Insightful and divergent points of view have emerged from the study of sound concerning the natural world and daily living. Two opposing points of view are Brandon LaBelle’s “acoustic territories” and the “soundscape” advocated by R. Murray Schafer and the acoustic ecology school. One school of thought is anti-urban, seeing contemporary cities as places where noise pollution is rampant and calling for a return to a more natural acoustic balance; the other school of thought, on the other hand, celebrates the sonic complexity of cities and how sound is both created and affected by urban dynamics. This paper will compare and contrast these two points of view, highlighting their main points and assumptions, and then offering a compromise that addresses their disagreements while continuing the conversation about daily sound, media, and culture.
“The Tuning of the World” (1977) was a groundbreaking piece that introduced the notion of the “soundscape” by Canadian composer R. Murray Schafer, who also founded the World Soundscape Project. All the noises we hear every day are part of what Schafer called “the sonic environment” (p. 274). He studied the soundscape to prevent the degradation of the natural acoustic environment due to the introduction of artificial noise. The growing decibel levels in today’s cities were a major worry for Schafer, who wrote extensively about how these areas endangered humans and the environment. The “lo-fi soundscape” (p. 43), in which sounds blend in a cacophony, replaced the “hi-fi soundscape” (p. 43), which he described as an acoustically balanced environment in which individual sounds could be easily recognized. Reducing or eliminating undesirable noise, mainly produced by industrial and urban activity, was central to Schafer’s plan to restore the natural balance of the soundscape. “When a man fails to listen intently, noise pollution ensues,” he writes. The sounds that we have been used to ignoring are known as noises (Schafer, 1973, p. 1). This would indicate that Schafer thought people were too careless to notice and value the subtleties of their auditory surroundings, which led to the development of urban noise. A leading voice in the acoustic ecology movement, Hildegard Westerkamp’s writings further reflect this anti-urban attitude. In her groundbreaking work “Soundwalking” (1974), Westerkamp urged listeners to tune out the mechanical noises that permeate metropolitan areas and instead focus on the delicate sounds of nature and their immediate surroundings via the practice of “uncompromised listening” (p. 1). She explains, “Listening in that way can be a painful, exhausting or a rather depressing experience, as our ears are exposed often to too many, too loud or too meaningless sounds” (Westerkamp, 1974, page one). Soundwalks were created by Westerkamp to make people more attuned to their surroundings acoustically and to help them value the subtle, understated noises often lost in the hustle and bustle of everyday life.
Whereas the soundscape idea tends to ignore urban areas, Brandon LaBelle’s “acoustic territories” approach fully embraces cities’ auditory complexity and how urban dynamics create and influence sound. According to LaBelle’s research in “Acoustic Territories: Sound Culture and Everyday Life” (2010), city life is like a big acoustic instrument that produces and amplifies all kinds of noises. So, sound is everywhere in cities. The concept put out by LaBelle is based on the understanding that urban sound environments are inherently diverse and pluralistic. Instead of trying to muffle or silence specific noises, he pushes for a more complex comprehension of how many aural components overlap, cross, and interact within the city’s acoustic spaces. In his writing, he describes the street as an acoustic device that allows many sonorities to be heard and felt by the city dwellers. The following: Then I realized it was the two-mile-away motorway. The sonority was so intense that I started to picture the city’s extensive traffic system and the ensuing sonic vapor (LaBelle, 2010, pp. 92-93).
According to LaBelle’s view, urban noise is not always harmful or damaging, which emphasizes the diverse array of noises that make up city life. He encourages us to tune in to the natural and artificial noises that make cities what they are by listening to the patterns, rhythms, and textures that result from human activity, machinery, and the built environment interacting with one another. In addition, LaBelle investigates how the volume of human voices influences our perceptions of certain public places in cities. On the pavement, he writes, we encounter the arrival and departure of people. Here, the sidewalk serves as a dynamic stage onto which the body steps, and then another, to eventually navigate the actions of other pedestrians as they pass by” (LaBelle, 2010, p. 62). Schafer and Westerkamp’s focus on escaping from city noise to enjoy the nuances of nature’s soundtrack is in sharp contrast to their notion of the pavement as a “volatile stage” where personal and communal aural experiences meet.
At first glance, acoustic territories and soundscapes seem to have completely different points of view. However, upon closer inspection, it becomes clear they are similar in their interest in the interplay between space, time, and human perception. Each perspective recognizes the importance of sound in our daily lives and the need for more deliberate and self-aware interaction with and shaping our auditory surroundings. However, to take this discussion further, we must stop seeing people as either “pro-urban” or “anti-urban.” Instead, we should adopt a more pluralistic approach that recognizes the variety of aural experiences and how sound interacts with technology, culture, and media.
