makes sense totally & I think these questions are in the minds of a lot of =
folks who record & choose to make 'work' available in some way.
--- In "soundings23" <tony.whitehead2332@=
...> wrote:
>
> 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 co=
ntext as I'm listening. Sometimes this happens immediately. Sometimes, espe=
cially if its not something for which have a label to hand, I can hold on t=
o 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 tran=
sform it again, and indeed it would add not just to the original sound, but=
give it an additional context (eg I am using expensive equipment to transf=
orm this)
>
> Or I could transform it in a multitude of other ways. I could describe it=
in 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 m=
ight be privileged over another.
>
> I can then share these with other people - which adds yet another context=
to the original sound - why am I sharing it? Am I claiming it is an artist=
ic process? Or a scientific process? Or both? People who receive this then =
get a distant reference to the original sound, and a whole bundle more abou=
t me and the world in which I live.
>
> Which, as its such a convoluted process, makes me think if I want to shar=
e it the best thing to do is simply take people to listen to the sound itse=
lf 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 thou=
ghts really
>
> T :)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In "Jez" <tempjez@> wrote:
> >
> > It is often hard on forums to fully grasp what is implied by what is wr=
itten & so, hoping i've not misunderstood the intent:
> >
> > when it comes to field recordings use in a creative context (sound art,=
improvisation, music etc etc), just as with any element there are always (=
subjective) questions of quality or at least some kind of commitment to the=
content - either focused or from a different artistic viewpoint. Everythin=
g is transformed when we get involved, to a lesser or greater extent. All o=
f my comments on this subject have been related to the idea of an 'ideal' o=
r a 'right' way to do things - which is, imo, can be a closing down of open=
ness. As with all things there are good & not so good.
> >
> > Mix & edit wherever & however works for each person - but I stick to my=
point that attempting to build a neutral, acoustically tuned space might a=
ssist you in your process but it doesn't & can't guarantee that the end res=
ult will be 'better' or will communicate in some certain way to listeners. =
Sound might be able to be explained by science but our response & connectio=
n 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 tak=
e
> > > on the matter since it has been a kind of false debate since the outs=
et:
> > >
> > > 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 (decontextualize=
d
> > > or abstracted). So, it follows logically, aesthetically, emotionally,=
> > > historically, philosophically, technically etc., etc., that there's n=
o
> > > such animal as an unadulterated recorded sound. When he said that, fo=
r
> > > 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 de=
li.
> > >
> > > 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 bee=
n
> > > > 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 creativ=
e
> > > >> 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 an=
y
> > > >> 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 & lik=
e
> > > >>> 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 concern=
s
> > > >>> 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 puzzlin=
g
> > > >>> 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 locatio=
n
> > > >>> at that time.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> When it comes to editing (& I should declare here that it has bee=
n
> > > >>> my approach for some time to do not processing - I top & tail & o=
n
> > > >>> 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 headphone=
s
> > > >>> 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 wer=
e
> > > >>> 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 o=
f
> > > >>> 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 pas=
t
> > > >>>> 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
|