Free Field Recordings: The Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem

[shamann]

Cool. Thanks, pw.

I'm a big fan of the Indian wedding band recording you posted a while back.

[lotus2035]

http://babelaudio.net/gse/

Random recordings from the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem, with ambient tourist noises and shuffling around the (huge) church, hymns in latin, and coptic christian chanting...
Maybe interesting for you guys who are manipulating audio in unholy ways
check the info tags in each file for more about the particular segments.
I am slowly starting to build Global Sonic Ecology for field recordings. If anyone wants to submit field recordings from anywhere of anything, contact me, and I can either host, or link to, your files.

Thanks.

..Sounds like an Enigma album in parts.. ..which is a good thing..

...great quality.. reminds me of how bored I used to get at mass before I stopped going that is..

[pw]

Cool. Thanks, pw.

I'm a big fan of the Indian wedding band recording you posted a while back.

hey shamann, thanks. I really like the Indian wedding band recording too. These Jerusalem ones have more interference from tourists etc, but I still thought them worth to share, especially the coptic christian chanting is interesting. I have plans to to a better series of field recordings from around jerusalem, too.

[Voidoid Surrealist]

Nice. I'll merge these with some of voidoid's cthulhu chantings and have my next Lovecraftian track.

[Kaneda]

Hi Mutant,

It is a really good question. I personally see field recording (a "discipline" with a history of its own separate from "stealth" recording and "bootlegging") as a practice like photography (still and video), and, like a photographer doesn't need permission to shoot in public, or then go on to display or even sell "her/his" work, likewise the field recordist.

Discuss?

OK and what if I simply stick my microphone out of my window ?
There is a children playground outside and sometimes I hear some very interesting sounds (for example little girls screaming at the top of their lungs - good for horror music hehehe).

If the microphone is in my own apartment then IMHO all these sounds should be 100% mine ?

yes, where exactly is the problem? I too have been meaning to record some kids in the playground...

Be carefull there - You can get arrested for doing things like that !!!

[pw]

Hi Mutant,

It is a really good question. I personally see field recording (a "discipline" with a history of its own separate from "stealth" recording and "bootlegging") as a practice like photography (still and video), and, like a photographer doesn't need permission to shoot in public, or then go on to display or even sell "her/his" work, likewise the field recordist.

Discuss?

OK and what if I simply stick my microphone out of my window ?
There is a children playground outside and sometimes I hear some very interesting sounds (for example little girls screaming at the top of their lungs - good for horror music hehehe).

If the microphone is in my own apartment then IMHO all these sounds should be 100% mine ?

yes, where exactly is the problem? I too have been meaning to record some kids in the playground...

Be carefull there - You can get arrested for doing things like that !!!

?? How can I get arrested by going to the playground with my kid, and my microtrack turned on?

[Kaneda]

no worries - It was just a joke. Great recordings BTW.

[pw]

no worries - It was just a joke. Great recordings BTW.

thanks mate, hope you get some use out of them.

And, I said it with my Indian wedding band post - I would love to hear any music or sound design people do with any of my field recordings.

[stereomax]

I personally see field recording (a "discipline" with a history of its own separate from "stealth" recording and "bootlegging") as a practice like photography (still and video), and, like a photographer doesn't need permission to shoot in public, or then go on to display or even sell "her/his" work, likewise the field recordist.

Discuss?

Ok, discuss!

1. I think the legal situation differs (at least slightly) from country to country.

2. The discussion of photography highlights possible problems: You don't need permission to shoot in public, but you can get into serious trouble if there are persons on the photo who are recognizable and you're publishing the photographs. (Isn't there a big discussion about the people on the Google photographs of some city in the US? I've forgotten which one it is.) I don't think that it matters if you shoot the photo out of your window or not: The rights of a person are not altered by your location. Analogous to this I can imagine problematic situations if someone is recognizable on your recording and you don't have the permission to record her/him ...

[pw]

I personally see field recording (a "discipline" with a history of its own separate from "stealth" recording and "bootlegging") as a practice like photography (still and video), and, like a photographer doesn't need permission to shoot in public, or then go on to display or even sell "her/his" work, likewise the field recordist.

Discuss?

Ok, discuss!

1. I think the legal situation differs (at least slightly) from country to country.

2. The discussion of photography highlights possible problems: You don't need permission to shoot in public, but you can get into serious trouble if there are persons on the photo who are recognizable and you're publishing the photographs. (Isn't there a big discussion about the people on the Google photographs of some city in the US? I've forgotten which one it is.) I don't think that it matters if you shoot the photo out of your window or not: The rights of a person are not altered by your location. Analogous to this I can imagine problematic situations if someone is recognizable on your recording and you don't have the permission to record her/him ...

