> > > > Semiotic frameworks such as that of Charles Peirce indicate that > > references > > (or signs) work in different ways. For example, mono reverb acts as an > > "icon" (that is, it is similar to) the experience of large spaces. > Whereas > > the recording of hair clippers acts as an "index" of close proximity > (that > > is, it follows that, when you hear hair clippers, they will be close to > > you). > > > Mmmm, sounds plausible on first read, but on reflection: > The recording of hair clippers acts as an 'icon' for (that is, it is > similar to) the experience of close proximity (indeed a sound one only > hears at close >
One of the things about semiotics is that it gets very messy very quickly. I am by no means an expert, ... but you are describing hair clippers as an icon of itself, which then becomes an index of proximity. I think confusion can be avoided by being explicit about what is being considered a sign. There is nothing about the sound of hair clippers *in itself, outside of past experience* that is similar to all objects that are heard close. The recognition of the sound of hair clippers leads to the *identification* of the sounding object which then leads to the perception of proximity. So the spatial perception is secondary to the identification of the sounding object. Without the identification of the sounding object, the perception of proximity would not occur (ask any electroacoustic composer who uses abstract sounds.. very difficult to create impressions of closeness). In Blauert's Spatial Hearing (1997, p.45-46), he mentions a study, conducted in an anechoic chambre, where listeners consistently appraise the sound of a whispering voice to be much closer than it physically is. When the whispering is 9m away, the perception is that it is no more than 3m away. Distance of speakers using normal speech is consistently judged accurately. It is not the recognition of certain qualities within the sound of the whispering (cant be because it is actually 9m away), but rather the identification of the sounding object itself that creates the impression of proximity. Again, that's a Peircian index. It follows that when you hear someone whispering, they are close to you. Its a logical association, not one of similarity. > proximity). Whereas mono reverb acts as an 'index' of large spaces (that > is, ...) As an interestng reference to the application of Peirce's semiotic framework to considerations of space within music, have a look at "Space in Musical Semiosis: An Abductive Theory of the Musical Composition Process" (Ojala, 2009) http://www.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/45039/spaceinm.pdf?sequence=1 Etienne > Michael > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sursound mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound > -- http://etiennedeleflie.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20130226/85d1fa74/attachment.html> _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list [email protected] https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
