Acoustic Ecology 2.0

Contemporary Music Review

ISSN: 0749-4467 (Print) 1477-2256 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gcmr20

Garth Paine

To cite this article: Garth Paine (2017): Acoustic Ecology 2.0, Contemporary Music Review, DOI: 10.1080/07494467.2017.1395136

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07494467.2017.1395136

Published online: 15 Nov 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gcmr20

Download by: [Arizona State University Libraries] Date: 15 November 2017, At: 08:03 Contemporary Music Review, 2017 https://doi.org/10.1080/07494467.2017.1395136

Acoustic Ecology 2.0 Garth Paine

In this article, I argue for a reassertion of the practice of acoustic ecology. I present an argument for the rejection of the term soundscape in favour of the notion of an acoustic ecology; along the way, I show how the concept of ecology is a powerful tool in re- imaging the role of sound awareness in the society. I argue, however, that acoustic ecology as defined by Luc Ferrari and Murray Schaeffer needs refocusing or revitalizing. I suggest a framework that prioritizes community engagement, exploration, and experience of the sounding world, driven by a desire to build stewardship and agency for change management in the community. The proposed model draws on the sensibilities of acoustic ecology to drive design solutions to anthropocentric sound challenges. This kind of work provides for the development of tools that quantify environmental psychoacoustic metrics and can be used to design and manage acoustic ecologies that contribute to well-being, social cohesion, and quality of life.

Keywords: Acoustic Ecology; Listening; Community Engagement; Sustainability; Sound; Somatic

Every day we listen to sounds in the world to identify their source. The bird or coyote calls (biophony), the car, motorbike, plane or your sister’s voice (anthrophony), or the wind in the foliage, the water in the river (geophony) … But we do not often listen to these sounds as a network, a mesh of relationships that forms an ecology. Furthermore,

Downloaded by [Arizona State University Libraries] at 08:03 15 November 2017 we do not often consider that the sounds we hear are conditioned, augmented, and filtered by the environment in which they occur—the rich reverberation created by a rock canyon or the glass skyscrapers of a major city, the quiet absorption of a dense undergrowth, thick leaf litter, or fresh snow on the ground. Consider also that the density of air varies from the cool mountain top or canyon base to the heat of the open desert plane. In these variations, the confluence of sound is conditioned by the density of the air, dispersing the excitation and the fidelity of the sound in warmer dryer environments more quickly than occurs in dense, cool, heavy air. Here, a uniquely detailed sonic fidelity seems to hang in the ether for an inordinate

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group 2 G. Paine period of time. Geographic structure, altitude, and humidity all influence sonic ambi- ence and ecology. If we adjust our listening to engage with the idea of the sounds around us as a set of dynamic relationships, an acoustic ecology, then we can consider that they tell us a good deal about the health of the environment in which they occur, the biotic ecology (biosphere). The diversity and density of species, the abundance of vegetation and the profusion of its foliage (affecting reverberation), and the density of the air determined by temperature, all act as key sonic indexes of environmental condition. These indicators change as environments respond to climate change. The sound absorption coefficient changes as foliage becomes less or more profuse, while the density and diversity of the biophony transform with variation in the prevalence of species calls. The wildlife recordist Bernie Krause demonstrates this later point through a comparative analysis of his historical recordings in the Sugar Loaf State Park (see https://vimeo.com/166,214,601). These forms of critical listening are one of the ways in which acoustic ecology can assist in raising public awareness of environmental changes. Teaching members of the public to listen gives them insight into the richness of the acoustic properties of the environments they frequent. It also provides a way to heighten awareness, to develop stewardship through public engagement, and to support agency in the efforts needed to care for and manage environments subject to climate change. In addition, the creative application of field recordings in these environments and the composition and performance of musical works derived from environmental sounds provide accessible ways to develop a creative capital around the value of acoustic ecologies and their uniqueness to each site.

