yes - that is part of my point indeed.
sadly, there is a lot of 'sound art' that falls short of having been create=
d through listening in a meaningful way. This is a problem with all kinds o=
f roots, not least being that curators by & large have had no interest in c=
reative music / sound exploration in their own listening habits & therefore=
often program work that is of poor quality or simply repeats work done for=
many years by others. I could (but will refrain) name quite a few fairly w=
ell established 'sound artists' who, in private, admit they don't care much=
about sound & just view the art form as an easy way to get funding or exhi=
bition opportunities. The problem is that there are still not enough people=
involved at a certain level who can spot the players or know enough about =
the history of explorative sound to be able to recognise original approache=
s.
--- In "hartogj" <> wrote=
:
>
> Hi Jez,
> Your point of view is clearer to me now. When it comes to creative proce=
sses there are infinite possibilities. I would say any sound art requires =
careful listening - it is not sound art after all until someone takes care =
to listen to it. Regarding nature sound recording as sound art, there is n=
o reason to limit the form to any specific medium. I might consider wax cra=
yon on cardboard a nature sound recording where it is evocative of natural =
sound.
>
> John Hartog
> rockscallop.org
>
>
> --- In "Jez" <tempjez@> wrote:
> >
> > what about the opinions of 'experts' that differ from that ? For me thi=
s is the point - that it is the material that matters & like it or not the =
music / sound that we respond to is made, mixed & edited in all kinds of di=
fferent spaces - with or without headphones & with a wide range of speakers=
.
> >
> > I'm all for quality of course, but this is an individual choice. I have=
good speakers (a few different pairs in different rooms) & a pair of good =
headphones - the same pair I use in the field.
> >
> > As i've said before, I don't have any issues with anyone who chooses to=
build a studio space or an acoustically treated space - each to their own =
of course, but in 35 years of involvement & interest in field recording in =
its many different forms & on all levels, it has been proved to me over & o=
ver again that material can communicate even if its been mixed in less than=
what some folks would describe as 'ideal' circumstances. I think my concer=
ns when any aspects of a craft or art form gets herded towards some 'ideal'=
is that what happens is, whilst precision becomes more achievable to more =
people, things tend to edge towards a mainstream, middle of the road approa=
ch & less personal.
> >
> > Perhaps one of the difficulties with this conversation on this particul=
ar group is that a large number of members are mainly interested in the, te=
chnically, 'best' recording of a certain species or environment. For many p=
eople however, whilst getting good & powerfully eloquent recordings is a fo=
cus, what they are aiming for is an emotive or creative impression of the l=
ocation.
> >
> > We are talking about something that isn't set in stone here & I think f=
or me I find it both interesting & I confess a bit puzzling that anyone wou=
ld take pleasure in listening to bird song (for example) in the 'real' worl=
d & then take a recording of the same back to a studio setting & try to 'pe=
rfect' the sound of the recording. Its a personal view point of course but =
to me we already know that we can't capture a 'neutral' recording - they ar=
e always coloured by mic, recorder choice etc & therefore, if one lets go o=
f that to some degree, what becomes more interesting is capturing something=
of the experience of being in that location at that time.
> >
> > When it comes to editing (& I should declare here that it has been my a=
pproach for some time to do not processing - I top & tail & on rare occasio=
ns might eq out some hiss if the mic used has not performed as i'd have lik=
ed, but thats it) I do this on headphones simply because i'm listening for =
any 'problems' - ie. not natural or man made sounds in the location but mic=
pops or other such issues. I tend to live with recordings for some time be=
fore I do anything public with them & therefore I would guess that the way =
I 'listen' to them critically for the most part involves playing them back =
on the same system I listen to every day.
> >
> > so, back to the advice of experts bit & with the understanding that thi=
s is another can of worms, what's an expert ? & what happens when some say =
one thing & others say another ? I know were discussing fine hairs here but=
, for example, I sometimes get referred to as an expert in field recording =
& I always say i'm not because we are all engaged with listening to a worl=
d we don't control. We can gather knowledge of course but the moment we ass=
ume we know exactly what we're doing is the moment we've lost the most impo=
rtant point - to let go of our human need to dominate, control & make assum=
ptions of what is / will happen & instead engage more closely with the list=
ening & the simple act of being in a place for a period of time. Expert - u=
rghh. We're not plumbing in a sink here :)
> >
> > --- In "hartogj" <hartogj_1999@> wrot=
e:
> > >
> > > The definition of "mixing" was confusing from the beginning of this m=
uddy thread.
> > > Is mixing limited to only the combining of separate sounds or tracks,=
or is the meaning extended to include other post production processing tec=
hniques that may be applied to an original recording?
> > >
> > > For critical analysis and fine adjustments of any recording, I will g=
o along with the experts on this group who have in the past many times reco=
mmended good monitors and good headphones, and an acoustically treated spac=
e. Listening with two more different pairs of good headphones is better th=
an using only one pair. I liked Bernie's description of his studio made wi=
thout parallel walls or ceiling.
> > >
> > > John Hartog
> > > rockscallop.org
> > >
> >
>
|