Not sure if the late John Cage carries any weight in this forum. But,
for what it's worth (I think it's been posted before), here's his take
on the matter since it has been a kind of false debate since the outset:
In a =93so what?=94 moment, John Cage best addressed the question of
editing natural soundscape recordings at a sound arts conference held
at Skywalker Ranch (Lucasfilm) in Marin County in 1989. After being
asked a direct question on the matter, he responded, =93Attempts to
replicate or capture aspects of the natural world without amendment
speak clearly to a vision of paralysis and death=85The recording of
sound [taking it out of one context and transferring it to another
medium] simply cannot be done without some element of transformation.=94 =
He went on to say, kind of irritated by the gullibility of the
question that while a clip may be spectacular, good, dramatic,
delightful, or compelling, by the criteria of multiple capture
choices, alone, not one single recording he had ever heard from any
source was or is an actual representation of the original. By it=92s
very nature the recording of sound is transformative (decontextualized
or abstracted). So, it follows logically, aesthetically, emotionally,
historically, philosophically, technically etc., etc., that there=92s no =
such animal as an unadulterated recorded sound. When he said that, for
most of those within earshot, it was as if everything finally became
clear and all those straw men and red herrings suddenly went extinct.
Show me a "pure" recording by that definition, and in addition to the
live baby wooly mammoth I'll send to you via Federal Express, I=92ll
introduce you to the Virgin Mary as she materializes in full 3-D
splendor from the image of a cheddar cheese sandwich in our nearby deli.
Bernie Krause
On May 28, 2012, at 1:48 PM, Jez wrote:
> yes - that is part of my point indeed.
>
> sadly, there is a lot of 'sound art' that falls short of having been
> created through listening in a meaningful way. This is a problem
> with all kinds of roots, not least being that curators by & large
> have had no interest in creative 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 well 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
> exhibition 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 approaches.
>
> --- In "hartogj"
> <> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jez,
>> Your point of view is clearer to me now. When it comes to creative
>> processes 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 no reason to limit the form to any
>> specific medium. I might consider wax crayon 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 this 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 different 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 & over again that material
>>> can communicate even if its been mixed in less than what some
>>> folks would describe as 'ideal' circumstances. I think my concerns
>>> 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 approach & less personal.
>>>
>>> Perhaps one of the difficulties with this conversation on this
>>> particular group is that a large number of members are mainly
>>> interested in the, technically, 'best' recording of a certain
>>> species or environment. For many people however, whilst getting
>>> good & powerfully eloquent recordings is a focus, what they are
>>> aiming for is an emotive or creative impression of the location.
>>>
>>> We are talking about something that isn't set in stone here & I
>>> think for me I find it both interesting & I confess a bit puzzling
>>> that anyone would take pleasure in listening to bird song (for
>>> example) in the 'real' world & then take a recording of the same
>>> back to a studio setting & try to 'perfect' 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
>>> are always coloured by mic, recorder choice etc & therefore, if
>>> one lets go of 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 approach for some time to do not processing - I top & tail & on
>>> rare occasions might eq out some hiss if the mic used has not
>>> performed as i'd have liked, 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 before 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 this 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 world we don't
>>> control. We can gather knowledge of course but the moment we
>>> assume we know exactly what we're doing is the moment we've lost
>>> the most important point - to let go of our human need to
>>> dominate, control & make assumptions of what is / will happen &
>>> instead engage more closely with the listening & the simple act of
>>> being in a place for a period of time. Expert - urghh. We're not
>>> plumbing in a sink here :)
>>>
>>> --- In "hartogj" <hartogj_1999@>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The definition of "mixing" was confusing from the beginning of
>>>> this muddy thread.
>>>> Is mixing limited to only the combining of separate sounds or
>>>> tracks, or is the meaning extended to include other post
>>>> production processing techniques that may be applied to an
>>>> original recording?
>>>>
>>>> For critical analysis and fine adjustments of any recording, I
>>>> will go along with the experts on this group who have in the past
>>>> many times recommended good monitors and good headphones, and an
>>>> acoustically treated space. Listening with two more different
>>>> pairs of good headphones is better than using only one pair. I
>>>> liked Bernie's description of his studio made without parallel
>>>> walls or ceiling.
>>>>
>>>> John Hartog
>>>> rockscallop.org
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> "While a picture is worth a thousand words, a
> sound is worth a thousand pictures." R. Murray Schafer via Bernie
> Krause.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
Wild Sanctuary
POB 536
Glen Ellen, CA 95442
707-996-6677
http://www.wildsanctuary.com
Google Earth zooms: http://earth.wildsanctuary.com
SKYPE: biophony
FaceBook:
http://www.facebook.com/TheGreatAnimalOrchestra
http://www.facebook.com/BernieKrauseAuthor
Twitter:
http://www.twitter.com/berniekrause
YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/BernieKrauseTV
|