Sound Design / ers

[GlenHartley15]

Written over three quarters of my dissertation and still going on strong.

 

Whilst researching for it however it appears there is different opinions on who was the very first Sound Designer?

 

I have either Herbert Beerholm Tree (1890) , Luigi Rossolo (1913) or even Fritz Pfleumer (1928).

All of these practitioners have added massively to the concept of sound design but its unclear as to who really helped

take that leap forward to finding out who contributed the most.

 

With a website I found ( http://www.associationofsounddesigners.com/whatis ) - discussing how Sound Design has been here within the past 50 years, it

appears that its a more recent thing.

 

However I do know that, although it wasnt a commonly known concept, in ancient times and the shakespeare period there

was the use of equipment to create sound such as the thunder ball in the globe theatre. However this comes with the unknown

knowledge of who the practitioner is.

 

All of these pieces of information will appear in my dissertation but I just want to get my facts right before I baffle on discussing a wrong fact.

 

My question is “How has the discoveriesof technology throughout the world in the 20^th century effected thedevelopment of Sound Design” - Just incase your wondering.

 

Any help or points in the right direction will be great.

[paulears]

I really cannot subscribe to the view that Tree was a sound designer, who massively added to the concept of sound design.

 

The notion that the use of sound in a performance constitutes 'sound design' is for me, stretching it. Somebody reading in the script the mention of a horse arrives outside, then a character enters means an ASM in the wings with coconut shells. It's not sound design as a feature, just a sound effect. Somebody dropping a cannonball into a thunder run over a hundred years ago isn't a sound designer. Once somebody had a gramophone or early tape deck, it became another source of audio. In real terms, when did the first bit of real design happen? I've no real idea, but I have a feeling if pressed, I'd perhaps think of something like Jesus Christ Superstar with cabled mics an choreography to keep them untangled - and cobbled together 4 channel Shure mixers held together with dexion strip. Before this, wasn't sound just a technical exercise?

[Owain]

You appear to be limiting yourself both to Sound Design, and developments in it which have been affected by 20th century technologies. HBT's first filming of a Shakespearean play in 1899 is out of time, and I'm not clear what contribution to Sound Design this made.

 

I'd suggest looking at

 

- early silent movie and gramophone synchronisation and the use of early sound in film (although the early work predates 1900)

 

- formation of the BBC in 1922

 

- feature films with syncronised sound-on-disk: Alan Crosland 'Don Juan', 1926

 

- stereo and multi-channel sound; Alan Blumlein 'Trains at Hayes Station', 1935

 

More film technology firsts listed at http://benbeck.co.uk/firsts/talkies1.htm

 

The History of Public Address website http://www.historyofpa.co.uk/ covers sound reinforcement technology which strongly influenced the development of film, radio, television and live entertainment systems, such as the 1913-1915 introduction of the moving coil loudspeaker, and Tannoy systems in the Royal Albert Hall in the 1930s.

 

You might look at the creative use of sound reinforcement for giving the appearance of ventriloquism, of delay lines in large venues, up to modern compression and vocoding techniques.

 

 

[dbuckley]

It would be my opinion that there is a massive gulf between "sound effects" which have been with us forever, and "sound design" which is a realtively recent concept.

 

Sound design happens when sound becomes part of the performance, rather than an adjucnt to some other event. Thus its a cretive role, rather than engineering.

 

By that definition, an awful lot of people who have the role of "sound design" are, of course, doing nothing of the sort.

[paulears]

This has been niggling me since I responded yesterday - Would we consider the inventor of the light bulb as adding to the concept of lighting design? As for Luigi Russolo (not Rossolo) I had to do some research as I;'d never heard of him - not unusual as I've not heard of a lot of people, but I did wonder why somebody considered to have made a massive contribution to sound design was unknown? I can find a few public performances of his compositions of ..... noise, but he seems to be of less artistic stature than somebody like Philip Glass - another 'difficult' composer to classify, but as his music has also been used theatrically, does this also make him a sound designer.

 

So my question is really to ask how you've come to such extremes of contribution in your search for 'sound designers'? None of the three mentioned seem to warrant the status of sound designer, do they? If you can find a valid reason to award them the appellation, then you have by default also introduced hundreds of other 'sound designers' who have made far more important contributions to this creative area. Maybe that's the problem? What are you using as your definition for Sound Designer?

