Hi David,
While the process of nature Sound recording has the potential to be messy, =
a finished nature sound recording has the potential to be very well refined=
to an artists own standards.
I belief a general audience seeking nature sound recordings has little inte=
rest in a noticeable anthropogenic component.
The honesty in this craft is not in the content of the recording but how we=
market it to our audiences. It would be dishonest to describe a nature tra=
ck with a noticeable component of anthropogenic noise as quiet, peaceful, o=
r relaxing.
For the sake of respect to an audience, when using terms "nature recording"=
, "nature sound recording", "wildlife recording", or "natural soundscape", =
none of those imply a anthropogenic component, so any such noise component =
would be justly described with other or additional terms.
As far a how I handle man made noise in my recordings: first off I make eff=
orts to respect the natural places I work in by minimizing my own contribut=
ion to the noise.
My first rule for this is, "Arrive or leave by motor vehicle during daytime=
hours only." I know there are many nature recordists who enjoy the conven=
ience of driving out to locations during the most sensitive predawn hours w=
ithout considering less intrusive methods.
As far as editing, I have used all the methods you describe, as well as lea=
ving it all in. I don't usually look for "quiet slivers" as you put it, but=
I definitely pay attention for rare passages of any length, as the bringin=
g to light of something special is by no means dishonest.
John Hartog
rockscallop.org
And the end just like landscape painting, the
Recording sounds and creating a product for audience
The term I have been using for my recording nature recording Natural Sounds=
cape
Audience
John Hartog
--- In David Michael <> =
wrote:
>
> I was having a conversation offline with John Hartog concerning
> anthrophony in nature soundscape recordings and I wanted to open it up
> to the broader community. As you might have guessed, John and I have
> different approaches/aesthetics concerning the presence of anthrophony
> :).
>
> I am curious how each of you deals with the sounds of man and machine
> in your recording practice.
>
> Do you edit it out?
> Do you minimize it through EQ?
> Do you practice extreme patience and wait out the sounds of man
> looking for tiny slivers of "quiet"?
> Do you reconstruct a scene from fragments?
> Do you leave it in?
>
> In my own recordings I typically try to seek out places where
> anthrophony is minimal, and the sounds of non-man are dominant. This
> is not nature for nature's sake, but rather to get sound scenes that I
> find interesting to listen to. For me, an area with a wash of traffic
> noise is not particularly easy on the ears and I have not yet been
> particularly interested in recording the sounds of man and machine.
> But whether we like it or not, the sounds of motor vehicles,
> airplanes, boats, and general human schenanigans are pervasive, not
> only in North America, but almost everywhere on the planet.
> Anthrophony is a part of our soundscape and natural environment.
> Giving it a first class position in Soundscape Ecology recognizes this
> implicitly. Sometimes anthrophony is pollution, disrupting breeding
> populations. Other times it is completely benign. But whatever it's
> affect in any given situation, there it is.
>
> So my general aesthetic currently is to leave it in, although I do
> minimize sections where the anthrophony is particularly annoying. I
> also happen to do this with sections that have been blown out by wind
> or with birds that are just way too close to a microphones. They just
> get edited out. This is not to say that my recordings are littered
> with airplanes and cars, but often I find that the process of editing
> a soundscape for anthrophony destroys something about the soundscape
> itself. Sometimes hours of continuity (place) can be lost waiting for
> a completely "quiet" moment. This can be particularly acute during
> light transitions.
>
> I have another concern though regarding editing/waiting out
> anthrophony. The documents we create through patience and careful
> editing portray a world that does not exist (or exist in incredibly
> limited quantities - and perhaps herein lies the value). Arguably, all
> recordings are biased anyway and there is no way to avoid creating a
> fantasy. We often lament the growing noise in the world, environmental
> destruction, and devastating losses of species and habitats, but by
> and large the recordings we create show a world untouched by man. I do
> not want consumers of "nature sound" to be disappointed by presence of
> anthrophony that sometimes appears in my recordings, however I am
> concerned about the message sent when soundscapes are redacted to
> exclude anthrophony.
>
> This of course is just my opinion, so I wonder your collective
> feelings on this topic.
>
> Sincerely
> David
>
|