14


Under Review – Field Recording Works in the Spotlight.
essay by Simon Whetham 

I think it’s only happened this year, but I have noticed some odd comments regarding work that features field recordings… it began with some not-too-favourable reviews of compositional work (rather than raw field recordings) in a certain weekly publication. The basic feeling I got from the reviews I read were that using field recordings as compositional raw material made the pieces uninteresting, unimaginative, dull… and the main complaint – nothing new.

I then was told, when preparing to perform in Prague, Czech Republic, that field recording was ‘trendy’ at the moment, especially in the UK. This implies that at the moment it’s a ‘cool’ thing to be doing. Popular. That a lot of people are field recording. This to my mind also implies that it will then become less popular.

A final straw was reading Nick Cain’s reviews of a couple of Gruenrekorder releases a couple of months ago, where he firstly said something very similar, as if field recording is suddenly very popular, and as the recordings didn’t move him, decided ‘Chris Watson could have done it better’. This seems to me to be pretty lazy journalism. For me, Mr. Watson’s work has never been about capturing the sound or feeling of a place, more about the specific sounds of a location, and there is a big difference. This is a subject for further discussion however.

Back to my point, on reading through this month’s issue of The Wire magazine, once again Nick Cain, in reviewing two new Gruenrekorder releases, mentions the ‘recent upsurge in the use of field recordings…’ (although I do have to add, this time around the review is more favourable). So once again, lots of people out field recording. Very popular. Very ‘cool’.

I have been focused on working with field recordings myself since late 2005, although I had been playing around with them in various ways before that, hence my interest. I had read the term on the website Epitonic.com, and downloaded a couple of sample tracks from artists such as Alp, but it wasn’t until I visited the 12 Tonar record store in Reykjavik that I realised there were quite a few artists out there using field recordings in composition.

Two CD’s I picked up were Chris Watson’s ‘Weather Report’ from 2003, and Ben Frost’s ‘Steel Wound’ that features field recordings by Lawrence English (also from 2003). From then on I researched the various artists using field recordings specifically in their work, and discovered people such as Francisco Lopez, Eric La Casa, Marc Behrens, the Gruenrekorder label (active since 2004 as far as I can tell), Patrick McGinley’s Framework radio show, and even a previous musical hero of mine, Robert Hampson, had moved from abstracting guitar to field recordings under the moniker of Main. Of course, there are many more, but these were my initial discoveries.

Through my own involvement of working with this material, I have continually discovered further artists and musicians who enjoy field recording and use recordings in their work, and labels – mainly smaller cdr labels and netlabels – who also specialise in this kind of work…

I was hoping to find answers or some resolution whilst writing this piece, but I continually come back to the same question. Is it that field recordings and their use in composition has grown in popularity over recent years (how far back do these reviewers refer?? 2003? That’s not recent by my definition!) or is it that the people who have been working with field recordings are only now getting the exposure they deserve?

On one hand you have people saying there is nothing new to be heard in compositions using field recordings, that it has reached a dead end to them, people who have been exposed to works such as these for over ten years, and then you have people who suddenly notice, ‘Hey, here’s another release with someone using field recordings. It must have become popular!’. And it seems to be a negative criticism…

A strange situation – are the same criticisms leveled at those working with drone music? Ambient? Improvisation? Noise even? I haven’t noticed it so much. You never see a review begin with the words ‘…uses guitar, and there seems to be an upsurge of artists using this instrument’!

So, working with field recordings is simultaneously a very popular thing to be doing right now, but has reached a dead end and no-one is producing anything new. Yet you hear any works that Gruenrekorder or Impulsive Habitat (to name but two) publish and no two works are the same!

I have brought up a number of issues while writing that could all be expanded on, and even my main point could be discussed further, which is now my aim. I hope this does spark further thought and examination, and look forward to other people’s responses.

I for one enjoy sharing recordings and thoughts with like-minded people, and hearing new work by artists known and unknown. However, my main drive is that I continually enjoy going out and recording. I don’t do it to be part of a (apparently popular!) movement – I do it because it makes me happy, and satisfies some need in me. I am still excited when I hear and hopefully capture an interesting sound or sonic phenomenon (it doesn’t have to be new!) and can’t ever see that diminishing.

