A pleasure, I'm glad it made some sort of sense. And yes, you put it well .=
.. simple listening is one of my greatest joys too.
--- In "John Crockett" <> wrote:
>
> That listening before the mind starts to interpret is one of the greatest=
joys I have known. It has changed me. That ability to listen is what I mos=
t wish to share. Which throws into question the value of the recordings. I =
do enjoy my recordings of places I have been that have unique soundscapes a=
nd are not places I can often visit. And I do enjoy hearing fine recordings=
of places I have never been. But that is highly personal. And it is not th=
e same as listening to a living soundscape. Nothing can duplicate that.
>
> You have given me much to consider. Thank you.
>
> John
>
> --- In "soundings23" <tony.whitehead233=
2@> 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 =
context as I'm listening. Sometimes this happens immediately. Sometimes, es=
pecially 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 tr=
ansform it again, and indeed it would add not just to the original sound, b=
ut give it an additional context (eg I am using expensive equipment to tran=
sform 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 extr=
a of me and my context to it.
> >
> > Which raises interesting questions over why one form of re-presentation=
might be privileged over another.
> >
> > I can then share these with other people - which adds yet another conte=
xt to the original sound - why am I sharing it? Am I claiming it is an arti=
stic process? Or a scientific process? Or both? People who receive this the=
n get a distant reference to the original sound, and a whole bundle more ab=
out me and the world in which I live.
> >
> > Which, as its such a convoluted process, makes me think if I want to sh=
are it the best thing to do is simply take people to listen to the sound it=
self 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 th=
oughts really
> >
> > T :)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In "Jez" <tempjez@> wrote:
> > >
> > > It is often hard on forums to fully grasp what is implied by what is =
written & so, hoping i've not misunderstood the intent:
> > >
> > > when it comes to field recordings use in a creative context (sound ar=
t, improvisation, music etc etc), just as with any element there are always=
(subjective) questions of quality or at least some kind of commitment to t=
he content - either focused or from a different artistic viewpoint. Everyth=
ing 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 op=
enness. 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=
assist you in your process but it doesn't & can't guarantee that the end r=
esult will be 'better' or will communicate in some certain way to listeners=
. Sound might be able to be explained by science but our response & connect=
ion to it isn't.
> > >
> > > --- In Bernie Krause <chirp@> wrote=
:
> > > >
> > > > Not sure if the late John Cage carries any weight in this forum. B=
ut,
> > > > for what it's worth (I think it's been posted before), here's his t=
ake
> > > > on the matter since it has been a kind of false debate since the ou=
tset:
> > > >
> > > > In a "so what?" moment, John Cage best addressed the question of =
> > > > editing natural soundscape recordings at a sound arts conference he=
ld
> > > > 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 transformatio=
n."
> > > > 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 (decontextuali=
zed
> > > > or abstracted). So, it follows logically, aesthetically, emotionall=
y,
> > > > 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 becam=
e
> > > > clear and all those straw men and red herrings suddenly went extinc=
t.
> > > > Show me a "pure" recording by that definition, and in addition to t=
he
> > > > 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 b=
een
> > > > > 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 the=
ir
> > > > > own listening habits & therefore often program work that is of po=
or
> > > > > 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 player=
s
> > > > > 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 creat=
ive
> > > > >> processes there are infinite possibilities. I would say any sou=
nd
> > > > >> art requires careful listening - it is not sound art after all =
> > > > >> until someone takes care to listen to it. Regarding nature soun=
d
> > > > >> recording as sound art, there is no reason to limit the form to =
any
> > > > >> specific medium. I might consider wax crayon on cardboard a natu=
re
> > > > >> 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 ? Fo=
r
> > > > >>> me this is the point - that it is the material that matters & l=
ike
> > > > >>> 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 spac=
e -
> > > > >>> each to their own of course, but in 35 years of involvement & =
> > > > >>> interest in field recording in its many different forms & on al=
l
> > > > >>> levels, it has been proved to me over & over again that materia=
l
> > > > >>> can communicate even if its been mixed in less than what some =
> > > > >>> folks would describe as 'ideal' circumstances. I think my conce=
rns
> > > > >>> when any aspects of a craft or art form gets herded towards som=
e
> > > > >>> '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 puzzl=
ing
> > > > >>> that anyone would take pleasure in listening to bird song (for =
> > > > >>> example) in the 'real' world & then take a recording of the sam=
e
> > > > >>> 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 interesti=
ng
> > > > >>> is capturing something of the experience of being in that locat=
ion
> > > > >>> at that time.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> When it comes to editing (& I should declare here that it has b=
een
> > > > >>> 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 headpho=
nes
> > > > >>> simply because i'm listening for any 'problems' - ie. not natur=
al
> > > > >>> 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 d=
o
> > > > >>> anything public with them & therefore I would guess that the wa=
y 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 w=
ere
> > > > >>> 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 do=
n'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 los=
t
> > > > >>> 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 no=
t
> > > > >>> plumbing in a sink here :)
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> --- In "hartogj" <hartogj_199=
9@>
> > > > >>> 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 p=
ast
> > > > >>>> 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
|