I concur that this is a very interesting discussion.
One thing, however...not to be provocative, but I can=B9t help but feeling =
-
coming from more of a phonographic/field-recording rather than a =8Cnature=
=B9
recording perspective - that some of this boils down to people being
unprepared or unwilling to accept reality. I understand the desire to
capture a =8Cpure=B9 sound, however it seems that if one is recording for
documentary purposes one has to take things as they are.
My impression is that the clinically cleansed sound one has become
accustomed to from film/TV etc. has trained us to filter out the noise in
our everyday listening. It=B9s something that I consistently hear when
teaching field-recording workshops =AD students are always surprised at how
much =8Cnoise=B9 they end up with in their recordings. The fact that man-ma=
de
sounds appear to infiltrate when recording in even the most remote location=
s
is, to my mind, a fascinating, important and very revealing thing. Though
occasionally it can cause frustration, there is often a beauty to these
sounds (the harmonic hum of a factory from across a lake, etc.). I=B9ve
recently worked on two field-recording projects =AD one in northern Ontario=
,
the other in Amazonia =AD in which I was somewhat shocked at the quantity a=
nd
level of =8Coutside=B9 noise. In the former case, these sonic intrusions en=
ded
up becoming one of the main themes of the project.
Perhaps hearing the reality of how things sound is important from an
acoustic ecology point of view, particularly if one hopes to increase
awareness of the situation and eventually do something about it. One could
even argue that, from an ethical standpoint, that it=B9s the correct thing =
to
do.
Anyway...I=B9m being a bit of a devil=B9s advocate here, as personally, I f=
eel
that recordings are to be treated as sonic matter and manipulated as one
sees fit. If one is purportedly representing =8Creality=B9, however, perhap=
s one
has a responsibility to show things as they are.
btw: on a related note - I also find it interesting that many comments seem
to imply a separation of man from from nature, or, in other cases,
distinguish between =8Cgood=B9 man-made sounds (cowbells, non-mechanized
agriculture) and =8Cbad=B9 (airplanes, etc.).
On 12-01-13 11:33 AM, "Marc Myers" <> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Fifteen years ago when digital photo processing was just becoming known, =
I
> participated in a book on the world's primates. We worked out a scheme wi=
th
> four categories:
> Natural habitat - same as wild,
> No caption - unknown circumstances or captive,
> Digital composite - primate in the photograph was unchanged but the
> surroundings were changed (usually to get rid of zoo bars), and
> Digital Illustration - primate in the photo was changed, typically by
> photoshoping a closely related species, in order to have the best possibl=
e
> illustration as some animals had been described but never photographed.
>
> But I like the three simpler categories of NANPA better, how about:
> Wild - much like the photographers, not modified in any way for the durat=
ion
> of the clip
> Digitally Processed - would include any post processing including
> equalization, noise reduction, compression, etc.
> Edited - Material has been added (ex: bird calls over ambient sound) or
> deleted (ex: car horns) for the duration of the recording.
>
|