The Art of Noise
Dadanoise
>Is this so?, most predators are extremely quiet, they certainly don't
>produce staccato noises, I thought maybe they (animals) relate bangs to
>thunder- but why should they be frightened of that?
your questions approach koans now.... sudden, unexpected noises are scary or at
the very least surprising to most animals. the sound of a gigantic birthday
party horn might make you jerk your neck in a brief panic the same way gunfire
would-- the key difference being that with gunfire you would continue to act
cautiously.
animals have coexisted/struggled to survive alongside people for a while now.
it is probably in their best interest to react with fear and caution to sounds
potentially indicating guns & explosives.
Soddy
> We have a CD of bird song the cats 'enjoy' , actually they check out
> the speakers! But both show some interest in noise and 'experimental'
> music , merzbow gets an ear flickering!
Masami Akita has himself made the same observation. As has Joe
Roemer/Macronympha. Cats make excellent noiseheads.
Until very recently I had a cat that would sit right in front of
blasting speakers (noise, natch), licking herself in contentment,
scorching her poor little cat earholes out.
Also once had a trio of alley cats hop up on the window sill and sit
there, seemingly attentive, while Incapacitants' "Quietus" belted
out. Truly surreal experience. Initially, the apparent leader - a fat
tabby - started skulking around back, as if scoping out the scene. I
thought it was a reflection from some mysterious light source. Then,
suddenly, all three hopped up on the sill and sat like statues. I was
tripping slightly, half dead to the world, and it was dark both
inside and out, so at first I thought I was receiving a visitation
from NeverNeverland. (Noise Incarnate?). Really psyched me out.
Finally mustered the nerve to crush my latent paranoia and discovered
three felines. We stared at eachother for a few moments and then I
shut the window. (true story.)
Dogs, on the other hand - a bunch of noise pussies.
sodomy non sapiens,
Jason
---
"I'm still psychotic enough to kill without emotion.
Nobody fucks with me."
-- Joe Roemer/Macronympha
daniel landherr
Soddy (yu11...@yorku.ca) wrote:
: > We have a CD of bird song the cats 'enjoy' , actually they check out
: > the speakers! But both show some interest in noise and 'experimental'
: > music , merzbow gets an ear flickering!
: Masami Akita has himself made the same observation. As has Joe
: Roemer/Macronympha. Cats make excellent noiseheads.
: Until very recently I had a cat that would sit right in front of
: blasting speakers (noise, natch), licking herself in contentment,
: scorching her poor little cat earholes out.
cEvin Key's new album: Music For Cats
Dan
Bless Ed
Clearly, there's some kind of conspiracy.
Cue to X-Files theme...
Stig Mathausen
Soddy wrote:
> Someone else wrote:
> > We have a CD of bird song the cats 'enjoy' , actually they check out
> > the speakers! But both show some interest in noise and 'experimental'
> > music , merzbow gets an ear flickering!
>
> Masami Akita has himself made the same observation. As has Joe
> Roemer/Macronympha. Cats make excellent noiseheads.
>
>
Not always, mind you - I've found their frenzied yelps can mesh well with
distortion and static loops...although yeah, dogs are generally better for a
"high lonesome" country sound that somehow dosen't mesh with noise as well as
catskree (the reverse might be interesting though - a prolonged catfight
layered over a Buck Owens or Tex Ritter tune...).
> ---
> "I'm still psychotic enough to kill without emotion.
> Nobody fucks with me."
> -- Joe Roemer/Macronympha
--
- Advertisment -
tension hook online: http://www.angelfire.com/ca/tropica
The slowly-evolving homesite of Alberta's finest Ottawa-based noise project
dj fishead
a friend of mine could 'cause his cats to go into some sort of heat by
playing a selection off of Teste Tones by TAGC... drove them nuts...
they'd start rubbing up against anything and then start dragging their
genitals on the floor... and as soon as you pulled the needle from the
vinyl they'd stop... only to recommence if you turned it back on... it
was weird... he'd demonstrate this phenomenon for guests every once in a
while... never failed to work...
anyone else have any similar stories??
--
--------------+ one man's fish is another man's poisson +--------------
dj fishead - northern hardcorps - massive magazine - activated magazine
http://www.tbp.mb.ca/hardcorps/ -- http://www.massivemag.com/
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Studio/9391/active.htm
Soddy
I think we can treat this article seriously. So let me try.
While Mr Hopkins makes several good points, I think his article
suffers from its over-emphasis on intention. In the end, it actually
undercuts itself.
First of all, I find it difficult to believe that any noisehead ever
took the stated intentions of any one noisician at face value; if at
any value. The only people who ever take intention at face value are
those who seek to attack that face value. Otherwise, face value is
ignored. It has been ignored for several years now. Hopkins himself
ignores it; except, notably, when he attacks it himself.
On the one hand, Hopkins argues, noise is undercut by misguided
attempts at self-justification. The stated intentions of Japan's
better known noisicians gloss over the essential fact that noise is
boring. On the other, the design theory that underlies certain kinds
of noise - the only artist I can cite would be Aube; who fell into
noise more by default than by design - glosses over the stated denial
of any intention whatever.
We have to ask: does the dubious status of noise as "something (once)
considered important" mean anything to Hopkins, or is he simply
arguing that noise is boring? If it is boring, why? Because Jojo says
so? Making vague allusions to Jojo's apparent feelings on the subject
does not a coherent argument make. Are we to extract Jojo's "true
intentions" from such allusions? This is beyond problematic.
Almost as problematic, though rather more telling, is the omission of
Mikawa from the discussion. If the Hijokaidan school of noise
emulates Osaka culture, where does Tokyo noisician Mikawa fit in?
Answer: behind the scenes. Hopkins errs in his statement that Jojo is
the main force behind Hijokaidan; he is not. The main (studio) force
has been Mikawa since Jojo admitted as much over a decade ago. That
Hijokaidan has a studio force at all, never mind one separate from
the live force (Jojo), renders every observation Hopkins makes about
Hijokaidan almost deliberately obtuse; while oddly supporting his
Osaka/Tokyo dichotomy. Unlike Jojo, Mikawa focuses very intently on
the minutest details of noise. Evidence can be found throughout the
Incapacitants catalogue, and in nearly all Hijokaidan material from
"Modern" ('89) on. By omitting Mikawa - and Mikawa's perspective on
noise - Hopkins draws attention to the holes in his argument; hence
enlarging them out of proportion. The holes grow larger still when we
question Hasegawa's omission from the CCCC reference. Yes, we know
who fronts Hijokaidan and CCCC, but who is actually making all the
noise? An informed discussion digs below face value.
