Rory,
I think if you are trying to come up with a system by which any
recording could be somehow certified 'natural sound' or 'non-natural
sound'...that is really the impossible thing. There are so many
different things going on in any field recording. While we focus on
the subject of natural sound here, I don't think very many of us would
find it interesting to spend time 'validating' recordings in a yes/no
fashion through a finite criteria. A recording of an ecosystem in
Newfoundland that happens to have boat noise or horns may still very
well be a great recording. Whether or not it achieves some official
status as a 'nature recording' is somewhat irrelevant. I don't think
there is a statement that can be made to define a crisp hard boundary
as to what recordings may and may not be discussed in this group.
Still some things are clearly off topic. But many things would be a
bit iffy. We're a pretty inclusive bunch.
I think the general idea that 'natural sound' is sound the does not
emanate from human endevour keeps us in right ballpark. But this is a
vague concept because the idea of human endevour can have so many
permutations. In truth there is likely nowhere on our planet that has
a soundscape free from some type of influence by humans.
When Bernie separates the anthrophony as non-natural because the
sounds are unrelated, non-cooperative/competitive, I accept that, it
makes sense. The majority of sounds we produce or induce in our lives
do not have a direct relationship to survival, they are ancillary,
after effects of other processes, purposes.
The biophony and geophony are systems of sound, evolved over time
together...each participant sound evolving in step and existing in
relation with one another. Perhaps this is why natural sounds can be
so powerful...in truth they are sounds that are vital to life and death.
The anthrophony does not really operate this way. I think some pieces
of the anthrophony operate in a similar fashion to the biophony, but
only a few [I said sirens before, also foghorns]. We shape the
anthrophony a little for our satisfaction [noise pollution laws,
creating quiet spaces, exciting loud spaces, etc], but still the
majority of the sounds are produced in isolation and for their own ends.
Sorry for the rant, I figured I'd just write everything in my head.
I'm know all of this has already been said a million times and in
better form by others.
Danny
--- In "Danny Meltzer"
<> wrote:
>
> I find Bernie's analysis pretty concise and satisfying.
>
> I don't think it's as simple as 'natural sounds' are only sounds that
> are soothing and free from civilization. Nor do I think 'everything'
> is a 'natural sound'.
>
> I think if you're looking for concrete, 'perfect' answers from the
> natural world you're barking up the wrong tree.
>
> The definition of a 'natural sound' ends up being completed in each
> person's own head because of the way we interpret the words. But the
> way Bernie breaks it down seems logical and keeps us all in the same
> ballpark.
>
> If someone insists on discussing urban recordings here I, for one,
> will ask for it to cease.
>
> Some sounds from the anthrophony operate in a similar way to ones from
> the biophony though. Sirens for example. And in that sense, I could
> understand an argument for that being a natural sound.
>
> Also re: recording in the rain. It's a challenge, but rain will
> always be hitting 'something'...that's the sound. So you've got
> todecide what you want to record it hitting, trees, water, grass, etc.
> 'Hogs hair' [AC filters] are a good way to protect gear and dampen
> the sound of rain hitting directly onto the windshield or other gear.
> That helps you be more anonymous in your recording. This would be
> less effective in a deluge though. Cover an umbrella with the stuff
> and figure out how to suspend it over your mic.
>
> Danny
>
>
>
> --- In Bernie Krause <chirp@> wrote:
> >
> > An urban soundscape (mostly anthrophony) is not a natural
soundscape.
> > That's because the
> > sound sources are not correlated, but are typically unrelated. In a
> > natural soundscape where most sources
> > are biophonic in origin, and especially in healthier habitats, there
> > is a direct relationship between sounds...
> > frequency, temporal and spatial niches... where the critters express
> > themselves acoustically, competitively and
> > cooperatively, in relationship to one another. The reason: so that
> > they establish vocal territory where their
> > voices won't be masked.
> >
> > Bernie
> >
> > On Aug 21, 2007, at 7:30 PM, Rory wrote:
> >
> > > > Lots of confusion here, folks.
> > >
> > > Hi Bernie,
> > >
> > > I have a copy of your book and I was hoping that you would weigh
in
> > > on this discussion.
> > >
> > > Could I ask a question?
> > >
> > > What is the confusion and what are your view on the question that
> > > this thread raises and the concrete examples that I and others
have
> > > posed?
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Wild Sanctuary
> > POB 536
> > Glen Ellen, CA 95442
> > 707-996-6677
> > http://www.wildsanctuary.com
> > chirp@
> > Google Earth zooms: Earth.WildSanctuary.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
|