Page 5 of 6

Re: harsh NW

Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2020 3:20 pm
by pickle
this post is going to run backward and forward in a bit of a slipshod fashion over territory that has already been partially covered but hopefully to offer some perspective while unironically owning up to some prior slipshoddedness on my part. i think i mucked things up by rambling on about potentially damaging loudness. i mean, sure, that's there. but the key point is the loudness as a defining feature. and the simple fact that louder is better. in every way and meaning. it is better. it sounds better. always has and always will, at least to me. based on my sample of one, me, the only way to hear harsh noise is at exceedingly high levels. nothing new, gotcha, see spinal tap, and then see macronympha one-off project eleven. all the loudest gigs i've ever been to have been harsh noise gigs. the loudest by far. some so ridiculously loud it has almost beggared belief. and noise, harsh noise in particular, only works for me at high levels or not at all. if i can't listen to it loudly, very loudly, i don't listen to it, i listen to something else. fortunately, there's lots of other sort of music i enjoy listening to. i listen to a lot of that quite loudly too. but not necessarily. that's the thing. not necessarily. versus harsh noise: necessarily. necessarily loud, and harsh. other music i can and do often listen to at variable levels and feel nothing is lost. not so harsh noise. this to me is significant, again based on my exceedingly statistically significant sample of one (me).

going back to to the term itself, harsh noise, and yes here i'm still completely ignoring the w so due apologies pls bear with me. yes harsh noise is a genre of music but no not just that it is a description of what it actually is. pull out your dictionaries, not just your english dictionaries, all your dictionaries in every language. chinese, norwegian, cherokee. find the entries for heavy metal, pop, country, classical, folk, whatever. now find the entries, respectively, for harsh and noise. what's the norwegian or the cherokee for heavy metal? what is it for harsh noise? see where i'm going with this? run through enough dictionaries in different languages in a continuously varying loop and you probably wouldn't get too far off the mark, maybe something like infernal racket or irritating sound or abrasive sonics. or, quite possibly, invisible idiot.

just for the record, when i first started listening to harsh noise it had other names. industrial noise, industrial-strength music, experimental noise, sometimes power electronics. i'm not really that invested in the term~ harsh noise~ aside from the degree to which it, as a description for something i love, has dictated, and utterly wasted, a good and never to be returned chunk of my evidently rather sad life. ha.

all to iterate that while i wouldn't dream of discarding the significance of the almighty w i would hope that the significance of the h is still in the running. thank you for your kind attention. you've been great.

Re: harsh NW

Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2020 4:12 pm
by JLIAT
pickle wrote:
Fri Mar 13, 2020 3:20 pm
….. but the key point is the loudness as a defining feature.
Firstly this board is Harsh Noise Wall, and the defining thing in HNW is the WALL. So maybe take up the thread in Noise. What was the key defining feature in Noise is Noise, not the volume. The key feature was 'Noise'. Surprise? And in particular that term as opposed to music. Feel free to use dictionary definitions, but they only give common usage. So noise as “"a sound, especially one that is loud or unpleasant or that causes disturbance." might at first seem reasonable, but many who buy, download and go to noise shows, enjoy the noise. Add to that the other sources, aircraft noise... traffic, construction work, fireworks... The technical definition, which is not subjective is “irregular fluctuations that accompany a transmitted electrical signal but are not part of it and tend to obscure it.” which makes NOISE music, at odds with 'music' - “vocal or instrumental sounds (or both) combined in such a way as to produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression ...” Thus its defining feature, “I stopped playing music and went in search of an alternative. “
— Masami Akita[
pickle wrote:
Fri Mar 13, 2020 3:20 pm
and the simple fact that louder is better. in every way and meaning.
Sustained listening over 100 db will result in hearing loss, go higher and it will cause physical damage to internal organs ...

Re: harsh NW

Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2020 4:51 pm
by pickle
i read that through a couple times. i still can't figure out if we are in agreement or disagreement. or (more probably) just making noise.

brief digression. i'll say- i like the elegance of the conventional definitions, across continents and cultures, because these would predate even the idea of a technical definition by several millenia at least. in current use, noisemakers readily drop descriptors like visceral, primitive, even neanderthal. play an early apeman some harsh noise and if you could make out his ooks they would probably translate as "argh, cut out that ooking harsh noise already!" if you really want to fuck with his head, put on a helmet call yourself darth vader and threaten to melt his brain. /digression.

louder is better, to a point, the point at which i suppose it starts causing damage. i would call this little more than a very popular conceit regarding a very high percentage of music. there are perhaps those who would still feel it is better regardless of the amount of damage being done. harsh simply takes the louder is better to its logical, and possibly absurd, conclusion. which would not i think necessarily negate the betterness.

i'm tempted to promote the relevance of the h to the hnw in the specific because i feel that's one point where meaning has the potential to seep in. against anyone's best, or worst, intentions. the argument is less interesting, to me, wrt the n alone.

or maybe one way to work it is this. i keep asking myself, well not really but at least subconsciously: why in hell do i keep blasting this shit at insanely high levels? the obvious answer, because you are a fucking daft idiot, while quite possibly closest to the truth, is somehow unsatisfying.