Besides, Japanese noise is itself a tenuous construct at best. Its
existence at the surface is real and valuable, yes. But beyond that
surface, reference points slide into oblivion. What of all the other
noise outside Japan? What of the Nihilist Spasm Band? (quoth Jojo:
"one aim (of Hijokaidan) is to become the Nihilist Spasm Band of
Japan.") Japanese noise exists almost singularly as reference point
we all can use - or abuse - when we want to find the noise we like;
or, as Hopkins notes, at the other end, to find a host of potential
suckers*. It can't die, because it was never really there. Long live
Japanese noise. Long live death.
But, I'm a generous guy. Hopkins gets points, if possibly backhanded
ones, for recognizing the need to declare the death of a half-arsed
construct. It's an insatiable one, and someone could probably write a
very convincing essay that connects death-knelling to the whole
Western tradition of rugged individualism. And Freud and Nietzsche
besides. ;-)
* This is about the only statement I agree with 100%. Mind you, in my
view, people can be divided into two groups: suckers who readily
acknowledge their suckerhood, and those still in denial.
sodomy non sapiens,
Jason
---
varied and hidden forms 'the normal state' of man."
-- M Heidegger
Jamie
Stig Mathausen wrote:
> .
> > The way the CD;s are sold often directly appeals to the generally male
> > rather childish (and i don;t mean that in an insulting manner) collector
> > mentality.
>
> What other sense can it be taken? Unless you're an intellectually-stunted
> humanities student, I'm sure you can avoid such puerile gender-politicking.
okay, well why is there (apparently to me) often a big emphasis on ' special
packaging' , limited editions so on and so forth within the noise recording
market place, if not to appeal to the esoteric collector desires of the tiny
market place.
from the origional essay
"but mostly it's just a tiny little sub-genre of collectors' music,
representing the ultimate victory of capitalism over feudalism, R.I.P."
is it? isn;t it?
snippet from 'Society of the Spectacle' (probably read in every social studies
class, but sod it, its a good book)
"One who collects key chains which have been manufactered for collection,
accumulets his *indulgences of the commodity", a glorious sign of his real
presence among the faithful.
Reified man advertises the proof of his intimacy with the commodity. The
fetishism of commodities reaches moments of fervant exaltation similar to the
ecstasises of the convulsions and miracles of the old religious fetishism. the
only use which remains here is the fundamental use of submission."
Discussion wise, we can highlight and lst the peculiarities of the noise scene,
and say, well
Japanoise is dead (or not dead), a lot of tape swapping goes on, there are many
different types of noise etc. etc. , but linking up with other ways of
analysing stuff can be more interesting (such as the historys of osaka/tokyo in
the first post) , and this can include third (or first!)rate gender psychology.
Or should we just stick to mathmatical acoustics?
no neurosis there!
"7hz is the vibrational frequency of the human body. A 140db 7hz sine wave
would..."
oh dear....back to death again....its everywhere!
:-)
Jamie
Jamie
> soddy wrote:
> Almost as problematic, though rather more telling, is the omission of
> Mikawa from the discussion. If the Hijokaidan school of noise
> emulates Osaka culture, where does Tokyo noisician Mikawa fit in?
>
> Answer: behind the scenes. Hopkins errs in his statement that Jojo is
> the main force behind Hijokaidan; he is not. The main (studio) force
> has been Mikawa since Jojo admitted as much over a decade ago. That
> Hijokaidan has a studio force at all, never mind one separate from
> the live force (Jojo), renders every observation Hopkins makes about
> Hijokaidan almost deliberately obtuse; while oddly supporting his
> Osaka/Tokyo dichotomy. Unlike Jojo, Mikawa focuses very intently on
> the minutest details of noise. Evidence can be found throughout the
> Incapacitants catalogue, and in nearly all Hijokaidan material from
> "Modern" ('89) on. By omitting Mikawa - and Mikawa's perspective on
> noise - Hopkins draws attention to the holes in his argument; hence
> enlarging them out of proportion. The holes grow larger still when we
> question Hasegawa's omission from the CCCC reference. Yes, we know
> who fronts Hijokaidan and CCCC, but who is actually making all the
> noise? An informed discussion digs below face value.
>
Who is Hasegawa? Could you give some more background here?
> Besides, Japanese noise is itself a tenuous construct at best. Its
> existence at the surface is real and valuable, yes. But beyond that
> surface, reference points slide into oblivion. What of all the other
> noise outside Japan? What of the Nihilist Spasm Band? (quoth Jojo:
> "one aim (of Hijokaidan) is to become the Nihilist Spasm Band of
> Japan.") Japanese noise exists almost singularly as reference point
> we all can use - or abuse - when we want to find the noise we like;
> or, as Hopkins notes, at the other end, to find a host of potential
> suckers*. It can't die, because it was never really there. Long live
> Japanese noise. Long live death.
>
Its a kind of myth, or one we can directly see in action.
The myth of skinny japanese punk weirdos in the basement bowels of
far-away tokyo
feeding homemade instruments into their broken marshal stacks and
slapping the volume to 11 does seem to have a strong attraction for a
small group of generally male, middle class music lovers - finding
obscure and mysterious CD's in specialist shops or through mail order,
and becoming drawn into the noise 'cult', discovery a treasure trove of
merbow albums to spend their hard earned spondules on.
Okay, generalistion, but point is more 'noise' bands exist in USA than
japan, and probably always have done, but seems to me the Japanopise myth
is still quite poingent.
> But, I'm a generous guy. Hopkins gets points, if possibly backhanded
> ones, for recognizing the need to declare the death of a half-arsed
> construct. It's an insatiable one, and someone could probably write a
> very convincing essay that connects death-knelling to the whole
> Western tradition of rugged individualism. And Freud and Nietzsche
> besides. ;-)
>
>
> * This is about the only statement I agree with 100%. Mind you, in my
> view, people can be divided into two groups: suckers who readily
> acknowledge their suckerhood, and those still in denial.