Acoustic Ecology 2.0 In recent years, the community of people interested in the sonic properties of the world has grown, but also fractured and then focused around different practice titles. A non- exhaustive list would include Soundscape Ecology (Purdue University, Farina; Krause and Gage, Pijanowski), Sound/Sonic Ecology (Pailhès and Vogt, Kelman), BioAcous- tics (see the journal Bioacoustics – The International Journal of Animal Sound and Its Recording, Taylor & Francis), and Soundscape studies (a broad title for a range of prac- tices and pedagogies examining the sounding world). Downloaded by [Arizona State University Libraries] at 08:03 15 November 2017 I share with Tim Ingold a dislike for the word ‘soundscape’ because it seems so generalized as to be meaningless, but I also share his concern that one cannot ‘scape’ a medium—we do not have lightscapes. The acoustic ecology of the world is so rich, intricate, and dynamic, that to refer to the overall gestalt as a ‘soundscape’ provides little insight into the phenomena being discussed. As Ingold (2011, p. 157) eloquently writes: ‘For sound, I would argue, is not the object but the medium of our perception. It is what we hear in. Similarly, we do not see light but see in it’. The ‘scaping’ of sound is perhaps a result of its complexity, the manifold sources meshing into a single perceivable gestalt. The geographer Hägerstrand (1976, Contemporary Music Review 3 p. 332) comments that ‘(t)he big tapestry that nature is weaving, is woven because all things have a temporal vector that enmesh’. Hägerstrand neatly sums up the very nature of ecology as a dynamic system of interaction, co-dependence, and interdepen- dence, where life itself is made and presenced. To prioritize the idea of an ecology in our discourse about the sounding world is to bring attention to these enmeshed vectors: in our case, the acoustic ecology of the world we share. Sound is a uniquely temporal medium. It is the very temporality that illuminates transformations and relationships, night into day, year-on-year climate changes, how the environment responds to such pressures. Guided by Ingold and Hägerstrand, in this article I argue that there is value in re-assembling around the term Acoustic Ecology. I foreground the dynamic vectors of both the individual and the whole: the geo/bio and anthrophony as well as what I refer to as somaphony, the underlying, a priori sonic signature of an environment.

World Forum for Acoustic Ecology—Acoustic Ecology 1.0 One of the founding precepts of the World Forum for Acoustic Ecology was a desire to protect and maintain a status quo in the sound make-up of our environment, that is, to work against any further perceived degradation of the environment. In much of Murray Schafer’s(1986, 1993) writing, there appears to be a desire to recede to times past, with discussion about the need for quiet, for musty sanctuaries of the soul in which one could recover from the sounds of the modern industrial economy. On the surface, these seem like lofty ideals driven by a committed belief that the increasing prevalence of the sounds of mechanization over the past century or so was having a detrimental effect on human well-being. In so far as there had been substantial increases in anthropogenic sound, and urban and industrial designs were not prioritizing a consideration of our acoustic ecology, these concerns were well founded and formed the basis for a re-awakening of awareness of the importance of considering balance and stewardship in the acoustic ecology of the globe as a whole. It brought with it a push for careful policy development, while simultaneously issuing a call for public engagement through projects such as the World Soundscape Project. We all make sound and would intrinsically benefit from developing an astute awareness of the role we play in forming and finessing our acoustic

Downloaded by [Arizona State University Libraries] at 08:03 15 November 2017 ecology (Figure 1). Reflection on these ideals leads me to the following thoughts:

(1) It is critical that we are conscious of our sound environment and that we play an active role in moderating noise and designing the sonic properties of urban (and all) environments to promote well-being. Humans should develop an acute awareness of their own contribution to the acoustic ecology. (2) Exposure to loud sounds and noise has been shown to have a negative impact on well-being. 4 G. Paine

Figure 1 A common sign in Athens, Greece, encouraging communal environmental pro- tection action.

(3) The sounds of our industrialized environment are part of the acoustic ecology; they do not exist in isolation. (4) Humans adapt quickly. An individual who grows up in a large and active city may feel uneasy sleeping in a quiet rural setting; there is no single baseline. The concept of urban noise for someone who grows up in rural Virginia, or in cities like Zurich, Munich, Vienna, or Stockholm, differs markedly to the concept for a person who has grown up in central Guangzhou, Delhi, or Cairo.1 (5) The generalized use of the word ‘noise’ to define aspects of an acoustic ecology is a conditioned and value-laden statement rather than a consideration of poss- ible solutions, driven by a sensibility to sound and ecology. Conditioning is more crucial to experience than experimental baselines or fixed thresholds, and decibel measures should only form part of any useful sound quality metric. (6) An ecosystem is by nature not static; it is permanently in transition, fluid, and variable. The morphology so evident in the smooth modulation of the appar- ent pitch of a moving sound, an ambulance, for instance, as it travels past you (Doppler effect), is true of the entire soundfield. Micro-scale variation is always at play, and as Truax (1978) illustrates so well in the World Soundscape Project analysis, the patterns of daily change repeats in a stochastic manner, displaying external macro similarities while constantly producing micro-

