comp with 20 tracks
Jamie
Brent C wrote:
> I know a studio that will press 20 CDs for $100 (including basic mastering). Anyone
> interested in splitting the time/CDs/cost? Could be a cool little idea, something
> different than doing a whole fucked up press run. Whoever has a CD burner can make
> copies if they want to. Post something or email me: xoise(at)usa(dot)net.
are they CD-R's or 'proper' silver disks?
Bless Ed
> I'm looking mostly for scum pop, stolen sound, sampler waste, acoustic
> folk-trash, bad free jazz, and goofy/trippy shit that don't make no
> sense. I'm not looking for basic harsh noise unless it includes some
> other element to it, like a pop song playing with it, or a hardcore
> techno beat.
Feh. Dang "eccentric noise" purists. All they care about is "who has the
most eccentric taste." Wankers. ;0
cow beret vowel tar
I'm reading this book called "Music, The Brain, and Ecstacy" by
robert jourdain (some interesting information in it but it's
written by a real fucking wanker and I wouldn't recommend it)
and it has a section on the loss of hearing. It describes
some sort of disfunction in the brain where people's voices
sound like donald duck, the pitch of sound can alternate up
and down at random, and a beethoven synphony can sound like
"breaking glass and clanging metal". How
infinitely rad ?!?!?!?? Imagine - the entire world turned
into your own perpetual scum noise orchestra. The author
concluded "there are worse fates than deafness." Wanker.
Bless Ed wrote:
>
> Brent C wrote:
> > Noise is noise is noise, but scum is just whatever. Not saying I'm
> > against noise, but I think it can be defined as harsh and heavy, more
> > like death metal.
>
> Harsh and heavy? Death metal? Are you kidding? Noise is loud, granted.
"Loud" is kind of a meaningless way to describe music. I mean,
what happens when I play "loud" music with the volume set at 2
and "quiet" music with the volume full blast? Do musical
definitions change?
> But in that capacity it is much more like Romantic or early 20th C than
> fucking death metal.
Not all noise is the same. Some of it is sonic-conceptually
similar to death metal (Venereology, for instance). Also there
are metal/grind type bands who have a "noise" sort of approach
(Napalm Death's Scum for instance).
Menschenfiend
I also work with a small label that will do small pressings of cds.All are silver
surfaced cdrs.$25 for the first $4 dollars each for the rest.
email for details and a list of references.
thanks
Twizzler
Bless Ed wrote:
> Noise owes more to the likes of Beethovan, or even Ligeti, than it
> does to conceptual wankers like Cage and Russolo. If Beethovan was
> alive today, he'd be a noisehead.
If Beethoven was alive today, he'd be saying "why is it so dark in
here?"
<<< Makes Mouths Happy >>>
Bless Ed
Brent C wrote:
> That's why I think there's a real difference between noise and scum.
Relax, Brent. I was only kidding. =) Sure there's a difference. The only
thing about it is, nobody cares.
> Noise is noise is noise, but scum is just whatever. Not saying I'm
> against noise, but I think it can be defined as harsh and heavy, more
> like death metal.
Harsh and heavy? Death metal? Are you kidding? Noise is loud, granted.
But in that capacity it is much more like Romantic or early 20th C than
fucking death metal. A Stravinsky or a Berlioz. Y'know, "big" sound.
Dramatic, larger-than-life stuff that speaks for itself, without need of
concepts and pretty pictures. Not that I have anything against the
occasional pretty picture, of course....
Noise owes more to the likes of Beethovan, or even Ligeti, than it does
to conceptual wankers like Cage and Russolo. If Beethovan was alive
today, he'd be a noisehead. It's the only thing he'd be able to listen
to properly... =)
> I mean, you could pretty much make a parody of a noise artist as being
> a psuedo-intellectual nihilist bondage anti-everything all-around
> tough leather geek elitist, like a big snobby druggy arteest or
> something.
You could, but then you'd be way off-base. You could apply the same
parody to every white middle-class gentleman between the ages of 15 and
26, and probably be more accurate. Noise has nothing to do with it.
Period. And get off the anti-bondage thing for crying out loud. Bondage
has been part of the mainstream for what, 25 years? Where have all these
sheltered little critics been living? Under a rock?
adam.
On Fri, 26 Jun 1998, Bless Ed wrote:
> Harsh and heavy? Death metal? Are you kidding? Noise is loud, granted.
> But in that capacity it is much more like Romantic or early 20th C than
> fucking death metal. A Stravinsky or a Berlioz. Y'know, "big" sound.
> Dramatic, larger-than-life stuff that speaks for itself, without need of
> concepts and pretty pictures. Not that I have anything against the
> occasional pretty picture, of course....
>
> Noise owes more to the likes of Beethovan, or even Ligeti, than it does
> to conceptual wankers like Cage and Russolo. If Beethovan was alive
> today, he'd be a noisehead. It's the only thing he'd be able to listen
> to properly... =)
you know, i like to intellectualize my noise as much as the next guy, but
face it--the shit's NOISE. noise itself annihilates musical conventions,
even itself. it has a way of being (simultaneously) intellectually
stimulating and merely superficial. in a way, postmodernist ideology at
its finest--noise invalidates itself, which thus gives it intellectual and
musical significance, which as soon as formed, is again invalidated.
cyclical, and neverending...and who fucking cares?
on a different note, i'm curious as to your rather bold claim that
beethoven would be listening to noise, were he alive today. i can see the
link to ligeti (though perhaps not the way you see it), but beethoven?
please, explain why he would be all about merzbow...
(man, i hope i'm not missing some sarcasm in your statement...)
> > I mean, you could pretty much make a parody of a noise artist as being
> > a psuedo-intellectual nihilist bondage anti-everything all-around
> > tough leather geek elitist, like a big snobby druggy arteest or
> > something.
>
> You could, but then you'd be way off-base. You could apply the same
> parody to every white middle-class gentleman between the ages of 15 and
> 26, and probably be more accurate. Noise has nothing to do with it.
> Period. And get off the anti-bondage thing for crying out loud. Bondage
> has been part of the mainstream for what, 25 years? Where have all these
> sheltered little critics been living? Under a rock?
i agree with you on the first part. the bondage link? no idea, though...
i try to approach noise from a purely aural perspective--what else does
the stuff need, honestly?
adam.
Twizzler
cow beret vowel tar wrote:
> "Loud" is kind of a meaningless way to describe music.
Well, maybe loud can be shorthand for "packed with simultaneous sonic
events at comparable levels of intensity." In music speak we say
"overproduced," but if noise is anything, overproduced probably isn't
it. Loud works.
> what happens when I play "loud" music with the volume set at 2
> and "quiet" music with the volume full blast? Do musical
> definitions change?
Well, yeah. Ambient becomes "that infernal racket"... usually
accompanied by a hefty dose of "SHUT!" and "BLOODY!", with forseeable
carnage in the near future. Sometimes loud doesn't work. <shrug>
> Not all noise is the same. Some of it is sonic-conceptually
> similar to death metal (Venereology, for instance).
Death-metal folks might think so, but noiseheads would not. So who gets
to decide? I'd put my money on noiseheads, for the same reason I'd put
my money on metalheads when the next Napalm Death hits the shops.
Venereology is just a pimple on the Noise Donkey's enormous arse. The
relationship between noise and metal is fostered by metalheads, and
those who have an axe to grind against metal or noise or both.
> are metal/grind type bands who have a "noise" sort of approach
> (Napalm Death's Scum for instance).
Yeah but how many noiseheads, bar of course the metalhead faction,
really give a shit?
Bless Ed
cow beret vowel tar wrote:
> what happens when I play "loud" music with the volume set at 2
> and "quiet" music with the volume full blast?
The universe explodes.
> Not all noise is the same. Some of it is sonic-conceptually
> similar to death metal (Venereology, for instance). Also there
> are metal/grind type bands who have a "noise" sort of approach
> (Napalm Death's Scum for instance).
There are folk bands who have a "noise" sort of approach too. So what?
Bless Ed
Twizzler wrote:
> Well, maybe loud can be shorthand for "packed with simultaneous sonic
> events at comparable levels of intensity." In music speak we say
> "overproduced," but if noise is anything, overproduced probably isn't
> it. Loud works.
Right on, Twizzler! You have it all figured out I see. Heheh.
Bless Ed
adam. wrote:
> you know, i like to intellectualize my noise as much as the next guy,
> but face it--the shit's NOISE. noise itself annihilates musical
> conventions, even itself. it has a way of being (simultaneously)
> intellectually stimulating and merely superficial.
You could probably say the same thing about everything. We live with the
"superficial." It's inescapable. Intellectual stimulation can come from
anywhere, not just the superficially "intellectual." =)
> its finest--noise invalidates itself, which thus gives it intellectual
> and musical significance, which as soon as formed, is again
> invalidated.
Noise invalidates itself? Since when? People invalidate noise. Noise
just sits there shredding speakers.
> cyclical, and neverending...and who fucking cares?
We're having this conversation aren't we? Or are you just another
figment of my imagination again? Damn figments...
> on a different note, i'm curious as to your rather bold claim that
> beethoven would be listening to noise, were he alive today.
A joke, son! Beethoven was apparently stone deaf when he died. Some
noiseheads have blown long and hard about the apparent "somatic" effects
of noise.
> (man, i hope i'm not missing some sarcasm in your statement...)
I should kiss you for making my day!
(watch out for the smileys. they're deadly.)
adam.
On Sat, 27 Jun 1998, Bless Ed wrote:
> adam. wrote:
> > you know, i like to intellectualize my noise as much as the next guy,
> > but face it--the shit's NOISE. noise itself annihilates musical
> > conventions, even itself. it has a way of being (simultaneously)
> > intellectually stimulating and merely superficial.
>
> You could probably say the same thing about everything. We live with the
> "superficial." It's inescapable. Intellectual stimulation can come from
> anywhere, not just the superficially "intellectual." =)
i was speaking conceptually, mainly--the abstract idea of anti-music,
which usually covers noise nicely, is an intellectually stimulating
abstract that at the same time is merely...noise.
> > its finest--noise invalidates itself, which thus gives it intellectual
> > and musical significance, which as soon as formed, is again
> > invalidated.
>
> Noise invalidates itself? Since when? People invalidate noise. Noise
> just sits there shredding speakers.
exactly. it just sits there, shredding speakers. artistically, that's
important in and
of itself, but that importance becomes negated by the fact that it's
simply just shredding speakers. does this make any sense at all? some
people approach noise as "the ultimate musical alternative" or some other
such phrase. noise is undeniably this. but when faced with the actual
decibels of screaming, shrieking, squalling merzbow, such a phrase, though
applicable, seems...shallow. i don't know, maybe it's just me...
> > cyclical, and neverending...and who fucking cares?
>
> We're having this conversation aren't we? Or are you just another
> figment of my imagination again? Damn figments...
we figments often take a life of their own...
> > on a different note, i'm curious as to your rather bold claim that
> > beethoven would be listening to noise, were he alive today.
>
> A joke, son! Beethoven was apparently stone deaf when he died. Some
> noiseheads have blown long and hard about the apparent "somatic" effects
> of noise.
not to piss on your picnic, but i was aware that beethoven was deaf when
he died. (on a side note, it's one of the things that makes his later
works so moving to me...) i've just met people on usenet before who say
stuff like this and NOT mean it as a joke. i just assumed you were one of
them, and wanted to know how you'd back it up.
> > (man, i hope i'm not missing some sarcasm in your statement...)
>
> I should kiss you for making my day!
well, maybe you should at that...just plant those lips on the screen, and
consider your job done.
adam.
Bless Ed
adam. spewed:
> i was speaking conceptually, mainly--the abstract idea of anti-music,
> which usually covers noise nicely, is an intellectually stimulating
> abstract that at the same time is merely...noise.
I agree completely. But I was also taking your argument as my cue to
lash out at the way the old circular "anti-music" argument effectively
marginalizes noise as something "mere," when it really doesn't have to
be.
When I invoked the almighty Beethoven (albeit rather sardonically), I
was trying to give vent to my feeling that noise has captured something
that has been lacking from progressive/experimental/etc music for most
of the last century: an undeniable sense of power and drama. (not the
negatively slanted deathmetalesque "harsh and heavy" but something
almost spiritual in its positive celebratory potential.) There is a real
majesty, even authority, to noise as sound which saturates the senses in
a very literal sense. As much as I enjoy and admire the work of Xenaxis,
say, or Stockhausen, these guys were (are) engaged in an intellectual
process. They were more concerned with "pushing boundaries" and
"exploring sound" than actually doing something with it once they found
it: experimenting rather than celebrating newly discovered potentials.
Instead of music we had "experiments," "psycho-acoustics" and other
vague gestures toward social commentary and psychology. (Throbbing
Gristle proved no better, and imo much, much, worse.) I think, in their
revolutionary zeal, they often lost sight of their own tastes, and were
thus regrettably forced to consign themselves to Anti. (and if they
didn't do it themselves, two thousand equally tasteless critics were
happy to do it for them.)
The sad result is status for noise as something "anti" or
"experimental". Now that the experiment is finished, it can be
discarded. To that I say, we've only scratched the surface. Now that we
have a pretty good idea of what noise is, it's time to start
"experimenting" inside it. Currently, it almost all "sounds the same"
because only a handful of noiseheads have the balls work with it
exclusively. ("Oh yeah!? Well my dad is more open-minded than your
dad!")
> exactly. it just sits there, shredding speakers. artistically,
> that's important in and of itself, but that importance becomes negated
> by the fact that it's simply just shredding speakers. does this make
> any sense at all?
Perfect sense. But just sitting there shredding speakers can have more
impact than is generally given credit for. Put it this way. Only noise
can truly give you a sense of unyielding force and extremity without the
price of permanent hearing loss. Sure, you can crank any music up loud
enough, but 20 minutes later you'll have to rely on a part of your
anatomy other than your ears. (you'll be deaf. period. ) Noise is more
efficient and thus much more effective in achieving the same end. Noise
as it stands is therefore the only realistic means to that end.
