Ok Rory, I understand.
There is no need to pretend the fog horn does not exist. If the
recording is primarily of a natural space with natural sounds and
happens to include an occasional distant fog horn blast, that would be
fine as long as the recording is not promoted as nature sounds only.
It is best to state any unnatural distractions upfront: perhaps the
title could be "Cape St. Mary's Natural Soundscape and Distant Fog Horns"
Same thing with urban nature recordings. There is nothing natural
about the drone of Manhattan. However in a recording titled "Crickets,
Birds, and Other Natural Voices of Manhattan" it would be expected to
have a great amount of anthropogenic noise in the background.
You can record the whales from a running boat, but they will sound
much nicer if you cut the engines.
Most of my recordings of rain just happened because my mics were out
there unattended when it started raining. Some ended up sounding nice,
some not. For one recording I painstakingly edited out each and every
direct mic hit with very nice results. For a couple others I was just
really lucky to pick the right spot under a tree. I have not yet got
my mics wet as they were always protected by a layer of fake fur or
other fabric.
Here in the Pacific Northwest, you can't help but get a nice rain
recording at some point - that is as long as you are getting out there.
John Hartog
rockscallop.org
--- In "Rory" <> wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
> I'll take you up on your invitation to express my own view. That
said, I posed the question without expressing a position because I
wanted to hear the views of others who have more experience and who
might or might not take a view on this issue that is more rigorous
than my own.
>
> I got thinking about this over the last two weeks, which I spent in
Newfoundland.
>
> Maybe I am focused on creating a picture of place, and that this is
not the same thing as creating a picture of nature, but it seems to me
that if one wants to capture Cape St. Mary's, it is artificial to
pretend that the seabirds exist and the fog horn doesn't.
>
> A decision to call a recording of the birds nature recording, but to
exclude the fog horn, strikes me as arbitrary and, more importantly,
based on a romantic view of the world that is fundamentally unnatural,
or at least quite divorced from reality. In other words, I think that
the fog horn at Cape St. Mary's is part of the natural environment.
>
> I also wondered about this some months ago in Manhattan, when I was
30 stories above the city, on a Sunday night at 2:00 am, recording the
sound of the island, a sound which is a mix of many elements.
>
> Like you, I have recorded rain while standing under a big tree. In
my case, it was a coniferous tree. The fact is, that kind of recording
in a heavy rainstorm can't be done under a coniferous tree, especially
up north where the trees are not that big, for more than a brief
period without dousing one's mic(s). The overwhelming number of
so-called natural recordings of rain are done under some kind of
human-made shelter, which contributes to the sound.
>
> I am about to buy a small lodge in Newfoundland in a place that is
heavily frequented by whales. Next summer, I want to record the
above-water sounds of whales when they blow. I'll do it from a boat,
which will make its own noise as it cuts through the water. I guess
that some purists might take the view that these will not be
legitimate nature recordings because they are "contaminated" by the
sound of the boat. If so, maybe I'll live with the fact that the
recordings are "deficient :)
>
> Cheers
>
|