Part one
What noise has been
NOISE, n. A stench in the ear. Undomesticated music. The chief product and authenticating sign of civilization.
AMBROSE BIERCE, The Devilâs Dictionary, 85.
Noise is obvious. It can be easily found and easily recognized. Many encounter it on a daily basis â be it in the home, the workplace or during leisure time. Despite all this, a troublesome question remains: what is it, exactly, that makes noise ânoiseâ? After all, noise refers to different things in different contexts. It means different things to different people. An absolute definition would thus seem impossible. Noise can be a judgement of sound or a type of sound. It might be empirical or abstract. Or it might be âthe constant grating sound generated by the movement between the abstract and the empiricalâ.1 Noise frequently attracts grandiose rhetoric, particularly when it names the clamour of the new. And yet, just as frequently, noise is utterly banal â so familiar that it is unworthy of comment. Noise is often attached to ideas of loudness, nature, industry, technology, pollution and militarism. It can belie racist, classist and sexist sentiments; or serve as a metaphor for revolutionary action.
In this section, I critically consider what noise has been, outlining four common definitional approaches. First, I describe what I call a âsubject-orientedâ definition. As unwanted, unpleasant or âbadâ sound, noise pertains to a value judgement that is made during perception. Second, I describe an âobject-orientedâ definition, which defines noise in relation to particular acoustic qualities and attributes. I then discuss two definitions that overlap with both subject-oriented and object-oriented definitions: noiseâs definition in relation to particular sound sources, and noiseâs definition in terms of loudness. With regard to the former, it is shown how noise has been associated with particular âunnaturalâ sources, as well as certain bodies deemed âotherâ. However, I also show how noise may come from an unknown source, as exemplified by an unexplained sonic phenomenon called âthe humâ. With regard to the latter, I discuss (loud) noiseâs capacity to cause physical damage, and its problematic equivocation with technology, modernity and capitalism.
Subject-oriented noise
Noise is most commonly understood to be an audible problem, referring to sound that is in some way negative: it is that which is deemed to be unwanted, unpleasant, undesirable or just âbadâ. Noise is something that we do not want to be around: we try to avoid and abate it as much as possible. It is associated with pollution, disorder and destruction. The British physicist G. W. C. Kaye, adapting the description of dirt as âmatter out of placeâ, defines noise as âsound out of placeâ â in space and/or time.2 In being out of place, noise may inhibit communication, or mask âmeaningfulâ sound. Alternatively, noise can be sound that is considered meaningless, or whose meaning is disliked. Noise may be unwanted in the sense that it distorts and degrades an intended message; in the sense that it is judged to be excessive or degenerate; or in the sense that it may cause physiological and psychological harm. Or noise may be unwanted because it is sound that simply annoys us.
To describe noise as unwanted sound requires a listener to hear it as such. Sounds become noise when they are heard in a particular way â it is a value ascribed in relation to perception. The task of constituting noise thus lies with the listener. As Paul Hegarty states:
Noise is not the same as noises. Noises are sounds until further qualified (e.g. as unpleasant noises, loud noises, and so on) but noise is already that qualification; it is already a judgement that noise is occurring. Although noise can occur outside of cognition (i.e. without us understanding its purpose, form, source), a judgement is made in reaction to it.3
For Hegarty, noise is sound that is judged to be negative, and so the presence of someone â or something â to hear noise is essential: noise needs a listener.4 But hearing on its own is not enough: noise requires critical listening. According to Hegarty, there are two stages in the constitution of noise. First, there is the perception of sound by a listener; and second, there is the judgement of the perceived sound as unwanted and, by extension, âbadâ â it is received by the listener as irritating, frightening, potentially damaging, inhibitive and so on. Hegarty argues that without these two stages â of perception and valuation â there might be sound but there cannot be noise. From this perspective, noise is a status that is added onto sound in perception, rather than an inherent property of the sound itself.
Which sounds are judged to be wanted or unwanted, permitted or unpermitted, acceptable or unacceptable can vary radically between individuals: hence the well-worn axiom âone personâs noise is another personâs musicâ. While some encounter the heaviness and sonic aggression of certain styles of music as unbearable and intolerable noise, there are others for whom this makes for a highly pleasurable musical experience. As a result, noise is often considered as an issue of personal taste. Yet, judgements of noise are often Kantian, in that they can often feel more important than a âmerelyâ personal matter. Judgements of noise seem more than subjective, and yet are not objective. Indeed, the listener often expects others to share his or her judgements, making appeals to a âcommon senseâ of what is reasonable, permissible and pleasurable, and what is not.
