Moving beyond "noise for noise's sake"

[Scream & Writhe]

I wonder if this may be too vague, but I'm curious about when and how one eventually crosses the boundary between listening to noise for noise's sake (i.e. in passing, as relative background music, or "just for fun") to active listening and a potentially higher appreciation of the sounds.

There are plenty of generic projects/releases, things initially kept in the collection when first discovering a genre only because one may not know that there are "better" things out there (as in literally: no knowledge of what is "good" - or "bad", for that matter). Gateway projects are essential to the discovery of any genre, and this isn't to say that all gateway projects are generic either, but for many people there is something more to listening beyond "loud harsh fast = great". For others the loudness, harshness, and fastness is all they need for a fix, and that's fine too.

Moving beyond is something that eventually just clicks, sure, but there also has to be an intent behind it. What defines the crossing of the threshold beyond casual listening?

[D345]

I have thought of this that "noise for noises sake" is the great beyond. That you listen to noise because you enjoy listening to noise for the sake of noise. Not as background distraction or as headcleaner or because of the edgy content or because it's obscure/extraordinary to think of noise as listening experience, for examples

[murmur]

For me, I think that my listening changed when I started to want to participate, so I would listen and try to figure out what was going on. I don’t listen like this anymore (thankfully) for the most part, but I do think that this was an important stepping stone - learning the basics of what’s actually happening on a given recording.

[holy ghost]

This is a really interesting topic - I don't think I have ever listened to noise as background music, but I will put on ambient or kosmiche synth music as background listening, usually with my morning coffee.

For "good" noise vs "bad" noise I suppose is always dependent on the person and what you consider good or bad. For me, I don't find any added value in "composed" or "structured" noise (that some people might consider "good" perhaps?), and I can appreciate dynamics vs just a wall of noise, but that doesn't make something "better" for me. I think I understand the idea of the topic, most people's exposure to noise is through friends and most friends have noise projects and most of the time your initial favourable reactions are to the first things you hear and then you get more exposure and start making more adult choices - it's no shocker why the Relapse Merzbow releases are the most popular and why most people who had a gateway through hardcore punk still love Bastard Noise, because those were the most accessible starting points....

I like a lot of electro-acoustic, INA-GRM type material where those french guys wear the really severe suits and pose sternly in front of a wall of equipment. I also enjoy a lot of free jazz where everyone gets together (also wearing suits) and just goes hog wild blasting away. I like noise that sounds like a GRM record on crystal meth or a group of noise guys going hog wild in a group setting. Suits optional!!

TL,DR I guess I find a lot of value in something like John W's "Deviate From Balance" album but I also really appreciate when Sissy Spacek just go nutso.... took me a while to get there I suppose.....

[ChicagoAnimal]

I think people who enjoy "noise for noise's sake" are people who are more preoccupied with it as a hobby as opposed to an art form that can be appreciated/critiqued/experienced on a more complex plane through more dedicated listening. In theory, anything put to tape/vinyl/CD/digital stream can be appreciated on a more complex level, even negatively and dismissively, and - vice versa - anyone can put anything on in the background. You know those people that post their " recent noise hauls" on Instagram and seem to buy batches left and right - I think those people are interested in noise for noise's sake. Those people that seem to have a wide taste in music and really love just a few Incapacitants albums or their local ripper, those people might enjoy noise more than the person with a closest full of C-20s packaged in the hide of a dead rabbit.

If anyone is concerned that their noise habit is turning into mere hobby, I suggest you listen to your noise releases without doing anything else at all and see if you really enjoy it.

Also, noise as just a hobby is fine, too. I am not making a value judgement here.

[Bubble-Congeries]

This is a really complicated question, which kind of makes it difficult to correlate my thoughts to give a response during my lunch break...

I can only say that it took years of doing noise myself and realizing I didn't actually enjoy my own material very much after the rush of "anything is possible" wore off. I think that was important in developing my critical ear, both for myself and other artists.

It also led me down the dubious path of thinking "The only way I'll ever get to make noise for a living is by becoming a serious sound designer". In a sick way, that's a bit like losing one's musical naivete by learning how to play an instrument. But I digress.

I like different kinds of noise/sound at different times, but I am often struck by the dimensional flatness of a lot of noise recordings. I think one of the qualities I crave and aspire to most in noise is that sense of dimensionality or "suspension" within the sound. Even before I got into noise, that quality was what made Skinny Puppy click for me when listening to VIVIsectVI on headohones.