>
The 'noise' commerical scene is exactly that - consumerism, but in a kind
of smaller 'goldfish bowl' than other areas of the music industry and
with its own set of peculiarities.
The fact it is underground or small, or 'noisy' (! ;-) by no means, i
don;t think, makes any less 'against scoiety' or capitalism than anyother
consumer market. Its just a very small market. The '2000 suckers' still
hand out money for (sometimes) over priced goods, the musicians buy their
equipment.
The way the CD;s are sold often directly appeals to the generally male
rather childish (and i don;t mean that in an insulting manner) collector
mentality.
Mr 'average' goes into the garage to tinker with his car when he's had
fight with his girlfriend, or play with his train set.
A noise head will go and pour over their CD collection, or go and find
another 'lovingly packaged' CD, limited edition, full of crazy sounds no
one understands ----- a lovely gold disk, intricate cover - dark images
---- a birthday present everyweek of the year!
mummy may not love me, but there are still 60 merbow albums to track
down, and the incapcitants latest already in the mail. 380 noise
recordings line his bedroom walls, 70% listened to only once, his own
noise making equipment in the corner --- one day people will be buying
*his CD's*. Such a small monde bruit ----- surely anyone can be the King
of Noise? Or do you have to travel to japan, eat sushi and live in
cramped conditions, make your own instruments, and finally do battle with
the mighty JoJo and Akita, after watching Tetsuo 40 times nonstop and
masterbating in unision to b-Men No Saisho No Kyoko. oh yes, then he'll
be king!
8-)
But hey, people have fun.
Whats the alternative - stop enjoying music, sell all your CD's and then
join a Christian sect?
More seriously, boring noise....
Some CD's are an 'education' (personally anyhow). I may listen to them
once, see where the musician has gone, then hardly ever listen to the CD
again. Keiji Haino falls into this category for me, I'm not sure wether
it is purely quite striking guitar playing (he does play very well), or
pretentious over serious bollocks (mysterious album covers, disintegrated
poetry bad-jap album names, black clothes --- o fuk off you pillock).
Whatever, I have learnt from listening to his recordings, and will
probably buy no more of them.
Haino isn;t 'noise' - but maybe a lot of noise falls into this category
of being banal and exceelent at the same time.
Maybe many people buy one or two hard noise CD's, "gee, get a load of
this shit Bill, it rocks!"
then leave it, though still having have learnt from it. The others get
'sucked in' (and here we are)!
awww, i dunno, i forgotten what point i'm trying to make.
There is music which hasn't been heard yet, which hasn;t been created yet
(literally)----
as a musician and a listener to music i find that very exciting,
emotionally and intellectually.
Though i joke, there are serious issues here maybe.
....at the end of the day, its more interesting than Cars or Football.
I'll stop rambling and go play Quake now.
> sodomy non sapiens,
> Jason
> ---
Jamie
Stig Mathausen
.
> The way the CD;s are sold often directly appeals to the generally male
> rather childish (and i don;t mean that in an insulting manner) collector
> mentality.
What other sense can it be taken? Unless you're an intellectually-stunted
Luke
I'm with you here, stig. I've been staying out of this debate, partly as
the original 'social historical' post shows an extremely naive
interpretation of japanese class structure in particular and identity
politics as a whole. (incidentally, do I, as a 'middle class southern
Englsih man' derive any of my musical leanings from the prior station of
Winchester as religious and political capital of Wessex? like fuck.)
Like all 'post-modern' essays, it demonstrates it's own redundance as
much as it criticises the redundant construct of 'japanese noise'. I'll
stick my neck out and say that maybe, deeply unfashionable though it is,
music or noise can be genuine, sincere and beautiful, and nice pretty CD
boxes can be just that, and enjoyable for what they are. Hell, I might
even enjoy LISTENING to music, rather than writing about it on a
newsgroup.
And that has just made this comment redundant too. :)
GRKelly
WANKER WANKER WANKER
- that's all folks.
Jamie
Stig Mathausen wrote:
> J
>
> Hey, it wasn't the noting of the collector-scum mentality I called ya on, but the
> snide PC terminology. I always find it annoying when such charecteristics are noted
> as being "generally male" as if women never get caught up in trainspotting-ish
> obsessions (birds, gardens, romance novels, etc.).
True, true! Point taken.
> As for special packaging, sure, it's often an appeal to the collector-scum
> personality to some degree, but I think it also appeals on an artistic level too -
> like the fancy constructs of MSBR. I don't think they're done strictly for
> collectible reasons, but to make each item something of a li'l piece of art in itself
> too - something beyond the mere sonics.
Perhaps i have an interest in the commodity becoming just the sonics or something, to
somehow free the music from art or image entirely.
I like the Pure series for its ultilitarianism, though the sleeves could do with thick
varnish on to stop the ink rubbing off a bit. But then thats still aesthetics and product
design....
darn, can;t esacpe it, no matter how hard i protest!
> A lot of noise projects do come out of
> something of a more holistic, if you will, creative background than those in many
> other genres, and this is reflected in the packaging. And,when your audience is
> numbered in the dozens, it can be just plain, well, if not "fun", then kind of
> 0satisfying, to make each item interesting and unique.
Yeah....if its fun then why piss on the chips I guess!
> It's not quite the same as a
> limited coloured vinyl disc by some big rock act, or the obsessive pursuits of the
> private pressing/obscure music set, who will pay $10,000 for a doo-wop 45 readily
> available on reissue or that mint copy of that Dark LP of which only 12 copies still
> exist (I gotta admit that I have the "obsessive purist" mindset to some extent - it
> is neat to have original items with some history behind them, but manufactured
> rarities have little interest for me). Noise packaging provides more bang for the
> bucks. Perhaps this makes the goods into fetish-items, but in this case, what item
> that raises beyond a strict functional level wouldn't be?
Perhaps the whole *recording* 'thing' is inherently fetishistic.
before the early part of this century no records. You make a noise, then its gone into
time.
Maybe recording is a kind of pornography of sound.
Jamie
Stig Mathausen
Jamie wrote:
>
> Stig Mathausen wrote:
>
> > .
