> 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 refin=
ed to an artists own standards.
>
> I belief a general audience seeking nature sound recordings has little in=
terest 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 t=
rack with a noticeable component of anthropogenic noise as quiet, peaceful,=
or relaxing.
>
> For the sake of respect to an audience, when using terms "nature recordin=
g", "nature sound recording", "wildlife recording", or "natural soundscape"=
, none of those imply a anthropogenic component, so any such noise componen=
t would be justly described with other or additional terms.
Hi John
Thanks for weighing in here. This topic is important to me and I'm glad to =
be able to talk about it semi-publicly with other folks who have similar in=
terests.
I understand and respect the perspective you have expressed, but I have mix=
ed feelings. I do not think that all anthrophony is noise, just as I do not=
think that all "nature sound" is quiet, peaceful or relaxing. There are pl=
enty of soundscapes that I would consider quiet, even though you can someti=
mes hear activities of man. This is not dishonesty, this is perception.
>From our private conversation and to your point about audience information,=
I have reworded the blurb on my Frick Pond release and mentioned the prese=
nce of man. I think this is appropriate and understand how the previous des=
cription might have created an expectation in the listener that was not ful=
filled.
For those reading this who have not heard it, the sections "Midnight with a=
visitor and coyotes" and "A subdued dawn chorus" have audible anthrophony.=
If you would like to hear the recordings I am talking about, I have made t=
hese playable at
http://fieldcraftrecords.com/track/midnight-with-a-visitor-and-coyotes
http://fieldcraftrecords.com/track/a-subdued-dawn-chorus
Leaving this material in the recording was an aesthetic choice; a mark of p=
lace. After visiting a couple of times, I am fairly certain that the sounds=
cape of Frick Pond almost always includes man - and this is something expre=
ssed in the release. That being said, I don't find this anthrophony particu=
larly distracting or inappropriate and "nature" still plays a central role =
in the soundscape.
I don't think that anthrophony disqualifies a recording as being "nature". =
I also cannot agree that another qualifier is needed to describe soundscape=
recordings with anthrophony. To my sensibilities, excluding a work from th=
e lexicon of nature recording for the presence of an airplane is too strict=
. I am not sure if this is what you are saying.
If this is only really a matter of audience communication, I am happy with =
using terms like "field recording", "sound art", or something else suitably=
ambiguous that would prepare a listener to hear some aspects of mans affec=
t on the soundscape (even though it is not the focus). I respect that there=
is an audience who are only interested in recordings without any anthropog=
enic component.
> As far a how I handle man made noise in my recordings: first off I make e=
fforts to respect the natural places I work in by minimizing my own contrib=
ution to the noise.
>
> My first rule for this is, "Arrive or leave by motor vehicle during dayti=
me hours only." I know there are many nature recordists who enjoy the conv=
enience of driving out to locations during the most sensitive predawn hours=
without considering less intrusive methods.
>
> As far as editing, I have used all the methods you describe, as well as l=
eaving it all in. I don't usually look for "quiet slivers" as you put it, b=
ut I definitely pay attention for rare passages of any length, as the bring=
ing to light of something special is by no means dishonest.
I did not mean to imply that creating pristine nature recordings was someho=
w dishonest. I have no particular ethical or moral perspective on how we ar=
rive at this aesthetic (which I actually quite enjoy). My only real point w=
as to illuminate that we often create fantasies of our natural world. I kno=
w in my practice I have found myself pursuing the fantasy and not really qu=
estioning why, other than assuming this is how it is done.
|