Re: harsh NW

Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2020 6:44 pm
by JLIAT
pickle wrote:
Fri Mar 13, 2020 4:51 pm
i read that through a couple times. i still can't figure out if we are in agreement or disagreement. or (more probably) just making noise.
Disarrangement. Loudness is a common trope in music. Noise as a subjective term is one of disapproval. I think Merzbow said he found pop music an unpleasant noise. Noise 'music' is such that the noise destroys the typical elements found in music, loudness is only element, but a lack of structure is more significant. I think The Rita used the term Harsh Noise, and as i've said though
loudness is an element, distortion is more significant. (All IMO) HNW moves this from an auditory aesthetic to a non aesthetic.

Of course these definitions can change, and probably have, a large number of noise makers refer to skill, creativity etc.
pickle wrote:
Fri Mar 13, 2020 4:51 pm
louder is better, to a point, the point at which i suppose it starts causing damage. i would call this little more than a very popular conceit regarding a very high percentage of music. there are perhaps those who would still feel it is better regardless of the amount of damage being done. harsh simply takes the louder is better to its logical, and possibly absurd, conclusion. which would not i think necessarily negate the betterness.
As i've said, the harshness is the quality of the sound, not its quantity. If you argue harshness is loundness, and louder the better there is no upper limit. One could then simply measure the best Noise act with a DB meter. I dont think that is the case.
pickle wrote:
Fri Mar 13, 2020 4:51 pm

i'm tempted to promote the relevance of the h to the hnw in the specific because i feel that's one point where meaning has the potential to seep in. against anyone's best, or worst, intentions. the argument is less interesting, to me, wrt the n alone.
The meaninglessness of HNW has been made, the inability of noise to carry a meaningful message in and of itself is a fact. Which makes sense, as that is what the originators wanted to do. Again the move was from Noise to Harsh noise to Harsh Noise Wall. Therfore in HNW its the W which makes it significantly different to HN.
pickle wrote:
Fri Mar 13, 2020 4:51 pm
or maybe one way to work it is this. i keep asking myself, well not really but at least subconsciously: why in hell do i keep blasting this shit at insanely high levels? the obvious answer, because you are a fucking daft idiot, while quite possibly closest to the truth, is somehow unsatisfying.
Well i'd assume its because you like it. Nothing wrong with that, even though it might damage your hearing, its your choice. There is something exciting in loud noises, ergo fireworks... thunder storms, volcanoes. A sense of the sublime. Art which has no purpose yet can promote judgement, Beauty = taste, The sublime, our own overcoming / experience of the infinite in nature and art.

'Art like nature gives pleasure to the judgement without arriving at any definite thought or concept.'

Re: harsh NW

Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2020 3:08 pm
by pickle
i'd just like to preface this by saying that, today, i received a hardcopy of the book JLIAT so graciously sent. (and, truly, sir, thank you. very much appreciated.) it is very interesting to say the least. and goes some way to supporting this-
JLIAT wrote:
Fri Mar 13, 2020 6:44 pm
loudness is an element, distortion is more significant.
in the book, an interesting concession at least from the harsh perspective- that "playing any sound or speech at high levels will introduce real distortion to the signal." are we to gather from this that, at sufficient levels, any sound can be noise, or even, can be harsh noise? or even, can be harsh noise wall?

so saying, one may then conclude- anything can be hnw. with sufficient volume (or harsh-ness).

this is interesting to me, at least. i mean, for instance. why play the already harshed noise at exceedingly high volume? again, i use myself as the sample size of one. i can't explain it. perhaps i am confined by some weird self-reinforcing dogma, who is to say. meanwhile, the idiot (c'est moi) blasts the noise, real loud, real harsh.

Re: harsh NW

Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2020 10:34 am
by JLIAT
"A continuous “Wall” of high volume ‘noise’ - (random numbers) will produce a high Standard Deviation.
(A technical reason for high volumes causing noise is that the waveforms become
‘clipped’ -this is a source of noise, just as playing any sound or speech at high
levels will introduce real distortion to the signal. The ‘noise’ in this case is not
just a function of hearing, actual loss of data and coherence occurs in the
signal.) "

The distortion is caused by clipping, that will if taken to extremes produce square waves. It is a consequence of the amplification not amplifying but creating distortion by the circuits being overdriven. Technical guys might explain this better.

"The ‘noise’ in this case is not just a function of hearing, actual loss of data and coherence occurs in the signal."

i.e. not just a function of volume. The point is to distort the waveform randomly, over driving an amplifier is one way. Thus playing a piece of HNW at low volume will not remove the distortion. Another method is to lower the sample rate, that will also degrade the signal, so called bit crushers.

Re: harsh NW

Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2020 5:39 pm
by pickle
JLIAT wrote:
Tue Mar 24, 2020 10:34 am
"The ‘noise’ in this case is not just a function of hearing, actual loss of data and coherence occurs in the signal."

i.e. not just a function of volume. The point is to distort the waveform randomly, over driving an amplifier is one way. Thus playing a piece of HNW at low volume will not remove the distortion.
right, but i'm mostly interested in how it is generally received, eg at high volume, not low volume. there's the theory, and there's the practice. i'd be interested in locating these persons who regularly listen to hnw at low volume.

and assuming the persons listening to hnw at lower volume vs the persons listening to regular old hn at higher volume ... the question of whether a difference as far as the amount of information being communicated / received.

regardless of what the theory says, there's still the question of the individual. perhaps one individual is not exactly the same as another. if this is the case, it may be safe to assume that the hnw is received differently per the individual. for a one, more information may be received than for another.

now, i will admit. a one who receives more information may be mis-informed wrt a one who receives no information whatsoever. but does that render a one less relevant than another? i may argue, no.

one cannot prove that individual a has received more (or less) information than individual b. one may make an assumption, based on a mathematical equation. but i'm not convinced the mathematical equation is the be all and end all of information.

if an individual projects information based on nothing is that, in fact, no-thing? where does information come from?

Re: harsh NW

Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2020 6:01 pm
by JLIAT
Preface - IN MY VERY HUMBLE OPINION.
pickle wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 5:39 pm
JLIAT wrote:
Tue Mar 24, 2020 10:34 am
"The ‘noise’ in this case is not just a function of hearing, actual loss of data and coherence occurs in the signal."

i.e. not just a function of volume. The point is to distort the waveform randomly, over driving an amplifier is one way. Thus playing a piece of HNW at low volume will not remove the distortion.
right, but i'm mostly interested in how it is generally received, eg at high volume, not low volume. there's the theory, and there's the practice. i'd be interested in locating these persons who regularly listen to hnw at low volume.
I dont listen to HNW at high volumes, and a Vomir performance I attended wasn't particularly loud, which is probably true of all performances in venues where health and safty are issues. Many supply ear plugs for free as part of this.
pickle wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 5:39 pm
and assuming the persons listening to hnw at lower volume vs the persons listening to regular old hn at higher volume ... the question of whether a difference as far as the amount of information being communicated / received.
HNW is in principle on its own incapable of holding information.
pickle wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 5:39 pm
regardless of what the theory says, there's still the question of the individual. perhaps one individual is not exactly the same as the another. if this is the case, it may be safe to assume that the hnw is received differently per the individual. for a one, more information may be received than for another.
This may well be the case, some people hear voices of the dead in white noise... or see castles in the clouds... but that is not information in the media.
pickle wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 5:39 pm

now, i will admit. a one who receives more information may be mis-informed wrt a one who receives no information whatsoever. but does that render a one less relevant than another? i may argue, no.
They do not receive information they fabricate it. It might be true for all I know, like the I Ching, some think it allows mental processes that are informative.
pickle wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 5:39 pm
one cannot prove that individual a has received more (or less) information than individual b. one may make an assumption based on a mathematical constant. but i'm not convinced the mathematical constant is the be all and end all of information.
It's more a test of suggestibility and imagination, which is used when faced with phenomena. Add LSD and you will get far more, but these are within the person's mind not in the phenomena.
pickle wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 5:39 pm

if an individual projects information based on nothing is that, in fact, no-thing? where does information come from?
No its from their own mind, subconscious, conditioning, social group and times etc. Ergo where once people saw angels and devils now they see flying saucers and aliens.

Re: harsh NW

Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2020 1:12 am
by Fire of the Mind
Harshness is in the eye or ear of the beholder. Sam McKinlay was cited earlier, and apparently he has a pretty specific aesthetic preference to the texture of the walls he produces, the specific emphasised frequency bands and crackle and so forth, and I am fairly certain that this is not unique either within HNW specifically or noise more broadly. The line between what is unpleasant to one and sensuous to another is entirely relative. However, if we mean whether HNW ought to be especially loud and distorted, that's a different question, and while I'd say that's the implication—it's a mind-obliterating Ganzfeld effect—"ambient noise wall" and other variants are not unheard of. A Week of Kindness springs to mind.

Re: harsh NW

Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2020 7:29 am
by JLIAT
Fire of the Mind wrote:
Sun Apr 12, 2020 1:12 am
Harshness is in the eye or ear of the beholder.
The blastwave of a bomb is not subjective, or are the harmonies found in music. These physical properties of sound are intersubjective which is why they are used in music, as are other properties in art generally.

That's not to say there are not personal preferences, taste, but some think beauty is more than taste.