What is your criteria for how you decide if you like noise?

[luciferjonez]

As I am diving into podcasts and some incredible recommendations on this board I'm curious as to how some of you determine what you like or dislike in the noise genre or which genre of noise you gravitate to?

For me, I'm finding that I'm enjoying noise with an evolution layers even if it's a slight amount, but I want to broaden my scope and would like to know what attracts others to different styles.

[Capers]

As with most other genres, I enjoyed all of it, or at least all styles, initially. But over the years I've gravitated more and more to sparse(r) and less busy noise, with fewer layers (Zone Nord and Primitive Isolation Tactics, to name two very different, old and present artists which share that trait). There are still tons of exceptions to that, but good old dense harsh hyper blasting doesn't win me over by default the way it did when I found noise.
Can't put my finger on exactly what in certain sounds that grabs my interests, but roomy warm idling electronics is definitely an element I like alot these days. Damion Romero, Jim Haynes, Joe Colley...
And I have a sweet spot for noise that leaves room for accidents and disasters - and if heavily edited then preferrably in a blunt and careless way. Again, there are exceptions to that as well which I might fall for. Worth and Treriksröset are very different, but they have that tightrope walking characteristic in common.

There's nothing I as a rule dislike, but I don't seem to have much heart for full-bodied well-produced noise, industrial or power electronics. I find alot of could-have-been great albums now where the editing have just gone way too far, cutting out any surprises, odd moments, sounds or parts that outstay their welcome, jumps in volume and whatnot - details that actually lends some life and spirit to a recording.

[December Man]

As with most other genres, I enjoyed all of it, or at least all styles, initially. But over the years I've gravitated more and more to sparse(r) and less busy noise, with fewer layers (Zone Nord and Primitive Isolation Tactics, to name two very different, old and present artists which share that trait). There are still tons of exceptions to that, but good old dense harsh hyper blasting doesn't win me over by default the way it did when I found noise.
Can't put my finger on exactly what in certain sounds that grabs my interests, but roomy warm idling electronics is definitely an element I like alot these days. Damion Romero, Jim Haynes, Joe Colley...
And I have a sweet spot for noise that leaves room for accidents and disasters - and if heavily edited then preferrably in a blunt and careless way. Again, there are exceptions to that as well which I might fall for. Worth and Treriksröset are very different, but they have that tightrope walking characteristic in common.

There's nothing I as a rule dislike, but I don't seem to have much heart for full-bodied well-produced noise, industrial or power electronics. I find alot of could-have-been great albums now where the editing have just gone way too far, cutting out any surprises, odd moments, sounds or parts that outstay their welcome, jumps in volume and whatnot - details that actually lends some life and spirit to a recording.

I share a lot of these sentiments.

To elaborate, for me personally, I like things to be sketchy. Not sketchy as in edgelord, but as though it is taken from a sketchbook. The ideas and the characteristics that make the artist stand out are there, but it should feel improvised or at least not too fussy. Zero interest in anything that sounds overproduced, and if that is something that is being mentioned as a selling point...forget it.

Imagery matters a lot to me as well. I've heard the whole "only the sounds should matter" thing across genres, ad infinitum. I disagree. I want imagery. It could be something I really like, or it could be that I hate it and need to reconcile it with the sounds (or vice versa). As someone who grew up with not a lot of money, most of my teenage music was acquired through dubbed tapes with no covers. Visiting more well-to-do friends with CD collections and seeing the full art that accompanied my favorite albums was an almost psychedelic experience.

[Residual / RT]

Imagery matters a lot to me as well. I've heard the whole "only the sounds should matter" thing across genres, ad infinitum. I disagree. I want imagery. It could be something I really like, or it could be that I hate it and need to reconcile it with the sounds (or vice versa). As someone who grew up with not a lot of money, most of my teenage music was acquired through dubbed tapes with no covers. Visiting more well-to-do friends with CD collections and seeing the full art that accompanied my favorite albums was an almost psychedelic experience.

Yeah for sure, this resonates with me. I want great sound and sounds naturally, or like intriguing, whatever, but I also want imagery and depth of vision and content that fully thought out and well executed packaging, covers, song names or liner notes bring. I don't dislike noise for noises sake, like tapes with obscure and minimalist cover art and unnamed tracks, but those rarely rise to my favourites. I like the complete whole to add depth to the listening experience.

