An Empirical Investigation Into Heightened Listening As an Access Tool for Electroacoustic Music

An empirical investigation into heightened listening as an access tool for electroacoustic music By David Holland Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MA BY RESEARCH Research sponsored by the Arts and Humanities Research Council De Montfort University, Leicester September 2011 An empirical investigation into heightened listening as an access tool for electroacoustic music Table of contents Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………………………5 Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………………....6 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………….7 1. The project in context................................................................................................... 10 1.1. Contextual basis of the research ..................................................................................... 10 1.1.1. The movement to reception in music and literature ....................................................................... 10 1.1.2. Problems of access to electroacoustic music – the foundations of the Intention / Reception project ......................................................................................................................................................... 11 1.1.3. Intention Reception Project ........................................................................................................................ 13 1.1.4. Triangulation - completing the intention/reception loop ............................................................. 14 1.2. Listening Strategies in electroacoustic music ........................................................... 17 1.2.1. Reduced listening and heightened listening ........................................................................................ 18 1.2.2. Listening and the experience of the blind or visually impaired ................................................. 22 1.3. Soundscape theory and listening – a sense of place ................................................ 24 1.3.1. Murray Schafer - Tuning the World ....................................................................................................... 26 1.3.2. World Soundscape Project and education ............................................................................................ 27 1.3.3. Soundwalks ........................................................................................................................................................ 28 1.3.4. Memories, associations and the imagination ...................................................................................... 29 2. Developing the methodology ..................................................................................... 34 2.1. Designing the testing methodology ............................................................................... 34 2.1.1. Listener subject groups................................................................................................................................. 35 2.1.2. Ethical issues ..................................................................................................................................................... 36 2.1.3. Teaching heightened listening skills ....................................................................................................... 37 2.2. Composing the test material ............................................................................................ 38 2.2.1. The structure of ‘Night and Day’ ............................................................................................................... 39 2.2.2. Composer Intention information .............................................................................................................. 40 2.2.3. An iterative process through triangulation ......................................................................................... 41 2.2.4. Structuring the soundwalk .......................................................................................................................... 41 2 2.3. Designing the workshops and questionnaires .......................................................... 42 2.3.1. Workshop structures ..................................................................................................................................... 43 2.3.2. The three questionnaires (1Q, 2Q, 3Q) used in schools ................................................................. 45 2.3.3. Differences in structure for visually impaired participants ......................................................... 49 2.3.4. Collecting anecdotal data through discussion and conversation ............................................... 50 2.4. Beta tests ................................................................................................................................. 50 2.4.1. First beta test ..................................................................................................................................................... 50 2.4.2. Abington High ................................................................................................................................................... 52 2.4.3. Myton School ..................................................................................................................................................... 54 2.4.4. Revisions to workshop structure and questionnaires for final tests ....................................... 55 3. Analysis of results .......................................................................................................... 58 3.1. Leicester Grammar .............................................................................................................. 58 3.1.1. Responses to first questionnaire (1Q) – testing the influence of initial listening exercises. .......................................................................................................................................................................... 59 3.1.2. Responses to second questionnaire (2Q) – testing the influence of listening exercises and dramaturgy on appreciation .......................................................................................................................... 63 3.1.3. Responses to third questionnaire (3Q) – testing the process of triangulation .................... 66 3.2. Trinity ...................................................................................................................................... 69 3.2.1. Responses to first questionnaire – testing the influence of initial listening exercises. .... 69 3.2.2. Responses to second questionnaire – testing the influence of listening exercises and information from the composer on appreciation .......................................................................................... 71 3.2.3. Responses to third questionnaire – testing the process of triangulation ............................... 73 3.3. Leicester High ........................................................................................................................ 75 3.3.1. Responses to first questionnaire – testing the influence of initial listening exercises. .... 76 3.3.2. Responses to second questionnaire – testing the influence of listening exercises and information from the composer on appreciation .......................................................................................... 78 3.3.3. Responses to third questionnaire – testing the process of triangulation ............................... 80 3.4. Kingsley ................................................................................................................................... 82 3.4.1. Responses to first questionnaire – testing the influence of initial listening exercises. .... 82 3.4.2. Responses to second questionnaire – testing the influence of listening exercises and information from the composer on appreciation .......................................................................................... 85 3.4.3. Responses to third questionnaire – testing the process of triangulation ............................... 86 3.5. Tests with the visually impaired .................................................................................... 89 3.5.1. RNIB College Loughborough ...................................................................................................................... 89 3.5.2. Blind musician (VI1) ...................................................................................................................................... 90 3.5.3. Warwickshire association for the blind ................................................................................................. 92 3 4. Overall evaluation and conclusions ........................................................................ 95 4.1. Overall evaluation of results from the main tests .................................................... 95 4.1.1. The role of source recognition in appreciation .................................................................................. 95 4.1.2. Awareness of space and place and their influence of appreciation .......................................... 98 4.1.3. The influence of aural awareness and dramaturgy on appreciation ..................................... 101 4.1.4. The effectiveness of triangulation ......................................................................................................... 103 4.1.5. Future access to sound-based music

Load more