1

La Selva Sound environments from a Neotropical rain forest francisco lópez

La Selva is an immersion into the sound environments of a tropical rain forest in the lowlands of . An astonishing natural sonic web created by a multitude of sounds from rain, waterfalls, , frogs, , mammals and even plants, through a day cycle during the rainy season. A powerful acousmatic broad-band sound environment of thrilling complexity. And above all, tour de force of profound listening.

Much against a widespread current trend in sound art and the customary standard in nature recordings, I believe in the possibility of a profound, pure, ‘blind’ listening of sounds, freed (as much as possible) of procedural, contextual or intentional levels of reference. What is more important, I conceive this as an ideal form of transcendental listening that doesn’t denies all what is outside the sounds but explores and affirms all what is inside them. This purist, absolute conception is an attempt at fighting against the dissipation of this inner world. The different levels of accessibility of information about this work are intentional. And the challenge is how to deal with them. You might want to know about the background philosophy behind this work; this is contained in part I. You might also want to know about its specific spatial-temporal ‘reality’; this is contained in part II. I didn’t want to omit these referential levels, because they irremediably exist and I have indeed dealt with them, but I also wanted to emphatically give you the opportunity to skip them, to have them in your hands and forcefully deciding not to access them. My recommendation is -having the knowledge of their existence- to keep them closed. This is not a game or a trick; it is a confrontation with the relational frameworks that blur our experience of the essential.

Your decision to access this conceptual level of information will probably change your understanding of La Selva. Regardless of whether or not this change is positive, it represents a conditioning of your own possibilities. Even in the case you feel you have gained something important with regards to the comprehension of this work, there will also be something important that has been irremediably lost: the crudeness of the possibilities of the work itself.

Nature sound environments vs. Bioacoustics

At a first level of approach to La Selva I’d like to emphasize its departure from traditional bioacoustics, which is a common reductive interpretation of nature recordings. This discipline focuses on capturing the sounds produced by different , mainly for identification purposes (see ref. 1 for a short review with examples of the analytical perspective in bioacoustics). Many animal species appear in the recordings of La Selva and they have even been identified (part II), but none of them has been the focus of the processes of recording and editing. It is precisely the way of proceeding through these processes what makes the essential difference: traditional bioacoustics -justified by its own scientifc goal- tend to isolate the calls, songs or whatever other sounds of a certain species from the ‘background’ sound of its environment. Both the recording and the editing processes are directed towards this isolation and even further enhancement of the contrast between the foreground species and its background.

In La Selva there is not such an intentional discrimination; the sound-producing animal species appear together with other accompanying biotic and non-biotic components of the sound environment that happened to be there when the recordings were done. In this sense, there is no purposeful a priori distinction of foreground / background, but only their unavoidable arisal due to the location of the microphones, as it happens with our ears. I’m not claiming objectivism (see below) but rather that the ‘focus’ of my attention 2 was the sound environment as a whole. This is one of the reasons for the absence of indexes on the CD, to discourage a focal listening centered on particular appearances of species or other sonic events.

In addition -but also in close connection with the foreground / background issue- I find particularly limiting the habitual focus on as the main elements of the sound environment. Not only non-biotic sound sources are clearly prominent in many nature environments (rainfall, rivers, storms, wind...; see ref. 2), but there is also a type of sound-producing biotic component, present in almost every environment, that is usually overlooked: plants. They are also living organisms and in most cases -especially in the case of forests- what we call the sound of rain or wind we could better call the sound of plant leaves and branches. If our perspective of nature sounds were more focused on the environment as a whole, instead of on behavioural manifestations of the organisms we foresee as most similar to us, we could also deal with plant bioacoustics. Furthermore, a sound environment is not only the consequence of all its sound-producing components, but also of all its sound-transmitting and sound-modifying elements. The birdsong we hear in the forest is as much a consequence of the as of the trees or the forest floor. If we are really listening, the topography, the degree of humidity of the air or the type of materials in the topsoil are as essential and definitory as the sound-producing animals that inhabit a certain space.

The widening of the attention scope from individual species to the whole environment has recently led B. Krause to the proposal of a ‘niche hypothesis’ (3,4,5) in which different aural niches are basically defined in terms of frequency bands of the sound spectrum that are occupied by different species. To me, the interest of this approach -which was already implicit in many bioacoustical studies dealing with slight differentiations of vocalizations by close species- lies upon the explicit intention of expanding classical bioacoustics from an auto-ecological (single-species) to a more systemic perspective, considering assemblages of sound-producing animal species at an ecosystem level. This hypothesis, however, still pertains in a strong way to the field of bioacoustics, in the sense that it features a sound analytical approach and also -and more importantly- because it focuses on the differentiation of the biotic sources of sounds.

My approach to nature sound environments is devoid of such analytical or explanative goals, trying to forcefully move away from a rationalization and categorization of these aural entities. The reason why I pursue this environmental perspective is not because it’s more ‘complete’ or more ‘realistic’, but rather because it promotes a perceptional shifting from recognition and differentiation of sound sources to the appreciation of the resulting sound matter. This is not a scorn of the biotic or non-biotic elements that are typically considered as components of the environment but an appraisal of other -sonic- components that are not reductible to the former. As soon as the call is in the air, it doesn’t belong to the frog that produced it anymore.

The illusion of realism or the fallacy of the ‘real’

The recordings of La Selva have not been modified or subjected to any process of further mixing or additions. In a traditional context, it could therefore be said that this work features ‘pure’ straight nature sound environments, as it is often claimed in many nature recordings releases. Yet I believe this to be too simplistic and also to obscure a series of problems on the sense of reality and its portrayal through sound recordings.

A common procedure in some nature recordings that try to convey an easy sense of naturalness is to mix different animal vocalizations over a background matrix of environmental sound (much like some visual counterparts that feature a fictional landscape filled with many species sharing the same -crowded- space). As in the case of traditional bioacoustics (by exclusion), this artificial mixing approach (by massive inclusion) could be criticized as ‘unrealistic’; or even as ‘hyper-realistic’. Yet we should then consider on which grounds are we criticizing this tricky departure from reality.

Now that we have digital recording technology (with all its concomitant sound quality improvements) we can realize more straightforwardly that the microphones are -they always have been- our basic interfaces in our attempt at aprehending the sonic world around us, and also that they are non-neutral interfaces. Different microphones ‘hear’ so differently that they can be considered as a first transformational step with more 3 dramatic consequences than, for example, a further re-equalization of the recordings in the studio. Even although we don’t substract or add anything we cannot avoid having a version of what we consider as reality.

There are indeed attempts to solve this by means of technological improvements. The ambisonics surround sound system, for example, is foreseen as a means of reproducing soundscapes, conveying a more realistic sense of envelopment and an illusion of ‘being there’ (6,7). This illusion of place seems to be a common goal in nature recordings (4). Although I appreciate very much the multitude of new sound nuances and the ‘spaceness’ provided by these technological developments, I don’t have a special interest in pursuing ‘realism’. Moreover, I believe these techniques actually work through hyper-realism, since the carefully recorded, selected and edited sound environments that we can comfortably enjoy in our favourite armchair offer an enhanced listening experience (with regards to some sound qualities and the existence of certain sound events) that we could probably never have in the supposedly portrayed ‘reality’. Somewhat paradoxicaly, it is precisely what they have of non-realistic what I find most appealing in these sound work efforts. With this I don’t mean the recorded version is better, but rather that there’s also the possibility of not conceiving it as a version. No matter how good they can be, recordings cannot replace the ‘real’ experience. What is more important, however, is that in my opinion they shouldn’t try to do that. As I see it, this is a futile attempt to reproduce the world, that tends to become a kind of commodity directed to sofisticated entertainment or other forms of pragmatism. In its essence, a modern consequence of the same kind of mentality that long ago led to the creation of zoos.

