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.
>
|