I agree in most of what you said John.
/H=E5kan
--- In "hartogj" <> wrote=
:
>
> Hi Robin,
> I wrote:
> "The word "nature" might however have a specific meaning in the context o=
f this group."
>
> You responded:
> "The variety of responses in this thread demonstrates otherwise."
>
> The responses have brought up some interesting ideas, but the small handf=
ul of group members who have participated in this discussion so far, includ=
ing myself, cannot realistically pretend to speak for the greater (2031) me=
mbership of this group - therefore little or no consensus has been demonstr=
ated.
>
> I still think nature sound recording and natural soundscape recording in =
the context of this group as well as a general nature sound audience remain=
s in the domain of nature rather than culture - even if as you and a few ot=
hers point out that culture and nature are indeed inseparable.
>
> As an artist, as well as an advocate of natural ecosystem conservation an=
d restoration, I am inclined to keep "nature sound" and "natural soundscape=
" within a definition that on the most part discourages inclusion of anthro=
pogenic noise whenever possible. Why? - because I believe a recording of na=
ture taken without inclusion of noticeable anthropogenic noise can promote =
conservation to a general public more than can a recording extended to incl=
ude periods anthropogenic noise.
>
> I believe the natural rhythms and voices in a recording, aside from anthr=
opogenic, can promote consciousnesses in appreciation for natural ecosystem=
s better than a recording with anthropogenic sounds included. I also belie=
ve that a nature recording without anthropogenic noise has a higher value t=
o a nature sound consumer audience.
>
> John Hartog
> rockscallop.org
>
|