Abstract
The creation and utilization of sound as a methodology for information
representation is intriguing for Digital Humanities research, teaching, and
practice. However, scholars, researchers, and artists may lack appreciation
and/or ability for using sound(s) to enhance or ground their research /
presentations. In response, the author created and taught a week-long course,
“Sound of / in Digital Humanities,” offered
during the 2014 Digital Humanities Summer Institute. This essay reflects on the
course, its planning, implementation, and outcomes and offers insight into the
role sound might play in the research, communication, and consumption of Digital
Humanities.
Introduction
This essay discusses the “Sound and Digital
Humanities” course offered during the week-long 2014 Digital
Humanities Summer Institute (DHSI) at the University of Victoria, Victoria,
British Columbia, Canada, 2-6 June. The focus of this course was promoting sound
and aural representation of information in Digital Humanities (DH) research,
teaching, and practice.
This course evolved from previous experience at DHSI. During the summers of 2012
and 2013, I collaborated with colleagues from the Creative Media & Digital
Culture faculty at Washington State University Vancouver to provide a course
focusing on “Creating Digital Humanities Projects for the
Mobile Environment.” Participants were, I observed, quick to
visualize information in their apps using video, graphics, or animation. Sound,
however, was often overlooked, primarily because participants lacked insight as
to how it might be used.
[1]
Based on that observation, and a belief that sound plays an important role in
arts and humanities research and scholarship, I proposed a course titled “Sound and Digital Humanities” to be offered during DHSI
2014.
[2]
This essay reflects on the course, its planning, implementation, and outcomes. I
first situate sound as a worthy context for DH work, one that, unfortunately,
has been under explored. Next, I outline, from a practice orientation, basic
assumptions, and from them, daily goals, objectives, activities, and outcomes
for this week-long course. The following section takes a more theoretical tone
as I provide an overview of ideological approaches to sound and sound studies.
This combination of theory and practice, subjective and objective, I hope, will
be illustrative of my approach to this course, and provide a case study for
others seeking a similar approach for their own DH research/work. My conclusion
suggests that sound provides interesting opportunities for DH research,
scholarship, and practice.
Context
DH is an area of interdisciplinary, collaborative research and practice at the
intersection of digital computing technologies and the disciplines of the
humanities. The hybrid approach of DH involves combining digitized or
born-digital materials, and methodologies from disciplines such as art, art
history, archaeology, cultural studies, literary criticism, philology, and
others, with computing tools like data mining and/or visualization, digital
mapping and/or publishing, information retrieval, and statistics. Practices
include analysis, coding, curation, criticism, databases, digitization, document
analysis, geographical information systems, information digitization /
visualization, multimedia publications, pedagogy, project management, text
encoding, processing, and visualization. The results influence creation,
dissemination, preservation, research, and teaching activities. The desired
outcome is to answer or challenge existing research paradigms, as well as
suggest new research questions and approaches. This essay brings sound into the
mix.
“Sound” is the name we give our physical, subjective experience of acoustic
energy — a sequence of pressure variations — that travel through a medium (air,
gas, water) to our ears. Sound may have a variety of sources but is usually one
object moving over or striking another, thus creating vibrations. For example,
air passing over human vocal cords and then modulated by tongue, teeth, mouth,
and lips produces the sounds we know as speech. Sound travels in all directions
from its source in waves and is heard (experienced as sound) when it interacts
with appropriate listening devices, like human ears. The higher the energy
involved with its production, the louder the sound is perceived. But, unless
preserved in some manner, all sound is ephemeral, disappearing soon after its
creation.
Regarding sound, scholar Bruce R. Smith, discussing his research of sounds
associated with London, circa 1600, notes many sounds, unless they have been
recorded, are no longer available for study, or are difficult to study. For
example, the only source for studying historical speech accents might be
impressions / depictions written by authors, travelers, or journalists [
Smith 2003].
DH scholars have long been able to discuss developments in film and television
because of the ability to situate commentary alongside or directly within visual
media as it unfolds over time. But, the ability to do the same with sound has
not been widely possible until the introduction of SoundCloud in 2007. According
to Jonathan Sterne, as they become more widely available, evolving affordances
like looping an audio file; setting begin and end points; setting the volume;
tagging, commenting, annotating; close listening (via skipping around, speeding
up, slowing down, scrubbing, freezing); and comparing different channel formats
will increase opportunities for sound-focused scholarship [
Sterne 2011].
