sound-noise

I like to describe noise with an anecdote.

If we are performing a composition task, in which we must reason and listen to what we are doing, but from the window across from us there is a gentleman listening to a Chopin concert at full volume, then for us that is noise.

Noise is called that which disturbs us, regardless of considerations related to frequency ratios and thus timbre. Particular noises such as white noise have also been used in electronic music; in that case, conversely to the anecdote just told, it is the noise that becomes music. Sound and noise can also be interchanged depending on the context.

It might be trivial but...

sound: regular vibrations of the vibrating body

noise: irregular vibrations of the vibrating body

Maybe I didn't understand the question, but it is not noise versus music, but sound and noise

I take the liberty of disagreeing with this definition, which may be valid until shortly before the advent of electronic and electroacoustic music.

In the music of Berio, Xenakis, Stockhausen, etc., there are various examples of sounds having an irregular spectrum that varies over time, yet those "noises" (by your definition) are used in a musical context as "sonic elements" and thus are sounds in every respect.

Many different definitions of noise exist in literature, but never has any one like the one I gave in response to the question convinced me more. In literature, another definition that I like and which is in line with the example I made above is the following: "Noise is a signal that disturbs what we are most interested in.".

TheSimon wrote:

I like to describe noise with an anecdote.

If we are performing a composition task, in which we must reason and listen to what we are doing, but from the window across from ours there is a gentleman listening to a Chopin concert at full volume, then for us that is noise.

Thanks Simon

well, I would say it really hits the mark!

"Noise is called that which disturbs us regardless of considerations related to frequency ratios and thus to timbre"

I fully agree, but my curiosity is to understand if a noise has a frequency capable of generating it

Ilenia wrote:

sound: regular vibrations of the vibrating body

noise: irregular vibrations of the vibrating body

Hi Ilenia, thank you too for the answer

Does an irregular vibration generate a frequency in its own way?

Frequency is a quantity according to which events repeat identically or almost identically over time (it is one of the properties of cyclic sound waves along with period, phase, propagation speed, wavelength, amplitude and their diffraction and reflection). If the vibration is irregular, I deduce that it is not possible to define a frequency (Simone will correct me). It is clear that Simone's discussion does not back down, but the question is still not completely clear to me. Are we in the field of acoustics or linguistics?

In acoustics, the unit of measurement for frequency (ƒ) is the Hertz (Hz) Heinrich Hertz (1857-1894) or cycles per second (c.p.s.).

The frequency of a sound wave is defined as the number of cycles per second or the number of complete oscillations it performs in one second

Frequency and cycles per second are exactly the same thing. The waveform is derived from the law of the pendulum or the elastic constant of a spring (Hooke's law) via Taylor approximation of the angle, and this is where the cos or sin term appears (depending on the phase shift "Phi"). By Hertz, therefore, one means complete cycles completed in one second.

Jenn's question seems very pertinent to me because there is indeed a lot of confusion. What I have written is not my own invention. It is the definition of an Acoustic Physics professor, and I found it very accurate after many definitions I found around. If one thinks about it carefully, nowadays, with electronic and electroacoustic music, the concept of noise, as we knew it before, has somewhat diminished, in the sense that today the attribute of sound (excuse the pun) is attributed to a signal that contributes to generating some type of "music," just like silence... See 4'33"! So we can also think of silence as a sound. Perfect silence is a concept that does not exist because we are used to living in a world governed by background noise, but here too, the background noise, which for us is silence, becomes the ability to listen to music where it does not exist as we know it. It would seem, therefore, that any signal in a 4 minute and 33 second piece of silence becomes noise precisely because it disturbs the "listening" of the music of silence. Our attention is placed on the search for silence; everything else is noise.

I realize that the discussion might seem a bit philosophical, but I believe this concept goes hand in hand perfectly with the musical philology we have arrived at today, and perhaps this description of sound and noise is the most suitable for our current historical-musical context. If we then want to step outside the seminar by introducing a further point of reflection, we are not beings capable of listening to silence. Someone who has been placed in an anechoic chamber for a long time reports having heard, in addition to their own breathing (something simple to hear), the noise (or sound) of their own heartbeat. Here too, the distinction between noise and sound must be emphasized because if our attention is focused on listening to the heartbeat, that becomes a sound to us; we seek it out and therefore it becomes pleasant, but if we are concentrated on listening to silence, i.e., "not listening," then in this case breathing and heartbeat become noises because they distract our attention from what we are trying to listen to.

Thank you all, I am very interested in the subject!

Unfortunately, just this morning I don't have enough time to re-read more carefully the important concepts that have been expressed, so I am responding impulsively hoping not to forget anything!!

So, I understood well from Simon's example (taken from a well-known professor of acoustic physics) that in a musical context sounds and noises can "go in agreement,"

especially with the advent of electronics, the co-existence of these two elements is essential... today more than ever... in this regard, he notes that in the music of Berio or Stockhausen there are various examples of sounds having an irregular spectrum that varies over time, used precisely in a musical context as sonic elements.

So from a "physical" point of view, I understood that a "noise" has an irregular vibration (excuse my inexperience... not to say ignorance on the matter) and from this I assume it is a signal having unequal characteristics, without a defined shape, therefore unable to repeat itself in equal measure over time (I would be curious to see how it is reproduced by a spectrum analyzer).

I also deduce that a "noise" has no harmonics........ but I am interested in the more extended and profound concept like the one just mentioned, which Chopin perceives as disturbing in certain instances.

similarly to how I might perceive a noise in its consistency in my own way and therefore subjectively not disturbing relative to a context... for example, I just produced a "noise" by repeatedly tapping my pencil on the desk and it was not at all annoying or unpleasant; on the contrary, I thought I could integrate it very well into a musical framework..

I would perceive the same "noise" differently if I had a bad headache... hmmm so I don't know... perhaps it is this historical connotation that sees pleasant sound and unpleasant noise which is itself misleading..

I also really like Cage's example "4'33"" and also the modern vision that attributes the attribute of sound (to repeat your pun) to a signal that helps generate some kind of "music."

In this case, yes, I understand well what you mean by the phrase -> "What we call noise is that which disturbs us regardless of considerations related to frequency ratios and thus timbre."

Thank you!!

Just one other small consideration: can a "noise" that manages to touch certain frequencies in an asymmetrical and discontinuous manner, only to return to vibrating irregularly, be considered a hybrid? (the sound of the timpani comes to mind, which if I am not mistaken has percussive and harmonic characteristics). If the question is too stupid, bypass it... I will understand.