Research by academics like Paul Roquet, who investigates how people might “remix” their surroundings via headphones and ambient music, offers one possible answer (2016, p. 56). Based on what Roquet has discovered, instead of trying to drown out or control certain sounds, we can actively listen and manipulate sound creatively, combining and reinterpreting different parts of the environment so that they speak to us. Upon arriving at the region, his first impression was oppression due to the enormous rumble of traffic below. While I did my best to avoid Route 3 on foot while exploring the neighborhood, I encountered impractical situations due to the proximity of several important buildings and rail stations to the main route. Finally, I was strolling along a crowded street one day when I listened to ambient music on my headphones. I did not want to be blind to everything around me, like the bicycles that rode by often, so I dialed down the volume of my music. Suddenly, the ambient music I was listening to was combined with the traffic sounds on the highway, making for a new and eerily peaceful auditory setting (Roquet, 2016, p. 56). One approach to dealing with urban noise that Roquet takes is to “remix” it using headphones and ambient music. This method is neither accepting nor rejecting but modifies the noise via creative sonic intervention.
Scholars like Alex Blue V and Mack Hagood have also explored the politicized use of noise-canceling headphones and other technologies to assert agency and create spaces of resistance in oppressive or hostile acoustic environments (Hagood, 2019; Blue V, 2019). Using noise-canceling headphones, according to Hagood, one may “sonically control” their surroundings, giving them “the ability to resist domination, cancel out the haters, and enter a personal, silent safe zone while in a bellicose, racist public space” (Hagood, 2019, p. 199). In this regard, Blue V delves deeper into the 2019 Beats Electronics ‘Hear What You Want’ advertising campaign, which showed black male athletes using noise-canceling headphones to block out racial chants and boos from the stands. This advertisement, he says (Blue V, 2019, p. 90), portrayed headphones as instruments of resistance and action, enabling the user to “cancel out the haters” and build a private sanctuary of sound.
Together, these viewpoints may help us understand music, media, and daily life in a more complete and welcoming light. Taking this tack would mean considering that our auditory surroundings are inherently complex and multifaceted while valuing sound’s creative and transformational power as a medium for cultural and technical expression. Take urban noise, for example. Instead of seeing it as something that needs fixing or something to be appreciated, we should take a more nuanced approach that acknowledges the complicated interaction of good and bad sounds in urban acoustic spaces. One possible application for ambient music or noise-canceling technology is to “remix” or “cancel out” parts of the soundscape; this might be useful in situations where oppressed groups are trying to reclaim control and establish resistance areas. The dynamic complexity of the urban soundscape and how sound influences and is influenced by our daily experiences should not be ignored. Thus, we should be careful not to isolate ourselves in completely sealed acoustic bubbles. While we like the raucous reality of city life, it is essential to remember the wisdom of Schafer and Westerkamp’s plea for “uncompromised listening” and sensitivity to the acoustic environment’s finer points.
Ultimately, the divergent viewpoints of acoustic regions and the soundscape display the intricate connections between ourselves, our surroundings, and sound in our daily lives. Although the idea of soundscapes sheds light on why it’s crucial to lessen the adverse effects of noise pollution and protect natural acoustic ecosystems, LaBelle’s concept of acoustic territories encourages us to welcome the diversity and flux of urban soundscapes. We can transcend the dichotomy of pro- and anti-urban opinions by presenting a solution that incorporates diverse viewpoints, such as politicizing noise-canceling technology as instruments of resistance and agency, using headphones and ambient music to “remix” the auditory environment, and so on. Instead, we may take a more nuanced and inclusive approach that recognizes sound’s many interactions with technology, culture, and media and embraces our acoustic settings’ creative and transformative potential. Pluralistic approaches acknowledge the complexity and context-dependence of sound connections and that various auditory experiences need different interactions. Sometimes, we want to “remix” or “cancel out” soundscape aspects, while other times, we want to become lost in city life “uncompromised.” We may discuss sound, media, and life more nuancedly and inclusively by accepting variation and appreciating how our everyday experiences shape sound. We should acknowledge our diverse auditory experiences and the importance of agency, resistance, and creativity in our listening contexts.
Blue V, A. (2019). Beats by Dre: Race and the sonic interface. In M. Hagood (Ed.), Hush: Media and sonic self-control (pp. 199–230). Duke University Press.
Hagood, M. (2019). Hush: Media and sonic self-control. Duke University Press.
LaBelle, B. (2010). Acoustic Territories: Sound culture and everyday life. Bloomsbury Academic.
Roquet, P. (2016). Ambient media: Japanese atmospheres of self. University of Minnesota Press.
Schafer, R. M. (1973). The music of the environment. Universal Edition.
Schafer, R. M. (1977). The tuning of the world. Alfred A. Knopf.
Westerkamp, H. (1974). Soundwalking. Sound Heritage, 3(4), 18-27.