Black Noise, Green Sound and Conscious Ambience

In 2008 and 2009 I discussed the use of relative silence and 'conscious ambience' as potentially potent instruments of sonic branding. Silence is referred in some circles as BLACK NOISE. 'Conscious ambience' is another term I use for a related concept I also call GREEN SOUND.

Some background: In 2006 I was commissioned in a creative consultant capacity to provide some input into the creation of a new environmentally conscious media vehicle. Since my background is sound, after the project was finished, I ended up spending a lot of time considering how the global Green Revolution might affect the way I work –simply because those ideas were so prominent in my thoughts at the time.

One of the basic tenants of the Green Revolution is the urgent request to reduce our individual carbon footprint.

But meanwhile, my recording studio, your recording studio, everyone's studio is a plastic homage to coal, oil and toxins.

No wonder musicians are crazy.

Electronic music may sound like the future to your ears, but it's still an industrial health hazard to third world scavengers foraging garbage dumps for recyclable technology.

Not to mention, that sometimes the sounds we are commissioned to make are polluted or pollutants, themselves.

Too many people want it loud, meaningless and full of crap. If only audiences didn't respond to this kind of stimulation, but they do.

"Can we add something to make it more engaging", is often a coded request for 'more, more, more'.

Comparing aural to visual to messaging, It's interesting how additive actions play out differently between music and graphic. A two dimensional graphic (or 3-D on a flat screen) might catch your eye, but can it ever be said to be intrusive unless the accompanying volume is cranked to an unreasonable level?

No, simply avert your eyes, or turn your back and it's gone.

You can't say the same thing about sound.

I've never been annoyed by something I looked at (although I've been moved by terrible scenes of poverty and tragedy).

The same can't be said of sound:

Sound IS invasive.
Sound IS intrusive.

But in fact, that is the very reason why sound is also such a formidable communication tool.

At yet the same time, the power is greatly diminished with each successive addition of a sonic element. Pump a thousand sonic logos into a room at the same time and the result is NOISE. The same can't be said about the strip mall, or a grocery store aisle. You can call the offending view noise if you want to, because of competing messaging, but it won't make you go blind. On the other hand, too much sound will make you go deaf. If there is a visual comparison to be made, Sound is like a naked lady hitching a ride on the side of the road. You just might drive into a ditch looking at that.

And now, since there are more of us, there will continue to be more messaging. But BIGGER, FASTER, LOUDER won't continue to work in this busy environment.

What is required is a kind of environmentally cognizant sonic initiative. After all you don't need to scream at the angels in order to get your prayers answered.

*

Collage by Terry O'Gara

MUSIC, LINGUISTICS AND NETWORK THEORY

Music, Linguistics and Network Theory form a magical triangle.

The combined power of the three concepts is as of yet untapped, but Network Theory will eventually develop widespread applications for audio and music, especially in the areas of advertising and commercial media.

So, where to start?

First one must realized that Music, Linguistics and Network Theory are not three distinct ideas, but areas of study themselves linked into a sort of 'small world' network.

That is, the ideas are closely connected, so much so that any distinctions between them are separated by but a few degrees.

• Music and linguistics are both forms of organized sound.
• All functional sound is organized for the purpose of conveying transactional communication via linked 'small world' networks.

One beauty of music is that it presents our ears with a perfect symbiosis of language and mathematics. It is math that performs like language, in the same way that light behaves as both particle and waves.

Musicians have long formed networks, but the sounds composers, music designers and musicians make is itself not yet connected as it can be. Once it is, we will find that we can build intelligently designed audio carriers capable of distributing communications via systems that behave in a manner not unlike other networks made up of independent, living organisms.

When this happens, audio producers will be able to produce distribution networks that can self-program performance material which may at first appear random, but actually possess a discreet intelligence.

Consider a quiet summer night suddenly enveloped by the apparent random song of locusts and apply that to transactional advertising messaging in public venue, say Times Square for instance.

If we combine artificial intelligence with network theory and draw on a portfolio of modern playback systems, such as Hypersonic Sound Technology, which can "focus sound into a tight beam for optimal sound directionality", then the result could very well be targeted communications that nobody hears, except for a limited demographic.

WORDS AND MUSIC AS DATA STREAMS

Words and music have always connected for me. Not just as in song, where lyric is attached to melody, but at a more fundamental cognitive level, where I'm sure both music and speech were born.

Within a given song, there are at least three data streams at play:

1. The social network comprised of musicians (which we are not so much concerned with)
2. Lyrical content
3. Non verbal Audio Encoded Data

No surprise then that if music can be thought of as a stream of Audio Encoded Data, that it must be capable of acting as a carrier of information, beyond the emotional response audiences may get from it.

And by Audio Encoded Data I do not mean coded or digitally compressed audio, but rather the inherent or perceived meaning conveyed by non-verbal sound. It is 'coded' because otherwise meaningless tones have to enter our brains before meaning is perceived, and not every demographic shares the same conventional ideas about sound. Like a foreign language, only those fluent in it will be able to understand it. Fortunately, others are often all too happy to provide a translation.

However I can't write about a piece of music and trust you will share my full emotional experience of it. However, after 'decoding' I will at least be able to convey to you information contained in a given work (not to mention my reaction of it).

