Hi Robin,
I wrote:
"The word "nature" might however have a specific meaning in the context of =
this group."
You responded:
"The variety of responses in this thread demonstrates otherwise."
The responses have brought up some interesting ideas, but the small handful=
of group members who have participated in this discussion so far, includin=
g myself, cannot realistically pretend to speak for the greater (2031) memb=
ership of this group - therefore little or no consensus has been demonstrat=
ed.
I still think nature sound recording and natural soundscape recording in th=
e context of this group as well as a general nature sound audience remains =
in the domain of nature rather than culture - even if as you and a few othe=
rs point out that culture and nature are indeed inseparable.
As an artist, as well as an advocate of natural ecosystem conservation and =
restoration, I am inclined to keep "nature sound" and "natural soundscape" =
within a definition that on the most part discourages inclusion of anthropo=
genic noise whenever possible. Why? - because I believe a recording of natu=
re taken without inclusion of noticeable anthropogenic noise can promote co=
nservation to a general public more than can a recording extended to includ=
e periods anthropogenic noise.
I believe the natural rhythms and voices in a recording, aside from anthrop=
ogenic, can promote consciousnesses in appreciation for natural ecosystems =
better than a recording with anthropogenic sounds included. I also believe=
that a nature recording without anthropogenic noise has a higher value to =
a nature sound consumer audience.
John Hartog
rockscallop.org
|