Downloaded by [Arizona State University Libraries] at 08:03 15 November 2017 scale, relational variations that are largely unknown and possibly unknowable. (7) Long-term analysis of trends in the acoustic ecology of both conserved nature and urban environments could lead to insight into vectors of change and sub- sequently provide new tools for environmental monitoring, land management, and urban design.

The initial terms coined by Schafer (1993) to categorize and describe the acoustic ecology, Keynote sounds, Sound Marks, and Sound Signals, only describe sounding sources. They do not describe the a priori acoustic of an environment and the Contemporary Music Review 5 relationship therein. Luc Ferrari brought this to our attention through his comments about how the ‘sound of the boats on the river describe the streets, houses and form of the city and its surrounding landscape’ (Caux, 2013, p. 109). Indeed, this relationship between sound and its acoustic context is central to our perception of both. I have termed this gestalt Somaphony. I define somaphony as a subconscious listening to the entire soundfield as a singular gestalt. Reached through a state of deep listening, one moves beyond hearing events, the focus of directed listening, beyond the structures exposed in active listening to a form of passive listening where the scale of the perceived soundfield expands beyond the immediate location to include all sound as a confluence of influences. This deeper form of listening is a subtle body awareness, bypassing the analytical mind; it allows for the lifting of our perceptual filters so that we hear the a priori acoustic of the environment as an equal influence in the soundfield.

The Listenn Project These thoughts are encapsulated in the Listenn Project. As a response to climate change and simultaneously as a community engagement and environmental stewardship project, the Listenn Project seeks to document the sounds of the environment in pro- tected national parks and conservancies of south-western USA and with international partners in Germany, Costa Rica, and Chile, for a decade or more. The project runs regular on-site workshops with the aim of building communities of listeners, who through monthly field recording sessions become expert observers of how that environment’s sound changes with season and as a result of larger forces such as through changes in land usage patterns and climate change. These communities meet regularly to share their insights and have input on proposed changes in terms of land use and policy. The recordings are submitted to an online database (see http://www.ecolisten.org/sonic_events.php), and from a large data project, the recordings are analysed for psychoacoustic metrics, tracked over time as a measure of environmental change. I hypothesize that in developing robust metrics, this work may form the basis for land management tools which can be applied to natural environments in the near future and possibly also urban environments, as measures of well-being and human/biophonic interrelationships. Such a tool would provide a Downloaded by [Arizona State University Libraries] at 08:03 15 November 2017 much more nuanced approach to the management of environmental health challenges, including deafness as a result of ongoing noise exposure. The current World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations simply focus on reducing exposure through the use of earplugs and noise-cancelling earphones and headphones. The

WHO says that half of all cases of hearing loss can be prevented through public health measures, including reducing exposure to loud sounds by raising awareness about the risks; developing and enforcing relevant legislation; and encouraging individuals to use personal protective devices such as earplugs and noise-cancelling earphones and headphones.2 6 G. Paine These interventions assume access to resources, organizational and individual prepa- redness, and economic capacity to adopt such measures. They are insensitive to the core issue and ignore the dramatic socio-economic inequalities prevalent among the noisiest cities on earth, from Asia to Europe to the Americas (Figure 2). Figure 2 provided by the WHO illustrates the health impacts of sound stress. The approach is however very blunt. Individuals respond differently to different kinds of sounds. We understand that psychoacoustic measures provide more detailed information on human response than sound pressure measures. And so I ask:

How do we arrive at a better understanding of the sounding world and its impact on our well-being, and a better understanding of our impact on the acoustic ecology? How can such understandings be used to develop new approaches to assessment and environmental and urban design? Can the arts drive these important and time critical discussions?