More specifically, Annie Murray and Jared Wiercinski describe how listening and
annotation are essential endeavors for DH scholars undertaking literary
criticism on poetry sound recordings. They present a methodology for designing a
web-based sound archive for literary criticism and propose features and
functionalities that facilitate this criticism [
Murray and Wiercinski 2014].
Despite such pioneering efforts, Allison Whitney says DH scholarship, with its
embrace of images, animation, video, or text as image for research and
information presentation, is biased toward visuals. Sound is largely overlooked
[
Whitney 2008]. Part of the reason for this may be technical,
as noted by Sterne, previously. Another factor may hinge on what Tara McPherson
notes as DH's historical focus on the use of digital media / technology to
critique / analyze print. Less attention, she says, has been given to scholars'
ability to shift from commenting about new media and technologies to
constructing arguments with and through them [
McPherson 2009].
This will change, however, with the development and availability of tools that
facilitate the comparison and mining of complex information source relationships
and their multimodal publication. eBooks provide interesting opportunities, as
do web content development tools like WordPress and Scalar.
[3]
Sound(s) should facilitate such intersections and comparisons as well. Imagine
Smith being able to compare voice dialects using embedded sound files. Or,
another DH researcher using sound(s) of speech to mark or define boundaries
between research areas — between class, gender, or race relations, for example.
Aural artifacts might include soundscapes, sound maps, sound collages, and
remixes; digital storytelling (perhaps in transmedia projects); aural and oral
histories / biographies / documentaries; curated exhibitions / installations /
performances / broadcasts; or as stand alone artifacts (embedded sound,
podcasts, web-based radio, archives, curated collections). However, DH scholars
may lack appreciation and/or ability for using sound(s) to enhance or ground
their research / presentations. In response, I proposed the “Sound and Digital Humanities” course to introduce, explore, and
investigate how sounds might be utilized in DH research and information
presentation.
Assumptions
DHSI convenes colleagues from the arts, humanities, library, archives, and other
communities to share ideas and develop skills using digital, computational, and
network technologies for teaching, researching, sharing, creating, and
preserving in their disciplines. The atmosphere is informal, friendly, and
community-based. As noted, during summers 2012 and 2013, I helped facilitate
courses in building DH applications for mobile environments. From this previous
experience, I felt I could establish some descriptors for potential course
participants. For example, participants would
- Be post-graduate faculty, librarians, and graduate students.
- Align their own research interests with sound. However, their desired
course outcomes might not be finalized.
- Differ regarding theory vs. practice. Some would want only or
primarily to theorize sound. Others would want a theoretical framework
but also an opportunity to engage in creative practices of recording,
editing, and manipulating sound for research and presentation. Others
would want only to learn what could be done with sound in order to
inspire future projects.
- Begin with only rudimentary sound design / editing skills. Or none.
They might wish to learn sufficient skills for use in their classes, or
to inform their own work(s).
- Appreciate some course structure, but more so, flexibility to explore
topics as they arose.
- Desire to complete the course feeling they gained new knowledge and
opportunity for research, presentation, or creative activity in the arts
and humanities.
Course Goals and Objectives
Based on these assumptions, my course, as planned, would assume no previous
knowledge of recording and/or editing sound files. It would survey different
sound genres and their use in DH projects. The course would be flexible, able to
adapt to the participants' projects, and allow time for workshops and hands-on,
learning-by-doing, collaborative learning experiences. As course facilitator, I
outlined goals, objectives, activities, discussion, and workshops for each day
of the course.
Day 1
Goals
- Understand the broad and important applications of sound to
various DH endeavors.
- Understand basic equipment needs / configurations for sound work
in DH.
- Understand basics of sound recording and editing, and how to build
on those basics.
Objectives
- Introduce participants to sound production / editing.
Projects
- Learn and apply basic sound editing and manipulation skills to
reduce an hour-long radio drama into ten minutes or less, while
maintaining narrative continuity.
- Plan the overarching structure of a collaborative sound
composition illustrating the breadth and richness of sounds for the
DHSI-wide show-and-tell session scheduled for the final day.
Day 2
Goals
- Understand that sound provides a place for embodied social and
cultural traces through discussion of a theoretical framework for
using sound.
- Understand that various forms of auditory culture can provide
foundations for defined areas of DH practices.
Objectives
- Appreciate principles of fair use (fair dealing in Canada) for DH
projects.
- Appreciate other best practices associated with the use of
sound(s) for scholarship and creative endeavors.
Projects
- Examine resources and discuss applications. Continue work on both
individual and collaborative sound projects.
Day 4
Goals
- Understand different ways in which sonic DH projects can be
packaged and distributed.
Objectives
- Understand basic concepts of streaming, on demand, downloading,
and podcasting as ways to share sound-based/-augmented DH
projects.
Day 5
Goals
- Reflect on and evaluate the role of sound(s) in DH
projects.
- Reflect on and evaluate course learning opportunities.
Objectives
- Discuss future use of course knowledge in individual sound-based
DH projects.
Project
- Engage in the DHSI-wide show and tell session.
Example Course Outcomes
Outcomes from this course went far beyond my expectations. Where many course
participants arrived with an individual project, each left with a shared and
collaboratively constructed body of knowledge regarding the theory and
application of sound-augmented DH projects. Specifically, participants could
- Effectively theorize the use of sound as a medium for experiencing and
communicating information in DH projects.
- Manipulate and edit sound files for presentation in DH
projects.
- Appreciate different categorization, archival, and curatorial systems
/ practices regarding sound(s) in DH projects.
- Effectively use different forms of sound distribution for DH
projects.
A brief discussion of each day's outcome(s) follows.
Day 1
As the basis for the sound editing project, participants downloaded a digital
sound file of the 30 October 1938 radio drama broadcast,
The War of the Worlds. Directed by and starring
Orson Welles and The Mercury Theatre on the Air, this is, arguably, the most
influential radio broadcast of all time.
[4] The challenge was to edit this hour-long performance into
a coherent narrative ten minutes in length, or less. Course participants
discussed the overall structure of their edited sound compositions, and how
their particular perspectives on sound (many participants were working with
collections of recorded poetry readings / poet interviews) contributed to
the resulting artifact.
Day 2
As a starting point for discussing auditory culture, participants considered
Steven Feld's attention to “the primacy of sound as a
modality of knowing and being in the world”
[
Feld 2003, 226]. This opened our discussion to different types of listening: “deep” or “agile” listening proposed by Michael Bull and Les
Beck, acousmatic listening proposed by Pierre Schaeffer, and ambient
listening proposed by Brian Eno. More information in the “Theoretical Framework” section, below.
Sound, we agreed, provides a place in which embodied social and cultural
traces can be carried, often without the awareness of their bearers [
Schafer 1977]. By carefully considering sound, however, we
open new ways of thinking about and appreciating the social experience,
memory, time, and place — the auditory culture — of sound [
Bull and Beck 2003, 12].
As specific examples of auditory culture, we discussed aural / oral history,
biography / documentary, and sound archives. Aural history is a method of
gathering and preserving historical information through recorded sounds
which provide context, background, and deep, rich information about the
subject. Aural histories may include voice recordings regarding some
historic event or way of life, but they are primarily composed of
environmental / mechanical sounds.
With oral history, the primary audio emphasis is the human voice as a speaker
tells her eye witness account, experience(s), or opinion(s) of past events /
ways of life. The use of video recording includes gesture as part of the
communication, thus expanding oral history beyond verbal form.
Audio biographies and documentaries may provide additional access to cultural
and historical information contained in or provided by sound(s). The
remainder of the day's discussion and exploration centered on the efforts of
sound archives to archive and curate sound(s), either broadly defined or
specifically focused. Participants explored sound archives online and
discussed their relative affordances in light of their own sound-based DH
projects.