I found the dimensionality and layers of audible, overlapping texture utterly captivating. I really don't even look for that in "regular music" so much, or necessarily require it in noise, but it sure doesn't hurt. I guess it was just a matter of realizing what I liked about sound in general over time, assuming I understand the question...

LUNCH OVER!

[puritanwaste]

When a noise artist gets to that singular place where I don't immediately recognize what gear and/or software they're using to make it, that's the sweet spot where their "noise for noise's sake" can also be timeless gold.

However, I'm feeling insane fatigue from the following:

1. Shit that just sounds like a boutique pedal demo.

2. Stuff that sounds like foley work from a Michael Bay movie.

3. Noise where the source material seems to just be a synth oscillator or just vacant of any real character. I don't care how many ornate cuts are there, how wild the packaging is, or how much automated panning you used if the source is totally limp and boring.

4. Completely uninteresting distortion/textures that have been completely brickwalled to make it "harsh" and "loud" (waveform looks like a black rectangle with zero dynamics). Boring noise is still boring—no matter how loud it is.

5. What could be really great, dynamic material that has been unnecessarily brickwalled to make it "harsh."

But hey, one person's horseshit is another's gold. This is just where I'm at as an obsessive listener.

[D345]

I think we need to define the term "noise for noises sake" to contunue this conversation

or do we? probably not

[Joie de la Blumpy]

I think we need to define the term "noise for noises sake" to continue this conversation

I'd think so.

It's like taking The Absurd and saying, well haha, that (The Absurd) is all about the hahas, the shits, the giggles, no more to be said and would you PLEASE STOP GRINNING. (thank you). When for me it (The Absurd) is the alpha and the omega of well, pretty much everything in between (aka existence), I digress. (But suffice it to say, for every breath you take, you are bound to be laughed at, if for naught else than for the sake of taking that breath, I double digress.) Or put it another way, there might not be an either/or in this equation (noise for its own sake vs for the sake a good few chin strokes). Like, how about taking both (the noise, for its own sake, and the comorbid stroking of the chin)?

If even anti art is art, and that (that it is anti, but more importantly, that it is art) is why we reject it (the art, or the idea of there being an art, particularly when it is positioned in opposition to its supposed self), then we may have to start at a point where (the idea of) anything suggested as existing for its own sake might be worthy of a chin stroke. Or two. Cue Incapacitants.

[Joie de la Blumpy]

Another try. Noise for its own sake. Call it a sort of default position that might necessarily keep a would be tastemaker honest*, a position which might point to an intrinsic power of noise, namely, that it might (intrinsically) resist the categorical. To the question, what are you getting out of it? The answer, well, what do you put in? No risk no return, as some might have it.


* Sorry, had to asterisk this for the sake of being didactic (old habits die hard). As in. Look, I believe, very deeply, in my Mikawa-given ability to honestly appraise and evaluate noise-sound-art based on its objective merits (as I might perceive them), but on some level that nagging doubt (that, and let's face it, I'm no doubt perpetually, talkin out my ass) is needed, just to ensure that I don't disappear up my own arsehole (for starters!). The danger might possibly be noticed when it starts to get comfy in there, fodder for another thread!

[SS1535]

I think we need to define the term "noise for noises sake" to contunue this conversation

or do we? probably not

But if we did, then it would somewhat miss the point entirely? If "noise" and "noise's sake" are defined, then what was once noise would actually be structured/teleological?

However, and contrary to my above point, I think the difference between good and bad noise (from both the creative and listening perspectives) is when it becomes guided by necessity---whatever that means.

[SS1535]

(Never mind too that I actually do define noise in my post...)

[D345]

Now we are definitely beyond something

[SS1535]

Now we are definitely beyond something

Beyond the valley of the dolls for sure. haha

Maybe it's worth asking too---have most/any people who listen to noise, ever really reached a state of listening to noise for noise's sake in the first place? I think that's a point that is a lot harder to reach than it might first appear. To me, that would mean a total overlooking of all cultural baggage associated with the noise, no concern for release formats, maybe even overlooking the contexts of meaning that we automatically associate sounds with---pure focus on the sounds themselves.

[k.p.g]

Saw this thread yesterday, but did not get to comment until today. This topic has been permeating my mind though. I still put on noise when I am doing a lot of activities -- playing video games or cleaning my bedroom are a good example. But even in those moments, I will find myself stopping to just soak in the noise. It almost takes over my entire mental state in the moment at times. I wonder how someone locks into the zone in a way that can get the listener to really pay attention. It is a wonderful feeling that makes me realize my love for the genre still rides strong.

