chris
>
> but...SHOULD is a mighty big word!!!...
>
...(what seems invisible today won't nec. seem so
> tomorrow)
That's very true. Not sure how exactly you could anticipate this though.
> And then there's the matter of airplanes.
> Should they stay in the mix or not?...
...the emphasis on> subjectivity....
> with the implication being that, in our rush to be
> "truthful", authentic
> and real, we invariably are covering up our own
> presence, our trying to,
> thus leading us down the road of faking, forgery and
> simulation.......
> rather than ddown the very road of authenticity we
> aspire to.....
I would never say I strive to be 'truthful'. I am even going to go
ahead and say that most of this nature recording is really
entertainment. There is no authenticity, no truth...just
interpretation and performance. And of course, if your interpretation
includes all your colleagues talking about the mic setups and then you
saying "Ok lock it up I am gonna roll now" to express the process of
sound gathering as part of the recording...then by all means leave
that in too. I myself choose to take that stuff out.
I do this because I [and I would imagine that most of us here] strive
for recordings that aim to make a listener first consider the
environment and creatures being represented and only secondarily [if
at all] the gathering process. To that end, 'invisibility' [whatever
that means to you or me] would simply involve not drawing primary
attention to the gathering process.
I am happy to call that 'trickery' and not even feel bad for one
second about it.
Now of course 'not drawing attention to the gathering process' can in
fact be a form of 'drawing attention' to the audio savvy community I
suppose. That's too many layers of thinking for me.
If I were conducting a scientific study all of this would be
completely different of course. But I am not.
Danny
|