> not to piss on your picnic, but i was aware that beethoven was deaf
> when he died.
Maybe, but this is a public forum. Better to aim for the common
denominator.
> (on a side note, it's one of the things that makes his later
> works so moving to me...)
(here we have the other half of my little joke...)
> i've just met people on usenet before who say
> stuff like this and NOT mean it as a joke. i just assumed you were
> one of them, and wanted to know how you'd back it up.
Naturally. I demand and expect nothing less. =)
Robb Cunningham
jqu...@monmouth.com wrote:
>
> > > Noise owes more to the likes of Beethovan, or even Ligeti, than it does
> > > to conceptual wankers like Cage and Russolo. If Beethovan was alive
> > > today, he'd be a noisehead. It's the only thing he'd be able to listen
> > > to properly... =)
> owes more to artists like Merzbow (and the like) than anything else. A criticism
> often leveled at death metal is that the people involved with playing it are only
> influenced by other death metal bands, thereby eventually making everything sound
> the same. I think the same thing happens with noise... if more people that are
> involved with noise got into people like Cage and Russolo, then the entire genre
> wouldn't be so utterly predictable.
I think you couldn't be more wrong. So far I have never once
encountered a noise fan (on the net or otherwise) who does not
appreciate quite a wide variety of music. In fact I'd say as
a general rule (not that general rules work or anything) that
the "typical noise fan" is quite an ecclectic sort of chap,
usually with a pretty large music collection (comparitively)
that contains a bunch of stuff whose own "typical fans"
might not necessarily mesh (using myself as an example, since
I am a noise fan and maybe a little typical, I have been
known to have NWA, New Order, Dissecting Table, Napalm Death,
and nurse with wound CDs stacked next to my CD player and
listened to in succession.)
jqu...@monmouth.com
> > Noise owes more to the likes of Beethovan, or even Ligeti, than it does
> > to conceptual wankers like Cage and Russolo. If Beethovan was alive
> > today, he'd be a noisehead. It's the only thing he'd be able to listen
> > to properly... =)
Quite a claim. In regards to your first sentence, I think that a lot of modern noise
owes more to artists like Merzbow (and the like) than anything else. A criticism
often leveled at death metal is that the people involved with playing it are only
influenced by other death metal bands, thereby eventually making everything sound
the same. I think the same thing happens with noise... if more people that are
involved with noise got into people like Cage and Russolo, then the entire genre
wouldn't be so utterly predictable.
> you know, i like to intellectualize my noise as much as the next guy, but
> face it--the shit's NOISE.
Which is exactly why a lot of us feel the need to intellectualize, or, more accurately,
rationalize listening to it.
> noise itself annihilates musical conventions,
> even itself. it has a way of being (simultaneously) intellectually
> stimulating and merely superficial. in a way, postmodernist ideology at
> its finest--noise invalidates itself, which thus gives it intellectual and
> musical significance, which as soon as formed, is again invalidated.
I couldn't agree more. But I would go a step further to say that, given this innate
tendency of invalidation, noise begs to be injected with conceptual and symbolic
content, which is not at all impossible. What better example of postmodernist
thought than a type of musical symbolism that collapses upon itself at the second of
hearing it?
> i agree with you on the first part. the bondage link? no idea, though...
> i try to approach noise from a purely aural perspective--what else does
> the stuff need, honestly?
It comes down to two camps. One is content to sit in front of their speakers and
have the sounds of Aube and Macronympha oscillate across their eardrums. The
other needs to understand why the members of Hijokaiden felt compelled to get up
on stage and do what they did. Both camps have valid claims of enjoying noise, but I
simply can't exist in the former comfortably...
Creaig Dunton
Robb Cunningham wrote:
> jqu...@monmouth.com wrote:
> > Quite a claim. In regards to your first sentence, I think that a lot of modern noise
> > owes more to artists like Merzbow (and the like) than anything else. A criticism
> > often leveled at death metal is that the people involved with playing it are only
> > influenced by other death metal bands, thereby eventually making everything sound
> > the same. I think the same thing happens with noise... if more people that are
> > involved with noise got into people like Cage and Russolo, then the entire genre
> > wouldn't be so utterly predictable.
>
> I think you couldn't be more wrong. So far I have never once
> encountered a noise fan (on the net or otherwise) who does not
> appreciate quite a wide variety of music. In fact I'd say as
> a general rule (not that general rules work or anything) that
> the "typical noise fan" is quite an ecclectic sort of chap,
> usually with a pretty large music collection (comparitively)
> that contains a bunch of stuff whose own "typical fans"
> might not necessarily mesh (using myself as an example, since
> I am a noise fan and maybe a little typical, I have been
> known to have NWA, New Order, Dissecting Table, Napalm Death,
> and nurse with wound CDs stacked next to my CD player and
> listened to in succession.)
Actually, I think the point James was making is that more noise artists should take
influences from other musicians (in this case, avant garde composers), and let that into
their noise. I think it's a general consensus that most noise listeners do have a wide
palette of music that they enjoy. I know I'd go mad if I had only Masonna, Whitehouse,
and the Incapacitants to listen to. Although I do find that much of the "older" Japanese
artists, such as Hijokaidan, Merzbow, and the Incapacitants have cited 60's and 70's
psychedelic and space rock as their influences. Oh well, I'm usually known to listen to
Wire, Killing Joke, and Wu Tang Clan while making my own noise stuff ;)
np-Coil "Heartworms"
--
Creaig D
http://2fmp.hypermart.net -> 2nd Floor Mafia Productions
http://2fmp.hypermart.net/mypage/ -> My Page
http://fpc.hypermart.net -> False Prophet Campaign
adam.
On Tue, 30 Jun 1998, Bless Ed wrote:
<snip on the issue of experimentation vs. exploration re: noise>
> The sad result is status for noise as something "anti" or
> "experimental". Now that the experiment is finished, it can be
> discarded. To that I say, we've only scratched the surface. Now that we
> have a pretty good idea of what noise is, it's time to start
> "experimenting" inside it. Currently, it almost all "sounds the same"
> because only a handful of noiseheads have the balls work with it
> exclusively. ("Oh yeah!? Well my dad is more open-minded than your
> dad!")
this is a very interesting point of view, and one that i think i'll take
up with you when i get some further exposure to good noise...
> Only noise
> can truly give you a sense of unyielding force and extremity without the
> price of permanent hearing loss. Sure, you can crank any music up loud
> enough, but 20 minutes later you'll have to rely on a part of your
> anatomy other than your ears. (you'll be deaf. period. ) Noise is more
> efficient and thus much more effective in achieving the same end. Noise
> as it stands is therefore the only realistic means to that end.
once again, i plead the fifth, because to back up this specific argument
would require more good noise exposure.
> > stuff like this and NOT mean it as a joke. i just assumed you were
> > one of them, and wanted to know how you'd back it up.
>
> Naturally. I demand and expect nothing less. =)
what a satisfying response from you, overall. thank you for a good read.
now, a favor--i'm wondering if you could recommend some noise that you
consider relevant to this argument you bring up--i.e., noise that
"explores" the potential for drama and grandeur (is "immanency" a proper
word for this, or have i misunderstood you). i'm very interested in
hearing the aesthetic potential of noise.
adam.
setai
a small digression/: in my travels/communications I have noticed what I
think is a rather odd trend/ it seems that ALOT of noise/
experimental/tek/drone/darkambient fiends (myself included)- simply adore
the Pet Shop Boys/ there's just something about their work which attracts
lovers of dark/ abstract music/
any comments?/
sys.disconnect/:set\AI
>I think you couldn't be more wrong. So far I have never once
>encountered a noise fan (on the net or otherwise) who does not
>appreciate quite a wide variety of music. In fact I'd say as
>a general rule (not that general rules work or anything) that
>the "typical noise fan" is quite an ecclectic sort of chap,
>usually with a pretty large music collection (comparitively)
>that contains a bunch of stuff whose own "typical fans"
>might not necessarily mesh (using myself as an example, since
>I am a noise fan and maybe a little typical, I have been
>known to have NWA, New Order, Dissecting Table, Napalm Death,
>and nurse with wound CDs stacked next to my CD player and
>listened to in succession.)
>
>
Matthew Turner
> > Not all noise is the same. Some of it is sonic-conceptually
> > similar to death metal (Venereology, for instance).
>
> gets
> to decide? I'd put my money on noiseheads, for the same reason I'd put
>
> my money on metalheads when the next Napalm Death hits the shops.
> Venereology is just a pimple on the Noise Donkey's enormous arse. The
> relationship between noise and metal is fostered by metalheads, and
> those who have an axe to grind against metal or noise or both.
Yeah really ... does the metal/noise connection stretch much farther
than the merzbow/relapse connection? Death metal is dumb. Fact.
Is noise equaly as dumb? Maybe ... but, not in the same pimply budwieser
and Metallica sort of way ... and that's the key. I've never seen a
horse vomit.
Bless Ed
jqu...@monmouth.com spewed:
> Quite a claim. In regards to your first sentence, I think that a lot
> of modern noise owes more to artists like Merzbow (and the like) than
> anything else.
Merzbow (and the like) is modern noise.
> I think the same thing happens with noise... if more people that are
> involved with noise got into people like Cage and Russolo, then the
> entire genre wouldn't be so utterly predictable.
Wouldn't it? Some of the most unpredictable noisemakers are those with
little to no knowledge of (or interest in) the history and development
of noise and experimental music. And vice-versa. I think it's much more
important for noisemakers to know what lots other noisemakers are doing
here and now. Unfortunately, few actually do. Which may explain why so
many like yourself find the field "utterly predictable." In fact, right
now, in noise, I can't begin to count the number of noisemakers who are
upping the noise ante at every level. Noise has made huge strides in the
last two years alone. Yet how many are aware of this, and how many more
will dismiss my assertion out of hand, having sampled and sipped bits
and snippets from here and there, with no sense of origin or influence,
and concluded (rightly or wrongly) that they know what it's all about?
(how many are aware, for example, that the man behind Govt Alpha,
another frequent victim of flat-out dismissal, has for the last three
years been putting out some of the most eclectic and exciting noise
available today?) Know your noise. Start networking. Then worry about
history.
As to the question of predictability, ask yourself one question: "what
would make noise less predictable?" If, like me, you are forced to
answer, "something other than noise," then the question, valid as it may
be to musical tastes on a whole, does not really address noise.
> It comes down to two camps. One is content to sit in front of their
> speakers and have the sounds of Aube and Macronympha oscillate across
> their eardrums. The other needs to understand why the members of
> Hijokaiden felt compelled to get up on stage and do what they did.
"Needs" is a pretty grey area. I don't think I "need" to know why
Hijokaidan do what they do, but it is of interest to me. Where do I
stand?
Jeremy Tolsma
Jeremy Tolsma
In article <359406...@nevrical.com>, edb...@nevrical.com says...
>
>Brent C wrote:
>> That's why I think there's a real difference between noise and scum.
>
>Relax, Brent. I was only kidding. =) Sure there's a difference. The only
>thing about it is, nobody cares.
>
who like jazz only do so because they don't understand noise. I think Brent is
probably right, 'scum' is where its at. I can't see much intellectual
posturing and genre xenophobia coming from 'scum' artists... a scum artist
would take anything he can get his hands on and make something atrocious out of
it, never worrying about how his aesthetic compares to others. A scum artist
wouldn't even bother making same song over and over again with slight
performance variations, and calling the collection of recordings a 'style'.
The only reason people would have animocity towards scum artists is if they
insist on pinning everything down to a certain criteria.
adam.
> > Quite a claim. In regards to your first sentence, I think that a lot
> > of modern noise owes more to artists like Merzbow (and the like) than
> > anything else.
>
> Merzbow (and the like) is modern noise.
this, i believe, is exactly the point being made...which you seem to back
up nicely in your following statements.
> > I think the same thing happens with noise... if more people that are
> > involved with noise got into people like Cage and Russolo, then the
> > entire genre wouldn't be so utterly predictable.
>
> Wouldn't it? Some of the most unpredictable noisemakers are those with
> little to no knowledge of (or interest in) the history and development
> of noise and experimental music. And vice-versa. I think it's much more
> important for noisemakers to know what lots other noisemakers are doing
> here and now. Unfortunately, few actually do. Which may explain why so
> many like yourself find the field "utterly predictable." In fact, right
> now, in noise, I can't begin to count the number of noisemakers who are
> upping the noise ante at every level. Noise has made huge strides in the
> last two years alone. Yet how many are aware of this, and how many more
> will dismiss my assertion out of hand, having sampled and sipped bits
> and snippets from here and there, with no sense of origin or influence,
> and concluded (rightly or wrongly) that they know what it's all about?
> (how many are aware, for example, that the man behind Govt Alpha,
> another frequent victim of flat-out dismissal, has for the last three
> years been putting out some of the most eclectic and exciting noise
> available today?) Know your noise. Start networking. Then worry about
> history.
well goddammit, why don't we GET some recommendations on what and where to
start? isn't there someone here who is arrogant enough and knowledgable
enough about noise to say what some of the essential noise albums are?
now granted, noise is a hell of a lot cheaper to buy than most other music
due to the DIY approach noise musicians take. but i don't have the time
or cash to wade through thousands of $5 tapes of garbage to find that one
gem. hell, even if i could get someone to make a good comp tape of some
essential noise, i'd have a plan of attack.
adam.
biz...@udel.edu
"adam." <acc...@fox.tamu.edu> writes:
>now granted, noise is a hell of a lot cheaper to buy than most other music
>due to the DIY approach noise musicians take.
This is half true and half false... there are scores of bands/labels who
release stuff in such limited edition or in such gaudy packaging that they
get away with charging insanely large amounts of money. Just as there
are people who are content to trade or send you a homemade tape for
the price of a few stamps.
Bless Ed
Jeremy Tolsma wrote:
> The only reason people would have animocity towards scum artists is if
> they insist on pinning everything down to a certain criteria.
Couldn't have put it better myself. If scum is truly as open as its
advocates suggest, then the people who put together scum comps should
leave room for the occasional "harsh noise" or "jazz" submission. Which
is precisely what Brent did not do.
