Audio Culture, cap I, secs. 1-2.pdf

7/26/2019 Audio Culture, cap I, secs. 1-2.pdf

1/8


2/8

I

.{.

ii:

il

$l

:il.

ri

i

.\

\\

\'i

tl

N

$.

s*

s\

$

$

i

il

i

i,

'.4.

$

s^


3/8

l: Music

and

lts

Others:

Noise,

Sound, Silence

,t m

R

r*"*

'si

I,rx $**

g

s" w\

What is

music?

A century ago,

the

question

was

fairly

easy

to answer.

But,

ove

the

course of

the

twentieth century,

it

became increasingly difficult

to

distinguish

music from its others: noise, silence, and non-musical sound.

The

reasons for

this

are many. Already at

the

turn of

the nineteenth

century

the

music

of

Debussy,

Schoenberg, and Stravinsky challenged

tonality on

a

num

ber of

fronts. Not

long after, Cowell,

Vardse,

and Cage

began

to

explore

non

pitched

sounds. Ethnomusicological

research into

the

nature

of

music outside

o

Europe began to suggest

a

need to expand the concept of music beyond the

nar

row

and specialized domain

it

demarcated

in the West.

The tape

recorder

played

a

crucial

role

in

blurring

the

lines of distinction

between

music and

its

others.

Tape

composition allowed

the composer to bypass

musical

notation, instruments,

and

perlormers

in

one

step.

Further,

it

gave

com

posers

access to what

John

Cage called

"the

entire field

of

sound,"

making con

ventional

distinctions

between

"musical"

and

"non-musical" sounds increasingly

irrelevant.l

ln 1948, Pierre

Schaeffer

broadcast

over

French radio

a

"Concert

o

Noises," a set of

pieces

composed entirely from recordings of train

whistles,

spin

ning tops,

pots

and

pans,

canal boats,

percussion

instruments, and the occasiona

piano.

Schaeffer called his

new

music "musique concrdte," in contrast

with tradi

lional

"musique

abstraite,"

which

passed

through

the

detours

of

notation, instru

mentation, and

performance.

Trained as

a

radio-engineer rather than

a

musician

Schaeffer's method of composition bore a closer resemblance

to

cinematic

mon

tage

than

it did to traditional musical composition. The major

European

avant-

garde

composers

(Stockhausen,

Boulez, etc.) flocked

to

his Paris studio; but, ulti-

mately, the impact

of

Schaeffer's work

was

felt

most

strongly outside

classical

music,

for

example,

in

the early tape experiments of

Les Paul, the

studio

manipula-

tions of Beatles

producer

George Martin, the concrdte

pranks

of

Frank

Zappa, the

live

tape-loop systems of Terry Riley and the sampling and turntablism

of

HipHop

DJs

from Grandmaster Flash to Q-Bert.

ln

his

1913

manifesto,

Russolo

wrote that the traditional

orchestra

was

no

longer capable

of

capturing

the

imagination

of

a culture

immersed

in

noise, and

that the

age

of noise

demanded new

musical instruments he called

"noise

instru-

ments"

(intonarumori).

Composer

Edgard Vardse dismissed the conventional dis-

tinction between

"music"

and

"noise,"

preferring

to

define music

as

"organized

sound."

ln his writings

of the

1930s, he described his own music as the

"collision

of sound-masses," blocks

of

sound

"moving

at different speeds and at different

angles."

Vardse's use of sirens in the

groundbreaking

percussion piece

lonisation

(1929-31)

gestured

back to

Russolo

and forward to

the

development of

electronic

instruments that could

provide

the

"parabolic

and hyperbolic trajectories of sound"

introduction

o

5


4/8

of whlch

he

dreaml.

Two decades

laler,

in

the early

1950s,

the

European

avant-

garde

became

captivated

by

the

extraordinary

powers

of

these

electronic

instru-

nrents,

which

extended the

domain of

music

far

beyond that

of

traditional

instru-

rnental sonorities.

ln

the decades

that followed,

commercial

synthesizers

tamed these

unruly

powers

and

made tidy electronic

instruments

available to the

general public.

By

the

1970s, such

instruments

had

become

the norm

in rock and dance

music.

