[totw] Noise 101 - Gaming World Forums

Topic: [totw] Noise 101 (Read 1794 times)

Print

crone_lover720

#21 October 20, 2008, 04:58:07 pm

PEW PEW PEW
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 5554

I sort of agree with beasley, not concerning subtlety, but I really think the VALUE and importance of a lot of this stuff is exaggerated. tho there is good stuff too, and it's kind of hard to accurately judge the merit of some of these bands without really looking into them and their scene. but keep in mind if you listen to nothing but noise you will one day find yourself wearing lime green skinny jeans with an argyle sweater.

Logged

headphonics

#22 October 20, 2008, 08:38:37 pm

sea of vodka
Group: Member
Joined: Dec 24, 2003
Posts: 6432

Quote from: earl chip on October 20, 2008, 04:58:07 pm

I sort of agree with beasley, not concerning subtlety, but I really think the VALUE and importance of a lot of this stuff is exaggerated. tho there is good stuff too, and it's kind of hard to accurately judge the merit of some of these bands without really looking into them and their scene. but keep in mind if you listen to nothing but noise you will one day find yourself wearing lime green skinny jeans with an argyle sweater.

noise existed well before stupid quasi-bohemian hipsters did. i'm not even very into the genre at all tbh but i don't think just because it is not RIGIDLY STRUCTURED you should write all the people in the scene off as a bunch of talentless idiots who are doing shit anyone could do and pretending it is art, which is what old beasley is doing. i don't know how he gauges artistic ability at all to be honest, and on what basis he assumes these are just shitty no-talent musicians, but saying stuff like that just makes you sound like someone's plumber of a dad who is like HEH... PAINT SPLATTERED ON A CANVAS?? IF THIS IS ART IM PICASSO ANY IDIOT COULD DO THS.

i'm not saying that this is exactly what you are saying, but i am curious as to why you think the importance/artistic value of this is exaggerated when it's easily one of the most unappreciated genres there is? i mean if you ignore the stupid hipsters because yes i imagine they would do exactly that about whatever abstract shit they like.

also you said your name earl not pete WHY DID YOU LIE TO ME RENDER??

Logged

headphonics

#23 October 20, 2008, 08:46:01 pm

sea of vodka
Group: Member
Joined: Dec 24, 2003
Posts: 6432

Quote from: real_jamicus on October 20, 2008, 03:54:17 pm

i've listened to a few of the bands and people mentioned in this article like no age and merzbow. they are very different but i'd say i dislike them both equally. it just doesn't sound good to me. i'm not a big loud guitars fan. i won't say i don't like noise music cos i don't really know what it is cos if i remember merzbow is just static and other total bullshit - okay, i hated that - but no age was just really abrasive and atonal rock music and i can imagine finding a song or two of that kind of music that i would like just if it all crunches together right but i'm not gonna go out of my way to find a few good tracks amidst the hairest gravel noise i've ever heard!

it's just not for me. i'm not gonna say i respect them pushing boundaries cos if the boundaries aren't interesting and are basically what sounds to me like emotionless clanging then i don't. maybe there are a few good songs and i do like a few of the bands mentioned like say sonic youth but i don't like it when sonic youth get all noisy.

do you really think it's emotionless? like, i would say if there's one thing that this music is, it's vividly emotive! the thing about it is that yeah it sounds kind of shitty but what amazes me about it is that it always sounds LIKE MUSIC and it is just incredible to me that they could take a bunch of ridiculous sounds and kind of string them together in a seemingly random way and still end up with something that sounds like a cohesive musical arrangement more than a series of loud sounds. it kind of makes me think that music is happening all around on you a constant basis and you just do not recognize it. but yeah i do think it's completely worthwhile because imo it's far from a sterile or emotionless genre (some of it seems to be kind of that way though) and there's a lot of merit in seeing just how much you can deviate from traditional concepts of music before you stop being music and start being random sounds. it is basically opening up an entire medium of expression to a far greater extent than anyone had really previously acknowledged.