My answer to the above questions draws from a practice of listening. Refining our aural acuity is central to these questions and is a sensibility that acoustic ecologists, composers, musicians, and individuals who practise listening are uniquely positioned to bring to such challenges. These skills are central to both reframing the challenges and driving new proposals for solutions. Downloaded by [Arizona State University Libraries] at 08:03 15 November 2017

Figure 2 The WHO pyramid of health effects due to prolonged noise exposure: the severity of health effects of noise and the number of people affected. Contemporary Music Review 7 The Practice of Listening Listening is one of the most powerful tools for engaging with and understanding our environment. Often ignored or underrated, simple active listening, that is, being truly present in the environment, can reveal an immense spectrum of information. This includes, among other things, information about relationships between the vocaliza- tions of species present—their daily phases of activity, their spectral niche, their spatial proximity, the relationship of their calls to the acoustic qualities of the land, rocks and flora, the reverberation time and frequency spectra of the reflective or absorptive context of their habitat, and the interplay and impact of geophonic and anthropocentric sounds. However, the listening experiences that yield such information require time. For instance, durational listening (several uninterrupted hours) will expose transitions, night into day and vice versa, revealing the transition from nocturnal to diurnal species and weather patterns. Listening is itself a form of knowledge, an embodied knowledge. Merleau-Ponty (1962, p. 273) pointed out that ‘(m)y body is the fabric into which all objects are woven, and it is, at least in relation to the perceived world, the general instrument of my comprehension’. After spending long periods with indigenous people in Papua New Guinea, the anthropologist Steven Feld (Kruth & Stobart, 2000, p. 184) coined the term acoustemology, writing that ‘by acoustemology I wish to suggest a union of acoustics and epistemology, and to investigate the primacy of sound as a modality of knowing and being in the world’. Feld refers to listening as being the base for an acoustic epistemology, writing ‘how sounding and the sensual, bodily, experiencing of sound is a special kind of knowing’ (1996, p. 97, 2005)—‘Just as “life takes place” so does sound’ (2005, p. 4). It is note- worthy that Feld arrived at this knowledge through observing indigenous peoples. It is likely that many forms of knowledge about how we exist in concert with the ecology of which we are part have been lost to urbanized western societies. To demonstrate the above point about embodied listening, I would ask you— readers of this article—to engage in what I call memory-based listening. Please close your eyes, and for a few minutes, go to a place full of sounds that you like. Listen care- fully to the atmosphere and the close and distant sounds that come to you. Memory- based listening demonstrates the manner in which sound is embodied, retained in the body as a kind of visceral experience. It points towards whole-body, somatic listening,

Downloaded by [Arizona State University Libraries] at 08:03 15 November 2017 that is, somaphony. Feld touches on this when he explains the concept of acoustemology and the role of sound recordings. He writes: ‘Implicitly … recordings ask what it means to live and feel as a person in this place. Voiced in a more contemporary way … recordings signal that the concept of “habitus” must include a history of listening’ (2004, p. 462). The use of the word habitus, while gesturing to Bourdieu (1984), implies an embodied disposition as a filter to perception. Sound is the resulting sonifi- cation of life. Everything sounds. I cherish such listening experiences each time they occur. However, their power as a tool for social change really comes through the training and mentoring of public 8 G. Paine volunteers as citizen scientists, to both broaden awareness and engagement with the acoustic ecology of local environments, build stewardship and agency for change management in the community, and by repeated documentation (personal and crowd- sourced recordings) of these sonic environments over several years, building large data collections (e.g. monthly for 10+ years) of regular sound recordings in selected sites as data sources for environmental sound analysis.

