"I can't wait for the metric system to replace numbers. That way, when someone asks, how big are you? I can say, 120."
-Robin Williams

BRB
 

I was just being stupid, Noise is Art I guess but even moreso Noise is Rad.......

Like when i guy I know who was being interviewed by the Wire about his "free rock" band:

Interviewer: What is your bands asthetic?

Interviewee: We are six dudes who like to play music, communicate with each other musically.

Noise shouldn't be too intellectual, thats when you get geeks sitting infront of lap-tops twiddling knobs while the audience sits perfectly still for 45 minutes.

All good points Onani Nic.

yeah, the wire tends to forget that one of the best things about music is that it is fun. what band was that in the interview?

It was a Sydney band called Castings, not one word of the hour and a half interview was used in the article. I can't remember what issue it was, it might have been the Lightning Bolt one. Castings rule!

Noise is not art.
Noise is noise.
End of story.

Than, why do we love SY? Because of they're amazing artistic capabilities, which includes NOISE!

the ringing in my ears

I actually agree with signpost, because I think once noise becomes art- it has meaning and fails to be noise.

Point taken. But, I myself can't help but feel overwhelmed everytime I hear something like "Hidros 3", or "In The Fishtank". & to me, being overwhelmed is an example of art.

no

it's ironic that there's people like marley trying to come up with this big justifications for it.

noise is just that, it's unironic

In addition to what I have said here

...The argument, couched in somewhat high falutin' terms may be summarised not in vapid emotivist responses, but in terms of the questions which noise poses for the general appreciation of music. 'Noise music' contians within it a naturaly anachronism, that of the conjoining of two opposed terms. In itself this is not something that the general music listener is unfamiliar with; cf the changing face of R & B; philosophically speaking, some us have actually realised that post-modernism does not refer to what it seems to (and I'm damned if I can be arsed to regurgitate that argument)...

The referent 'noise' refers to several things (again, see my posts in above link). What the general argument here is referring to is a slightly different side of things; One group of protagonists assert the anachronism of the apparant referent for noise (which is an mis-understanding of which 'noise' the word noise refers). Another side asserts, badly: That noise, by dint of its appearance as a general category of music, must therefore have a dialogue to which we can appeal. This dialogue is very much present but not explicit; were it to be made explicit, we would probably found that the aesthetic criteria, such as they might be, would not refer to harmony, melody, counterpoint and the like, but timbre, volume, volume dynamics* and sub-categories/ criteria of enharmonics, sub-categories of musique concrete's criteria.

Now. Can we stop having these stupid "I think it is." "I think it isn't". "Well, I think you're wrong." "Well, it's all subjective" arguments and talk about things with at least the slightest modicum of intelligence.

PLEASE?

*Volume dynamics is a different category to volume; if this isn't clear, then perhaps you're not thinking about noise in anything like a properly critical fashion.

see? this is what i meant when i said that noise shouldn't be art, it spoils the fun in it makes it seem like it's something pretentiously out of proportions.

Any more pretentious than involving yourself in a public dialogue and then cosseting yourself behind accusations of sophistry?

uuugh you guys suck noise kicks ass, period.

1) i wasn't attacking you, i just though your post was a perfect example of people making noise into some art/intellectual thing which misses the point (i my opinion) sure there's people who do noise for art reasons and to start this kind of discussions and overblown wordery, but the noise i like it's pretty unself-conciouss, as much self concious as rock gets i think. that's the noise i think should be the one that mattered

2) i'm not really discussing anything, i just point stuff out

3) if it bothers you this threads of music should be this and that. avoid them!! that's what i do with the genre and overrated/underrated threads

What Glice is getting at is actually something really simple and the fact that he "couched it in somewhat high falutin' terms" is, in my opinion, pretty hilarious. In a good way.

When this thread first came up, I was wondering what the point was. I mean, we had just had a pretty long discussion in the thread I started called The Meaning of Noise (a rant). Glice helped out quite a bit in there.

His reaction in this thread is similar to the reaction I had in my "Rock vs. Rock 'n' Roll" thread. I flipped out at the "vapid emotivist" responses that everyone was posting and then got flamed for being pretentious. All I wanted to do then was have a discussion about what the words meant and about the possibility of coming up with a good rational meaning that would do away with all the competing usages. I didn't use the word "emotivist" because I've always tended to use that word to describe moral utterances, but it would have worked perfectly to describe what was going on in there.