 

For real sound design in a theatrical setting, then maybe Pink Floyd and quadraphonic sound in a live environment?

[J Pearce]

I'd suggest musicque concrete and the works of Steve Reich, and as Paul suggests Philip Glass, would be worth investigating.

 

Perhaps you need to define what you mean by 'sound design' before you can take this any further?

 

Oddly I'm going to disagree with Paul and say that old school sound effects ARE sound design, as they show a deliberate research and design to create realistic (or perceived as realistic) sound effects. Sound design doesn't have to be electronic.

[Bobbsy]

It would be my opinion that there is a massive gulf between "sound effects" which have been with us forever, and "sound design" which is a realtively recent concept.

 

Sound design happens when sound becomes part of the performance, rather than an adjucnt to some other event. Thus its a cretive role, rather than engineering.

 

By that definition, an awful lot of people who have the role of "sound design" are, of course, doing nothing of the sort.

 

I'm with dbuckley on this one that all the earlier examples were sound effects rather than sound design. Clip clopping with coconuts or shaking the thunder sheet at the right time is very different from planning the aural mood of the whole show. Modern sound designers both plan all matters technical of a show (specifying every aspect of the sound system) as well as developing a coherent soundscape that helps unify the show. Sound effects just didn't do that. At the risk of offending some, calling the operator of backstage practical sound effects a sound designer is akin to calling a scene shifter at set designer.

 

There's a fair degree of debate over who the first true sound designer was but it was certainly relatively recent. The first use of the title "Sound Designer" that I know of was Dan Dugan in San Francisco in 1968/9. Around the same time, the Broadway production of Hair credited "Sound by Bob Kernan"...I saw a touring version of Hair shortly after that and the emphasis on the quality and mix of the sound was, indeed, different than anything I'd heard before. Indeed, it helped attract me to learn more about sound. Finally, in 1971, Abe Jacob got a "Sound Designer" credit for Jesus Christ Superstar on broadway.

[GlenHartley15]

Thanks for spending, what it seems, alot of your time thinking about this. It's been a hard fought time trying to find a dissertation topic for myself to really

get going with. I know I want to write about Sound in the theatre and I'm really interested in the history side of it rather than modern digital formats.

 

One of the reasons why my question seems to be confusing others along with myself is due to what I actually have to do at university.

Our groups are that small that we don't have a separate role from sound designer to operator etc, which means if you're on Sound, you do all of it (Which to be honest I love it!)

This I think shows in my question as I haven't really defined what I'm researching into.

 

We have to keep the question and topic with the theatre in mind, I can't really write it about bands and music as its supposed to be more theatrical performances such

as your Shakespeare, Brecht and Stanislavsky styles.

 

I think what I need to define is whether I'm looking at technological advancements that are linked to sound that have interested myself, or ones that have had an impact on

Sound in the theatre?

 

Thanks for your time again!

 

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

 

This has been niggling me since I responded yesterday - Would we consider the inventor of the light bulb as adding to the concept of lighting design? As for Luigi Russolo (not Rossolo) I had to do some research as I;'d never heard of him - not unusual as I've not heard of a lot of people, but I did wonder why somebody considered to have made a massive contribution to sound design was unknown? I can find a few public performances of his compositions of ..... noise, but he seems to be of less artistic stature than somebody like Philip Glass - another 'difficult' composer to classify, but as his music has also been used theatrically, does this also make him a sound designer.

 

So my question is really to ask how you've come to such extremes of contribution in your search for 'sound designers'? None of the three mentioned seem to warrant the status of sound designer, do they? If you can find a valid reason to award them the appellation, then you have by default also introduced hundreds of other 'sound designers' who have made far more important contributions to this creative area. Maybe that's the problem? What are you using as your definition for Sound Designer?

 

For real sound design in a theatrical setting, then maybe Pink Floyd and quadraphonic sound in a live environment?