For instance, I can say that the thunder was loud and frightening, and you may nod your head, which may suffice. But were you to have heard the thunder yourself, you may have found yourself running for the basement. So the sound of the thing and the description of it do not always produce the same reaction.

But what I find further interesting, is the potential to embed a sound with information beyond its emotive impact, and then the potential to trigger that and a multitude of other communications via some algorithm that mimics the natural ecology.

I do not mean to inspire a method that produces subliminal advertising, but rather to consider how a system might limit its broadcast to only those who want to hear a message, need to hear a message, or are predisposed to hearing it. And all eavesdroppers may as well think that they hear the sound of the ocean or something else, because for all intents and purposes, they don't have the skill set to decode a particular communication, which should therefore render it innocuous audio to all those beyond a given set.

If only via anecdotal evidence, we recognize archetypal sounds, organized sounds, and this thing we call music is extraordinarily powerful because of its capacity to convey non-verbal, meaningful transmissions.

We can take Lyrical Data at face value, regardless of metaphorical intent. For the purposes of this article let us agree that the word, whether spoken or sung, means what it means.

What is interesting is not the words, but how they are employed, especially if several independent, contrapuntal lines are sung by several tandem voices.

In an earlier post I described how as a child I wondered why people conversed as they do, often in monotones, instead of exchanged information via song. It seemed so much more efficient to me to sing, given that two or more people employing identical keys and meters, and engaging in a contrapuntal exchange, could talk to one another and overlap one another, and yet be completely understood by themselves and others.

I still like to imagine the possibility of one day walking into a crowded room and finding fifty or more intertwining inner voices engaged in simultaneous melodic small talk, the result immediately perceivable as a linguistic fugue, a musical tapestry composed of multiple communications, and yet were I to focus my hearing in any one direction, any and all communications would be perfectly legible.

The application of contrapuntal theory to distinct musical and non-musical audio communications is also a fundamental characteristic of Green Sound, whereby multiple independent transmissions carry distinct, legible information, without degradation, or introducing noise into a given environment.

But with or without the spoken or sung word, Music is still capable of signifying language, which is obviously why it is such a powerful communications tool.

SPEECH AS MUSIC

Our daily use of language –conversation– is generally non-melodic sound, and yet performed at a rate dictated by an unconscious rhythm metered out by a neuro biological clock (or metronome).

It seems that both literally and figuratively speaking, everybody is a talking drum.

Even when I read prose, depending on the density of the document, it may strike me that I am holding in my hands nothing less than a symphonic score composed of text. Not quite alive when I first begin skimming the book, eventually the writer's rhythms become apparent, until I am at last engrossed by the work. And as though performing from a score, were I to read the document aloud, the author's own breath, evident in his or her phrasing, would also become my own.

Sometimes I think what little I know about linguistics informs everything I know about music.

I'm certain that the same parts of the brain given to improvisational conversation are tapped when producing improvisational music. When musical improvisations are melodic –and therefore capable of serving as a carrier for language– they are emotive. When the melody is flat lined or removed, leaving only rhythm and harmony, the music is no less emotive, but pattern recognition replaces melody at the forefront of our consciousness and the math is allowed to dance.

I tend to group the musical works I like into three basic categories.

1. Works that induce induce a kind of meditative state such as trance. I think of such music has having a light (cognitive) gravity.
2. Works that lend themselves to providing a platform for physical activity (such as dance) or moving picture.
3. Complex works which shut down physical response, as though doing anything else beyond tapping a finger or toe requires so much effort. I think of such music as having a heavy (cognitive) gravity.

However one thinks of it, when I hear an inspirational sound, I want to describe it. It's these verbal descriptions that reinforce the way I feel about a given work. Music may convey or elicit emotion, but Language allows me to qualify what I feel and in turn, express those feelings, and play a role in allowing me to decode the music, so that others might also receive the same message (via my translation, of course).

Like a given word, a given sound may be the result of an arbitrary choice. But unlike a body of words, it is listeners that usually define the meaning of a given piece of music. Certainly an independent listener may have an immediate opinion about a work, but it is the consensus that has the last word: i.e. is it good? Bad? Cool? Cheesy? Is it the 'Best Rock Song Ever'. Is it a work of genius or the work of a hack?

A given individual might certainly hold an opinion contrary to that held by a group or cluster, but we are interested in individuals who are hubs, conduits for ideas. Our interest is not people whose minds are made up, and who use opinions to shut down discussion, but people with flexible opinions, people who can change minds, people who provide links to others in a network. What good is art of any kind, except as a psychological exercise, if it meets its end at a dead end (of an unyielding brain)?

MUSIC THEORY VS. NETWORK THEORY

A potentially significant element of audio applied or music related Network Theory comes into play when we begin to inquire how groups of people (audiences) all arrive at the same opinion and the same time. A performance ends and everybody either leaps to his or her feet and cheers, or they don't. Sometimes audience members continue an act of applause long after a performance is over. Hence, the necessity to inform fan clusters that 'Elvis has left the building'.