If I was putting together a scum comp, I'd accept absolutely everything.
Of course, I might have to mix the harsh noise on top of the jazz, or
put the hip-hop in one channel and the medieval folk in the other, just
to give it that proper "scum" feel. Slamming the door in the face of
harsh noise, however, is as bad as noise purism. Worse, even, because
noise purists don't flaunt their self-congradulatory "open-mindedness."
(for the record, I am aware of approximately two noise compilations to
ever feature "harsh noise" only: "Americanoise" and "Underground
Canada" from MSNP. Even MSNP's "Underground USA" left room for a small
variety of styles. the "noise purist" is the "open-minded" witchhunter's
bogeyman.)
Bless Ed
Bless Ed spewed:
> Of course, I might have to mix the harsh noise on top of the jazz, or
> put the hip-hop in one channel and the medieval folk in the other,
> just to give it that proper "scum" feel.
Incidently, if anyone is interested in exactly this, try the Govt Alpha
side-project "S. Isabella". There are currently two S.Isabella cds
available, both of which mix elements of everything. And I mean
everything.... yet still manage to retain a very strong noise feel.
Howard Stelzer
On Thu, 2 Jul 1998, setai wrote:
> a small digression/: in my travels/communications I have noticed what I
> think is a rather odd trend/ it seems that ALOT of noise/
> experimental/tek/drone/darkambient fiends (myself included)- simply adore
> the Pet Shop Boys/ there's just something about their work which attracts
Tho I certainly can't speak for everyone (fans of the noise genres and
sub-genres come from so many different angles and backgrounds), I must say
that I think the Pet Shop Boys are brilliant. And actually, it was a guy I
used to be in a noise band with who turned me on to them. For whatever
that's worth. One of the few bands who can make me laugh out loud, or get
all weepy. Either way, those are physical reactions, which is difficult
for music to do to a jaded old poot like me. "I Want a Dog" is just one of
my favorite songs, period, very sad and stuff.
Howard Stelzer. Intransitive Recordings.
www.visionload.com/intransitive
Robb Cunningham
>
> > > Not all noise is the same. Some of it is sonic-conceptually
> > > similar to death metal (Venereology, for instance).
> >
> > Death-metal folks might think so, but noiseheads would not. So who
> > gets
> > to decide? I'd put my money on noiseheads, for the same reason I'd put
> >
> > my money on metalheads when the next Napalm Death hits the shops.
> > Venereology is just a pimple on the Noise Donkey's enormous arse. The
> > relationship between noise and metal is fostered by metalheads, and
> > those who have an axe to grind against metal or noise or both.
>
> Yeah really ... does the metal/noise connection stretch much farther
> than the merzbow/relapse connection?<
well it comes from the fact that noise is connected to every
genre.
> Death metal is dumb. Fact.
> Is noise equaly as dumb? Maybe ... but, not in the same pimply budwieser
> and Metallica sort of way ... and that's the key. I've never seen a
yeah metallica and death metal have something to do with each
other.... you know alot
Robb Cunningham
>
> Robb Cunningham wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Yeah really ... does the metal/noise connection stretch much farther
> >
> > > than the merzbow/relapse connection?<
> >
> > well it comes from the fact that noise is connected to every
> > genre.
>
> records also listens to harsh noise?
no but lebanese pop is connnected to noise (not necessarily harsh
noise although a case could be argued there as well)
> p.s. Did you catch the difference there between "alot" and "a lot"?
kind of like the difference between noise and death metal?
Brent C
>Tho I certainly can't speak for everyone (fans of the noise genres and
>sub-genres come from so many different angles and backgrounds), I must >say that I think the Pet Shop Boys are brilliant.
HA...
Bless Ed
--------Forwarded Message------------
Date: Sun, 05 Jul 1998 15:37:14 GMT
From: Bless Ed <edb...@nevrical.com>
Newsgroups: alt.noise
Subject: Re: cheese & sleeze
adam. spewed:
> now, a favor--i'm wondering if you could recommend some noise that you
> consider relevant to this argument you bring up--i.e., noise that
> "explores" the potential for drama and grandeur (is "immanency" a
> proper word for this, or have i misunderstood you). i'm very
> interested in hearing the aesthetic potential of noise.
I may have been overdoing it a tad, but sure, "immanency" works. I
didn't have any particular noise in mind when I argued for immanency; I
was thinking about noise in general, and the way the overtones - the
myriad tones that constitute a particular sound - get to swell out a bit
to give the overall sound a sense of something that can be quite
overpowering. Compare it to less "noisy" work, where the broad range of
overtones is at the mercy of a few specific frequencies. Noise is more
unilateral across the sound palette. And with a bit of amplification,
that can sound truly awesome. (Wow. Who knew noise could be so
pluralistic in such a literal sense? Overtones of the world unite....)
One area in which we're seeing a lot of much-needed development is the
always worthy school of scrap metal. We're past the days when we had to
rely on a good dose of feedback to make a shoddily-soldered contact mike
sound good and massive - metal can do it all by itself. We can draw a
direct path from noisish people like Z'ev, The New Blockaders and
Vivenza to the more noiseheaded Merzbow, K2 and Macronympha, through to
newbie practitioners like Pain Jerk, Kazumoto Endo, Dave Gilden and Bob
Marinelli. What the new crop of noiseheads have brought to scrap metal
is a genuine explosiveness and power, not to mention technical
brilliance, that has been absent in the past partly for lack of
half-decent recording equipment.
But the place it's really starting to come together is where noise gets
to be noise. Those massed walls of sound are starting to sound
brilliant, filled with highly dynamic subsurface interplay that can toy
as naturally with spastic surface tension as with multiple levels of
competitive static. Mo-te, Crack Steel, Govt Alpha, Stimbox, Thirdorgan,
Facialmess, Incapacitants... I stop only for my own sanity's sake, and
yours.
In fact, I would love to give you a list of immanently recommended
noise, as would anyone present, but the simple truth is that different
example, but a lot of very sincere noise people avoid him like the
plague (a lot of very sincere noise people haven't heard "Super Compact
Disc", of course...)
My best advice would be to start with a good distributer (such as Self
Abuse Records - one of my personal faves), pick out a few compilations,
and come back to this list with a request for recommendations which you
hope will suit your tastes, as you might outline them. Discovering the
Sublime all by oneself, without the guidance of those who distribute
their advice all too freely (one must wonder what they find wrong with
it that they're always giving it away), is probably tantamount to
egotistical and self-delusional, but can be rewarding nonetheless.
Take it from me. =)
destruKt
Bless Ed <edb...@nevrical.com> wrote in article
<2694BC...@nevrical.com>...
> Jeremy Tolsma wrote:
> > The only reason people would have animocity towards scum artists is if
> > they insist on pinning everything down to a certain criteria.
>
> Couldn't have put it better myself. If scum is truly as open as its
> advocates suggest, then the people who put together scum comps should
> leave room for the occasional "harsh noise" or "jazz" submission. Which
> is precisely what Brent did not do.
Could somebody please explain to me what "scum" noise is? What makes it
different from standard extreme electronic noise?
Ritz
Brent C heeft geschreven in bericht <6num2i$9hk$1...@uuneo.neosoft.com>...
>>Could somebody please explain to me what "scum" noise is? What makes it
>>different from standard extreme electronic noise?
>
dedicated to
>all those disco stars who never made it.
>
>alt.meaningless.shit = alt.scum
So this ng is about MUSIC?!!!
Not about stoned people who want to post something on a ng
no matter what and where? :)
Cool - I like music just as much. =)
Please tell me what kind of music we're talking
about here?
noise? what is it?
Does it have something to do with Techno?
-Ritz
Jamie
Ritz wrote:
I don;t know much about any 'scum' scene or whatever, but my take on it is:
Imagine going to a rubbish dump and finding a really shit americano college
band 7" then playing it on a broken record player through a guitar amp.
Record it and voila a scum recording.
then loose the tape for 6 years, find it in a shoebox with 3 others and
decide to press a CD for the sheer hell of it, fail to get a distributor and
have 500 CD's sitting in your shed for another 5 years, then throw them out
into a rubbish dump.
..
..
..
then someone finds a box of CD's in a rubbish dump, takes one home and plays
it on a broken CD player through a guitar amp......
_________
On a similar thread, anyone got 'Midnight gambler' by violent onsen geisha?
I just LOVE track 10 (errr...maybe 11) --- the one with the glam rock rock
loop underpinned with a cheap drummachine and a trash music concrete chorus.
Its an amazing track, cheap/ingenious/intoxicating.
Its *not* a noise track, (its a kinda wierd sampler/rock) but its strikes me
as the sort of 'post-noise' music that only a noise/head type muso could
make.
I;ve only got the one VOG CD, and really enjoy it. Any others worth getting?
What about 'otis' (out of print i know).
Jamie
Colin Pascal
Jamie (badm...@ix.netcom.com) writes:
I picked up Midnight Gambler from Pure, and I think it's shit. It's
boring, annoying, and a real chore to listen to. I heard so many good
things about VOG, but this cd left me extremely unimpressed.
Colin.
> On a similar thread, anyone got 'Midnight gambler' by violent onsen geisha?
>
> I just LOVE track 10 (errr...maybe 11) --- the one with the glam rock rock
> loop underpinned with a cheap drummachine and a trash music concrete chorus.
> Its an amazing track, cheap/ingenious/intoxicating.
> Its *not* a noise track, (its a kinda wierd sampler/rock) but its strikes me
> as the sort of 'post-noise' music that only a noise/head type muso could
> make.
>
> I;ve only got the one VOG CD, and really enjoy it. Any others worth getting?
> What about 'otis' (out of print i know).
>
> Jamie
>
>
>
--
"Alas!" said Candide, "I have known this love, this sovereign of hearts,
this soul of our soul; all it has ever brought me was one kiss and twenty
kicks in the ass. How could this beautiful cause produce in you so
abominable an effect?" - from _Candide_, by Voltaire.
Arrr!
Jamie wrote:
> Ritz wrote:
>
> > I don;t know much about any 'scum' scene or whatever, but my take on it is:
>
> Imagine going to a rubbish dump and finding a really shit americano college
> band 7" then playing it on a broken record player through a guitar amp.
> Record it and voila a scum recording.
yes, but more like that band Gazebo Boy or DeadlyFRIEND, both play bio-tech
clap....OW! petting at the petting zoo is good also.
> On a similar thread, anyone got 'Midnight gambler' by violent onsen geisha?
>
> I just LOVE track 10 (errr...maybe 11) --- the one with the glam rock rock
> loop underpinned with a cheap drummachine and a trash music concrete chorus.
> Its an amazing track, cheap/ingenious/intoxicating.
> Its *not* a noise track, (its a kinda wierd sampler/rock) but its strikes me
> as the sort of 'post-noise' music that only a noise/head type muso could
> make.
That sample is freddy mercury from the flash gordon soundtrack. its worth
listening to
>
>
> I;ve only got the one VOG CD, and really enjoy it. Any others worth getting?
> What about 'otis' (out of print i know).
Yes, Otis is funny also... there is one part where he blatently samples lenny
kravitz and just yells over it. Also try Teenage Pet Sounds if you can find
it... ....
Robb Cunningham
>
> > Couldn't put a name on it. Then Mr Marinelli told me he's really into
> > Masonna, K2 and Daniel Menche. Aha! scream the cynics. Evidence of yet
> > another copycat! Really? Maso-meets-K2-meets-Menche sounds like
> > something
> > I wanna hear. Something original.
> Not so much original as it is simply groovy. I hate to take this discussion down this
> path, but is anything truly original? Can a combination of musical parts equal out to a
> new, unique entity? I'm not so sure, but I think it's rare.
>
I've been pondering over the possibility of originality actually
existing for a while now. For a while a came to the conclusion
that originality didn't really exist because I cannot think of
any piece of art/music/whatever that does not draw heavily from
art/music/whatever that came before it. But then I thought about
it further and figured out that you can't look at individual
examples, but you have to look at the whole BIG picture. That is,
look at all the music that existed, say 30 years ago, in 1968.
And look at all of the music that exists today in 1998. It is
pretty clearly obvious that there are styles of music that exist
today that didn't exist 30 years ago. Which means that, at some
point along the way, originality must have happened, because a
new form exists. But when did it happen? You can't really point
to one band, or even a small handful of bands, or even a very
large shirt pocket full of bands and say that that's where it
happened. The reality is that it was, it is, ALWAYS happening
EVERYWHERE. And it doesn't happen all at once, it happens very,
very slowly (comparitively). Let's make a comparison to
evolution. In evolution everything happens incredibly slowly.
If you look at examples of a species all born within a certain
time period, you can't really point to any one specific and
say "this is the one that's evolving". However, it's apparent
when you see a monkey and then 5 million years later you see
a homo sapien, that evolution has occurred. But you can't point
to any incidence in time and say THIS IS WHEN IT HAPPENED. Just
like originality in art and music, it was always happening
everywhere. If you take any band and say "this band is totally
original", I could easily point out contemporaries across the
board that are doing similar things at the same time or
previously. But in 10 years we will both look at the state of
music as a whole, and we will see things happening that aren't
happening right now. This is why everyone always complains
about everything "stagnating." Because they look at the way
things are now, and they look at the way things were a whopping
2 or so years ago, and they don't see any "progress." The
fallacy is looking at small amounts of artists in a small
portion of time. If you look at the WHOLE picture and measure
large lengths of time, you will see originality everywhere.
Anyway, I think that trying to force originality out of
oneself is impossible. If you sit down in front of your
pile of gadgets and effects pedals and think "gee, I think
I'll do something original now," then you are in my opinion
leading yourself in the wrong direction. Because no matter
what you do, you will be drawing upon thoughts in your head
which came from the outside world, and whatever you create
will be easily comparable in some way to other stuff around
at the moment. Yet at the same time, in 20 years the whole
face of music/noise will have changed completely and that
will be true whether or not you took part in it. so just
do your shit, make it sound like what you want it to sound
like, and maybe you'll be falsely sited as a "revolutionary"
by genre buffs but even if that doesn't happen who gives a
fuck as long as you've pleased yourself??