Day 3
The focus of this day's class was rights associated with audio files, and how
these might affect their utilization in DH projects. Copyright, fair use,
and creative commons were at the forefront of our discussions. The Statute
of Anne (1710) established principles of an author's ownership of copyright
and provided a fixed term of protection for copyrighted works (fourteen
years). Since then, U.S. law has been revised to broaden the scope of
copyright, change the term of copyright protection, and address new
technologies. Section 107, Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use of The
Copyright Act of 1976 provides exemptions, in certain contexts, to the
exclusive rights built into the copyright law. Participants from Canada and
the United Kingdom added their understanding of copyright considerations in
their home countries, thus broadening the discussion. Creative Commons (CC)
provides a model for how creative works might be shared. Essentially,
Creative Commons licenses allow photographers, artists, educators, and
others to license their work in advance as content for creative endeavors by
others. We discussed these implications for course participants' individual
projects.
Day 4
Making sound files available for listening and further DH research /
presentation is important. Streaming provides content on a
continuous basis. Listeners can tune in or out at will, as with traditional
radio broadcasting. But, they can also pause, stop, and start the program
stream at will. The stream is ongoing and particular portions cannot be
heard again unless they are recorded in some manner.
Downloading involves transferring a sound file from a
remote computer to a local computer where it can be saved and listened to
whenever desired. Podcasting refers generally to an audio
episode, self-contained, sometimes augmented by text or visuals, that can be
either streamed or downloaded. On demand speaks to sharing an
audio file only when it is needed or desired by the listener. The listener
evokes the playback process by interacting with an audio player. The audio
file plays through to conclusion and then, since it is embedded in the
interface, can be evoked repeatedly.
Day 5
Course participants contributed samples from their individual or course
projects, audio biographies, found sounds, field recordings, oral histories,
poetry, and creative sound arts, to a collaborative project that was shared
with others during a DHSI-wide final-day show-and-tell session. The sound
file they created as a course artifact was a narrative of human endeavor
that, like DH, is deep and rich, broad and diverse.
[5]
Theoretical Framework
Perhaps an overarching course outcome would be the realization that even in the
visual context of contemporary life, sound remains a powerful sensory input, and
a fundamental factor in many arenas of inquiry for DH: speech, writing,
literature, reading, narrative, storytelling, and listening.
[6]
Regarding the power of sound as a sensory input, film editor and sound designer
Walter Murch says sound is the earliest sensory stimulus available to humans,
switching on “four-and-a-half months
after we are conceived.” Newborns rely predominately on hearing
before their visual acuity has stabilized [
Murch 2005].
Communications theorist Marshall McLuhan echoes this point when he argues sound
provided the first frame of reference through which humankind attempted to
create and communicate a world view. McLuhan, with his son and collaborator,
Eric, describes two spaces, acoustic and visual, in which humankind has
contextualized itself with different results: “Acoustic space . . . is
spherical, discontinuous, non-homogeneous, resonant, and dynamic. Visual
space is structured as static, abstract figure minus a ground; acoustic
space is a flux in which figure and ground rub against and transform
each other”
[
McLuhan and McLuhan 1988, 33].
[7]
Acoustic space is a world awash in sounds. With aural information emerging from
all directions, and with no opportunity to shut off or organize the constant
stream of sound, pre-writing humankind, the only to experience acoustic space,
according to McLuhan, perceived its world as both surrounding and inclusive, a
permeable extension of itself, and they of it [
Levinson 1999, 5–6].
For McLuhan, “The ‘content’
of any medium is always another medium. The content of writing is
speech, just as the written word is the content of print, and print is
the content of the telegraph. If it is asked, ‘What is the content of
speech?,’ it is necessary to say, ‘It is an actual process of
thought, which is in itself nonverbal’”
[
McLuhan 1964, 23–24]. Speech, as the expression of thoughts and feelings by articulate sounds,
incorporates abstract thought and extends its ability to explain and/or
characterize human agency and situation.
Speech tamed the acoustic wilderness by translating abstract thought into
communicable ideas. Storytellers produced explanations for the sounds in
acoustic space and wove them into larger narratives that helped explain the
presence and purpose of humankind. Orality provided a means to preserve and
share cultural histories and memories, a human tendency documented by Joseph
Campbell who investigated the reenactment of myths as ritualistic participatory
drama, often involving narrative, music, and/or other sound sources, by cultures
around the world [
Campbell 1949].
