In the domain of music for performers and electronic sounds (whether fixed or live) there are various paradigms of interaction: the performer(s) may be situated in an electroacoustic ‘environment’; there may be a primarily responsorial or ‘proliferating’ relationship; or the relationship may be closer to the traditional one between soloist and accompaniment. These paradigms preserve a relatively unproblematic dichotomy between performer, whose sound is inextricably linked to a sense of action, presence and spontaneity, and fixed or treated sound, which is more or less de-coupled from this presence. Once one tries to create a continuous, intimate relation between the two, so that one is dealing with an extension of the instrument rather than an emulated ‘other’ or environmental context, one is confronted with a fundamental difference between a sounding body whose physical properties transparently determine its sonic possibilities, and the loudspeaker, which can produce practically any sound at all. This paper interrogates this dichotomy between the fallible-corporeal and the fixed-disembodied, activating questions both about the social fact of live performance and about the compositional practices which give rise to a sense of extended instrumentality.
Composers in academic institutions are increasingly required to describe their activities in terms of 'research' -formulating 'research questions', 'research narratives', 'aims' and 'outcomes'. Research plans and funding applications require one to specify the nature of the original contribution that will be made by a piece of music, even before it is composed. These requirements lead to an emphasis on collaborative work, technology and superficial novelty of format. Yet the very idea that musical composition is a form of research is a category error: music is a domain of thought whose cognitive dimension lies in embodiment, revelation or presentation, but not in investigation and description. It is argued here that the idea of composition as research is not only objectively false but inimical to genuine musical originality.
The principle of As Low As Reasonable Achievable (ALARA) stems from the field of radiological protection. In the UK, this principle has been incorporated into the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and rather than applying solely to radiological hazards, applies to all hazards in totality. Given that the current methods for assessing hazards are somewhat isolated, in that one hazard is assessed independently of another, it can be challenging to ensure a truly holistic view of the risks, and demonstrate they have been reduced to ALARA or As Low As Is Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) as required in the UK regulatory regime. The following paper presents a proposed framework for the integrated assessment of risks from multiple hazards. In addition, it presents an overview of some of the key challenges that may be encountered when producing a holistic ALARA demonstration.
The practical implementation of the principle of optimisation of radiological protection (i.e., ALARA principle) was the subject of two workshops organised in Paris (France) in February 2017 and October 2018 at the initiative of SFRP within the framework of IRPA. The article summarizes the discussions and conclusions of these two workshops. The search for reasonableness was examined in three sectors: nuclear industry, medical practices and existing exposure situations. In all sectors, the optimisation remains a challenge and experience shows that this is implemented through a deliberative process to achieve a reasonable compromise with all informed parties. This issue was further investigated by three working groups − one for each sector – on the basis of cases studies. It emerges that, in complement to the use of classical tools such as cost-benefit analysis, the implementation of the optimisation principle implies a clear identification of the challenges to be met in order to achieve the best protection in the prevailing circumstances. These challenges may be specific to a type of exposure situation and in some cases to a given situation. The process should also well identify the relevant stakeholders and decision-makers to be involved and determine how they will be involved. A proactive process including development of awareness, empowerment and/or training may be needed. This reflexion deserves to be further developed.
This paper focuses on how the ALARA concept can be practically implemented in operational situations and in particular on the value of using a structured approach and the problem of the collection of relevant dosimetric data. The roles of ALARA audits, quantitative decision aiding techniques and predictive ALARA plans are discussed and some practical examples provided. A basic requirement in the pursuance of optimisation is to be able to quantify the doses predicted to be associated with the various components of a person's work. Many dosimetric systems in use simply cannot provide these data and the need to provide task specific dosimetry with a feedback mechanism into dose modelling is discussed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.