So to answer your question anyway, depending on your definition
of "truely original" it is either NOTHING or EVERYTHING. But
there is no definition that allows the answer to be somewhere
in between.
Ed Blake
: well goddammit, why don't we GET some recommendations on what and where to
: start? isn't there someone here who is arrogant enough and knowledgable
: enough about noise to say what some of the essential noise albums are?
: now granted, noise is a hell of a lot cheaper to buy than most other music
: due to the DIY approach noise musicians take. but i don't have the time
: or cash to wade through thousands of $5 tapes of garbage to find that one
: gem. hell, even if i could get someone to make a good comp tape of some
: essential noise, i'd have a plan of attack.
: adam.
Sounds like your more interested in product, than in the actual thought
process.
Matthew Turner
> >
> > Yeah really ... does the metal/noise connection stretch much farther
>
> > than the merzbow/relapse connection?<
>
> well it comes from the fact that noise is connected to every
> genre.
Really? So, my Lebanese neighbor who enjoys his bizarre Lebanese pop
records also listens to harsh noise? The connection between death metal
fans and noise fans was what I was trying to point out. Maybe you need
to bite the bullet and sign yourself up for those remedial reading
classes you've been putting off for all these years.
>
>
> > Death metal is dumb. Fact.
> > Is noise equaly as dumb? Maybe ... but, not in the same pimply
> budwieser
> > and Metallica sort of way ... and that's the key. I've never seen a
>
> yeah metallica and death metal have something to do with each
> other.... you know alot
Again I was trying to draw a connection between the fans of the genres
and not necessarily between the music itself. I don't recall saying
that Metallica was a death metal band (although I don't really take too
much offense in someone viciously accusing me of not knowing my metal
and it's lame sub-genres! Bravo!). Thanks a lot.
adam.
i'm not quite sure what you mean by this, but for me, it's all balance.
if by thought process you mean going out and spending a lot of money
blindly on noise, then yeah, maybe i am. when one "gets into" a certain
genre of music, then they should find out about it--the roots and what are
considered important albums. then i'll have some frames of
reference--something described as "aube meets pain jerk meets whitehouse"
will actually mean something to me if i've heard something of them all.
if there's something wrong with that...
adam.
jqu...@monmouth.com
> >different from standard extreme electronic noise?
>
> Scum is the OTHER noise. And all the hamburgers you can eat. Scum is dedicated to
> all those disco stars who never made it.
>
> alt.meaningless.shit = alt.scum
really know about. Remove them from your brain. Scum is what's left.
jqu...@monmouth.com
> > little to no knowledge of (or interest in) the history and development
> > of noise and experimental music. And vice-versa. I think it's much more
> > important for noisemakers to know what lots other noisemakers are doing
> > here and now.
Otherwise, like I said before, you get a genre that starts to mine only itself for ideas
- "Damn, listen to this new Namanax CD. I gotta try something like this." More
often that not, an awareness of only the present within any genre will only serve to
create a hundred people doing the exact same thing. The more you listen to, and the
more you know about all music (not just the experimental side of things), the more
you be able to push any inert style forward.
>>Unfortunately, few actually do. Which may explain why so
> > many like yourself find the field "utterly predictable."
It is my opinion that, on the whole, it is. In my mind, there are a limited number of
noise artists who are putting out outstanding material. Sure, a lot of it is "good," but
the vast majority of it lacks insight or real purpose. That's just my opinion - I'm sure
others feel otherwise, and that's fine with me. Maybe if more people got a stick up
their asses about producing good noise, there might be an explosion of new, quality
noise....
>> In fact, right
> > now, in noise, I can't begin to count the number of noisemakers who are
> > upping the noise ante at every level. Noise has made huge strides in the
> > last two years alone.
Hrm. Yes and no. I tend to think that noise has undergone huge changes as of late,
and the gulf betweenwhat is good and what is crap has become wider because of the
number of noisemakers who are "upping the ante." I disagree with you, though - I
think that the number of said individuals is not as high as you think.
> > (how many are aware, for example, that the man behind Govt Alpha,
> > another frequent victim of flat-out dismissal, has for the last three
> > years been putting out some of the most eclectic and exciting noise
> > available today?) Know your noise. Start networking. Then worry about
> > history.
It's probably better for an artist to begin creating out of some inspiration, hit a wall,
and then turn to the people that have gone before (and done it better) for insight. A
painter would be hard pressed to paint the human anatomy with perfection without
studying how people like Michaelangelo did it. Why should noise be any different?
> well goddammit, why don't we GET some recommendations on what and where to
> start? isn't there someone here who is arrogant enough and knowledgable
> enough about noise to say what some of the essential noise albums are?
I've been waiting for that myself. Not the arrogance, just the recommendations. It's
cool to see what other people like and don't like, and why. It's half of what music is
all about - how people react to it.
Robb Cunningham
> Well, that's very nice and everything, but can someone please explain how
> Scum exactly _SOUNDS_ ??
> I mean, what instruments are used?
lots
> guitar? w/distortion? distorted like what?
distorted and not
> tr-303? how cool does it sound :)
>
tr-303, 808,909, 666, 293847219083
> how do the drums sound? fast, slow?
fast slow medium
>
> is it intrumental or do people actually *sing* in it?
yeah
(in which case it
> probably sucks for me anyway :) )
>
Brent C
"The scum scene is made up of the people in the bands that people who like scum
like to listen to." - Matt Exile
>I just LOVE track 10 (errr...maybe 11) --- the one with the glam rock rock
>loop underpinned with a cheap drummachine and a trash music concrete chorus.
Now THAT is scum.
>Its an amazing track, cheap/ingenious/intoxicating.
>Its *not* a noise track, (its a kinda wierd sampler/rock) but its strikes me
>as the sort of 'post-noise' music that only a noise/head type muso could make.
Break on through to the other side......YAYAYUHAHAHAHAYUSYAUSG.
>Yes, Otis is funny also... there is one part where he blatently samples lenny
>kravitz and just yells over it.
....cheexe &&& sleexe.
Jamie
> It's probably better for an artist to begin creating out of some inspiration, hit a wall,
> and then turn to the people that have gone before (and done it better) for insight. A
> painter would be hard pressed to paint the human anatomy with perfection without
> studying how people like Michaelangelo did it. Why should noise be any different?
>
Or you could just take a photograph of a human, or chopped up human.
CD's are facsimile, all modern media is I think.
> > well goddammit, why don't we GET some recommendations on what and where to
> > start? isn't there someone here who is arrogant enough and knowledgable
> > enough about noise to say what some of the essential noise albums are?
> I've been waiting for that myself. Not the arrogance, just the recommendations. It's
> cool to see what other people like and don't like, and why. It's half of what music is
> all about - how people react to it.
Yeah, there is a bit of a lack of recommendations here.
I mean, if you go through RRR's catalogue there is tons of stuff I never heard and don;t know
if its shit or not, or what it is like.
A lot of the noise reviews i;ve read don;t actually describe specifically what something
sounds like, using fervent analogly instead of down to earth "it sounds like someone pissing
around with an analogue synth" or whatever. Some things are hard to describe I guess.
Some albums I listen too only twice but have a big effect on my music view "wow --- i see the
possibilities there" but don;t care to listen to them much. Other albums (of any music this
is) I may listen to again and again, and maybe visionary or banal.
Noise CD's often fall into the first category for me.
I remember listening to 'Master of the universe' by Hawkwind *endlessly* back in my not far
gone teens.
As a musician I think I take a lot of cues from 70's bands such as Hawkwind, Magma (who are
utterly excellent), Rush etc. apparently there was/is quite a 'Zeuhl' scene in France
centered around Magma of obscure bands. But then I don;t make 'pure' noise, I do my thang. I
think it is perhaps easy for many people to get trapped in genre expectations -- not to say
of course that just being a 'harsh noise band' or 'straight death metal band' is inferior to
adding crappy FM synthns into your mega-metal riffs or techno bloopery into your wall of fuzz
--often the opposite.
Hawkwind have done a *lot* of shit anyhow.
:-)
Bless Ed
> I think both a knowledge of the past AND a keen eye to the present are
> important. Otherwise, like I said before, you get a genre that starts to
> mine only itself for ideas - "Damn, listen to this new Namanax CD. I gotta
> try something like this."
It's not as bad as it sounds. Noise already feeds off everything else.
Feeding off the dregs of noise which already feeds off everything is a
pretty monumental task in and of itself. There's lots of noise to choose
from. As long as there are other kinds of music, there will always be
lots of noise. Besides, you're not giving the average noise-maker enough
credit. Maybe the occasional noisehead is inspired to be the next
Namanax, but I think the vast majority are trying much more consciously
to make something they can call their own. If noise-makers appear myopic
in their grand musical vision, it is only because the present offers so
much more. "Damn, I didn't think of doing that with my noise, I think
I'll throw that into the mix." You can't network with dead musicians and
dead music. You can't share ideas. You can only ingest them. No fun.
> More often that not, an awareness of only the
> present within any genre will only serve to create a hundred people doing
> the exact same thing. The more you listen to, and the more you know about
> all music (not just the experimental side of things), the more you be able
> to push any inert style forward.
I think an awareness of what is presently happening in the noise field
alone can encourage noise-makers to do much better, actually.
Noise-makers
regularly draw inspiration from within, only to reapply that inspiration
in their own peculiar way. Examples abound. The unparalleled Thirdorgan,
who is heavily into techno, has told me he wants to develop his sound
much more, "like Pain Jerk and Merzbow". Techno does nothing for his
noise sound, and he would laugh if you suggested it could. Pain Jerk and
Merzbow, however, have inspired him to do better. (i think Gomi and
Akita could learn a thing or two from Shimizu, but what do I know?)
Kazumoto Endo says he was inspired to make noise because he figured he
could do it better. (i'd say he figured right.) Little known treasure
Tension Hook was quoted with this after listening to something from
another little-known noise-maker: "just shows how much work I have to do
in the dynamics department!" Knurl has been encouraged by GROSS
standards
to continue releasing high-fidelity cassette work.
Even Merzbow has obviously drawn inspiration, and continues to draw
inspiration, from the local noise scene, as anyone who has followed the
Tokyo noise phenomenon will have concluded long ago. Yet listen to the
shrill protests of those who regularly dismiss the endless parade of
Merzbow one-offs. Personally, I've never heard a Merzbow one-off band.
No one bothers to touch the Merzbow style. He's too good at it. I've
stopped laughing out loud everytime someone compares this or that artist
to Merzbow, but I do still find it quite fucking ignorant. On the other
hand, I find quite a lot of noise-makers drawing inspiration from
noiseheads far and wide. Example. When I first heard Bob Marinelli I
thought it sounded like Masonna meets K2 meets... something organic.
Couldn't put a name on it. Then Mr Marinelli told me he's really into
Masonna, K2 and Daniel Menche. Aha! scream the cynics. Evidence of yet
another copycat! Really? Maso-meets-K2-meets-Menche sounds like
something
I wanna hear. Something original. Marinelli's familiarity with a variety
of styles, and music theory, have given his highly original sound
nothing. It all comes from noise and noise alone.
At the other end of the inspiration spectrum, Mikawa of Incapacitants
could be one of the most musically-conscious noise-makers in Japan, if
not the planet. Yet he has managed to stick to his own very specific
niche for the last 17 years. Critics regularly dismiss Incapacitants for
their stagnance. The same can pretty well be said of Macronympha's Joe
Roemer. (i disagree with the critics, but you get my point.)
> It is my opinion that, on the whole, it is. In my mind, there are a
> limited number of noise artists who are putting out outstanding material.
The ratio of good noise to crap noise is probably unchanged, and
possibly
even lower than it once was. But because supply is that much greater, so
is the overall number of good noise-makers. Where for every three good
noise-makers there would be three crappy ones, there are now thirty good
noise-makers to every forty crappy ones. Finding good shit is easier
than
the whiners suggest.
Besides, there are not nearly as many people making noise as there often
appear to be. The perception of a "glut" is in fact an extension of the
way noise works. Unlike other kinds of music, there is no "industry
standard" to limit noise supply. Anyone with a tape-recorder can make
noise. (maybe not good noise, but they can make it, and plenty. how
ironic, that one of the defining noise characteristics, one that makes
it
great, is major grounds for dismissal.) But, and here's the big BUT, how
many actually stick with it? How many continue making noise long enough
to be recognized as "noisicians" or "noise artists"? How many regularly
release the fruits of their labour to the public at large? Answer, very
few. There are only a handful of artists who have been making noise for
the last five years, even for the last three years. The rest are content
to dabble here and there, and then move on. The Monde Bruits, the AMBs,
the Yellow Cabs, the Death Squads. There isn't a glut of noise-makers -
there's a glut of noise-dabblers. People who put out work for a few
years, and then disappear off the face of the earth. (Even more common
are the dabblers who don't make an effort to distribute their work.
Public distribution is important because, like public performance, it
puts whole new demands on the artist and challenges him or her to
improve on previous efforts.)
Those who stick with it, however, are the ones who get noticed. They are
the ones who have found a niche for themselves, and have worked hard at
perfecting that niche. The Merzbows, the Masonnas, the Macronymphas.
They are the minority. They are for the most part the "good"
noise-makers.
Let's examine the good noise-makers for a moment. What makes them good?
Time, for one. Perfection takes time. Most of these dudes have been
noising for quite a long time. Back in their dabbling days the material
they were putting out did not exactly kick ass. Merzbow's earliest
experiments, while an interesting historical document, basically suck.
The original space-rockish incarnation of Hijokaidan has been largely
disowned by Jojo, and most staunch noiseheads. Mikawa wouldn't consent
to rerelease any fragment of his first three Incapacitants tapes without
remixing the good parts first. Early Solmania efforts were primitive at
best, nowhere close to masterpieces like _Evil Bed_ and _Trembling
Tongues_. CCCC don't see the point in drawing attention to their "Cosmic
Cock Commando" (or whatever) days. Knurl describes his first effort as
"an embarrassment." Stimbox barely acknowledges his precursive
ambient-noise ejaculations. K2's old stuff sounds like farting around.
