Thanks, Kevin. Actually, I don't quite know how to morph visual
concepts into audio since, to me, since each habitat is so complex
(consisting of multiple markers that are comprised of geological,
biological, topographical, temporal [day, night, season], zoological,
acoustic [active & passive, richness, diversity, density], altitude,
climatological, and human contributions, etc) that it would be
really difficult to consider any one component in this web of life
translatable into acoustic "realism" as one might otherwise do in the
strictly graphic sense.
Let's say we have 10 recordists at a site recording the same thing
for the same period of time. Each one uses one favorite technique.
Represented are systems that include XY, SASS, ORTF, mono, MS, an
Aachen head (one of the most elaborate and expensive binaural systems
there is), Telinga stereo, Blumlein, OSS, N.O.S., etc. In the end,
which recorded result is "realistic?" More accurately, isn't the
result, then -- given that any one recording is a mere abstraction
from the complex whole -- more of an "impression?" It certainly is to
me. But what the hell do I know? Actually, I don't much care what
it's called. You can call it a moose, for all I care. A rose is a
rose is a rose.
If it's toilets-into-streams one wants, I would recommend leaking
valve stems in most Kohler brands. Just don't tell anyone but your
best mate or you'll be marked for life as a lowly "impressionist",
even if you've only used the clip for an effect in a musical
composition and not a natural soundscape. But, as we know from the
Sarah Palin effect and our post-literate culture, it's a shell-game
of image over truth.
Bernie
On Sep 14, 2008, at 10:10 PM, Kevin Colver wrote:
> Chime.
>
> Hi Bernie,
>
> All this talk of painting prompted me to look up landscape artists on
> Wikipedia. The landscape artist has characteristics in common with
> the soundscape artist. Some landscape paintings are more realistic,
> nearly photographic, while others tend toward Van Gogh and beyond. I
> had one sound artist use some of my sounds in a very creative (and
> distorting) way that I could only characterize as a Picasso in
> sound. You could barely discern the lady coming down the stairs, so
> to speak.
>
> I suppose I've done more soundscape/landscape recordings since coming
> under your tutorship. Prior to that I was more of a portraiture
> recordist/artist. I haven't evolved into abstract sound at this
> point and maybe I'm too boring a person for that kind of thing.
>
> I'm grateful that the comparison of our art and the painters art is
> meeting with some discussion, it's got me thinking, and maybe
> imagining new ways to use this art form. At first I just thought I
> was getting a robin recorded, now I know I was creating a portrait.
> And now that I know these are portraits, I can take the artistic
> aspect of creating the portrait more seriously.
>
> Oh, and that toilet water recording story is hilarious! Good on you,
> man! That was definitely avante garde. Anyone taking your work
> seriously in relation to that story needs to lighten up and enjoy
> life a bit. You've brighten my day.
>
> I'm smiling, and imagining a collection of flush sounds! How about a
> field guide? Maybe I'll get to work on it. In the mean time I know
> that you have more quality natural sounds in your personal collection
> than almost anyone, ever.
>
> Kevin
>
> On Sep 14, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Bernie Krause wrote:
> > Anyone can feel free to
> > chime in with thoughts.
> >
> > Bernie
>
>
>
>
Wild Sanctuary
POB 536
Glen Ellen, CA 95442
707-996-6677
http://www.wildsanctuary.com
Google Earth zooms: http://earth.wildsanctuary.com
SKYPE: biophony
|