 

 

 

[themadhippy]

I can't really write it about bands and music as its supposed to be more theatrical performances such

as your Shakespeare, Brecht and Stanislavsky styles.

so pink floyds The wall,or the earlier massed gadgets of auximenes arnt theatrical pieces? ok maybe there closer to opera

[paulears]

Oh Oh - I smell the interfering tutor who really has no idea what you are thinking about, trying to bring your research back to an area they understand. However - this uncovers an even bigger snag. You're also needing to consider that Shakespeare, with the sound effects he did 'suggest' are really mood setting plus effects, and probably either very simple or vocally produced (as in the cock crows) - while Brecht was the antithesis of realism. Show the audience it's not real, let them see the lights and avoid production atmosphere. So would a sound design for Brecht mean adding vinyl crackle and clicks and pops so they know it's a sound effect? If your tutor loves Shakespeare, then how about looking at the sound design for Return to the Forbidden Planet, with sound design by Bobby Aitken - sound effects, music, etc - but lots of pretty cutting edge features when produced - as in rock and roll quality and volume with headsets - not that common then!

 

Modern enough that you can still get the CD cast album, and it's cult status makes it interesting? As for Stanislavsky - I'd rather have my throat slit than spend even an hour studying his stuff looking for evidence of sound design.

[Just Some Bloke]

As a lighting designer (bear with me for a moment!) I'm always aware of the diference between someone who has put some lights up for a show to make it happen and someone who has actually designed the lighting. There's a big difference between the director saying "I want scene one to be a cold wash and scene 2 a warm wash" with someone making that happen and a person actually designing the lighting. When I design a show I look at the script, the set design, the costume design, other work/writings by the same person, chat to the director and all other designers, watch rehearsals, and generally try to get a feel for what the piece actually requires (assuming I've got the time for all of that!). I get an idea of what sort of "looks" I'm going to need, what each scene needs to "feel" like to an audience member, how the mood needs to shift between cue points, how I can make the set work differently at different times and then, with a knowledge of what I'm aiming for artistically, I then translate that into putting the right kit in the right part of the rig. It's only this last part of the job that needs me to think about technical stuff, with most of the actual design element happening reagrdless of how I'm intending to achieve it.

 

I imagine a sound designer does much the same thing: they get a feel for the piece, decide how each scene is going to sound, look at how the mood shifts between cue points and then finally decide what kit they are going to use to achieve that.

 

My point here is that I'm not sure saying

I'm looking at technological advancements

is really the right way to go? Perhaps it would be better to look at which point in time did someone start to think "we could really use sound as a key artistic part of the whole production" rather than just "we need some sound effects for the horse and a couple of mics for the singer".

[Oldradiohand]

How about Cecil Lewis and Val Gielgud (amongst others) who pioneered radio drama in the UK? Look up "A Comedy of Danger", surely a pioneering piece of theatrical sound design. Or the work of Jack Foley? Adapting radio techniques for cinema to supplement the dialogue to increase the sense of reality?

I can't find the reference but I have read of a very early Broadcasting House radio play where the entire cast left the studio and departed down a staircase chanting to sound like they were leaving "on the road to Samarkand". That's creative sound design!

[Ynot]

My point here is that I'm not sure saying

I'm looking at technological advancements

is really the right way to go? Perhaps it would be better to look at which point in time did someone start to think "we could really use sound as a key artistic part of the whole production" rather than just "we need some sound effects for the horse and a couple of mics for the singer".

I'm sort of with JSB here, though perhaps the advice being given by some (including mine to follow) os a tad late if you've already done the lion's share of the dissertation..

 

If it were me, I'd maybe look at what purported for sound design before electronic means (and yes, this menas I'm going against what Paul et al are saying in places)...

 

In the same way as I'd look at the use of sunlight in open air amphitheatres as THE start of using any sort of light, through gas, early tungsten etc and how those advances in turn influenced the people that used them, MAYBE it IS applicable to start with how a director of any older genre used Foley style SFX, then recorded media, as well as how physical attributes of the stage, the set and the auditoria can influence how sound appears to the audience ears.

 

I do feel that restricting the piece to simply the electronic attributes of what is heard is meaybe rather tunnel-visioned...

 

 

 

That said, I have NO direct contribution for the OP over this generalisation.

[paulears]

Perhaps you should also think about Foley style sound - real sounds, just not the 'real' sounds? Quite good this topic, because we're all trying to see what fits our own definition of designer?

[Ynot]

Perhaps you should also think about Foley style sound - real sounds, just not the 'real' sounds? Quite good this topic, because we're all trying to see what fits our own definition of designer?

<coughs...>

 

Didn't I just say that...??

 

:P