This documentary I'm in (noise/experimental "music" content)

[r33k]

P.S. I watched clips of some noise stuff at the Red Room in Brawltimore. I no longer question the sincerity of the fans being "into it". However, I did notice that many of them sat politely and watched like they were watching a piece of theatre. I'm venturing to guess that WATCHING the performance is a part of enjoying the sound. Another point for performance art, I think. My jury is still out. Also, I could count a rhythm for a lot of it.

 

So let me ask you this: If you can look at a noise performance, hear no rhythm or tonality and say, "this is not music, it's performance art", what exactly have you accomplished? How has that improved your understanding of what you're seeing and hearing?

[asynchro_nous]

:eekphil::eekphil:

:eekphil::eekphil:



Feel the rhythm of the Phil-Harmonic Convergence...

[Allerian]

I was just thinking that you could both hear and see the rhythm in a very obvious way in a typical noise performance if you sped up the video. Performers usually have a kinesthetic pattern of some sort, however subconscious it may be to them.

From direct experience of mixing/mastering other people's tracks... sometimes speeding up the track reveals what source the "artist" used for thier track

[akliner]

So let me ask you this: If you can look at a noise performance, hear no rhythm or tonality and say, "this is not music, it's performance art", what exactly have you accomplished? How has that improved your understanding of what you're seeing and hearing?

 

 

I'm really not as much in the business of compartmentalizing as I come off to be in this. Like I alluded to before, I really just enjoy talking about art from different approaches. I usually learn something from it. My friends and I will sit around for hours just talking about music and theatre and yelling at each other and playing devil's advocate. It can change our minds, it can strengthen our understandings of things, and we can share ideas.

 

I don't think, really, in terms of what I've accomplished. But I have made myself become more aware of noise, and honestly give it a few hours of my time because I've HAD TO in order to participate in this conversation.

 

In the end, it's all art. It's all creative expression in one form or another. But looking to theory (of any art) as a window into experiencing what you're watching or hearing, to me, isn't as futile and arbitrary or "psuedo-intellectual" as you guys think it is. There's a foundation to everything art. Acknowledging that foundation and witnessing something different through the perspective of that foundation is actually really fascinating. You notice where and when departures from that foundation are made and pick up on trends. Through this, I've strenghtened my resolve that the "rules" of music exist in a lot of noise. I will contend my initial views of noise were unfounded. I assumed it was all a-rhythmic and a-tonal, but I would suggest that perhaps your interpretation of my "rigid" definition of music was really, too rigid. Perhaps you saw the definition and immediately assumed it was offensively restricted. Like I said in a previous post, usually you just fall into the rules of music, even if you're not setting out to develop a time signature or a rhythm.

 

Which is really exciting to me, honestly. To me, it's a testamony of how universal and magical the very math behind music is.

 

Anyway, I think I'm rambling a little bit. But in the end, for me, music is still the organization of sound in time (time signature). The hours of noise I've listened to today, for the most part, fell into that definition.

 

Nobody wins, nobody really "accomplishes" a victory, save for a really cool discussion.

[Allerian]

Fluffy!

"We're almost out of shells man, hurry!"
*blam!* *blam!*
"There's too many of them, we gotta get outta here!!"
"Meow!"
*blam!*
"AAAAAAUGH!!!"
"Behind you! Jeff!! Nooooo!!! AAAAAAAAHHHHHH...gurgle"
"Meow!"

[droolmaster0]

So let me ask you this: If you can look at a noise performance, hear no rhythm or tonality and say, "this is not music, it's performance art", what exactly have you accomplished? How has that improved your understanding of what you're seeing and hearing?

 

 

Obviously, it's accomplished nothing at all....

 

Let me try another approach - this is really a semantic question, not one about the characteristics of sound, or tones, or noise, or rhythms. There are many variants of the word 'music', differentiated by use. The confusion that is arising here is the conflict between 2 (at least) different uses. Akliner is insisting upon an academic usage - fine, as far as it goes, but one that doesn't apply to the real intent of the conversation - which isn't, what fits into the academic definition, but what fits into the broader, human cultural 'definition'. Whether these non-traditional forms are 'really' music, really means - is it an error to speak of them as music. If someone said - "I went to see this crazy performance of algorithmic generated sounds, most of which were unpitched, and had no time signature, but damn - it was some of the greatest music I've ever heard", would they be making a mistake? Of course, not. There is no issue of what music REALLY is, because that is quite meaningless. It's perfectly fine to speak and think of this stuff as music, and when you start breaking it up into academic categories, all you're doing is fitting it into another usage (correctly). The reason why Akliner's argument is circular, is that he's trying to argue that his definition is somehow informational about what music REALLY is, and anything more inclusive is WRONG. But he presupposes that it's correct - so, of course, other uses won't fit.

