[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [microsound] noise?



>Hello Microsound,
>
>Perhaps those on this list with an interest in "noise" can explain the
>form to me.
>
>I have studied music is all its forms, from the beginnings of western
>music to the deterioration of sound art into concept - an yet, i still
>have no solid appreciation for the modern pandemic of "noise".  I post
>this here because I am actively looking for a persuasive argument which
>would sway my extreme aversion to this form of modern music. Let the
>diatribe begin.

Much has beeen written on the subject of noise, cf Atalli, R. Murray
Schaffer, etc. But to keep it simple, and answer what I think your question
is, viz: how can noise be music? I will say this. There is no music that
does not have some degree of noise in it.  I classical musical terms this
is known as timbre.  If music did not have any elements of noise it would
consist of a series of pure tones (sinewaves).  With noise comes harmonics
which give the sound a certain character.

Traditional Western (classical) music has been largely dominated by melody.
In the early 20th century cerain composers, like Rusolo and Varese, moved
away from melody to concentrate on timbre and (so called) non-musical
sounds (or noise).  But you must know this already.

Perhaps the reason that "we" ("noisemakers") have a fascination for certain
timbres, timbres that you would consider as unmusical noise, and continue
to produce these sounds at the expense of conventional melody and harmony
(and even rhythm), is because this area of exploration offers so many
possibilities, possibilities which no longer present themselves in the
directions of melody, harmony and rhythm.

However, i don't think that this simple statement, or in fact any body of
theory on the subject, has much chance of swaying your extreme aversion to
"this form of music" (whatever that may be).  Such aversions are judgements
of taste, and there is no such thing as a universally valid  argument for
"what is beautiful?" in aesthetics.  Appreciation for any form of art is
culturally conditioned and must (to some extent) be learned.  So should you
bother with it? I don't know.  I paricularly hate grunge music. I'm sure I
could find some redeemable qualities in it if I could be bothered listening
to a great deal of it and immersed myself in the culture. But instead I
just decide that its not for me. I don't need to ask it's practicioners for
a persuasive and unified theory.  Also, Wagner gives me a headache.
>
 How can I as a listener, as an
>audience, as a musician, tell if the producer of said noise understands
>what they are doing - or if the discovery of the noises that their
>electronic and software circuits can produce has merely triggered the
>most base of adolescent fascinations - i do it because i can - aka -
>why not?.

Strangely enough, I think that this is a valid question. I think it comes
down to identifying what is called "just doing the bleeding obvious."
Unfortunately a great many people do just this.  But it may come as a
surprise to you David that most of us can tell the difference.

>
>Need I sit through 30 minutes of a gurgling sound mixed with shrill
>piercing waveform in order to learn that the artist was utterly
>obsessed with the process of this sound's inception. Does it ultimately
>matter to the audience if what s/he produced was the result of a
>sonified neural network? Must I read a 5 page essay or attend a lecture
>to understand what I am listening to? Maybe so.

This is also a quite valid question and one which has been debated at
length on this list.  In other words, what is the point of a strong
interesting concept (in terms of process), if the final result is weak and
uninteresting?  I come across a lot of art/music that has this problem.
The theoretical elaboration of the process can add a valuable dimension to
the work, but if the work itself is boring, then, IMHO, nothing can save it.

>I am obviously missing the point. I cannot even begin to give you the
>names of the artisans whose work I am speaking of, so those who know,
>please let me know who I am talking about.

Please can someone let David know who he is talking about?  I'm afraid I can't.
>
>So here are my questions about the form in a nutshell:
>1. What is "noise" communicating and to what audience?

In some extreme cases it is communicating (and delimiting) the boundaries
of music - raising the question: what can be considered music?  In others
its more a case of timbre (noise as effect).  In others its a case of
foregrounding background media artifacts (in a formalist sense).

>2. Why?

Same reason as with any type of music or art: one thing leads to another,
then to another.  Its a process of exploration rather than an unchanging
tradition.

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