Logged

Ragnar

#24 October 20, 2008, 10:12:30 pm

Worthless Protoplasm
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Jun 15, 2002
Posts: 6536

I still think Merzbow is like run noise generator on Audacity set to 5 minutes and use filters on it

http://djsaint-hubert.bandcamp.com/

Logged

crone_lover720

#25 October 20, 2008, 10:39:21 pm

PEW PEW PEW
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 5554

that was just a prank! it's the crap shack. my name is really earl.

this couldn't really be a popular genre to begin with, so you have to take that into consideration. idk every music person I've met has held this stuff in high regard, even the smart ones who aren't just hipsters goin with the anti-fl0w (tbh this is a lie, I haven't really talked to any hipsters but the guy who lives below me is one). someone even claimed it's the best genre which is kind of dumb. and idk we're doing a topic where everyone likes noise so I just felt I should contributer my opinion, the music of this genre can turn to shit pretty easily.

Logged

Shepperd

#26 October 20, 2008, 10:46:23 pm

MUSULMAEN
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Apr 23, 2004
Posts: 2618

what, I repudiate this topic due to its lack of METAL MACHINE MUSIC.

dude Catamites, duuudeee how can you leave MMM behind.

anyway, guys check out Tim Hecker, at least his album Radio Amor.

I said it plenty of times, this is terrific noise with a subtle atmosphere, very heartfelt noise indeed.

Logged

Beasley

#27 October 20, 2008, 11:48:11 pm

:rite:
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Jun 19, 2005
Posts: 1247

Quote from: headphonics on October 20, 2008, 08:38:37 pm

noise existed well before stupid quasi-bohemian hipsters did. i'm not even very into the genre at all tbh but i don't think just because it is not RIGIDLY STRUCTURED you should write all the people in the scene off as a bunch of talentless idiots who are doing shit anyone could do and pretending it is art, which is what old beasley is doing. i don't know how he gauges artistic ability at all to be honest, and on what basis he assumes these are just shitty no-talent musicians, but saying stuff like that just makes you sound like someone's plumber of a dad who is like HEH... PAINT SPLATTERED ON A CANVAS?? IF THIS IS ART IM PICASSO ANY IDIOT COULD DO THS.

i'm not saying that this is exactly what you are saying, but i am curious as to why you think the importance/artistic value of this is exaggerated when it's easily one of the most unappreciated genres there is? i mean if you ignore the stupid hipsters because yes i imagine they would do exactly that about whatever abstract shit they like.

also you said your name earl not pete WHY DID YOU LIE TO ME RENDER??

yes you are entirely right i am skeptical of the genre. no, i'm not writing anyone off- there are good musicians here, and the idea behind noise (PUSHING BOUNDARIES) is good, but i think that a lot of noise sounds fundamentally the same and by even giving the idea behind this brand of music a name or category inhibits what it was trying to do in the first place! but these are just kind of my first impressions and (like yourself) i really don't know that much about the genre, and who knows maybe i am way off base here but i just can't help but get this feeling that this genre is used as an excuse more then it is a real vehicle for musical expansion.

::pisses on guitar::

::lights on fire::

::pushes boundaries::

Logged

headphonics

#28 October 21, 2008, 12:41:01 am

sea of vodka
Group: Member
Joined: Dec 24, 2003
Posts: 6432

Quote from: earl chip on October 20, 2008, 10:39:21 pm

that was just a prank! it's the crap shack. my name is really earl.

this couldn't really be a popular genre to begin with, so you have to take that into consideration. idk every music person I've met has held this stuff in high regard, even the smart ones who aren't just hipsters goin with the anti-fl0w (tbh this is a lie, I haven't really talked to any hipsters but the guy who lives below me is one). someone even claimed it's the best genre which is kind of dumb. and idk we're doing a topic where everyone likes noise so I just felt I should contributer my opinion, the music of this genre can turn to shit pretty easily.

yeah i agree but how shitty it is, i think, really relates to INTENT more than RESULT when any idiot can make noise and it's really not as difficult as composing traditional instrumentation i don't think. like intent is what separates actual avant garde artists from people who are just doing random shit and trying trying to play it off like a work of genius, and yeah it can potentially be difficult to tell because you can't know their intent without really having direct contact with them and the result basically would sound the same either way. buuuuut idk i tend to just give people the benefit of the doubt. i really admire noise as a genre BUUUTTT honestly i can barely listen to it. like noise rock maybe kinda and mellowish shit like sonic youth yeah definitely, and even the free jazz he posted was cool as hell i thought, but everything besides that jazz stuff and the old-school composers who pioneered it was too out there for my tastes. just like, incredibly inaccessible and i can't really sit down and listen to weird japanese static or a chick screaming into a microphone for five minutes. artistically, though, i respect them!

