A Statement on Sound Studies: (with apologies to Sergei Eisenstein, Vsevolod Pudovkin, and Grigori Alexandrov) Mark Kerins
Music, Sound, and the Moving Image, Volume 2, Issue 2, Autumn 2008, pp. 115-119 (Article) Published by Liverpool University Press DOI: 10.1353/msm.0.0046
For additional information about this article http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/msm/summary/v002/2.2.kerins.html
Access Provided by Bristol University at 12/06/12 11:56AM GMT
MSMI
2:2 Autumn 08
115
A Statement on Sound Studies (with apologies to Sergei Eisenstein, Vsevolod Pudovkin, and Grigori Alexandrov)
MARK KERINS
Our cherished dreams of a robust field of sound studies are being realised. Musicology, having developed some of the earliest techniques for studying audio material, is now broadening its reach, applying its expertise to aural issues in film, pop music, television, and elsewhere. Cultural studies, likewise, is bringing its insights on reception, use, and audiences to sound-based concerns. With new journals (including this one) training their focus on sound, academic publishers releasing more audio-oriented research, and a burgeoning group of scholars from previously distinct fields mingling and sharing insights, sound studies may at last have found its voice. Those of us who work in film sound studies recognise that, given the long history of visually-oriented film scholarship, it is necessary and appropriate that much recent work in film sound has drawn as much (or more) on models originating outside cinema studies as it has on filmspecific theory. Historically, academic institutions have tended to privilege work from established fields; in the case of cinema sound, this has meant that approaches drawn from music, cultural studies, and elsewhere have provided the predominant analytical models. Indeed, we owe a great debt to the many scholars who have productively deployed the approaches from their own disciplines onto cinematic sound. At the same time, this is an opportune moment to make a statement on a number of theoretical principles about film sound, particularly as current scholarly work that relies solely on models from outside cinema may be hindering the development and improvement of a truly filmic model of sound studies. Here I offer four areas deserving consideration by scholars – whatever their nominal discipline – engaging with cinema and cinema sound. All of these issues would benefit greatly from the attention of researchers in musicology and/or cultural studies, but fall far enough outside the ‘usual’ boundaries of those fields to be frequently left out of work addressing film
116
2:2 Autumn 08
Mark Kerins
♦
MSMI
A Statement on Sound Studies
sound from these perspectives, potentially limiting that work’s reach. These areas concern surround sound, production practices, the relationship between ‘sound’ and ‘music’, and the soundtrack as a unified object.
Multi-channel Sound While 35mm film has remained a constant in the visual aspect of motion picture distribution, sound exhibition technologies have evolved significantly since the 1920s. Probably most noticeable among these is the introduction of the multi-channel soundtrack, which first appeared in the 1940s and has gone through several incarnations since then. Much work on film sound has treated ‘the soundtrack’ as a single element emanating from the screen, yet this approach has its limitations, particularly when studying movies with carefully constructed multi-channel soundscapes. Modern film soundtracks increasingly rely on multi-channel techniques to convey important spatial information, and on some occasions surround mixing strategies are even used to convey important plot information that goes unnoticed when played back in a monophonic or twochannel stereo environment. Just as it would be difficult to write about cinematography in The Wizard of Oz after watching it on a black-andwhite television, any analysis of a recent film soundtrack based on hearing the movie on a non-surround-equipped system will necessarily remain incomplete. This avenue of study offers huge potential, including research questions such as how the various audio channels work together and/or in conflict within the same movie; how surround sound changes the audience’s experience of a movie; and why some people concern themselves with hearing movies in their intended soundtrack configuration while others do not (just as customer preferences differ on ‘widescreen’ versus ‘fullscreen’ image presentation). These last two questions, in particular, ought to be examined from a cultural studies perspective. Moreover, multi-channel sound is just one of several technological elements of film sound deserving study; other innovations – including recent changes like the rise of home theatre and increased viewing of movies on computers and portable media players – also beg analysis through lenses that incorporate both film theory and cultural studies.
