Re: [microsound] noise?

[Greg Headley <greg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

on 11/15/03 7:11 PM, michael trommer at trommer@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> are you equating vermeer=non-noise, 'acceptable' (pop, dinnerjazz, whatever)
> pollock= noise (merzbow, etc.) ?

No. I realize this analogy is overly simplistic. What I mean is that few
music listeners have a frame of reference for noise as music. To them, it's
just noise. An average pop/rock music listener could hear Capt. Beefheart
and make some sense of the music because of certain familiar sonorities:
guitar/bass/drums/voice. Put Merzbow on though, or perhaps something less
full-on, and they likely won't hear anything familiar to them or be able to
perceive anything except total disorganized chaos because there's nothing at
all familiar to ground them. I meant no insult to Vermeer or Pollock, truly
brilliant artists both.

It's tough having discussions in this type of forum. Not really the right
place for a 500-word essay.

> music is already abstracted...all music is a 'pollock' to some extent, as
> there is nothing really representational in music or sound (although i'm
> sure someone could argue that's not always the case, i think it generally
> is).

I agree. A tritone is not inherently evil, but it's come to represent that
to many listeners. Of course, for practical purposes music is loaded with
context. I can't possibly number the classical pieces that immediately make
me think of Looney Tunes when I hear them. 

------------------------------