From: Rob Danielson <>
> Of course we want readers from unprecedented backgrounds to feel
> welcome, They are clearly finding skills on this list they're not
> finding elsewhere. Is there a list of sound recordists with more
> collective hours in the field? I use Bernie's book as my intro to
> film/video soundtrack text precisely because the assumptions are the
> most applicable. I learned this from this list. Wider audience is
> flattering and can accelerates everyones' learning. Maybe the lack of
> an FAQ is making this role more burdensome. Some terrific string
> summaries could be edited together. If we came up with 4-6 FAQ topics
> and 4-6 people each took one topic to search and possibly summarize?
> Anyone can search a term in the archive, but a reader who knows the
> lists history and personalities could portray some very
> informative/provoking stuff. Rob D.
Since I've been in the list from it's founding, I often look at current
discussions through the perspective of having read all that's been said,
and by whom on that subject. It is unfortunate that some of the very
experienced nature recordists of the early days don't join in
discussions much. I have a pretty good idea what some of them would say,
but new folks don't get their perspective.
In fact, since I belong to several lists, I have other perspectives than
just those of this list. Some of those other lists have folks that
probably get out and record as much or more than this list. In their own
particular interest areas. The phonography group, for instance, does not
limit themselves to just recording nature. They are the group for things
like street recordings, whatever. And they tend to mix their recordings
and modify them a lot more than traditional nature recording, which trys
to do it in one take and then not modify it. There are quite a few very
active recordists in that group.
I'm more noticing that, with the relative lack of posting by the more
experienced nature recordists the discussions are being carried on more
and more by folks new to nature recording. A large part of the new
influx into the group is from other recording types. Left to their own
devices, discussions will gravitate toward what people are most familiar
with. That has resulted in the group sounding more and more like a group
of "indoor" recordists. I know that with time those that get out and do
nature recording will most certainly learn what's different about nature
recording, and what they are interested in will change as a result. Or
they will undergo a lot of stress trying to make it fit their indoor habits.
Certainly the influx of these new ideas is positive. In that they can be
tried in nature recording, and some may be quite useful. But we maybe
need just a little more chatter that's on what's already known in nature
recording. A little more that shows the relative importance of different
aspects to nature recording.
Nature recording involves working in a environment that is acoustically
completely out of control. Or at least not at all man made. With
microphone setups that are marginal to indoor recording, if they are
even known at all. By necessity nature recording is done with portable
equipment run off batteries. In climate conditions that a lot of
equipment does not tolerate well. This is quite different from indoor
recording and imposes certain limitations. The range of sound levels
that are important in nature recording is much wider than that of indoor
recording, which puts different demands on equipment. Which means we are
interested in different aspects of our equipment than indoor recording.
And all the rules of how to set up our equipment that are based on
assumptions of a simplified acoustic space are going to not work well
either.
The sounds we record don't follow the rules of music. They are
significantly different. Which means applying the type of processing
that music recordings undergo may be quite inappropriate. And the design
theory used for recording music is also of unknown value.
To do nature recording well you need to treat it as a unique discipline.
Many things from other recording disciplines do apply, but nothing you
bring from these other areas should be assumed to have the same
importance without learning that it does through actual use.
I enjoy hearing all ideas. I read as widely as I can. And glean what I
can use from that. Nature recording is really a pretty young discipline,
especially nature recording just for the enjoyment of it all as opposed
to "scientific" recording. Writing a FAQ about a lot of this stuff is
not very cut and dried. Some things are beginning to become clear, but
there is very wide latitude for experimentation. You can get books that
will tell you how to mic each musical instrument in each possible way it
might be used. And how to process the recording afterwards. You won't
find that sort of thing for nature recording. There may never be such a
thing possible, and instead we shall have to learn how to come up with
the best setup in each situation on the fly.
Ask 4-6 nature recordists how to record a site, you will get 4-6 quite
different ways. Ask dozens, and you will get dozens of ways. And
probably some knock down drag out fights over the ways. I have a feeling
this is part of why every proposal to have group FAQ's has not gotten
off the ground. Though I'm not discouraging the attempts. Getting nature
recordists to agree in a lot of areas is a lot like herding cats. And I
see no reason why it should be otherwise.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|