Equally interesting is the effect applause has when it runs back through the network to the performers, sometimes causing them to produce an impromptu performance or encore, not always pre-rehearsed, often better when it isn't. At that point we witness not a performance and an audience's reaction to it, but a loop circulating through the network from performer to audience and back again.

I often think that it is this kind of audience/performer communication loop that could be employed to good effect in a brand/consumer relationship, and that sound would play an integral role in this paradigm.

But does music convey anything but emotion? Isn't that enough? My gut reaction is to say 'No' and 'Not always', but the answer to either question, of course, relies on our definition of music.

Some define music as organized sound. It is, but quite often when we listen to the natural acoustic ecology of a given environment, the result can be music to our ears. Consider the sound of the beach (not just the surf). Consider the sound of the night. Consider what Sunday morning sounds like.

In truth, music is not always sound organized by the composer. It can also be 'found' sound, which is then organized by our brains the moment we receive it.

And it may very well be that in the future we think of music as not simply organized sound, but as audio emissions that conform to a network theory.

If we include pure rhythm and pulse as examples of music, and I think we should, then a snippet of Morse Code is every bit as valid (as music) as composer Elliott Carter's 'Eight Pieces for Four Timpani'.

In fact, Morse Code might even be considered a proximal relative to both American Indian and Haitian Vaudou drumming, because (as with Morse Code), both native drumming conventions use rhythm to communicate information beyond the passive emotional response experienced by listeners who don't understand the language of the drum.

Although most people understand 'the drum', at least when it comes to 'feeling' Morse Code, even if most aren't fluent in its language of sonic dots and dashes. We know that because there appears today not a single televised news show whose main theme isn't arranged around its urgent rhythm.

Which is to say, whether Morse Code, Indian drumming or a jingle:

What enters our ears may be first defined as music (or not), but what actually enters our brains is raw data: sometimes emotive, sometimes numerical, as often as not verbal. And if it is also designed as an information carrier, whose message is not produced as verbal communications, it is capable of being decoded by those fluent or versed in the music designer's particular brand of cryptography.

Which is not so difficult as it seems, because what I mean by 'cryptography' is cultural agreement.

And once we have an agreement of terms in place, then the Music + Linguistics + Network Theory magic triangle acts like conceptual jet fuel.

The fundamental act of listening to music is a whole brain activity. Linguistics allows for infinitely complex communications, and Network Theory provides us with a highly effective distribution model.

Thus the power of the MLN magic triangle is that though it may be a recent mutation, born from combined DNA, it is readily adaptable, composed of both modern communications intelligence and ancient archetype.

The Greening of Sound

As a result of growing awareness over climate change, there has now emerged a trend whereby individuals, communities, corporations and even governments, are seeking ways to position themselves as in harmony with the planet and its inhabitants.

In what has become a global effort, businesses of every kind –from agriculture and textiles to energy– are actively asking the public to identify their concerns as eco friendly, organic, or 'Green'.

In some cases, a given company's effort may only extend as far as its branding campaign (green, blue, yellow, approachable, minimal, friendly, caring, feminine, concerned –you've all seen the new logo designs).

In sincere initiatives, efforts generally boil down to a statement of commitment to reduce a measured impact on the environment (which consumers must hope is thereafter acted upon).

The most common measurement we hear of is one's carbon footprint. As you probably already know, one's 'carbon footprint' is calculated by taking a full assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions produced by a given subject of study, be it an individual or a venture of some kind.

Reducing one's carbon footprint does not lead to the complete cessation of operations, but rather means taking into consideration what the environment can accommodate and not stressing it beyond that point. In order for any carbon footprint reduction scheme to be effective, it can not be implemented in isolation. Rather, it must be implemented as part of a grand, cohesive strategy in which all human sources of carbon emissions collaborate. In other words, information is shared and competing entities willing cooperate, for the sake of the greater natural environment.

Sound and Media both, can also be defined as a pollutants.

Can Sound be recycled?

It happens all the time in today's sample based music. But there is no issue of old sounds piling up in mounds of garbage (unless you count discarded CDs).

A better question is: Can Sound be Green?

And it's a question I've been mulling over a lot recently.

I think as populations get denser, producers of non-entertainment audio must include environmental awareness into their skill set. And in public areas where sound emerges from multiple, competing sources, devices need to learn when to speak and when to listen, independent of client concerns –this is what I mean by 'Green Sound'.

So, just as industrial centers are learning that they can minimize pollution and still turn a profit, I believe advertising and entertainment providers are bound to discover that they can also produce equally effective communications without making a big noise (or a big stink).

In 2008 I discussed the effect of Silence by re-framing it as a concept I introduced called Black Noise Branding. Black Noise Branding describes how the skillful and intentional use of negative audio space can prove a powerful platform from which to feature other audio assets.

Green Sound, also introduced in 2008, is a related concept, in so far as it describes an anecdote to noise pollution, without requiring media producers to minimize their messaging.

Not as pithy as I would like, but a formal definition of Green Sound might read as:

The sum effect of simultaneous and coordinated communications, so that they harmonize –or collaborate– with existing environmental audio factors and sources.

If we accept this definition, then there are at least two or three methods at our immediate disposal by which we can turn sound green.

