbre. The “art of noises” is an acoustical revelation that does not limit itself to imitative reproduction but enjoys an “ unsuspected pleasure of the senses” (13). This unsuspected pleasure is inherent in the different timbres of instruments that are beyond the four or five classes of instruments in a regular orchestra. Russolo writes how sound carries with it an inherent “tangle of sensations” that leads to listener boredom. Sound confuses sensation because when one listens to music one does not truly listen, but merely hears the cultural classification of music (a complete result), thus individual perception is made invisible because of music’s innate monotonous cultural definition. Only through encountering and arranging the irregular confusion of noise can one refresh the unsuspected qualities of noise, and destroy the well-exhausted structure of music. (Russolo) The different timbres in noise challenges the ghastly mundane qualities of sound that “does not satisfy our ear”, thus noise compositions call for “ ever greater acoustical emotions” (11). Russolo uses sound as an adjective describing music as a finished product. Noise, the wild card, mixes up and clears out the stuffy tradition of western music. According to Russolo, if one collaborates different noises together to form a new sound in music, these different qualities of noise push music forward to build a revolutionary western sound. By challenging the cultural meaning of music, Russolo creates his own definitions for music, noise and sound. His attention to the new sound of noise articulates a gesture, which crushes normative assumptions about western sound and reveals conscious listening.
In “Noise and Politics” Jacques Attali writes that with music is born power and subversion, and with noise is born disorder and its opposite, the world. Noise is in opposition to the world because its problematic binary. Russolo states that noise is inherent in life, where as Attali states that “listening to music is listening to all noise”(7), thus confirming the negative dialectic between music and noise. Attali states that noise can signify codes of life: sound is what noise becomes after shaping noise into music. Music can be defined as an organization of sounds into terms or a code, which reflects the relations between man and his community. Attali states that territory is controlled not by the disorganized vibrations of noise alone, but through the decision to ban subversive noise. Why is noise banned because of its elemental state? The autonomy of the community or state cannot withstand the disorganized vibrations of noise? Noise is all around us, as Russolo states, yet if one uses the noise of everyday life to compose a new genre of musical-sound a renewed perception of auditory stimulus and ultimately conscious listening would result. This new direction in listening could lead to different or conflicting ideas; the exact reason why Attali states that noise in being all music and sound, is consequently revolutionary, and thus must be banned. With the introduction of any new sound or music, the state power weakens, as it does not accept the infiltration of the new sounds. The process of noise becoming normalized into sound or music completes the circle of definitions for what is accepted listening material. Noise “ is the source of purpose and power, of the dream – Music.” (7).
In contemporary western culture, popular music seems to constrict the definition of music to a singular state of meaning. Do the amount of people listening to a specific genre of music dictate what subversive noise is? Attali writes “ to listen, to memorize - this is the ability to interpret and control history, to manipulate the culture of people, to channel its violence and hopes”(8). The common understanding of music, as organized instrument sounds with harmony, melody, rhythm and usually vocals, restrains and controls the common understanding of music. If many people listen to one kind of music, and only a few people listen to what is categorized as “loud” noise (the other to music), does this affect how sound is really heard? The standard for evaluating sound has changed the way listeners define what music, sound and noise. If one considers Cowell’s definition of how sound is “all that can be heard” (23), and compares it with the controlled listening (conformed cultural meanings), sounds “force” seems to shrink down to one code of meaning, music: “a disguise for the monologue of power” (8) Music can then be defined as a mask that conceals the status quo and inhibits or pushes the individual to explore different sounds and noises to influence an innovative aural experience.
To break down the cultural codes of music, as a tool for organized listening, one must re-think the recognition and perception of sound and noise. In “Rough Music, Futurism, and Postpunk Industrial Noise Bands” by Mary Russo and Daniel Warner, aural identification, the primary process for recognizing sound, noise, and music, is concentrated into two elements: signal and noise. Wagner and Russo state that both: information theory and western musical discourse center on the signal and noise relationship. Western musical discourse is founded on the structural differences between signal and noise: where “the periodic vibrations of strings” is signal, and “the non-periodic vibrations of ambient or concrete sound” is noise (49). Russo and Wagner write, when noise is used as a component of music, it acts as “a primary perceptual clue for aural identification” (48). The attack period of a musical tone is where signal separates from noise: as one begins to perceive noise, one also begins to hear the signal of musical instruments. The dialectic of noise as an “unwanted” entity in cultural music is renegotiated and noise becomes a departure point initiating the aural experience. As Russo and Warner conclude, noise and signal interact as inter-dependent parts. This relationship reconfirms that beyond the various different theories ultimately noise is inherent in all sound and music.