Logged

Beasley

#29 October 21, 2008, 01:11:22 am

:rite:
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Jun 19, 2005
Posts: 1247

Quote from: headphonics on October 21, 2008, 12:41:01 am

yeah i agree but how shitty it is, i think, really relates to INTENT more than RESULT when any idiot can make noise and it's really not as difficult as composing traditional instrumentation i don't think. like intent is what separates actual avant garde artists from people who are just doing random shit and trying trying to play it off like a work of genius, and yeah it can potentially be difficult to tell because you can't know their intent without really having direct contact with them and the result basically would sound the same either way. buuuuut idk i tend to just give people the benefit of the doubt. i really admire noise as a genre BUUUTTT honestly i can barely listen to it. like noise rock maybe kinda and mellowish shit like sonic youth yeah definitely, and even the free jazz he posted was cool as hell i thought, but everything besides that jazz stuff and the old-school composers who pioneered it was too out there for my tastes. just like, incredibly inaccessible and i can't really sit down and listen to weird japanese static or a chick screaming into a microphone for five minutes. artistically, though, i respect them!

yeah this is basically what i was trying to say.

thanks headphonics

Logged

last life

#30 October 21, 2008, 02:40:59 am

Group: Member
Joined: Mar 16, 2004
Posts: 188

I don't think intent matters at all. Why should the amount of skill involved in making the music have anything to do with my enjoyment of it?

I just want to listen to noise.

Logged

headphonics

#31 October 21, 2008, 02:47:58 am

sea of vodka
Group: Member
Joined: Dec 24, 2003
Posts: 6432

you don't think intent matters at all in regards to art last life???? because you know expression of emotions/ideas is kind of the basis

Logged

last life

#32 October 21, 2008, 03:18:53 am

Group: Member
Joined: Mar 16, 2004
Posts: 188

Not for me, the receiver of the art. All that matters for me is how I receive it. I think intent should matter to the artist if they want to express their own emotions and ideas.

Logged

Artis Leon Ivey Jr

#33 October 21, 2008, 03:44:24 am

Insane teacher
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Oct 8, 2002
Posts: 10515

well uh I think in order to analyze some stuff you have to take intent into account. if someone makes a deliberately disturbing painting that doesn't make you feel good, they might have succeeded in instilling that very emotion.

dadaism...

brian chemicals

Logged

Beasley

#34 October 21, 2008, 03:52:03 am

:rite:
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Jun 19, 2005
Posts: 1247

heh remember that one topic where steel ranted for like 4 or 5 pages about how justin timberlake is good pop music because his stuff is "legitimate" or something like that

just link to that because it ties in pretty closely to the intent debate

shit a debate on intent and it's relation to the quality of the music would be a better totw then all these PUNK-SWEDISH-HELL METAL 101 topics (no offense i enjoy them they just turn into a circ jerk and dont promote much discussion

)

Logged

Farren

#35 October 21, 2008, 03:58:32 am

I fear and I tremble
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Aug 21, 2005
Posts: 6165

Quote from: last life on October 21, 2008, 03:18:53 am

Not for me, the receiver of the art. All that matters for me is how I receive it. I think intent should matter to the artist if they want to express their own emotions and ideas.

But isn't that the original POINT of art? For the artist to express his/herself via the art itself?

I don't like noise either I'm more of a vocal/lyrical person and the instrumentals are just added effect for me, even though they are still very important.

DEUCE: MEETING THE URINE UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL AND REALIZING IT'S JUST LIKE ME AND MY PREJUDICES THIS WHOLE TIME WERE COMPLETELY FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF PTTTTHTHTHH GOD IT'S EVERYWHERE DEUCE: FUCK THIS TASTES LIKE PISS PANTS: WHERE IT SHOULD TASTE LIKE COTTON CANDY OR PICKLES DEUCE: OR AT LEAST LIKE URINE NOT PISS

Logged

last life

#36 October 21, 2008, 04:55:41 am

Group: Member
Joined: Mar 16, 2004
Posts: 188

For the artist, but why does it matter for somebody on the receiving end?

What's the difference, for me, between a disturbing painting with the intent of disturbing me, and the same painting which was created by accident? There's no difference for the person on the receiving end, unless they meet the artist, in which case, wouldn't they simple be judging the artist and not the art it self?