[holy ghost]

You know how Peter Gabriel just knew what he liked in your wardrobe? Well I think I'm of the age where I pretty much know just by looking at the cover if I'm going to like a record or not. Tim Yohannon said the same thing one time reviewing a Hellnation record. This doesn't mean I only like records with "cool" covers, but at this point I can probably accurately guess where you're going with it. It's not a flawless system. But it's pretty close. If I hear enough chatter about something I didn't pay attention to for whatever reason I'll check it out. How often am I wrong? Rarely. Do I have records with cool covers that I don't like? Sure, until they hit the sale pile.

I can pretty much do the same thing with metal but honestly my skills are probably more honed and I could tell you just by looking at the logo. And don't even get me started on reissues these days. Oh, an "obscure" krautrock or heavy rock gem no ones ever heard of getting a "deluxe reissue"? I bet it's absolute bottom tier blues jammin' from Bremen or a bunch of drunks from Denver with one good riff. Save it for a compilation on Numero Group.

Anyway, I don't know what "art" is but I know what I like. Same with noise. Same with a lot of things.

[luciferjonez]

You know how Peter Gabriel just knew what he liked in your wardrobe? Well I think I'm of the age where I pretty much know just by looking at the cover if I'm going to like a record or not. Tim Yohannon said the same thing one time reviewing a Hellnation record. This doesn't mean I only like records with "cool" covers, but at this point I can probably accurately guess where you're going with it. It's not a flawless system. But it's pretty close. If I hear enough chatter about something I didn't pay attention to for whatever reason I'll check it out. How often am I wrong? Rarely. Do I have records with cool covers that I don't like? Sure, until they hit the sale pile.

I can pretty much do the same thing with metal but honestly my skills are probably more honed and I could tell you just by looking at the logo. And don't even get me started on reissues these days. Oh, an "obscure" krautrock or heavy rock gem no ones ever heard of getting a "deluxe reissue"? I bet it's absolute bottom tier blues jammin' from Bremen or a bunch of drunks from Denver with one good riff. Save it for a compilation on Numero Group.

Anyway, I don't know what "art" is but I know what I like. Same with noise. Same with a lot of things.

I never heard Peter Gabriel comment on my clothing but I get the point. I can't believe you referenced Tim Yo. I haven't heard his name in years. I miss that fanzine/mag. I agree with your statement regarding looking at the cover of a release, except nowadays with so much being a digital release and anyone with a phone and a hole in their ass deems themselves a designer so the line does get blurred. Personally I don't know if I can go back to hand copied covers, that's some serious time machine shit for me and IU am a firm believer that life is only lived in one direction. Hand assembled sure.

So what do you gravitate towards as far as noise as of late? Is there a particular genre you've been listening lately that's on repeat?

[Joie de la Blumpy]

With noise it's not unlikely that a person commenting on the shit is, has been, or has the intent to be, involved in making shit of their own.

That definitely influences the listening choices and the criteria, in an inverse way, at least for me. As a maker, the more familiar tends to be subject to stricter sets of criteria, weighed in wider terms of what's been done, what hasn't, what could be better. (And such criteria would almost necessarily be among the least attractive, as a listener.) As a listener, similar gauges likely apply, but the criteria would be less thought out or reified, more forgiving, less particular. As to the question of what constitutes the more and the less familiar, well that again goes back to the shit with which one might imagine themselves as being involved (at one or another juncture).

But then, where would that leave all my precious criteria? Perhaps the best noise is the noise which can never exist (in the ear of the beholder).

As for production values, it's kind of a given in noise that there is no under. But by the same token, why should there be an over? Maybe I want something that someone has produced the shit out of. Maybe I crave that. Maybe the shit that was "over" produced just wasn't produced enough (according to certain sets of criteria).

Extremes all around. Keep at it.

[Capers]

That's an interesting thought, to deliberately overproduce. Perhaps even deliberately bereave the recording of all it's potential life. But then that would again be something else. Guess it boils down to whether or not one cares about the intent of the artist. It's a case to case thing for me, I think.

