Ok, I'll bite on this one. I really enjoyed the debate, but there was
a bit of friction. A dichotomy emerged between the more scientific and
well-informed birders, and those of us with a natural curiosity and
love for the sounds of nature but little background in biology. My
take on this as someone new to this community, is that there has to be
room for different points of view here. Martyn asks if you would
record the chairman of the board without knowing his name, but I've
recorded many a street musician without knowing his name or why he or
she plays, without knowing the techniques and theory behind the music,
but the experience of listening is still valid and in fact very pure.
I'm a musician and composer of soundscapes, so while I do search out
the name of a bird when my love of its particular call heightens my
curiousity, I more often capture sounds for the feeling they elicit,
for their musicality on the whole. While this is not science I hope
that it is art, and that it furthers the cause of preserving the
natural soundscape. This may be hard to accept for brilliant folks
like Doug and Martyn who have such encyclopedic knowledge and so
obviously love what they do, but I hope they will leave a little wiggle
room for 'undisciplined' recordists such as myself.... ;-)
Cliff
On Wednesday, June 25, 2003, at 08:54 PM, Martyn Stewart wrote:
> I found it a bit strange that as nature recordists, a lot of people
> didn't know birds and their calls, simple but true, like I say, you
> wouldn't record Frank Sinatra without knowing his name would you?
> I think we all benefited from the discussion, there was no real
> dynamite
> to throw at each other, a bit like handbags at dawn :)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|