NoiseWiki

apologies if this is a retread of a well-worn discussion, but thoughts on the H preceding the NW? it ain't Pleasant Noise Wall nor Neutral Noise Wall nor even Pure Noise Wall. it is Harsh. reading McKinlay on the subject and you are apt to run into adjectives like vicious, violent, abrasive, sometimes all in the same sentence. you can almost envision, in another universe, Vicious Noise Wall or Abrasive Noise Wall. in any of these universes more than just a suggestion of discomfort, hurt, pain. you don't see a lot of discussion of this in academic circles, i think. too close, too uncomfortable?

is the Harsh just there, for show?

pickle wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:02 am don't see a lot of discussion of this in academic circles

Now you've done it.

Indeterminacy wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:08 am

pickle wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:02 am don't see a lot of discussion of this in academic circles

Now you've done it.

well to be honest i don't see a lot of discussion of this period. though i would say by definition the academic lens would necessarily have to place the discussion at a certain remove, from discomfort, if only for the sake of argument.

pickle wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:02 am apologies if this is a retread of a well-worn discussion, but thoughts on the H preceding the NW? it ain't Pleasant Noise Wall nor Neutral Noise Wall nor even Pure Noise Wall. it is Harsh. reading McKinlay on the subject and you are apt to run into adjectives like vicious, violent, abrasive, sometimes all in the same sentence. you can almost envision, in another universe, Vicious Noise Wall or Abrasive Noise Wall. in any of these universes more than just a suggestion of discomfort, hurt, pain. you don't see a lot of discussion of this in academic circles, i think. too close, too uncomfortable?

is the Harsh just there, for show?

Vomir has written on this also, where the pain context doesn't appear. Looking at some Sam Mckinlay interviews I can see his interest in certain sexual aspects, together with minimalism, which is odd. The violence, and abrasiveness relates to the sound? Rather than suggestions of discomfort, hurt or pain. I cant find them in Vomir's texts, as for academic interest, in the main Mattin and Brassier. But here Noise is - or rather was - seen as being anti capitalist.

Which is probably why it was once of interest in some circles...

firedevil
I prefer hard noise walls...something more powerful that seems to only exist in a live environment.

I don't find static particularly harsh.

Have fun with this thread


PLEASE IF POSSIBLE KEEP COMMUNISM AND ECONOMICS OUT OF THIS...PLEASE

Not really...go nuts.

At the risk of sounding like a galaxy brain, I'm going to quote Tool's song Lateralus that sums up my thoughts on this pretty nicely:

Tool - Lateralus wrote:Overthinking, overanalyzing separates the body from the mind

Industrial, noise, etc, is visceral. Many musicians in the genres have been aware of it, too, pursuing interests in things like chaos magick which is personal study in finding what resonates with your body and mind. A lot of art here is visceral, which is at odds with the intellectual, or the realm of academia. If you try to understand it from an academic standpoint, you may end up understanding it less than if you spent the time listening and creating the sound.

Getting to the name "harsh noise wall" itself, it's really just a convenient name. Basically it comes from the idea of "harsh noise", which is basically static. You aren't going to be able to pick out drums, pianos, voices, or anything inside of it (often because they don't exist there in the first place). It's a wall simply because it doesn't offer any breaks or relief. The trap is in trying to find these limits. How harsh is harsh noise, really? Is it still harsh if I play it at half volume? If I play it in surround sound, am I playing harsh noise room? This kind of misses the picture.

Shakespeare's famous lyric comes to mind here

William Shakespeare - Romeo and Juliet wrote: A rose by any other name would smell as sweet

If it was called "static" or "unpleasant sound" or "Jehovah's Witness repellent-core" or whatever else, it could still identify the same exact music. People would probably argue those too. "Just how unpleasant of a sound are we talking here when we discuss unpleasant sound? ...". Basically, the name comes from a description of the sound. But the name is not the description.

Other genres can't escape this either. What's the academic consensus on rock versus metal? Metal is harder than rock, but how much harder, quantifiably? Does glam rock become shock rock if it's presented to a crowd of homophobes, and how can we measure this? It's becoming less focused on what the sound actually is in favor of trying to break down an arbitrary name that's used for it.

Sorry for the long-winded reply. This topic does come up pretty frequently, especially in noise. It happens because people are trying to deepen their appreciation and understanding of the genre. But the approach is misguided because it focuses on the name of the label rather than the sound. Instead, just listen to more bands and recordings. Create more noise of your own. Don't worry about if it qualifies as HNW or not. If you're interested or inspired by things that you know to be HNW, the sound will follow.

RUBBISH wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:22 am PLEASE IF POSSIBLE KEEP COMMUNISM AND ECONOMICS OUT OF THIS...PLEASE

I made these quotes just for you in this thread, RUBBISH:

Karl Marx, forumposter wrote: This thread repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.

The philosophers have only interpreted the harsh noise wall in various ways. The point, however, is to play it.

Pigswill wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 9:12 pm At the risk of sounding like a galaxy brain, I'm going to quote Tool's song Lateralus that sums up my thoughts on this pretty nicely:

Tool - Lateralus wrote:Overthinking, overanalyzing separates the body from the mind

In computing, Analysis paralysis...

Pigswill wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 9:12 pm Industrial, noise, etc, is visceral. Many musicians in the genres have been aware of it, too, pursuing interests in things like chaos magick which is personal study in finding what resonates with your body and mind.

