Old, it certainly is. This is a pretty good example of a very
elitist, academic and limited perspective - one shared by very few
serious recordists and true artists. Problem is that Rothenberg (name
spelled wrong in the article) does not now and never did understand
the "art" of natural soundscapes and what they represent. (Either
that or he refuses to acknowledge what is essential).
All such recordings are an illusion, at best. Sometimes one can
capture the essence of a place with a constant stream of data.
Sometimes not. The biggest claim by some is that there is "pure"
stuff out there. The only thing "pure" about this claim is the horsy
manure of the premise. There is no "unaltered" sound. Every choice a
recordist makes in the field, whether mic system, data capture tech,
where to aim the mics, what time of day/season one records, which
parts of the data to include in a program (whether CD, media for
video, or public space performance) constitutes a form of edit. A CD
allows 74 minutes of stereo audio data at 16 bit/44.1kHz. Choose the
segment you'll include and, voila!, a major edit. Of the 31 natural
soundscapes I've created for CD media, four are made up of
composites. So Rothenberg, again, has not done his homework.
We have to think of what data best represents a sense of place and
time and represent it to the best of our art and craft. The
Rothenbergs of the world do not set the standards. They have no
authority in that department. You're the only ones who do.
Bernie Krause
>http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200007/mixedmedia.asp
>
>Have you all seen this one? I know it mentions some of us. But I
>thought it was a nice little concise piece. What do you make of the
>comparison to us being at the stage of photographers 100 yrs ago?
>
>Danny
>
>
>
>
>
>
>"Microphones are not ears,
>Loudspeakers are not birds,
>A listening room is not nature."
>Klas Strandberg
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Wild Sanctuary
P. O. Box 536
Glen Ellen, CA 95442
t. 707-996-6677
f. 707-996-0280
http://www.wildsanctuary.com
|