I was introduced to the term soundscape as an art form, through
electroacoustics. Then I read Murray's book, then Bernie's Wild
Soundscapes, then Mark Smith's, Listening to 19th Century America, etc.
From all this I learned that one can approach the soundscape in various
ways. It is clear to me that Murray created a scientific discipline for
studying the sonic environment. A good scientist will collect as much
data as possible from his/her observations. This doesn't mean that if
one records a foreign language that it is imperative to translate it,
but getting as much information about the person, place, dialect, etc
can only benefit others who may want to utilize the recording for
purposes of analysis.
Documentation comes at a cost of the recordist's time, effort and money,
which is significant, but important. Ideally I would like to record SPL,
GPS coordinates, temp, humidity, take photographs....this would be a
great topic to discuss on it's own: modern documentation for field
recordists.
I've written an essay which describes the idea that within the modern
world of synthesis and electroacoustics people have become more apt to
remove the identity of a sound from its source. Because the sounds that
so many people (especially in the city) hear are continuously being
invented and re-contextualized, unfamiliarity doesn't hold anywhere near
the significance within our present society as it did within, say, the
pre-modern Iroquois culture (my particular case study). This process of
de-contextualization makes re-contextualization much easier. I'm
reminded of the John Deer company advertising itself as the "sound of
spring." For many people and in many places this is a reality. If we ask
this group the question very generally, what are the sounds of spring in
your area, we might come up with: "Black-capped chickadees, Red-winged
Blackbirds, etc." Someone outside of this group or a newer member might
be less specific and say: "birds". There may be hundreds of different
birds vocalizing within a small geographic area every spring, and if
people do not bother to identify them individually, how would one know
when an individual is lost? Why would one care? After all a bird is a
bird. The point is that it is far easier to accept the extinction of
sounds (and their source creatures) when their identities are forgotten
or unknown.
The fact that many of us, including myself, have not grown up learning
to recognize the subtle sounds of nature, speaks volumes about our
society and its relationship to the "wild soundscape". But also the fact
that there are many people in this group and other similar groups, who
are dedicating their time to such an understanding, speaks on the
potential of our future society.
As both a field recordist and a composer, I am just as interested in
recording for the purposes of scientific analysis and historical
documentation as I am for aesthetic value. For the former discipline, I
have to agree that a detailed description of the recording is just as
important as the recording itself. For the later discipline, the
description is only important if the particular piece demands it.
best,
Charles
On 4/19/10 4:16 PM, Mike Rooke wrote:
>
> Breaking this down:-
>
> > "The World Listening Project needs to go farther
>
> Than what? - Is there a specific example or goal it shall be achieving?
>
> "than just holding a microphone in front of the soundscape."
>
> F8 and be there, erm having a mic and using it is better than no mic
> at all.
>
> "The recordist has an obligation to know what is being recorded and to
> index it carefully..."
>
> If that is the reason the recordist is there it is, its subjective -
> what if you wish to capture the soundscape for other reasons? To
> remember it as you stood there? Personal enjoyment, the example given
> earlier is a classic case - it may not have meaning at the time of
> capture "interesting ceremony, wish I knew what they were talking
> about" - only later does the value show, how would Aaron to give a
> specific example of possibly known at the time to index it carefully?
>
> > Murray concluded that, "Technology has made it easy to record."
> "Any idiot can do it and produce an interesting document. "
>
> Rather like using a medium format camera, lightmeter and an assistant
> vs a point and shoot camera. Each one has its place. Maybe thats his
> rub, the technology has become ubiquitous ? A 200 dollar recorder and
> a pair of 10 dollar 80 dB SNR mic capsules does a pretty good job if
> you know how to use 'the tool' - even better if you can make the tool.
>
> "But to produce a historical recording of value takes time and patience."
>
> Indeed it does, but what is value in this context? Scientific value,
> Personal value? Educational value? All subjective and each has a
> different meaning to the recordist and consumers of the recording.
>
> "Many recordists are merely tourists in the soundscape---unfortunately."
>
> As we are in life, make a difference, keep the learning curve vertical.
>
> -M
>
> >
> > Bernie
> >
> >
> >
> > Wild Sanctuary
> > POB 536
> > Glen Ellen, CA 95442
> > 707-996-6677
> > http://www.wildsanctuary.com <http://www.wildsanctuary.com>
> >
> > Google Earth zooms: http://earth.wildsanctuary.com
> <http://earth.wildsanctuary.com>
> > SKYPE: biophony
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
|