There is another seemingly unavoidable obstacle in this attempt at portraying aural reality: sound editing. Whereas the ‘microphone interface’ transfigures the spatial and material characteristics of sound, editing affects its temporality. This process is already present during the act of recording; there is always a start and an end for the recording. In most cases, further ‘time windows’ are created when editing at the studio by establishing a new start and a new end for the sound fragment. Additionally, whenever we have several sound fragments, we are faced with montage. If we are pursuing naturalness in our sound work, what kind of editing is more ‘real’? D. Dunn has recently criticized a common decision in the work with nature recordings: that of eliminating human-made sounds. He defends the idea that the non-inclusion of sound fragments with human sonic intrusions (aircrafts, road traffic...) in a natural environment, by way of not recording them or by further editing removal, is a ‘false representation of reality’ that ‘lures people into the belief that these places still fulfill their romantic expectations’ (8).

While I share Dunn’s concerns about what he calls ‘the armchair environmental movement’, I think this interpretation of falsification through phonography is a simplification of a much more complex problem that leads to another level in the quest for reality. We are much less inert for transciption and reproduction than the machines we have supposedly invented for these purposes. Compared to a microphone, we can either have a much more striking perception of such a human sonic intrusion or not perceive it at all. Both in the present and in the traces a sound environment left in our sonic memory. Do we always realize that there’s some distant traffic noise when our perception is focused on an call? Do we remember the occasional voices of some people nearby when we are recalling that day we enjoyed the sound of the rain inside the forest? If not, was our experience -or is what we still keep of it- false? Even if our level of conciousness includes both the traffic and the insect, do we have to embrace both of them to talk about reality? Because this perceptional / conciousness level is at the basis of our aprehension of ‘reality’, I don’t think that a recording that has been ‘cleaned up’ of human-made sounds (even if this involves more than editing) is more false than another that hasn’t. In many cases, I would even think of the contrary.

I don’t believe in such a thing as an ‘objective’ aprehension of the sonic realiy. Moreover, regardless of whether or not we are recording, we could think of an ideal conception of sound, but we definitely cannot ‘let the sounds to be themselves’. Not only do different people listen differently, but also the very temporality of our presence in a place is a form of editing. The spatial, material and temporal transfigurations exist independently of phonography. Our idea of the sonic realiy, even our fantasy about it, is the sonic reality each one of us has.

La Selva does have some human-made sound intrusions, and it’s not my intention to conceal the fact that they exist (part II), but I deliberately avoided them during recording (in most cases) or removed them through editing. 4

In the context of the discussion above, I claim for the right to be ‘unrealistic’. In broader terms, I’m not concerned with such considerations and I let each listener to judge by himself / herself. The people that live at La Selva already did, and they found the recordings ‘strikingly real’.

This is not La Selva: sound matter vs. representation

- ‘This is not a pipe’ (René Magritte)

What you can listen on this CD is not La Selva; it explicitely doesn’t pretend to be so. In other words, La Selva (the music piece) is not a representation of La Selva (the reserve in Costa Rica). It certainly contains elements that can be understood -and even used- as representational, but the essence of the creation of this sound work that I’m calling a piece of music is rooted on a ‘sound matter’ conception, as opposed to any documentative approach.

The immense majority of works dealing with nature sound environments reveal some form of documentative understanding of the recordings. Not surprisingly, the sound documentation of natural places is one of the main aims of the activities of the Nature Sounds Society, which regularly organizes field recording workshops. This goal has been expressed so as ‘to provide an aural window into places that many people might never visit’ (9). A similar documentary perspective is distilled in different ways from most nature sound works, either by giving descriptions of non-sonic relational elements or by accompanying the sound content with them (see, e.g., refs. 10-17).

In the case of the ‘Acoustic Ecology movement’, although the scope of its activities is larger and there is a greater focus on descriptive aspects of sound itself (see, e.g., ref. 18), its approach essentially relies upon a representational / relational conception, sometimes also leading to ‘encourage listeners to visit the place’ (19).

What I find remarkably striking is how the comprehension of virtually all approaches to nature sound recording is so rarely referred to the sonic matter they are supposedly dealing with, but rather to whatever other non-sonic elements of the experience of the -thus documented- place. As I see it, this is a paradoxical convolution that tends to relegate the recorded sounds to the role of documenting or referring to a certain space. This is not only implicit in the most direct ‘picturesque’ representations, but also in the transcendental critiques to it, that identify recording with this simplistic role (8, 20). Moreover, these latter critiques are partly justified by survival or health arguments (in terms of the relationship with our environment), which I see as a form of pragmatism that I definitely don’t share.

What I’m defending here is the transcendental dimension of the sound matter by itself. In my conception, the essence of sound recording is not that of documenting or representing a much richer and more significant world, but a way to focus on and access the inner world of sounds. When the representational / relational level is emphasized, sounds acquire a restricted meaning or a goal, and this inner world is dissipated. I’m thus straightforwardly attaching to the original ‘sound object’ concept of P. Schaeffer and his idea of ‘reduced listening’ (21). I prefer the term ‘matter’, instead of ‘object’, because I think it better reflects the continuity of the sonic entities that is at the basis of the non-representational conception and also of the very nature of sound environments. Similarly, I prefer ‘profound’ to ‘reduced’, because of the connotations of simplification of the latter term in the present context.

The richness of this sound matter in nature is astonishing, but to appreciate it in depth we have to face the challenge of profound listening. We have to shift the focus of our attention and understanding from representation to being. Or, in other terms, we should be free to do this. When listening to this CD, I hope you will desire to be there, in La Selva, but I also -and especially- hope you will be amazed to be here, in La Selva.

5

Environmental acousmatics. The hidden cicada paradox

Acousmatics, or the rupture of the visual cause-effect connection between the sound sources and the sounds themselves (22), can contribute significantly to the ‘blindness’ of profound listening. La Selva, as most tropical rain forests, constitutes a strong paradigm of something we could call ‘environmental acousmatics’.

There are many sounds in the forest but one rarely has the chance to see the sources of most of them. Is not only that the multitude of animals are hidden in the foliage. The foliage also hiddens itself, keeping away from our sight a myriad of plant sound sources, not only caused by wind or rain, but also by falling leaves and branches (sometimes of considerable size), which is a quite frequent event in this forest.

Many animals in La Selva live in this acousmatic world, in which the rule is not to see their conspecifics, predators or preys, but just to hear them. This acousmatic feature is best exemplified by one of the most characteristic and widespread sounds in La Selva: the strikingly loud and harsh song of the cicadas. During the day, this is probably the most typical sound that naturally stands in the foreground of the sonic field. One can perceive it with an astonishing intensity and proximity; many times you hear the cicada in front of your face. Yet, like a persistent paradox, you never see it.

