Advertisement

Balancing Audio: Towards a Cognitive Structure of Sound Interaction in Music Production

  • Mads Walther-HansenEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9617)

Abstract

This paper explores the concept of balance in music production and examines the role of conceptual metaphors in reasoning about audio editing. Balance may be the most central concept in record production, however, the way we cognitively understand and respond meaningfully to a mix requiring balance is not thoroughly understood. In this paper I treat balance as a metaphor that we use to reason about several different actions in music production, such as adjusting levels, editing the frequency spectrum or the spatiality of the recording. This study is based on an exploration of a linguistic corpus of sound engineering literature. Using this corpus, I show how corpus data may contribute to better understand the relation between embodied patterns of experience and hands-on interaction with sound.

Keywords

Embodiment Sound and language Sound interaction Sound interfaces Conceptual metaphors Image schemas Music production Balance Corpus linguistics 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Mark Grimshaw and Justin Christensen for comments and suggestions on this paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Lakoff, G., Johnson, M.: Metaphors We Live By. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1980)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Johnson, M.: The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1987)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kövecses, Z.: Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Deignan, A.: Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    O’Keefe, A., McCarthy, M.: The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. Routledge, London (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hurtienne, J., Blessing, L.: Design for intuitive use – testing image schema theory for user interface design. In: International Conference on Engineering Design, Paris, 28–31 August, pp. 1–12 (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hurtienne, J., Israel, J.H.: Image schemas and their metaphorical extensions: intuitive patterns for tangible interaction. In: Proceedings of 1st International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction, New York, pp. 127–134 (2007). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1226969.1226996
  8. 8.
    Droumeva, M., Antle, A., Corness, G., Bevans, A.: Springboard: exploring embodied metaphor in the design of sound feedback for physical responsive environments. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Auditory Display, Copenhagen, Denmark, 18–22 May, pp. 1–4 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gelineck, S., Overholt, D., Büchert, M., Andersen, J.: Towards an interface for music mixing based on smart tangibles and multitouch. In: Proceedings of New Interfaces for Musical Expression, Daejeon, Korea, 27–30 May 2013Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moylan, W.: The Art of Recording: The Creative Resources of Music Production and Audio. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Searle, J.: Metaphor. In: Ortony, A. (ed.) Metaphor and Thought, pp. 83–111. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kövecses, Z.: Metaphor and Emotion: Language, Culture, and Body in Human Feeling. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Forceville, C.: Pictoral Metaphor in Advertising. Routledge, London (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gibbs, R.W.: Embodied metaphor in women’s narrative about their experiences with cancer. Health Commun. 14(2), 139–165 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Johnson, M., Larson, S.: “Something in the Way She Moves”: metaphors of musical motion. Metaphor Symb. 18(2), 63–84 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kant, I.: Critique of Pure Reason, vol. 1781. Penguin Books, London (2008). (Trans. by. Weigelt, M.)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Oakley, T.: Image schemas. In: Geeraerts, D., Cuyckens, H. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, pp. 214–235. Oxford University Press, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vernallis, C., Richardson, J., Gorbman, C. (eds.): The Oxford Handbook of New Audiovisual Aesthetics. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grimshaw, M. (ed.): Game Sound. Technology and Player Interaction: Concepts and Developments, IGI Global, Hershey (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    DiFranco, D.E., Beauregard, G.K., Srinivasan, M.A.: The effect of auditory cues on the haptic perception of stiffness in virtual environments. In: Proceedings of ASME, Dynamic Systems and Control Division, DSC, vol. 61, pp. 17–22 (1997)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Simner, J., Cuskley, C., Kirby, S.: What sound does that taste? Cross-modal mapping across gustation and audition. Perception 39(4), 553–569 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Belkin, K., Martin, R., Kamp, S.E., Gilbert, A.N.: Auditory pitch as perceptual analogue to odor quality. Am. Psychol. Soc. 8(4), 340–342 (1997)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Grimshaw, M., Walther-Hansen, M.: The sound of the smell of my shoes. In: Proceedings of 10th Audio Mostly Conference, Thessaloniki, Greece. ACM Digital Library (2015). doi: 10.1145/2814895.2814900
  24. 24.
    Bieber, D., Connor, U., Upton, T.A.: Discourse on the Move: Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure. John Benjamins Publisher, Amsterdam (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cameron, L., Deignan, A.: The emergence of metaphor in discourse. Appl. Linguist. 27(4), 671–690 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Arnheim, R.: Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye. University of California Press, Berkeley (1954)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Talmy, L.: Force dynamics in language and thought. Cogn. Sci. 12(1), 49–100 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Scruton, R.: The Aesthetics of Music. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Granot, R.Y., Eitan, Z.: Musical tension and the interaction of dynamic auditory parameters. Music Percept. 28(3), 219–245 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hjortkjær, J.: A cognitive theory of musical tension. Ph.D. thesis, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen (2011)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Brower, C.: A cognitive theory of musical meaning. J. Music Theor. 44(2), 323–379 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Walther-Hansen, M.: The force dynamic structure of the phonographic container: how sound engineers conceptualise the ‘inside’ of the mix. J. Music Mean. 12, 89–115 (2014)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wadhams, W.: Dictionary of Music Production and Engineering Terminology. Collier MacMillan Publishers, London (1988)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    The British National Corpus, Version 3 (BNC XML Edition). Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium (2007). http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/
  35. 35.
    Hodgson, J.: Understanding Records: A Field Guide to Recording Practice. Continuum, New York and London (2010)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Chion, M., Gorbman, C.: The Voice in Cinema. Columbia University Press, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Moore, A., Dockwray, R.: The establishment of the virtual performance space in rock. Twentieth-Century Music 5(2), 219–241 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zbikowski, L.: Conceptual models and cross-domain mapping: new perspectives on theories of music and hierarchy. J. Music Theor. 41(4), 193–225 (1997). AutumnMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tom Dowd and the Language of Music. Moormann, M. (Dir. Universal.) DVD (2003)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Daley, D.: The Engineers who Changed Recording: Fathers of Invention. Sound on Sound Magazine (October 2004)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hurtienne, J., Blessing, L.: Design for intuitive use – testing image schema theory for user interface design. In: Proceedings of 16th International Conference on Engineering Design, Paris (2007)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Achintya, K.B.: Interactive Displays: Natural Human-Interface Technologies. Wiley, Hoboken (2014)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sodhi, R., Poupyrev, I., Glisson, M., Israr, A.: AIREAL: interactive tactile experiences in free air. In: SIGGRAPH Conference Proceedings, Pittsburg (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/), which permits any noncommercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Communication and PsychologyAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations