John,
Thanks very much for the comments.
Your point about all recording being about illusion is well taken. I
think an analogy with photography is
may be useful here. The f/64 group (Weston, Adams, etc) advanced the
ideal of "straight photography", aiming
to be devoid of "artistic" manipulation and presenting a simple,
direct perspective on the world as it is found.
It's ultimately impossible, of course -- all photography, like all
recording, involves inherent creative
manipulation through choices, selection, and so on, but it does
clearly stake out an aesthetic territory that
describes quite a bit of what many nature recordists seem to be trying
to achieve.
It's interesting that the heyday of the f/64 group was a time when
photography wasn't yet fully recognized
as a legitimate art from of its own -- a state of affairs from which I
fear field recording still suffers.
Best
-matt
On Jul 6, 2009, at 23:06, John Hartog wrote:
> Hi Matt
> It's good to have new perspectives -- so please no apologies for
> barging in.
>
> Thanks for the link to your webpage and sound clips. I like the way
> you introduce the natural soundscape recording subject and set it
> aside from other music with your statements like, ""Ambience" in
> music recording has to do mainly with capturing the effect of the
> subject against the space," and also "Instead, they're usually
> aiming to limit the "recording angle" to the slice where the music
> is coming from and to reduce the effects of everything else." That
> is all so true.
>
> And while your own statement about natural soundscape recording,
> "the environment is the subject," is also true, I must remind you we
> only ever record a mere slice of this environment. It has been
> pointed out many times on this group, and most notably by our
> masterful soundscape recordist Bernie Krause, that natural
> soundscape recording is, as with all art, all about creating
> illusions.
>
> In this respect, I view all my own natural soundscape recordings as
> mere slices of much greater concepts. The goal is for this data to
> be interpreted through human minds, so what is important is not how
> real or comprehensive the recording is, but how meaningful the
> recording sounds to the listener. By simplifying the views, slices,
> or spheres down to meaningful expressions for human perception, I
> can increase the perceived depth and width and relevance of the
> soundscapes I am trying to portray.
>
> In your first example, "Institute Woods," I think the ms sounds
> best, because the frontal focus limits the otherwise confining
> character of the ambient water sounds.
>
> In your second example, "Freight Train" the Jecklin sounds best
> because width is as important as depth to bring meaning to a passing
> train.
>
> In the third example "San Francisco Bay" I think the ms sounds best,
> because it sounds less cluttered than the other two examples.
>
> Your comparisons enlighten listeners to some basic differences
> between different mics and micing techniques, but what is missing is
> that each technique usually takes a unique approach =96 meaning given =
> the same general location, one configuration will sound best placed
> here and another will sound best placed over there. Very seldom
> will one precise location and orientation be ideal for three
> separate techniques.
>
> John Hartog
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In "Matt Blaze" <> wrote:
>>
>> First of all, please forgive me for barging in; I've long enjoyed and
>> learned a lot from from this terrific list, but have only rarely
>> actually posted here.
>>
>> Anyway, one of the challenges for me in learning to record good
>> stereo images of outdoor soundscapes has been the relative lack of
>> controlled examples of different miking techniques recorded
>> simultaneously from the same position. There are some amazing
>> outdoor nature recordings available here and elsewhere, but people
>> tend to distribute only their best results, and keep to themselves
>> the duds recorded along the way. For the listener, that's surely for
>> the best, of course, but it means that there are lamentably few
>> examples of the same sources recorded simultaneously with different
>> (and documented) techniques from which to learn and compare.
>>
>> So I've slowly been experimenting with different techniques by
>> making simultaneous recordings in different outdoor environments and
>> of different kinds of subjects. The effort is paying off well for
>> me, and perhaps others can benefit from my failures (and occasional
>> successes). So I've collected and posted a few examples on a web
>> page, which I will try to update with new recordings from time to
>> time. Most of the recordings are decidedly unspectacular,
>> intended primarily to expose the similarities and differences of
>> the images produced by different mic configurations when used
>> outdoors. Mostly, through, I hope to encourage others to do the
>> same; my individual effort is really quite pale in the grand
>> scheme of things, limited as it is by my talent, equipment, and
>> rapidly diminishing inclination to carry lots of stuff with me.
>>
>> My sample clips, for what they're worth, can be found at
>> http://www.crypto.com/audio/soundscapes/ .
>>
>> -matt
>>
>>
mab blogs at http://www.crypto.com/blog/
|