A non-bucolic broad-band world

Another widespread conception about nature sound environments regards them as ‘quiet places’, peaceful islands of quietude in a sea of rushing, noisy man-driven habitats. This constitutes the main motto of the Nature Sounds Society (23), as made explicit in the title of the CD released by the Oakland Nuseum, ‘Quiet Places’ (24), and also that of G. Hempton’s releases, ‘Quiet Places Collection’ (13-16).

While this can be true for certain natural environments and under certain conditions, I think this understanding leads to a restricted and bucolic view of nature that I don’t share. La Selva, as many other tropical rain forests, is also a paradigm of an antithesis to this view. It is indeed quiet a noisy place. The multitude of sounds from water (rain, water courses), together with the incredible sound web created by the intense calls of insects or frogs and plant sounds, make up a wonderfully powerful broad-band sound environment of thrilling complexity. The resulting sound textures are extremely rich, with many sound layers that merge and reveal themselves by addition or substraction, challenging perception and also the very concept of individual sounds.

As I see it, this certainly contributes to expand our aural understanding of nature, not denying quietude, but embracing a more complete conception, freed of our judgement and of a somewhat simplistic categorization. I’m certainly on the side of those defending the ‘pristine’ sound quality of natural environments, but essentially because I think we should avoid the sound intrusion that leads to sonic homogeneization, thus pursuing the conservation of sound diversity in the world.

Within the same spirit, I also defend the preservation and enhancement of the diversity of man-made sound environments and devices. The value we assign to sound environments is a complex issue we shouldn’t simplify; under some circumstances, nature can also be considered as an intrusion in environments dominated by man-made sounds. In this sense, my approach is as futurist as it is environmentalist, or, in broader terms, independent of these categorizations.

Is there music in nature? Background music and profound listening

I consider La Selva to be a piece of music, in a very strong and profound sense of the word. After listening to the sound content of the CD, some will probably find this statement strange, adventurous or maybe arrogant. In any case, it’s obvious I’m not attaching to the classical conception of music. What is more important, though, is that I think it’s a sad simplification to restrict ourselves to this traditional concept to ‘find’ music in nature. I don’t subscribe the coupling of nature to these schemes, by way of -for example- a search for melodic patterns, comparisons between animal sounds and musical instruments, or ‘complementing’ nature sounds with ‘musical’ ones (5, 25, 26). To me, a waterfall is as musical as a birdsong. 6

On the contrary, I believe in an expansion and transformation of our concept of music through nature (as through ‘non-nature’ in the sense expressed above). This doesn’t mean an absolute assignment of sounds to music (either in any restricted traditionally academic sense or in the Cagean universal version (27)). Instead, it refers to my belief that music is an aesthetic (in its widest sense) perception / understanding / conception of sound. It’s our decision -subjective, intentional, non-universal, not necessarily permanent- what converts nature sounds into music. We don’t need to transform or complement the sounds. Nor we need to pursue an universal and permanent assignment. It will arise when our listening move away from any pragmatic representational ‘use’, and I claim for the right to do so with freedom (28).

Structurally, La Selva follows a voluntary constraint represented by a prototypical day cycle of the rainy season, starting and ending at night. Some might see this as a ‘natural’ way of proceeding, but it was indeed a ‘compositional’ decision. La Selva has been conceived and created musically. My aprehension of sound matter itself, and not any possible intention of documenting the place, dictated all editing and montage decisions. The representational possibilities of the recordings -which I’m not denying- are ‘side-effects’, but not essential content in La Selva.

To me, attaining this musical state requires a profound listening, an immersion into the inside of the sound matter. I consider despective to foresee nature recordings as ‘background music’ or as a relaxation commodity; a trivialization that leads to consume and ‘medicinal effects’, some of the worst forms of pragmatism.

There’s a fundamental reason for having a single track on the CD. As I conceive it, La Selva is not an easy background sound; it’s a tour de force of transcendental listening that can lead to many places. Decide by yourself.

Additional notes by René van Peer

From time to time a dispute arises around the question whether sounds from nature can be considered musical. Differences of opinion often focus on the topic of whether animals experience their own vocalisations in a way that can be compared to how humans experience music. Do they derive pleasure from their own efforts, regardless of whether they achieve the pragmatic aim of producing these sounds; are they capable of behaviour that is exclusively aesthetic; do they subscribe to the human concept of "art for art's sake?" That notion, apparently the pinnacle of human artistic achievement, seems to be the bottom line. One assumption then can be that we humans are more sophisticated. Another can be that we have no way to know what goes on inside an animal, provided it has processes of consciousness comparable to humans. In short, another proof of the zealously guarded canon of human supremacy.

Apart from the fact that, for example, the European Blackbird Thrush (Turdus merula) is known to sing softly to itself, one may wonder whether this question isn't totally beside the point.

To begin with, nature as a concept is already a figment of human fantasy. It is a model humans have created for their convenience, to impose order on what surrounds them, to reduce what they perceive to what they can categorize. This is not an act to be slighted per se. In fact it is what lies at the basis of science as well as art. But it is an artefact all the same, not to be confused with the infinite complexity of reality.

The moment a human consciously listens to sounds around him, he will relate them to his own position. How are they spaced in the four dimensions? Do they interreact? Do they move towards him, away from him? What size of animal do they suggest? He tries to interpret them in regard to his own being there, and its continuation. Relating them to his own position may also mean relating them to what he knows, trying to make them conform to patterns he uses for categorization. The sounds have pitch, and variations in pitch. They have duration. They may occur in intervals, which can be more or less regular. In other words they can be described in musical terms. 7

Music is a system that imposes order on sounds by way of pitch, melody, duration and rhythm. It developed as a set of rules in some classical traditions (such as those in Western Europe, the Islamic continuum, India, East Asia). So, when anthropologists started visiting and studying tribal cultures around the world they almost invariably ran across the situation that these peoples displayed musical behaviour, but had no generic term for it. They could have words that identified such musical activities with specific functions, but music as a category did not exist for them. This did not deter the scientists, who called these activities 'music' all the same.

Quite clearly it is not necessarily the producers of sounds who decide whether their output is music – ultimately it is the receiver and interpreter who is the judge of that, according to personal taste, whim and openness or closedness of mind. Consequently, what one individual is fully prepared to call music, another will reject out of hand.

The real bottom line is that consciously listening to sounds (be they atmospheric, geological, organic or mechanical) a human makes them suit his own purposes, thereby turning them into artefacts – phenomena of his own invention. Perceiving and interpreting his surroundings, however pristinely natural they may be, a human transforms them into a thing of culture. It should be emphasized though, that this only happens within his fancy. The next moment a large hungry feline may at one stroke make an end to these delusional musings of mastery. Business as usual.

Albums inspired by sounds from natural environments are being produced ever more frequently. They exist in any conceivable form. There are demonstration records that focus on extraordinary aspects of sounds occurring in nature. There are audio field guides to help outgoing nature enthusiasts identify the species they come across by ear. For clarity's sake these will, as a rule, attempt to present sounds in isolation, divorced from the context they occur in.