1. Obviously it must, and anyway, legality is not so important to me, but certainly the ethics, and the "rights of the person" as you say, are highly important to me (and as a disclaimer, to the extent that law does in fact protect the "rights of the person", I am all for it).

2. Any type of 'representation' is problematic - to the point that I think it can only truly be assessed on a case by case basis. Photography is still a good parallel I think, and I don't really see any problem raised by what you said above. To make a recording "in the field", where an individual was recognizable as an individual and not part of the "environment" or "social act" being documented, then they would most likely be aware of being recorded.

As for getting into "serious trouble" for publishing photos of recognizable people, I'd have to see some practical evidence of that happening - not involving celebrities - and see the whole context of the case against the photography, to really comment on the implications for photography, field recording, or any type of act of documentation.

Thanks for responding, BTW.

[stereomax]

As for getting into "serious trouble" for publishing photos of recognizable people, I'd have to see some practical evidence of that happening - not involving celebrities - and see the whole context of the case against the photography, to really comment on the implications for photography, field recording, or any type of act of documentation.

One "real" example involving ordinary people: It was a photograph of two young persons (probably around 16 years old) dancing in a club. I don't know if they were aware of being photographed; perhaps not. The problem was that a newspaper used this photograph to illustrate a story about drug abuse by teenagers. The mother of one of the two teenagers won a lawsuit against the newspaper: The judge agreed that the newspaper implied drug abuse by the portrayed teens without being able to prove that they've really used illegal drugs. (The caption was something like "Teens in a club", not "Teens taking drugs", but this didn't matter.)

Now use your recordings of screaming kids on the playground in a song about torture: Of course the mother will sue you because you're implying that she's torturing her kids!

(No, I don't think that this is a frequent problem... )

[pw]

One "real" example involving ordinary people: It was a photograph of two young persons (probably around 16 years old) dancing in a club. I don't know if they were aware of being photographed; perhaps not. The problem was that a newspaper used this photograph to illustrate a story about drug abuse by teenagers. The mother of one of the two teenagers won a lawsuit against the newspaper: The judge agreed that the newspaper implied drug abuse by the portrayed teens without being able to prove that they've really used illegal drugs. (The caption was something like "Teens in a club", not "Teens taking drugs", but this didn't matter.)

Now use your recordings of screaming kids on the playground in a song about torture: Of course the mother will sue you because you're implying that she's torturing her kids!

(No, I don't think that this is a frequent problem... )

the issue here is the link to drug abuse, not the act of photography. the newspaper was sued, not the photographer. So, yes, I can theoretically imagine that someone could use a field recording I would create in such a context, and it *could* lead to a similar result (although practically, I think it would be impossible due to the differences between sound and image in popular culture), but even then, it would be them that was sued, for the way it was used to 'represent' something, not me.

[Vonbrucken]

thanks pw !!

[stereomax]

the issue here is the link to drug abuse, not the act of photography. the newspaper was sued, not the photographer. So, yes, I can theoretically imagine that someone could use a field recording I would create in such a context, and it *could* lead to a similar result (although practically, I think it would be impossible due to the differences between sound and image in popular culture), but even then, it would be them that was sued, for the way it was used to 'represent' something, not me.

Yes, that's true, but the initial question was about the usage of field recordings, not about the act of recording. In almost all imaginable cases where problems are arising it'll be after using field recordings, not while making it (as long as you're not breaking anyone's nose with your microphone ). But I think you're right - it's extremely unlikely that one will encounter such problems in the real world...

Btw, if you're interested I could contribute some field recordings made during my visit of the Venice Biennale in June (although they're only 16 bit/44 Khz mono). And thanks for sharing your recordings!

[pw]

the issue here is the link to drug abuse, not the act of photography. the newspaper was sued, not the photographer. So, yes, I can theoretically imagine that someone could use a field recording I would create in such a context, and it *could* lead to a similar result (although practically, I think it would be impossible due to the differences between sound and image in popular culture), but even then, it would be them that was sued, for the way it was used to 'represent' something, not me.

Yes, that's true, but the initial question was about the usage of field recordings, not about the act of recording. In almost all imaginable cases where problems are arising it'll be after using field recordings, not while making it (as long as you're not breaking anyone's nose with your microphone ). But I think you're right - it's extremely unlikely that one will encounter such problems in the real world...

Btw, if you're interested I could contribute some field recordings made during my visit of the Venice Biennale in June (although they're only 16 bit/44 Khz mono). And thanks for sharing your recordings!

I would love that, you can email mail me. thanks.