ï~~audience). This does not preclude the possibility that these functions might interact and overlap. The key to a realistic and meaningful distinction for the composer lies with recent ideas loosely describable as 'ecoacoustics' (related more to psychoacoustics than to physical acoustics proper). Not the main concern of this paper, it places the perceptive system as both the product of evolution over time and in relation to a host of environmental needs and social interactions (Smalley (1992), Handel (1989)) - hence a proactive participant and not a passive observer. 3 Articulations and attributes of 'local' and 'field' spaces 3.1 The composer/listener dichotomy: real and imaginary relationships For the composer both local and field functions may have a real or an imaginary component (or both). Real relationships are indeed also 'real-time'; the performer retains influence over the result through physical gesture whether directly through the sound (acoustic processing) or via an abstraction sensed from some parameter of the sound, or through transduction of some other physical gesture. Imaginary relationships, however, may have been prepared in advance (soundfiles, control files etc.) in such a way as to imply a causal link with the performer in the imagination of the listener. But the listener only perceives the net result of the two and may not be able to disentangle them. 3.2 'Local/field' and 'control intimacy' In attempting to undo the 'acousmatic dislocations' already referred to we have immediate need of the notion of control intimacy so well described by F. Richard Moore (1988). This is the domain of human expression: while research is in its infancy (and mostly concentrated in the area of expressive timing) we may rely on composers who rely on their senses. Our local systems will need to articulate nuances of timbre and level (which are not independent) currently distorted by insensitive amplification systems which do not allow the performer sufficient selfknowledge to allow intimacy of control to be established. Simple subtleties of our human presence such as directionality of the instrument are also only crudely mimicked in current systems. But I wish to go one stage further than Moore when he states that "Control intimacy determines the match between the variety of musically desirable sounds produced and the psychophysiological capabilities of a practiced performer" (: 21). There are two possible outcomes for the listener depending on the nature of the "musically desirable sounds". Perceived as a direct result of a live performance gesture its rightful place is in our local domain; without this relation - I stress this is the listener's interpretation - it has more of a field function, a relation 'with something other'. 3.3 Local/field relationships I am interpreting the term field in a broader sense as any activity not localisable to the performer as source and which gives us a picture of what goes on around the instrument to establish a sense of location. Trevor Wishart has distinguished landscapes based on the four combinations of real and unreal, objects and spaces (Wishart 1985, 1986). This has two components: it includes both other sounds (often but not always pre-constructed in the studio - pseudo agents created in advance) and also treatments (reverberation and other usually delay related effects) which create a sense of 'being somewhere'. While these may both constitute elements of the field they will have to be controlled in very different ways. We are not concerned here with the myriad types of electroacoustic sound objects and structures (of which typologies exist elsewhere) but with the relation of these to our live performer. These we must begin to describe. As a preliminary sketch we may create a list which reflects no more than a simple delineation of the 'concerto' relationships of western music but reduced to show deeper universals of musical interaction: supportive/accompanying, antagonistic, alienated, contrasting, responsorial, developmental/extended. 4 Control of 'local/field' articulations 4.1 Reclaiming local control: needs and problems Some obvious points follow from the above. The local control by the human instrumentalist demands local point sources of sound: in other words loudspeakers in the close vicinity of the source. There are two reasons for this both of which are consequences of the central mixing console being remote from the performer. First, the loss of a substantial degree of loudness control Aesthetics, Philosophy, Criticism 32 ICMC Proceedings 1994 0
Top of page Top of page