Can sound make space?

Can sound make space? This is a peculiar question for architects and built environment practitioners. We all know space contains sounds, there is a dedicated field of acoustics which deals with loudness, noise and decibels. This helps to make hearing a pleasant experience in theatres, conference rooms, corridors, studios and other interiors. Then again, we neglect how sound makes space. What are the characteristics which mark the territoriality of sound? How it can influence our experience of space in a city. This essay tries to answer these questions by relating concepts in soundscape and urban theory.

Researches in soundscape are relatively recent, the first study was by Schafer’s work “The New Soundscape” (1969), which deals with music, composition and ultimately the sonic environment consisting of airports, trains, and nature. His further work “The Soundscape: Our sonic environment and the Tuning of the World” (1993) reflects on soundscape in the urban environment, which Barry Truax later extends with “Acoustic Communication”(2001) focusing on communal practices of sounds developing a sense of collectiveness. In last decade there is an excellent scholarship in sound studies from perspective of anthropology (Samuels et al., 2010), nature (Clark & Dunn, 2022), celebrations and music (Connell & Gibson, 2003; Henning & Hyder, 2014), nationalism (Dairianathan & Lum, 2016), and politics (Lynch, 2019) but there is a dearth to comprehend practices and characteristics of sound that produce spaces (Revill, 2016).

Like any other primitive sense, sound and hearing help us to navigate, become aware of any danger and respond to our surroundings. It is known that listening is developed in the womb of the mother prior to the other senses, children can recognise their mothers’ voices better than the visual form in early years. Agreed it has a transient nature i.e., they are recognised at the moment of their making, unfolding elaboration and fading later. It is fragile and fugitive but holds importance as much as our ocular capacity, yet architects and urban built practitioners mostly overlook the elements of the aural environment while dealing with public spaces.???

Auditory awareness in space is a neurological reaction to spatial acoustics comprised of detection, recognition and consciousness (Blesser & Salter, 2005). When a receiver recognises a sound, its waves are transformed into neural signals forming a sonic event. Awareness is a cognitive process that develops the raw sensation to a visceral response in a state of physical and mental stimuli. Here, detection is dependent upon environmental exposure. When such an event is strong enough to be heard by a community or group of listeners, resulting in an acoustic arena. These are consequences of everyday activities of city life, produced by bazaars, the flow of traffic, walking, parks and services. Anyone unable to listen to this is considered beyond the boundary of such an arena.

Urban sonic environments and its area can cover large territories. Some sound events can mark their territory within the city like a market with its aural demarcation of space. Here, technological as well as natural parameters can govern the property and characteristics of the sonic arena. E.g., water bodies can be a reflector thus increasing the size of the area. On the other hand, thick vegetation and grass can observe sound limit the aural space (Blesser & Salter, 2005).?

In a similar way, certain structures in cities produce their own sounds and by doing so they specialise their aural environment. For example, town clocks, prayer calls from religious sites, and sirens from industries that develop soundmark(s) (Schafer, 1993; Truax, 2001). Earlier, people living beyond such acoustic arenas of such soundmark were not considered citizens of the urban settlements. People exposed to these sets of sonic events can identify the same sounds with ease and their daily lives are influenced collectively. Such sounds link people together and create a sense of acoustical community which shares similar soundscapes and listening.

Every city has different sonic environments due to its natural settings and the built environment. Although social cultural researches investigate soundscape and auditory responses, it will be helpful to understand through the perspective of the built environment. This won’t only assist to create a pleasant living place but for the well-being of urban citizens.?

References

• Blesser, B., & Salter, L.-R. (2005). Spaces Speak, Are You Listening? Experiencing Aural Architecture. MIT Press.
• Clark, F. E., & Dunn, J. C. (2022). From Soundwave to Soundscape: A Guide to Acoustic Research in Captive Animal Environments. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 9.
• Connell, J., & Gibson, C. (2003). Sound tracks: Popular music identity and place. Routledge.
• Dairianathan, E., & Lum, C.-H. (2016). Soundscapes of a nation (alism): Perspectives from Singapore. In Patriotism and nationalism in music education (pp. 111–130). Routledge.
• Henning, M., & Hyder, R. (2014). Locating the ‘Bristol Sound’: Archiving music as everyday life. In Sites of Popular Music Heritage (pp. 103–117). Routledge.
• Lynch, J. A. (2019). Festival “noise” and soundscape politics in Mumbai, India. Sound Studies, 5(1), 37–51.
• Revill, G. (2016). How is space made in sound? Spatial mediation, critical phenomenology and the political agency of sound. Progress in Human Geography, 40(2), 240–256.
• Samuels, D. W., Meintjes, L., Ochoa, A. M., & Porcello, T. (2010). Soundscapes: Toward a sounded anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 39, 329–345.
• Schafer, R. M. (1969). The New Soundscape. BMI Canada Limited Don Mills.
• Schafer, R. M. (1993). The Soundscape: Our sonic environment and the tuning of the world. Simon and Schuster.
• Truax, B. (2001). Acoustic communication. Greenwood Publishing Group.

?