Is it worth adding a secondary release group type of “field recording” for e.g. Environments 1: Psychologically Ultimate Seashore and Los Angeles: November 2019? They’re something quite distinct from music and speech, made by recording natural sounds, or in this instance, recording, layering, and manipulating sounds. It doesn’t feel right to me adding them in as a genre because they’re pretty fundamentally not music, even when they’re being produced like modern music.
I would agree with making this a release group type, yes. The difference between “regular music” and “live music” warrants one, and the difference between “regular music” and “field/nature recordings” is bigger IMO.
I’m not opposed to this, but the distinction should be more explicit, to prevent things like musique concrète composers like Luc Ferrari or sound artists like Steve Roden and Francisco López having this type. It should only be used for releases like the Irv Teibel ones or releases where the presentation is simply just that of a field recording (really disagree with the Vangelis example given in the opening post for example, this is music that has field recordings).
It’s also not clear if this includes ethnographic field recordings or not. Suggested replacements depending on the intended scope:
"A release mostly consisting of unedited field recordings (such as nature sounds or city/industrial noise or ethnographic field recordings). Do not use this release type for field recordings that have been significantly processed or edited with intention of using the field recordings to make a new artistic work. Do also not use if the release is presented as a release of an artistic work (as an example, having “composed by” credits) in itself, rather than a simple release of field recordings. Do not use for releases that overdub music over an field recording.
If unsure, do not use this release type."
"A release mostly consisting of unedited field recordings (such as nature sounds or city/industrial noise). Do not use this release type for ethnographic field recordings. Do not use this release type for field recordings that have been significantly processed or edited with intention of using the field recordings to make a new artistic work. Do also not use if the release is presented as a release of an artistic work (as an example, having “composed by” credits) in itself, rather than a simple release of field recordings. Do not use for releases that overdub music over an field recording.
“Do not use this release type for field recordings that have been significantly processed or edited with intention of using the field recordings to make a new artistic work”
I’m not sure I agree with this - an “artistic” release made entirely of nature sounds for example still sounds like it should be “field recording” to me.
It can still be a field recording in the genre sense, but not as a release type, as it’s clearly intended to be in the main part of the discography.
This should only be used for releases marketed as pure field recordings, any other use would mean that a lot of contemporary classical composers like Luc Ferrari and Michael Pisaro‐Liu would have the field recording release type on a lot of their releases. Is a release of their works using field recordings (sometimes with heavy editing) the same release type as a “relaxation music” CD with just a stock photo and no prominent credited artist on it?
Hmm. We still set releases recorded live as live even if they’re not promoted as a “live album” - for example for classical music. But I see the general point I think most uses of this will be anyway for literal field recording albums like “sounds of birds of region X” or “a morning in the coast of Y”, I’m just not sure about something like “unedited” because I’d expect almost all field recordings are edited (to cut them, choose what to publish, etc). My “mostly consisting of field recordings” thing was meant to be “use this if you’d say this is a release of field recordings, not a release that uses field recordings” but it might not be clear enough.
I think ““pure” field recordings” might be better wording, including the quotation marks.
Do you have any thought about this being used for ethnographic field recordings, for example the works of Alan Lomax? I wouldn’t use it for it since the only examples given are for environmental recordings, but it needs to be clarified.