> > > The way the CD;s are sold often directly appeals to the generally male
> > > rather childish (and i don;t mean that in an insulting manner) collector
> > > mentality.
> >
> > humanities student, I'm sure you can avoid such puerile gender-politicking.
>
> packaging' , limited editions so on and so forth within the noise recording
> market place, if not to appeal to the esoteric collector desires of the tiny
> market place.
>
snide PC terminology. I always find it annoying when such charecteristics are noted
as being "generally male" as if women never get caught up in trainspotting-ish
obsessions (birds, gardens, romance novels, etc.).
As for special packaging, sure, it's often an appeal to the collector-scum
personality to some degree, but I think it also appeals on an artistic level too -
like the fancy constructs of MSBR. I don't think they're done strictly for
collectible reasons, but to make each item something of a li'l piece of art in itself
too - something beyond the mere sonics. A lot of noise projects do come out of
something of a more holistic, if you will, creative background than those in many
other genres, and this is reflected in the packaging. And,when your audience is
numbered in the dozens, it can be just plain, well, if not "fun", then kind of
satisfying, to make each item interesting and unique. It's not quite the same as a
the Quirks
> > Hey, it wasn't the noting of the collector-scum mentality I called ya on, but the
> > snide PC terminology. I always find it annoying when such charecteristics are
>>noted
> > as being "generally male" as if women never get caught up in trainspotting-ish
> > obsessions (birds, gardens, romance novels, etc.).
>
But couldn't it be argued that noise music is largely a male thing? Not in the sense
that women don't listen to it or get involved with it - more that noise seems to
simply be saturated with subtle or not-so-subtle levels of testosterone (from
screaming into a mic hooked up to twenty pedals or banging metal sheets - you get
the idea).
> Perhaps i have an interest in the commodity becoming just the sonics or >something, to
> somehow free the music from art or image entirely.
Freeing music from image is a noble thing, but why free music from art? Isn't the
highest point on music when it becomes art in itself, and not just another Hanson
song?
>
> I like the Pure series for its ultilitarianism, though the sleeves could do with thick
> varnish on to stop the ink rubbing off a bit. But then thats still aesthetics and >product
> design....
> darn, can;t esacpe it, no matter how hard i protest!
I personally hated the packaging of the _Release Your Mind Vol. 2_ comp. Annoying
as all hell, and too easy to scratch or drop the CDs.
> Perhaps the whole *recording* 'thing' is inherently fetishistic.
A philsophy teacher of mine once told me that a fetishist desires not the object of
the fetish, but rather the very thing that the fetish lacks. So in this case, what need
is being met with noise packaging? It has to appeal to something, on some level,
whther it be the simple, "Duh, it just looks cool," or the more ambigious and
complex... Maybe noise artists do what they do to fill some type of void in
themselves, and we (people who buy noise) do so because buying it fills a need in us.
So, in a way, I look at the entire noise phenomemon as symbiotic, if nothing else. Or
something like that....
> Maybe recording is a kind of pornography of sound.
Oh, no doubt. Hence the propensity of naked chicks in bondage on many noise CDs.
;)
Luke
> Perhaps the whole *recording* 'thing' is inherently fetishistic.
>
> time.
>
bingo! Cage, for instance, HATED recordings. other people (some of us,
maybe) like them for exactly the same reasons. As soon as you record a
sound you commodify it. And so what?
Oh yeah, and the alternative to nice CD cases is...crappy CD cases. so
support capitalism! the victory of slightly nicer CD cases!
Soddy
> Who is Hasegawa? Could you give some more background here?
Vision and CCCC, AKA Mr Moog Japan and all-around cool guy. I credit
him - alongside Kosakai and, to a lesser extent, Mikawa* - with
popularizing synth/psyche whitewash in Japan.
> but point is more 'noise' bands exist in USA than japan, and probably
> always have done, but seems to me the Japanopise myth is still quite
> poingent.
pleasure of tearing it apart again. Where's the fun in trashing
trash? (inferiority complex notwithstanding.)
> Such a small monde bruit ----- surely anyone can be the King of Noise?
many Kings were there?
Still, I think it's important to have an Elvis of noise. The
temptation is simply too loaded to resist. (something else the
Japanese have noted from the beginning.)
> There is music which hasn't been heard yet, which hasn;t been created
> yet (literally)----
yet found a formal niche.
* Mikawa only for the theremin connection, and its implicit psyche
reverberations; not so much vague psyche-noise classics like
"Quietus" (Alchemy).
sodomy non sapiens,
Jason
---
-- Hideki Kato/Crack Fierce
Rev. Matthew A. Carey
On Sat, 09 May 1998 12:11:23 -0700, Luke <tra...@tcp.co.uk> wrote:
>Like all 'post-modern' essays, it demonstrates it's own redundance
Speaking of which:
THE REST OF ART HISTORY:
POSTMODERNISM- The era we're in now. A disappointment with failing
to obtain Utopia.
POST-POSTMODERNISM- The part after this one.
PRE-ISMISM: To wonder what all this "ism" stuff is, anyhow.
The answer to the question will be:
ISIMISM- A movement that looks upon isms as a way to understand the
world.
ANTI-ISMISM- To look down upon isms as a way to understand the world.
ANTI-ANTI-ISM- To realize that this is ridiculous.
And so on.
SO-ONISM- To say "and so on."
SO-ON-SO-ONISM- To say "and so on" again.
SANITY- The only way out.
====
___________________________________________________
Join the Vision Temple email discussion list!
sign up: http://www.humboldt1.com/~carey/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
heinz ewatch recall product mcdonald's lawsuit fraud ford sears
ibm microsoft general electric general motors poison proctor gamble
johnson & johnson mennen du pont motorola burke gurk heroin voodoo porn
Soddy
> You obviously derive your logic from there. Anyone who has lived in
> Japan for 20 years and was the first person to release Japanoise on
> vinyl must be pretty fucking naive.
Far be it from me to ask anyone to cool it on the personal attacks -
it's half of what makes these ngs worthwhile - but we don't all have
to take everything spewed into alt.noise personally. Not all the
time.
Hopkins deserves everything he gets. As does anyone who commits
anything to a public forum*. C'est la vie.
Though truly, I'd really like to see him back up what he's offered.