Of the newer goodies, Govt Alpha put out some bizarre stuff when he
started out, but it was hardly mind-blowing, and certainly nowhere close
to _Erratic_ and everything that has followed. There are of course
exceptions, but my point is this: the only reason noise often sounds
uninspired is that most of it is undercooked. An undeveloped bit of
inspiration, be it Merzbowlian or Borbetomagan.
Everybody, now: "Stand by your noise..."
> Sure, a lot of it is "good," but the vast majority of it lacks insight or
> real purpose.
You'll have to explain what you mean by "insight" and "real purpose."
You'll also have to explain how these are important. And you'll have to
explain how noise is supposed to get there. I'm not sure you could.
I think both of these - insight, real purpose - rely on the listener,
not the noise-maker.
> that's fine with me. Maybe if more people got a stick up their asses
> about producing good noise, there might be an explosion of new, quality
> noise....
Now you're speaking my language!
> It's probably better for an artist to begin creating out of some
> inspiration, hit a wall, and then turn to the people that have gone
> before (and done it better) for insight.
My point exactly. Noise-makers should always keep their ears peeled for
what's happening in and around the noise field. I have to laugh
everytime I talk to the latest cynical envelope pusher. Yet another
revolutionary who thinks he's bringing something new to the field, not
aware that several others have been doing it better for years. These
people are a dime a dozen. If they'd just look around for a few seconds,
they may well discover a whole community of like-minded individuals,
each with something to contribute to the latest "style."
> > well goddammit, why don't we GET some recommendations on what and where to
> > start? isn't there someone here who is arrogant enough and knowledgable
> > enough about noise to say what some of the essential noise albums are?
>
> I've been waiting for that myself. Not the arrogance, just the recommendations. It's
> cool to see what other people like and don't like, and why. It's half of what music is
> all about - how people react to it.
Man, this is just like a board meeting. The same issues keep getting
recycled at every meeting because everyone wants to shut up and get on
to
the orgy. Well, fine then. You asked for it. I like to think I'm as
arrogant as the next fellow. Stay tuned.
Jamie
> mentioned all the unknown people from RRR. When you go off the beaten path, how
> much of what you find is shit? In my experience, a lot of it is just that, shit. In this
> way, I think noise has a lot in common with black metal - go past bands like Emporer
> and Marduk and whatever, and you'll start to come across some real crap. So I
> disagree - it's hard to find good stuff that people don't really know about.
>
some of it can be really good. From RRR , RHY YAU and Toy bizzarre i recently got my hands
on and both are good. Who the hell are they? What ever, 2 good albums.
And Merbow to me four years ago was off the beaten path.
Like a detective who finds a little obsure lead that leads to something much bigger than he
expected. Its a matter of perception.
Merzbow is a tiny obsure pimple on a bigger pimple on the huge botty of the music industry.
Yet him and Hijo and CCCC and MacroNypha or whatever are reffered to as noise 'biggies'.
maybe in sound, or bodily weight, but not otherewise. 1000 'fans'.wow!
But i guess it just gets back to the point of tenacity. They been at it a while, and they do
gigs. Like rock bands, you have to gig to get known (maybe?) I dunno maybe 2 types noise bod
---- Techno style annonymous boffin, rock-style hard gigging hard noise headz.
> > Everybody, now: "Stand by your noise..."
> [laugh]
>
and please wait a while before that first release!
(i think so many people have embarrasing early recording experiences......peculiar sexual
parralells start to emerge here......)
off thread now it think!
Jamie
jqu...@monmouth.com
> Feeding off the dregs of noise which already feeds off everything is a
> pretty monumental task in and of itself. There's lots of noise to choose
> from.
Still, that doesn't mean that all of it is good. Noise is a fertile ground of musical
cross-pollination (or musicalperversion, depending), but I think more than half of it,
while interesting, fails to really go anywhere.
>As long as there are other kinds of music, there will always be
> lots of noise. Besides, you're not giving the average noise-maker enough
> credit.
Because, in my mind, there are far to many _average_ noise-makers. It depresses
me. I contend that noise, as a whole, is a genre that is moved forward not by a
surge of artists, but by only a handful of true geniuses.
>Maybe the occasional noisehead is inspired to be the next
> Namanax, but I think the vast majority are trying much more consciously
> to make something they can call their own. If noise-makers appear myopic
> in their grand musical vision, it is only because the present offers so
> much more. "Damn, I didn't think of doing that with my noise, I think
> I'll throw that into the mix." You can't network with dead musicians and
> dead music. You can't share ideas. You can only ingest them. No fun.
I disagree. Sure, I can't have a running conversation with e.e. cummings, but I can
surely learn a lot from readinh both his work and about his life. Same thing with cats
like Coltrane and Miles, etc. Sometimes you don't need to share an idea - you just
need to let your mind go where someone else's has been. Then you can pick up
where they left out, and take it up a notch. I always return to that phrase - pushing
things forward - because I think that's one of the most important things any artist
should do.
> I think an awareness of what is presently happening in the noise field
> alone can encourage noise-makers to do much better, actually.
Ideally.
> Noise-makers
> regularly draw inspiration from within, only to reapply that inspiration
> in their own peculiar way. Examples abound. The unparalleled Thirdorgan,
> who is heavily into techno, has told me he wants to develop his sound
> much more, "like Pain Jerk and Merzbow". Techno does nothing for his
> noise sound, and he would laugh if you suggested it could. Pain Jerk and
> Merzbow, however, have inspired him to do better. (i think Gomi and
> Akita could learn a thing or two from Shimizu, but what do I know?)
> Kazumoto Endo says he was inspired to make noise because he figured he
> could do it better. (i'd say he figured right.)
The same can be said about hardcore bands that are seen sporting Merzbow
t-shirts. Talk to someone like Tim Singer of Kiss it Goodbye, and he'll go on and on
about Merzbow. But the noise of Akita himself has little to do with KIG's actual
_music_. It comes in more with the conceptualization of what Singer does.
Inspiration can come from anywhere - my point was that too many noisicians are
narrow-minded, not being open, as Haino would put it, "to the endless possibilities of
the universe."
> Even Merzbow has obviously drawn inspiration, and continues to draw
> inspiration, from the local noise scene, as anyone who has followed the
> Tokyo noise phenomenon will have concluded long ago. Yet listen to the
> shrill protests of those who regularly dismiss the endless parade of
> Merzbow one-offs. Personally, I've never heard a Merzbow one-off band.
Nor have I. I have heard a lot of shitty noise groups who claim to be solely influenced
by people like Merzbow, Masonna, Hijokaidan and the like, but it never comes
anywhere close to even remotley sounding like any of those groups.
> No one bothers to touch the Merzbow style. He's too good at it.
Exactly. He's the rare breed of musician who, like Hendrix, is really unimitable.
>I've
> stopped laughing out loud everytime someone compares this or that artist
> to Merzbow, but I do still find it quite fucking ignorant. On the other
> hand, I find quite a lot of noise-makers drawing inspiration from
> noiseheads far and wide. Example. When I first heard Bob Marinelli I
> thought it sounded like Masonna meets K2 meets... something organic.
That sounds rather interesting, I must say.
> Couldn't put a name on it. Then Mr Marinelli told me he's really into
> Masonna, K2 and Daniel Menche. Aha! scream the cynics. Evidence of yet
> another copycat! Really? Maso-meets-K2-meets-Menche sounds like
> something
> I wanna hear. Something original.
Not so much original as it is simply groovy. I hate to take this discussion down this
path, but is anything truly original? Can a combination of musical parts equal out to a
new, unique entity? I'm not so sure, but I think it's rare.
>Marinelli's familiarity with a variety
> of styles, and music theory, have given his highly original sound
> nothing. It all comes from noise and noise alone.
But can be safely come to that conclusion? I think any knowledge of theory influences
a musician's work in one way or another, be it subconciously or whatever.
> The ratio of good noise to crap noise is probably unchanged, and
> possibly
> even lower than it once was. But because supply is that much greater, so
> is the overall number of good noise-makers. Where for every three good
> noise-makers there would be three crappy ones, there are now thirty good
> noise-makers to every forty crappy ones. Finding good shit is easier
> than
> the whiners suggest.
Yes and no. In the world of noise, there are your safe bets. You could buy many
albums by Merzbow, Masonna or Aube and never be utterly disappointed. It gets
hard, though, when you take that tremulous step into the world of lesser-known
noise. Like you said before, not a lot of people know about Govt. Alpha. Someone else
mentioned all the unknown people from RRR. When you go off the beaten path, how
much of what you find is shit? In my experience, a lot of it is just that, shit. In this
way, I think noise has a lot in common with black metal - go past bands like Emporer
and Marduk and whatever, and you'll start to come across some real crap. So I
disagree - it's hard to find good stuff that people don't really know about.
> Besides, there are not nearly as many people making noise as there often
> appear to be. The perception of a "glut" is in fact an extension of the
> way noise works. Unlike other kinds of music, there is no "industry
> standard" to limit noise supply. Anyone with a tape-recorder can make
> noise. (maybe not good noise, but they can make it, and plenty. how
> ironic, that one of the defining noise characteristics, one that makes
> it
> great, is major grounds for dismissal.) But, and here's the big BUT, how
> many actually stick with it?
Too many! There are a lot of noise artists out there who consistently release the
same shit over and over again. I'm sure you can name at least one yourself.
> How many continue making noise long enough
> to be recognized as "noisicians" or "noise artists"? How many regularly
> release the fruits of their labour to the public at large? Answer, very
> few. There are only a handful of artists who have been making noise for
> the last five years, even for the last three years. The rest are content
> to dabble here and there, and then move on. The Monde Bruits, the AMBs,
> the Yellow Cabs, the Death Squads.
I see what you're saying. There are a lot of dabblers, true. Still, I think there are
way too many artists who are content with releasing their stagnations to the world
10 times a year...
> Those who stick with it, however, are the ones who get noticed. They are
> the ones who have found a niche for themselves, and have worked hard at
> perfecting that niche. The Merzbows, the Masonnas, the Macronymphas.
> They are the minority. They are for the most part the "good"
> noise-makers.
Here we are in agreement. But what I'm saying is that the good noise makers are a
rare and limited breed.
> Let's examine the good noise-makers for a moment. What makes them good?
Talent, insight, tenacity, and focus.
> Time, for one. Perfection takes time. Most of these dudes have been
> noising for quite a long time. Back in their dabbling days the material
> they were putting out did not exactly kick ass. Merzbow's earliest
> experiments, while an interesting historical document, basically suck.
True. Bands that have been amazing from day one in any genre are rare. I can think
of no band more astounding, however, than King Crimson is this respect, but
anyway.
> The original space-rockish incarnation of Hijokaidan has been largely
> disowned by Jojo, and most staunch noiseheads. Mikawa wouldn't consent
> to rerelease any fragment of his first three Incapacitants tapes without
> remixing the good parts first. Early Solmania efforts were primitive at
> best, nowhere close to masterpieces like _Evil Bed_ and _Trembling
> Tongues_. CCCC don't see the point in drawing attention to their "Cosmic
> Cock Commando" (or whatever) days. Knurl describes his first effort as
> "an embarrassment." Stimbox barely acknowledges his precursive
> ambient-noise ejaculations. K2's old stuff sounds like farting around.
> Of the newer goodies, Govt Alpha put out some bizarre stuff when he
> started out, but it was hardly mind-blowing, and certainly nowhere close
> to _Erratic_ and everything that has followed. There are of course
> exceptions, but my point is this: the only reason noise often sounds
> uninspired is that most of it is undercooked. An undeveloped bit of
> inspiration, be it Merzbowlian or Borbetomagan.
So do you think that a lot of the noise artists who I readily dismiss today will be
kicking ass five years from now? I don't know about that... I think that if you pay
attention, you can tell if a band is going to evolve to be more than what it is. Even
with earlier Ruins or Zorn shit, you could tell that there was a brilliance waiting to
form. Do you really get that when you listen to some new modern noisicians?
> Everybody, now: "Stand by your noise..."
[laugh]
> You'll have to explain what you mean by "insight" and "real purpose."
> You'll also have to explain how these are important. And you'll have to
> explain how noise is supposed to get there. I'm not sure you could.
> I think both of these - insight, real purpose - rely on the listener,
> not the noise-maker.
Fair enough. Insight, to me anyway, is artistic vision. The application of artitstic
vision to music often deepens it and validates it. In essence, complex musical
conceptualization often enables the musician to transcend the music itself. This is
rare in noise. Too many noise artists are solely concerned with the aural realm of
noise. What about the emotional, the thematic? That requires insight - injecting
noise with meaning, turning it into a vehicle for expression, not just a recording of
sound. Why is this important? It's probably not, to most, but it is to me, mainly
becaud what I enjoy most in life is music that is full of emotional symbolism. Tool is a
good example. Noise can get there... noisicians just need to try to take on more
with noise. That's just me, though. Musical tastes are intensely personal. I'm not
gonna damn anyone for what they do or don't like. All I'm saying is that i wish more
people would realize the expressive power of noise and use it to its fullest capability.
Bless Ed
> endless variety. Still, that doesn't mean that all of it is good. Noise
> is a fertile ground of musical cross-pollination (or musicalperversion,
> depending), but I think more than half of it, while interesting, fails to
> really go anywhere.
Where do you want it to go?
> Because, in my mind, there are far to many _average_ noise-makers. It
> depresses me.
You'd be less depressed if the majority of noise-makers were
above-average
noise-makers, I take it? =)
> I contend that noise, as a whole, is a genre that is moved forward not
> by a surge of artists, but by only a handful of true geniuses.
I contend that those geniuses are for the most part standing on the
shoulders of their peers.
> The same can be said about hardcore bands that are seen sporting Merzbow
> t-shirts. Talk to someone like Tim Singer of Kiss it Goodbye, and he'll
> go on and on about Merzbow.