I think that I stopped buying "noise for noise's sake" a while back. I figured out what sounds I like to hear in noise the most, and have been rolling with that since. And on the topic of entry level projects that was brought up here earlier, I find that the reason they are such good gateway projects are because they hold up over time. It doesn't matter how far into it I go, I still find myself being able to raise my fists in joy whenever I put on a Bastard Noise or Japanese Torture Comedy Hour release. Those projects stand up right alongside any "deeper" sort of listening is also in my stack.

[SS1535]

Saw this thread yesterday, but did not get to comment until today. This topic has been permeating my mind though. I still put on noise when I am doing a lot of activities -- playing video games or cleaning my bedroom are a good example. But even in those moments, I will find myself stopping to just soak in the noise. It almost takes over my entire mental state in the moment at times. I wonder how someone locks into the zone in a way that can get the listener to really pay attention. It is a wonderful feeling that makes me realize my love for the genre still rides strong.

I think that I stopped buying "noise for noise's sake" a while back. I figured out what sounds I like to hear in noise the most, and have been rolling with that since. And on the topic of entry level projects that was brought up here earlier, I find that the reason they are such good gateway projects are because they hold up over time. It doesn't matter how far into it I go, I still find myself being able to raise my fists in joy whenever I put on a Bastard Noise or Japanese Torture Comedy Hour release. Those projects stand up right alongside any "deeper" sort of listening is also in my stack.

The deeper listening/fun listening distinction seems to be an important one here. I definitely do the same---I have to be in the right mood to really get something out of listening to certain releases, whereas there are others I can put on/enjoy anytime superficially.

It seems relevant here, though, to ask further whether that distinction is a quality of the noise itself or a limitation of the listener? Of couse we know that some random, unknown Bandcamp-only noise release is probably not as "good" or worthy of attention (whatever these mean) as much as a classic Merzbow album, but, hypothetically, couldn't we as listeners focus on each just as deeply?

[D345]

“Wherever we are, what we hear is mostly noise. When we ignore it, it disturbs us. When we listen to it, we find it fascinating.”
— John Cage

this quote was very inspirational for me when I was younger. Now it just sounds pretty obvious and kinda lame, maybe that's what happens with language when you start to understand things without words

[Scream & Writhe]

I think that I stopped buying "noise for noise's sake" a while back. I figured out what sounds I like to hear in noise the most, and have been rolling with that since. And on the topic of entry level projects that was brought up here earlier, I find that the reason they are such good gateway projects are because they hold up over time. It doesn't matter how far into it I go, I still find myself being able to raise my fists in joy whenever I put on a Bastard Noise or Japanese Torture Comedy Hour release. Those projects stand up right alongside any "deeper" sort of listening is also in my stack.

It seems relevant here, though, to ask further whether that distinction is a quality of the noise itself or a limitation of the listener? Of couse we know that some random, unknown Bandcamp-only noise release is probably not as "good" or worthy of attention (whatever these mean) as much as a classic Merzbow album, but, hypothetically, couldn't we as listeners focus on each just as deeply?

These points are right on the path of what I was trying to get at. I didn't intend for the term "noise for noise's sake" to be as misleading as it came to be. This is not meant to be a gatekeeping and/or pretentious topic, but a think-piece on moving beyond listening to what is easily accessible or easily palatable (regardless if it is tried and true good or not), towards noise - though it can be applied to any genre - that has a little more substance (be it in the form of composition, technique, whatever) and is perhaps a little more evocative. Or, if taking the approach that says all noise has merit, then maybe it's just about coming to the point where you begin to ask "why do I like this?" "do I actually like this?", etc.

Perhaps more simply put: Transitioning from listening to noise for the sake of saying you listen to noise, to listening to noise for the sake of noise.

I think the difference between good and bad noise (from both the creative and listening perspectives) is when it becomes guided by necessity.

I feel like I agree.

[Bubble-Congeries]

I don't know how well others will be able to relate to this analogy, but I think of "good" noise as something akin to touch therapy, or at least a good back-cracking. It gives a psycho-physical aporoximation to something like a weighted blanket or a cat washing you (that's very calming for me, anyway) and it has an almost paralytic and absorbing effect which enables me to focus on the sound very intently, and can even stimulate my imagination in a way most things can't anymore. It is stripped of emotion and speaks directly to the "id" part of the brain. "Boring" noise can't accomplish this. It just goes in one ear and out the other. I don't listen to other music this way, except for maybe drone.