[akliner]

Obviously, it's accomplished nothing at all.... Let me try another approach - this is really a semantic question, not one about the characteristics of sound, or tones, or noise, or rhythms. There are many variants of the word 'music', differentiated by use. The confusion that is arising here is the conflict between 2 (at least) different uses. Akliner is insisting upon an academic usage - fine, as far as it goes, but one that doesn't apply to the real intent of the conversation - which isn't, what fits into the academic definition, but what fits into the broader, human cultural 'definition'. Whether these non-traditional forms are 'really' music, really means - is it an error to speak of them as music. If someone said - "I went to see this crazy performance of algorithmic generated sounds, most of which were unpitched, and had no time signature, but damn - it was some of the greatest music I've ever heard", would they be making a mistake? Of course, not. There is no issue of what music REALLY is, because that is quite meaningless. It's perfectly fine to speak and think of this stuff as music, and when you start breaking it up into academic categories, all you're doing is fitting it into another usage (correctly). The reason why Akliner's argument is circular, is that he's trying to argue that his definition is somehow informational about what music REALLY is, and anything more inclusive is WRONG. But he presupposes that it's correct - so, of course, other uses won't fit.

 

 

To that, I'd reply that my academic definition was probably more inclusive that you gave it credit for.

 

That coupled with my gross generalization and limited exposure to the genre itself obscured our discussion.

 

Further, to be fair...I was, at first, just making the argument that noise did not fit into the traditional and conventional definition of music. Which I think by default you've agreed upon by invalidating the very neccesity of an acadmic definition of music. I've stated many times in the beginning that I did not neccesarily know where I stood in relationship to that definition.

 

But being somewhat of a traditionalist myself, I adopted the values of that argument in my personal responses to upholding the traditions of music.

[droolmaster0]

To that, I'd reply that my academic definition was probably more inclusive that you gave it credit for. That coupled with my gross generalization and limited exposure to the genre itself obscured our discussion. Further, to be fair...I was, at first, just making the argument that noise did not fit into the traditional and conventional definition of music. Which I think by default you've agreed upon by invalidating the very neccesity of an acadmic definition of music. I've stated many times in the beginning that I did not neccesarily know where I stood in relationship to that definition. But being somewhat of a traditionalist myself, I adopted the values of that argument in my personal responses to upholding the traditions of music.

 

 

huh - every time you were challenged as to whether you were going beyond one strictly academic definition, you sure seemed to say that this definition worked to delineate what really was music from what really was not. Now you seem to be saying that you agree with what I've been saying (and a few others have been saying) all along. You've totally lost me.

[akliner]

huh - every time you were challenged as to whether you were going beyond one strictly academic definition, you sure seemed to say that this definition worked to delineate what really was music from what really was not. Now you seem to be saying that you agree with what I've been saying (and a few others have been saying) all along. You've totally lost me.

 

 

For me, that definition does delineate what is music and what isn't. It's my opinion and its an interpretation of a definition that we've all pretty much agreed upon...it's the modifiers within that definition that were in question. What is organization of sound? What is sound?

 

Even in my concession, I'm not going beyond that definition. I'm just saying that a lot of the noise I've heard exists within that definition.

 

I stand by the requirement of time signature as it has existed in Western Music (though world music falls into time signature all the time, even if it's not notated as such)

 

At first, I argued noise cannot be music as its been defined conventionally and traditionally although I was not sure if I agreed with that definition. Now I'm saying, I do agree with that definition as it is more inclusive than I thought.

 

I really think, and perhaps it's just how I work and a product of seeing individual artistic expressions separately to enjoy the way they meld together in different forms (i.e. musical theatre, scenic design for theatre), that there is value in having definitions for various forms of art. It helps me appreciate them more.

 

To me, if we call purely unorganized sound "music", then eventually art will lose a lot of its meaning. If anything can be some specific form of art then it'll all be "done" before. There won't be any great advancements in "dance" or "dramatic performance"...it'll just be art. I think there's a lot of value in exploring within convention. If the exploration works (by whoever's authority) then the very evolving nature of art will allow room for it to become convention for the next generations of art-makers.

 

Under this definition, I've discovered, traditionalists (like myself, admittedly in terms of music...theatre, not so much) and a lot of noise makers can live comfortably in the realm of music.

 

I know we won't see eye to eye, and I know you approach argumentation differently from your strong background in philosophy, but this is really how I feel.

 

In short: I tested my agreement with the definition of music by arguing on its behalf. I later decided to, at least for now, agree with that opinion and discovered it was flexible enough to make room for what I was arguing it didn't in the first place. (that last phrase makes sense in my head, I promise)

[Birdienumnum]

[birdie's two cents from before]:

 

blah blah and furthermore

 

droolmaster's reaction:

 

It's fun to watch this thread degenerate into the usual stupid pictures, long quotes, dumb jokes, and other bull{censored} that's so typical here.

 

[Birdienumnum]

I mean, I could answer you with a long dissertation on the innate musicality of folk percussion, but it's no fun talking to someone so rude.

[r33k]

 

For me, that definition does delineate what is music and what isn't.

 

 

Okay, let's try some concrete examples. Below are four pieces I did last year. For my own amusement if nothing else, tell me which ones -- if any -- are "music".

