Music and Noise

[Joie de la Blumpy]

To test any of these theories, we’d need to find someone who's never heard of harsh noise, as it currently is (or is generally expressed slash defined). Whatever the internet will tell you, I don’t think much time would need to be expended in the finding.

Okay. Having spent the necessary eight seconds to find a sufficiently worthy subject, we may now proceed to the instructions. Ahem. Instruct said subject to produce “harsh noise”. What's that? Ah... Okay. Yes. Gotcha. You are correct. A degree of persuasion and/or maneuvering might be involved as it may be difficult to convince our mark of the point (which is part of my point or didn’tcherknow). But here’s the thing. Even if they had yet <gasp!> to hear the likes of FLS motherfucking Syndrome, they’d still, I’d readily wager, understand what was required of them. They’d understand that they have been instructed to produce noise, and more, noise that is harsh. And as to the results? Well. I’d go so far as to submit that what they’d produce might as readily qualify as noise, even harsh noise, in at least one or another quarters. (And still, can you believe it, without having fucking heard fucking FLS fucking Syndrome. HOW WEIRD IS THAT???)

To prove what? Nothing more nor less than that it (harsh noise, or some variant thereof) will always possess, on some level, the means to both empower and undercut itself. Name me another vocation so profoundly conflicted and I’ll gift you a prize. Or at least, a real nice, sloppy, raspberry*.

* like, don’t even pretend you didn’t want it!

[Atrophist]

Any sound produced for its own sake, rather than as a byproduct of some other activity, is music.

If you are beating a brick wall with a sledgehammer because it's your job to demolish it, you're not making music.

If you are beating a brick wall with a sledgehammer because you like the way it sounds, or want to sample it for your noise project, then yeah you're making music.

[SS1535]

Any sound produced for its own sake, rather than as a byproduct of some other activity, is music.

If you are beating a brick wall with a sledgehammer because it's your job to demolish it, you're not making music.

If you are beating a brick wall with a sledgehammer because you like the way it sounds, or want to sample it for your noise project, then yeah you're making music.

What are the limits for "its own sake" here?

[James Thompson]

Any sound produced for its own sake, rather than as a byproduct of some other activity, is music.

If you are beating a brick wall with a sledgehammer because it's your job to demolish it, you're not making music.

If you are beating a brick wall with a sledgehammer because you like the way it sounds, or want to sample it for your noise project, then yeah you're making music.

uh oh i've accidentally fallen into an ontological hole here once again because what if you're beating a brick wall with a sledgehammer because it's your job to demolish it, but i'm enjoying it because i like the way it sounds or i want to sample if for a noise project? in that case have i, as the appreciative listener, inflicted Music onto your strictly productive act? am i out here inflicting artistic status on the world? can i make your acts into art against your will?

to walk the same rabbit hole in reverse, what if i find myself making what would normally be considered 'art' out of compulsion, in a joyless, mechanical, strictly productive way? is art inherently and necessarily frivolous; or, to put it in a slightly less confrontational way, is frivolity a necessary component of art?

these are silly questions i know but i'm having fun here

[Atrophist]

Any sound produced for its own sake, rather than as a byproduct of some other activity, is music.

If you are beating a brick wall with a sledgehammer because it's your job to demolish it, you're not making music.

If you are beating a brick wall with a sledgehammer because you like the way it sounds, or want to sample it for your noise project, then yeah you're making music.

What are the limits for "its own sake" here?

I’m not sure if I understand the question?

[Atrophist]

to walk the same rabbit hole in reverse, what if i find myself making what would normally be considered 'art' out of compulsion, in a joyless, mechanical, strictly productive way? is art inherently and necessarily frivolous; or, to put it in a slightly less confrontational way, is frivolity a necessary component of art?

these are silly questions i know but i'm having fun here

People can, and do, and have done, art and music mechanically and compulsively, without taking any particular enjoyment in it.

Also, frivolity, as I understand the term, is certainly not a requirement for creating art/music. Almost the opposite — truly memorable art is hardly ever frivolous.