For our consumption. I'm sure he can, given half the chance. Even
without the oodles of witty reparte on his behalf.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: "Japanese Noise" can work
wonders as locus (read: excuse) for cultural analysis, but it rarely
tells us anything about noise itself. I'd like to address that, and
I'd like Hopkins to address that. In fact, I'd like all present to
address that.
As Hopkins has noted, it's not like we can jettison all that
cultural baggage. But we can pretend it isn't there. For noise's
sake.
* Self-styled "experts" in particular.
sodomy non sapiens,
Jason
---
Except Scrappy. He's a dick. I hate that shit."
-- Roger Stella/Macronympha
Luke
> >Englsih man' derive any of my musical leanings from the prior station of Winchester as religious and political capital of Wessex? like fuck.)
'my' logic? eh? we have parochial syllogisms now do we? (and this is
hardly a logical debate). and no, i really don't derive much of my
cultural inheritance from this area. I have far less in commmon with one
of my political-identity-peers than with, say, some abusive cunt on this
newsgroup. hey, I could be just like YOU...
> Anyone who has lived in Japan
> for 20 years and was the first person to release Japanoise on vinyl must be pretty fucking naive
Yeah, i think so, to assume that such a simplistic political paradigm is
of any use. (whatever their valid points about current musical ideology
may be- i didn't criticise *those* did I?). See someone elses criticisms
re: Hijokaidan/CCCC etc.
being the (brave) person to first commit japanoise to vinyl is great,
I'm impressed (no irony intended). but i DOESNT make you professor of
oriental studies (avant garde music division) Osaka university. (if that
IS true, I will take the essay much more seriously and order a slice of
humble pie OK)
btw. ask a japanese person if living in japan makes you truly understand
the japanese, or a western salaryman stuck in the same position at his
japanese company while all his jap colleagues are promoted around him.
you are always a gaijin. (nearly all of my friends ARE japanese, I speak
the language (badly), study their arts, like hello kitty, takeshi kitano
etc etc. but I certainly don't consider myself to be an authority upon
ancient japanese feudal-capitalist bollocks..but more importantly i
would never bring 1970's era 'cultural studies' style *British*
socio-political history to bear upon a musical debate, and I AM fucking
british)
> Why do English fucks (and faggots) always post the
> most ignorant shit. I swear, yall is worse than niggers (sarcastic). >The newspaper said "nigger" is officially the most offensive word in >the American language. Are you down with Uncle Nigger?
yeah, whatever. this doesn't add much to the 'debate' (good identity
politic word for you there) (hey, wouldn't it be ironic if I WAS a
nigga?) :)
best wishes,
Luke.
Duncan Bruce
In article <6j28jh$jso$1...@uuneo.neosoft.com>, nos...@neosoft.com puts forth...
>
>>the original 'social historical' post shows an extremely naive
>>interpretation of japanese class structure in particular and identity
>>politics as a whole. (incidentally, do I, as a 'middle class southern
>>Winchester as religious and political capital of Wessex? like fuck.)
>
>newspaper said "nigger" is officially the most offensive word in the American
>language. Are you down with Uncle Nigger?
>
>
Uhh.. somebody needs a hobby... (or a life)
--
_______________________________________________________________
I slept with faith and woke up with a corpse in my arms
_______________________________________________________________
Matthew Turner
Brent Bruni Comiskey wrote: I swear, yall is worse than niggers (sarcastic).
The
> newspaper said "nigger" is officially the most offensive word in the American
> language. Are you down with Uncle Nigger?
I'm not sure if I'm down with Uncle Nigger. I'm sure he's a fine upstanding
gentleman, but having not made his acquaintance I have to remain neutral on this
issue. However, I AM down with Don Knotts and he, of course, is one of the
greatest old time niggers there ever was. Rumor has it he can see through walls
and cause Mexican American children to fly. Keep your eyes open.
Dadanoise
(collapses in exhaustion)
Gabriel Palczewski
I have often been of the opinion that people should be put to
sleep based on their Usenet postings. Amazingly enough, I can't begin to
understand why you weren't euthanised ages ago. Your posting is
incoherent at the beginning and then moves on to try and "cooly" use
racial slurs to get your message across. You act as if you are original
because you used the word "nigger" a bunch of times. I'm sorry, this has
been over done before based purely on using the word for "effect" rather
than an actual slur. So, I'm sorry to disappoint but you are not special
or original in that regards...just stupid. The fact you used to word
faggot as some sort of actual degragatory insult further displays your
stupidity or moreso, your maturity level which ranges between about 10-12.
Once again, you resort to using a playground word which is so overused and
redundant that it has lost all meaning as a legitimate insult. Too bad.
Try harder next time.
DJ Flash Funk Gabe <azr...@grfn.org> - Napalm Jesus Member
The !NEW! Napalm Jesus Page - http://noiseweb.com/napalmjesus
Some Lovely Noise Links For You...
NoiseWeb - http://www.noiseweb.com (THE site for Noise on the WWW)
ABFALL - http://noiseweb.com/abfall (Brutal Noise from New Jersey)
Loud Cat - http://noiseweb.com/loudcat (Noise label from New Jersey)
Flutter - http://www.flutter.com (Excellent Noise band from Michigan)
NoiseChat - http://mercury.beseen.com/chat/rooms/h/5772 (Chat w/ Noiseheads!)
"You say I can't cut the mustard? Well Hulk Hogan, you suck pal!"
- Sean Waltman aka Syxx aka X-Pac
The Hand
On Sat, 09 May 1998 22:05:15 -0500, the Quirks <jqu...@monmouth.com>
wrote:
>> Perhaps the whole *recording* 'thing' is inherently fetishistic.
>A philsophy teacher of mine once told me that a fetishist desires not the object of
>the fetish, but rather the very thing that the fetish lacks. So in this case, what need
>is being met with noise packaging? It has to appeal to something, on some level,
>whther it be the simple, "Duh, it just looks cool," or the more ambigious and
>complex... Maybe noise artists do what they do to fill some type of void in
>themselves, and we (people who buy noise) do so because buying it fills a need in us.
>So, in a way, I look at the entire noise phenomemon as symbiotic, if nothing else. Or
>something like that....