• Include an environmental audit as part of our creative process (and then compose or construct any resulting assets with such evident considerations in mind).
• Create smart devices (devices that listen to the environment and to each other, and 'behave' appropriately)
• Create a 'Domestic Audio Code' whereby all interior sound emitting appliances speak with the same 'voice', regardless of make or manufacturer.

In regards to the latter two points: Essentially, we require the employ of a standard, thereby insuring that all sound-emitting electronic devices operate as part of a single network, and therefore communicate with one another, so that their communications to us will be organized and not interruptive, welcome and not intrusive, harmonized and not noise contributing.

Since technological considerations are out of our hands as audio producers, I will mostly focus this article on those factors directly under the control of a composer, sound designer, music designer or other similarly defined audio professional.

ACOUSTIC ECOLOGY

In many Sonic Branding or Environmental Sound projects, those commissioned to execute the task might first do a brand audit. They might even research a given space or platform. But few will actually execute an analysis of the immediate Acoustic Ecology.

In a natural environment the Acoustic Ecology might be typical forest sounds –birds, chipmunks, frogs, geese and duck on the water, etc.

In a domestic environment, the Acoustic Ecology might include sound emissions from family chatter, neighborhood noises, dogs barking, children playing, a TV, PC, music player, game console and various kitchen appliances.

In an office environment, the Acoustic Ecology might be comprised of mixed channels of verbal communication, perhaps a music system, or one or more TVs turned to the News or Financial cable channels. Consider also that todays open offices combine operations and creative departments into one single space, or that one's office might actually be Starbucks or where ever you can with down with a laptop and a mobile phone.

Does it matter if the telephony assets are branded if the sounds themselves compete with external sonic data? Should it matter? In an age when a phone call is often part of a multitasking experience it should matter.

ECOMAGINATION™

So how should members of the creative class go about developing a corporate audio strategy?

Unless you haven't watched TV for the last four years, you already know that GE launched a 2005 'Ecomagination™' image campaign as part of a strategy to position the company as 'Green' .

GE's image strategy is arguable, but the Ecomagination™ concept itself has merit for music professionals who will find it well worth considering –and borrowing for execution their own assignments.

But first, what is Ecomagination™?

GE unfortunately does not actually define Ecomagination™ (as of 6/1/09) on the Ecomagination™ website (or they make the definition difficult to locate), although they do lead the homepage off with the question, "What is Ecomagination™?"

Rather they answer the question by suggesting the philosophical platform enables them to "solve the worlds biggest environmental challenges while driving profitable growth" for the company.

I'd like to adapt the Ecomagination™ concept for Music Designers, so therefore I'll define (or redefine) the it as follows:

Ecomagination™ for Sound, Music and Audio Professionals:

The consideration and implementation of gained results from the analysis of a given environment executed in the effort to compose or design audio for said environment, with the intention that the resulting audio will not compete but integrate into or cooperate with the existing acoustic ecology, without being constructed as so transparent that it is rendered inaudible or illegible.

Green audio designers therefore inquire not just of brand strategy, or what might be an effective means to enhance a story or deliver a brand message with sound and/or music, but how will the resulting asset/s work within one or more environments.

Note that with traditional assignments, the task is limited to the specific creation of a sound mark, score or music packaging. In those assignments when space or environment is also considered, strategy usually boils down to baffles, speaker placement and volume.

But Green Sound assignments will employ aesthetic judgment in tandem with algorithmic controls, with the result being a symphony of multi source audio emissions (and silence) engaged in a non competitive, comprehensive and collaborative approach that sounds if not musical, still anything but like noise. As such, these assignments will include not just a creative brief detailing the immediate task, but also an environmental and device brief that provides predictive assessments of how various sonic solutions will play and interact within an existing Acoustic Ecology.

Of course, such briefs might be de rigueur for device manufacturers, but are rare if non existent in the conference rooms of media creators. Not to mention that device makers have as yet to employ some systematic network theory so that all devices are governed by a cooperating set of communications rules.

CO-EXIST

So how do you begin working within a Green Sound framework or philosophy?

Using one's 'Ecomagination™', and composing audio from a Green Sound mindset suggests Music Designers consider as many such possibilities as they can before embarking on a given assignment. Analysis will resemble a quadrant composed of 4 areas of study:

• Brand or Message
• Arc or Story
• Natural Environment or Acoustic Ecology
• Gadget or Device Bearing Demographic.

In practice, analysis may require Brand or Story and not both. But sound does not go green without equal consideration given to both environment and device bearing demographic.

Otherwise, we would do well never to assume or define any sounds original to a pre-existing natural environment –the acoustic ecology assets– as sources of conflict. Conflicts only result when a Gadget or Device Bearing Demographic is introduced into an otherwise natural environment, or confined urban space.

In either instance, however, we can safely assume that whatever existent sounds there are play a supporting role in defining an environment as one place or another. For the moment, since these are easy examples, consider a carnival or casino. Creators of both carnival and casino audio are required to create sounds that contribute to existent environments (or 'experiences'). Therefore, in order to prove effective, new audio assets must function in way that simultaneously draws attention to the source without overwhelming or negating co-existing messaging.

But Green Sound designers will also think not in terms of site specific audio, but also how a transient audio set plays through a site and operates in play in multiple environments, whether momentarily positioned or in motion, whether public, private or domestic.

What if all the domestic appliances in your kitchen our household shared a common key and were drawn from a unified sound palette? Then the microwave going off at the same time as the coffee pot wouldn't sound like a racket, but like a symphony (albeit it on a micro scale).

Does the car alarm have to go off in the car and wake up the neighbors? Why can't a vandalized automobile transmit an alarm signal to your location so that you are instantly aware of events at hand.

Do you have to remember to turn your mobile phone to vibrate in a movie theater or court room? Why can't the phone know where you are and handle such accommodations itself.

We will as often as not learn that it is not simply that the bird's song that is so pleasing to our ears, but that our feelings regarding the reception of the song is the result of prior or simultaneous modifications to our disposition by other factors that may play upon all our senses.

That is, the bird sounds so magnificent because the stage upon which he or she sings (the environment) simultaneously appears magically or divinely ordered, with the result being that even random audio emissions seem performed according to some artful, intangible or supernatural plan.

SOUNDSCAPE AWARENESS

Essentially, Green Sound is the study, practice and application of Soundscape Awareness.

Consider not simply what is on film or video, but who will be receiving a given communication, and whether they will be focused or multitasking during transmission.

Consider not only the voice of the brand, or how a device should sound, but how it will play (in a given environment), and how it might cooperate and harmonize with other brand messaging or devices so all sonic data is legible and none perceived as interruptive.

Likewise, ask (yourself) not only how the mix sounds in Mono, Stereo and Surround, but also where it will play in Mono, Stereo and Surround, and how it will play. We all well know that how and where a sound plays can negate a million dollars of prior production decisions. Simply consider the erosion of sonic value by poor mp3 compression.

But Green Sound is not medium specific. Rather a Green Sound mindset connotes a general awareness of environmental factors, and leads to the production of audio assets that 'collaborate' within a given Acoustic Ecology, and which neither contributes to noise nor gets buried by it. Green Sound designers take into account that some playback devices are positioned, while others are mobile.

And ideally, Green Sound strategies effectively coordinate man made sounds with natural sounds, and new sounds with pre-existing ones, in a way that resembles a nature and her cycles. It is therefore conceived and executed with both Music and Network theory in mind.

As such, sound can only be said to be Green when it is designed as both distinctive and collaborative. It does not require silence nor assumes constant or sustained focus on order for a communication to be effective (in contrast to long form entertainment). It does not intrude, it's not about being louder, but it's not so muted that the result is muffled.

Rather Green Sound is experienced as the simultaneous transmission of uniquely positioned, separate sound sources, working together like lines of counterpoint composed in a symphonic manner, so that multiple distinct messages are made nevertheless clear and comprehensible, via data awareness of proximal devices, and an intelligent, algorithmic assessment of the environment that takes into account what other humans and animals might also inhabit that same environment.

And Green machines have a built in intelligence so that they know where one environment ends and another begins, and makes suitable accommodations to subsequent sound emissions.

By taking into consideration the immediate Acoustic Ecology, story tellers and communications producers will no doubt be able to communicate far more effectively and economically than they ever have before, with the sum effect being quite the opposite of noise, and yet, perhaps only different than noise by nominal degree.

To advertisers, Green Sound is the strategic positioning of your message (or your client's brand mandate) in a given environment so that it will be heard, not by negating or overwhelming a competitor's messaging (or the natural acoustic ecology), but by carving out its own distinct space, customized to parameters provided by the space, with the net result being that both natural and urban environments feel quieter and more habitable, even though they may actually play host to more communication transactions than ever.

The Boom Box Effect

Earlier this year I posted a series of articles discussing the dynamic relationship between branded sound opportunities and silence.

In Silence Please, for the Soundtracks of Our Lives, I wrote:

"We're in such a rush to score the whole world that it's easy to forget that arranging opportunities for SIMPLE QUIET or shaping RELATIVE SILENCE may actually prove the most intelligible means for creating a platform to communicate with audiences, customers and users. One reason for that is that more and more of us are bring our own sonic branding with us, principally in the way of customized playlists.”

Media, omnipresent even a decade ago, still had not quite reached the interruptive tipping point as it has in recent years. Media is exponentially more pervasive and invasive than it was in the recently faded Twentieth Century.

We know from studies of physics that when sound waves collide, the result is interference.

Consider the following laws of acoustics (source):

* Sound waves that are exactly in phase add together. The result is a stronger wave.
* Sound waves that have varying phase relationships produce differing sound effects.
* Sound waves that are exactly inverted, or 180 degrees out of phase, cancel each other out. The result is silence.

[For a quick primer on sound, visit this link: Sound Primer]

Now consider the case of the Boom Box:

If in 1987 I walked down the street carrying my boom box playing one song, and you were walking in the other direction, coming towards me and carrying your boom box playing another song, the result was noise. That's because the music didn't sync, didn't share the same key, followed a different structure, played on a different beat. In fact both songs lost entertainment value because the sum of their sounds created cacophony. Would that Boom Boxes automatically beat matched when they were in proximity of each other, but they don't.