[adult human]

Part of what I love about listening to this stuff (and most other music really) is that approaches or styles I currently don't care about are things I might be completely obsessed with in a year or two or ten or twenty. There were times when I really didn't understand or even enjoy certain artists who are now stone cold, irreplaceable favourites. Work that I adore now was at one stage something that offered me almost nothing on a brains or gut level. The only strategy I employ with it is to follow my nose and not stress about everything I might be missing out on, all the while trying to retain an open ear and stay in a position to be surprised by things new or reattempted. The feeling of one day, for no discernible reason, deciding 'I feel like trying to get into [insert artist name] again' and it finally working, knocking your socks off, is truly one of the most pleasurable experiences I can think of in life.

[Joie de la Blumpy]

As a maker, the more familiar tends to be subject to stricter sets of criteria, weighed in wider terms of what's been done, what hasn't, what could be better. (And such criteria would almost necessarily be among the least attractive, as a listener.) As a listener, similar gauges likely apply, but the criteria would be less thought out or reified, more forgiving, less particular. As to the question of what constitutes the more and the less familiar, well that again goes back to the shit with which one might imagine themselves as being involved (at one or another juncture).

But then, where would that leave all my precious criteria? Perhaps the best noise is the noise which can never exist (in the ear of the beholder).

Semi-deliberately left out of the above was the "problem" of bringing criteria to bear against an interest in seeking out something, truly, new. Which is something that tends to be sought in pretty much all art, creative endeavor, so on, so perhaps a fair question of so what. But imo at least as far as noise, there's almost by definition a fairly wide latitude to work with (even if it may seem that, ironically or not, many tend to work within fairly narrow bounds. personally, and one may quibble, but i prefer to chalk this tendency up to a certain unavoidable equation generally known as life).

For the sake of argument, let's go with this romanticized or idealized notion of the noise perv-veyor constantly seeking the new, the holy grail of unheard sound, that must almost by definition stand—just—beyond any critical framework. Can we get there? Individually, I'd like to say, yes. Bring in another individual and, well, it probably gets messy.

[holy ghost]

Part of what I love about listening to this stuff (and most other music really) is that approaches or styles I currently don't care about are things I might be completely obsessed with in a year or two or ten or twenty. There were times when I really didn't understand or even enjoy certain artists who are now stone cold, irreplaceable favourites.

This is 100% my thoughts as well - also why I find music/noise so perpetually exciting - there's always something new and exciting to hear, which is why I try to remain focused on the stuff I do like vs the stuff I don't like - because you never know when I'll do a complete 180 and all of a sudden I'm totally fixated on some crazy new thing - for me I can think of two bands I just didn't "get" forever and a day and one day just flipped out over were Killing Joke and Yes.

I tent to cycle through phases of really intense listening fairly quickly, and I try to have the foresight to remember to pick up noise (and other) records I may not specifically be in the mood for at the time as they'll go out of print so quickly. Thankfully with CDs coming back into fashion it's not quite as dire as it was a few years ago as there tends to be less and less of that insanely limited release mentality these days.... but I can't tell you how many times I get something in the mail, file it away and six months later go "SHIT! I'm glad I ordered this!!!" (oh hi Taylor!!).

I was at a record swap yesterday selling some crates of used records and got talking to a guy who runs a fairly large metal label, he was so passionate about that war metal stuff that I admittedly have lost a lot of interest in - we got talking about shows and a few really good records and I did a backtrack on some of the stuff I was selling, I love when you meet people who are genuinely passionate about music.

[luciferjonez]

With noise it's not unlikely that a person commenting on the shit is, has been, or has the intent to be, involved in making shit of their own.

That definitely influences the listening choices and the criteria, in an inverse way, at least for me. As a maker, the more familiar tends to be subject to stricter sets of criteria, weighed in wider terms of what's been done, what hasn't, what could be better. (And such criteria would almost necessarily be among the least attractive, as a listener.) As a listener, similar gauges likely apply, but the criteria would be less thought out or reified, more forgiving, less particular. As to the question of what constitutes the more and the less familiar, well that again goes back to the shit with which one might imagine themselves as being involved (at one or another juncture).

But then, where would that leave all my precious criteria? Perhaps the best noise is the noise which can never exist (in the ear of the beholder).

As for production values, it's kind of a given in noise that there is no under. But by the same token, why should there be an over? Maybe I want something that someone has produced the shit out of. Maybe I crave that. Maybe the shit that was "over" produced just wasn't produced enough (according to certain sets of criteria).