>
I always thought noise releases came in special packagaing to make up
for the fact that the actual contents of the recording weren't that
special. I mean you are literaly buying a recording of noise, some is
better some is worse, but at the end of the day its just that, noise
Luke
> ANTI-ISMISM- To look down upon isms as a way to understand the world.
> ANTI-ANTI-ISM- To realize that this is ridiculous.
> And so on.
> SO-ONISM- To say "and so on."
> SO-ON-SO-ONISM- To say "and so on" again.
> SANITY- The only way out.
he he he he, except..(thinks of another way out..distant gunshot)
(ps..I wish i'd never got into this).
pps. is a sucker who get's exactly what they want and is happy, really a
sucker??? i wish *I* was a sucker!
ppps. oh god, just ignore that one too.
(REALLY shoots self)
David Watson
Brent Bruni Comiskey (nos...@neosoft.com) writes:
>>there are lots of women in the world of noise,
> Really, where are these many women of noise? And when is the world going to have a noise baby?
> Maybe Minga from Japan Overseas is it. Or Sonic Youth's kid?
A few examples off the top of my head:
Mayuko Hino of CCCC
Reiko A. of Merzbow (live)
Eddie and Bill from Coa
The late Mourning Sickness (Canada)
St. Deborah (onetime member of Canada's Violence and the Sacred)
Rose McDowall of Nurse With Wound
And although she'd probably kill me for classifying her this way, Diamanda
Galas.
--
Dave Watson, Severed Heads Liberation Front (Re-release the _Stretcher_ EP!)
Frezier Balzoff (Ottawa), Ontario, Canada Email-...@Freenet.carleton.ca
My music and anime webpage: http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Alley/4207/
ONTARIO--Where FASCIST PRAGMATISM and DEFICIT HYSTERIA pass for COMMON SENSE.
The Hand
On 11 May 1998 23:01:21 GMT, Brent Bruni Comiskey <nos...@neosoft.com>
wrote:
>
>>I refuse to believe that many noise artists actually
>>find women in bondage aesthetically pleasing.
>
>On the beach in a g-string with a nice tan will suffice.
>
>
Yes, I had a particularly revealing experience on the last Merzbow
show I saw when he started with the Bondage slides. First let me
stress I am a very liberal individual, and I understand different
things turn different people on, I'd never dream of telling people
what or what not to do with themselves, blah blah blah like Bongwater
said, if it puts a smile in your face, and a song in your heart and a
spring in your step well........whatever makes you happy.
But anyway, i was at the Merzbow show, the noise was static and rather
boring (sorry, but its the truth) so I started looking at the pictures
with the curiosity and clean eyes that psychedelics will give you.
The few I found aesthetically pleasing were pleasing because the
female body *is* a beautiful thing to look at, with or without the
bondage. But why were these beautiful women tied up? I remembered a
V.Woolf passage were she analyzes a book called "The physical and
mental inferiority of women" written by some scientist back in the
day. Instead of tearing it apart Woolf wonders who the writer is, she
wonders if he is fat an ugly and no girl ever talked to him, maybe
they even mocked him. She wonders if he's had any meaningful or real
contact with woman in his entire life. Probably not, she concludes.
I looked up as I was thinking this and there was a picture of a fat
old guy wearing sunglasses, at his feet was a beautiful girl tied and
gagged, it occurred to me that you can make all the philosophical
abstractions that you want, you can justify a million things in a
million different ways, I myself have read many a treaty an interviews
where SM people explain and justify their actions in the most
reasonable and coherent ways, but sometimes you have to forget all
reasoning and just look. So I looked, and what did I see? I saw an
ugly old man with a beautiful girl tied up at his feet, and I thought
it's no wonder you get off on tying girls up: you are old, you are
fat, and you are not very pleasing to look at, had that girl not been
tied up she'd never been next to you for longer than 5 minutes! Its
hard for me to explain how clearly I saw the drive then, the impulse.
Why, really, why would you get off on tying women up? So they can't
run away from you? I don't know, I don't presume to understand and I
don't want to judge, I have been more exposed to the whole S&M culture
than most people I know. I know there's a million constructs you can
create to explain and justify it: she likes it too, its respectful,
its the opposite of what it looks. Many maintain that its not power
and aggression, but love that moves S&M. But that night I decided
Fuck words and Fuck justifications, sometimes you just have to trust
what you see, and not what they say its there. And what did I see?
Women immobilized, gagged, tied, for the pleasure and power tripping
of others...... blah, whatever, right now I'm making as many
justifications as they do. All I can say its that its just not my cup
of tea, I could never get into that shit, just like other people
could never get into noise, I guess. I've had girlfriends that were
into it, they'd ask me to tie them up and I would comply. I am open
minded and why the hell not, I've been known to try anything, but I
can't say I found it particularly enticing. I can think of a million
things I'd like to do to a woman other than tying her up to a chair.
At the end S&M is not even sex, its theater. Its ocassionally
attractive and sometimes beautifull but always a pose, an act, a stage
for people with inclinations different to mine. I hate bondage themes
in noise, and I hate gore-shock dead- bodies-and-poop pictures even
more, that stuff is completelly childish. Who else likes gore scenes?
13 year olds I say. Its just an upgraded version of the morbid kick
teenagers get out of the Freddy Kruegers, the Friday the 13ths and the
Zombies movies. Blood! Guts! Violence! Booo! They seem to say, did
that scare you? Not in the least child, now go back to your toys.
Jamie
dUsing the idea of semantics, then yes, the word is not the thing. Its
> conceptual. Music is regarded as the structuring of sound in a lot of
> circles. I see it now as the appropriation of sound into an environment
> outside its natural one. Noise music may not be structured, but it is still
> music because it is taken from its original environment (if it has one) and
> placed on a pedestal for consumption (not necessarily in a capitalist
> sense, but in an aural sense)
>
Taking a pure white noise and defining a start and end is structuring.
I find much noise music very structured - in different ways and levels.
Is often the point that, although some noise bands may sound like a broken
radio, they do *not* actually sound like a broken radio.
Noise music is close to many areas of rock music and jazz or music concrete, as
much as it is close to the noise a refridgerator makes.
What is important about noise music (rather than, say, just the *actual* sound
of a waterfull if you are nearby it) is that its primary concern is *timbre*.
Melody/intervals and rythym are auxillary in the musiicans critical
judgements/approach.
