> Doesn't this depend first on what you are trying to accomplish? If
> your intentions are journalistic then fidelity of circumstance is
> required and things should be as they are.
Mark,
An interesting topic. The "search for truth" is all very well, but we
are reproducing natural sounds as if they are in a person's living
oom. Is that not a deceit? After all, we are creating an illusion in
the first place.
I'm going to gently disagree with the above concept of "pure"
journalism. Journalism is filtered through the journalist and usually
highly edited and is in itself in a form of art. I think it always has
to be a matter of judgement what is left out as when a photographer is
framing a scene, and there are many examples of different slants being
put on press dispatches according to the journalist's interpretation
of what is seen and heard. I've worked with many journalists and am
married to one. :-)
With natural history recording, the goal is often to get clear sounds
of a target species, especially if a picture is also involved,. As
long as the target is reasonably reproduced, other extraneous
anthrophony is distracting and should be minimised without an apology.
I have a case in point. A mile away a grain mill emits a whine which
varies with the wind but it is at a constant frequency, so if I hear
it on a wildlife recording introducing an un-wildlife sound I use a
mild narrow band notch filter. The whine has no effect on the
behaviour of the wildlife, just the listener's ears.
Down in the valley there is a sprinter train which I sometimes hear
and two country roads are each a mile away with the occasional idiot
would - be racing driver, as well as the odd aircraft, and here's a
question: is it more or less ethical to use a filter or noise
reduction, or to editorially select the parts of recordings which
don't include these noises?
David
David Brinicombe
North Devon, UK
Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum - Ambrose Bierce
|