Extremes all around. Keep at it.

Thank you for the well thought out academic response. You make a good over arching point. So lets break the question down to an in-the-moment chunk: What is in your current rotation as of today? What in this particular moment are you gravitating towards as a creator and sound enthusiast?

[luciferjonez]

Part of what I love about listening to this stuff (and most other music really) is that approaches or styles I currently don't care about are things I might be completely obsessed with in a year or two or ten or twenty. There were times when I really didn't understand or even enjoy certain artists who are now stone cold, irreplaceable favourites.

This is 100% my thoughts as well - also why I find music/noise so perpetually exciting - there's always something new and exciting to hear, which is why I try to remain focused on the stuff I do like vs the stuff I don't like - because you never know when I'll do a complete 180 and all of a sudden I'm totally fixated on some crazy new thing - for me I can think of two bands I just didn't "get" forever and a day and one day just flipped out over were Killing Joke and Yes.

I tent to cycle through phases of really intense listening fairly quickly, and I try to have the foresight to remember to pick up noise (and other) records I may not specifically be in the mood for at the time as they'll go out of print so quickly. Thankfully with CDs coming back into fashion it's not quite as dire as it was a few years ago as there tends to be less and less of that insanely limited release mentality these days.... but I can't tell you how many times I get something in the mail, file it away and six months later go "SHIT! I'm glad I ordered this!!!" (oh hi Taylor!!).

I was at a record swap yesterday selling some crates of used records and got talking to a guy who runs a fairly large metal label, he was so passionate about that war metal stuff that I admittedly have lost a lot of interest in - we got talking about shows and a few really good records and I did a backtrack on some of the stuff I was selling, I love when you meet people who are genuinely passionate about music.

Agree, though I still cannot get into Killing Joke, even though I've seen them more times than I care to remember which was usually the point in the show I'd go piss or get a drink. Yet I watched the documentary "The Death and Resurrection Show" recently and found them fascinating. Maybe it was the crowd, the LP, or I woke on the wrong side of the bed?

[shrouded.in.antiquity]

The criteria is always a moving target. I saw an interview with John Cage when I was younger that I've not been able to find again where he says something along the lines of asking yourself WHY you dislike something upon hearing it. With that in mind I sometimes go back and revisit albums or projects that didn't hook me on the first listen. I hear that interview in my head late at night and ask myself "are you SURE you don't like it? Are you positive?" Being in the right mindset to hear something is probably more important for me than any inherent qualities the sounds or the approaches have themselves.

I didn't "like" noise the first time I heard it, I had picked up a CD of a local group for free at a coffee shop and it didn't really appeal to me at the time. I thought it was interesting though, I held onto it and it clicked a few years later. Sometimes liking a project or a genre for me comes from the need to understand it or at the very least gain some sort of perspective around it.

[luciferjonez]

The criteria is always a moving target. I saw an interview with John Cage when I was younger that I've not been able to find again where he says something along the lines of asking yourself WHY you dislike something upon hearing it. With that in mind I sometimes go back and revisit albums or projects that didn't hook me on the first listen. I hear that interview in my head late at night and ask myself "are you SURE you don't like it? Are you positive?" Being in the right mindset to hear something is probably more important for me than any inherent qualities the sounds or the approaches have themselves.

I didn't "like" noise the first time I heard it, I had picked up a CD of a local group for free at a coffee shop and it didn't really appeal to me at the time. I thought it was interesting though, I held onto it and it clicked a few years later. Sometimes liking a project or a genre for me comes from the need to understand it or at the very least gain some sort of perspective around it.

I recently had the same experience with Skinny Puppy – VIVIsectVI. When it came out I could not wrap my head around it. Now I'm listening to it with a different "more mature" set of ears.

[luciferjonez]

The criteria is always a moving target. I saw an interview with John Cage when I was younger that I've not been able to find again where he says something along the lines of asking yourself WHY you dislike something upon hearing it. With that in mind I sometimes go back and revisit albums or projects that didn't hook me on the first listen. I hear that interview in my head late at night and ask myself "are you SURE you don't like it? Are you positive?" Being in the right mindset to hear something is probably more important for me than any inherent qualities the sounds or the approaches have themselves.

