Endangered Sounds: A sound project

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Endangered Sounds is a project that focuses on the exploration of Sound Marks1 (trade-marked sounds). The initial stage of this project was funded by Arts Victoria, and comprised legal searches that resulted in the listings of Sound Marks registered in Australasia and the United States of America. This list was published on the Internet2 with a call for volunteers to collect samples of the listed sounds internationally. The volunteer was sent a specimen tube with label and cap, and asked to collect the sound by placing the specimen tube close to the source (thereby capturing the air through which the sound travelled), securing the cap and then completing the label, documenting the time, place and nature of the sound (Sound Mark Reg. No., Sound Mark Description, Time of Capture, Date of Capture, Location, etc.). These specimen tubes were collected and displayed in chemistry racks in the exhibition in the Biennale of Electronic Arts, Perth in 2004, illustrating the frequency and diversity of the environment into which these ‘private’, protected sounds have been released. The exhibition project consisted of: (1) A Web portal listing all the Sound Marks listed in Australasia and the USA, and negotiations are underway to expand that to include the EU. (2) A collection of Sound Marks in specimen tubes with caps and labels gathered internationally by people who volunteered to collect samples of Sound Marks in their environment. (3) A number of glass vacuum desiccator vessels containing a small loudspeaker and sound reproduction chip suspended in a vacuum, reproducing Sound Marks in the vacuum, notionally breaking the law, but as sound does not travel in a vacuum the gallery visitor hears no sound - what then is the jurisdiction of the Sound Mark? (4) A card index register of Lost and Deceased sounds. This project questions the legitimacy of privatising and protecting sounds that are released at random in public spaces. If I own a multi-million dollar penthouse in a city, and work night shifts, I have no recourse against the loud Harley Davidson or Australian Football League (AFL) siren that wakes me from my precious sleep - both sounds are privately protected, making their recording, reproduction and broadcast illegal. While there are legal mechanisms for protection against repeat offenders, and many of us are committed to a culturally conditioned moral obligation3 re sound dispersion, there are no legal limits -1 can call the police, but the football siren is already within legal standards and still permeates the private domain of city dwellings. The noise abatement legislation is only applicable to regular breaches of the law, and takes some time to sort out, but it does not apply to singular occurrences which, although within legislated limits, still disturb. Additionally, the laws are based on amplitude and do not really address the issue of propagation. The ownership of the sound is not addressed in these legislative mechanisms - it should be; if the sound is an emblem of corporate identity, we should be able to choose not to be exposed to it, in the same way that we can place a ‘No Junk Mail’ sign on our letter boxes. Acknowledgement of the private domain is sacrosanct in other areas of legislation, in fact heavily policed, but not addressed in discussions of the acoustic environment beyond amplitude limiptslrsmntations.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)149-162
Number of pages14
JournalOrganised Sound
Volume10
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 2005
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Acoustic waves
Sound
Sirens
Vacuum
Labels
Sound reproduction
Loudspeakers
Law enforcement
Noise abatement

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Music
  • Computer Science Applications

Cite this

Endangered Sounds : A sound project. / Paine, Garth.

In: Organised Sound, Vol. 10, No. 2, 2005, p. 149-162.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Paine, Garth. / Endangered Sounds : A sound project. In: Organised Sound. 2005 ; Vol. 10, No. 2. pp. 149-162.
@article{d0acc31c909f4b6f8140a039d4dd8dce,
title = "Endangered Sounds: A sound project",
abstract = "Endangered Sounds is a project that focuses on the exploration of Sound Marks1 (trade-marked sounds). The initial stage of this project was funded by Arts Victoria, and comprised legal searches that resulted in the listings of Sound Marks registered in Australasia and the United States of America. This list was published on the Internet2 with a call for volunteers to collect samples of the listed sounds internationally. The volunteer was sent a specimen tube with label and cap, and asked to collect the sound by placing the specimen tube close to the source (thereby capturing the air through which the sound travelled), securing the cap and then completing the label, documenting the time, place and nature of the sound (Sound Mark Reg. No., Sound Mark Description, Time of Capture, Date of Capture, Location, etc.). These specimen tubes were collected and displayed in chemistry racks in the exhibition in the Biennale of Electronic Arts, Perth in 2004, illustrating the frequency and diversity of the environment into which these ‘private’, protected sounds have been released. The exhibition project consisted of: (1) A Web portal listing all the Sound Marks listed in Australasia and the USA, and negotiations are underway to expand that to include the EU. (2) A collection of Sound Marks in specimen tubes with caps and labels gathered internationally by people who volunteered to collect samples of Sound Marks in their environment. (3) A number of glass vacuum desiccator vessels containing a small loudspeaker and sound reproduction chip suspended in a vacuum, reproducing Sound Marks in the vacuum, notionally breaking the law, but as sound does not travel in a vacuum the gallery visitor hears no sound - what then is the jurisdiction of the Sound Mark? (4) A card index register of Lost and Deceased sounds. This project questions the legitimacy of privatising and protecting sounds that are released at random in public spaces. If I own a multi-million dollar penthouse in a city, and work night shifts, I have no recourse against the loud Harley Davidson or Australian Football League (AFL) siren that wakes me from my precious sleep - both sounds are privately protected, making their recording, reproduction and broadcast illegal. While there are legal mechanisms for protection against repeat offenders, and many of us are committed to a culturally conditioned moral obligation3 re sound dispersion, there are no legal limits -1 can call the police, but the football siren is already within legal standards and still permeates the private domain of city dwellings. The noise abatement legislation is only applicable to regular breaches of the law, and takes some time to sort out, but it does not apply to singular occurrences which, although within legislated limits, still disturb. Additionally, the laws are based on amplitude and do not really address the issue of propagation. The ownership of the sound is not addressed in these legislative mechanisms - it should be; if the sound is an emblem of corporate identity, we should be able to choose not to be exposed to it, in the same way that we can place a ‘No Junk Mail’ sign on our letter boxes. Acknowledgement of the private domain is sacrosanct in other areas of legislation, in fact heavily policed, but not addressed in discussions of the acoustic environment beyond amplitude limiptslrsmntations.",
author = "Garth Paine",
year = "2005",
doi = "10.1017/s1355771805000804",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "10",
pages = "149--162",
journal = "Organised Sound",
issn = "1355-7718",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Endangered Sounds

T2 - A sound project

AU - Paine, Garth

PY - 2005

Y1 - 2005

N2 - Endangered Sounds is a project that focuses on the exploration of Sound Marks1 (trade-marked sounds). The initial stage of this project was funded by Arts Victoria, and comprised legal searches that resulted in the listings of Sound Marks registered in Australasia and the United States of America. This list was published on the Internet2 with a call for volunteers to collect samples of the listed sounds internationally. The volunteer was sent a specimen tube with label and cap, and asked to collect the sound by placing the specimen tube close to the source (thereby capturing the air through which the sound travelled), securing the cap and then completing the label, documenting the time, place and nature of the sound (Sound Mark Reg. No., Sound Mark Description, Time of Capture, Date of Capture, Location, etc.). These specimen tubes were collected and displayed in chemistry racks in the exhibition in the Biennale of Electronic Arts, Perth in 2004, illustrating the frequency and diversity of the environment into which these ‘private’, protected sounds have been released. The exhibition project consisted of: (1) A Web portal listing all the Sound Marks listed in Australasia and the USA, and negotiations are underway to expand that to include the EU. (2) A collection of Sound Marks in specimen tubes with caps and labels gathered internationally by people who volunteered to collect samples of Sound Marks in their environment. (3) A number of glass vacuum desiccator vessels containing a small loudspeaker and sound reproduction chip suspended in a vacuum, reproducing Sound Marks in the vacuum, notionally breaking the law, but as sound does not travel in a vacuum the gallery visitor hears no sound - what then is the jurisdiction of the Sound Mark? (4) A card index register of Lost and Deceased sounds. This project questions the legitimacy of privatising and protecting sounds that are released at random in public spaces. If I own a multi-million dollar penthouse in a city, and work night shifts, I have no recourse against the loud Harley Davidson or Australian Football League (AFL) siren that wakes me from my precious sleep - both sounds are privately protected, making their recording, reproduction and broadcast illegal. While there are legal mechanisms for protection against repeat offenders, and many of us are committed to a culturally conditioned moral obligation3 re sound dispersion, there are no legal limits -1 can call the police, but the football siren is already within legal standards and still permeates the private domain of city dwellings. The noise abatement legislation is only applicable to regular breaches of the law, and takes some time to sort out, but it does not apply to singular occurrences which, although within legislated limits, still disturb. Additionally, the laws are based on amplitude and do not really address the issue of propagation. The ownership of the sound is not addressed in these legislative mechanisms - it should be; if the sound is an emblem of corporate identity, we should be able to choose not to be exposed to it, in the same way that we can place a ‘No Junk Mail’ sign on our letter boxes. Acknowledgement of the private domain is sacrosanct in other areas of legislation, in fact heavily policed, but not addressed in discussions of the acoustic environment beyond amplitude limiptslrsmntations.

AB - Endangered Sounds is a project that focuses on the exploration of Sound Marks1 (trade-marked sounds). The initial stage of this project was funded by Arts Victoria, and comprised legal searches that resulted in the listings of Sound Marks registered in Australasia and the United States of America. This list was published on the Internet2 with a call for volunteers to collect samples of the listed sounds internationally. The volunteer was sent a specimen tube with label and cap, and asked to collect the sound by placing the specimen tube close to the source (thereby capturing the air through which the sound travelled), securing the cap and then completing the label, documenting the time, place and nature of the sound (Sound Mark Reg. No., Sound Mark Description, Time of Capture, Date of Capture, Location, etc.). These specimen tubes were collected and displayed in chemistry racks in the exhibition in the Biennale of Electronic Arts, Perth in 2004, illustrating the frequency and diversity of the environment into which these ‘private’, protected sounds have been released. The exhibition project consisted of: (1) A Web portal listing all the Sound Marks listed in Australasia and the USA, and negotiations are underway to expand that to include the EU. (2) A collection of Sound Marks in specimen tubes with caps and labels gathered internationally by people who volunteered to collect samples of Sound Marks in their environment. (3) A number of glass vacuum desiccator vessels containing a small loudspeaker and sound reproduction chip suspended in a vacuum, reproducing Sound Marks in the vacuum, notionally breaking the law, but as sound does not travel in a vacuum the gallery visitor hears no sound - what then is the jurisdiction of the Sound Mark? (4) A card index register of Lost and Deceased sounds. This project questions the legitimacy of privatising and protecting sounds that are released at random in public spaces. If I own a multi-million dollar penthouse in a city, and work night shifts, I have no recourse against the loud Harley Davidson or Australian Football League (AFL) siren that wakes me from my precious sleep - both sounds are privately protected, making their recording, reproduction and broadcast illegal. While there are legal mechanisms for protection against repeat offenders, and many of us are committed to a culturally conditioned moral obligation3 re sound dispersion, there are no legal limits -1 can call the police, but the football siren is already within legal standards and still permeates the private domain of city dwellings. The noise abatement legislation is only applicable to regular breaches of the law, and takes some time to sort out, but it does not apply to singular occurrences which, although within legislated limits, still disturb. Additionally, the laws are based on amplitude and do not really address the issue of propagation. The ownership of the sound is not addressed in these legislative mechanisms - it should be; if the sound is an emblem of corporate identity, we should be able to choose not to be exposed to it, in the same way that we can place a ‘No Junk Mail’ sign on our letter boxes. Acknowledgement of the private domain is sacrosanct in other areas of legislation, in fact heavily policed, but not addressed in discussions of the acoustic environment beyond amplitude limiptslrsmntations.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85022918576&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85022918576&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/s1355771805000804

DO - 10.1017/s1355771805000804

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85022918576

VL - 10

SP - 149

EP - 162

JO - Organised Sound

JF - Organised Sound

SN - 1355-7718

IS - 2

ER -