Others will try to give an idea of the sounds in an environment, as parts that make up a variable sonic entity. Soundscape, the word that people from the Acoustic Ecology movement (based on the ideas of R. Murray Schafer) use, is a wonderfully applicable term for it. These are sonic landscape likenesses – perhaps the most accurate analogy would be with photography. Through technical procedures, which may vary in sophistication and complexity, an image of a certain area is constructed.

Some put their recordings on CD without much more ado than selecting the pieces they want from longer sequences and cross-fading from one track to the next. Others spend significant time on piecing the image together in the studio, in order to recreate as faithful a sonic semblance as possible – to make it sound more natural than a straight recording would. Such processing may also be used to achieve aesthetic aims. Bernie Krause, for instance, does regard his soundscape albums as compositions that he very carefully puts together (e.g., 29); the British/Australian sound recordist and composer David Lumsdaine uses some very slight edits, sometimes whilst recording (e.g., 30). Both see the result as musical.

Gordon Hempton uses a binaural microphone to get recordings that ideally match the way a human would receive the sound, and then doesn't further process what he captures. Even though he doesn't seem to have any musical aspirations, some of his pieces can only be denoted as such. Especially a track that has frogs singing eerily protracted notes of varying pitch above the majestic rustle and boom of the wind blowing through the branches of an oak tree (16).

Another approach is to draw nature sounds into the domain of music. The list of examples is as varied as it is long. It ranges from people plunking the needles of cacti, to those who use the structure and occurrence of environmental sounds to shape their music, to those who just put one and one together and hope they reach infinity through that means – I am referring here to the exploits of people who would have you believe for your ease of mind that some symphony orchestra have put it into their head to perform Mozart's umpteenth KV in the rolling surf.

One would expect that the notion to treat environmental recordings as musique concrète would be straightforward. In fact it is so rare that to my knowledge La Selva is the only one to do so in a consistent way. The recordings were made in a limited area and in a restricted period (the rainy seasons of two 8 consecutive years), they have been arranged on CD to follow one diurnal cycle. Francisco López is particularly meticulous in identifying and listing the species that you can hear on this album.

And yet the effect is not that of a landscape painted in sound. On the contrary, even though all sounds are immediately recognizable as organic and atmospheric, the overall impression is musical. This is especially evident in transitions from one movement to the next. As a listener you get the feeling that each has a character of its own. There are repetitions of themes. There is rhythm. There is polyphony and hocketing. There are rumbling pedal tones. And, full of buzz, there are flies, too. The image presented, although composed of concrete sounds, is highly abstract.

On another note, La Selva is quite unique among the albums that Francisco López has produced until now. These are typically based on environmental sounds he recorded, both urban and natural. For their sonic qualities and their usefulness in his work, he doesn't prefer one over the other. But in most of his other albums he processed these sounds beyond recognition to broad band noise, resulting in hiss and pulsations, in drones that bulge on the horizon of one's hearing – minute, but menacing. When sounds on earlier albums are recognizable, they are mechanical in origin, or they are produced by waterfalls or thunderstorms; in other words, broad band sounds. It seems as if on La Selva they have condensed and crystallized - into pitch, melody, duration and rhythm.

López has always worked in an area where sound and music merge. Through careful and sensitive manipulation he has created pieces that might be interpreted as registrations of geological activity or as vastly amplified processes within the human body; but these pieces sound entirely deliberate as well. They are obviously the result of aesthetic decisions. In short: they are music. On La Selva he has approached this from a very different angle. The sounds have not been altered from how they occurred. The only intervention that López has allowed himself is, within the restriction of following the chronology of night turning into day turning into night, to group sequences according to sonic themes. By doing so he also transforms these sounds, that nobody will interpret otherwise than being those of a wildlife environment, into music.

Cited literature:

(1) van Peer, R. (1995) Nature on record. Part 1. Experimental Musical Instruments, 10(4): 5-7. (2) van Peer, R. (1995) Nature on record. Part 2. Experimental Musical Instruments, 11(1): 20-24. (3) Krause, B. (1993) The niche hypothesis: a virtual symphony of animal sounds, the origins of musical expression and the health of habitats. The Soundscape Newsletter, 6: 4-6. (4) Girardeau, C. (1994) Nature sounds recording and use. Experimental Musical Instruments, 10(2): 12-14. (5) Krause, B. (1997) The niche hypothesis: creature vocalizations and the relationship between natural sound and music. Nature Sounds, Fall/Winter 1997: 5-10. (6) Silberman, J. (1995) Ambisonics: the art of ‘being there’. Nature Sounds, Winter 1994-95: 7-14. (7) Silberman, J. (1995) Ambisonic sound technology Pt. 2. Nature Sounds, Spring 1995: 11-13. (8) Dunn, D. (1997) Nature, sound art, and the sacred. In: Music from nature. Ed. by D. Rothenberg. Terra Nova, 2(3): 61-71. The MIT Press. (9) Reinier, J. (1997) Letter from the chair. Nature Sounds, Fall/Winter 1997: 2-4. (10) Quin, D. (1994) For Paul Panhuysen. On his 60th birthday, August 21, 1994. Experimental Musical Instruments, 10(2): 14-15. (11) Quin, D. (1997) Sound recording adventures in Antarctica (1): a morning with the emperors. Nature Sounds, Spring 1997: 11-16. (12) Quin, D. (1997) Sound recording adventures in Antarctica (2): sounds of Antarctic glaciers & rock. Nature Sounds, Fall/Winter, 1997: 10-13. (13) Hempton, G. (1992) Africa. Desert solitude at bushman fountain (CD). Nature Recordings. (14) Hempton, G. (1992) Asia. Misty Isle (CD). Nature Recordings. (15) Hempton, G. (1995) Australia. Dawn across the outback (CD). Nature Recordings. (16) Hempton, G. (1992) North America. Winds across a continent (CD). Nature Recordings. (17) Watson, C. (1997) Stepping into the dark (CD). Touch. (18) Winkler, J. (1993) Listening to the desert. The Soundscape Newsletter, 6: 8. (19) Westerkamp. H. (1992) Beneath the forest floor. The Soundscape Newsletter, 3: 5. 9

(20) Schafer, R. M. (1980) The tuning of the world. University of Pennsylvania Press. (21) Schaeffer, P. (1966) Traite des objets musicaux. Editions du Seuil. (22) Chion, M. (1991) L’Art des sons fixes. Editions Metamkine / Nota-Bene / Sono-Concept. (23) Matzner, P. (1994) Letter from Paul. Nature Sounds, Winter 1993-94: 3. (24) The California Library of Natural Sounds (1992) Quiet Places. A sound walk across natural California. The Oakland Museum. (25) McLean, P. & McLean, B. (1997) The McLean mix muses upon the ultimate instrument. Experimental Musical Instruments, 10(1): 20-23. (26) Rothenberg, D. (Ed.) (1997) Music from nature (CD). Terra Nova, 2(3). The MIT Press. (27) López, F. (ms) Cagean philosophy: a devious version of the classical procedural paradigm. (28) López, F. (1997) Schizophonia vs. l’object sonore: soundscapes and artistic freedom. In: Soundscape design. Klangwelten Hörzeichen. Hans U. Werner und die Insertionisten. Akroama. (29) Krause, B. (1994) Tropical thunder (CD). Wild Sanctuary Communications. (30) Lumsdaine, D. (1996) Mutawinji. Pied butcherbirds of Spirey Creek (CD). Tall Poppies Records.