[Joie de la Blumpy]

Any sound produced for its own sake, rather than as a byproduct of some other activity, is music.

Right, but what to make of the masses of Beatles fans apparently caught up in the moment and screaming uncontrollably at The Beatles for whom the screaming, more or less controllably, would be directed? Where does the sake start and the byproduct end (or vice versa)?

Accuser: Were you or were you not screaming for its own sake?
Fan: Um
Accuser: Answer!
Fan: Can I go now?

Example #2. The person, double blind, instructed to produce "harsh noise". For whose sake? And to what end?

<Omniscient perspective> Could well be I be liking me some music (after all).

[Joie de la Blumpy]

Any sound produced for its own sake, rather than as a byproduct of some other activity, is music.

This might well lead one to conclude that dance music is not actually music. Rather a byproduct of a need to shake that booty.

Works for me!*


* there goes that fight or flight nonsense**


** also works for me

[SS1535]

Any sound produced for its own sake, rather than as a byproduct of some other activity, is music.

If you are beating a brick wall with a sledgehammer because it's your job to demolish it, you're not making music.

If you are beating a brick wall with a sledgehammer because you like the way it sounds, or want to sample it for your noise project, then yeah you're making music.

What are the limits for "its own sake" here?

I’m not sure if I understand the question?

I guess I mean that "art for art's sake" (i.e. sound for sound's sake as being inherently musical) is a definite historical perspective on artistic/musical production, but I imagine that there could be cases of producing a sound for its own sake that do not result in the creation of music. For instance, making a sound to just hear what it would sound like.

It also makes me consider something else---in what sense is making noise not making music? I think noise can also be defined from a negative perspective, meaning that no sound is being made for its own sake so much as what it does to disrupt some other meaningful or musical association of sounds.

[SS1535]

Any sound produced for its own sake, rather than as a byproduct of some other activity, is music.

If you are beating a brick wall with a sledgehammer because it's your job to demolish it, you're not making music.

If you are beating a brick wall with a sledgehammer because you like the way it sounds, or want to sample it for your noise project, then yeah you're making music.

uh oh i've accidentally fallen into an ontological hole here once again because what if you're beating a brick wall with a sledgehammer because it's your job to demolish it, but i'm enjoying it because i like the way it sounds or i want to sample if for a noise project? in that case have i, as the appreciative listener, inflicted Music onto your strictly productive act? am i out here inflicting artistic status on the world? can i make your acts into art against your will?

to walk the same rabbit hole in reverse, what if i find myself making what would normally be considered 'art' out of compulsion, in a joyless, mechanical, strictly productive way? is art inherently and necessarily frivolous; or, to put it in a slightly less confrontational way, is frivolity a necessary component of art?

these are silly questions i know but i'm having fun here

Not silly at all. Wasn't this the point of Fluxus?

[Atrophist]

I guess I mean that "art for art's sake" (i.e. sound for sound's sake as being inherently musical) is a definite historical perspective on artistic/musical production, but I imagine that there could be cases of producing a sound for its own sake that do not result in the creation of music. For instance, making a sound to just hear what it would sound like.

Ah, right. Well, if you produce a sound in order to hear how it sounds, then you’re not really producing it for its own sake, or for the sake of art/self-expression. That would seem to fall in the same category as soundcheck, testing equipment, etc.

It also makes me consider something else---in what sense is making noise not making music? I think noise can also be defined from a negative perspective, meaning that no sound is being made for its own sake so much as what it does to disrupt some other meaningful or musical association of sounds.

Well, in a way this would take us back to square one, because if we define noise as sounds that aren’t music, then clearly we need to also define what is music. That is, if I understood your point.

[Bubble-Congeries]

Foley and live radio/theatre sound effects are not music, although intentional. I think, all things considered, music only exists if we decide on it. If a tree falls in the forest, it does make a sound. The fragile human ego just isn't part of the equation to make that observation. It is ultimateltly irrelevant outside of a very limited context or frame of reference.