Alphabets and writing (and printing and reading), in turn, by visualizing its
sounds, incorporate and preserve speech while extending its reach beyond the
transmission range of the human voice. With the advent of writing, during the
height of ancient Greece, speech was visualized, replacing the speaker’s voice
with text. Printing and distribution of texts, encouraged humankind to see and
read (literally and figuratively) the world as a series of discrete pieces,
letters and words strung like beads on a linear continuum running from the past,
through the present, toward the future. As this emphasis on visualization
continued with film, television, and the World Wide Web, the visual was elevated
as the primary sensory input. Sound was relegated to a secondary, augmenting
role to the visual.
[8]
However, even as new visual media replaced / extended the older orality, they
incorporated its content: spoken narrative, storytelling, drama, and literature,
and various literary practices associated with their creation and consumption.
Thus, speech (as sound), with its origins in abstract thought and presentation,
is the oldest medium and the most prevalent form of human communication. It
claims a presence in most all media that follow [
Levinson 1999, 1981]. As James O’Donnell notes, “the manuscript was first
conceived to be no more than a prompt-script for the spoken word, a
place to look to find out what to say . . . to produce the audible
word”
[
O'Donnell 1988, 54].
Sound, despite its secondary relation to visual, still conveys deep, rich
information capable of prompting cognitive and emotional responses. McLuhan
likens sound to a “subliminal echo
chamber” capable of evoking memories/associations long forgotten or
ignored [
McLuhan 1964, 264].
According to Smith, sound is pervasive. Most humans, he says, “live immersed in a world of sound .
. . sound is at once the most forceful stimulus that human beings
experience, and the most evanescent”
[
Smith 2003, 127, 128]. Most academic disciplines are vision-based, he continues, not only in
the materials they study, but in the theoretical models they deploy to interpret
those materials. Sound, says Smith, as an object of study, has been neglected.
This is unfortunate, he concludes, as knowing the world through sound is
fundamentally different from knowing the world through vision [
Smith 2003, 129]. Stephen Feld concurs, noting “the primacy of sound as a modality
of knowing and being in the world”
[
Feld 2003, 226]. In short, sound provides a place in which embodied social and cultural
traces can be carried, often without the awareness of their bearers [
Schafer 1977].
Listening
Experiencing sound, and the information it carries, involves listening, the
conscious processing of auditory stimuli. Gary Ferrington likens listening to
“theater of the mind,”
where every individual listener is her own dramaturge [
Ferrington 1994]. Alan Hall notes listening opens a “portal through which a deeper, often
inarticulate, consciousness can be glimpsed”
[
Hall 2010, 99]. Such glimpses may promote imagination, interaction, even immersion. Tim
Crook says sound very effectively prompts life from little details “seen” in the mind's eye [
Crook 1999, 8].
Michael Bull and Les Beck suggest by considering sound we open new ways of
thinking about and appreciating the social experience, memory, time, and place —
the auditory culture — of sound [
Bull and Beck 2003, 12]. They
advocate “deep listening” or
“agile listening,” both of
which involve “attuning our ears to
listen again to the multiple layers of meaning potentially embedded in the
same sound.” Deep listening, they say, also involves “practices of dialogue and procedures
for investigation, transposition and interpretation”
[
Bull and Beck 2003, 3–4]. They argue several outcomes from deep listening.
- Sound makes us rethink our social experience, its meaning, nature, and
significance.
- Sound makes us rethink our relation to community.
- Sound makes us rethink our relation to others, ourselves, and the
spaces and places we inhabit.
- Sound makes us rethink our relationship to power [Bull and Beck 2003,
3-4].
In addition to deep or profound listening, we might also consider acousmatic,
ambient, or profound listening. Sound artist Francisco López uses the term
“profound listening” to
denote listening without constraints in order to explore and affirm all the
information inside any sound [
López 2004, 82–83].
Ambient listening, as defined by Brian Eno, principal innovator of ambient music,
is an accompaniment to life activities, often a background or secondary
activity. Eno defines ambient music as “new music” whereby “compositional attention” to technological production is key [
Eno 2004, 95]. The goal of ambient music is to produce music
that offers “an atmosphere, or a surrounding
influence: a tint”
[
Eno 2004, 96]. Since the music is designed to be predictable, attentive listening is
not required for best experience. The desired outcome is to have the music
become part of the background against which people live their lives.