I didn't "like" noise the first time I heard it, I had picked up a CD of a local group for free at a coffee shop and it didn't really appeal to me at the time. I thought it was interesting though, I held onto it and it clicked a few years later. Sometimes liking a project or a genre for me comes from the need to understand it or at the very least gain some sort of perspective around it.

I recently had the same experience with Skinny Puppy – VIVIsectVI. When it came out I could not wrap my head around it. Now I'm listening to it with a different "more mature" set of ears.

[throneheap]

I saw an interview with John Cage when I was younger that I've not been able to find again where he says something along the lines of asking yourself WHY you dislike something upon hearing it. With that in mind I sometimes go back and revisit albums or projects that didn't hook me on the first listen. I hear that interview in my head late at night and ask myself "are you SURE you don't like it? Are you positive?" Being in the right mindset to hear something is probably more important for me than any inherent qualities the sounds or the approaches have themselves.

Asking myself why I like something (sounds / films / books / smells... etc) and attempting to understand the big why is all part of growing as a person or in this case as a listener. It's one of my favorite things about experiencing sound (specifically non music). The deeper you go with yourself the more fun it gets imo.

I don't really have much to add to the discussion (expressing my thoughts with written words is kinda hellish for me) BUT I too think it's important to periodically ask yourself why you don't enjoy a given set of sounds? And then making an attempt to understand that too. It's EASY to shelve a new noise / experimental album and just say "that's not my thing". I'm certainly guilty of it but I have also learned a lot about what I like by exploring my dislikes in detail (why don't I like this texture? this edit? this pace? this mix? etc. etc.) It too can be fun and also equally rewarding! It's not something I feel the need to do all the time but certainly a very beneficial exercise.

[holy ghost]

Agree, though I still cannot get into Killing Joke, even though I've seen them more times than I care to remember which was usually the point in the show I'd go piss or get a drink. Yet I watched the documentary "The Death and Resurrection Show" recently and found them fascinating. Maybe it was the crowd, the LP, or I woke on the wrong side of the bed?

I really should see this documentary. I loved the Metallica cover since I was a kid but they didn't click with me until I was 30 or so but when they did, they did fucking hard. Since then they've become one of my favorite bands - all eras are excellent but man do they have a wildly divisive discography.

OT:

Asking myself why I like something (sounds / films / books / smells... etc) and attempting to understand the big why is all part of growing as a person or in this case as a listener.

I'm really trying to think if I have ever done this - questioned WHY I like x, y or z. I kind of feel like I just know? I know in my head there's like a binary code = Y/N and from there it's determined how deep I will go (or I won't go - watch me!). I don't question why I don't like something. I do or I don't. If I don't and I do I'll figure it out. Or I won't. Life's too short. Will my life be worse if I don't find everything I'm supposed to like? Nope, I'll be dead.

[Namahs]

I've never really thought about it this way.
But basicly its the same as with any music. If it sounds good to me and has that *something*.
What is that something? No idea. It just is what it is.

[luciferjonez]

The criteria is always a moving target. I saw an interview with John Cage when I was younger that I've not been able to find again where he says something along the lines of asking yourself WHY you dislike something upon hearing it. With that in mind I sometimes go back and revisit albums or projects that didn't hook me on the first listen. I hear that interview in my head late at night and ask myself "are you SURE you don't like it? Are you positive?" Being in the right mindset to hear something is probably more important for me than any inherent qualities the sounds or the approaches have themselves.

I didn't "like" noise the first time I heard it, I had picked up a CD of a local group for free at a coffee shop and it didn't really appeal to me at the time. I thought it was interesting though, I held onto it and it clicked a few years later. Sometimes liking a project or a genre for me comes from the need to understand it or at the very least gain some sort of perspective around it.

I recently had the same experience with Skinny Puppy – VIVIsectVI. When it came out I could not wrap my head around it. Now I'm listening to it with a different "more mature" set of ears.

Update. After posting and listening again, I still don't like the LP.

[luciferjonez]

Agree, though I still cannot get into Killing Joke, even though I've seen them more times than I care to remember which was usually the point in the show I'd go piss or get a drink. Yet I watched the documentary "The Death and Resurrection Show" recently and found them fascinating. Maybe it was the crowd, the LP, or I woke on the wrong side of the bed?

