Hi Peter,
> But isn't that just bad editing?
Bad editing makes the recording bad. If we are talking about how can someon=
e make a recording like other recordings they like - part of that is usuall=
y editing technique.
>The section that's being looped is probably of good quality, or they would=
n't have used it.
I can't remember whether it was of good quality or not. But just because it=
was professionally produced and marketed, does not mean it was of good qua=
lity. There are a lot of really crappy nature recordings out there on the m=
arket - same as with music.
> I wonder how many people have ever realised it's being repeated. Did you =
spot it just by listening, or by looking at the waveform?
At the time I had a bedside CD player and I had made a point to take hour l=
ong resting/listening sessions fairly frequently. During that phase I revie=
wed all of the nature recordings I could find at my local library - maybe a=
dozen or twenty CDs.
One of them featured about an hour featuring periodic Wolf calls. It might =
have been the second time I listened through it when at about half way I th=
ought, "Hey that is not just the same wolf pack calling - but those are the=
exact same calls - what the @*##!???" And of course that kind of ruined my=
relaxation session.
There was another CD, of crickets and water, that was a little less immedia=
tely blatantly, but still after a few listens, repeating cues began jumping=
out - specific sequences of spashes and gurgles - or highlighted moments i=
n cricket conversation.
Anyway, I got the impression then that layering and looped sounds is pretty=
common for nature CDs. That's when I began really appreciating those recor=
dists who specialize in non-repeating non-layered natural soundscape record=
ings. And that's when I became interested in producing my own real-time, li=
ve albums.
Thanks for asking.
John Hartog
rockscallop.org
>
> Peter Shute
>
> ________________________________
> From: =
On Behalf Of rock_scallop
> Sent: Tuesday, 6 November 2012 5:44 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] What is a good nature sound recording?
>
>
>
> While defining a "good" nature sound recording is difficult for me becaus=
e so much of that is widely variable and subjectively personal, there are t=
hings that do make for a "bad" nature recording. The worst for me are longe=
r (hour or so) recordings marketed mainly for relaxation that sound fine on=
initial casual review, but eventually on subsequent deeper review become o=
bviously composed of repeated short tracks looped together.
>
> What makes that bad is not inherently the repeating of material - as I ha=
ve had clients request for that specifically. But what makes it bad is the =
deception in marketing where the customer is led to think they are getting =
an hour of material when in actuality it is merely only ten minutes - just =
repeated.
>
> What makes a good recording? - an honest recording.
>
> 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
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|