Seperately, "fast loud crazy" noise can be like the spark that blows the lid off the metaphorical pressure cooker. A lot of fast, loud and crazy music can have the same effect. It's invigorating and may even leave me feeling like I got out a big release of pent-up energy, especially if I'm actually thrashing about a bit (surely everyone does this alone in their room from time to time?). But I look for that less and less these days. I still like it, but it's not what I listen to noise for now so much as when I was younger, and also something I am a lot less demanding of. I just can't listen to it when I am particularly depressed because it all sounds like mud then.

I think, as long as it can accomplish one of these two things, I will enjoy it. I'd say these are what I'm looking for as a listener. I still think it's interesting to philosophize about noise, and I like how democratized it is. I'm always curious to hear new stuff and get other peoples' perspectives, but it doesn't necessarily mean I'll enjoy hearing all their work, even if I "appreciate" nearly all of it.

[Tribe Tapes]

Interesting topic. I always thought of "noise for noise's sake" as being more of a creative mantra. Creating noise for noise's sake, because of its own necessity to exist -- as opposed to creating noise to fit in with trends or what the artist believes is the right way to record. Maybe this thread is more in reference to the listener / buyer perspective? I think of those who buy physical copies of any noise release they find on Bandcamp, without any knowledge of the greater happenings or history of the genre. Of course, these people are probably much more normal and well-adjusted than we are -- the precarious few who are obsessed enough to truly recognize what sucks and what doesn't.

[SS1535]

Perhaps more simply put: Transitioning from listening to noise for the sake of saying you listen to noise, to listening to noise for the sake of noise.

This is an interesting take as well. I wonder now how much this question only becomes relevant now---in an era of Internet, social media, etc. where one can posture and post pictures of a collection for popularity and whatnot. (It almost seems impossible when this was a genuine "underground" phenomena? Maybe?) Almost a question of what makes the difference between a poser and a fan in the contemporary scene?

[puritanwaste]

Perhaps more simply put: Transitioning from listening to noise for the sake of saying you listen to noise, to listening to noise for the sake of noise.

Haha, I'm not sure that there's any benefit whatsoever in telling people you listen to noise.

[33033]

I think my ear is trained enough to notice things I enjoy past the noise for noises sake deal. Something that sounds akin to crackling livewires, slow motion car crashes, broken strings rattling, earth rumbling, etc. Comparisons are there, but sometimes they go beyond that, into sounds of universes coming into existence? Planets colliding? Crumbling cities? Things that I don't know the sound of but can only really imagine.

I sometimes think of noise in the same way I do ambient. It's a solid meditation on a mood, an energy, etc. It's just the total opposite end of the spectrum where it's loud and cacophonous. I love ambient, but I'm more interested in noise, because of the maximal sound being produced. Same reason I like loud extreme music of other genres. It's unignorable at the most apt volume, and fills your environment with something to engage with. It's a solid mark in the sands of time.

[holy ghost]

I think people who enjoy "noise for noise's sake" are people who are more preoccupied with it as a hobby as opposed to an art form that can be appreciated/critiqued/experienced on a more complex plane through more dedicated listening.

I've been thinking about this comment since I read it earlier today (my phone will simply not stay logged in here so I only post when I have my laptop open) and I think this might match exactly where I'm at currently with noise - not to be contrarian but, I simply just don't need to appreciate it on a "more complex" plane than I do now and I am really okay with that. I love noise, I love a lot of other genres of music and I would say music is the most encompassing hobby in my life but I don't know how deep I need it to be. And like bro, I like some sophisticated prog rock and all that Alban Berg atonal type classical shit, I'm not out there just listening to KISS (even though I love that shit too)..... for me it's the sounds, but it's also the social connections just as much....

I don't think this is an endorsement of stupidity, I love reading about the music I love but (for example) I found those overly academic Paul Hegarty books dull as dishwater, while I loved the Hijokaidan book even though it was like, kind of a basic story. You know what I loved more than anything was the book The Rest Is Noise which was just one of the best guides through 20th century classical but more of a riveting story than anything else....

No offence intended to anyone out there that appreciates it on that more complex plane! You do you....

[Bubble-Congeries]

Ultimately, whatever form it takes, authentically enjoying noise is something we do for "fun" or "pleasure", even if occasionally at masochistically-high volumes, or because it simply gets gears turning in our brains in some way. It still boils down to the same authenticity. "Authenticity" isn't relative. *rambling*

I've never understood the concept of "challenging" music, and the label frankly often sounds like a cop-out to me in one way or the other. I can't stand the idea that noise has an obligation to be "revolutionary", "radical" or "extreme". Music is noise: A *radical mutation* of noise. Noise is just proof that we're fucking alive. *rambling again*