The Listenn Project Framework The Listenn Project is the first large-scale citizen science project where all sound recordings are made in ambisonic format,3 because it provides a spatial map of events and atmospheres. Volunteers are provided with a Brahma in Zoom,4 A- format recorder, while the Listenn team uses a Soundfield SPS2005 microphone and Sound Devices 788 recorder with a Schoeps Double M/S set-up as a secondary hori- zontal recording technique. Ambisonics is also critical in such a long-term project, as we do not know in advance where and how environmental change may take place. Stereo techniques would imply a fixed point of view in the recordings, but this may therefore miss crucial sonic signatures associated with environmental change or changes resulting from evolving land use or management policies. Alongside the Listenn Project, the EcoSonic project utilizes the Listenn projects’ crowd-sourced recording database (all publicly available online6) for psychoacoustic time series analysis, driven by the hypothesis that psychoacoustic measures may help us track changes in environmental conditions much faster than current scientific methods. This approach has been championed by Bruel and Kjaer7 as an industrial design tool addressing consumer perceptions of build quality, image, and so on. The scaffolding of the development of environmental monitoring tools onto the community engagement aspects of the Listenn Project substantially expands the social and long-term impact of the citizen science data collection and, we have found, deepens the volunteer’s commitment to monthly recording sessions. The tools we are developing will be impactful for both land management of natural preserves and the analysis of urban environments in terms of wellness metrics, for instance, to assist in the development of urban parks and sanctuaries so they have positive psychoacoustic metrics, so encouraging positive well-being metrics and contribut- ing to social cohesion and quality of life for urban inhabitants. Downloaded by [Arizona State University Libraries] at 08:03 15 November 2017 It is important however to realize that many people are unable to access the cele- brated splendour of the National Park networks in the USA and across the globe. Access is impeded by health and ability, socio-economic factors, or simply, in many settings, age (i.e. young people or the elderly) and gender. To expand access to these preserves, the Listenn Project developed the EcoRift8 virtual reality system, bringing virtual reality nature experiences to those lacking access to natural environments (but with access to the Internet). The virtual reality system is built using panoramic photographs of the same locations that are regularly recorded by citizen scientists and the Listenn Team in ambisonic format. EcoRift is designed to act as a context Contemporary Music Review 9 for listening. The image space is kept as static photographs, in order to direct attention to listening. Felds wrote of listening ‘as place is sensed, senses are placed; as places make sense, senses make place’ (1996, p. 91, 2005), a wonderfully poetic way of encap- sulating place making through personal listening. I suggest that virtual reality projects such as EcoRift achieve this extension of the mind or being into the world around us. The visual context encourages active listening in a manner that would not take place if the user was simply provided with a spatial audio file. In an ocular-centric world, the immersive visual perspective provides points of reference for animal calls, underlying acoustic (i.e. reverberation of a canyon, or the openness of a large alpine grass plane) and anthropogenic sounds (i.e. roads, aircraft, settlements, etc.). It also engages the lis- tener with each site in a manner that underlines the value of the national parks being presented and provides for the scaffolding of pedagogy for young people and broader sustainability and ecological learning for all. The final part of the Listenn framework is Ecomusicology. In this context, Ecomu- sicology provides a platform for critical discourse, the development of theoretical fra- meworks and the sharing of research in practice, as well as various embodied experiences of being present in the land (Figure 3).

Conclusion In this article, I have proposed the prioritization of the concept of ecology in environmental sound. I argue that the inherently temporal nature of sound communicates an enmeshment of all within it, and set of relationships and interactions that form an ecology: an acoustic ecology. I have also outlined the importance of listening, and the many forms listening (and hearing) can take, from immediate (events) to deeply Downloaded by [Arizona State University Libraries] at 08:03 15 November 2017

Figure 3 The Listenn Project, community embedded Acoustic Ecology 2.0 model. 10 G. Paine embodied (memory based), to the all-inclusive apperception of the sonic environment (somaphony). I have outlined the ways in which these layers of perception, practice, research, and community engagement with an acoustic ecology can be interdependent, and argued that they afford new opportunities to support a range of cross-disciplinary research, place making, artistic production, and broad community development and pedagogy on such activities. This composite module forms a dynamic, multi-modal, and embedded approach to acoustic ecology that prioritizes community engagement, exploration, and experience of the sounding world, driven by a desire to build stewardship and agency to build the capacity for change management in the community, especially in local, often remote communities adjacent to large nature preserves. I draw on the sensibilities of acoustic ecology to drive design solutions to anthropocentric sound challenges and argue that such work provides for the development of tools that quantify psychoacoustic metrics. These can be used to design and manage acoustic ecologies that provide ways of linking sound environment to well-being, social cohesion, and quality of life. I have argued that this model be considered as Acoustic Ecology 2.0. It forms a wholehearted acknowledgement of previous work in acoustic ecology, while seeking to raise the profile of acoustic ecology practice and embedding projects such as the Listenn Project directly within communities, in ways that resource and empower local inhabitants to facilitate both place making and scientific research. Acoustic Ecology 2.0 also seeks to place the sensibilities of acoustic ecologists at the heart of urban design solutions and solutions to anthropocentric sound challenges. It does so by building on the power of crowd-sourced recordings over many years, to build large data-sets that correlate the psychoacoustic sound properties of the environmental sound and climate change, in other words, by seeking to apply Feld’s use of the concept of ‘habitus’ as including a history of listening and embodied listening knowledge, Acoustic Ecology 2.0 addresses real-world challenges with innovative solutions not available elsewhere.

