0:10
in this project we are going to explore
0:13
a way of using sound that has to do with
0:15
people contributing geo-locating sharing
0:19
and modifying sounds uploaded and tagged
0:22
to specific public spaces social sound
0:26
scaping on October 23rd 2012 The Wall
0:30
Street Journal ran an article called the
0:33
search for sweet sounds that sell which
0:36
described a number of corporations past
0:38
present and future concerns with product
0:41
sounds for instance Snapple has long
0:45
traded on its own distinctive pop
0:47
indicating freshness quality and safety
0:51
additionally the Wall Street Journal
0:53
noted that the consequence of sound is
0:55
no longer in substantial for items like
0:57
feminine products or chip wrappers that
1:00
should make no sound at all this warning
1:02
follows a 2010 announcement that
1:05
frito-lay had decided to mostly scrap
1:07
its eco-friendly packaging of SunChips
1:09
because the bag was described and hopped
1:12
on by consumers as too noisy this
1:15
attention is not new if we recall as The
1:18
Wall Street Journal does other products
1:21
that have traded unsound in the past
1:22
such as the snap crackle pop of Rice
1:26
Krispies or the plop plop fizz fizz of
1:29
alka-seltzer however what does seem to
1:32
have changed is the explicit attention
1:34
to sound design where consumers and
1:37
designers are both able to speak about
1:39
the sounds that are desirable for
1:41
different products for different reasons
1:43
and for different audiences it's
1:47
important to note how these corporations
1:49
may be increasingly intentional in the
1:51
ways they shape our shared soundscapes
1:53
however what interests us more is what
1:56
can we do to speak back to our spaces
1:59
what resistance or replacement of
2:01
soundscapes is possible through mobile
2:03
technology the idea that we live in a
2:06
sound rich environment is certainly not
2:08
new although kaiser is noted in his book
2:11
the unwanted sound of everything we want
2:13
but not much compares with a decibel
2:15
level of things like airplanes as many
2:17
sound historians have shown people have
2:20
complained about sound since
2:21
pre-industrial times
2:23
when noise pollution could be found in
2:25
the form of church and village bells so
2:32
why is this important for the longest
2:34
time we've had three choices for how to
2:36
deal with shared soundscapes turn to the
2:39
reification of silence with noise
2:41
pollution laws retreat into the private
2:44
soundscapes of headphones and iPods or
2:46
drown out the problem by replacing the
2:49
sounds of spaces publicly with our own
2:52
sounds through boomboxes cellphone
2:54
chatter or megaphones however what we're
2:58
beginning to see is a fourth alternative
3:00
social sound scaping in social sound
3:04
scaping multiple users are able to
3:06
contribute sounds to spaces by
3:08
geo-locating or tagging them in a
3:10
specific space using a device interface
3:13
and GPS through geo tagging these sounds
3:17
are then attached to a location and can
3:19
appear on a map then other users can
3:22
access the sounds through a network and
3:24
listen to them through headphones in
3:26
this way many different people can
3:29
access soundscapes that are shared
3:31
contributed to and altered socially but
3:34
listen to individually earlier examples
3:37
of social sound scaping have included
3:39
projects like urban tapestries and
3:41
riders spoke which have focused on
3:44
enabling people to geotag stories and
3:46
spaces that other users may then listen
3:48
to for example writer spoke asked
3:51
participants to go to an out-of-the-way
3:53
part of the city and record some of
3:55
their intimate memories other
3:57
participants can then access these
3:59
stories as they move to that physical
4:01
location where the memory was recorded
4:03
however other listeners are not able to
4:05
alter the stories once they are
4:06
contributed listeners can add new
4:09
stories but existing ones cannot be
4:11
modified one project that brings
4:14
together the ability of many listeners
4:15
to socially contribute and access
4:18
nonverbal sounds with the ability to
4:20
modify his tactical Soundgarden's which
4:23
is the best current example of what we
4:25
mean by social sound scaping technology
4:27
tactical Soundgarden allows users to
4:30
plant sounds access them within the
4:32
physical space and even prune sounds
4:35
that have already been planted by
4:36
other users by adjusting parameters like
4:39
volume or brightness mark Shepard and
4:46
the tactical Soundgarden designers
4:48
describe the project as follows it draws
4:51
on the culture of urban community
4:53
gardening to posit a participatory
4:55
environment where new spatial practices
4:58
for social interaction within
5:00
technologically mediated environments
5:02
can be explored and evaluated like the
5:05
metaphor of the public urban garden in
5:07
which multiple people contribute and
5:09
intend to the space tactical sound
5:12
garden makes sound scaping into a
5:13
community project what excited us about
5:16
the rhetorical prospect of tactical
5:19
sound garden is that participants can be
5:21
both listeners and contributors and the
5:23
sound garden is dynamic and can be