You're confusing conceptual and practical inspiration. Kiss it Goodbye
is
not making noise. Noise-makers make noise. As a noise-maker, if you hear
someone doing the same thing you're doing, and doing it better, that
should inspire you to try to at least keep up the pace. Kiss it Goodbye
is getting something altogether different out of Merzbow.
> Inspiration can come from anywhere - my point was that too many
> noisicians are narrow-minded, not being open, as Haino would put it,
> "to the endless possibilities of the universe."
Perhaps they're also open to the possibility that the universe is not so
endless. There's only one of it after all. =)
> Nor have I. I have heard a lot of shitty noise groups who claim to be
> solely influenced by people like Merzbow, Masonna, Hijokaidan and the
> like,
Yeah? Name one.
> but it never comes anywhere close to even remotley sounding like any of
> those groups.
Can't blame a group for trying.
> Exactly. He's the rare breed of musician who, like Hendrix, is really
> unimitable.
Mind you, Pain Jerk does it better. =)
> Not so much original as it is simply groovy. I hate to take this
> discussion down this path, but is anything truly original?
I use the word only to argue under the terms laid out by those hung up
over originality. I don't see any value in it myself.
> Can a combination of musical parts equal out to a
> new, unique entity? I'm not so sure, but I think it's rare.
Dissecting Table is a perfect example. Here is an EBMish outfit that has
not managed one single original edit in its entire space of existence.
Ichiro takes all the great industrial/EBM/metal cliches, juxtoposes them
in new and interesting ways, and somehow comes away with something that
is altogether unique. The DT sound is instantly recognizable. I laughed
when I first noticed DT on a God Mountain comp, but on second
consideration, he's definitely cut from the same cloth.
> But can be safely come to that conclusion? I think any knowledge of
> theory influences a musician's work in one way or another, be it
> subconciously or whatever.
Mr Marinelli himself probably couldn't tell you that, but as a listener
I can tell you that I'm hearing a lot more K2, Masonna and Menche than
I'm hearing anything else.
> noise. Like you said before, not a lot of people know about Govt. Alpha.
> Someone else mentioned all the unknown people from RRR. When you go off the
> beaten path, how much of what you find is shit?
That depends where you look. Noise is so tiny that it's pretty easy to
filter out the shit, actually. You pick up a few compilations, a split
here or there, and a collab or two and then you contact the artists you
like directly. Chances are, they can point you exactly where you want to
go. (and here, why don't you check out my catalog while you're at it?)
> Too many! There are a lot of noise artists out there who consistently
> release the same shit over and over again. I'm sure you can name at
> least one yourself.
No, I'm afraid I can't. Masonna? Sure, some noise-makers evolve more
slowly than others, but they all really do evolve. Those that do not
tend
to disappear, as the Darwinians among us might observe. Like every other
species of evolution, the noise variety takes time. It may progress in
little farts and starts, but at more or less regularly spaced intervals.
Incapacitants have gone through at least three distinct phases in the
last nine years, and appear prepared to kick-start their fourth.
Macronympha probably more over the same time-frame. Solmania, several.
Thirdorgan, two, though their evolution has been very methodical and
easy
to document. MSBR, too many to count. Govt Alpha, ten, at least. Lasse
Marhaug, three to five, plus side-projects. Etc. Who keeps releasing the
same shit?
> Here we are in agreement. But what I'm saying is that the good noise
> makers are a rare and limited breed.
It's a good theory. The only problem is, with the exception of The Great
One, no one can agree on who the good noise-makers are. Aube? Nah.
Gerogerigegege? Yah!
> So do you think that a lot of the noise artists who I readily dismiss
> today will be kicking ass five years from now?
Yep. But they'll all be gone by then. Natural selection, you know. =)
Natural selection conspires with the self-fulfilling prophecy. Kafka
wanted his books burned, remember. The hangers-on can really kick ass,
provided they hang on. Part of it is economics. Over five years, one can
amass quite an impressive collection of audio toys.
> I think that if you pay attention, you can tell if a band is going to
> evolve to be more than what it is.
I thought that about Skin Crime and then later about Armenia. Fuck, was
I mistaken. These guys rock! (it's amazing what a few new toys can do
for your sound.)
> Do you really get that when you listen to some new modern noisicians?
No, that's the problem. Which is why time is the only solid indicator.
So many noise-makers I've written off in the past have come back to
haunt me. I give up. If you suck, and you're still making noise five
years from now, I'll give you another chance. I give most noise-makers
three chances. It helps boost my feeling of self-importance, you see.
> complex musical conceptualization often enables the musician to transcend
> the music itself. This is rare in noise.
That's because noise keeps transcending the musician. =) Merzbow might
give the illusion of control, but it's only an illusion. A parlour
trick. You can't control noise. It's the other way around.
> Too many noise artists are solely concerned with the aural realm of noise.
Solely? Why I oughtta...
> What about the emotional, the thematic? That requires insight - injecting
> noise with meaning, turning it into a vehicle for expression, not just a
> recording of sound.
This is all well and good, and quite wonderful really, but from what
I've seen, those who use noise as a "vehicle" for anything do so at the
expense of noise. So great, there's all this great Meaning going on, but
the noise sucks some serious donkey dick. Sucking some serious donkey
dick can be Meaningful in its own right, but it doesn't always sound
particularly apetizing.
> Why is this important? It's probably not, to most, but it is to me,
> mainly becaud what I enjoy most in life is music that is full of
> emotional symbolism.
You're right. Noise probably isn't right for you. Try some Current 93.
> I'm not gonna damn anyone for what they do or don't like. All I'm saying
> is that i wish more people would realize the expressive power of noise
> and use it to its fullest capability.
I think noise can do that all by itself. Noise is not the tool, it's the
Goal. Like any other investment, what you get out of noise is what you
put in to begin with, hopefully with interest. Invest more than a
passing interest in noise as a "tool" and you might well be rewarded for
your efforts. (on the other hand, you might well throw all your noise
cds in the nearest trash bin. either/or.)
James Whitehead
>> noisicians are narrow-minded, not being open, as Haino would put it,
>> "to the endless possibilities of the universe."
>
>Perhaps they're also open to the possibility that the universe is not so
>endless. There's only one of it after all. =)
--
James Whitehead
Ritz
>>Another way of looking at scum: take all the possible genres you know, or
>>really know about. Remove them from your brain. Scum is what's left.
>
Well, that's very nice and everything, but can someone please explain how
Scum exactly _SOUNDS_ ??
I mean, what instruments are used?
how do the drums sound? fast, slow?
is it intrumental or do people actually *sing* in it? (in which case it
probably sucks for me anyway :) )
Baai
-Ritz
Matthew Turner
haven't.
Arrr!
E.2rv.T_C.oAa wrote:
> >> can someone please explain how
> >> Scum exactly _SOUNDS_ ??
>
> Bad, unless that's good. And if it sounds good, its probably bad.
like that new band Bad (Meaning Good). They are tops. Go see them when
they play your town.
> If a guitar is used, it must somehow emit actually flames, or cubed ice.
Yes, my first scum show was DIO, where that one dude shot out lasers from
his guitar and killed the paper mache dragon.
Arrr!
E.2rv.T_C.oAa wrote:
> >Yes, my first scum show was DIO, where that one dude shot out lasers from
> >his guitar and killed the paper mache dragon.
>
> Kinda like the Motley Crew show where Tommy Lee played in the drum cage connected to a
> huge robotic arm that lifted him over the audience and spun him end over end.
EXACTLY!! I wish I could have seen that show. I recall being impressed by a brief clip of
the drum cage on MTV NEWS.
> Reminds
> me, anyone seen the new Monster Magnet video. Damn!
Dang, I think I saw that last night. I was confused by it. Is that the one where they
play in vegas with the glittery clothes? My favorite part is where the song gets all heavy
and then those fly girls come out. thats some hot ass shit.
nospam
I disagree. All noise is good, just as there is no such thing as bad dada or bad
surrealism, even if all noise is not surrealistic dada, but may infact be down-to-earth as
freeway traffic (which could then be percieved as dada under the right circumstance, of
course.)
>> Noise
>> is a fertile ground of musical cross-pollination (or musicalperversion,
>> depending), but I think more than half of it, while interesting, fails to
>> really go anywhere.
Noise is a raw element, it encompasses all sound and you can do anything you like with it.
>> Because, in my mind, there are far to many _average_ noise-makers. It
>> depresses me.
Why would something like that depress you? I mean, I don't see why you would care about
noise other than your own.
>You'd be less depressed if the majority of noise-makers were
>above-average noise-makers, I take it? =)
Right, then they'd all be average again.
>> I contend that noise, as a whole, is a genre that is moved forward not
>> by a surge of artists, but by only a handful of true geniuses.
Noise as a genre is based upon the generic persistence of anyone who gets a kick out of
making it. Every human is a true genius.
>I contend that those geniuses are for the most part standing on the
>shoulders of their peers.
Yep.
>> Inspiration can come from anywhere - my point was that too many
>> noisicians are narrow-minded, not being open, as Haino would put it,
>> "to the endless possibilities of the universe."
Absolutely. For a genre as wide open as noise, its funny how it has become 1 thing only
in many people's minds.
>Perhaps they're also open to the possibility that the universe is not so
>endless. There's only one of it after all. =)
Pure conjecture. Just a few hundred years ago, humanity thought the world was flat and
that Earth was the center of the universe. There are over 25,000 known galaxies in the
universe, possibly twice as many solar systems (suns w/ planets) within many of those. To
say humanity knows much about the universe is kind of humerous.
>> I have heard a lot of shitty noise groups who claim to be
>> solely influenced by people like Merzbow, Masonna, Hijokaidan and the
>> like,
Good for them. That means they'll soon find out about the 897 other average noise groups
(or at least some of them).
>> but it never comes anywhere close to even remotley sounding like any of
>> those groups.
Yea, and your point is what?
>> Exactly. He's the rare breed of musician who, like Hendrix, is really
>> unimitable.
There's plenty of cover bands who imitate Hendrix.
>> Not so much original as it is simply groovy. I hate to take this
>> discussion down this path, but is anything truly original?
Yes, no, sometimes, maybe, occationally, never.
>I use the word only to argue under the terms laid out by those hung up
>over originality. I don't see any value in it myself.
I agree w/ this. Originality does not exist.
>> Can a combination of musical parts equal out to a
>> new, unique entity? I'm not so sure, but I think it's rare.
If it were to exist, this would be the common method for attempting it. If there was a
sudden breed of music which mixed hardcore techno and country, I'd be curious.
>Dissecting Table is a perfect example. Here is an EBMish outfit that has
>not managed one single original edit in its entire space of existence.
>Ichiro takes all the great industrial/EBM/metal cliches, juxtoposes them
>in new and interesting ways, and somehow comes away with something that
>is altogether unique.
Cliche overload is another tried and true equation.
>> noise. Like you said before, not a lot of people know about Govt. Alpha.
>> Someone else mentioned all the unknown people from RRR. When you go off the
>> beaten path, how much of what you find is shit?
None, only different schools.
>That depends where you look. Noise is so tiny that it's pretty easy to
>filter out the shit, actually. You pick up a few compilations, a split
>here or there, and a collab or two and then you contact the artists you
>like directly. Chances are, they can point you exactly where you want to
>go. (and here, why don't you check out my catalog while you're at it?)
To say that one noise band is better than another is pop music logic. (Not that there's
anything wrong with that!)
>> Too many! There are a lot of noise artists out there who consistently
>> release the same shit over and over again.
And that's one of the great things about noise.
>No, I'm afraid I can't. Masonna? Sure, some noise-makers evolve more
>slowly than others, but they all really do evolve.
Noise does not evolve, it multiplies.
>Those that do not tend
>to disappear, as the Darwinians among us might observe.
Survival of the fittest does not apply to sound.
>> Here we are in agreement. But what I'm saying is that the good noise
>> makers are a rare and limited breed.
I'll disagree and say the bad noise maker is rare, if not impossible.
>> So do you think that a lot of the noise artists who I readily dismiss
>> today will be kicking ass five years from now?
They're kicking ass right now.
>Yep. But they'll all be gone by then. Natural selection, you know. =)
>Natural selection conspires with the self-fulfilling prophecy. Kafka
>wanted his books burned, remember. The hangers-on can really kick ass,
>provided they hang on. Part of it is economics. Over five years, one can
>amass quite an impressive collection of audio toys.
I disagree with all that is implied there.
>> I think that if you pay attention, you can tell if a band is going to
>> evolve to be more than what it is.
If a band changes name and assumes a new format, is it still the same people, or have they
disappeared?
>I thought that about Skin Crime and then later about Armenia. Fuck, was
>I mistaken. These guys rock! (it's amazing what a few new toys can do
>for your sound.)
Yea, change it.
>> complex musical conceptualization often enables the musician to transcend
>> the music itself. This is rare in noise.
This is common in noise. It is inescapable by design.
>That's because noise keeps transcending the musician. =) Merzbow might
>give the illusion of control, but it's only an illusion. A parlour
>trick. You can't control noise. It's the other way around.
Noisicians are merely tour guides of noise.
>This is all well and good, and quite wonderful really, but from what
>I've seen, those who use noise as a "vehicle" for anything do so at the
>expense of noise.
..interesting.
>So great, there's all this great Meaning going on, but
>the noise sucks some serious donkey dick. Sucking some serious donkey
>dick can be Meaningful in its own right, but it doesn't always sound
>particularly apetizing.
Exactly.
>> Why is this important? It's probably not, to most, but it is to me,
>> mainly becaud what I enjoy most in life is music that is full of
>> emotional symbolism.
Percieved emotional symbolism is inescapable.
>> I'm not gonna damn anyone for what they do or don't like. All I'm saying
>> is that i wish more people would realize the expressive power of noise
>> and use it to its fullest capability.
Sure, why not.
>I think noise can do that all by itself. Noise is not the tool, it's the
>Goal.
..again, interesting.
>Like any other investment, what you get out of noise is what you
>put in to begin with, hopefully with interest. Invest more than a
>passing interest in noise as a "tool" and you might well be rewarded for
>your efforts. (on the other hand, you might well throw all your noise
>cds in the nearest trash bin. either/or.)