Aim-

ing

to

revive and celebrate

the

powers

of noise,

British

and

European

"industrial"

bands

merged

punk

rock

attitudes,

performance

art sensibilities,

and

a

Russolian

fascination with

mechanical

noise

to forge

a

retro-futurist

music made

with

found

objects:

chains,

tire irons, oil

drums, and

other industrial

debris.

"lndustrial music"

and the

"noise

bands"

that

followed

highlighted certain

cultural and

political

fea-

tures of noise:

noise as

disturbance,

distraction,

and threat.

Noise

has also

functioned

as a vehicle

for ecstasy

and transcendence,

shap-

ing

tlre

musical

aesthetic of

drone-based

minimalists

La

Monte Young and

Tony

Conrad

as well as

the

free

jazz

players from

Albert

Ayler and

John

Coltrane

through

David

S.

Ware

and Sabir

Mateen. And

punk, HipHop,

and

Heavy

Metal

have

revalued

the

notion of

noise,

transforming

it into

a

marker

of

power,

resis-

tance, and

pleasure.

The

rise

of

interest in

"noise"

in contemporary

music has

gone

hand in

hand

with

a

new interest

in its

conceptual

opposite: silence.

With

his

Zen

embrace

of

contradiciion, John

Cage

attempted to

erase the

distinction

between silence

and

music,

while simultaneously

noting

that

perfect

silence is

never more

than a con-

ceptual

ideal,

an

aural

vanishing

point.

ln

the

face

o{

rising noise

levels in urban

and

rural environments,

composer

and acoustic ecologist

R.

Murray

Schafer

called

for

"the

recovery

of

positive

silence"

and a

subtle attention

to the

endan-

gered

non-musical

sounds

of

our environment.

Microphones

and

headphones

brought the

vanishing

point

of silence

within aural

reach, forever

transforming the

relationship

of

silence to sound,

giving

them equal

ontological status.

What is music?

According

to Jacques

Attali, it is

the constant effort

to

codify

and stratify

noise and silence,

which,

for

their

part,

always

threaten it

from without.

From Russolo through

DJ Culture, experimental

musical

practices

have inhabited

that borderland

where

noise and silence

become

music and vice

versa.

i{i'r:liliir

1.

John Cage, "Future of Music:

Credo,"

chap. 6,

below.

During

the

1980s, economic theorist Jacques

Attali

(1943-

)

was Special

Counselor

to French President

Frangois

Mitterand,

He subsequently headed

the European

Bank for

Reconstruciion

and

Development

and

is

currently

contributing

editor

to

Foreign Policy

magazine.

With the

publication

of Nolse

in

1977,

Attali

quickly

became one

of Europe's leading

philosophers

of

music.

For Attali,

music, like

economics and

politics,

is

fundamentally

a mat-

ter of

organizing dissonance

and

subversion-in a

word, "noise."

Yet

Attali

argues

that, an

all-but-immaterial force, music

moves faster than

economics

and

politics

and, hence,

prefigures

new social relations.

Noise

and

Politics

JACQUES ATTALI

l.

. .l Listening

to

music

is listening to

all

noise, realizing

that its appropriation

and

control is

a

reflection

of

power,

that it is

essentially

political.

More than colors

and

forms,

it

is

sounds and their arrangements

that fashion

societies. With

noise

is

born

disorder

and

its

opposite: the world. With

music is born

power

and its oppo-

site:

subversion.

ln

noise

can

be read the

codes of life,

the

relations among

men.

Clamor, Melody, Dissonance,

Harmony;

when it is fashioned

by man with

specific

tools, when it

invades

man's

time, when it

becomes

sound,

noise is

the

source

of

purpose

and

power,

of

the

dream-Music.

lt is at the heart of

the

progressive

rationalization

of

aesthetics, and it

is a refuge for residual irrationality;

it

is

a

means

of power and

a

form of entertainment.

Everywhere

codes analyze, mark, restrain,

train,

repress,

and

channel

the

primitive

sounds

of

language,

of

the

body,

of

tools, of

objects,

of

the

relations to

self and

others.

All

music, any

organization of

sounds

is

then

a

tool for the

creation

or consoli-

dation of a community,

of a totality.

lt

is what links

a

power

center

to

its subjects,

and thus, more

generally,

it

is

an attribute

of

power

in

all of

its forms. Therefore,

any theory

of

power

today

must include

a theory of the localization

of noise

and

its

endowment

with form.