On the other hand is acousmatic, defined by Pierre Schaeffer, electroacoustic
musician-theoretician and pioneer of musique concrète, as “a noise that one hears without
seeing what causes it”
[
Schaeffer 2004, 77]. With acousmatic listening we no longer are concerned with the Cartesian
split between objective and subjective reality. Instead, it is the listening
itself, as a process, that becomes the phenomenon to be studied. The question
“What am I hearing?” asks one to describe the perception itself, not
simply the external references. The acousmatic situation generally precludes any
relation with what is visible, touchable, measurable [
Schaeffer 2004, 78].
The study of acousmatics is important for several reasons, according to
Schaeffer. Acousmatics, he says, emphasizes the “subjectivities” involved in listening,
focuses attention on the “sonorous
object,” what we are hearing, rather than the sound source, and
strips sound back to a state beyond interpretation [
Schaeffer 2004, 78, 79, 81]. When listening to sounds which are hidden from view we
take interest in them for themselves. We can gain knowledge of these sounds, we
can analyze and describe them, and, we hope, we can transmit this knowledge.
Sound is, thus, relative to our listening experience. This point is considered by
Brian Kane, in his scholarly study of Schaeffer's theory of acousmatics, as he
argues for acousmatic listening to take a central role in sound and music
aesthetics, sound studies, literature, and philosophy from a number of
methodological perspectives — historical, cultural, philosophical, and musical
[
Kane 2014].
[9]
How to proceed?
Existing DH scholarship, as noted previously, is largely biased toward visuals
[
Whitney 2008]. A shift in focus to sound will increase
opportunities for scholarship in the arts and humanities focused on sound [
Sterne 2011]
[
Murray and Wiercinski 2014]. Action research, advocated by Stefano Vannotti,
combines design / creative practice with critical academic research and may
provide an appropriate methodology for DH work with sound. Action research
involves a “systematic enquiry
conducted though the medium of practical action, calculated to devise or
test new, or newly imported, information, ideas, forms, or procedures and to
generate communicable knowledge” and essentially “undertake[s] research through
practice”
[
Vannotti 2008, 55]. In other words, to critique and comment on sound, DH researchers should
work directly with sound — collecting, recording, archiving, curating, and
listening to sounds — the premise of this course.
Conclusion
In this essay, I have discussed a course entitled Sound and
Digital Humanities," taught during the 2014 Digital Humanities
Summer Institute at the University of Victoria. I have discussed the context for
this course, its goals and objectives, and outlined a theoretical framework for
utilizing sound(s) in digital humanities (DH) research, teaching, and
practice.
My argument is that sound provides scholarly and creative opportunities for those
involved with DH. Researchers and scholars may be uncertain how to proceed,
however. This course was meant to fill the information gap. To summarize, there
are several reasons for a focus on sound . . .
- Sound is ephemeral, disappearing, its meaning quickly lost.
- Sound is temporal, but capable of returning, here but not here, a
feeling, a sense, an experience.
- Sound was the original and remains a fundamental sensory input and
communication channel for human culture.
- Sound conveys deep, rich information; is capable of providing
immersive, interactive contexts for listeners. Through the act of
careful listening, listeners can derive a great deal of information
about the world they inhabit.
- Sound transforms space to place.
- Sound is the phoneme for speech (verbalization of abstract
thought).
- Sound is the central component of narrative (the recounting of a
sequence of events and their meaning) and storytelling (the addition of
setting, plot, characters, logical unfolding of events, a
climax).
- Sound is the basis for literature (written works considered to possess
lasting artistic merit) and the various practices and cultures
associated with its production and consumption (reading, writing, and
listening).
In short, sound creates not only new phenomena to observe, research, interpret,
and report, but more importantly, new applications for such endeavors in DH.
This diversity of approaches to sound was heard by all DHSI 2014 participants
during a show-and-tell session at week's end. Participants from each course
shared some artifact in the DHSI central auditorium. With room lights
extinguished, participants walked onto the stage where, illuminated only by
glowing laptop and/or tablet screens, they added their respective aural
components to a live performance of “Sounds and Digital
Humanities.”
