That's where the confusion comes in, James. Why can't a "realistic
soundscape" be "impressionistic," as well?
BK
On Sep 14, 2008, at 11:00 AM, mopani_wyness wrote:
> That's not an easy question to answer Bernie because there are so
> many interpretations of both words, in fact both are quite unstable
> terms. Narrowing it down to nature recording or natural soundscape
> recording I'd go for the artist's intentions. Despite the artifice,
> some recordists present their work as real or realistic
> soundscapes. They're 'transparent' enough to allow the listener to
> listen through to the real which seems to be somewhere in there in
> some form or another. Terms like legitimate and feasible have been
> used in these contexts. Other artists like to give impressions;
> fleeting glimpses, sharp cut and pastes, multi-layered pieces for
> example. In some senses you could argue a case for these works
> being impressionistic.
>
> Whether we perceive them as they were intended is another matter...
>
> James
>
|