Now that you have decided to access this contextual and relational level of information concerning this piece you will enter a new conceptual and perceptual domain (or at least it will considerably increase these aspects). It will provide you with what some consider as necessary or desirable information but, at the same time, it will lead you to face an unavoidable challenge with an uneasy way back: that of the recovery of the undissipated profound listening experience. Perhaps the perspective gained with this information is the only or the main concern of your interest or you want to take the challenge, or even you are not favourable to the ‘sound matter’ perspective. In any case, however, this is not an inocuous step. As you can easily imagine, by the very nature of the work, I had to face this challenge in a very strong way: I was there doing the recordings. I don’t refuse that experience at all and I cannot avoid having both conscious and subconcious consequences of it. But I tried not to subordinate the creation of the piece to it. You are free to create your own perspective of the soundwork but you should know that -without any modification or artificial mixing of the original sounds- the considerable studio work is as much an integral part of what you will listen as the ‘real’ original spatial-temporal construct you will create in your mind.

La Selva and its sound environments

La Selva Biological Station is a 1,536 ha reserve of tropical rain forest, owned by the Organization for Tropical Studies. It is located at the confluence of the Sarapiquí and Puerto Viejo rivers in the county of Sarapiquí, province of Heredia, Costa Rica (10º 26’ N, 83º 59’W), precisely where the foothills of the central volcanic mountain chain of Costa Rica give way to the Caribbean coastal plain. Braulio Carrillo National Park begins at La Selva’s south border and climbs to nearly 3,000 m at the summit of Volcán Barva only 35 km away.

Environmental conditions at La Selva place it in Holdridge’s tropical wet forest life zone. The area receives about 4 m of rain annually and the dry season is rarely long or severe. The daily range in temperature (6º - 12º C) far exceeds the range of diurnal averages over the year (<3ºC). In terms of mean monthly average temperatures, August is the warmest month (27.1ºC) and January is the coolest (24.7ºC).

About half of the reserve is constituted by primary forest habitats that extend from ridge tops to swamp forests; the rest is composed of selectively logged primary forest, young secondary forest, early successional pasture and abandoned plantations. Its biological resources are rich and largely intact. The vascular flora includes nearly two thousand species, of which more than four hundred are trees. Little is yet known about non-vascular plants and fungi. There are probably more than four thousand species of moths and perhaps five hundred species of butterflies. The remainder of the invertebrate fauna is clearly diverse but with few exceptions remains very poorly documented (a major project -called ALAS- is currently underway that will assess the general arthropod diversity of La Selva). Among the La Selva hosts forty-three species of fishes, forty-eight of amphibians, eighty-seven of reptiles, more than one hundred of mammals and more than four hundred bird species. 10

Until the mid-1960s, the Sarapiquí region remained as a relatively isolated frontier outpost. From that time on, however, the area has undergone dramatic changes, the most notable being the elimination of large tracts of tropical forest to establish cattle ranches and, to a lesser extent, several types of crops (rice, beans, , cacao, pejibaye, manioc and others). Nowadays, La Selva remains as the tip of a peninsular forest sanctuary delimited by rivers and ringed by pastures. Sarapiquí is one of the most active colonization zones in Costa Rica. It reflects the situation of the country as a whole -rapid deforestation in an area with growing conservation reserves. Expansion of the agricultural frontier has been at the expense of forests. As late as 1943, forests occupied 70%-75% of the country, whereas a 1987 survey of the Dirección General Forestal (General Forestry Directorate) revealed that only 29% of the country remained forested. By the end of the 1990s nearly all of the remaining forests are inside private and public reserves.

In terms of the preservation of the sound environments at La Selva, the situation is unfortunately even worse. Despite the high degree of conservation of the original or secondary forest in most areas within the reserve, it is a relatively small remnant of forest surrounded by a close highway, which creates an insoluble problem of noise pollution from the traffic. As late as 1950 no road for motor vehicles penetrated the region, but early in this decade a dirt road was pushed through the mountains coming from the southwest to Puerto Viejo (the closest inhabited place to La Selva), connecting this tiny village (at that time) to San José via a grueling fifteen-hour trip to cover 100 km. Since then, this road was conveniently paved and a new highway coming from the southeast side has been completed by mid-1990s, connected to the main highway that crosses the steepy mountains of the Braulio Carrillo National Park, linking the capital to the Caribbean coast. Under good weather conditions (with no heavy rain) the trip to Puerto Viejo can now be done in one and a half hours.

These changes in the road communication system have led to the partial enclosure of La Selva within a highway boundary and have given rise to a noteworthy increase in road traffic into the region. In addition, there is the recent phenomenon of ‘disco-móviles’, mobile discos with considerable powerful sound equipment transported in trucks to any village for outdoor dance parties. Depending on the location and the surrounding topography they can be heard from several kilometers away. The result of all this is that the forest sound environments are often accompanied by the distant sounds of road traffic or the bass rhythm of a merengue. Although this noise pollution is not overwhelming and can even be overlooked by many people, it is present in varying degrees everywhere within the reserve, including most remote areas at the boundary with the Braulio Carrillo National Park. An attentive listening -like the one carried out when recording- often reveals a distant noise intrusion in a seemingly ‘clean’ sound environment. Since I was extremely exigent in this respect, this situation made the recording work an outrageously difficult task, waiting for completely ‘non-polluted’ intervals of time or looking for ‘hidden’, sonically-shadowed spots.

Given the present situation with regards to forest conservation in the region, the preservation or recovery of the sound environment ‘cleanness’ may seem a refined irrelevant luxury, but to me is an essential feature of the forest and also an excellent indicator of the degree of insularization of the protected areas. What is sad about this is the extreme unlikeliness of the reversibility of this state of affairs, since even in a hypothetical abandonment of agricultural practices in some portions of land in favor of a secondary growth of the forest, the highways will remain there. In a profound non-pragmatic sense, I consider this sonic ‘cleanness’ preservation as important as the conservation of bio-diversity (we could talk about sound diversity), the strength of this defense being that it doesn’t need -and shouldn’t have- survival supporting arguments.

References:

Butterfield, R. P. (1994a) The regional context: land colonization and conservation in Sarapiquí. Butterfield, R. P. (1994b) Forestry in Costa Rica: status, research priorities, and the role of La Selva Biological Station. McDade, L. A. & Hartshorn, G. S. (1994) La Selva Biological Station. Montagnini, F. (1994) Agricultural systems in the La Selva region.

11

In: La Selva. Ecology and natural history of a Neotropical rain forest. McDade, L. A., Bawa, K. S., Hespenheide, H. A. & Hartshorn, G. S. Eds. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Sound-producing animal species appearing in the recordings

This is obviously not an exhaustive collection of all the sound-producing animal species present at La Selva, but a listing of the species appearing within the sound environments of this particular piece, for those interested in this matter. The absence of indexes is intentional and aimed at encouraging a non-focal listening (both in terms of species and time). Therefore, the species are indicated according to the timing of their appearance in different sections of the CD. Those species sonically present during a whole section or with repeated appearances are sorted by groups - mammals, birds, frogs and insects - and by alphabetical order within each group. Those appearing only occasionaly at specific points in time are listed chronologically at the end of each section.

The identification work was carried out with the kind assisstance of Joel Alvarado, Francisco Madrigal, Orlando Vargas, (Organization for Tropical Studies), Maura Maple (University of Kentucky), and Ann Strieby (California State University). Additional information was obtained from the database on Orthoptera created by Piotr Naskrecki for the ALAS Lab at La Selva, whose access was kindly granted by Ronald Vargas and Danilo Brenes (OTS - INBio). Three species of mammals (bats and monkeys), and about 50 species of birds, 15 species of frogs and 15 species of insects were recorded. Some of the identifications -especially in the case of insects- are only tentative.

• 00’10”-02’48”: Agalychnis callidryas (Rana Arbórea de Ojos Rojos / Red-eyed Treefrog) Eleutherodactylus diastema (Rana Tintineante / Tink Frog) Hyla ebraccata (Rana Arbórea Arlequín / Harlequin Treefrog) Hyla loquax (Rana Arbórea de los Pantanos / Swamp Treefrog) Leptodactylus pentadactylus (Rana Ahumada / Smoky Jungle Frog) Smilisca baudini (Rana / Frog) Tettigoniidae sp1 (Esperanza / Katydid)

• 02’48”-05’10”: Agalychnis saltator (Rana / Frog) Hyla ebraccata (Rana Arbórea Arlequín / Harlequin Treefrog) Hyla loquax (Rana Arbórea de los Pantanos / Swamp Treefrog) Gastrophyrne pictiventris (Rana Oveja / Sheep Frog) Scinax elaeochroa (Rana / Frog) Smilisca baudini (Rana / Frog) Tettigoniidae sp1 (Esperanza / Katydid) Tettigoniidae sp2 (Esperanza / Katydid) 04’50” → Tettigoniidae sp3 (Esperanza / Katydid) 04’58” → Leptodactylus sp.? (Rana no identificada / Unidentified frog)

• 05’10”-07’32”: Hyla ebraccata (Rana Arbórea Arlequín / Harlequin Treefrog) Hyla loquax (Rana Arbórea de los Pantanos / Swamp Treefrog) Scinax elaeochroa (Rana / Frog) Tettigoniidae sp1 (Esperanza / Katydid)

• 07’32”-09’44”: Eleutherodactylus diastema (Rana Tintineante / Tink Frog) Gryllidae sp1 (Grillo / Cricket) Gryllidae sp2 (Grillo / Cricket) Tettigoniidae sp2 (Esperanza / Katydid) Tettigoniidae sp3 (Esperanza / Katydid) 08’12” → Rana no identificada / Unidentified frog 09’10” → Idem

• 09’44”-11’08”: Alouatta alouatta (Mono Aullador / Howling Monkey) Amazona sp. (Loro Frentirrojo o Loro Verde / Red-lored Parrot or Mealy Parrot) Euphonia gouldi (Eufonia Olivácea / Olive-backed Euphonia) 12

Henicorhina leucosticta (Soterrey de Selva Pechiblanco / White-breasted Wood-Wren) Mitrospingus cassinii (Tangara de Cara Negruzca / Dusky-faced Tanager) Pionopsitta haematotis (Loro Cabecipardo / Brown-hooded Parrot) Psarocolius montezuma (Oropéndola de Montezuma / Montezuma ) Trogon massena (Trogón Coliplomizo / Slaty-tailed Trogon) Trogon rufus (Trogón Cabeciverde / Black-throated Trogon) Gryllidae sp3 (Grillo / Cricket)

• 11’08”-13’47”: Myiozetetes granadensis (Mosquero Cabecigrís / Gray-capped Flycatcher) Psarocolius montezuma (Oropéndola de Montezuma / Montezuma Oropendola) Gryllidae sp4 (Grillo / Cricket) Tettigoniidae sp3 (Esperanza / Katydid) Tettigoniidae sp4 (Esperanza / Katydid)

• 13’47”-14’51”: Amazona sp. (Loro Frentirrojo o Loro Verde / Red-lored Parrot or Mealy Parrot) Euphonia gouldi (Eufonia Olivácea / Olive-back Euphonia) Cicadidae sp1 (Cigarras / Cicadas) 15’56” → Tettigoniidae sp3 (Esperanza / Katydid) 17’24” → Mosquitos / Mosquitoes

• 19’57”-21’16”: Columba nigrirostris (Paloma Piquicorta / Short-billed Pigeon) Crypturellus soui (Tinamú Chico / Little Tinamou) Formicarius analis (Gallito Hormiguero / Black-faced Antthrust) Hylophilus decurtatus (Verdillo Menudo / Lesser Greenlet) Leptotila cassinii (Paloma Pechigrís / Gray-chested Dove) Manacus candei (Saltarín Cuelliblanco / White-collared Manakin) Querula purpurata (Quérula Gorgimorada / Purple-throated Fruitcrow) Tinamus major (Tinamú Grande / Great Tinamou) Dendrobates pumilio (Rana Venenosa / Strawberry Dart-poison Frog) Cicadidae sp1 (Cigarras / Cicadas) Trigona sp. (Abeja sin Agujón / Stingless Bee)

• 21’16”-23’12”: Arremon aurantiirostris (Pinzón Piquinaranja / Orange-billed sparrow) Euphonia gouldi (Eufonia Olivácea / Olive-back Euphonia) Manacus candei (Saltarín Cuelliblanco / White-collared Manakin) Saltator maximus (Saltator Gorgianteado / Buff-throated Saltator) Colibrís en vuelo / Hummingbirds in flight Cicadidae sp1 (Cigarras / Cicadas) Gryllidae sp1 (Grillo / Cricket) Tettigoniidae sp1 (Esperanza / Katydid) Moscas, mosquitos, escarabajos, abejas y otros insectos en vuelo / Flies, mosquitoes, beetles, bees and other insects in flight 21’17” → Cacicus uropygialis (Cacique Lomiescarlata / Scarlet-rumped Cacique) 22’53” → Thryothorus nigricapillus (Soterrey Castaño / Bay Wren)

• 23’12”-25’24”: Dendrobates pumilio (Rana Venenosa / Strawberry Dart-poison Frog) Cicadidae sp1 (Cigarras / Cicadas) Gryllidae sp1 (Grillo / Cricket) Tettigoniidae sp4 (Esperanza / Katydid) Avispas, moscas y mosquitos / Wasps, flies and mosquitoes 23’16” → Tettigoniidae sp3 (Esperanza / Katydid) 23’52” → Idem 24’22” → Columba nigrirostris (Paloma Piquicorta / Short-billed Pigeon) 24’40” → Myiornis atricapillus (Mosquero Pigmeo Cabecinegro / Black-capped Pigmy Tyrant) 25’14” → Pitylus grossus (Picogrueso Piquirrojo / Slate-colored Grosbeak)

