Noise uses to cause negative impact on humans on different levels.
I am wonder whethet it is possible to turn out those negative effects and help the perceiver to enjoy rather the sound instead of suffering from it.
Next question is how this process could be created? I propose a focused attention toward a single, patriculary details of the noise. However, could it be achived by another way?
Anorther iquiry is whether the atonal music could be used as relevant eqivalence for noice?
Pleasurable experience is based primarily on two things (afaik):
1) automatic biological/chemical response to input signals (call this: A)
2) trained/behavioural biological/chemical response to input signals (call this: B)
of course in some situations, 'pain' or 'discomfort is the automatic biological/chemical response to input signals (call this: C)
in the case of 'noise' music/sound:
if B > (A-C) one would derive pleasure from the experience.
of course, this is all quite simplified. but hey, it's a start!
Thank you for your input, Robin.
Do you possibly have an idea, a suggestion how this could be done practically in terms of noise / sound / Music?
My best regards - Sabina
How do you define "noise"? Your idea that atonal music could be equivalent to noise is troublesome.
The American Standard Association defines "noise" either as "any undesired sound" or as "an erratic, intermittent, or statistically random oscilation". The first definition appears to exclude the possibility of a "positive" affect, which would contradict the idea of "undesired". The second definition is somewhat problematic, especially in the case of music. It appears to derive from a 19th-century idea which opposed "musical sound" to "noise", defining the musical sound as having pitch, i.e. a stable frequency.
Early atonal music (say the 20th-century Viennese one) would consist of "musical sounds" according to this definition. More recent "music of noise" would not. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_music.
Sabina Dalsborn i think you would need to go down the line of measuring biological/chemical signals with respect to listening. There has been some work done on this:
http://www.academia.edu/download/18458481/Article_Spatial_Vision.pdf
https://research.thea.ie/bitstream/handle/20.500.12065/1887/2012Jaimovich_et_al-NIME.pdf?sequence=1
https://research.thea.ie/bitstream/handle/20.500.12065/1886/2012Jaimovich_et_al-CMMR.pdf?sequence=1
Conference Paper BioTools: A Biosignal Toolbox for Composers and Performers
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4b45/adda89badc7c4388179941f8068fec573da1.pdf
that will probably get you started...
Sabina Dalsborn I have worked a lot with how to use listening in interpretation of music and as a way to cope with the noise in daily life. For me it's all in the mind of the listener. It is difficult to think of noise as loud unpleasant sounds when noise can be anything that has no specific pitch or clean overtone series. Noise can be the sound of an ant walking on sand as well as a jet plane. If you haven't you should read articles by Pauline Oliveros and John Cage to understand how active listening to the sounds in daily life can be a beautiful experience and when you've learned that it is possible to choose what sounds you should block in your mind and what sounds you should embrace.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aYT1Pwp30M&t=12s
Prof Nicolas Meeus 's second definition of noise - especially the 'statistically random' part (although not necessarily an oscillation) from the ASA - is probably close enough to an engineer's view of noise. This is seen as a random element embedded in a signal which, although not intentionally included by the signal's (conscious, in the sense of a 'directing mind') emitter, is sufficiently indistinguishable as a separate signal by the (again, similarly conscious) receiver, thus possibly a source of confusion and/or unintended ambiguity. Thus this would seem to definitely _not_ be relevant within atonal music since the directing mind (presumably!) intends what is transmitted, despite any apprehensions of the receiver.
Thus, musically, and with this definition, apart from any extraneous sounds such as passing underground trains, audience coughs and sweet unwrappings, it might include a note fluffed by a performer, a conductorly misdirection, the squeak of fingers along a fingerboard (unless of course specifically required as extended techniques) etc.
The main point of this remark is that I'm suggesting that whatever noise is, it's only noise if it is (1) a part of the received 'performance' and (2) unintended.