Notes [1] The World Economic Forum ranked world cites for noise pollution. These references fall in line with some of the quietest and loudest cities in that study. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/ 2017/03/these-are-the-cities-with-the-worst-noise-pollution/. Accessed 24 August 2017.

Downloaded by [Arizona State University Libraries] at 08:03 15 November 2017 [2] See https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/03/these-are-the-cities-with-the-worst-noise- pollution.Accessed7September2017. [3] A brief introduction to ambisonic audio is provided at https://www.asoundeffect.com/ ambisonics-primer. Accessed 24 August 2017. [4] Brahma in Zoom is a modified Zoom H2N recorder with and A-Format Ambisonic microphone installed. http://www.embracecinema.com/gear/product-view.php?slug=brahma-in- zoom. Accessed 24 August 2017. [5] The Soundfield SPS200 A-Format ambisonic microphone was one of the first to be released that did not required main power and was therefore capable of being used for field recording in remote locations. http://www.soundfield.com/products/sps200. Accessed 24 August 2017. [6] Listen here: http://www.ecolisten.org/sonic_events.php. Accessed 24 August 2017. Contemporary Music Review 11 [7] See software tools by B&K in https://www.bksv.com/en/products/PULSE-analysis-software/ acoustic-application-software/sound-quality/sound-quality-software-7698. Accessed 24 August 2017. [8] For more details on EcoRift system, please see http://www.ecolisten.org/blog/experience/ ecorift/. Accessed 24 August 2017.

Disclosure Statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on Contributor Garth Paine is Associate Professor of Digital Sound and Interactive Media at the School of Arts Media and Engineering and a professor of music composition at Arizona State University, where he is also a senior sustainability scholar and co-director of the Acoustic Ecology Lab. Paine’s musical works and interactive installations have been performed across the globe. He is internation- ally regarded as an innovator in the field of interactivity in experimental music and media arts, including giving a keynote address at the 2015 Ecomusicologies Conference, and the keynote address for the 2016 International NIME Conference, at which he performed the opening night concert. His current research centres on addressing climate change through community empower- ment and acoustic ecology.

References Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. London: Routledge. Caux, J. (2013). Almost nothing with Luc Ferrari (critical ear). Berlin: Errant Bodies Press. Feld, S. (1996). Waterfalls of song: An acoustemology of place resounding in Bosavi, Papua New Guinea. In S. Feld & K. H. Basso (Eds.), Senses of place (pp. 91–135). Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press. Feld, S. (2005). Places sensed, senses placed: Toward a sensuous epistemology of environments. In D. Howes (Ed.), Empire of the senses: The sensual culture reader (pp. 179–191). London: Bloomsbury Academic. Feld, S., & Brenneis, D. (2004). Doing anthropology in sound. American Ethnologist, 31(4), 461–474. doi:10.1525/ae.2004.31.4.461 Hägerstrand, T. (1976). Geography and the study of interaction between nature and society. Geoforum, 7, 329–334. doi:10.1016/0016-7185(76)90063-4 Ingold, T. (2011). Being alive: Essays on movement, knowledge and description. London: Routledge. Kruth, P., & Stobart, H. (2000). Sound (The Darwin College lectures). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Downloaded by [Arizona State University Libraries] at 08:03 15 November 2017 Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception. New York, NY: Humanities Press. Schafer, R. M. (1986). The thinking ear: Complete writings on music education. Toronto: Arcana Editions. Schafer, R. M. (1993). The soundscape: Our sonic environment and the tuning of the world. Rochester, VT: Destiny. Truax, B. (1978). The world soundscape project’s handbook for acoustic ecology (1st ed.). Vancouver: ARC.