Sounds Analyses in a Sports Event - Essay Example

?Yilmaz Yigit Tokman J. Dueck WR 20 4/10/11 Sounds Analyses in a Sports Event Introduction Texts on interpreting sounds are several, yet most are based on concepts borrowed from linguistics, communications, or ethnomusicology. This does not mean that these theories cannot be applied in some way when it comes to understanding how sounds are interpreted. On the contrary, borrowing some of these theories aids in understanding how sounds are interpreted. This is most probably because oral communication and music are both perceived by the sense of hearing, just like sound. This paper aims to provide an analytical draft on the elements and process of sound interpretation, and how each element is important on the varying meanings each sound represent. Basic of Sounds Interpretation It is said that one way music can be interpreted is through the listener’s “interaction” with it. Sound can be similarly interpreted this way, as sound is also perceived through the auditory sense (Guck 194). This idea can be linked some points in the field notes during the women’s tennis game between Duke University and Virginia Tech. For example, before the start of the game, the crowd could be heard chatting non-stop on probably every topic possible in casual conversations. As an observer, the sounds can be interpreted depending on the personal viewpoint of the listener or the “intention”. These sounds can be seen as sounds of excitement, of nervousness, or of indifference. To explain further, these three interpretations will be dissected. Sounds from the crowd can be interpreted as excitement due to the consistent rising and falling of the intonation of the overall chatter. They can also be interpreted as nervousness due to the listener’s perception of the circumstances where the sounds are happening. Rival fans can easily be perceived as nervous for the game results. Additionally, indifference may also be another interpretation due to the casual setting where the sounds are happening. These points merely prove that sound interpretation is dependent on the listener’s perception of the “hearings.” (Guck 191-5) However, this is just one aspect of interpretation. Another interpretation of sound can be based on “intentionality.” According to Tia De Nora, “users configure themselves as agents in and through the ways they relate to objects while they also configure objects in and through the ways they, as agents, behave towards those objects” (Guck 195). It happens, for instance, when the listener uses the music as a catalyst to what the listener wants to feel. For example, during the event, if the listener wants to feel excitement, they can easily use the sounds around them as a catalyst to feel excitement. The endless, mixed sound of voices can easily be used as an accomplice to get this feeling. On the other hand, if the listener wants to feel that their preferred team or player is at an advantage, they could choose to interpret the sounds from rival fans as nervousness (Guck 195-7). Semantics and Pragmatics In communication, aside from phonetics, lexicon, grammar, and syntax, pragmatics, and semantics are also necessary (Feld 206-7). Similarly, rules beyond how a music or sound is made are considered in interpreting music or sound. Meanings and conceptions of self are equally important in interpreting the objects a listener hears. This could mean that sounds cannot be interpreted solely on the basis of its structure while isolating the context where it is heard. While not absolutely similar, it is reasonable to point out that some issue in linguistics may be applied in ethnomusicology (Feld 207). For example, in the same sports event, if a listener focuses on the social structure where sounds are produced, any listener will interpret the sounds in similar fashion. However, if the pragmatic and semantic theories are applied, a simple sound of laughter from a group of people may present different meanings to the listener. This does not discuss yet the “intentional” meaning that the producers of the sound want to express. That sound of laughter from a small group of people may mean to any listener that the group is happy and excited about the event. However, if these theories are applied, the sound of laughter could mean happiness or sarcasm about the game progress. These two meanings are entirely opposite, but are coming from the same sound. The difference is the context where this sound is produced. Are the group members fans of the leading team or are they from the opponent group? However, one should also take into consideration the role of intentionality, interaction, and invention (Guck 195) in interpreting sounds. Aside from the context where the sounds are produced, the listener’s personal take on the sound heard also plays a major role in how these sounds are interpreted. For example, if the listener’s intention is to feel more confident of the fact that the preferred player is on the lead, and the group creating the laughter is from the rival team, then the sound analysis can easily be “They are sarcastic (interpretation) because they are from the disadvantaged team (social context) and they laugh a little louder than the rest (interaction) because they don’t want to show their fear (invention) that