Much dance music and other music *have* a concern for timbre, but still have
rythymn in first place.
Timbre music ----- you can;'t hum it!
(hey...maybe you can...)
In the noise scene the paticular obbesiion is with clipped/distorted/fuzzy
sounds (as in jazz the obbesiion is with noodly farty sounds and slopping
drums, in rock with folk-singing over simple electrified guitar riffs/chords
blah blah)
I still think 'distortion' or 'fuzz' music may describe noise music better.
Many of 'us' are probably metal heads which just grew tired of another bottom
string power chug and wanted even more crunch and buzz.
As for the whole 'art' thing
<yawn>
There is an art marketplace. Discussing what art is, is very boring
(personally).
Jamie
destruKt
> > It's like saying men can't sing emotional songs. Both sexes have
masculine
> > and feminine sides, and there are plenty of women in the music industry
who
> > can scream and shout and bang things about with as much fury, if not
more
> > than men.
> True enough, but it still begs the question - why _is_ noise so much of a
"boy's
> club?" Of course, there are lots of women in the world of noise, but in
comparison to
> other genres, it's a vast chasm. I find that interesting.
Well, that's debatable. Compared to metal, there are a lot more women in
noise... in fact, compared to jazz there may be more women involved in
noise. There are many genres of music that are very much "boy clubs", noise
isn't alone. I do admit that its a shame there aren't more women working in
this genre, or experimental music in general. Maybe it isn't as enlightened
as it sometimes claims to be.
> > Art is a subjective term.
> Also, it is a selfish reality. I think the higher up you go on the ladder
of abstraction,
> the more selfish the entire thing becomes. Not to say that's a bad thing.
I would
> venture to say that noise is the most selfish form of music, and maybe
even art (to
> deny noise's link to art is a mistake).
What do you mean by selfish exactly? Abstraction leads itself to personal
(selfish??) interpretation, that's because its such an open ended and
subjective area. Abstraction (whether in art of music) usually doesn't have
cultural baggage attached to it (although this is a generalisation I
admit), so as people interpret it individually rather than socially it can
be seen as selfish. Is this a bad thing?
> >Hanson could be considered "pop art" if you
> > wanted to.
> Relabeling it doesn't inject it with meaning, though. Also take into
account that
> Hanson don't consider what they do to be art, per se. In the end, it's
that old
> arguemnet, 'If the artist says it's art, it's art." And thus the
firestorm of debate
> arises... but in the end, if a noisician wants to call what he or she
does art, then it
> is.
Well, that's the postmodern argument. The death of art and meaning if you
like. Started with Duchamp... call it art, and its art. Maybe Hanson do
consider what they are doing to be a form of art. Whether you enjoy it or
not is totally aesthetic.
> >Also making something just "sonic" removes any meaning
> > whatsoever.
> So you're saying that... Well, it's like semantics, then - "The word is
not the thing."
> Do we give meaning to music? I dunno about that. Of course music is sound
on the
> simplest level, but I think that "sonics" may carry with them
connotations that
> influence how we use them as symbols, musically (that may seem like a
stretch, but
> think about it for a while).
Using the idea of semantics, then yes, the word is not the thing. Its
conceptual. Music is regarded as the structuring of sound in a lot of
circles. I see it now as the appropriation of sound into an environment
outside its natural one. Noise music may not be structured, but it is still
music because it is taken from its original environment (if it has one) and
placed on a pedestal for consumption (not necessarily in a capitalist
sense, but in an aural sense)
> > It becomes background musak... the sound of traffic going by is
> > "sonic", and isn't music until it is recorded, or we stop and put it in
a
> > different context.
> In its "natural" context, though, who's to say that it really isn't
music? Maybe it is.
> Maybe we just block it out because it's not in that agreed-upon form of a
CD or a
> live performance. Traffic is sonic, but I'm sure it still carries with it
an effect, which is
> what enables a person to record traffic and call it music. The perception
and
> understanding of it is too narrow... if anything else, artists should
work actively to
> erase everything that is commonly agreed upon.
Well, it becomes music as soon as you stop and listen to it, and formalise
it in your mind. Active participation makes it music. If you stop in the
street and listen to the sounds, and conceptualise them, they become music.
If you simply pass them by, they are background sounds. I don't think you
need to even record it for it to become music, just being consciously aware
of it causes the same effect.
> > Recording music/noise immediately takes it beyond the
> > step of just sound, because you are placing it in a totally new
context.
> Which is what art is, in a sense.
"Art" can be a loaded word nowadays, but if that's how you see it, then
yes.
> > I wouldn't package any of my work
> > with naked women or that shit. I feel we all should follow our own
> > aesthetic drives...
> Right. Especially when you think of it - noise is such a free thing. Why
buy into
> anything someone's already done?
I guess, if you actually do find it aesthetically pleasing then that's
fine. I have a nagging feeling that most people are using such images and
symbols as a fashion statement.
> >I refuse to believe that many noise artists actually
> > find women in bondage aesthetically pleasing.
> I think a lot of them just use the whole bondage thing as an extended
metaphor or
> conceptual anchor in their music. And, of course, it usually ends up
being rather silly.
> It's like, okay, here we have a 70 minute recording of your cat farting.
What the
> blazes does that have to do with a naked woman trussed up on a bed?
Zilch.
It's a lazy metaphor for lazy people. I would actually like to read some
more of Akita's writing, they are well thought out and intellectually
solid, and I guess he deserves respect in that area... unfortunately lazy
copycats will always thrive, I only have respect for originators or people
who are going about their work intelligently and with true integrity.
Otherwise its just fucking Metallica.
np: We - "As Is" ... fucking lovely American drum 'n bass.
Matthew Turner
Dadanoise wrote:
> (collapses in exhaustion)
Well, there's always crystal meth.
destruKt
> Much dance music and other music *have* a concern for timbre, but still
have
> rythymn in first place.
>
> Timbre music ----- you can;'t hum it!
Certainly noise removes many of the old notions of what music can be... but
its hardly a new concept. Goes back to the futurists. Electronic noise (I
wont call it extreme... I think Masonna is more on the ball when he calls
it psychedelic) is more recent and totally destroys notions of traditional
music, but I think you are right, our brains can structure it in such a way
to make it more musical. I certainly hear rhythms in a lot of noise that
isn't inherently rhythmic.