Among birds

a tool for marking territorial

boundaries,

noise

is inscribed from the

start within the

panoply

of

power.

Equivalent

to the articulation

of

a space, it indicates

the

limits

of a territory and the way

to

make

oneself heard

,rS$

' ',,:i;

6

o

introduction

jacques

attali

e

7


5/8

within

it,

how

to

survive

by

drawing

one's

sustenance

from

it.1

And

since

noise

is

the

source

of

power,

power

has

always

listened

to

it

with

fascination'

ln an extraor-

dinary

and

little

known

text,

Leibniz describes

in

minute detail

the ideal

political

organization,

tl-re

"Palace

of

Marvels,"

a

harmonious

machine

within

which

all

of

tlrc

sciences

of time

and

every

iool

of

power

are deployed.

These

buildings

will be

constructed

in

such

a

way

that

the master of

the house

will be

able

to

hear and

see

everything

that is

said and

done

without

himself

being

perceived,

by

means

of mirrors

and

pipes,

which

will be a

most

impor-

tant thing

for

the State,

and

a

kind of

political

confessional'2

Eavesdropping,

censorship,

recording,

and surveillance

are weapons

of

power.

The

technology

of listening

in on, ordering,

transmitting,

and

recording

noise

is at

the

heart

of this

apparatus.

The

symbolism

of

the

Frozen

Words,3

of

the

Tables

of

the

Law, of

recorded

noise and eavesdropping-these

are

the dreams

of

political

scientists

and

the

fantasies

of

men

in

power:

to listen,

to

memorize-this

is

ihe

ability to interpret and control history,

to

manipulate

the culture

of a

people,

to

channel

its

violence

and

hopes.

Who

among

us is

free

of the

feeling

that

this

proc-

ess,

taken

to

an extreme,

is

turning

the

modern state

into a

gigantic, monopolizing

noise

emitter,

and

at

the same

time, a

generalized eavesdropping

device.

Eaves-

dropping

on

what?

ln order

to silence

whom?

The answer,

clear

and

implacable,

is

given

by

the

theorists

of totalitarianism.

They

have all

explained,

indistinctly,

that

it

is necessary

to

ban

subversive

noise

because

it

betokens

demands

for

cultural

autonomy,

support

for

differences

or

marginality:

a concern

for

maintaining

tonalism, the

primacy

of

melody,

a distrust

of new

languages,

codes,

or

instruments,

a

refusal

of

the

abnormal-these

char-

acteristics

are

common

to all

regimes

of

that

nature

[

. .

]

The

economic

and

political dynamics

of the industrialized

societies

living

under

parliamentary democracy

also

lead

power

to

invest art,

and to

invest

tn

art,

without

necessarily

theorizing

its control,

as

is done

under

dictatorship.

Every-

wlrere we

look, the

monopolization

of

the

broadcast

of

messages,

the

control

of

noise,

and

the

institutionalization

of

the

silence

of

others

assure the

durability

of

power.

Here,

this channelizatlon

takes

on

a

new,

less

violent,

and

more

subtle

iorm:

laws

of the

political

economy

take the

place

of

censorship

laws.

Music

and

the musician

essentially

become

either

objects

of consumption

like

everything

else,

recuperators

of subversion,

or

meaningless

noise.

Musical

distribution

techniques

are

today contributing

to the

establishment

of

a system

of

eavesdropping and social surveillance. Muzak, the American corpora-

tion

that

sells

standardized

music,

presents

itself

as

the

"security

system

of

the

1970s"

because

it

permits

use

of

musical

distribution

channels

forthe

circulation

of

orders. The

monologue

of

standardized,

stereotyped

music accompanies

and

lrems

in

a daily

life

in which

in

reality

no

one

has

the right

to

speak

any

more.

Except

those

among

the exploited

who can

still

use

their music

to shout

their

sut

fering,

their dreams

of the

absolute

and

freedom.

What is called

music

today is

all

too often

only

a

disguise

for

the monologue

of

power.

However,

and

this

is

the

supreme

irony

of it

all, never

before

have

musicians

tried

so hard

to communicate

with their

audience,

and

never

before

has

that

communication

been

so deceiving.