The difference â and tension â between individual judgements of what counts as unreasonable noise often becomes apparent in disputes over ânoisy neighboursâ: those who, through their use of sound, traverse the boundaries of what is perceived to be âourâ domestic space â disrupting or disturbing our homely activities in the process. Domestic spaces are particularly sensitive to noise given their cultural associations with peace, privacy and intimacy. A 2002 report for the UK governmentâs Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) found that the number of domestic noise complaints reported to the local authorities in England and Wales is equivalent to one in every five hundred people complaining once a year and that the most common cause of complaint is neighbour noise. The report adds that neighbour noise âis an almost inevitable consequence of urban living and is highly dependent on standards of behaviour and personal consideration. Consequently it is found to cause problems everywhere.â5 Similarly, a 2003 MORI report for DEFRA asserted that neighbour noise âis one of the most annoying noises when it is heardâ.6 The report suggests that this is due to two key reasons concerning neighbour noiseâs connotations. First, while inhabitants seem able to develop a certain degree of âimmunityâ to noises from traffic and trains, the irregularity and lack of utility from neighbour noise suggest that this does not apply. In other words, while transport noise may be heard as a ânecessary evilâ â an unfortunate side effect of an ultimately useful, regular and thus predictable activity â noise from neighbours is heard to be useless and unexpected: there is no good reason for it. Second, neighbour noise is thought to be synonymous with a lack of consideration. According to the report, âThis âconsiderationâ factor is critical in understanding the dynamics of disputes and demonstrates the importance of the social context of noise as opposed to its purely physical attributes.â7 Neighbour noise is often infuriating because it is felt to communicate a lack of consideration, care or respect for others.
To return to the axiom of âone personâs noise is another personâs musicâ, loud music (along with shouting and banging) is listed in the MORI report as the most frequent cause of annoyance and disturbance. However, the report also found that â[neighbour] noise need not be âstereotypicalâ nuisance noise to cause a dispute ⊠fairly routine noises (such as vacuuming, washing or closing doors) can be considered inconsiderate if they go on for too long or occur late at nightâ.8 These examples resonate with G. W. C. Kayeâs description of noise as sound out of place. Neighbour noise can be âout of placeâ spatially, in that it invades âmyâ home; and temporally, in that it occurs for too much time or at the wrong time. Responses to these quotidian sounds, moreover, show that noise need not be particularly loud in order to cause irritation. Rather, sounds may become noise as a result of their persistence, invasiveness or their (perceived) inescapability.
While there are some common themes concerning what noises are considered irritating or disturbing, there are some neighbourly noises that individual listeners are more willing to endure than others. DEFRAâs report identifies numerous factors that influence âthresholds of toleranceâ, such as the time of day and regularity of the noise. However, it also finds that factors relating to lifestyles or âlife stagesâ are particularly important in peopleâs judgements of noise. The report states:
The ability to empathise with a neighbour, most likely through a similar personal experience, increases tolerance to certain types of noise. For example, noise from a baby crying at night is less of an issue for someone who has children but a source of annoyance for those who do not.9
Whether sonic intrusions from neighbours are endurable or intolerable is partly dependent on the listenerâs capacity to relate to the sounds in question. A neighbour may still experience the sounds of a relentlessly crying baby as unwanted and irritating. However, being able to empathize with the situation means that this unwanted noise is more likely to be accepted as understandable and endured without complaint. Likewise, whether music is judged to be a tolerable nuisance or an intolerable invasion can be influenced by a listenerâs familiarity with the type of music being played. The report also asserts that the music tastes and lifestyles of young people are
clearly different from that of older generations. This is one reason why parties are not as annoying for young people as other noises, since the music style is considered a ânormalâ social activity. In contrast, modern music among younger ages â particularly the greater emphasis on base [sic] â is unfamiliar to older generations.10
What this suggests (and sweeping generalizations regarding musical tastes notwithstanding) is that the issue of neighbour noise, as well as which noises are tolerated and which are endured, is significantly informed by a listenerâs own lifestyle, and its perceived similarity to the lifestyles of their neighbourâs â whether they are capable of empathizing with a noisy situation due to their own personal experiences and tastes. Some noises, then, are considered more unwanted than others.
The judgement of particular sounds as negative â as bad, unwanted, unpleasant, intolerable and unnecessary â is also shaped by sociocultural norms. The dividing line that separates the tolerated from the taboo and the permissible from the unacceptable varies between as well as across cultures. Likewise, cultural changes can bring about changes in what sounds are accepted and what sounds are categorized as noise. The contemporaneous problem of neighbour noise, for example, relates to wider socio-economic shifts that have occurred over the past two hundred years in Eurocentric culture. When viewed historically, there is a correlation between a growing (vocalized) sensitivity to the noise of others and a growing desire for individual freedom. This is apparent in Alain Corbinâs analysis of the role of bells in the auditory landscape of nineteenth-century France. In this, Corbin discusses the rising intolerance of church bells among urban communities, identifying the 1860s as a âturning pointâ, with which the sound of the bells were no longer tolerated: âFrom this date on there was a greater determination to lay claim to oneâs morning sleep.â11 Corbin argues that an âenhanced desire for individual libertyâ challenged the âstandardized rhythmsâ of everyday life, which were demarcated and regulated by bell-ringing. 12 Consequently, the bells â a signifier of an older way of life â came to clash with modern lifestyle patterns. A number of developments, including advancements in street lighting, the growing publi...