> Many of 'us' are probably metal heads which just grew tired of another
bottom
> string power chug and wanted even more crunch and buzz.
I guess a lot are. I came from more standard forms of electronic and rock
music rather than extreme music. I don't necessarily see noise as being
"extreme", so I don't link it to metal whatsoever. Some of the images and
posturing associated with noise could be seen as "extreme", but I take
little interest in that.
> As for the whole 'art' thing
> <yawn>
> There is an art marketplace. Discussing what art is, is very boring
> (personally).
And pointless too in 1998.
GRKelly
David Watson wrote in message <6j895u$n...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
>
>Brent Bruni Comiskey (nos...@neosoft.com) writes:
>>>there are lots of women in the world of noise,
>> Really, where are these many women of noise? And when is the world going to
have a noise baby?
>> Maybe Minga from Japan Overseas is it. Or Sonic Youth's kid?
>
>A few examples off the top of my head:
>
>Mayuko Hino of CCCC
>Reiko A. of Merzbow (live)
>Eddie and Bill from Coa
>The late Mourning Sickness (Canada)
>St. Deborah (onetime member of Canada's Violence and the Sacred)
>Rose McDowall of Nurse With Wound
And also Diana Rogerson (aka Chrystal Belle Schrodd) of NWW, wife of Steve
Staplegun.
Gaz.
(_*_) http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Village/1408
Interviewer to Rob Halford: "Care for an Opal Fruit, Rob?"
Halford: "No, I don't, er, do that sort of thing..."
MpL 7734
>But couldn't it be argued that noise music is largely a male thing? Not in
>the sense
>that women don't listen to it or get involved with it - more that noise seems
>to
>simply be saturated with subtle or not-so-subtle levels of testosterone (from
>
>screaming into a mic hooked up to twenty pedals or banging metal sheets - you
>get
>the idea).
How then would you explain Adris of Harry Pussy screaming into a mic (with all
the ferocity of any grindcore vocalist) and banging on drums? Is she motivated
by testosterone? It seems to me to simply have more to do with catharsis.
-M
ichael
Tavys Ashcroft
Brent Bruni Comiskey (nos...@neosoft.com) wrote:
: I think the point is that sound does not have much meaning until you include
: words (which have definitions) with it.
Not necessarily. There are many sounds I've heard that convey meaning much more
than words could. There are some types of sounds that just make people feel a
certain way without having to process it as language. Certain harmonics of
frequencies playing off each other can convey spooky ominous feelings or
uplifting ones as well. This can occur occasionally in noise I suppose, but I
if specific frequencies and harmonies come into play that would take at
least a bit of actual 'musical' content...meaning specific sounds rather than
shaped random sounds. But 'sound' could be anything. Sound can have lots of
meaning without lingual definition.
Tavys Ashcroft
now playing: Soundtrack - Dead Man
James Whitehead
Sound Vs music or noise Vs music is very interesting, I've
noticed our dogs and cats are pretty unconcerned about most
music we play, Mozart through modern work... with the
exception of some 'noise' pieces. We have a CD of
bird song the cats 'enjoy' , actually they check out the
speakers! But both show some interest in noise and
'experimental' music , merzbow gets an ear flickering!, also
some fire.inc stuff and even the barely audible Bernard Gunter
gets noticed. This could lead on to great a thread of pets & noise, but
what I also notice is that the animals are frightened of loud
bangs, fireworks, and I can't figure out why they should have
inherited such a fear. These are not natural sounds? Maybe
what we call music is so synthetic, or abstract that its
meaningless to other creatures, and that 'noises' have a kind
of deeper language not related to some (western) idea of
tonality- which is mathematics?, oh but we did have a canary
who was into shostakovich- the bird either had poor taste or
was a reincarnation of Stalin.
--
James Whitehead
J Wrench
>what I also notice is that the animals are frightened of loud
>bangs, fireworks, and I can't figure out why they should have
>inherited such a fear. These are not natural sounds?
Sure, they occur in nature. Just before you are attacked by a predator
you might hear sudden loud noises as it crashes through the brush.
When you encroach on an enemy's territory you'll probably hear a
sudden loud noise as it give a warning call. Sudden loud noises don't
often occur in nature without there being an element of danger at
hand. Loud noises are usually made by big animals.
____________________________________________________________
Brutum Fulmen - experimental noise
InDige...@NOSPAM.geocities.com (remove NOSPAM. to reply)
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/1101
James Whitehead
In article <6jihjv$t...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, J Wrench <InDigestPre
s...@NOSPAM.geocities.com> writes
>On Fri, 15 May 1998 18:40:56 +0100, James Whitehead
><jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>what I also notice is that the animals are frightened of loud
>>bangs, fireworks, and I can't figure out why they should have
>>inherited such a fear. These are not natural sounds?
>
>Sure, they occur in nature. Just before you are attacked by a predator
>you might hear sudden loud noises as it crashes through the brush.
produce staccato noises, I thought maybe they (animals) relate bangs to
thunder- but why should they be frightened of that? why for that matter
should infants- the threat of being struck by lightening is very low, we
have no innate fear of walking under palm trees- and I think coconut
falls kill more humans than lightening strikes. And with fireworks -
though not a sound phenomenon, why be frightened of the visual
explosions? these certainly aren't natural. Finally, its a human reflex
to duck at the sound of gunfire- the bullet which kills you travels
twice the speed of sound- you never hear that one!
>When you encroach on an enemy's territory you'll probably hear a
>sudden loud noise as it give a warning call.
yes but a roar it not the same as a bang,
>Sudden loud noises don't
>often occur in nature without there being an element of danger at
>hand. Loud noises are usually made by big animals.
what I was perhaps trying to say is maybe there is a far more complex
set of natural noises which we are not conscious of, which in extreme
music is realised, and the structure of these sounds has a grammar
unrelated to tonal western music. Music as harmonics can be traced back
to Pythagoras, and has developed an artform underpinned by mathematics-
which leaves most of the animal kingdom cold, noise artists by rejecting
that form may have stumbled across another musical grammar, which may
not be as simplistic as we think. That is in becoming civilised we no
longer hear nature, "the true, lost face music" ,only our own
mathematics.
--
James Whitehead