-Simon Whetham

Simon Whetham website
Nick Cain links to Wire articles
Chris Watson website
Gruenrekorder website
Wire website
Lawrence English website
Fransisco Lopez website
Eric La Casa website
Marc Behrens website
Framework radio website
Robert Hampson website
Impulsive Habitat website

(article photo by Grindcore Gourmet)

Posted

in

by

fieldreporter

Tags:

Comments

  1. Adrian Dziewanski Avatar
    Adrian Dziewanski

    Thanks for this Simon, it was very interesting to read. On your question of “are the same criticisms leveled at drone music? ambient etc…” I must state that they quite obviously are. There is a huge resurgence in experimental work harkening to the kosmische days right now, in so far as it wouldn’t be uncommon for a reviewer to say something like “…uses a synthesizer, and there seems to be an upsurge of people using this instrument,” and they would be correct in saying that.

    Synths are cool, and as much as I’d almost like to see field recording get that kind of recognition, the truth is it really isn’t there, at least not yet. Those net labels, artists and publications you speak of (aside from The Wire of course) are still very esoteric and appeal to a small portion of the demographic that I think you’re referring to (though I agree that field recording is garnering more appeal almost daily).

    Also, I think it’s important to mention the diversity of field recording use in composition. You mentioned Chris Watson — whose name usually appears first in those beginning to seek out this stuff. He’s part of a school of what you might think of as the purists of the genre (Toshiya Tsunoda also comes to mind right away), who present their location recordings usually with very little post-production processing/editing. On the other hand there are those artists like John Grzinich, Francisco Lopez and yourself I’d say, who tend to use recordings as compositional elements, piecing things together to achieve dynamics and a desired overall structure/complexity. Furthermore, from an acoustic ecology standpoint, field recordings act as archival tools and are intrinsic for things like sound mapping and for providing sonic history to place.

    What it boils down to is that criticism should be welcomed, and like any other genre there are the good albums, the alright ones, and the just plain bad. Field Recording is very diverse, and of all the things that may or may not be trendy, field recordist at least have an infinite realm in which to gather their source material in an attempt to break beyond the predictability of cool.

    Reply
  2. David Velez Avatar
    David Velez

    It’s not about “criticism” depicted in such a general and broad way it’s more complex than that: it’s about the considerations taken into that criticism. The compositional work with field recordings is a line of work that addresses its own question and deals with its own problems and this is why it requires specialized reviewing and criticism. Is not about a superficial perspective from an outside mainstream-like view its about an inner-view that helps the line of work to continue establishing deeper levels of specificity.

    Reply
  3. Pierre-Olivier Boulant Avatar
    Pierre-Olivier Boulant

    Hello.
    I might be slightly off topic, but I’d just like to say that this blog, not just this article, is a very interesting read. I’ve been recording for free improv. I’ve always wanted to be sort of self-sufficient too. But I’ve always had difficulties using recorded material to compose. I think, where I get stuck is when I sit at the computer and try to “make” something out of sounds. Throughout the articles of the different releases and different writers I get some points of view and ideas. It’s really very stimulating.

    As for the ‘trendiness’ of field-recordings and the lack of discernment in reviews. Would it be that reveiwers are not aware all the different aspects and refinements of field-recording and its uses because they are not involved themselves?

    Thank you for this blog! 🙂

    Reply
  4. john grzinich Avatar
    john grzinich

    good points Simon, leave it to poor journalism to turn a ‘method’ into a ‘genre’ and drain the life out if it all at the same time.

    Reply
  5. Adrian Dziewanski Avatar
    Adrian Dziewanski

    Not sure if that last comment is directed at what I said but for the record I do regret using the term ‘genre’ so loosely there. I was trying to get at the point that yes, field recording is diverse and can’t be summed up by some half-witted critique, though I can’t see any good in taking an elitist stance and saying field-recording albums are somehow outside of criticism. If that were the case then they should all remain as private works and not sent out into the world. I’m out in the field myself often and have much respect for the method. I didn’t mean to demean its merits.

    Reply
    1. john grzinich Avatar
      john grzinich

      no, it wasn’t directed at you said Adrian… I more or less agree with you and wanted to emphasize that “field recording” is a non-studio method or technique for recording and not a genre of music as some people now seem to believe.

      Reply
  6. Chris Whitehead Avatar
    Chris Whitehead

    There are arguably problems with giving field recording based material to music critics to review. I think they have a problem with the fact that there is no ‘player’.

    In composed music, even improvised music (which is after all still composed, its just that its composed as it is being played) thought comes first and then the instrument is used to give life to that thought. ‘Musicians’ think of a tune, then play the tune.

    During composition with field recordings we go out into the world not knowing what we’ll capture. Then we build our composition. We don’t produce the sounds, we collect them, and the compositional thought comes after we’ve collected them.

    Musician = Compose – Play – Record

    Field Recordings = Record – Compose – Record

    Rumour has it that when Chris Watson joined the musicians union there was a requirement for him to say what instrument he played. In the end he put ‘microphone’.

    Just a few thoughts there.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *