The Dramaturgy of Sound
Why Dramaturgy?
In September 1999 the Central School of
Speech and Drama hosted an international
symposium on dramaturgy. You will find the
resulting publication – Dramaturgy: A User’s
Guide in your registration packs for the 2002
colloquium on Sound Design.
The User’s Guide event focused on
dramaturgy in contemporary performance as
it continues to subsume cross-practice
idioms and influences into its form and
methodology. The term historically, has
literary connotations (the word Dramaturg
itself literally meaning ‘play-wright’ and the
role of Dramaturg having evolved and
become institutionalised in European theatre
as that of literary researcher and advisor to
the production, or ‘agent’ of the author in the
rehearsal room.) However, as the narrative
mode of theatre has become increasingly
eclectic, modes of authorship have moved
on from narrative purely by means of
scripted verbal dialogue. In the light of
modernism visual and sonic imagery or
texture and physicality of movement were
seen to be able to carry and transmit
meaning beyond the incidental, client
relationship to the verbal previously implied
by the term ‘setting’. Authorship became
more of a collective collaboration; the
rehearsal process became as much about
devising the form as practising moves and
dialogue. The scope of the professional
Dramaturg has thus evolved even if the term
is still often misunderstood as a dry and
dusty intellectual irrelevance (as became
clear at the conference from practising
professional dramaturgs such as Janine
Brogt of Toneelgroep Amsterdam - see the
User's Guide publication.)
One of the collective realisations which
found repeated articulation at the User’s
Guide was that as specialist theatre makers
we are all practising a dramaturgy. It is
perhaps an obvious assertion, but there is a
distinction between this dramaturgy, which is
the currency of rehearsal room collaboration
amongst practitioners, and Dramaturgy: the
specialist role of the professional Dramaturg
(whose remit is recognised in certain theatre
cultures but not in all.) The former involves
-1-
a sophisticated practical understanding of a
specialism and its relationship to the general
undertaking; the latter is a specialism in
itself, taking an overview from the outside of
the process and offering objective feedback
to the creative team.
‘Dramaturgy’ is not a term commonly used
amongst practitioners (certainly in the UK).
However, I would assert that when one is
discussing with a director whether a sound
effect is needed or not in order to
communicate an event or feeling; or when
one is fine tuning the timing of a cue in
relation to a cue line (‘give it a beat’ or ‘give
a couple more beats’) in order to enhance
meaning, or deciding whether a cue does or
doesn’t ‘work’, or adjusting levels or
reverberation settings to communicate a
certain ‘atmosphere’, one is addressing the
dramaturgy of sound. Dramaturgy is the
rationale by which such decisions are made:
one might define it as the grammar and
syntax of performance.
When taking a script (a Chekhov play for
example) the sound designer must
recognise then intention of the playwright in
scripting a sound effect. Presumably the
soundscape of an imagined scene would
contain a proliferation of local ambience and
sounds incidental to the action, and yet the
author chooses to feature only certain
sounds as effects and not the vast majority.
What is the rationale for this? Is the sound
necessary for functional reasons as an aid
to conveying the narrative? Is there another
meaning or symbolic aspect to the sound?
Perhaps (as in Chekhov) it is both. Either
way, there is an implicit recognition in the
author’s stage direction that it would be
inappropriate to attempt to construct an
entire soundscape for the scene. And yet in
order to be believable the individual sound
effect must conform logically and stylistically
to the absent soundscape that is implied by
the text and the scenography.
In Chekhov the economy of sound incidents
must be respected as deliberate. We know
from contemporary accounts that there was
much argument over the matter between
Chekhov and Stanislavsky (who wanted to
experiment with fuller representations of
naturalistic soundscape) and one might
conclude that Chekhov, as an author, had a
sophisticated understanding of the
dramaturgy of sound. In many if not most
plays, one might take the opinion that the
author had no particular strong intentions as
to the way that sound might be used in
performance. The dramaturgical process of
selecting which sounds (if any) from the
imaginary soundscape of a scene might
enhance the meaning or aid in the story-
telling as ‘featured’ sound effects then
becomes the business of the director and
sound designer (if not others.) The crafting
of the play (dramaturgy in its literal meaning)
is continued in the production process
through sophisticated decisions in areas of
specialist understanding. The literary
dramaturgy of European tradition has
evolved to composite, holistic dramaturgy of
light, of costume, of set, of physicality in
performance, of voice and so on.
The rapid growth and increased attention to
the dramaturgy of sound in theatre over the
past twenty years is perhaps in direct
proportion to the increased levels and
complexity of the soundscape we inhabit in
our daily lives. Whilst we are the experts in
the dramaturgy of sound, there is much
expertise to inform us in allied fields of
sound practice and sound and drama theory
(sonic ecology, sonic art, phenomenology,
cinema, post-Cageian music, etc.) With
respect to this, I refer you to David Toop’s
article ‘The Drama of Sound’ in the
Dramaturgy User’s Guide publication.
Dramaturgy, if nothing else, is about
understanding and harnessing performance
resources. I would suggest that an
understanding of the Soundscape as
defined and categorised by R. Murray
Shafer and the World Soundscape Project,
and of the phenomenological issues
propagated by John Cage’s 4’33’’ of Silence
which tell us something of the ontology of
'liveness', offer much insight to the theatre
sound designer.