• 25’24”-27’14”: Cyanerpes sp. (Trepadores de Miel / Honeycreepers) Cicadidae sp1 (Cigarras / Cicadas) Tettigoniidae sp3 (Esperanza / Katydid) Avispas, abejas, moscas y mosquitos / Wasps, bees, flies and mosquitoes 26’07” → Phaethornis superciliosus (Ermitaño Colilargo / Long-tailed Hermit) 13

26’28” → Cacicus uropygialis (Cacique Lomiescarlata / Scarlet-rumped Cacique)

• 27’14”-29’09”: Cicadidae sp1 (Cigarras / Cicadas) Trigona sp. (Abejas sin aguijón / Stingless Bees)

• 29’09”-30’54”: Henicorhina leucosticta (Soterrey de Selva Pechiblanco / White-breasted Wood-Wren) Dendrobates pumilio (Rana Venenosa / Strawberry Dart-poison Frog) Cicadidae sp1 (Cigarras / Cicadas) Gryllidae sp1 (Grillo / Cricket) Tettigoniidae sp3 (Esperanza / Katydid) Tettigoniidae sp4 (Esperanza / Katydid)

• 30’54”-32’33”: Cicadidae sp1 (Cigarras / Cicadas) Tettigoniidae sp4 (Esperanza / Katydid) Mosquitos y moscas / Mosquitoes and flies

• 32’33”-34’59”: Dendrobates pumilio (Rana Venenosa / Strawberry Dart-poison Frog) Gryllidae sp1 (Grillo / Cricket) Tettigoniidae sp4 (Esperanza / Katydid) Mosquitos / Mosquitoes 33’34” → Tettigoniidae sp3 (Esperanza / Katydid)

• 34’59”-38’00”: Columba nigrirostris (Paloma Piquicorta / Short-billed Pigeon) Ramphastos swainsonii (Tucán de Swainson / Chesnut-mandibled Toucan) Dendrobates pumilio (Rana Venenosa / Strawberry Dart-poison Frog) Cicadidae sp1 (Cigarras / Cicadas) Tettigoniidae sp4 (Esperanza / Katydid) 35’10” → Tettigoniidae sp3 (Esperanza / Katydid) 35’50” → Ramphastos sulfuratus (Tucán Pico Iris / Keel-billed Toucan) 37’12” → Tinamus major (Tinamú Grande / Great Tinamou) 37’58” → Ramphastos sulfuratus (Tucán Pico Iris / Keel-billed Toucan)

• 40’24”-42’09”: Alouatta alouatta (Monos Aulladores / Howling Monkeys) Tettigoniidae sp3 (Esperanza / Katydid) Tettigoniidae sp4 (Esperanza / Katydid)

• 42’09”-43’32”: Columba nigrirostris (Paloma Piquicorta / Short-billed Pigeon) Henicorhina leucosticta (Soterrey de Selva Pechiblanco / White-breasted Wood-Wren) Ramphastos swainsonii (Tucán de Swainson / Chesnut-mandibled Toucan) Cicadidae sp1 (Cigarras / Cicadas) Tettigoniidae sp4 (Esperanza / Katydid) 42’28” → Trogon rufus (Trogón Cabeciverde / Black-throated Trogon) 43’02” → Gryllidae sp4 (Grillo / Cricket) 43’07” → Arremon aurantiirostris (Pinzón Piquinaranja / Orange-billed sparrow)

• 43’32”-44’20”: Alouatta alouatta (Monos Aulladores / Howling Monkeys) Penelope purpurascens (Pavas Crestadas / Crested Guans) Pionopsitta haematotis (Loro Cabecipardo / Brown-hooded Parrot) Cicadidae sp1 (Cigarras / Cicadas) Gryllidae sp1 (Grillo / Cricket) Gryllidae sp2 (Grillo / Cricket) Tettigoniidae sp4 (Esperanza / Katydid)

• 44’20”-46’25”: Henicorhina leucosticta (Soterrey de Selva Pechiblanco / White-breasted Wood-Wren) Manacus candei (Saltarín Cuelliblanco / White-collared Manakin) Myiornis atricapillus (Mosquero Pigmeo Cabecinegro / Black-capped Pigmy Tyrant) Psarocolius montezuma (Oropéndola de Montezuma / Montezuma Oropendola) Cicadidae sp1 (Cigarras / Cicadas) Gryllidae sp1 (Grillo / Cricket) Gryllidae sp2 (Grillo / Cricket) Tettigoniidae sp1 (Esperanza / Katydid) 14

Tettigoniidae sp4 (Esperanza / Katydid) 44’51” → Psarocolius wagleri (Oropéndola Cabecicastaña / Chesnut-headed Oropendola) 44’56” → Cacicus uropygialis (Cacique Lomiescarlata / Scarlet-rumped Cacique) 46’15” → Psarocolius wagleri (Oropéndola Cabecicastaña / Chesnut-headed Oropendola)

• 46’25”-47’30”: Henicorhina leucosticta (Soterrey de Selva Pechiblanco / White-breasted Wood-Wren) Ramphastos swainsonii (Tucán de Swainson / Chesnut-mandibled Toucan) Gryllidae sp2 (Grillo / Cricket) Tettigoniidae sp4 (Esperanza / Katydid)

• 47’30”-49’28”: Coryphotriccus albovittatus (Mosquero Cabecianillado / White-ringed Flycatcher) Todirostrum cinereum (Mosquero Común / Common Tody-Flycatcher) Thryothorus nigricapillus (Soterrey Castaño / Bay Wren) Colibrís en vuelo / Hummingbirds in flight Eleutherodactylus fitzingeri (Rana de Fitzinger / Fitzinger’s Rain Frog) Dendrobates pumilio (Rana Venenosa / Strawberry Dart-poison Frog) Tettigoniidae sp4 (Esperanza / Katydid) 47’59” → Columba nigrirostris (Paloma Piquicorta / Short-billed Pigeon) 48’50” → Thryothorus atrogularis (Soterrey Gorginegro / Black-throated Wren)

• 49’28”-50’29”: Cebus capuchinus (Monos Carablanca / White-faced monkeys) Gryllidae sp1 (Grillo / Cricket) Gryllidae sp2 (Grillo / Cricket) Tettigoniidae sp1 (Esperanza / Katydid) 50’10” → Columba nigrirostris (Paloma Piquicorta / Short-billed Pigeon)

• 50’29”-52’08”: Amblycercus holosericeus (Cacique Picoplata / Yellow-billed Cacique) Arremonops conirostris (Pinzón Pinto / Black-striped Sparrow) Attila spadiceus (Atila Lomiamarilla / Bright-rumped Attila) Ramphastos swainsonii (Tucán de Swainson / Chesnut-mandibled Toucan) Ramphocelus passerinii (Tangara Lomiescarlata / Scarlet-rumped Tanager) Sporophila aurita (Espiguero Variable / Variable Seedeater) Thryothorus atrogularis (Soterrey Gorginegro / Black-throated Wren) Thryothorus modestus (Soterrey Chinchirigüí / Plain Wren) Gryllidae sp2 (Grillo / Cricket) Tettigoniidae sp1 (Esperanza / Katydid) 50’41” → Euphonia gouldi (Eufonia Olivácea / Olive-back Euphonia) 50’45” → Thryothorus nigricapillus (Soterrey Castaño / Bay Wren) 51’22” → Colibrí en vuelo / Hummingbird in flight 51’22” → Euphonia luteicapilla (Eufonia Coroniamarilla / Yellow-crowned Euphonia) 51’46” → Manacus candei (Saltarín Cuelliblanco / White-collared Manakin) 51’53” → Capsiempis flaveola (Mosquerito amarillo / Yellow Tyrannulet) 52’00” → Habia fuscicauda (Tangara Hormiguera Gorgirroja / Red-throated Ant Tanager)