Music

now seems

hardly

more

than

a somewhat

clumsy

excuse

for

the self-glori-

fication of musicians and the

growth

of a new industrial sector.

Still,

it is

an activity

that is essential for knowledge

and

social relations.

i,i i*'i'it:;

1.

"Whether

we

inquire into

the

orlgin of

the

arts

or

observe the first criers, we find that

everything

in its

principle

is related to the

means

of

subsistence." Jean-Jacques Rousseau,

Essai

sur I'indgalit6.

2.

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz,

"Dr6le

de

pens6e

touchant une nouvelle sorte de repr6sen-

tation," ed.

Yves

Belaval,

La

Nouvelle Revue FrancaiseTO

(1

958):

754-68.

Quoted

in

Miche

Serres,

"Don

Juan ou le Palais des

Merveilles," Les

Eludes

PhilosophiquesS

(1966):389.

3.

[A

relerence

to

Rabelais, Gargantua and Pantagruel, b. 4, chap.

54.*trans.]

8

o

audio

culture

jacques

attali

"

9


6/8

Luigi

Russolo

(1S85-1947) was

a

prominent painter

in

the

lialian

Futurist

movement.

Yet he

is

best

known

lor

The Art of

Noises,

among

the

most

important and

influential texts

in 20th century

musical aesthetics.

Wriften in

1913

as

a

letterto

his

friend,

the

Futurist composer

Francesco

Balilla

Pra'

tella,

this

manifesto sketches

Russolo's

radical alternative

to

the

classical

musical

tradition.

Drawing

inspiration

from the

urban and

industrial

sound'

scape,

Russolo

argues

that traditional

orchestral

instruments

and

composi-

tion are

no

longer

capable

of

capturing

the

spirit

of

modern

life,

with

its

energy,

speed,

and

noise.

A

year

after composing

ihis

letter, Russolo

intro-

duced

his intonarumori("noise

instruments")

in

a series

of

concerts held in

London.

None

of

Russolo's

music

remains; and

the

intonarumori

were destroyed

in a

fire

during

World

War

ll. Yet,

since

the

War,

Russolo's

manitesto

has

become

increasingly

important, inspiring

a

host

of

musicians

and compos-

ers, among

them

musique

concrdte

pioneers Pierre

Schaeffer

and

Phrre

Henri, 1980s

dance-pop

outfit The

Art

of

Noise, "industrial"

bands such as

Einstiirzende

Neubauten

and

Test Dept., turntablist

DJ

Spooky, and

sound

artist

Francisco

L6pez.

The

Art

of

Noises.'

Futurist

Manifesto

LUIGI

RUSSOLO

1....1

Ancient

life was

all

silence. ln the

19th Century,

wlth

the

invention

of

machines,

Noise

was born.

Today, Noise

is triumphant

and

reigns sovereign

over

the

sensibility

of

men. Through many

centuries life

unfolded

silently,

or

at

least

quietly.

The loudest

of noises

that interrupted

this silence

was neither

intense, nor

prolonged,

nor varied.

After

all,

if

we

overlook the

exceptional

movements

of

the

earth's

crust,

hurricanes, storms,

avalanches,

and

waterfalls,

nature is silent.

ln

this

scarcity of

noises,

the first

sounds that

men

were able

to

draw

from

a

pierced

reed

or a

taut

string

were

stupefying,

something

new and

wonderful.

Among

primitive peoples,

sound

was attributed

to the

gods.

lt

was

considered

sacred and reserved

for

priests,

who

used

it

to

enrich their rites with

mystery.

Thus

was born

the

idea of sound

as something

in itself, as dlfferent

from and indepen-

dent of life.

And from it resulted

music,

a

fantastic

world superimposed

on

the

real

one,

an

inviolable

and sacred world.

The Greeks

greatly

restricted

the field of

music.

Their

musical

theory, mathematically

systematized

by

Pythagoras,

admit-

ted

only a few

consonant intervals.

Thus, they

knew

nothing

of harmony,

which

was impossible.

The

Middle Ages, with

the developments

and modifications

of the

Greek tetra-

chord system, with

Gregorian

chant and

popular

songs, enriched

the musical art.