[10]
Works Cited
Bull and Beck 2003 Bull, M. and L. Beck. “Introduction.” In M. Bull and L. Beck (ed.), The Auditory Culture Reader, Oxford, UK, Berg (2003),
pp. 3-4, 12, 16.
Campbell 1949 Campbell, J. The Hero with a Thousand Faces. Bollingen Foundation (1949).
Crook 1999 Crook, T. Radio
Drama. Theory and Practice, London, Routledge (1999), p. 8.
Eno 2004 Eno, B. “Ambient
Music.” In C. Cox and D. Warner (ed.), Audio
Culture, Continuum Press, New York (2004), pp. 94-97.
Feld 2003 Feld, S. “A Rainforest
Acoustemology.” In M. Bull and L. Beck, (ed.), The Auditory Culture Reader, Oxford, UK: Berg (2003), pp.
223-239.
Ferrington 1994 Ferrington, G. “Audio Design: Creating Multi-Sensory Images For The
Mind,”
Journal of Visual Literary 14.1 (1994):
61-67.
Hall 2010 Hall, A. “Cigarettes
and Dance Steps.” In J. Biewen and A. Dilworth, (ed.), Reality Radio: Telling True Stories in Sound (eds),
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill (2010), p. 99.
Kane 2014 Kane, B. Sound
Unseen: Acousmatic Sound in Theory and Practice, Oxford University
Press, New York (2014).
Levinson 1981 Levinson, P. “Media Evolution and the Primacy of Speech.” ERIC #ED 235510
(1981).
Levinson 1999 Levinson, P. Digital McLuhan: A Guide to the Information Millennium. Routledge,
New York (1999).
López 2004 López, F. “Profound
Listening and Environmental Sound Matter.” In C. Cox and D. Warner,
(ed.), Audio Culture: Readings in Modern Music.
Continuum, New York (2004) pp. 82-83.
MacFarlane 2013 MacFarlane, T. The Beatles and McLuhan: Understanding the Electric
Age. The Scarecrow Press: Lanham, NJ (2013).
McLuhan 1964 McLuhan, M. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man New York, McGraw Hill
(1964).
McLuhan 1977 McLuhan, M. “The
Laws of Media.”
et cetera 1977 34(2): 173-179.
McLuhan and McLuhan 1988 McLuhan, M. and McLuhan,
E. Laws of Media: The New Science. University of
Toronto Press: Toronto (1988).
McPherson 2009 McPherson, T. “Media Studies and the Digital Humanities.”
Cinema Journal 48.2 (2009): 119-123.
O'Donnell 1988 O'Donnell, J. Avatars of the Word: From Papyrus to Cyberspace.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1988).
Schaeffer 2004 Schaeffer, P. “Acousmatics.” In C. Cox and D. Warner, (ed.), Audio Culture: Readings in Modern Music. Continuum
Press, New York (2004), pp. 76-81.
Schafer [See also Schafer, R. M. The Soundscape: Our Sonic Environment and The Tuning of the World.
Destiny Books, Rochester, Vermont (1993) adapted from The
New Soundscape (1966) and The Tuning of the
World (1977)]
Schafer 1977 Schafer, R. M. The Tuning of the World: A Pioneering Exploration Into the Past History and
Present State of the Most Neglected Aspect Of Our Environment: The
Soundscape. McClelland and Stewart, Toronto (1977).
Smith 2003 Smith, B. “Tuning
into London c. 1600.” In M. Bull and L. Beck (ed.), The Auditory Culture Reader. Oxford, UK, Berg (2003),
pp. 127-135.
Sterne 2011 Sterne, J.“Audio
in Digital Humanities Authorship: A Roadmap (version 0.5)”,
Super Bon! (July 24, 2011)
http://superbon.net/?p=1915
(accessed 15 September 2014).
Vannotti 2008 Vannotti, Stefano M. “Let Us Do What We Can Do Best: But How Can We Produce
Knowledge by Designing Interfaces?” In C. Sommerer, L. Mignonneau,
and D. King (ed.), Interface Cultures: Artistic Aspects of
Interaction. New Brunswick, NJ, Transaction Publishers (2008), pp.
51-60.
Whitney 2008 Whitney, A. “Cultivating Sonic Literacy in the Humanities Classroom,”
Music, Sound, and the Moving Image 2.2 (2008):
145-148.