Problem is, some of the best noise I've heard is uninspired. That is, it just occurs.
(.....shit happens? No, shit occurs.)
setai
nospam wrote in message <6ois6t$rvk$1...@uuneo.neosoft.com>...
>>> Because, in my mind, there are far to many _average_ noise-makers. It
>>> depresses me.
>
>Why would something like that depress you? I mean, I don't see why you
would care about
>noise other than your own.
agreed/ also: one person's "average" or "shitty" noise artist is another's
genius/ "noise" is completely abstract/ there can be no traditional
evaluation of technique or composition/
>
>>You'd be less depressed if the majority of noise-makers were
>>above-average noise-makers, I take it? =)
>
>Right, then they'd all be average again.
>
again/: abstraction/ where do you find a "measuring-stick"- a reference
point for the evaluation of such a stochastic/ meta-complex form of
expression?/
>>> I contend that noise, as a whole, is a genre that is moved forward not
>>> by a surge of artists, but by only a handful of true geniuses.
>
>Noise as a genre is based upon the generic persistence of anyone who gets a
kick out of
>making it. Every human is a true genius.
>
>>I contend that those geniuses are for the most part standing on the
>>shoulders of their peers.
>
>Yep.
no one creates noise because it is "easy"/ noise seems to be like a kind of
automatic writing/ bypassing or re-ordering the consciousness of the artist/
allowing for almost direct Platonic expression/ beyond the Artist's self/
ego constructs (for me anyway)/ therefore I would posit this axiom/: the
Action/Impetus that allows an artist to express in the medium of "noise"-
requires and results that said artist will create "effective" expression/
this does not mean that everyone or anyone will appreciate it/ but it DOES
follow that the verb- the Act of expression by the artist is indeed powerful
and valid/
>Pure conjecture. Just a few hundred years ago, humanity thought the world
was flat and
>that Earth was the center of the universe. There are over 25,000 known
galaxies in the
>universe,
uh- that's a few hundred BILLION
> possibly twice as many solar systems (suns w/ planets) within many of
those.
each galaxy averages a few hundred billion stars/ that's tens of SEXTILLIONS
of stars in the "known universe"/
>To
>say humanity knows much about the universe is kind of humerous.
>
especially considering that all human experience of Reality/ Cosmos/ Time/
Self/ Being/ Dimensionality is based upon our conceptual constructs/
constructs generated by the human brain's sensory perceptions and the
processing of those perceptions/ and since ALL perception is composed of
abstract models created by the mind (e.g. color: color has no existence
except in the brain/ it is a completely abstract model of photon frequency/
color has no linear analogues with what it represents/ also it only
represents a small spectrum of light-freq../ to perceive more of the greater
spectrum would require "new colors" !/ try to imagine a fourth primary
color/ or a fourth spatial dimension!/ your brain is trapped in its own
illusions) by definition any conceptualization of the Universe/ Reality is a
construct made of illusions/ any empirical testing of phenomena/ or theory
of physics can ONLY describe the structure of the illusory model!
("discovering" a theory of say- quantum mechanics and testing the theory
empirically in a lab is only like predicting that "if you mix red and yellow
you will get orange" then testing it- discovering it is "true"- but in fact/
you have come no closer to understanding the nature of the frequencies of
light- only the structure of the brain's model: color)/ to admit the logic
and certitude that a mind can only see/ explore Reality within the limits of
that mind's abstract/ illusory conceptual models is- frightening for those
trying to get an empirical grasp of the universe/ so they don't admit it at
all/
>>That depends where you look. Noise is so tiny that it's pretty easy to
>>filter out the shit, actually. You pick up a few compilations, a split
>>here or there, and a collab or two and then you contact the artists you
>>like directly. Chances are, they can point you exactly where you want to
>>go. (and here, why don't you check out my catalog while you're at it?)
>
>To say that one noise band is better than another is pop music logic. (Not
that there's
>anything wrong with that!)
that kind of evaluation cannot even apply to noise/ what do you evaluate?/
only that you "like" it or do not/ but that can only be YOUR evaluation/
>Survival of the fittest does not apply to sound.
Survival of the Fittest applies to everything/ but NOT the Darwinian
concept/ :)
>
>>> Here we are in agreement. But what I'm saying is that the good noise
>>> makers are a rare and limited breed.
>
>I'll disagree and say the bad noise maker is rare, if not impossible.
>
exactly/ hence the axiom above/
>>Yep. But they'll all be gone by then. Natural selection, you know. =)
>>Natural selection conspires with the self-fulfilling prophecy. Kafka
>>wanted his books burned, remember. The hangers-on can really kick ass,
>>provided they hang on. Part of it is economics. Over five years, one can
>>amass quite an impressive collection of audio toys.
>
>I disagree with all that is implied there.
>
as do I/ again: by what parameters can one evaluate the "quality" of
"noise"?/
also: how can a noise artist "disappear"/ I doubt that any of this music is
being funded and supported by big-business record companies/ it's all
self-produced and/or distributed by independent labels/ if the artist
"disappears" it will only happen because they choose to stop recording/
>>> complex musical conceptualization often enables the musician to
transcend
>>> the music itself. This is rare in noise.
>
>This is common in noise. It is inescapable by design.
absolutely/: my axiom again/
>
>>That's because noise keeps transcending the musician. =) Merzbow might
>>give the illusion of control, but it's only an illusion. A parlour
>>trick. You can't control noise. It's the other way around.
>
>Noisicians are merely tour guides of noise.
>
I think it is more of a human/ machine symbiosis/ the artist and the machine
literally compete for domination- or come to an "understanding"/ this
"communication" between the symbiots IS the expression/ it will become more
Efficient as the technology evolves (co-evolves with the artist)/
>>This is all well and good, and quite wonderful really, but from what
>>I've seen, those who use noise as a "vehicle" for anything do so at the
>>expense of noise.
>
>..interesting.
how do you separate the "noise" from the "concepts"?/ they are aspects of
the SAME THING!/
>>> I'm not gonna damn anyone for what they do or don't like. All I'm saying
>>> is that i wish more people would realize the expressive power of noise
>>> and use it to its fullest capability.
>
>Sure, why not.
again- my Axiom/ I think that they ALL are using the "expressive power"/
this expression cannot always reach everyone/ nor should it!/
>
>>I think noise can do that all by itself. Noise is not the tool, it's the
>>Goal.
>
>..again, interesting.
it is both (and neither)/ :|
>>Like any other investment, what you get out of noise is what you
>>put in to begin with, hopefully with interest. Invest more than a
>>passing interest in noise as a "tool" and you might well be rewarded for
>>your efforts. (on the other hand, you might well throw all your noise
>>cds in the nearest trash bin. either/or.)
>
>Problem is, some of the best noise I've heard is uninspired. That is, it
just occurs.
>(.....shit happens? No, shit occurs.)
nothing "just occurs"/ nothing "occurs"/ nothing
(couldn't help it :) )
sys.disconnect/:set\AI
Robb Cunningham
nope. more in the hundred thousands
> >>Like any other investment, what you get out of noise is what you
> >>put in to begin with, hopefully with interest. Invest more than a
> >>passing interest in noise as a "tool" and you might well be rewarded for
> >>your efforts. (on the other hand, you might well throw all your noise
> >>cds in the nearest trash bin. either/or.)
> >
> >Problem is, some of the best noise I've heard is uninspired. That is, it
> just occurs.
>
> >(.....shit happens? No, shit occurs.)
>
> nothing "just occurs"/ nothing "occurs"/ nothing
How do you differentiate between "just occuring" and "not just
occuring."
everything just occurs
nospam
>genius/ "noise" is completely abstract/ there can be no traditional
>evaluation of technique or composition/
I think there can be discussion of technique and composition, but there can be no value
judgement. Every noise creation is a new creation of the same creation.
>again/: abstraction/ where do you find a "measuring-stick"- a reference
>point for the evaluation of such a stochastic/ meta-complex form of
>expression?/
Measuring sticks can possibly be found in sub-genres of noise.
>no one creates noise because it is "easy"/
Actually, half of the reason I make noise is because its easy. 1/4 because I like it,
1/4 because I hate it. But because I accept all noise, its easy. Plug your shit in,
turn it up, make noise, easy as pie. The shadows of infinity would mean nothing without
the direct visceral immediacy. When I play noise, I stop thinking and just play noise.
>>To say that one noise band is better than another is pop music logic. (Not
>that there's anything wrong with that!)
>
>that kind of evaluation cannot even apply to noise/ what do you evaluate?/
>only that you "like" it or do not/ but that can only be YOUR evaluation/
When I say "pop music logic", I'm talking about the mainstream media and music industry
and their definition of a potentially successful hit song. To put value judgement on
noise is an attempt to shape the sound into a mold that fits into some standard. I'm
not against noise becoming pop, as long as it really fucking goes for it.
>Survival of the Fittest applies to everything
..except sound, dada, sand, voodoo, commercials, and clowns.
>I doubt that any of this music is
>being funded and supported by big-business record companies/
Someone somewhere is getting paid big bucks to make noise for whatever segment of
whatever film. And its not entirely out of the question that someday noise will be
appreciated as a proper aesthetic. This already exists in small doses. Noise is a cure
of sorts. Many of the disjointed elements of life can make sense in a noise context.
>I think it is more of a human/ machine symbiosis/ the artist and the machine
>literally compete for domination- or come to an "understanding"/ this
>"communication" between the symbiots IS the expression/ it will become more
>Efficient as the technology evolves (co-evolves with the artist)/
Great concept. Noise is the birth of man and machine. I've become interested in the
idea of wearable computers, and wearable instruments that respond to human-ness.
>how do you separate the "noise" from the "concepts"?/
I think the sound of noise can exist independently of concepts. People create concepts
to explain noise, and everything.
>again- my Axiom/ I think that they ALL are using the "expressive power"/
>this expression cannot always reach everyone/ nor should it!/
Expressive power is not to be confused with power noise (harsh noise). Just as much
expression can be had in cheap wet sloppy blah noise.
>>>I think noise can do that all by itself. Noise is not the tool, it's the
>>>Goal.
>
>it is both (and neither)/ :|
It depends if your talking from the human's point of view or the noise's point of view.
>>Problem is, some of the best noise I've heard is uninspired. That is, it
>just occurs.
>
>>(.....shit happens? No, shit occurs.)
>
>nothing "just occurs"/ nothing "occurs"/ nothing
Shit doesn't happen?
What I'm saying is the best noise I've every heard/seen was created unintentionally. My
absolute favorite example of natural noise in modern society are old weather beaten
billboards where the paper is torn up and falling off, and billboards who'se slats have
been re-arranged (when the ad's time is up, to render the advertisment useless).
Robert P. Beveridge
>I disagree. All noise is good, just as there is no such thing as bad dada or bad
>surrealism, even if all noise is not surrealistic dada, but may infact be down-to-earth as
>freeway traffic (which could then be percieved as dada under the right circumstance, of
>course.)
Not to get COMPLETELY off on a tangent (though it really is what I do
best), but there's rather a big difference between dada and
surrealism...
Rev.Goat
Dadanoise
>automatic writing/ bypassing or re-ordering the consciousness of the artist/
>allowing for almost direct Platonic expression/ beyond the Artist's self/
>ego constructs (for me anyway)/ therefore I would posit this axiom/: the
>Action/Impetus that allows an artist to express in the medium of "noise"-
>requires and results that said artist will create "effective" expression/
>this does not mean that everyone or anyone will appreciate it/ but it DOES
>follow that the verb- the Act of expression by the artist is indeed
i like noise
noise is good
i like some noise better than other noise
the noise i make is my favorite
can i have a cookie?
john dove
setai wrote:
/s between all his sentences.
thats annoying!
nospam
>best), but there's rather a big difference between dada and
>surrealism...
I wouldn't mind hearing what the differences are...
Dadanoise
well, they were TWO DIFFERENT MOVEMENTS--though there are similarities, some
of the same artists were involved, and there are indeed similarities between
some of the works.
DADA was a revolt against EVERYTHING. society, art-- although not all dadaists
declared themselves "anti-art."
Surrealism was based on an interest in dreams and mysticism (and
psychoanalysis), and what the tyrannical Breton called "pure psychic
automatism." its goals were different from those of the dadaists.
///dadanoise///
in the dimensions of her face he saw all the turbulence of the 20th century
dramatized and demystified -- rendered as flat and cold as a mathematical
equation.
Jeremy Tolsma
>
>Jeremy Tolsma wrote:
>> The only reason people would have animocity towards scum artists is if
>> they insist on pinning everything down to a certain criteria.
>
>Couldn't have put it better myself. If scum is truly as open as its
>advocates suggest, then the people who put together scum comps should
>leave room for the occasional "harsh noise" or "jazz" submission. Which
>is precisely what Brent did not do.
>
Sorry, I didnt realize he didn't leave it 'open'. I thought he just didn't
want an overwhelming amount of noise submissions, but obviously if theres some
kind of restriction it needs to be removed...
Jeremy Tolsma
>
>>Yes, my first scum show was DIO, where that one dude shot out lasers from
>>his guitar and killed the paper mache dragon.
>
>Kinda like the Motley Crew show where Tommy Lee played in the drum cage
connected to a
>huge robotic arm that lifted him over the audience and spun him end over end.
>me, anyone seen the new Monster Magnet video. Damn!
>
x@x.x
>>agreed/ also: one person's "average" or "shitty" noise artist is another's
>>genius/ "noise" is completely abstract/ there can be no traditional
>>evaluation of technique or composition/
>I think there can be discussion of technique and composition, but there can be no value
>judgement.
What kind of happy-feel-good-everyone's-OK bullshit is that? There's
plenty of bad noise, bad art, bad music, bad ideas, bad philosophies,
etc. Defining what's good or bad is no simple task, but in all these
things there can eventually be value judgements.
>Every noise creation is a new creation of the same creation.
Meaningless newage-y bullshit. I take it you never pay for noise then?