Music is a construct, much like civilization itself, or notions of love or equality, "ART". They are ephemeral byproducts of an overevolved brain trying to shield itself against the cruelties of nature. At the end of the day, it's still no more than the sum of its parts (a lot of noise). The Mona Lisa will some day be reduced to indistinguishable worm castings, if it even lasts THAT long. It will mean zilch then because it will be no more and there will be none to recall it as anything but "raw materials" in the form of compost. Just enjoy it while you can, but don't overthink it so much.

[Atrophist]

Foley and live radio/theatre sound effects are not music, although intentional.

..,

Yeah, but they also don’t exist independently for their own sake. They have a supporting role as part of a larger whole.

[SS1535]

I guess I mean that "art for art's sake" (i.e. sound for sound's sake as being inherently musical) is a definite historical perspective on artistic/musical production, but I imagine that there could be cases of producing a sound for its own sake that do not result in the creation of music. For instance, making a sound to just hear what it would sound like.

Ah, right. Well, if you produce a sound in order to hear how it sounds, then you’re not really producing it for its own sake, or for the sake of art/self-expression. That would seem to fall in the same category as soundcheck, testing equipment, etc.

It also makes me consider something else---in what sense is making noise not making music? I think noise can also be defined from a negative perspective, meaning that no sound is being made for its own sake so much as what it does to disrupt some other meaningful or musical association of sounds.

Well, in a way this would take us back to square one, because if we define noise as sounds that aren’t music, then clearly we need to also define what is music. That is, if I understood your point.

Yes on both... I think!

But sound for sound's sake is not sound for art's sake, though? I think one of the difficulties of noise music is that we very rarely actually hear the noise itself. I guess, then, that the soundcheck is probably more truly focused on the sounds themselves than the set itself!

I also think the looping of the conversation is healthy here. If an answer was found than noise would cease to be noisy. I think we learn more from each go around then we ever would from settling on an answer.

[Bubble-Congeries]

Foley and live radio/theatre sound effects are not music, although intentional.

..,

Yeah, but they also don’t exist independently for their own sake. They have a supporting role as part of a larger whole.

Sorry. That was more of a pedantic swipe at the "all intentional sound is music" idea, despite music (i.e., assembled noises) already being entirely dependent on constructs or manipulations versus inately material phenomenon which go on blindly, regardless of whether or not there's something there to percieve them.

[Atrophist]

But sound for sound's sake is not sound for art's sake, though? I think one of the difficulties of noise music is that we very rarely actually hear the noise itself. I guess, then, that the soundcheck is probably more truly focused on the sounds themselves than the set itself!

Hmmm yes. But the point I was making is that sound, created for its own sake, becomes art. Or music. I use those terms interchangeably, since to me at least, music is a type of art. I'm sure someone will disagree on that too, so maybe it's better not to go there.

The point about the soundcheck vs. actual set is very interesting. I mean a soundcheck is focused, as you say, on the actual sound, not on its potential emotional/intellectual/whatever impact that we hope it will have, come the actual performance. So certainly yes, we are focusing more on the sound itself, but for quite different reasons. Again, to me, when it comes to art, or music, or whatever, it's all about the intention. This even applies to sounds that originally are completely incidental. You may have heard of the KSNK album Murska, which is nothing but field recordings of machinery crushing rocks into gravel at a stone quarry, without editing or effects. However, delivered and intended as a noise album, it becomes exactly that.

[Atrophist]

Sorry. That was more of a pedantic swipe at the "all intentional sound is music" idea, despite music (i.e., assembled noises) already being entirely dependent on constructs or manipulations versus inately material phenomenon which go on blindly, regardless of whether or not there's something there to percieve them.

I'm probably misunderstanding you badly, but, you're saying that in order for something to be music, there has to be someone who hears it and perceives it as such?

[SS1535]

But sound for sound's sake is not sound for art's sake, though? I think one of the difficulties of noise music is that we very rarely actually hear the noise itself. I guess, then, that the soundcheck is probably more truly focused on the sounds themselves than the set itself!

