Peter,
In this group we record nature sounds. Some of us are after pure
wilderness soundscapes in stereo or quadraphonic, others are after
close-up mono species recordings for vocalization studies they are
doing, or purely for identification purposes, and it is irrelevant
for them whether or not there are human-made sounds included. Both
points of view are equally relevant for this group.
Vicki
On 12/01/2012, at 7:39 AM, Peter Shute wrote:
> 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
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> "While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
> sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie
> Krause.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
|