Finally, Aden Evans, in “Sound and Noise” from Sound Ideas: Music Meanings and Experience investigates noise in terms of absolute and relative noise, thus re-works the whole creative process of aural perception. Absolute-noise is the heard noise of a babbling confused signal, like static in the radio or the air sound behind a recording. Relative-noise is the “unheard”, it is the diffused medium upon which a signal rides (Evens). Relative noise is the “implicated” of sound, that, which can mark where one begins to identify and understand sound, in turn creating a clear perception, or as Evens writes: a conscious sense of sound. As one comes to recognize and define sound, noise becomes detached from its negative binary and begins to modify the aural experience. Evens’ describes noise as a reservoir of sense: noise is senseless, and insensible, noise directs signal. Noise is obscure and is un-contracted by nature, yet through its senseless character, noise inherently modifies or contracts perception: sound is given sense. In the process where hearing becomes listening, sound, music and noise contracts from obscurity to clarity. Evans describes the process of contraction as: “Before frequency is contracted as pitch and pitch as timbre, noise is contracted as the implicated of sound” (14.5). These various degrees of contraction, separation and collaboration of sound, music, and noise makes each term contextualize themselves together. Using timbre, amplitude, harmony or melody as a signal, noise and “the implicated” (or the perception), work together to develop a intentional insight that shapes and deconstructs assumptions about the daily aural experience. The “implicated” or that which connects both signal and noise comes into focus lifting perception to a mindful level where the ‘problematic’ noise contracts and pushes sound and music forward from sensation into a conscious construction of the aural experience.
The journey from Cowell to Evens for me begins to clarify my misunderstandings of how each term, music, noise and sound, functions in western aural culture. The romantic illusion of music as a force in itself solely creating the emotion, or noise as a negative effect from a recording, have been deconstructed and replaced by more questions about the conscious levels of aural perception and a complete affective aural experience. Evens work distinctly clarifies the obscure relationships between sound, music and noise from my western audio culture, because of his exploration into the perception of audio work. My own definitions of these terms may be created from my internalized experience compare to a generic collective assumption. Now with a clear sense of sound, music and noise, I can begin to explore these terms as guideposts, instead of being confined to their common constructed definitions. As exploration is now open I can use these terms as departure points that connect my physical sensation with my own conscious perception ultimately leading to what Roland Barthes explains as a jouissance of the audio experience.
Works Cited
Attali, Jacques, “Noise and Politics”, Audio Culture: Readings In Modern Music, Eds. Christoph Cox and Daniel Warner, New York: Continuum. 2004. 7-9
Barthes, Roland, “The Grain of The Voice”, Image- Music- Text. Trans Stephen Heath. New York: The Noonday Press, 1977 179-189.
Cowell, Henry, “The Joys of Noise”, Audio Culture: Readings In Modern Music, Eds. Christoph Cox and Daniel Warner, New York: Continuum. 2004. 22-24
Evens, Aden, “Sound and Noise”, Sound Ideas: Music Meanings and Experience, Minneapolis: Mit Press. 2005. 14.5-21.3
Russolo, Luigi, “The Art Of Noises: Futurist Manifesto”, Audio Culture: Readings In Modern Music, Eds. Christoph Cox and Daniel Warner, New York: Continuum. 2004. 10-14
Russo, Mary, Warner, Daniel, “Rough Music, Futurism, and Postspunk Industrial Noise Bands”, Audio Culture: Readings In Modern Music, Eds. Christoph Cox and Daniel Warner, New York: Continum. 2004. 47-50
posted by Studies in Audio Culture at 7:52 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home