But they

continued

to

regard

sound ln its

unfolding

in

time,

a

narrow

concept that

lasted

several

centuries, and which

we find again in

the very

complicated

polyph-

ony of

the

Flemish

contrapuntalists.

The chord

did

not exist. The

development

of

the various

parts

was

not subordinated

to the chord

thai these

parts

produced

in

their

totality. The

conception of these

parts,

finally, was

horizontal not vertical.

The

desire,

the

search,

and

the taste

for

the

simultaneous

union

of

different

sounds,

that is,

for the chord

(the

complete sound)

was manifested

gradually,

moving

from

the

consonant triad to

the consistent

and complicated

dissonances that

character-

ize

contemporary music.

From

the beginning, musical

art sought

out and obtained

purity

and

sweetness

of

sound. Afterwards,

it brought

togeiher

different

sounds,

still

preoccupying

itself with caressing

the ear with

suave

harmonies.

As it

grows

ever

more complicated

today, musical

art seeks out

combinations more

dissonant,

stranger,

and harsher

for the ear. Thus,

it

comes ever closer

to

ihe noise-sound.

This

evolution

of

music

is comparable to

the multiplication

of machines, which

everywhere

collaborate with man.

Not

only

in

the noisy atmosphere

of

the

great

cities, bui even in

the

country,

which until

yesterday

was normally

silent. Today,

the machine

has

creaied such a variety

and contention of noises

that

pure

sound

in

its slightness

and monotony no

longer

provokes

emotion.

ln

order

to excite

and

stir

our

sensibility, music

has been developing

toward

the

most complicated

polyphony

and toward

the

greatest

variety

of

instrumental

timbres

and colors. lt

has

searched

out

the

most complex

successrons

of

disso-

nant

chords, which have

prepared

in

a

vague

way for the creation of MUSICAL

NOISE. The

ear of the

Eighteenth Century

man would not have

been able to with-

stand

the

inharmonious

intensity of

certain chords

produced

by our orchestra

(with

three

times as many

performers

as

that

of the orchestra

of

his

time). But

our ear

takes

pleasure

in it, since

it

is

already educated to modern

life, so

prodigal

in differ-

ent noises.

Nevertheless,

our ear is not satisfied

and calls for

ever

greater

acousti-

cal

emotions.

Musical

sound

is

too limited in

its

variety of timbres. The

most complicated

orchestras can

be reduced to four

or five classes

of

instruments

different

in

timbres

of

sound: bowed instruments, metal

winds, wood winds,

and

percussion.

Thus,

modern music

flounders

within this tiny

circle, vainly striving

to create new varieties

of timbre.

We must break

out

of this

limited

circle of sounds

and conquer the infinite vari-

ety of noise-sounds.

Everyone

will recognize

that each

sound carries with

it

a

tangle

of sensations,

already well-known

and

exhausted,

which

predispose

the

listener to

boredom,

in

spite of the

efforls of all musical

innovators. We

futurists have

all deeply loved and

enjoyed

the harmonies

of the

great

masters. Beethoven

and Wagner have

stirred

10

e

audio culture

luigi russolo

e

1'l


7/8

ow

nerues

and hearts

for many

yeal-s.

Now we have

had enough

of

them'

and

we

detight nuch

more

in combining

in our thoughts the

noises of

trarns, of automobile

engines, of

cariages

and bnwling

crawds,

than in

hearing

again

the

"Eroica" or

the

"Pastorale."

We cannot

see

the

enormous

apparatus

of forces

that

the

modern orchestra

represents

without

feeling

the

most

profound

disillusionment

before

its

paltry

acoustical

results.

Do

you

know

of a more

ridiculous sight

than that of

twenty rnen

striving

to

redouble

the nrewling

of a

violin?

Naturally, that statemeni

will

make

the

nrusicomaniacs

scream-and

perhaps

revive the

sleepy

atmosphere

of the con-

cfi

halls.

Let us

go

together,

like

futurists,

into one of these

hospitals

for

anemic

sounds. Tlrere-tlre

first beat

brings to

your

ear

the weariness

of

something

heard

before, and

makes

you

anticipate

the boredom

of

the

beat

that follows.

So let us

drink

in,

from

beat to

beat,

these

few

qualities

of obvious

tedium,

always

waiting

for

that extraordinary

sensation that

never comes.

