Why does anyone like improvised 'noise' music?

But noise seems to cover a wide swath of music these days. I could really do without the pure noise of certain knob tweedlers that might show up at Tonic or a warehouse in Philly on any given night. But there are other bands that aren't really "noise," just noisy and hyperactive, and some of these I like.

Now how you get from that to asking if "everyone is just pretending to like this stuff" is pretty ridiculous, and obviously insulting to the people who do like the music.

I personally like to listen for details in the sound creation -- textures and timbres that I haven't heard before. I like high density, EQ-level busting noise. Other people enjoy different styles, and for different reasons. One could say the same thing about any other genre of music. It's not rocket science.

My impression of the noise thing? Wade through the enormous tide pool of self-absorbtion, and sometimes you will be rewarded. Especially if
you like dadaist art.

Twice I've enjoyed improvised noise shows, and once I enjoyed a piece of performance art - in those cases, it was when the whole thing was basically humorous. Like one of the noise shows was a sort of parody of this very serious violin band that went before. So I guess I can get something from it when it's a joke.

I don't think 'is everyone just pretending?' is a stupid question. Why not ask it if you're curious?

listen to improvised silence instead

"noise" vs. "noisy": is noise a genre unto itself, or just a catchall term for the total set of "noisy" variants of pre-existing musical genres?

Or they're saying George isn't very smart. Oh, and when you don't understand something, pretend you do or else you'll be pretentious.

My experience? Live, Keiji Haino may be the most compelling performer I've ever seen. But I have a number of his recordings, and I've yet to make it all the way through even one of them.

This is true. The artists don't help, either; almost all the Borbetomagus CDs I have are mastered absurdly softly - even when you crank them up, they still sound distant and weak. The only exceptions are Buncha Hair That Long and Live In Tokyo, both of which which kick much ass.

Derek's POV comes from a musician as opposed to a listener (also by listening once to a recording he's asking you to listen HARDER than you ever could, this music DEMANDS it => a gd thing?) but to me its bullshit 'cause, as mcd sez, you can get diff things from a recording.

And Hurting, Lightning Bolt do have a lot of improvisation in what they do; the pushed-back album Frenzy (now scheduled for late this year) is entirely improvisations, culled from hours upon hours of rehearsal tapes.

Not entirely true. Fushitsusha gigs are improvised, but Haino has riffs he returns to (the one that closes Disc Two of Live II was played at the Tonic gig in 1999 or so that I went to).

mark - Never heard it from a recordings point though in that wire listening thing I got a picture that he did struggle to just sit down and listen to anything else unless it was improvised. he doesn't get much out of recordings.

live, I mean.

But . . . that's not all that's going on. A good live performer is responding to the context, the crowd, an elusive feedback loop of empathy or connection, and you can sense it when it's really working and when it's not working. This layer is just as present in noise shows as it is in any other kind of show. So people can go to and enjoy noise shows for that dynamic, regardless of whether the sounds are "pleasant".

not every noise show is remotely that freaky tho.

.....

improv vs. composed is a continuum. there are levels right?

improv being spontaneous... that of-the-moment quality can be very appealing. doesn't mean the music won't occasionally suck. or suck for 15 minutes and then OWN for 3 and you're wondering what to think. sometimes a very pleasing moment can be totally noisy stuff that reeks and has no hook or texture to pleasure that part of you that needs something to connect with, and then suddenly you break through or the song changes dynamics and they're totally together and it's sort of like finding the needle in the haystack. perhaps the music ceases to be noise and so you really aren't liking noise improv at all, but still, there can be a tendency to lump a band together... and that moment of conneting produces quite a nice elation. solving the crossword puzzle. the up up down down b flying superpunch that rules.

(and then the i vs. c axis can be thrown on both the performance and the music. which is totally another thing to consider i guess... )

m.

noise as 'wall of sound' is prob easier to absorb live but so is almost anything unfamiliar and you can get lots of things you otherwise wouldn't - looking at how the music works live can open it up. I'm not sure I buy this thing that its bad bcz the stereo can't handle it. Sure sometimes its a careless mix (like the two versions of 'persepolis' (on fractal and edition rz) are different) but that to me it works as a record, whatever the mix. funnily enough it wasn't really designed as a record in the first place.

xpost to daniel

otherwise, you're just a jackass. that's my $.02. i'm no purist noise lover tho. i like noisiness as a quality in music because of my obsession with tomorrow-morrowland. i see today's noisiness as a co-opted element of tomorrow's pop. the feedback of hendrix becomes regulated guitar bonk. the tuft of a white noise stomp gets looped in a tom waits tune or a missy elliot song or or or...

"turn down that god damned noise!" turns into "ed and i visited graceland for our 50th wedding anniversary!"

back to dada... like the slits... they were just bonking around learning as they went, but their tunes were catchy. (and they totally borrowed influences from island music, which again, is SO SO SO very poppy. 36/37 Stings would agree.)
m.

maybe a sidetrack here . . .

