Каждый год полузаброшенная церковь в деревне Гагино под Сергиевым Посадом становится центром певческого фестиваля, посвященного событию более чем столетней давности.

История гласит, что под этими сводами повенчались русский бас Федор Шаляпин и итальянская балерина Иола Торнаги. Сегодня местные жители при поддержке энтузиастов, Межрегионального Шаляпинского центра и СМИ проводят кампанию по реставрации церкви, важной частью которой и оказывается этот ежегодный фестиваль.

Вот история двух друзей. Один, бывший военный, начинает свой рассказ на сергиевопосадском вокзале, а заканчивает уже в Гагино, где со сцены поет второй друг, один из организаторов фестиваля. Также мы услышим голоса гостей встречи, среди них – автор книг, журналист ИТАР-ТАСС Николай Горбунов, около 25 лет изучавший наследие Шаляпина в Скандинавии и других уголках планеты.

Записано 6 августа 2011 года (MS-TFB-2)
Опубликовано 9 августа 2011 года.

Posted by oontz.ru

6 Comments

  1. What an interesting piece. I really enjoyed it. Thanks Vladimir.

  2. Many thanks Des, it’s good to see the festival getting more popular each year. There were two singers from the Bolshoi theatre but apart from the short recording this piece features amateur singing this time.

  3. Another great piece — you are mixing the clips really well, sounds like a radio documentary in the waiting.

  4. I must admit I happen to get my inspiration from what you are doing with your recordings, though it may sound totally different. It is like setting new boundaries but it feels like it had to be done with great care. Does this mean we alter the reality by mixing sounds that are never to be found side by side in real life? I haven’t found the answer yet
    🙂

  5. That’s flattering — nice to know.
    I’m not sure if mixing a clip alters the reality, or if it merely enhances it. A mixed clip can provide an atmospheric/emotional content that guides the audience in a way that straight field recordings sometimes fail to do.
    In a way, the selection of a «straight field recording» is just as contrived and artificial as one that has been edited with further layers. The presentation of a straight field recording still involves a moment that has been defined by the recordist as the focal point for the target audience, and so still requires careful editing to omit sections that create distractions from that point of focus.
    I’d like to think that both approaches are equally as valid. Both attempt to present the reality of a time and place as we see/hear it.
    I look forward to listening to more of your work.

  6. You have both opened up a very interesting discussion about a subject that fascinates me. Editing is always a contentious area and one that is not easily resolved. By choosing to record what we record I suppose we are editing to some extent — choosing what we publish for our audience to listen to.

    As a journalist Vladimir, you must sometimes be frustrated by over enthusiastic sub-editors who delete or change your words to fit a defined space. But, that’s what newspapers do!

    My recordings are essentially ‘street sound’ recordings. They are not rehearsed or planned — they are what they are, events that I stumble across. I keep the editing to a minimum — top and tailing the pieces to a suitable length and sometimes removing sounds that distract from the sense of the piece. In that sense, I have changed the reality … but I try very hard not to change the heart of the piece. In other words, I never edit a piece to deliberately mislead the audience. On the other hand, I know some excellent sound artists who deliberately and very effectively process and edit their sounds to produce stunning sound art pieces that bear no relation to the reality.

    I think that it doesn’t really matter how we process or edit our sound pieces so long as we don’t deliberately deceive our audience. We should tell the audience explicitly what the sound piece is about and what we are trying to achieve with its publication.

Leave a reply

Ваш e-mail не будет опубликован.