That's what I call The Boom Box Effect –the collision of sounds (that don't cancel each other out) in a given human habitat.

Today a lot of brands suffer another kind of Boom Box Effect.

At any given time we are bound to our electronic devices as if we were outfitted with law enforcement tracking devices (and we are). Between incoming calls, text messages and alerts to our PDAs and mobile phones –not to mention our proximity to other people's media platforms– there isn't a single urban environment where our ears and our brain do not wage a daily war against the bombardment of random information.

Because of the density of any urban environment there is no escape. You can't leave the room, because everywhere else is swimming with just as much distraction as the present environment.

This may in fact be one reason why the iPod or other digital music playback devices have become ubiquitous, their popularity being a side effect of necessity. Besides their obvious function of permitting us to carry entertainment assets with us on our respective journeys, these devices also provide a filter from unwelcome incoming sensory data.

In effect, they help combat stress and insanity caused by the boom box effect.

All of which is not to say that individual, multiple sounds layered atop one another can't work together. They most certainly can, and frequently do in any single harmonized chord, or series of chords. They also do in any cohesive and unified music composition. In fact, they work well together in any unified experience - be it a song, a film score, a retail environment or a theme park venue.

Casinos present wonderful case studies of environments where the combined sum of noise making machines do not contribute to chaos at all, but rather create positive, hopeful excitement.

Yet, this is still not the case in most urban environments where people are often expected to live, work and inhabit daily. One simply can't expect your client's competitors to tune their brands to your client's brand.

Or can we?

Does the loudest voice get the most attention? Near term, probably. It's hard to ignore a cry for 'help', for instance. But long term, if we hear enough of them, we become immune to such cries, especially if they don't deliver honest results (e.g. See: The Boy That Cried Wolf).

And yet given today's technologies, maybe it's now possible to create communications that are capable of being delivered regardless of competing distractions?

So that instead of our circa 1987 Boom Boxes fighting with each other for available audio space and attention, –making it impossible to hear either song–, we simply broadcast our message using 2017 'Boom Pods' that automatically eliminate defined noise; but also beat match, pitch correct and remix colliding transmissions, with the result being a perfectly blended Green Sound music mashup capable of allowing us to clearly and legibly hear both informational and utilitarian messages, musical melodies and overlapping sets of sonic memetics simultaneously, sans interference –PLUS whatever other audible elements happen to inhabit the environment– not to mention in perfect groovy harmony –and at a volume that won't wake the babies passing by in carriages pushed by their mothers or fathers.

Because, fortunately or unfortunately, silence is not an option.

* * *

Photo Credit

Zoning Post Modern Habitats For Green Audio

Strip malls are arguably ugly.

At first, clashing branding appears to be the cause of it. Then one considers image density. The problem is not that too many voices want to sing in the chorus, but that they do not sing in harmony. Signifiers and logos simply express brand attributes like different notes in a scale. So if the urban cityscape looks cluttered, the blame lies with a less than comprehensive audio zoning policy, not with the individual aesthetics presented by various design directors.

However, marketers (producing remote media for use in a public space) are at fault if they concentrate all their efforts designing the brand and zero effort analyzing the spaces where brand assets are positioned, played or displayed. Of course, one can't spend all one's resources auditing every location, but a sampling will provide enough generalities to strengthen the possibility that one's message will get heard. If getting heard isn't important to you, than spend your money elsewhere, like on pretty stationary.

A central part of my professional activity is predicated on prescribing both sonic and image solutions to communicate brand messages. Far be it from me to advocate turning the volume down. But I do advocate intelligible communications on all platforms, and in consideration of the acoustic ecology –natural, urban or otherwise.

Beyond predicable noise assessments, is it too much to ask music designers (and their clients) to consider the environmental status of our post modern human habitats –inclusive of competing audio sources– when creating sound solutions for a given site?

In this era of 'Green' and environmentally friendly solutions, might there also be A Greening of Sound? –Perhaps a Green Sound Initiative, whereby sound producers consider the given acoustic ecology of a specific site or experience before adding their own voices to the fray?

The process and the professional who engages in this task would not be too different than a film mixer who already considers music, dialogue and sound design in the formation of a completely intelligible and entertaining composite. But instead of working against picture, our audio ecologist is working with –and one might even say 'mixing'– the environment.

Make no mistake, mixing with a Green Sound result in mind is different from our current idea of location mixing. 'Green Ears' nether seek to maximize a preferred source, nor diminish other sounds, but rather intends to form an immersive, balanced experience inclusive of all sounds (even those beyond the music designer's or engineer's technological control).

Unlike typical location mixing, Green sound sources move, and green playback environments are in constant flux. For one thing, man made habitats fade at the edges into natural ecological source sound. This creates (both problems and) opportunities to change the way source sounds interact with habitat and with each other.

We are not mixing nor positioning sound sources for a specific static venue, but treating every space human beings inhabit as a constantly moving, webbed venue (without borders), and every electronic device as an intelligent, responsive source. Therefore we require every electronic device to communicate with one another within a given range, and also to be able to listen to the environment for cues on how to behave, and then emit sound accordingly.

Most movie goers are probably familiar with THX. THX is the trade name of "a high-fidelity sound reproduction standard for movie theaters, screening rooms, home theaters, computer speakers, gaming consoles, and car audio systems".

Green Sound, as I imagine it with my inner ear, would be for environmental audio and non-entertainment locations (equipped with sound makers) –inside and outside–, what THX is to the movie experience –a high-fidelity, quality assurance protocol.

The result might yet produce a full chorus of commercial or even industrial voices; but instead of an unintelligible or annoying sonic mash, each man-made audio source conforms to a site-specific filter establishing volume, frequency and tonality relative to a given geography or ecology.

We might even investigate source placement using spatial simulation algorithms and models for particular acoustic spaces that demonstrably and capably host the broadcast of multiple overlapping sounds from varying –even moving– points of origin, and do so legibly, –such as forest or fauna regions, which can seem simultaneously active with sound and, also, relatively quiet.

And we must certainly use any other applicable technology available to us to achieve the desired Green Effect (perceptible as simultaneously active with legible sound and relatively quiet), such us Holosonics Audio Spotlight product, which focuses sound (for one example) to single position.

And just maybe the sum of it won’t sound too bad at all.

Desaturate the Web (It's Only Fair)

In the nineties I founded a music company called BLISTER, so christened because I wanted to convey to Interactive art directors, animators and casual game makers (among our principal clients) the impact the strategic use of branded sound might play on the senses. This in the days when audio was often deemed 'too big' or 'too slow' (not to mention, 'unessential') in the construction of an online experience.

But in the last decade sound has gone from being considered too unwieldy for the Internet to being unquestionably integral to just about any and every interactive experience one can think of. And interactive audio production has become an art form and recognized profession unto itself.

The funny thing is:

We've all visited sonified web sites that provide an option to MUTE sound. But is there just one website that offers us the option to DESATURATE the color spectrum, so that we can view the thing in a more palatable Black and White? No, ha, but I wish there were, because the presumption still is that if anything is going to be annoying; it's going to be the sonic elements, not the visual elements.

Of course, they didn’t say that about my blue hair in 1983.

–But here lies a powerful argument regarding the weakness of design (and subsequent necessity of sonic enhancement). In a previous article I wrote:

"If design is the rocket, sound is the fuel that lifts it into our imagination, serving to imprint the image (of the vehicle it accompanies) into our memories, and even if the sound itself is goes unremembered."

Or vice versa: Practically speaking, Sound and Vision compliment each other, thereby creating an integrated experience; and by extension a seamless memory of, and emotional reaction to, a given event.

But in fact, visual fashions fade faster from our interest than even Top Ten Pop songs. The eye becomes jaded far quicker than the ear. TV commercials from the eighties look ancient. But today's kids and adults alike still enjoy dancing to Brit Pop Robo-Candy such as Ian Craig Marsh and Martyn Ware's wonderfully askew Human League and Heaven 17.

Similarly, Leo Delibes 'Flower Duet' ('Viens Mallika' from the Opera 'Lakme') will likely outlast the famous Tony Scott Directed/ Howard Blake Arranged TV campaign for British Airways (that used the piece as a score).

Were the 'Flower Duet' actually commissioned by British Airways as its core audio branding asset, so much the better, but perhaps original commissions are no longer necessary to establish authentic branding. What I mean by that is, ideally, account executives at the airline, or attached to the airline's branding company, would have long beforehand distilled the BA mission, values and our corporate goals into an Identity Style Guide or Brand Manual that included parameters for execution of audio.

If initiated, the creative brief should have resulted in the commission of an original work that effectively conveyed the BA brand through music (Assuming, also, they secured a living composer whose talent was substantially equal to that of Delibes).

A few other pre-existing tracks have indeed managed to communicate a full breadth of a brand message. Chevrolet's use of Bob Seger's 'Like a Rock' comes immediately to mind. Yet, I think, overall, licensed (or otherwise non-commissioned, existing) pieces work best (in most cases) when they are part of a campaign, not when they are re-purposed as the fundamental branding asset. Although, as mentioned, sometimes such works can indeed be successfully retrofitted as a brand asset.

The argument does not apply to filmed or theatrical entertainment, for the simple reason that cinematic entertainment has longer legs than the advertising for it, or anything else for that matter.

Marketing, as with any campaign, is by its elemental nature, a temporary operation. In contrast, Fine Art, such as Music, is timeless, by default. Sure, any given recording will eventually sound dated, but rearrange the track using modern production tools –or simply play the thing yourself (if you're a musician)– and all of a sudden the music jumps back to life!

Pantone's 2007 Color of the Year was Chili Pepper. This year it was Blue Iris. Next year it will be something else. The eye continuously demands novel ways to distract it. And yet the western ear, give or take a few hundred years, will never tire of C Major.

Not to say some commercial art doesn't hold the same appeal as fine art. Some of it does, and I'd like to think that some of that which is held in such regard also included my participation. But note, a commercial cycle in the US might run for as little as 13 weeks –in the case of a Superbowl spot, ONE day– while every little ditty from a cheap pop song to a symphonic theme is routinely capable of surviving generations.

