I'm new to all this, so I leave it to others to define "nature sounds", but you
raised another matter earlier, John. That was whether this type of recording is
off topic to this list:
"Sometimes there is a fine line between perceived subjects of a recording. When
describe in a nature sound context, one of contrast for instance, anthropogenic
content can be very appropriate for this specific Yahoo group. However, outside
of such context when the content is other than nature sound specific those
recordings become off topic for this specific Yahoo group and might find a more
welcoming audience elsewhere such as the Phonography Yahoo group which is open
to a much broader range of recording subjects."
Irrespective of what the definition of "nature sounds" is, does it have to be
so cut and dried regarding posting recordings to this list? If a recording is
almost free of human noise, but not quite, then I'm interested to hear it, and
greatly appreciate being offered it. If it's banished to the Phonography group
then I won't know about it. Perhaps one only needs to post clear warnings to
make such recordings totally acceptable here, and then people can decide
whether they want to listen to them or not.
Peter Shute
From:
On Behalf Of hartogj
Sent: Thursday, 12 January 2012 6:13 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] New Soundscapes & realism
Hi Volker,
And that "reality" is further filtered by the minds of the listening audience.
There is no reason a nature sound recording need convey a reality at all, the
goal could just as well be that of fantasy.
The perception of an artistic composition is subjective to the artist and the
audience. Whether or not a composition will be perceived as a nature sound
recording or natural soundscape recording, has little do do with the artist
deciding that anthropogenic noise is a real part of the landscape or not.
I understand it makes sense to some artists or audience to widen the definition
of nature sound recordings or natural soundscape recordings, however conversely
I believe a narrowing of the definitions could increase the value,
accessibility, respectability in the forms.
John Hartog
rockscallop.org
--- In
<naturerecordists%40yahoogroups.com>,
"Volker Widmann" <> wrote:
>
> I would like to second Davids statement.
>
> We should never forget that nature recording is an ART!
> And as such it is artificial.
> So by transferring any kind of reality onto a whatever medium, this very
> reality is filtered by the artist's mind (and the technical framework of the
> medium).
> So, even the most natural nature recording by definition only is an artifact
> - it is not nature.
> It may convey the feeling of the "real thing" adequately, but if it does so,
> it is due to the skill and "art" and intention of the recordist.
> One could call this cheating, I would call it art.
> So any nature recording is not about reality, but about the recordist's idea
> of reality.
>
> The magnificent Walter Knapp (and others) explained this extensively here on
> the list in the past.
>
> Volker
>
> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> > Datum: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 04:03:03 -0000
> > Von: "Avocet" <>
> > An:
> > <naturerecordists%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Betreff: Re: [Nature Recordists] New Soundscapes & realism
>
> > All art is artifice and involves key decisions of what to include and
> > what to exclude. In the case of wildlife recording, and filming for
> > that matter, including anthropogenic material is a matter of artistic
> > judgement. There are no truly wild places left and no truly wild
> > animals living free from either human encroachment or human
> > protection. Excluding the human element could be regarded as more of a
> > misreprentation than including it, even if it is regarded as
> > irrelevant or perhaps especially if it irrelevant but the truth.
> >
> > Wildlife has to coexist with anthropogenic interference and
> > certainly the fish in the hold of the distant boat didn't have their
> > say in whether or not the boat was irrelevant to their seascape. Is
> > there a distinction between selection by timing, editing, or
> > eliminating non-wildlife sounds by filtering? Anyone with a live mic
> > knows that anthropogenic sounds are almost everywhere, so is it not
> > more honest to portray the wildlife as having to live with these
> > sounds, including the train roaring through their landscape? I'll tell
> > you what Mark's train did for me - it gave me a vivid sound image
> > portrait of that bit of countryside.
> >
> > The recent BBC series 'Frozen Planet' came in for criticism for not
> > captioning a polar bear sequence which included shots of a newborn cub
> > in captivity. An edited film uses artifice from start to finish, often
> > cutting together sequences spaced widely in location and in time. Take
> > notice of coat patterns in films portraying the life of one supposedly
> > singular animal. The word "cheating" is often used by filmmakers
> > because that is how interesting films are put together. I can usually
> > tell which sounds have been dubbed on later and which were recorded
> > sync, like birds in the tops of trees on a very long lens with
> > expertly dubbed matching close sound. Adventure documentaries are
> > prone to showing a heroic figure battling on alone against the odds,
> > not drawing attention to the fact that he or she is obviously being
> > followed by a film crew. A series on flight currently being shown here
> > uses trained birds filmed from a microlite to link sequences.
> >
> > I see no harm in some occasional honest realism, like
> > including distant motors or close trains which would still
> > have been part of the "natural" soundscape even if edited
> > out.
> >
> > It's an interesting debate and it brings to mind a film my
> > wife set up in China about integrated agriculture and the good
> > use the Chinese were making of some long-ravaged parts of
> > their land. However the Tiananmen Square massacre intervened
> > between shooting and cutting, and a very different film got
> > shown using the same shot footage. Which was truest?
> >
> > David
> >
> > David Brinicombe
> > North Devon, UK
> > Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum - Ambrose Bierce
> >
>
> --
> Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir
> belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de
>
|