Introduction
In July 2019, Musicity was asked to attend a series of Workshops at the Memu Earth Lab in Hokkaido. The focus of the research was to look at the complex interrelationships of sound, space and the body. This was undertaken both internally and externally for a more situated environmental approach. The research documented here is in two parts, representing both focused research on room acoustics and music, and psychophysiological responses to sound and space.

Part One: Music
Background: Musicians have an intuitive sense of space: Listening to the space around them as they make sound, musicians respond to returning acoustic signals by subtly modulating a performance, generating a unique work that is entirely suited to the space holding a performance. This is a historic given, in that over the years, musicians have adapted performances to suit architectural spaces gently changing the way that a piece is received, and conversely subtly changing the way that spaces are designed. However, it is getting much rarer to see a musician or composer writing music in a space that will hold the music. Studio technology has opened up endless opportunities for differing spaces, or no spaces at all. The role of architecture in the creative process is diminishing.

The relationship between music and architecture has been shaped over the millennia by a series of complex causal relationships between composer, musician, instrument, space, and the ‘emotional responses*’ of listeners. The sounds and spaces that arise out of these relationships form a continuity over time that has informed the way we listen to music and the way we design rooms to accommodate it. However, the development of acoustic theory in the early twentieth century has given rise to a series of rigid conventions in acoustic design, affecting both musical and architectural composition, and considerably slowing down the mutual co-evolution of both.

(Emotional response can be studied through physiological responses in the human body. This is commonly done through a variety of means, heart rate, EEG response, and electrodermal activity in skin, known as Skin Conductance Response (SCR), see second tests below for more information).

For the Musicity project, we seek to express these conventions, and use technology to simulate specific spaces for musicians to respond to acoustically. This allows musicians and composers the ability to write for the acoustic of a specific space, and generate a unique piece of music that is intrinsically linked to the site that generated the work.

The impulse responses generated by the workshop attendees are available here for open download. We encourage artists to use these to develop their own compositions based on the site and its architecture. We encourage the sharing of these tracks to broaden the understanding of what music works well in spaces not necessarily designed as spaces for music.
Read More Here

Part Two: Psychophysiological Response
The aim of the second part of this study is to investigate the perception of sounds in space at an “unconscious” level showing Sympathetic Nervous System (SNS) reactivity to any positive or negative auditory stimuli. This is done by measuring physiological activation in response to sounds accompanied by perceptual appraisals.
Read More Here

Text
Nick Luscombe [Founder & Director, Musicity Global / BBC Broadcaster + DJ / Field Recordist]
Paul Bavister [Flanagan Lawrence / UCL / Audialsense]

Video
Hemant Singh
Sam King
James Greer (Sound)

Photos
Naoki Wagatsuma
Yu Morishita

Memu X Musicity Workshop July, 2019

Organizer
Nick Luscombe [Founder & Director, Musicity Global / BBC Broadcaster + DJ / Field Recordist]
Yu Morishita [Memu Earth Lab Project Lecturer, IIS,The University of Tokyo]
James Greer [Musicity Global / Field Recordist+ Composer]

Participants
Paul Bavister [Flanagan Lawrence / UCL / Audialsense]
Sam King [Sam King Film]
Hiroki Kobayashi [Kobayashi Lab, The University of Tokyo]
Yukiko Matsunaga [Matsunaga Lab, The University of Tokyo]
Ken Nishikawa [Filmmaker, Composer, Radio + TV Director]
Yuta Sasaki [Kobayashi Lab, The University of Tokyo]
Hemant Singh [Filmmaker, Producer]
Miho Tajima [Artist, Sound Artist]
Hande Unlu [Memu Earth Lab, The University of Tokyo]
+ Memu Earth Hotel Staff

Published as part of Audialsense by Paul Bavister, Bartlett Design Research Folios, 2022, pp.56-63.

Download PDF or Read online from Bartlett Design Research Folios Website

Paul Bavister / Bartlett School of Architecture, UCL UK / Flanagan Lawrence
Nick Luscombe / Musicity, London UK

Introduction
In July 2019, Musicity was asked to attend a series of Workshops at the Memu Earth Lab in Hokkaido. The focus of the research was to look at the complex interrelationships of sound, space and the body. This was undertaken both internally and externally for a more situated environmental approach. The research documented here is in two parts, representing both focused research on room acoustics and music, and psychophysiological responses to sound and space. (See Part Two here)

Memu x Musicity Workshop July 2019
Part One: Music

A series of sites are chosen within Memu selected for their relevance to the project; visual interest, accessibility and a spaces ‘sound’. Spaces are chosen that show a blend of rich acoustic qualities, from the intimate to the cavernous, we want spaces that have a voice, a voice that can be a creative springboard for writing music. Once the spaces are selected, they were acoustically tested by the workshop participants. The output of the tests gives us acoustic data that can tell us a lot about how the space performs, and how it could be used by others.

Whilst acoustic parameters are interesting to acousticians and architects, and work very well on a technical level, what is critical, is for a musician to use their ears, and develop an intuitive response to a space. So in addition to the acoustic parameters, the sine sweep can produce what is called an ‘impulse response’.  This is a computer generated retort, or snap, that contains spatialized acoustic data from the space. On its own, it’s fairly meaningless, but when dropped into a convolving reverb effect in a studio environment, it allows a space to be ‘convolved’ in real time, simulating the effect of a space digitally. This convolution process allows a musician to write music for a given space, using the sound and feel of a space in a studio environment.