This might sound hippy and a bit corny, but I think improv shows are like scale models of how community can work or not work- every individual's behaviour can be either more or less selfish or more or less responsive to others. Every individual's contribution pinballs off of and transforms, and can either reinforce, distract from, or sabotage, everyone else's contribution. It is dynamic and immediate, and awfully delicate (ie. it's easy to ruin things and push them over; with good improvisors, it's also easy to turn this situation around) Good listening, and a genuine interest in a shared goal, will push things further; people furiously lost in their own worlds will hold back the entire enterprise, and will result in *really* producing the wanky endless solo masturbation cliché that people who don't like improv so often bring up. I take this also to be the reason that so many improvisors regard what they do in terms of a leftist politics that they feel underwrites/resonates with their performance practice: the point is that you have to start thinking in terms of a community, and of a collective vision that isn't about ego but about the whole experience.

At one point, the bass player was playing a simple 3 note melody and singing when the spoken word guy decides to "harmonize" by barking words on top. Bass player looked annoyed but kept going. The computer guy, who seemingly wanted to drown out both of them, just started twiddling knobs and cranking out digi-noise.
They gave the impression that each guy wanted to do his own thing but they just happened to find themselves on the same stage. (and no, I don't think it was intentional. it was all very earnest)

aside from mind and body... cerebral and visceral... i think there's a spiritual side to some noise/improv that can happen. the magic of a kiss. of course, some might call that delightful coincidence and no higher/otherworldly power involvment and that's fine... but... as a person of faith, i can dig alice coltrane and stuff like that whole vibe as a spiritual experience on some level. victories of the unseen... hehe, or the imaginary...
m.

I agree as well that improv can hover in a polite tiptoe mode for so long that if everybody is overly sensitive (ie. cowardly) then no strong statement of any kind will be made. I guess improv is not just a model of community but of how they can change, either slowly or gradually, violent upheaval or oozy mutation.

xpost: haunted weather is great

(xposts) its even easier to see whether its working or not if acoustics and electronics are being combined, the failure tends to be exaggerated...i think I read Kagel once on combining electronic music with acoustic sound, on how one of his works played on the impossibility of this ever happening but I can't recall right now.

if you've got the money, both the texts and the CD are great. I'm lucky enough to borrow copies from an obsessed friend but if he didn't exist I'd be buying them.

That is to say, I often feel like audiences attend these shows with the impression that there is something to "get." There isn't. It's not like 20th Century classical music, where everything is actually based on elaborate theoretical concepts and math. Noise is just noise. It has a concept, but the concept is nothing more than being noise. You can listen as hard as you want, and you might notice neat sounds, but you won't "get" anything.

I'm too tired to even want to begin picking this apart. It definitely belongs on ILM. Thanks for the laugh, though.

Right. I don't mean what I said as a criticism. Just that I think many people strain themselves trying to find more in noise than there actually is.

the whole genre is wide by general definition... some of it is getful and some of it is getless.

you get what you want when you can. same thing with any genre. shitty, generic, cliched bullshit is gonna leave you grasping for any value to redeem your $5 or whatever.
m.

Your definition of what is seems pretty limited. For instance, there's a hell of a lot to a Jackson Pollack painting, regardless of its lack of structure and/or theory. Just because what is in some noise is based more on the chaotic and the natural than what is in classical music doesn't mean that the latter has more of "something" to find. In fact, I find the opposite -- noise fans aren't straining, but losing themselves in some degree to the natural, ever-changing topography of sound in their ears.

Of course, that's assuming that noise is completely random, which it usually isn't. Even the super-prolific Merzbow constantly makes choices about form and timbre and shape (maybe not about volume though -- heh). And when you get to some super-sensitive eai folks like Gunter Muller or Keith Rowe, you have properties as carefully considered and deliberate as any in classical music.

there are shades and degrees of "noise" -- hey, if you don't "get it" how do you know what you call "noise" isn't someone else's music ?
OK it's just noise to you, but since you opt. out on mere concept and know it's mere noise with nothing to get, you won't be getting the music that is there, will you ?

this thread is too short on specifics; it's too easy to make generalisations about an immense set of music that's anything but unified and anything but homogenous

I would like to add to this thread: blanket statements are as useless when discussing noise as they are when discussing hip-hop, rock, classical and every other type of music under the sun.

So OTM. I never bought into that whole "you had to see them live" bullshit about any artist until I saw Fushitsusha one night and Haino solo the next. Definitely the best two performances I've ever seen.

Given the cost of Japanese imports, you might well be better off putting the money involved toward a plane ticket to his next gig.

89 results found:

-- j blount (jamesbloun...), January 10th, 2005 1:47 AM. (papa la bas)