Logged

headphonics

#37 October 21, 2008, 05:27:45 am

sea of vodka
Group: Member
Joined: Dec 24, 2003
Posts: 6432

You don't understand the difference between something being artistically successful and something being a random act of dumb luck? Its impact on you doesn't change, but if you are ever going to judge the value of anything ART-RELATED, yeah I think you need to factor in intent! That is what we have been talking about: measuring value, and distinguishing between random hacks and legitimate creative minds. I think the merit of something is determined by how successfully it conveyed the ideas the artist intended to get across as much as it is by the reaction of the person receiving it. It has to be on the artist's end, because otherwise any random thing could be called a brilliant work of art based on whoever is receiving it's interpretation. This isn't really TRAGIC or anything and is actually kind of good I think, but my point is that that is not generally how people think of art I don't think! Like it is determined by whether the creator actually intended to communicate some actual idea; that is how I differentiate between art and DRAWINGS, so yeah. I think intent goes a long way in determining not only the value or SUCCESS or whatever of a piece, but also whether it is even art to begin with. A lot of this stuff can only be judged when you know what the artist was going for imo!

Last Edit: October 21, 2008, 05:35:34 am by headphonics

Logged

Farren

#38 October 21, 2008, 05:29:59 am

I fear and I tremble
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Aug 21, 2005
Posts: 6165

But the art IS the artist.

When I listen to music I judge it from an artists perspective if I can. Of course I'm no musician, but I'd like to think that one day I would be and even if not I'd like to think on the very same level so maybe I can interpret what they've made in the same vein.

I don't listen to shit and say OH WELL I CANT GET THIS BECAUSE IM NOT AN ARTISTE BUT IT SOUNDS NICE, which is why its more difficult for me to get classical music and this noise stuff that I'm not really into at all...

DEUCE: MEETING THE URINE UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL AND REALIZING IT'S JUST LIKE ME AND MY PREJUDICES THIS WHOLE TIME WERE COMPLETELY FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF PTTTTHTHTHH GOD IT'S EVERYWHERE DEUCE: FUCK THIS TASTES LIKE PISS PANTS: WHERE IT SHOULD TASTE LIKE COTTON CANDY OR PICKLES DEUCE: OR AT LEAST LIKE URINE NOT PISS

Logged

last life

#39 October 21, 2008, 06:26:46 am

Group: Member
Joined: Mar 16, 2004
Posts: 188

Well I don't know how people GENERALLY think about art, but I don't see why that makes my view invalid regardless. Obviously people generally think a lot of stupid shit.

I see no reason why the meaning in an art has to come from the artist and not from the viewer. Why should the meaning be handed down on high from the artist? The totally amount of meaning available in a piece of art is much greater if we allow all possible meanings to be valid. Even meanings that the artist didn't intend. And I certainly don't regret more meaningful art in this world. The only reason I feel people find the need to factor in intent is so they can distinguish between "bad" and "good" and have more bad than good, because for the receiver of the art (and the art itself and only), it doesn't make a difference. Do we judge a book by it's author?

Granted as an artist, wanting to express his/her ideas or emotions, you want your intent to get across. If you don't convey what you want to convey then you've failed at your goal. But I don't really think this should matter for the audience, because even if it fails at what it's supposed to be, it might succeed at being something else.

There's no reason to distinguish between TRUE ARTISTS, and "talentless hacks" imo. I think that as long as art is effective at SOMETHING, then it's good.

Last Edit: October 21, 2008, 06:30:50 am by last life

Logged

headphonics

#40 October 21, 2008, 06:56:57 am

sea of vodka
Group: Member
Joined: Dec 24, 2003
Posts: 6432

but any art could be effective at something; hell, anyTHING can be effective at something to someone. is everything that has some effect on a person art now, regardless of what the purpose or intent of it is? an image of pikachu fucking brock in the ass is effective at making me realize how truly pathetic some people in the world are; does that make the person who drew it a good artist? i don't think people who draw ben ten hentai be looked at as artists simply because their work is disgusting and laughable to the point of having an impact on its viewers. idk it just seems like if you measure what art is and how successful it is by whether it is effective at anything at all, then basically everything is art and all art, regardless of whether it is an intellectually insightful and emotionally evocative work, sailor moon getting fucked by a dragon, or just a crate of printer paper, is equal in quality. you are a weird guy last life!

Last Edit: October 21, 2008, 07:01:12 am by headphonics

Logged