ProSoundWeb: “If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?”
This old philosophical chestnut hints at the inherent strangeness of sound – its seemingly nebulous existence that somehow connects to our perception (hearing), the fleeting nature of sound, and the different ways in which we all casually speak about its location and various characteristics.
12 comments:
The way we think about sound is a fascinating topic. Especially in the sound industry, how an audience member will hear sound is vital and constitutes a large portion of the design process. I am used to thinking about sound practically, so it was very interesting for this author to come from a philosophical perspective. I had never heard of the four ways of thinking about where sound is located before. The interesting thing to me is that, from a certain perspective, all of these answers are true. The sound originates at the source (so it does exist there), then moves through the air in its path (so it is located in the air), but then how we hear/perceive the sound depends on us and will be different to each person (so it does reside in our head). And, since all of those are true at the same time, the argument could be made that it doesn’t exist anywhere. I do find it interesting that professional sound engineers tend to be on the “exists at the source” side of the question, and it does make sense: we train ourselves to locate things based on their sound and to “look” for sound sources.
First off, this article reminded me of Dear Evan Hansen. It reminded me of the lyric, “When you're falling in a forest and there's nobody around, Do you ever really crash, or even make a sound?” Remembering this lyric, drew me to the specific article due to the title. This article was super interesting though because the author, Jeff Hawley, was conducting research to write his thesis paper. All the different responses to the questions were super interesting as well, saying that the sound of an explosion might occur in the air, while most said that the sound occurred when the actual explosion happened. This is only part 1 of this experiment, as there are three more parts being written and conducted. I think this is a super interesting part to an experiment and thesis. The philosophy of sound is super intriguing, and I wonder what the rest of the results, and the conclusion will read.
I think this is an incredibly fascinating topic to discuss. Everyone goes about their life not even thinking about the existence of sound as an element to our existence because it’s such a given. The question of a tree falling in a forest is one that nearly everyone has heard before, and giving it some thought for a while can melt a brain. However, I never think to apply the philosophy of sound into the entertainment industry. Hearing how different sound technicians and engineers interact with sound and the question of how it exists is very interesting because there are split opinions from highly credible people. I appreciate the work done by the surveyor to distinguish everyone’s personal experiences and professions that could influence bias. Thinking about the argument myself, I would say that sound comes from the source and then is experienced by a listener to mould it into meaning. Overall, I think this is an interesting topic that should be explored a lot more by the entertainment industry as a factor of our work.
I find this to be quite an interesting take on this common philosophical question. I will admit, I think the sound engineers in their surveys are mostly thinking of it from a fairly logical perspective because yes, the vibration of sound waves will occur whether someone is standing in the forest to hear it or not, however the philosophical perspective is much more interesting. At least in my interpretation of it the question is more asking if an action taken or an event that occurred didn’t affect anyone, did it really happen? That is a much more interesting discussion in my opinion than the basic question about if a sound is still audible when you aren’t there to hear it. This article gets much more nitty gritty than I think the philosophical question was ever meant to go; however the nuance of it does make it credible, but again, too scientific and logical. I do find it interesting that it was specifically asking those involved in music and sound engineering/mixing as they’re probably the right people to ask about it.
I appreciate the data being collected and then shown in a professional way, showing that it truly is fact and not a speculation on what sound technicians and engineers would say. I have always thought that the question on if a tree makes sounds if no one can hear it to be a question that sounds profound but there is kind of an obvious answer when looking through most sound professionals’ eyes, that yes it does make a sound as sound is at the source with 53% agreeing and in the air surrounding it, with 37% agreeing. Either way if sound is at the source or in the air the tree falling does make sound with 10% split between the two options that would mean the tree doesn’t make a sound, being that sound comes from nowhere and sound is of the hearer. I appreciate that this data puts an end to that question with a resounding 93~% ‘it does make sound’.
Seeing this title reminded me of Dear Evan Hansen, which is the first time I heard and contemplated this question. Since then, it's lived in my mind and I think about it frequently. I'm also reminded of it every time I hear the soundtrack. It is a fun question to think about and debate internally the different options. It was very interesting to see it actually laid out in a well thought out survey, with responses from professional sound engineers. I would be intrigued to see how their response to the question changes as it is framed in different scenarios. I also thought it was a bit funny how he mentioned that 95% of sound engineers said that the tree does make a sound, and threw shade at the people who responded that it didn't. "Maybe that last 5 percent of folks are the same people who have it wrong about whether XLR cables should be wrapped over-under. Who knows?"