they’ll lose. I’m sure they know we’re the better team (intention).” Another example for this would be when a few students nearby shouted enthusiastically during a particular long exchange of good hits by both players. However, to someone who knows tennis, it is easy to see that the other player is having a hard time keeping up with the other player’s hits. To anyone who casually listens, this shout of enthusiasm can be interpreted as them being part of the leading team. Since they are not wearing school colors, this is a very possible analysis. What could be possibly occurring in a listener’s mind is “They are cheering (interaction) obviously for the leading player (interpretation) because the smashes the other player gives are poor (social context).” However, upon hearing their nervous giggles and whispers, and upon catching bits and pieces of their whispered conversation, one will realize that these students do not really cheer for the leading team. They are just not familiar with tennis and they thought that the exchange of hits between the two players is a good show of “come-from-behind” by the losing player. Therefore, the more appropriate interpretation is actually “They thought the losing player is doing a good show, but they just don’t know tennis (social context). They are cheering (interaction), they must be fans of the losing player/team (interpretation).” Identity of Sounds and Semiotic Processes Martin Daughtry’s “Russia’s New Anthem and the Negotiation of National Identity,” rationalizes Russia’s national positive sentiments through the anthem’s emotional association with Soviet’s grand history. It mentions that an anthem is a nation’s representation of continuity, and Russian’s new national anthem offers the people, who regards the Soviet past with respect, ties to their history. In “Russia’s New Anthem and the Negotiation of National Identity,” Martin J. Daughtry compares the current anthem to Soviet’s past to explore the connections between the two. Daughtry states that there is a great synthesis of textual and musical gestures in the anthem that renders it indelible to those who listen to, or perform, it --- ideaological inclinations notwithstanding. It can be said that this is a case of “virtual smoothness” that any Russian speaker feels upon hearing the new Russian anthem. It is considered an affirmation of the new anthem’s link to the original anthem (Daughtry 42-62). This concept can be applied to the sounds heard during that tennis event. Even if not technically considered music, as mentioned above, sounds are perceived through the auditory sense (Guck 194). Who could not notice the familiar school cheers that erupt from different areas of the arena? Or the familiar famous chants identifiable only to a certain group of people --- is this case, the students from the university. These sounds evoke positive sentiments and emotional associations to the school they represent. For example, upon hearing jovial chants from one part of the arena, several co-students, most probably from the same university, erupted in similar expressions of excitement and joy like clapping, boisterous laughter, and cheers. The simple chant from one group evoked positive feelings and sense of identity from the others belonging in the same group. The origin of the chant (sound) did not directly communicate with the other students, but their sounds did. This even affected the players themselves. Referring to the field notes: “There was that part in the game when I almost could not seem to understand what happened. All it took was an extraordinary nice smash by D, and it seemed like it defined that game. Right after that second, the relaxed excitement was replaced by loud cheers and applause. Even the jeers and boos went relatively louder. It was as if the movements of everyone were suddenly orchestrated. D’s hits became more and more incredible, while V sank further and further down. Even her stance showed a little unsteadiness, like she was not 100% sure anymore. Before, V was able to answer to the nice smashes of her opponent, but during those final moments, she cannot give cheer-worthy smashes anymore. Maybe D felt that, and took advantage of that.” Obviously, D refers to Duke University and V refers to Virginia Tech. D knows she is doing a good job, and that is reinforced by the chants and cheers from the crowd. Without even looking at those who are cheering, D knows from the game events that the positive cheers are for her. Without even looking at those who are cheering, D is able to interact and identify with the familiar chants she hears. Her interpretation of the sounds is positive, allowing her to accentuate her confidence by her positive interpretation of the sounds (intention). It might also cause her to think that it will demoralize her opponent more (invention), which she takes advantage of by giving better hits and smashes. Knowing that the chants are known only to students from her own university (identity), it makes her recognize that these sounds are not meant to be sarcastic for her performance (social context). In another article entitled “Signs of Imagination, Identity, and Experience: A Peircian Semiotic Theory for Music,” Charles Peirce’s concept of signs to discuss identity, emotion, and music is utilized in Turino’s