5:25
altered by other individuals
5:27
also unlike verbal story focused sound
5:30
projects tactical sound garden makes non
5:33
verbal sounds into a public good and a
5:35
non verbal sonic dialogue when it comes
5:38
to sounds we don't like our most common
5:40
recourse has been to replace existing
5:42
sound escapes with listening through
5:45
headphones whether that means listening
5:47
to Rihanna or humpback whales however
5:50
choosing to listen to humpback whales
5:52
has often had more to do with individual
5:54
preference and aesthetics than
5:56
rhetorical potential the tactical sound
5:59
garden provides us with a rhetorical
6:01
potential to speak back to spaces
6:03
through contributing sharing and pruning
6:06
tactical Soundgarden allows non verbal
6:08
sounds to gain rhetorical presence Kay
6:12
and Pearlman has described presence as a
6:14
strategy that prevents certain things
6:16
from being neglected Pearlman states
6:20
that the techniques of presentation
6:22
which create presence are above all
6:25
essential when it is a question of
6:27
evoking realities that are distant in
6:29
time and space the concept of presence
6:31
is important to our notion of social
6:33
sound scaping let's say that our public
6:36
sound garden the site of our social
6:38
sound scaping is a space with numerous
6:40
uses like more square in downtown
6:43
raleigh like many urban spaces more
6:46
square includes a variety of sounds that
6:49
are already present
6:50
the environment filmmakers would call
6:52
these sounds diegetic because they match
6:54
actions in the scene
6:56
planting diegetic sounds could double
6:59
the sounds already heard in physical
7:01
space and thus draw our attention to
7:03
those sounds however if we heated
7:08
Pearlman's second statement we might
7:10
also consider planting a sound that
7:13
might otherwise be distant from more
7:15
square or in filmmaking language an
7:17
extra diegetic sound one that typically
7:20
wouldn't occur within the scene what
7:23
could sounds of screams or carnival
7:25
music say about the social space of more
7:27
Square or to build on this idea of
7:30
presence making the distant near what
7:32
would it be like to hear the soundscape
7:34
of more Square dislocated in time like
7:38
many urban downtown spaces more Square
7:40
is a significantly different place
7:42
during the business week weekends and
7:44
Friday and Saturday nights during the
7:47
week it is a place of Commerce filled
7:49
with sounds of people walking outdoor
7:51
dining and automobile traffic however
7:54
during weekend the soundscape of more
7:57
Square is often quiet reflective and
7:59
then during weekend nights the space is
8:02
yet again transformed with the sounds of
8:04
people drinking on patios and rooftops
8:06
waiting in line for bars and hailing
8:08
cabs well into the night what would it
8:11
be like to hear the sounds of more
8:13
Square on a Friday night while standing
8:16
in a relatively empty Park on a Saturday
8:18
afternoon
8:22
or to walk past bar goers on a Saturday
8:26
night while listening to a socially
8:28
produced Soundgarden of what more square
8:30
sounds like during a business lunch what
8:37
can these types of social soundscapes
8:39
reveal about a place all of these
8:42
examples give shape to how Pearlman's
8:44
concept of presence applies to social
8:46
sound scaping through these social
8:48
productions of sound participants would
8:51
be able to make present that which may
8:53
be distant in space or time contributing
8:56
to new ways of experiencing more Square
8:58
as a dynamic auditory space furthermore
9:02
because other individuals are able to
9:04
dialogical II prune sounds that have
9:07
been planted or plant different sounds
9:09
these presences can be modified in
9:12
dynamic over time in this way social
9:15
sound scaping allows individuals the
9:18
ability to make present ideas that
9:20
critique praise or persuade other
9:22
listeners about the truths of the space
9:24
that is being soundscape and in addition
9:27
to nonverbal sounds users are able to
9:30
upload optional verbal messages that
9:32
accompany acts of pruning this act of
9:35
social sound scaping is ultimately
9:37
different from simply replacing the
9:39
sounds of a space with different sounds
9:41
because it is social negotiated and
9:44
dynamic we would need to develop a
9:46
language for sound scaping a place
9:48
together because the mobile technology
9:51
and the practice of geo-locating sounds
9:53
is still relatively new it is still
9:56
unclear what practices people may
9:58
perpetuate as rhetorical uses for social
10:01
sound scaping however even in the case
10:04
of more square the ability to plant
10:06
sounds within or dislocated from the
10:08
current space allows presence to work
10:11
differently either doubling the physical
10:14
presence of sound or making distant
10:16
locations or times more present in
10:18
either case it is up to us to develop a
10:22
language for speaking back to our spaces
10:24
social sound scaping gives us the
10:26
opportunity to speak back in a shared
10:28
sense it gives us a chance to intervene
10:31
in the sounds we experience
10:32
rather than simply turning up the volume
10:35
of our own private soundscape