>>no one creates noise because it is "easy"/
>Actually, half of the reason I make noise is because its easy. 1/4 because I like it,
>1/4 because I hate it. But because I accept all noise, its easy. Plug your shit in,
>turn it up, make noise, easy as pie. The shadows of infinity would mean nothing without
>the direct visceral immediacy. When I play noise, I stop thinking and just play noise.
True enough. It's also incredibly easy to make rock music, country
music, or anything else. Making something GOOD is another story.
x@x.x
>>to admit the logic
>>and certitude that a mind can only see/ explore Reality within the limits of
>>that mind's abstract/ illusory conceptual models is- frightening for those
>>trying to get an empirical grasp of the universe/ so they don't admit it at
>>all/
Like most squishy quasi spiritual/religious/wacko philosophies such as
this, it is neither provable nor disprovable. The core of this theory
is that everything is an illusion. There is neither logic nor
certitude behind this. It's just a theory.
And nobody's running around afraid of it. It's a silly theory, that's
why nobody "admits" it. I'd have to guess that you don't actually
believe that everything is an illusion either.
There are an infinite number of theories you could devise that are
neither provable nor disprovable. That no one debates them is not
surprising.
Jeremy Tolsma
>
>>>There are over 25,000 known galaxies in the universe,
>>uh- that's a few hundred BILLION
>
>
Theres no way there are a few hundred billion 'known galaxies' if known means
someone has checked them out with a telescope and given them a name and/or
number. 25,000 sounds more realistic... every time they turn on Hubble they
'find' a few new ones... but that doesn't mean they were lost to begin with any
more than Chris Columbus discovered america.
Arrr!
> Reminds
> >me, anyone seen the new Monster Magnet video. Damn!
>
Dang, I think I saw that video. I was confused as to whether it was scum or
metal. Is that the one where they are playing in vegas with the glittery
clothes?? My favorite part was when it gets all heavy, and then those fly girls
come out. They play rock that is as hard as stone.
Jeremy Tolsma
>
>
>
>>
>>>That's because noise keeps transcending the musician. =) Merzbow might
>>>give the illusion of control, but it's only an illusion. A parlour
>>>trick. You can't control noise. It's the other way around.
>>
>>Noisicians are merely tour guides of noise.
>>
>
>
>I think it is more of a human/ machine symbiosis/ the artist and the machine
>literally compete for domination- or come to an "understanding"/ this
>"communication" between the symbiots IS the expression/ it will become more
>Efficient as the technology evolves (co-evolves with the artist)/
eeew that sounds like it goes against the whole DIY aesthetic of noise which
was not to get fancy boxes that do everything for you, and put a little elbow
grease in there to create something decent for a change. Maybe I'm reading you
wrong but your analogy of technology 'co-evolving with the artist' sounds like
the marketing technique that created devices such as Rolands over-priced
and somewhat useless MC-505 with the little laser beams you wave your hand over
to make noise. Where's the acheivement in that? Only a moron would be
impressed by this if they saw it happen on stage. I mean if you insist on
waving your hands around to make noise then get a theremin kit and break out
the soldering iron right?? And then try and convince everyone that its cool
that your stuff sounds like a vincent price movie. It's still a little too
fancy for me, but I'd give it an A+ for effort... of course I give high marks
to tupperware bongos too. I mean I appreciate ancient samplers and stuff only
because they encourage the person using them to get bored of them quickly and
start doing something else at the same time or leaving it running to go do
something else entirely.
Robb Cunningham
>
> In article <2694BC...@nevrical.com>, edb...@nevrical.com says...
> >
> >Jeremy Tolsma wrote:
> >> The only reason people would have animocity towards scum artists is if
> >> they insist on pinning everything down to a certain criteria.
> >
> >Couldn't have put it better myself. If scum is truly as open as its
> >advocates suggest, then the people who put together scum comps should
> >leave room for the occasional "harsh noise" or "jazz" submission. Which
I don't remember it ever being implied that scum was 'open to
everything'. As I understood it scum was some sort of scrapyard for
stuff too crappy to be pop, not focused enough to be noise, not
intellectual enough to be experimental. but what the hell do I know
Jeremy Tolsma
would exclude country&western. That doesn't mean that scum tracks can't be
noisy or twangy. The point is a scum track would sound only like a scum track,
it would not sound like a noise track or a country&western track despite maybe
using some ingredients associated with those types of music. Scum isnt a
dumping ground for anything that isn't currently the popular genre youth
culture is embracing this week (especially heavy metal rejects!). It's no
catch phrase that grabs and holds peoples attention for 2 seconds (like 'power
electronics' or 'ambient'). Scum simply has no pretentions. How can you say
'if its not focused' then it cant be noise, it must be scum? Scum is focused,
the shot may be panned out to a wide angle to offer a panoramic view, but its
still in focus. This brings us back to the 'degrees of chaos' theory which
suggests that chaos can be measured as an artifact of complexity in motion...
of course that also suggests that the most discordant music is the most complex
and that if it just sounds like a 'mess' to you then you're obviously not
firing enough neurons quickly enough to make proper sense of it.
Robb Cunningham
> How can you say
> 'if its not focused' then it cant be noise, it must be scum?
maybe not focused was n't a good terminology. not uhhhh.. noisey
enough to be noise
Scum is focused,
> the shot may be panned out to a wide angle to offer a panoramic view, but its
the generalization above is not 100% true. some scum is simply
unfocused.
Passionist
> would exclude country&western.
For the love of God, would someone please explain what this scum stuff
is?! There have been several pretentious attempts at deliberate
obscurity but very little in the way of coherent replies. From what I've
gathered, it sounds an awful lot like 70-80's experimental collage/tape
culture, also known as industrial. An attempt to reclaim what was lost
to ebm?
> That doesn't mean that scum tracks can't be
> noisy or twangy. The point is a scum track would sound only like a scum track,
> it would not sound like a noise track or a country&western track despite maybe
> using some ingredients associated with those types of music.
OK, so if scum can only sound like scum, it must have limits. What are
those limits, precisely? Scum can't be noise. There's a limit. But if I
slap a disco beat overtop my noise, it will be scum, no? An "impure"
noise. This still sounds an awful lot like industrial music to me.
> It's no
> catch phrase that grabs and holds peoples attention for 2 seconds (like 'power
> electronics' or 'ambient'). Scum simply has no pretentions. How can you say
> 'if its not focused' then it cant be noise, it must be scum?
I think he can say whatever he likes if no one here wants to clarify
what they mean by scum.
> Scum is focused,
> the shot may be panned out to a wide angle to offer a panoramic view, but its
> still in focus.
So there really is such a thing as "good" and "bad" scum, then?
> of course that also suggests that the most discordant music is the most complex
> and that if it just sounds like a 'mess' to you then you're obviously not
> firing enough neurons quickly enough to make proper sense of it.
That's what I think makes noise so difficult for me to handle. I can
only take it in as "one big sound". Or in the case of Merzbow as "a few
big slabs of sound." I cannot honestly deal with it as "lots and lots of
small sounds happening at once." It's too much. Even the guys who make
noise can't possibly hope to keep track. The brain tires fast and
eventually gives up altogether. We get bored. Maybe noise represents the
upper limit of human sound-processing power. Scum might represent a
middle ground we can use to get to that limit. Scum might be noise
training wheels...eventually, we'll evolve a capacity to handle noise
like true noiseheads! Not in this lifetime, unfortunately.
Floyd Diebel
[stuff...]
>hearing. Thats why its time for scum, which was never worth hearing from the
>start, which is why it is the only thing worth hearing NOW. It's the Now Sound
>of the Scum Ring, you know?
pull my finger.
-----
fdi...@boulez.emrl.com
a/v composition and engineering.
Robb Cunningham
>
> In article <35B006...@try.again>, so...@try.again says...
> >
>
> > Scum is focused,
> >> the shot may be panned out to a wide angle to offer a panoramic view, but
> its
> >
> >
> >unfocused.
> >
> >
>
> japanese scum artist who was talking about the difference between improvisation
> and automatic execution. If you attribute the concept of 'automatic execution'
> to scum then maybe scum could be consider the MOST 'focused' genre. I think
> you're right though, 'focus' is an ambiguous word that has more relevance in
> photography than music.
well I just don't think you could attribute any qualitative
generalization of any kind, musical, photographical, rectal, whatever,
to scum. scum is everything and nothing.
Jeremy Tolsma
>
>> Yeah, I think you're right... Scum would exclude noise just as much as it
>> would exclude country&western.
>
>For the love of God, would someone please explain what this scum stuff
>is?! There have been several pretentious attempts at deliberate
>obscurity but very little in the way of coherent replies. From what I've
>gathered, it sounds an awful lot like 70-80's experimental collage/tape
>culture, also known as industrial. An attempt to reclaim what was lost
>to ebm?
>
HEH you sound like you're flying into a panic over not being able to define
scum. First thing you should realize is that thats exactly what scum wants you
to do if you're unwilling to accept it!
>> That doesn't mean that scum tracks can't be
>> noisy or twangy. The point is a scum track would sound only like a scum
track,
>> it would not sound like a noise track or a country&western track despite
maybe
>> using some ingredients associated with those types of music.
>
>OK, so if scum can only sound like scum, it must have limits. What are
>those limits, precisely? Scum can't be noise. There's a limit. But if I
>slap a disco beat overtop my noise, it will be scum, no? An "impure"
>noise. This still sounds an awful lot like industrial music to me.
Well the point of scum isn't really the ingredients. Thats the point people
have been trying to get across. It's an aesthetic that follows very pragmatic
motifs. For example, a scum artist might follow the DIY ethic, until finding
someone else to do it for him! I think the underlying theme here is not to let
OTHER people tell you what your music is about, and make concerted efforts to
not let them pin down specific criteria to 'scum'.
>
>> It's no
>> catch phrase that grabs and holds peoples attention for 2 seconds (like
'power
>> electronics' or 'ambient'). Scum simply has no pretentions. How can you
say
>> 'if its not focused' then it cant be noise, it must be scum?
>
>I think he can say whatever he likes if no one here wants to clarify
>what they mean by scum.
You have to be able to read between the lines. This isn't a stupid marketing
ploy like every other genre of music. It's about people, biology, technology,
or lack of.
>
>> Scum is focused,
>> the shot may be panned out to a wide angle to offer a panoramic view, but
its
>> still in focus.
>
>So there really is such a thing as "good" and "bad" scum, then?
>
Well if its bad, it isn't scum. All scum is good.
>> of course that also suggests that the most discordant music is the most
complex
>> and that if it just sounds like a 'mess' to you then you're obviously not
>> firing enough neurons quickly enough to make proper sense of it.
>
>That's what I think makes noise so difficult for me to handle. I can
>only take it in as "one big sound". Or in the case of Merzbow as "a few
>big slabs of sound." I cannot honestly deal with it as "lots and lots of
>small sounds happening at once." It's too much. Even the guys who make
>noise can't possibly hope to keep track. The brain tires fast and
>eventually gives up altogether. We get bored. Maybe noise represents the
>upper limit of human sound-processing power. Scum might represent a
>middle ground we can use to get to that limit. Scum might be noise
>training wheels...eventually, we'll evolve a capacity to handle noise
>like true noiseheads! Not in this lifetime, unfortunately.
Now you're on the right track! Use scum for whatever you want to use it for,
if it helps you enjoy noise more, then scum has had a positive influence in
your life!
Jeremy Tolsma
says...
>Scum is clearly some kind of practical joke intended to get people to
>bullshit like crazy...
>
>;)
>
>
Thats an entirely valid interpretation, especially considering the connections
scum has to alt.meaningless.shit!
Jeremy Tolsma
>
>>Scum is clearly some kind of practical joke intended to get people to
>>bullshit like crazy...
>
>
Of course its Bad. Micheal Jackson is the king of scum! He's the only scum
artist allowed to be a pop star.
Jeremy Tolsma
>
> Scum is focused,
>> the shot may be panned out to a wide angle to offer a panoramic view, but
its
>
>
Jeremy Tolsma
says...
>
>How does "Scum simply has no pretentions." fit with all your other statements
>about scum being this, not being that, etc.? I don't get it.
>
>
'scum simply has no pretentions' is a pretention in itself. It's called
embracing hyprocracy and laughing in the face of anyone who wants to nail this
down in any way. Even Brent C. himself has tried to disown himself from the
scum threads he brought to this newsgroup. I've got as much stake in defending
the virtues as scum as he apparently does, so I guess I'm just stretching the
entertainment value of these threads a little further than him. Scum debates
aren't for everyone...
Jeremy Tolsma
says...
>>Sorry, I didnt realize he didn't leave it 'open'. I thought he just didn't
>>want an overwhelming amount of noise submissions, but obviously if theres
some
>>kind of restriction it needs to be removed...
>>
>
>How about putting out whatever sort of comp he wants and calling it whatever
>he wants?
>
Well first of all, I changed my mind about the above statement, and you already
responded to the updated message. Justin, anyone can put out whatever they
want. My messages here are not going to prevent anyone from excersizing their
will. In otherwords, your statement is utterly pointless. BUT, just to humor
you I'll deride it and give you an answer anyway. The answer is: ...because if
he puts out a compilation of anything other than SCUM he won't be able to get
enthused enough about it to promote it effectively. We've already determined
that anything worth hearing has been done to death, and no longer worth
hearing. Thats why its time for scum, which was never worth hearing from the
start, which is why it is the only thing worth hearing NOW. It's the Now Sound
of the Scum Ring, you know?
And if you're still not grasping these concepts, panic!
Stig Mathausen
>
> > Yeah, I think you're right... Scum would exclude noise just as much as it
> > would exclude country&western.
>
> For the love of God, would someone please explain what this scum stuff
> is?!
There is no such genre. It's merely a dumping ground for whatever those who
propagate the term want to put in there, albeit in "quotation marks". The responses
you got should be enough to demonstrate that.
__________
- Advertisment -
tension hook online: http://www.angelfire.com/ca/tropica
The slowly-evolving homesite of Alberta's finest Ottawa-based noise project