I really should see this documentary. I loved the Metallica cover since I was a kid but they didn't click with me until I was 30 or so but when they did, they did fucking hard. Since then they've become one of my favorite bands - all eras are excellent but man do they have a wildly divisive discography.

OT:

Asking myself why I like something (sounds / films / books / smells... etc) and attempting to understand the big why is all part of growing as a person or in this case as a listener.

I'm really trying to think if I have ever done this - questioned WHY I like x, y or z. I kind of feel like I just know? I know in my head there's like a binary code = Y/N and from there it's determined how deep I will go (or I won't go - watch me!). I don't question why I don't like something. I do or I don't. If I don't and I do I'll figure it out. Or I won't. Life's too short. Will my life be worse if I don't find everything I'm supposed to like? Nope, I'll be dead.

As someone who is re-introducing themselves to the genre I'm finding so many new varieties of noise and sub-genres that I was never exposed to pre-internet. When I first heard the Noise extra podcast and found out about the Texas noise scene and the whole Dave Gilden mystery I started digging and found myself here and my natural curiosity was to see what folks were gravitating towards and why because it's fascinating and I'm just a curious person looking for info.

[luciferjonez]

I've never really thought about it this way.
But basicly its the same as with any music. If it sounds good to me and has that *something*.
What is that something? No idea. It just is what it is.

Please share what that something is that you're listening to today. Hook a brother up with some noise that's touching your soul or tickling your taint.

[throneheap]

...I kind of feel like I just know? I know in my head there's like a binary code = Y/N and from there it's determined how deep I will go (or I won't go - watch me!). I don't question why I don't like something. I do or I don't....

Using one's intuition is cool. Nothing wrong with that and at my age that's how I approach most things (Traditional Music, Art, etc.) BUT with sound / noise / experimental I enjoy thinking about my likes and dislikes. I have been asking myself WHY (like/dislike) for almost as long as I have been listening to this stuff and yeah sure it's pretty intuitive at this point however I think actively asking myself these WHY questions over the years has given me a lot of direction as far as my listening habits as well as how I curate my label. Just my 2 cents!

[adult human]

I agree it's cool to think about why you do/don't like something with Noise etc specifically. I suppose the entry point of the music being so unenjoyable on the surface never really disappears from view so it's easy to remember that maybe there's reasons for listening to things OTHER than just liking how it feels. I know it's not the angle for everyone but as I see it this is, after all, a music with deep roots in some hefty intellectual, avant garde art practice. Cage is a decent arbiter with his ideas about challenging or, for him, removing likes and dislikes. He no doubt introduced some amazing ideas into the concept of sonic appreciation. It's really just an aesthetic extrapolation of Zen but I always liked his assertion that any time he thought something was not interesting he'd focus on it more and more until he found something about it that was. A good life lesson for when you're stuck in unfavourable situations you can't get out of.

Not that I'd follow it all to the letter. My old philosophy of music lecturer once said "John Cage says a lot of things he doesn't really mean" which I think totally bears out. By every account he was far from consistent when it really came down to it. It's the asking of questions that's important, not even necessarily the result. I do like to put myself in situations where I test my own prejudices but wouldn't say I'm too interested in forcing myself to interrogate why I think something sucks beyond that. I have a ceiling, all with the understanding I might come back to it another day.

Time, context and place has an important effect on these criteria too which I'm not sure I've seen alluded to much yet. Of the following scenarios:

a) I put something on at home knowing who it is
b) I hear something at a live performance
c) I hear something on the radio without knowing what it is
d) I hear something round a friend's house without knowing what it is

I'm almost certain to take things at a more visceral, judgement free level in the latter two. No baggage, no expectations. Just what the sound is doing, Some of the most pure, brilliant listening experiences I've had - leading to fascinations with the albums in question - come from those settings. I'm certain I'd never have taken them the same way if I was setting up the listening experience up for myself.

[Namahs]

I've never really thought about it this way.
But basicly its the same as with any music. If it sounds good to me and has that *something*.
What is that something? No idea. It just is what it is.

Please share what that something is that you're listening to today. Hook a brother up with some noise that's touching your soul or tickling your taint.

Neandertaal, Electric Hobo/Junkayrd Shaman, Haare, Vincent Dallas, Yana, Scarlet Diva for example.
Even those are different in style but most of the time it is something low ended, crunchy stuff.
Dont know. Good tunes are good tunes.