Gordon and Mark,
Gordon your point is essencial: the categorization is about the recordi=
ng not the recordist and is useful for all of us, it's easy to be lost in t=
he labirint, and to the newest of us is even more useful they must be guide=
d in the labirint.I think the four categories you have proposed are a good =
start.
Mark your remarks on disarmony, the third ear and subtlies of the sound=
is one aesthetic program, wich I think we all can agree one way or another=
, and I think we must have one aesthetic program wich we need as we need ca=
tegorization, think about inprovisation in music they have one aesthtic pro=
gram or they can have one aesthetic program so we can have too one wich mus=
t be ecletic, open,...
Here, I must apologise about my english.
Regards,
Jos=E9
--- In "Gordon Hempton" <> wrot=
e:
>
> Jos=E9, I agree. The categories describe the recording itself and not th=
e
> recordist. And the terminology adopted from photographers is not meant t=
o
> limit a photographic expression but rather to make it obvious what a pers=
on
> is looking at, particularly during photo contests. The alteration of a
> photograph is easy and so it becomes especially important to the audience=
to
> know if the image is from an actual place and did that frog on that leaf,
> for example, really live there or was it placed there by the photographer=
.
> Still, the caption terminology describes the photo and not the photograph=
er.
> I hope that the group can do the same as it applies to our individual
> recordings and not as it applies to us as individual nature sound
> recordists. =96Gordon
>
>
>
>
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
> (Email Guard: 9.0.0.888, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.19050)
> http://www.pctools.com/
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
>
>
|