Resumen
Raymond Murray Schafer proposed the concepts of “hi-fi” and “lo-fi” (high fidelity
and low fidelity) to qualify soundscapes from an aesthetic and ecological perspective. According to his assessment, landscapes where individual sounds can be heard clearly are hi-fi, whereas landscapes whose particular acoustic signals are masked by a density of sounds that makes discernment difficult are lo-fi (Schafer, 1994). This categorisation links rural with hi-fi and urban with lo-fi, in an opposition that fails to account for many other fundamental attributes of how communities and individuals relate to their soundscape. Consequently, the primary classification of “noise” that is intuited in such a characterisation
becomes problematic, insofar as a collectivity gives meaning to apparently
noisy environments, which actually represent deep-rooted modes of socialisation
vital to communication and even heritage identity. Through the results of research
carried out by the author in different sound environments, the article argues that some soundscapes, a priori considered lo-fi, embody forms of socialisation with deep cultural roots and meaning, while hi-fi soundscapes express situations far removed from the bucolic ideal that Schafer’s definition implies. Finally, the author reflects on the different criteria applied by scientific, cultural and aesthetic approaches to the study of soundscapes.
and low fidelity) to qualify soundscapes from an aesthetic and ecological perspective. According to his assessment, landscapes where individual sounds can be heard clearly are hi-fi, whereas landscapes whose particular acoustic signals are masked by a density of sounds that makes discernment difficult are lo-fi (Schafer, 1994). This categorisation links rural with hi-fi and urban with lo-fi, in an opposition that fails to account for many other fundamental attributes of how communities and individuals relate to their soundscape. Consequently, the primary classification of “noise” that is intuited in such a characterisation
becomes problematic, insofar as a collectivity gives meaning to apparently
noisy environments, which actually represent deep-rooted modes of socialisation
vital to communication and even heritage identity. Through the results of research
carried out by the author in different sound environments, the article argues that some soundscapes, a priori considered lo-fi, embody forms of socialisation with deep cultural roots and meaning, while hi-fi soundscapes express situations far removed from the bucolic ideal that Schafer’s definition implies. Finally, the author reflects on the different criteria applied by scientific, cultural and aesthetic approaches to the study of soundscapes.
| Título traducido de la contribución | La dimensión cultural del paisaje sonoro: más allá de la dualidad hi-fi y lo-fi de R. Murray Schafer |
|---|---|
| Idioma original | Inglés |
| Páginas (desde-hasta) | 9-22 |
| Número de páginas | 14 |
| Publicación | Journal of Sound, Silence, Image and Technology |
| N.º | 7 |
| DOI | |
| Estado | Publicada - 20 dic. 2024 |
ODS de las Naciones Unidas
Este resultado contribuye a los siguientes Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible
-
ODS 11: Ciudades y comunidades sostenibles
Palabras clave
- Paisaje Sonoro
- Ruido
- Cultura
- Alta Fidelidad
- Baja Fidelidad
- Entorno Rural
- Entorno Urbano
Huella
Profundice en los temas de investigación de 'La dimensión cultural del paisaje sonoro: más allá de la dualidad hi-fi y lo-fi de R. Murray Schafer'. En conjunto forman una huella única.Citar esto
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver