naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Anthrophony in "nature" soundscapes

Subject: Re: Anthrophony in "nature" soundscapes
From: "hartogj" hartogj
Date: Thu Jul 28, 2011 11:01 pm ((PDT))
Hi David,
That off group conversation was between me as a customer and you as a busin=
ess. It is difficult in this case to for me to address your concerns on thi=
s group from the standpoint of a peer. I am very particular as a customer, =
yet as an artist I understand rules are there to be broken.
It is an interesting topic, so I hope the discussion continues.

John Hartog
rockscallop.org

--- In  "corticalsongs" <=
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > Hi David,
> >
> > While the process of nature Sound recording has the potential to be mes=
sy, a finished nature sound recording has the potential to be very well ref=
ined to an artists own standards.
> >
> > I belief a general audience seeking nature sound recordings has little =
interest in a noticeable anthropogenic component.
> >
> > The honesty in this craft is not in the content of the recording but ho=
w we market it to our audiences. It would be dishonest to describe a nature=
 track with a noticeable component of anthropogenic noise as quiet, peacefu=
l, or relaxing.
> >
> > For the sake of respect to an audience, when using terms "nature record=
ing", "nature sound recording", "wildlife recording", or "natural soundscap=
e", none of those imply a anthropogenic component, so any such noise compon=
ent 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 t=
o be able to talk about it semi-publicly with other folks who have similar =
interests.
>
> I understand and respect the perspective you have expressed, but I have m=
ixed feelings. I do not think that all anthrophony is noise, just as I do n=
ot think that all "nature sound" is quiet, peaceful or relaxing. There are =
plenty of soundscapes that I would consider quiet, even though you can some=
times hear activities of man. This is not dishonesty, this is perception.
>
> From our private conversation and to your point about audience informatio=
n, I have reworded the blurb on my Frick Pond release and mentioned the pre=
sence of man. I think this is appropriate and understand how the previous d=
escription might have created an expectation in the listener that was not f=
ulfilled.
>
> For those reading this who have not heard it, the sections "Midnight with=
 a visitor and coyotes" and "A subdued dawn chorus" have audible anthrophon=
y. If you would like to hear the recordings I am talking about, I have made=
 these 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=
 place. After visiting a couple of times, I am fairly certain that the soun=
dscape of Frick Pond almost always includes man - and this is something exp=
ressed in the release. That being said, I don't find this anthrophony parti=
cularly distracting or inappropriate and "nature" still plays a central rol=
e 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 soundsca=
pe recordings with anthrophony. To my sensibilities, excluding a work from =
the lexicon of nature recording for the presence of an airplane is too stri=
ct. I am not sure if this is what you are saying.
>
> If this is only really a matter of audience communication, I am happy wit=
h using terms like "field recording", "sound art", or something else suitab=
ly ambiguous that would prepare a listener to hear some aspects of mans aff=
ect on the soundscape (even though it is not the focus). I respect that the=
re is an audience who are only interested in recordings without any anthrop=
ogenic component.
>
> > As far a how I handle man made noise in my recordings: first off I make=
 efforts to respect the natural places I work in by minimizing my own contr=
ibution to the noise.
> >
> > My first rule for this is, "Arrive or leave by motor vehicle during day=
time hours only."  I know there are many nature recordists who enjoy the co=
nvenience of driving out to locations during the most sensitive predawn hou=
rs without considering less intrusive methods.
> >
> > As far as editing, I have used all the methods you describe, as well as=
 leaving 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 bri=
nging to light of something special is by no means dishonest.
>
> I did not mean to imply that creating pristine nature recordings was some=
how dishonest. I have no particular ethical or moral perspective on how we =
arrive at this aesthetic (which I actually quite enjoy). My only real point=
 was to illuminate that we often create fantasies of our natural world. I k=
now in my practice I have found myself pursuing the fantasy and not really =
questioning why, other than assuming this is how it is done.
>








<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU