In electronic music theory and electronic composition theory a soundobject1 corresponds with a primary unit of music such that could be played on an instrument or sung by a vocalist. A sound object specifically refers to recorded sound rather than music written using manuscript or a score. More precisely, in his book Traité des objets musicauxSchaeffer considers the sound object in these terms:
This unit of sound is the equivalent to a unit of breath or articulation, a unit of instrumental gesture. The sound object is therefore an acoustic action and intention of listening.
Schaeffer went through an evolution of thought regarding his work with recorded material/ sound objects as music. But he came to believe that the sound object should be free from its sonic origin so that its source could not be identified. This type of sound object forms part of what Schaeffer called acousmatic music, which involves a reduced, or concentrated listening. One of Schaeffer's primary aims in his treatise1 is to re-define the music object in the light of the new technology of recording. As an important aspect of the theory he felt it necessary to elucidate his, evidently, empirical function/s of listening. Schaeffer's terminology is confused and confusing in this regard as he uses the terms: listening, hearing, perceiving aurally and understanding under the sub-heading 'listening'. So one needs to have a firm grasp of his descriptions and differentiations of meaning so as to avoid being confused by his prodigal writing style. Schaeffer's four functions of the "What Can be Heard" are as follows:
A sonic entity is detected by its signal being picked up by the autonomous mechanism of hearing
The signalled sonic entity 'sound character' is deciphered by the active perception of listening
The signalled sonic entity is then subjected to a twofold focussed attention that judges then describes it
The signalled sonic entities' significance is then understood by abstraction, comparison, deduction and by linking it to different sources and types.
These are then extrapolated into "Four Listening Modes" which Schaeffer considers scientific, saying : 'To give a quite empirical description of "what happens" when we listen, we will make a sort of summary of the various forms of activity of the ear.'. These modes of listening then lead to the acousmatic situation, as Schaeffer describes it. Schaeffer's acousmatic situation is focussed on the subjective "listening itself which becomes the phenomena under study" rather than the sound object's source.
Schaeffer's Legacy
ideas, it is speculated, are derived or modelled on the philosophy on Phenomenology, as such, his theory is seemingly given some kind of weight, or legitimacy. Nevertheless, it's difficult to ascertain the impact of his influence, but Brian Kane, in his book Sound Unseen says:
In explicating and clarifying his theory of the sound object, Schaeffer introduced the concept of the acousmatic. “The sound object,” Schaffer tersely states, “is never revealed clearly except in the acousmatic experience.” In what follows, I try to show why this is indeed the case. To do so, I will explicate Schaeffer's mature theory of acousmatic experience, the sound object, and reduced listening as presented in the Traité des objets musicaux. His theory is cast in explicitly phenomenological terms, and I argue that Schaeffer's phenomenology is much closer to Husserl than it is to Schaeffer’s French contemporary, Maurice Merleau-Ponty. For without a good understanding of the Husserlian preoccupations of Schaeffer's work, one cannot adequately characterize the relationship between acousmatic experience, the sound object, and reduced listening. Once those various parts of Schaeffer's mature theory have been distinctly separated, the theory and practice of acousmatic listening—the real focus of interest in this book—can begin to be addressed.