The impulse responses generated by the workshop attendees are available here for open download. We encourage artists to use these to develop their own compositions based on the site and its architecture. We encourage the sharing of these tracks to broaden the understanding of what music works well in spaces not necessarily designed as spaces for music.

memu-building-acoustic measurement

presentation: Paul Bavister

Impulse Response audio from buildings at Memu

Impulse Response RAW files (Download Links)

même R1 / même R2 / studio memu R1 / a recipe to live R1 / a recipe to live R2 / barn house R1 / barn house R2 / horizon house R1 / horizon house R2 / nest we grow R1 / nest we grow R2 / inverted house R1 / infinite field R1 / colobokle nest R1 / colobokle nest R2

Credit: Workshop Participants

Paul Bavister [Flanagan Lawrence / UCL / Audialsense]
James Greer [Musicity Global / Field Recordist+ Composer]
Sam King [Sam King Film]
Hiroki Kobayashi [Kobayashi Lab, The University of Tokyo]
Nick Luscombe [Founder & Director, Musicity Global / BBC Broadcaster + DJ / Field Recordist]
Yukiko Matsunaga [Matsunaga Lab, The University of Tokyo]
Yu Morishita [Memu Earth Lab Project Lecturer, IIS,The University of Tokyo]
Ken Nishikawa [Filmmaker, Composer, Radio + TV Director]
Yuta Sasaki [Kobayashi Lab, The University of Tokyo]
Hemant Singh [Filmmaker, Producer]
Miho Tajima [Artist, Sound Artist]
Hande Unlu [Memu Earth Lab, The University of Tokyo]
+ Memu Earth Hotel Staff

Results from Memu X Musicity Workshop July 2019

Introduction
In July 2019, Musicity was asked to attend a series of Workshops at the Memu Earth Lab in Hokkaido. The focus of the research was to look at the complex interrelationships of sound, space and the body. This was undertaken both internally and externally for a more situated environmental approach. The research documented here is in two parts, representing both focused research on room acoustics and music, and psychophysiological responses to sound and space. (See Part One here)

Memu x Musicity Workshop July 2019
Part Two: Psychophysiological Response

The aim of the second part of the study is to investigate the perception of sounds in space at an “unconscious” level showing Sympathetic Nervous System (SNS) reactivity to any positive or negative auditory stimuli. This is done by measuring physiological activation in response to sounds accompanied by perceptual appraisals.

The experiments undertaken at Memu were developed to address an integrated method for measuring subjective and objective attributes to sound and space. Any physiological change being hopefully obvious in the output data. This study is experimental, which focuses on how individuals physiological status ( in this case capillary flow rate) changes once individuals listen to sound(s) and music.

There are three clear families of tests:
01. Silence (As a base condition)
02. Soundscape (Local environmental sound)
03. Anechoic music played in digitally synthesised space

In the first test, following 2 minutes silence, to allow the listener to acclimatise, the listener sits still for a following two minutes. This forms a base condition that allows objective evaluation of other tests.
In the second test, again following two minutes silence, the listener listened to 2 minutes of locally sourced environmental sound.
In the third and final test, again following two minutes silence, the listener listened to 2 minutes of Beethoven’s 7th Symphony in a simulated narrow hall, with an RT of 2.0s.
The overall length of the tests with breaks was 20 minutes.

The Method: We used nailfold capillaroscopy on the skin below the top phalange of the dominant hand. This gave us a clear reading of the capillaries in the skin. Any change in the flow rate was clearly visible on a monitor.
Following both tests, there was a Q&A with the participant to triangulate the results, ensuring that the results were positive and not negative.
The Equipment used was a nailfold capillary microscope, Sennheiser HD25 headphones, and a macbook pro. The sound files were supplied by James Greer (Soundscape) and Aalto University (L. van Beethoven (1770-1827): Symphony no. 7, I movement, bars 1-53.)1
The tests took place in a space as quiet as we could find on the site, and away form any external noise sources that could influence the results.
The Analysis: There was a visible increase in flow rate from silence to soundscape, and soundscape to music. The body was clearly responding to the differing conditions. (See associated videos of each test.)

01. Silence (As a base condition)

02. Soundscape (Local environmental sound)

03. Anechoic music played in digitally synthesised space

Discussion: The test conditions were hot, and we were advised that an increased environmental temperature would increase the flow rates, but as this was a constant condition, it didn’t affect the overall readings.
Whilst an increase Flow rate was observed, it would be beneficial to further triangulate the results with different sensors, such as heart rate or Skin Conductance, so as to get a clearer picture.

Conclusion: The observation of capillary flow rates gives a clear indication of a psycho-physiological response to sound, and will be a useful addition to the existing techniques used to measure emotional response to sound and other environmental conditions.

Reference
1 Pätynen, J., Pulkki, V., and Lokki, T., “Anechoic recording system for symphony orchestra,” Acta Acustica united with Acustica, vol. 94, nr. 6, pp. 856-865, November/December 2008