Production Practices Many of those who write on film sound, whether from inside or outside cinema studies, display only a limited understanding of the various
MSMI
2:2 Autumn 08
Mark Kerins
♦
117
A Statement on Sound Studies
processes and people involved in the creation of motion picture soundtracks. As one common example, there is still a frequent assumption that onscreen dialogue is recorded on set, despite the pervasiveness of Automated Dialogue Replacement (ADR) in modern filmmaking. This level of ignorance about actual production strategies and techniques results in incomplete, and possibly inaccurate, analyses; indeed, even using such a seemingly fundamental term as ‘sound design’ is historically problematic, as that designation did not appear until the 1970s, and remains a subject of debate among film sound professionals. More work that combines primary research (including interviews with film sound professionals and study of archival records where available) with a basic understanding of common production practices would provide useful context about the ways film soundtracks are made, the possible limitations (both technical and aesthetic) filmmakers confront at various times, and why moviemakers arrive at particular decisions. Awareness of industrial realities can proffer additional insights, especially as the soundtrack is frequently the last part of a movie to be completed, often on a tight deadline and a tighter budget. One example from my own work: after I noticed that the mixing of one musical theme in a film felt at odds with the rest of the soundtrack, a discussion with the film’s sound designer revealed that the cue in question had been added at the last minute and the crew simply had not had time to situate it properly in the mix. Even where industrial concerns are not this cut-anddried, it is worth remembering that decisions about soundtracks – like those about most elements of filmmaking – are hybrids of creative impulses, technical limitations, and cultural preferences. The text itself remains of paramount importance, but an understanding of the practical concerns of film sound production, and post-production in general, is crucial to valid and productive analyses.
The Relationship between ‘Sound’ and ‘Music’ Film sound scholarship has frequently and productively borrowed vocabulary and methods from music, and this makes sense; pitch, rhythm, harmony, tempo, and other musical terms are often useful ways to describe sound. Musicologists have also themselves tackled the analysis of motion picture scores and other movie music. Music, though, is only one element of motion picture sound. The soundtrack also includes voices and dialogue, ambient sounds, sound effects, and processed elements (like reverb), often all at the same time; musical concepts and terminology thus go only so far in analysing the many extra-musical sonic
118
2:2 Autumn 08
Mark Kerins
♦
MSMI
A Statement on Sound Studies
elements, just as terms from visual art are helpful but ultimately limited in discussing cinematography. Spatiality and presence, for instance, are crucial considerations in cinematic soundtracks, yet difficult to discuss in musical terms. To date, much cinema sound scholarship – whether from scholars based in music, cultural studies, or film studies – has tended to privilege the music-driven elements of the soundtrack. Though this work has been fruitful, as sound studies moves forward it must find ways to expand analysis beyond music and musicality, in establishing a collective vocabulary that moves beyond the classical terms of music to encompass the rich variety and texture of sounds used in the cinema and other audiovisual media.
The Complete Soundtrack Even with a more comprehensive analytic vocabulary, the challenge of developing a truly integrated sonic analysis model would remain. To draw a further comparison with cinematography, describing the look of a film solely in terms of colour, contrast, or lighting, for example, is a futile exercise – the overall visual aesthetic is more than, and different from, the sum of its parts. Sound works similarly: much time and effort is spent in post-production melding the diverse elements of the soundtrack into a coherent whole, and scholars must likewise find ways to analyse soundtracks in their entirety rather than focusing on each element individually. Here cinema studies could again profitably learn from research outside its traditional purview. Experimental work in psychoacoustics and perception, for instance, might provide a powerful foundation in developing a unified approach to soundtrack analysis, given its existing bodies of research on ‘auditory scene analysis’ (how the brain groups and separates sounds) and on how audiences decide whether a musical score ‘goes with’ a movie clip. One of the great virtues of the current moment in sound studies is that researchers from disparate areas are applying methodologies from their own areas of expertise to new fields – this is a crucial first step toward an integrated approach to studying soundtracks, but we must move forward by building on and combining extant strategies, not just applying them ‘as is’ to a different medium. On the one hand, the explosion of interdisciplinary work on sound from a range of scholarly approaches has vigorously rekindled interest in sound within cinema studies, pushing the soundtrack to the forefront of important scholarly concerns. On the other, this same breadth of approach and desire for interdisciplinary study has pushed the field
MSMI
2:2 Autumn 08
Mark Kerins
♦
119
A Statement on Sound Studies
away from medium-specific work to a more generalised ‘sound studies’ which at times neglects evidence, arguments, and theories crucial to cinema studies. This essay, I hope, offers those approaching film sound from cultural studies or musicology, for example, a few productive suggestions; its goal is not to admonish or restrict these scholars, but rather to suggest issues particular to the cinematic medium that might benefit from their expertise. As noted at a recent conference, ‘sound studies’ is inherently multiple, and film sound studies should continue to commune with and benefit from non-cinema-specific work. Consideration of the areas explored here should not only strengthen the specifics of a particular research investigation, grounding it in the technologies and techniques of filmmaking, but should also help expand the field of sound studies, demonstrating how it can be simultaneously both multiple and medium-appropriate.
