Interesting you talk of transformations.
A blackbird is singing
First I listen to it, try to hear the sounds
But, and without thought for re-presentation I transform it, it gets a cont=
ext as I'm listening. Sometimes this happens immediately. Sometimes, especi=
ally if its not something for which have a label to hand, I can hold on to =
the listening for a while before I transform it. I like that.
I then consider re-presenting it.
I could record it with high quality audio equipment - and this would transf=
orm it again, and indeed it would add not just to the original sound, but g=
ive it an additional context (eg I am using expensive equipment to transfor=
m this)
Or I could transform it in a multitude of other ways. I could describe it i=
n words, draw it, paint it - and each of these would add something extra of=
me and my context to it.
Which raises interesting questions over why one form of re-presentation mig=
ht be privileged over another.
I can then share these with other people - which adds yet another context t=
o the original sound - why am I sharing it? Am I claiming it is an artistic=
process? Or a scientific process? Or both? People who receive this then ge=
t a distant reference to the original sound, and a whole bundle more about =
me and the world in which I live.
Which, as its such a convoluted process, makes me think if I want to share =
it the best thing to do is simply take people to listen to the sound itself=
and have done with the re-presentation.
And listen for as long as possible with naming it
Does any of that make any sense? Not sure I have a point - just some though=
ts really
T :)
--- In "Jez" <> wrote:
>
> It is often hard on forums to fully grasp what is implied by what is writ=
ten & so, hoping i've not misunderstood the intent:
>
> when it comes to field recordings use in a creative context (sound art, i=
mprovisation, music etc etc), just as with any element there are always (su=
bjective) questions of quality or at least some kind of commitment to the c=
ontent - either focused or from a different artistic viewpoint. Everything =
is transformed when we get involved, to a lesser or greater extent. All of =
my comments on this subject have been related to the idea of an 'ideal' or =
a 'right' way to do things - which is, imo, can be a closing down of openne=
ss. As with all things there are good & not so good.
>
> Mix & edit wherever & however works for each person - but I stick to my p=
oint that attempting to build a neutral, acoustically tuned space might ass=
ist you in your process but it doesn't & can't guarantee that the end resul=
t will be 'better' or will communicate in some certain way to listeners. So=
und might be able to be explained by science but our response & connection =
to it isn't.
>
> --- In Bernie Krause <chirp@> wrote:
> >
> > 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 "so what?" 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, "Attempts 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." =
> > 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's
> > very nature the recording of sound is transformative (decontextualized =
> > or abstracted). So, it follows logically, aesthetically, emotionally, =
> > historically, philosophically, technically etc., etc., that there's 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'll
> > 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"
> > > <hartogj_1999@> 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
> > chirp@
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
|