 

#1

#2

#3

#4

 

Take all the time you need. I'm going to go get drunk.

[ElectricPuppy]

but it's no fun talking to someone so rude.

Precisely why I've given up on a serious discussion here, although Akliner is making me want to come back again.

[carbon111]

#1 #2 #3 #4

We definitely have to jam sometime

[ElectricPuppy]

Okay, let's try some concrete examples. Below are four pieces I did last year. For my own amusement if nothing else, tell me which ones -- if any -- are "music". #1 #2 #3 #4 Take all the time you need. I'm going to go get drunk.

 

Writing as I listen:

 

#1 - Haunting. I like this. Is this music? Hmmmm... loosely, yes. Why? There are discernable tones and harmonies, there are dynamics and, although not stringent, there is a rhythm to it. Really cool, how'd he do that?

 

#2 - Harmony instantly noticable. There's a rhythmic "singing" background. Yes, definitely music. This guy must have quite a stack of effect units. It's more "assertive" than the first piece, for lack of a better term. This clearly isn't just noise.

 

#3 - Again, the sound is harmonious. Major chord trading places with another chord... a 9th? I dunno. Dynamics again. See, when I think about someone claiming they make "noise art", this is not what I had in mind. This is music, as are the previous two. (Really cool stuff, too, r33k. )

 

#4 - More harmony, less obvious but still there. Some additional harmonics fading in and out now. No discernable rhythm, but the changes in -- wait, some definite notes now. It repeats... V, VII, IV... I think is as close to a melody as this one will get-- oops, went up an octave. Yeah, it's music. I'm not sure I could dance to it, though.

 

Cool stuff, r33k. I dub those "music" of the sound-scape variety. As I said though, this isn't what I think about when someone says "noise". When I think noise, I think of sounds that really are mostly random in tone, random in rhythm, which these are clearly not. There's order, so it's musical.

[greaseenvelope]

[pighood]

Fluffy!

Teh Spidercat.

[carbon111]

Damn!

 

...Its finally starting to creep me out.

 

 

 

 

 

Hey look, Bunnies!

 

 

...Ahhhh, thats better.

[synthetica]

Newsflash: Pancakes and Waffles are made from the same batter !!!


Quote at a Noise show:
I don't know how to make Music so I make Noise.


Quote at a Music show:
I could make Noise very easily but I prefer to make Music.


Curiousity: Is there such thing as a talentless Noisician? How would you know?


Curiousity Number 2: When Noise is composed or performed badly what is it called?


(Discuss: all in fun of course)

[akliner]

Okay, let's try some concrete examples. Below are four pieces I did last year. For my own amusement if nothing else, tell me which ones -- if any -- are "music". #1 #2 #3 #4 Take all the time you need. I'm going to go get drunk.

 

They're ALL music !!!

 

p.s. I'm drunk too

 

Track 1 was in 4/4 time

Track 2 was a little "sloppy" around the time signature, but was unmistakably in 3...it had a definite WALTZ quality to it

Track 3 was in 4/4. The modulations in the synth seemed to have been programed to mark each count of four like a downbeat.

Track 4 was in 4 as well. Each of the chord changes were on the downbeat of the measure.

 

REALLY {censored}ING AWESOME STUFF!!! Do you consider it noise? I think of it definitely as ambient music. Sorry for my crude understanding of noise, but the post Piggy put on the first page was what I considered to be noise (although upon listening to it again, I did notice what I thought was a 2/2 beat underneath. so my stuffy old academic definition includes that {censored} as well)

 

Your tones are really great. Really entrancing stuff.

[The Audacity Works]

#1 #2 #3 #4 Take all the time you need. I'm going to go get drunk.

Have a Makers and Ginger on me, r33k. Very cool stuff. Reminds me a bit of a CD I bought last week

[Allerian]

Track 1 was in 4/4 time Track 2 was a little "sloppy" around the time signature, but was unmistakably in 3...it had a definite WALTZ quality to it Track 3 was in 4/4. The modulations in the synth seemed to have been programed to mark each count of four like a downbeat. Track 4 was in 4 as well. Each of the chord changes were on the downbeat of the measure.

So... What time signature is the material on my Listening Device CD in?

[pighood]

*braaamp*

 

'scuse me

[droolmaster0]

Curiousity: Is there such thing as a talentless Noisician? How would you know? Curiousity Number 2: When Noise is composed or performed badly what is it called?

 

 

None of these questions are difficult if you've assimilated anything...

 

1. Talent is really kind of like music - it's not something that can be measured, and obviously relative to the 'observers' assessment of what he hears/sees/reads, etc. But, the simple answer would be, 'of course'. You'd know because everything that this person creates is crap to you. Why haggle beyond that point? It doesn't make sense to say, 'this person is really talented as a musician, but he's never composed or played anything remotely interesting or good'.

2. Bad music.

[akliner]

So... What time signature is the material on my Listening Device CD in?

Track titles?