Formulating a Dramaturgy of Sound.
Whether one’s motivation is ‘self-justification
for certain intuitions and impulses rather
than a rigorous analysis of performance
practice’ (Toop) or the formulation of a
pedagogy, it is difficult for those passionate
about their art (which theatre sound
designers tend to be) to resist the temptation
-2-
to theorise and evangelise. Whilst those of
us who have taken the academic shilling
might have an imperative to indulge in such
theorising, I find it fascinating and
heartening that the Theatre Sound
Listserver email forum – populated mainly
by practitioners – is continually debating the
dramaturgy of sound alongside technical
issues. That OISTAT1 has established a
Sound Working Group reporting to its
Scenography Commission rather than its
Technology Commission is certainly good
news for those of us who feel compelled to
campaign for increased recognition of the
dramaturgical contribution sound designers
make to contemporary performance.
On the other hand, some might urge
caution. It is easy to get carried away with
fine theory, but for those who’s mortgages
rely on continual theatre sound design work,
one must accept that sometimes the scope
for dramaturgical discussion with a director
is minimal. And yet I would contend that
even in the most prosaic sound design job,
decisions made by the sound designer do
make a profound dramaturgical contribution
to the way a production reaches the moment
of performance – even if these contributions
go unnoticed and unaccredited. Decisions
on levels, imaging through delay settings
and speaker placements and equalisation –
especially on musicals – subtly effect the
audiences perception in no less profound a
way than the sonic and acoustic properties
of our environment effect our daily moods.
It is also understandable that practitioners
are sometimes reticent to try to quantify,
explain or justify their process. Dramaturgy
is often described as the ‘science’ of theatre
(incorrectly in my view.) Artists naturally
resent the implication that their instincts can
be represented as a set of scientific laws or
formulae. My feeling is that they have
nothing to fear. Even if it were possible to
formulate a dramaturgy of sound in such a
way, any given sound design decision is the
product of an impossibly complex set of
variables. Even a simple decision about the
appropriate level and timing of a sound cue
is a response to a totally unique situation,
unique inter-personal chemistry between
1
The International Organisation of
Scenographers, Theatre Architects and
Technicians
director and designer and unique acoustic -
to say nothing about subjective taste, talent,
style and so on. Just as the ability to
analyse the hundreds of thousands of high
speed, mental calculations and minute
muscle movements it takes to catch a ball
does not in itself make one a better fielder,
I’d say that the mystery of creativity can
withstand a little analysis. Even if it were
achievable, who wants the predictability of a
definitive, complete dramaturgy of sound –
the alchemist’s Philosopher’s Stone which
would ultimately devalue the very thing it
seeks to attain?
Whilst theoretical analysis of what makes
sound ‘work’ or not probably can’t lead to a
pedagogy that is capable in itself of
producing sound designers from scratch, it
may provoke reflection, suggest alternate
creative strategies and develop ones’
natural dramaturgical sensitivity. I favour the
development of a fuzzy dramaturgy: a loose
collection of observed principles and trends
agreed by practitioners to represent
something of a truth. My fuzzy dramaturgy
would embrace contradictions and
alternatives. By way of a provocation, I offer
the follow criteria, by which one might
interrogate a sound design and which might
begin to categorise a dramaturgy of sound.
1. Accuracy: are sounds authentic and/or
believable within visual and dramatic
context?
2. Counterpoint between narrative function
and meaning: is that door slam just a
door slam? Does that birdsong and
sunny setting belie a dark brooding
atmosphere?
3. Counterpoint between sonic and visual:
does a visual image need its identity
reinforced or subverted by an
accompanying sound?
4. Intentional cultural reference or
resonance (in terms either of content
and sonic quality) for example to a
period, genre or style. Is there cultural
resonance (for example in a certain
synthesiser sound) that call to mind a
certain time that is not intentional?
-3-
5. Macro-rhythms – how the sound design
relates to overarching structures (Acts,
Scenes, overall pace)
6. Micro-rhythms – how the sound design
relates to rhythms and tempo of
performance (speech, action)
7. Quality – is hi-fidelity and digital
transparency always the right choice?
Is equipment appropriate and
equalisation weighted to address the
typically very low levels of theatre sound
effects?
8. Relationship of sound design to stylistic
convention and design aesthetic
employed by the production as a whole.
9. Relationship of sound design to the
natural sounds of performance (of
actors’ voices and movement, of the set,
the props etc.) Is there cohesion in
terms of levels and imaging?
10. Relationship of the sound design to the
local ambience of the performance /
auditorium space. Does the sound
design benefit or suffer from
unintentional, local sonic incident?
11. Relationship to audience: is sound
naturalistically ‘of the scene’ (diagetic).
If non-diagetic sound or music is
employed what is implied regarding the
audience’s perspective on the
performance as a result? Does sound
act in any way as a mediating
commentator on the action or narrator-
character?
12. Transparency of sound system /
placement of sound image – is the
audience aware that they are listening to
certain sounds through loudspeakers?
Do sound effects announce themselves
as such by obviously emanating from
loudspeakers?
Try analysing a sound design that you are
familiar with using these headings, or
applying them critically to the next show you
see. I welcome feedback from you at the
colloquium or afterwards.