Meanwhile,

there is

in

progress

a repugnant

medley

of

monotonous

impressions

and of the

cretinous

religious

ernotion

of the

Buddha-like

listeners,

drunk

with repeating

for the thousandth

time

tfir

more

or less

acquired and snobbish ecstasy.

Away Let us

leave, since

we

cannot for

long

restrain ourselves

from the

desire to

create

finally a

new musical

reality by

generously

handing out

some

resounding slaps

and stamping

with both

@ on

violins,

pianos,

contrabasses,

and organs.

Let us

go

It cannot be objected

that

noise

is

only

loud and

disagreeable

to

the ear.

lt

seems to

me useless

to enumerate

all the subtle

and delicate

noises that

produce

pleasing

sensations.

To be convinced

oJ

the

surprising

variety of

noises, one need

only think of

the

rumbling of

thunder,

the

whistling of the

wind,

the roaring

of

a waterfall, the

gur-

glrng

of a brook the

rustlinE

of leaves,

the trotting

of

a

horse

into the distance,

the

rattling

jolt

of a

cart on

the road, and of

the full, solemn,

and

white breath of a city

at nighl.

Think

of

all

the

noises

made by wild and

dornestic

animals,

and

of

all

those

that a man

can make,

without either

speaking or singing.

Let us cross

a

large modern

capital

with our ears

more sensitive

than

our

eyes.

We

will

delight

in distinguishing

the

eddying of

water,

of

air

or

gas

in metal

pipes,

the muttering

of motors

that breathe

and

pulse

with an indisputable

animal-

ity, the throbbing

of valves,

the bustle

of

pistons,

the shrieks

of

mechanical saws,

the

startinE

of

trams on the

tracks, the cracking

of

whips, the flapping

of awnings

and

flags. We will

amuse ourselves

by orchestrating

together

in our

imagination

the din

of

rolling

shop shutters,

the

varied hubbub of

train stations,

iron

works,

thread rnills,

printing

presses,

electrical

plants,

and

subways

[.

.. .]

We want

to

give

pitches to

these diverse

noises,

regulating them harmonically

and

rhythmicaliy. Giving

pitch

to

noises does

not mean

depriving them

of all irregu-

lar movements

and vibrations

of

time

and intensity but

rather assigning

a degree

or

pitch

to the strongest

and most

prominent

of

these vibrations.

Noise differs

from

sound,

in

fact, only

to the

extent

that

the

vibrations

that

produce

it are

confused

and

inegular. Every

noise

has

a

pitch,

some

even a chord,

which

predominates

arnong the

whole of its inegular

vibrations. Now,

from

this

predominant

character-

istic

pitch

derives

the

practical

possibility

of

assigning

pitches

to

the

noise

as

a

whole.

That is, there

may be imparted to

a

given

noise not only

a single

pitch

but

even

a variety of

pitches

without

sacrificing

its character, by

which

I

mean

the tim-

bre that

distinguishes

it. Thus, some

noises obtained

through

a

rotary motion can

offer

an entire

chromatic

scale

ascending

or descending,

if

the

speed of the

motion

is increased

or decreased.

Every manifestation

of

life is

accompanied

by noise.

Noise

is thus familiar

to

our ear

and has

the

power

of immediately

recalling

life

itself.

Sound,

estranged

from life,

always musical,

something

in itself,

an occasional

not

a

necessary

ele-

ment,

has

become for

our ear what

for

the

eye

is a

too

familiar

sight. Noise instead,

arriving

confused and

irregular

from

the irregular

confusion of

life,

is

never

revealed

to

us entirely

and always holds innumerable

surprises.

We

are certain,

then,

that

by selecting,

coordinating,

and

controlling

all

the

noises,

we will

enrich

mankind

with

a new and

unsuspected

pleasure

of the senses.

Although

the

char-

acteristic

of

noise

is

that

of

reminding

us brutally

of

life,

the

Art

of Noises

shoutd

not limit

itself to

an imitative

reproduction.

lt will

achieve its

greatest

emotional

power

in acoustical

enjoyment itself,

which

the

inspiration

of the artist

will

know

how

to draw

from the

combining

of noises.

Here

are the 6 families

of

noises

of the futurist orchestra

that we

will

soon

realize

mechanically:

1.