However, I don't think you are using sophistry Glice, because sophistry is suppossed to be deceptively simple and misleading. You seemed to be trying to be as esoteric and obscure as you could and using that as some sort of shit-stick. But what you're saying is right on and like I said, pretty funny. Whether you meant it that way or not.....

Hey Everyneurotic, he wasn't really talking about noise--for the most part, he was talking about the way you guys were expressing yourselves. He has a point, but it may be a little unrealistic to expect the kind of discussion he's looking for on an internet forum.

noise is sound milled :)

i guess you are right, i get that reaction when people start using big words to talk about music, it annoys the shit out of me.

i should just follow my rule and stay clear of genre threads

By its original and broadest definition, art (from the Latin ars, meaning "skill" or "craft") is the product or process of the effective application of a body of knowledge, most often using a set of skills; this meaning is preserved in such phrases as "liberal arts" and "martial arts". However, in the modern use of the word, which rose to prominence during the Renaissance, art is commonly understood to be the process or result of making material works (or artwork) which, from concept to creation, adhere to the "creative impulse"—that is, art is distinguished from other works by being in large part unprompted by necessity, by biological drive, or by any undisciplined pursuit of recreation. By both definitions of the word, artistic works have existed for almost as long as humankind, from early pre-historic art to contemporary art.

Yep, you're pretty much spot on Noumenal. And yeah, I'm not going to get a decent discussion on noise here or most other places on the internet. However, I'm adressing my own frustration more than anything else. I'm well aware that noise musicians don't like to talk about their music in anything other than 'it just is' type terms. What frustrates me is that noise is an incredibly diverse and interesting field which is always given a very short shrift, either by its adherents refusing to mount a defence (which spills into relativistic nonsense) or by its detractors accusing people of pretentiousness, the 'emporers new clothes' argument. I understand that people don't want it talked about in intellectual terms, but we all respond to things in different ways, and I'm not going to stop typing intelligent/ malicious/ crap humour things here because I happen to quite enjoy it.

The problem is that when the 'pretentious' word is used, it really, really gets my back up. And makes me want to savage children. Because it's generally said by dillentantes with nothing worthwhile to offer the world who don't understand and refuse to try to understand things that are beyond their meagre little minds (this is directed in no particular direction).

And, returning to specificity, part of the interest in music is always where it sits in a wider context, how it is reflective of the world. Fair enough, there is a lot of prolix thrown at noise as an art project, and a lot of it is vacuous guff... however, noise is an important feature of our musical world, and unless it is discussed, and it is established in some way, it will never be anything more than a foot note to the late 20th Century.

Gah. I should've got out of the right side of bed this morning instead. That would've been a better idea.

I tend to restrict myself to using the word "noise" in a very specific way. I only use it to refer to acoustical properties of sound. If a sound has a reasonably perceptible pitch, then it's not noise. Of course, there's some grey area there too, but it works 99% of the time. Sometimes you run across a sound that some people can discern a pitch in and some can't. But that's pretty rare.

Using the word this way avoids those usages that imply some sort of value judgement, and that's how I like it. I still run into people (of course) who use it in other ways and this causes misunderstandings that need to be straightened out.

It's not that I avoid making critical judgements about music. I love making critical judgements. It's just that I want clarity. If you want to talk about what art is, fine, but let's make it clear that that's what we're talking about. If you want to make value judgments, fine, but let's make it clear that that's what we're talking about.

Talking about noise can be frustrating because meanings of the word encompass all of these: the meaning of art, value judgments, acoustic properties, and so on. So sometimes it feels like everybody's talking about different things but using the same word, and that's really really annoying.

Pm on it's way to you Mr Noumenal.

what's wrong with sitting in front of a laptop and twiddling knobs for 45 minutes? i rather enjoy doing just that.

noise is fun and natural. i think that it's music living up to it's full capabilities by being a little harder to digest.

some people overanalyze it and some people undermine it. it is what it is. and it's completely subjective.

(i think it's crunk)

live labtop sucks.


noise = 10,000Hz - 12,000Hz
I do not like these tones.

...I contend that it isn't completely subjective. If it were completely subjective, then why does Merzbow sell far more records, like nearly 10 times as much, as anyone else in noise? Does that not suggest that there is such a thing as a criteria for 'good' and 'bad' within noise? I realise that you probably don't want to follow this thought, but it is exactly why I am interested in noise - there HAS to be some reason why some people are perceived of as better, otherwise the success or otherwise of some artists would be entirely down to the advertising and commerce behind it. That Merzbow is more successful than anyone else, that Merzbow is generally thought of as 'better' MUST (to my mind) invoke the notion of quality, and in turn, this notion of quality must have criteria.

I'm not going to spit invective just yet, but this is the simplest thing in the world for me, and I can rarely see why people constantly appeal to this notion of absolute subjectivity, which is counter-productive and counter-intuitive.

So apologies if this seems pretentious, but this genuinely is a very, very simple thing for me, and I get frustrated that other people don't see it that way.

[note to self - really, you don't care... repeat and relax]

*Twitches*

Before you can make subjective assertions, you have to acknowledge its objective existence and definitions. Any commentary made on it without that precedent is inconsequential and moronic. Without some degree of categorization, dissection, and identification, you're attempting to debate an issue without common ground, which is just self-defeating.

As Glice and Noumenal have already eloquently pointed out, there are specific elements and 'nuances' that comprise the term "noise." For the most part, its definition is undebatable. It's much more productive to tackle that bit first before bantering about emotivist assertions masquerading as empirical conclusions.

Don't you love when you decide to throw your two cents in, and your post comes on the tail of someone much clearer and more articulate than you?

"Yeah, like, what he said."

Hey don't give val-holla-ing too much of a hard time, we go to the same school. Go Tigers!

You didn't sound like an up-their-own-arse intellectual prick though. Ergo, you win.

No, kudos to you for having the knowledge and lexicon to communicate your point so well.

There's a difference between sounding like a pompous ass, and simply knowing what you're talking about.

Hehe, thanks. I find it quite frustrating when I get accused of long-wordism, especially when most of the time I'm trying to say things as simply and clearly as possible. Should I wish to manifest my desire for prolixity, I am assured in my rambunctuous, often catacretic multitudenous dissmenations of sytactical dance enough to proliferate said indulgent proclivities with the upmost haste.

its such a fine line between stupid and clever.

i was going to steer clear from this discussion from this thread but this really caught my eye.

by your logic, britney spears is a far better musician than sonic youth if your criteria is record selling.

why is merzbow the best selling noise artist? he has been doing it for twice as long as pretty much anyone active in the scene, tours like crazy, has a very defined and engaged self image, has been marketed to arty types, metalheads, goth/industrial fans, indie kids and punks the world over.

you can't compare someone who has been doing this since like the mid-70's with bands that started in the mid-90's or the 00's even.

is there a criteria to know if some noise music is better than other noise music? yes, it's whether it sounds good to people or not.

Yeah, but you'll have to be sure to check your spelling :p

Oh dear...get this, Glice, before I pop a gasket. I don't want to be horning in on your gig, ya know?

Excellent. Fair points all. Except - I was suggesting that Merzbow's success invokes the notion of there being such a thing as 'good' and 'bad' noise; it does not suggest a corellation between record sales and quality of music. This is a miscegenation of dialogues. The difference is that noise has risen from being a marginal experimental concern to something that is fairly well known now (especially if Wolf Eyes and the like are garnering much more attention. I was talking about Merzbow's commercial success as being indicative of qualitative values within the noise audience's appreciation; I was not suggesting that Merzbow is inferior to Britney Spears. The criteria for discussing Spears are entirely removed from those with which we may discuss Merzbow.

I can compare Merzbow to Whitehouse, who have been going longer. Both are well known; one sells a hell of a lot more than the other.

There are more criteria than just 'whether it sounds good to people'. That is a total non-sequiter (sp?). Noise rejects harmony and melody in favour of volume dynamics and all that gash which I've already said.

[All that gash that I've already said... I'm actually telling myself to stop writing. Good work near-conscious]

*Edit - Truncated, please, go ahead. I've said a lot already, I wouldn't want to deprive someone else of the non-pleasure of re-stating things that have already been said in an increasingly frustrated manner.

call the mechanics dept, i think a gasket is gonna get blown over here too.