Hmmm yes. But the point I was making is that sound, created for its own sake, becomes art. Or music. I use those terms interchangeably, since to me at least, music is a type of art. I'm sure someone will disagree on that too, so maybe it's better not to go there.

The point about the soundcheck vs. actual set is very interesting. I mean a soundcheck is focused, as you say, on the actual sound, not on its potential emotional/intellectual/whatever impact that we hope it will have, come the actual performance. So certainly yes, we are focusing more on the sound itself, but for quite different reasons. Again, to me, when it comes to art, or music, or whatever, it's all about the intention. This even applies to sounds that originally are completely incidental. You may have heard of the KSNK album Murska, which is nothing but field recordings of machinery crushing rocks into gravel at a stone quarry, without editing or effects. However, delivered and intended as a noise album, it becomes exactly that.

Perhaps we are actually agreeing with one another then? I think what makes the sound art is less focusing on the sound for it's own sake than the experience/mental state of the person doing the listening? This is why I hate semantics... haha

I think that KSNK album is great (and thank you for the reminder that I still need to buy a copy!) just for the reasons you describe!

[Atrophist]

Hey, I'm not even saying I disagree with you on anything. These are very abstract concepts we're dealing here, I don't see why several different approaches could not be equally valid at the same time.

[Bubble-Congeries]

Sorry. That was more of a pedantic swipe at the "all intentional sound is music" idea, despite music (i.e., assembled noises) already being entirely dependent on constructs or manipulations versus inately material phenomenon which go on blindly, regardless of whether or not there's something there to percieve them.

I'm probably misunderstanding you badly, but, you're saying that in order for something to be music, there has to be someone who hears it and perceives it as such?

That is what I believe, yes. But there must be some grey area.
But I feel like what seperates music from "the every day sounds of the universe" is what separates cave paintings from functional manipulations like building a nest or a spear.

I wonder though, is art an outgrowth of practices like bodypainting, and were these merely a kind of peacocking cooked up by the human mind to have a better chance at reproducing? I know I sound fucking annoyingly pretentious and navel-gazey and up my own asshole. I have to consider what I'm even trying to articulate as I'm typing it, so incoherent rambling is par for the course.

Either way, the more I consider all the ways that we got here, and what distinguishes "here" from "there", the more base it all seems. Trees exist, music does not!

[SS1535]

Hey, I'm not even saying I disagree with you on anything. These are very abstract concepts we're dealing here, I don't see why several different approaches could not be equally valid at the same time.

Exactly---there should probably be as many approaches/answers as possible, to better match the conversation to what noise is itself!

[Joie de la Blumpy]

I don't see why several different approaches could not be equally valid at the same time.

Getting there...

[Joie de la Blumpy]

If you would just pardon this rare intrusion from the sober self to try and parse out some of my earlier somewhat less hinged rants.

To the above, getting there...

I probably meant getting back here, full circle, into

into the many and varied**** exceptions.

**** I'd submit that there are as many as they are varied

Consistent, I'd wager, with the topic of Music and Noise, as opposed to Music or Noise. It's probably a bit boring and weaselly to shy away from absolutes, where music is equal parts a subset of noise and vice versa, but that's where we seem (forever, in perceptibly circular iterations) to be getting.

Take, for instance, the point at which a person listening to music is knowingly damaging their hearing, and is at least somewhat disturbed by this knowledge. (Knowingly damaging their hearing, read: conscious of the fact of the damage being done in its immediacy.) I wouldn't have any problem in suggesting that this person is knowingly listening to harsh noise, or an element (subset) thereof. What transpires next may or may not convey the listener along more or less musical clines, but for an interval it would appear that both music and noise are in play, regardless of the nature of the waveforms doing the work.

The above I'll submit as a single example of how an arguably key element of harsh noise can bleed through, viability as ever to be left in the ear of the beholder, bleeding and otherwise. Plenty more where that came from, suffice it to say.