Roars,

Thunderings,

Explosions,

Hissing

roars, Bangs,

Booms

2.

Whistling,

Hissing,

Puffing

3. Whispers,

Murmurs,

Mumbling,

Muttering,

Gurgling

4.

Screeching,

Creaking,

Rustling,

Humming,

Crackling,

Rubbing

5. Noises

obtained

by beaiing

on metals, woods,

skins,

stones,

pottery,

etc.

6. Voices

of

animals

and

people,

Shouts,

Screams,

Shrieks, Wails,

Hoots,

Howls,

Death

rattles,

Sobs

ln

this list we

have included

the most

characteristic

of the fundamental

noises.

The

others

are only associations

and combinations

of these.

The rhythmic

motions

of

a

noise

are infinite. There

always

exists, as with

a

pitch,

a

predominant

rhythm,

but around this

there

can

be

heard numerous

other,

secondary

rhythms.

Conclusions

'1

.

Futurist

composers

should

continue

to

enlarge and

enrich the field

of

sound.

This responds

to a need

of

our sensibiliiy.

ln fact, we

notice in the

talented

composers

of

today a tendency

toward

the most

complicaied

dissonances.

Moving

ever farther

from

pure

sound,

they

have almost

attained lhe

noise-sound. This

need and this tendency can

be

satisfied

only with

the

addition and

the

substitution

of noises for

sounds.

2.

Futurist

musicians

should

substitute

for the limited variety

of timbres

that

the

orchestra

possesses

today

the infinite variety

of

timbres

in noises,

reproduced

with

appropriate

mechanisms.

3.

The

sensibility

of musicians,

being freed

from

traditional

and

facile

rhythms,

must find

in

noise

the means

of expanding

and renewing

itself,

given

that

every

noise

offers

a

union

of

the

most

diverse rhythms,

in

addition

to that which

predominates.

4.

Every

noise

having in

its irregular vibrations

a

predominant

generat pitch,

a

sufficiently

extended

variety of

tones, semitones,

and

quartertones

is easily

12

o

audioculture

luigi

russolo

e

13


8/8

attained

in

the constructbn

of tfie

instrurnents that

imitate it. This variety of

pitches

will not deprive

a sinEle noise of

the

characteristics

of its timbre but

will

only

increase

its

tessitura or extension.

5.

TFre

practical

difficul'ties

irwolved

in

the construction

of these

instrurnents

are not

serious. Once the

mechanical

principle

that

produces

a

noise has been

found,

its

pitch

can be

changed through

the application

of

the

same

general

laws

of

acoustics.

lt

can

be

achieved,

for example,

through the decreasing

or

increasing

of speed, if

the

instrument has

a

rotary motion.

li the

instrument does not have

a

rotary molion,

it can be achieved

through differences

of

size or tension in the

sounding

parts.

6. lt

will

not be

through a succession

of noises imitative of

life but through a

fantastic association

of the different

timbres and

rhythms

that the new orchestra

will obtain

the

most

complex and

novel emotions of sound.

Thus, every instrument

will have

to offer the

possibility

of changing

pitches

and

will

need

a

more

or

less

extended

range.

7. The variety of

noises

is

infinite. lf

today, having

perhaps

a

thousand differ-

ent machines,

we are able

to

distinguish

a thousand different

noises, tomorrow,

with the multiplicaiion

of new

machines, we will be able

to distinguish ten,

tvventy,

ot

thirty thousand different

noises, not

simply

by

imitation but

by

combining accord-

ing

to

our

fancy.

8.

Tlrerefore, we

invite talented and audacious

young

musicians to observe

all noises attentively,

to understand

the different rhythms

that

compose

them, their

principal pitch,

and those

which are secondary.

Then,

comparing

the various tim-

bres of

noises to the timbres of sounds,

they will be convinced that

the first

are

much more

numerous than the second.

This will

give

them not only

the under-

standing

of but also the

passion

and

the taste for noises. Our

multiplied sensibility,

having been

conquered

by

futurist eyes, will finally have some

futurist ears. Thus,

the motors

and machines of our

industrial cities can one day

be

given pitches,

so

that every

workshop will become an

intoxicating orchestra of

noises

;.

. . .1

't4

r

audioculture

Documents

Audio Culture, cap I, secs. 1-2.pdf