No doubt, shortly after the copyright runs out on many classic 20th century jingles, future composers will use them as fodder for more substantial works, much the same way Aaron Copeland borrowed the Shaker hymn 'Simple Gifts' as a theme for his ballet score, 'Appalachian Spring'.

Yet I would be surprised if any accompanying video (to those classic jingles) eeked out any further use beyond their value as vintage pop kitsch.

Buzz Versus Bang

Aristotle opens his philosophical treatise, METAPHYSICS, with the following introduction:

"All men by nature are actuated with desire of knowledge, and an indication of this is the love of the sense; for even, irrespective of their utility, are they loved for their own sakes; and preeminently above the rest, the sense of sight. For not only for practical purposes, but also when not intent on doing anything, we choose the power of vision in preference, so to say, to all the rest of the senses. And a cause of this is the following, –that this one of the senses particularly enables us to apprehend whatever knowledge it is in the inlet of, and that it makes many distinctive qualities manifest."

In other words, as far as senses go, the Eye/Brain partnership has been engineered with far more capable intelligence gathering capacity than the Ear/Brain.

Graphics (that interest us) appear to possess an innate capacity to cut through competing visual clutter. For this reason, design, good or bad, has an advantage over audio (so long as it rests within an available range of vision). The Eye/Brain partnership is quite adept at selecting isolated points of interest, like stars in a night sky. Meanwhile even a trained Ear/Brain pairing finds itself overwhelmed when attempting to discern unique single tones if emitted from multiple competing sound sources.

Every try to enjoy –much less actually hear– a street fiddler playing a quiet tune when a New York Subway train pulls into the station with a 100 decibel roar? It’s impossible, and yet no problem at all reading competing –even muted– signage on both moving train and stationary platform, or even this article if you happen to be on the go and have your face buried in a mobile device.

For more anecdotal evidence, just walk down your local Main Street, or stare across a strip mall. Even a three-year old child can easily discern McDonalds' red and yellow arches amidst an urban sea of other corporate logos. Alternately, consider words on a page, all are individually and entirely legible, even if not digested in the prescribed linear sequence. Similarly, few will report any obstacle identifying one or all of a hundred fast food joints on along a given strip –by design cues alone.

In contrast, substitute the neon signs indicative of any congested suburban landscape for equally loud sounds. The result isn’t just aural clutter. It’s noise: a morass of overlapping sounds whose component parts played in unison become indistinguishable from one another, and their points of origin also indiscernible.

Would there be any problem with a jackhammer at two in the morning if it sounded like a purring kitten instead of a machine gun on steroids? Compound an angry jackhammer with a middle-of-the-night traffic jam and it makes many a city dwelling musician wonder why every car horn can’t be factory tuned to A440, and coo instead of blare. Who uses car horns as danger alerts anyway? A few certainly, but equally true most people honk to voice impatience, not to warn an unwary pedestrian that they’re about to be flattened by a minivan.

For some reason, competing audio is perceived as a racket long before competing design becomes disordered hodgepodge. Even when design does cross the threshold into clutter, the brain is more willing to try and make sense of visual hodgepodge than it is of noisy racket. Walls covered in graffiti earn appreciation from a global group of aficionados that appreciates not just design, but densely compacted, competing design elements. And in fact, puzzles are fun.

Neither copious nor bright, contrasting nor clashing color use, random points nor competing lines, nor unsymmetrical shapes are necessarily annoying –much less painful to our senses (Art School grads included). But unharmonious rumblings, shrill emissions and discordant notes can be irritating. And sound blasting at an excessively loud volume can actually be dangerous and damaging.

But therein lies one key to the power of sound, and especially as an enhancement –or 'power boost'– in the promotion of a message conveyed by a visual element. If design is the rocket, sound is the fuel that lifts it into our imagination, serving to imprint the image (of the media vehicle it accompanies) into our memories, and even if the sound itself is goes unremembered.

Or vice versa, of course. To be fair, any gifted multimedia artist is capable of using one sensory trigger to 'push' forward and enhance the perception of an experience delivered by another. That's why film, theater, opera, propaganda and advertising work when they do. Somebody is pushing your buttons, and in the case of an action movie (or a sports car commercial) the result can be thrilling.

In fact, it might be inaccurate for me to liken noise to clutter, when a more appropriate visual metaphor for racket is probably that of a focused emission, such as a laser, aimed directly at your brain.

Of course, one needn't make a big noise to gain attention. The buzzing sound in your ear from a bug will certainly capture your attention just as much as any loud sound will. In some instances, that soft buzzing sound might even be considered a more effective medium than a loud bang. Because of its incessant, repetitive nature, the sound –indeed the entire experience taken as a dimensional 'snapshot'– has a very good chance of becoming indelibly imprinted into one's neural circuitry for future recollection.

And that might be why the sound of cicadas, or of even one mosquito buzzing in your ear –not to mention an old pop song– can trigger a cascade of archival memories from so long ago, that you thought you forgot them. And you did until one single SOUND took reign of your psychophysic reality and quite effortlessly transported you back in time.

Maybe not Quantum Physics, but I think it's AMAZING anyway, and it happens almost every day to each and everyone of us.

So, Buzz versus Bang? You decide.