jarring sounds. He concludes this stanza with only sound.

sound in this stanza is the more specific sensory mechanism.

sound traveling further (OR DEEPER?-[J. Sterne]) than sight

permanence of sound? nifty. This suggests that memory of a sound is just as strong as the sound itself.

Not any interpretable sound/music, just noise.

interrupting silence is a rebellious action

Potential problem with anthropological accounts of soundscapes; the lack of constancy/consistency.

brings up a current point of contention within the music world. Where is music going? Are we undoing our progression in the development of melodic ensembles with the incorporation of noise groups and industrial acts, or are we moving towards more complexity in refining our tastes?

Similarly to how we can squint to narrow our focus in our vision, we passively train our ears to pick up certain content, whilst tuning out background clutter.

Hearing is what brings us in the world, sight is what removes us from it. Ex: there's that coca cola commercial where a bunch of people are put in a room without any light. They are all talking to each other, and become friends. The light turns on and a caucasian male is surprised he was talking to an african american male with a tattoo on his face the whole time. Sight has become a means of drawing distinction between people who are actually alike.

Implies that sound studies are normally combined with another discipline. Further adding to the idea that the studies are not exactly standalone. As sound and interpretation is subjective, other disciplines combined with sound studies lend breadth to each other.

Suggests that categorizing that which isn't associated with sound studies is easier than identifying what is. Also notes that the boundaries delineating sound studies are quite porous; the distinction between sound studies and the other examples he cites are blurred.