The question of “where is sound” is interesting. I think sound is everywhere, the second theory. But I never really thought of any of the other theories and I see the argument for all of them. In terms of the building experiment, I might be equally as likely to say at the building and in the air. The source of the sound is obviously at the building, but within a certain radius of the building, there is still sound that you’d be able to hear even if you couldn’t see it. I don’t think I would’ve answered consistently. When I first read the building question, I think I would’ve written that the sound is at the building. But the more I thought about it, the more I started to disagree with myself. The sound is around the building, and is loudest at the site of the demolition, but it exists for a while until it gets too quiet and eventually tapers off. If a tree falls, the sound will only carry for so far, but it did make a sound.
I've always been confused about this question about the tree in the forest; not because it's a particularly difficult question, but more so because I've always looked at it more scientifically than philosophically. Sound is not dependent on human existence, and is rather just a natural occurrence that humans are able to experience. Other questions posed in the article like the one about loudspeakers sounding good are definitely dependent on humans hearing them because it's opinion rather than fact. I understand the point of philosophy and philosophical questions, but have questions that require human observation of natural effects to make them "real" has always confused me. I don't think I could ever be a sound designer/engineer just because sound quality is so preferential, it seems impossible to be able to please everyone.
This article raises some really interesting points that I’ve never really considered before. I had no idea that the “philosophy of sound” was a field that existed, but Hawley provides some really provocative questions here that make you consider it. I’ve never really thought of sound on a level such as the one Hawley investigates; I just thought of sound as being kind of everywhere and everything and left it at that. His investigation into “where is sound” was kind of eye-opening to me. Again, it’s something I never considered, but now that I think about it I’m inclined to choose the medial theory or perhaps the distal theory. It didn’t surprise me that most participants chose “yes” to the third question. I think that if your profession involves sound, you’d approach sound in an objective way, and the objective answer is that the building will make a sound. I’d be really interested in reading the other three articles to see what other points Hawley will bring up.
What an interesting read! I think the distal theory is the most correct because sound doesn’t rely on us to be there if that makes sense. Whether or not we hear sound is up to us but sound will always still exist even if we don’t hear it. I’m really excited to read more about this and to read the next parts of this issue. I wonder what else he’ll dive into on a philosophical level. I’ve never really considered sound to be a philosophical debate because it’s always been such a constant in my life it never occurred to me that others would question it or its origins which I guess is smart. I feel like for me, the answer to the question “if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it still make a sound?” has always been yes because again, whether or not we are there to hear the sound doesn’t mean that the sound doesn’t exist so it’s interesting to me that it’s still such a debated topic.
The ‘philosophy of sound’ is a really interesting concept to me, because like any other sense, each individual perceives and interprets it differently. The self-reported data reporting only about 62% of sound engineers having more than 75% of their income being from sound work is a bit concerning (not to mention 20% saying it made up less than 25%, though that could be amateur work), as someone who is somewhat interested in the field. I appreciate how this article includes the statistical work behind the numbers, so further research is facilitated. The four answers as to where sound exists brought up interest. The medial concept resonated (no pun intended) with me but the distal definition seemed the most scientifically correct. Most sound engineers said that the distal view is most correct. They end the article with a purely fun question for a circular ending: the grand majority of professional live sound engineers believe that if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, it does indeed make a sound.
I really enjoyed this article because I have always wondered about where sound originates and these four theories, I just haven't had the words to describe it. I would argue that the medial theory AND the distal theory make the most sense. I was originally going to argue that just the medial theory makes sense as sound is sound waves, and sound waves aren't inside of an object. However, I reminded myself that sound can resonate inside of an object, such as a brass instrument or a drum, or even just pass through a speaker. Anyways, the sound is definitely inside of the object, so both theories absolutely make sense. I don't understand how anyone could argue that only the distal theory is correct, because if the sound exists only at its source, how would we hear it? The sound has to travel through space to get to our ears. While I can understand why the proximal theory would have some merit, its a slippery slope towards saying that nothing exists unless a human experiences it. We can prove that sounds exists even if nobody hears it using audio detectors in a soundproof room. It is a physical wave which exists regardless of human perception.
Post a Comment