• 52’08”-53’47”: Alouatta alouatta (Monos Aulladores / Howling Monkeys) Gryllidae sp1 (Grillo / Cricket) Gryllidae sp2 (Grillo / Cricket) Tettigoniidae sp1 (Esperanza / Katydid) Tettigoniidae sp4 (Esperanza / Katydid) 52’09” → Cyanerpes sp. (Trepador de Miel / Honeycreeper) 52’48” → Tettigoniidae sp3 (Esperanza / Katydid) 53’00” → Gryllidae sp5 (Grillo / Cricket) 53’18” → Penelope purpurascens (Pava Crestada en vuelo / Crested Guan in flight) 53’34” → Lipaugus unirufus (Piha Rojiza / Rufous piha)

• 53’47”-57’08”: Formicarius analis (Gallito Hormiguero / Black-faced Antthrust) Myrmeciza exsul (Hormiguero Dorsicastaño / Chesnut-backed Antbird) Ramphastos sulfuratus (Tucán Pico Iris / Keel-billed Toucan) Dendrobates pumilio (Rana Venenosa / Strawberry Dart-poison Frog) Eleutherodactylus diastema (Rana Tintineante / Tink Frog) Eleutherodactylus fitzingeri (Rana de Fitzinger / Fitzinger’s Rain Frog) 15

Gryllidae sp2 (Grillo / Cricket) Tettigoniidae sp3 (Esperanza / Katydid) 53’54” → Mionectes oleagineus (Mosquerito Aceitunado / Ochre-bellied Flycatcher) 53’59” → Idem 54’03” → Rana no identificada / Unidentified frog 55’45” → Gryllidae sp6 (Grillo / Cricket) 56’37” → Myiornis atricapillus (Mosquero Pigmeo Cabecinegro / Black-capped Pigmy Tyrant) 57’01” → Ortalis cinereiceps (Chachalaca Cabecigrís / Gray-headed Chachalaca)

• 59’56”-61’48”: Murciélagos en vuelo / Bats in flight Habia fuscicauda (Tangara Hormiguera Gorgirroja / Red-throated Ant Tanager) Gryllidae sp1 (Grillo / Cricket) Gryllidae sp2 (Grillo / Cricket) Tettigoniidae sp1 (Esperanza / Katydid)

• 61’48”-62’33”: Amazona farinosa (Loro Verde / Mealy Parrot) Pitylus grossus (Picogrueso Piquirrojo / Slate-colored Grosbeak) Ramphastos swainsonii (Tucán de Swainson / Chesnut-mandibled Toucan) Gryllidae sp1 (Grillo / Cricket) Gryllidae sp2 (Grillo / Cricket) Tettigoniidae sp1 (Esperanza / Katydid) Tettigoniidae sp3 (Esperanza / Katydid) 62’09” → Electron platyrhynchum (Momoto Piquiancho / Broad-billed Motmot) 62’14” → Eleutherodactylus fitzingeri (Rana de Fitzinger / Fitzinger’s Rain Frog) 62’30” → Tinamus major (Tinamú Grande / Great Tinamou)

• 62’33”-64’48”: Automolus ochrolaemus (Hojarrasquero Gorgianteado / Buff-throated Foliage-gleaner) Formicarius analis (Gallito Hormiguero / Black-faced Antthrust) Habia fuscicauda (Tangara Hormiguera Gorgirroja / Red-throated Ant Tanager) Hylopezus fulviventris (Tororoi Pechicanelo / Fulvous-bellied Antpitta) Dendrobates pumilio (Rana Venenosa / Strawberry Dart-poison Frog) Eleutherodactylus diastema (Rana Tintineante / Tink Frog) Eleutherodactylus fitzingeri (Rana de Fitzinger / Fitzinger’s Rain Frog) Leptodactylus pentadactylus (Rana Ahumada / Smoky Jungle Frog) Cicadidae sp2 (Cigarras / Cicadas) Cicadidae sp3 (Cigarras / Cicadas) Gryllidae sp1 (Grillo / Cricket) Gryllidae sp2 (Grillo / Cricket) 63’07” → Micrastur mirandollei (Halcón de Monte Dorsigrís / Slaty-backed Forest Falcon) 63’43” → Tinamus major (Tinamú Grande / Great Tinamou)

• 64’48”-66’05”: Eleutherodactylus diastema (Rana Tintineante / Tink Frog) Leptodactylus pentadactylus (Rana Ahumada / Smoky Jungle Frog) Gryllidae sp1 (Grillo / Cricket) Gryllidae sp2 (Grillo / Cricket) Tettigoniidae sp1 (Esperanza / Katydid)

• 66’05”-68’11”: Eleutherodactylus diastema (Rana Tintineante / Tink Frog) Gryllidae sp1 (Grillo / Cricket) Gryllidae sp2 (Grillo / Cricket) 67’05” → Ave no identificada / Unidentified bird

• 68’11”-70’49”: Eleutherodactylus diastema (Rana Tintineante / Tink Frog) Hyla ebraccata (Rana Arbórea Arlequín / Harlequin Treefrog) Hyla loquax (Rana Arbórea de los Pantanos / Swamp Treefrog) Rana vaillanti (Rana / Frog) Scinax elaeochroa (Rana / Frog) Gryllidae sp1 (Grillo / Cricket) Gryllidae sp2 (Grillo / Cricket) Tettigoniidae sp1 (Esperanza / Katydid)

16

Original recordings done at La Selva during the rainy seasons of 1995 and 1996. Thanks to the Organization for Tropical Studies, and more specifically to Bruce E. Young and Cynthia Echevarría -directors of the Station at the time of the field work-, for their support with this project. Thanks also to Joel Alvarado, Francisco Madrigal, Orlando Vargas, (OTS), Maura Maple (University of Kentucky), Ann Strieby (California State University), Ronald Vargas and Danilo Brenes (OTS - INBio) for their help with he identification of the species. Special thanks to all the great friends of La Selva, especially Addy, Rosa, León Víctor, Carlos, Jenny, Víctor and Astrid, for all what I experienced and learned with them.

Edited and mastered at the Centrum voor Elektronische Muziek Stitching (Center for Electronic Music Foundation) in Amsterdam during the spring of 1997. Thanks to Michael Fahres, Arno Peeters, Ruud Lekx, Piet Hein van de Poel and Armeno Alberts for their help and support.

La Selva was premiered in an acousmatic performance at Teatro Fanal of the Fanal Contemporary Art Center in San José, Costa Rica, on August 1997. Special thanks to Marcela Rodríguez and Edín Solís for making possible this presentation. Also to Claudia Barrionuevo, director of the Theatre, and Sofía Rodríguez for their collaboration and support.

Thanks to José, Peter, Roel, Kit and René for their help and encouragement during the production of this work.