As I read my own post I realize it could sound negative. Not
intended. I'm just kind of wistful and longing for discussion of the
art of recording. Please no one feel bad about the tech part - I do
appreciate all your contributions.
Kevin
On Sep 10, 2008, at 9:29 AM, Kevin Colver wrote:
> > Thank you Greg.
> >
>
> > I would agree with you that the tech contributes about 20% to the
> > quality of the nature sound recording, important, but the art and
> > field craft are critical. That's why I wonder why the technology
> > gets 95% of the discussion on this chat group. It's like having a
> > chat group for artists who only talk about their paint brushes.
> > (And each time a member joins, he/she wants to know which brushes
> > to buy as if that mattered more than what and how to paint.)
> >
>
> > Wouldn't the artists be discussing their subjects, framing,
> > perspective, and creativity? Wouldn't they, like French painters
> > in the 1800s in Paris, be pushing the traditional envelop, learning
> > from each other, and creating something new? Not that I don't
> > appreciate the paint brush talk, (after all, it was me that asked
> > the 1-bit question) but where are the artists and where is the talk
> > about your art? Is there somewhere an Ansel Adams or a Van Gogh of
> > nature sound recording? I'd love to hear about that from any of
> > you and I'll continue to hope the group evolves to some degree in
> > that direction.
> >
>
> > (To tell the truth, the group was originally more inclined toward
> > the art of recording years ago.)
> >
> >
>
> >
>
> Kevin
>
> Greg wrote:
> > . And when you factor in mic placement and
> > field craft, the total contribution of the technology alone is
> > probably about 20%.
> >
> > - Greg Simmons
> >
>
>
>
>
|