Re: [microsound] merzbow

[Jeffrey Shell <eucci.group@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 12:03:09 -0400, John Nowak <john_nowak@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Jul 7, 2004, at 11:17 AM, visa wrote:
> 
> > Yeah, nice to see a Merzbow-resource of sorts. But surely that
> > discography
> > contains only a fraction of his releases?

Anthony wants the Internet Merzbow database to be a very detailed and
well done resource, with high quality scans, links, and so on.  There
are a lot of Merzbow discographies online, but I don't think any one
has the monopoly on tracking every release and compilation appearance.
 Certainly none of them that are exhaustive lists have any real
information about the stylings of a particular release - usually only
the release year and record label, and maybe a track listing.

> One thing I dislike in his computer work is the use of loops. The
> clicking of the noise loop at the beginning of Super Sheep on Amlux
> drives me batty. I honestly feel like when he moved to computers, he
> had a bit of "Wow, its so easy to loop stuff, I only have to have 1/4th
> the material!" Perhaps its just my bias against using loops in music
> talking though...

Loops are used constantly throughout Merzbow's history (witness 'Nil
Vagina Tape Loops' and 'Loop Panic Lmtd' from the 80's collection). 
Even in the late nineties, prior to 'digital' Merzbow, releases like
'Aqua Necromancer' and 'Door Open at 8AM' are very heavily loop based
- and there are many fans that bemoan digital Merzbow while
ejaculating over the greatness of those two releases.  I don't get
what they find so offensive about digital era Merzbow, as there are
many who just apply a blanket "it all sucks" opinion to it all,
without having heard a good amount of it.

I'm not a big fan of the loop based stuff either (although, I do have
an interest again in the low fi tape loop works, but this is partially
due to my personal examination of my own ancient recordings), and it
does seem to dominate the digital era works a bit too much.  I tend to
wait after a release comes out and see what the buzz is around it now
to decide.  I suppose a good thing about modern Merzbow is that there
is more variety from release to release (or even inside of a release)
than there was in his mid-late 90's material.

I do recommend tracking down 'Fantail' if you can.  There are a couple
of terrific tracks on there that are pretty phenomenal.

Still - I think there may be a subtle but important difference between
analog generated / processed noise (analog synths + pedals + feedback)
compared to digitally generated / processed noise.  While real time
synthesis on the desktop is amazing and can often sound just about as
good as an analog synth, it seems to be that when the noise element is
added, computers get a very different sound.  I don't know if this is
just analog clipping versus digital clipping, sounds being pushed
beyond a DSP's limits, software/hardware trying to compensate for what
it thinks is wrong, or what.

I released a 2CD album last year of noise material.  The sessions
started out digital, while often including some analog bits (but all
processed digitally), but quickly moved towards pure analog sessions
with just editing being applied on the computer.  There are definitely
differences in the sounds, even though the stylings are quite similar.
 The big composition that really spanned both the analog and digital
worlds (and again, was primarily processed through assorted software
bits) has a harsher high frequency grating sound than comparable pure
analog ones.  Is this just a style that's better left to a more
organic form?

--
J.Shell for Eucci & aodl.
Redbox, http://euc.cx/rive/030/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org