Conclusion
Given that “loudness levels alone […] cannot predict annoyance” (Broner [1978] in Reybrouck, Podlipniak and Welch 2019: 3), noise can be understood as a floating category of sound. It is fair to deduce that other variables play a role, for “noise has no absolute qualities” (Cobussen 2021: 74). At this point, it seems a question of understanding: in the same way that the auditory system of many species was misunderstood because humans studied it according to their affordances, sound is noise when it is unfitting to the human listener. Furthermore, as Marcel Cobussen suggests, “the borders between music, noise, and silence are porous; […] a clear separation cannot be made on the basis of the intrinsic characteristics of the ‘sounds themselves’” (Cobussen 2021: 73).
Goines and Hager (2007: 289-292) provide a list of adverse health effects of noise pollution on humans according to WHO: hearing impairment, interference with spoken communication, sleep disturbances, cardiovascular disturbances, disturbances in mental health, impaired task performance, and negative social behavior and annoyance reactions. Rather than regarding noise as the enemy (the cause of health issues), it is also possible to regard noise as a symptom. In other words, noise is also an adverse effect of a given activity in which, most likely, sound pressure levels were not taken into consideration. It is that activity that causes noise and health issues. It is not the noise per se that causes the issues, it is the context.
As proposed by Wolfgang Babisch, “future noise research should focus on source-specific differences in risk characterization, combined effects, differences between objective (sound level) and subjective (annoyance) exposure on health, sensitive/vulnerable groups, sensitive periods of the day, coping styles, and other effect-modifying factors” (Babisch 2005: 15). In other words, when someone is exposed to high noise levels, the source of that noise also has its own effects; that context is either polluted or causing other kinds of pollution as well (for example, the excess of road traffic causes noise pollution as well as air pollution). Noise alone is rarely the problem, but its causes are; noise pollution alone is not the problem, but auditory miseducation is. Thus, it is necessary to cultivate healthy listening habits towards the idea of sonic hygiene. This is not a new claim: Raymond Murray Schafer, for example, already promoted a practice of “ear cleaning” since 1967.
Eventually, Deep Recording can become a model for a positive approach to noise because it reveals sonic layers in the environment that are not otherwise accessible.[8] It can promote awareness and engagement with the environment, as in the case of SHLUK’s Hladiny event. Both the proposal of Deep Recording and the aesthetics of SHLUK’s performances are aligned as a spatial intervention that, if nothing else, promotes sound beyond sound, sound in context, and the poetics of noise.