analysis for the need of music. According to Peirce, the interpretant, object, and sign are elements in all semiotic processes. In the article, recognition of societal and individual identities and formation of emotional corollaries are music’s ability rooted in the reality that social signs are generally of the less mediated or direct type. Generally speaking, music works without any mental intervention and directly at the physical and emotional levels. Turino’s main focus in his article is on the relationship of the sign and the object --- symbol, index, and icon, and its overall interpretation --- argument, dicent, and rheme. Just like the example stated above, this concept further establishes the fact that sounds communicate messages that are sometimes directed to the emotions, not requiring any intellectual process (Turino 221-253). While this theory may be complex when associated with sounds instead of music (which is normally an amalgamation of words and rhyme and other musical instruments), both are perceived through the auditory sense (Guck 194) and are therefore processed similarly. This is noticeable when the sounds from the crowd increased D’s momentum. The sounds communicated directly to her feelings and emotions and did not require a whole process of step-by-step mental interpretation. The effect is almost automatic, which is proven by the few seconds it took for the sounds to be created up to the effect on the player’s performance. Analytical Discourse On a more personal note, however, it can be said that the almost instantaneous process is a combination of the listener’s interaction, intention, invention of the sounds, coupled by the semantics and pragmatics of sounds. To take the discussion further, each concept will be briefly dissected. Interaction can be said to be the first thing that occurs when a listener’s perceives sound. It is the process when the “objects” are perceived through the auditory sense. This is the start of the whole process of interpretation. Without interaction, the rest of the process cannot occur. Intention is the interpretation based on the listener’s perception of the sound (Guck 195). This is probably, if not the most, one of the most basic elements in interpretation. As an example from the field notes “the announcement of the beginning of the match sent the crowd to happy applauses and excited shouts,” the sounds are easily interpreted as basic expressions of happiness and excitement (note the description of the applauses and shouts). The question is, “what if the applause and shouts do not really mean happiness and excitement?” This is where the invention steps in. This element is one of the dictators of how a listener interprets sound. Considering how “invention” is defined in the earlier parts of this paper, aside from happiness and excitement, these applauses and shouts can easily mean “relief from the boredom of waiting for the game to start” too. These interpretations are now dictated by the listener’s current state of mind and they want to reinforce. If the listener feels happiness and excitement, they could “invent” that the crowd is also happy and excited, thus reinforcing the listener’s feelings. If the listener is bored already, they can “invent” the crowd is expressing similar frustrations. The semantics and pragmatics of sounds are also significant elements in understanding how people interpret these “objects.” Semantics and pragmatics have something to do with the environment or social context, so for example, these same applauses and shouts are heard during the latter part of the game, and these can be interpreted as cheers of excitement for the leading player, or sarcasm and boos for the losing player, depending on who is creating the sound. Note that once the elements are incorporated in interpretation, the meanings of sounds vary significantly. Additionally, to take out one element from the interpretation could alter the meaning of the sound. This indicates that, whenever applicable, all these elements are significant in sound interpretation. This may appear too complicated when people relate this to the process of sound interpretation as it happens in real life. However, one has to understand that, as stated above, these elements occur in an almost instantaneous process. For example, no one interprets what they hear as “I hear applause and shouts, and I am excited. I’ll say the crowd is excited because I want to reinforce my feeling of excitement. Besides, the applause and shouts are coming from the fans of the winning player.” This is most probably how it works, literally. However, according to Peirce, sounds sometimes directly communicate with the emotions. Therefore, the prolonged mental process of analysis and reasoning are skipped. Conclusion Works Cited Daughtry, J M. "Russia's New Anthem and the Negotiation of National Identity." Ethnomusicology. 47.1 (2003): 42-67. Print. Feld, Steven. "Linguistic Models in Ethnomusicology." Ethnomusicology. 18.2 (1974): 197-217. Print. Guck, Marion A. "Analysis As Interpretation: Interaction, Intentionality, Invention." Music Theory Spectrum. 28.2 (2006): 191-209. Print. Turino, Thomas. "Signs of Imagination, Identity, and Experience: a Peircian Semiotic Theory for Music." Ethnomusicology. 43.2 (1999): 221-255. Print. Read More