Maybe, but the origins of Industrial and PE was different. Use of images and lyrics deliberately to confront social mores. And nothing to do with xe2x80x9c chaos magick which is personal studyxe2x80x9d...

Pigswill wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 9:12 pm A lot of art here is visceral, which is at odds with the intellectual, or the realm of academia.

Agreed a lot of people in noise maybe anti intellectual, and anti academia. However a lot of the originators of Noise had academic backgrounds, were influenced by sources such as Fine Art... I mean the ICA was where TG began... How many others went to Art School... were influenced by movements such a Dada and Fluxus... So sure its not that an academic background is necessary, but why the perceived antipathy to it by some?

Pigswill wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 9:12 pm If you try to understand it from an academic standpoint, you may end up understanding it less than if you spent the time listening and creating the sound.

Again true, to a certain degree, but ignoring the academic standpoint has its downside also. As in you end up adopting the 'style' without the content. Which is maybe noise Muzak. Or maybe thinking the use of nutsy imagery, and reference to child pornography, extreme violence and rap-e is advocating those things, as opposed to using them to confront an audience's pre conceptions of Art.
One might even push this in reverse to see academics in the humanities using performative texts, which they have, or exploring the extremes of human behaviour, which they have. And the roots of this even in civilizations from which the term, xe2x80x9cAcademyxe2x80x9d first arose. Bacchanalian, Dionysian rites... If its the case that some dislike the academic, seems then they find it disquieting, the very thing the originators of Industrial and PE set out to do. Who then, who enjoys xe2x80x9c chaos magick which is personal studyxe2x80x9d is that just being content with the blue pill?

Pigswill wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 9:12 pm
Getting to the name "harsh noise wall" itself, it's really just a convenient name. Basically it comes from the idea of "harsh noise", which is basically static. You aren't going to be able to pick out drums, pianos, voices, or anything inside of it (often because they don't exist there in the first place). It's a wall simply because it doesn't offer any breaks or relief. The trap is in trying to find these limits. How harsh is harsh noise, really? Is it still harsh if I play it at half volume? If I play it in surround sound, am I playing harsh noise room? This kind of misses the picture.

Depends what the person(s) intentions are. And what their picture is. They might doing just that, or xe2x80x9c chaos magick which is personal studyxe2x80x9d, and i'm not saying either is wrong. Or am I arguing for or against the red / blue pill. I am pointing out that any academic study might be difficult, painful even.

Pigswill wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 9:12 pm
Shakespeare's famous lyric comes to mind here

William Shakespeare - Romeo and Juliet wrote: A rose by any other name would smell as sweet

If it was called "static" or "unpleasant sound" or "Jehovah's Witness repellent-core" or whatever else, it could still identify the same exact music. People would probably argue those too. "Just how unpleasant of a sound are we talking here when we discuss unpleasant sound? ...". Basically, the name comes from a description of the sound. But the name is not the description.

Or the concept is not identical with the object. The whole mess of what is noise and what is not only echoes philosophy. Aristotle's categories. Abandoned in modern science for the bell curve, species are not set divisions but merge, are family resemblances. Such an approach to Noise categories might be 'useful' xe2x80x93 'Don't ask for meaning ask for use'.

Pigswill wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 9:12 pm
Other genres can't escape this either. What's the academic consensus on rock versus metal? Metal is harder than rock, but how much harder, quantifiably? Does glam rock become shock rock if it's presented to a crowd of homophobes, and how can we measure this? It's becoming less focused on what the sound actually is in favor of trying to break down an arbitrary name that's used for it.

The above fails @ ' academic consensus ' academics earn their living by doing quite the opposite. Well become notable for doing so. Lets be critical. Are you opposed to academic biology in favour of magic. Do you think the analysis of the corona virus as misguided as some analysis of rock music? Or of sub atomic particles, electronics... computing? Or is the academic seen by some as a threat to their ideas regarding music. OK, given this threat, do we turn away, ignore it, accept it, or attack it. Close down all the research departments, or just those we dislike? I'm not a philosopher, or physicist, but i'm aware that they are a threat.

And BTW you can study rock music @ university, maybe a waste of time, IDK.

Pigswill wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 9:12 pm
Sorry for the long-winded reply.

Ditto.

Pigswill wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 9:12 pm This topic does come up pretty frequently, especially in noise. It happens because people are trying to deepen their appreciation and understanding of the genre. But the approach is misguided because it focuses on the name of the label rather than the sound. Instead, just listen to more bands and recordings. Create more noise of your own. Don't worry about if it qualifies as HNW or not. If you're interested or inspired by things that you know to be HNW, the sound will follow.

There is a lot to be said in the above, and the same goes for all music, and art. It even goes for much if not all of science.

The study involves the experience, knowledge, and understanding of what 'is', and then in the creative arts, and in science, create or discover something if not new then different.

A process which gave us HNW, and the gear with which to make, record and communicate it.

appreciate the responses. i guess i'm being pulled in a couple directions at least. there is the word, but i see it as a description of what it is. harsh or abrasive to the ear. at sufficient levels potentially permanently damaging. the same could be said for any sound and or music but I'm not sure that the potentially permanently damaging levels are regarded as good or desirable. at least, on a regular, day in day out basis. so to say, listening to harsh noise is a potentially degenerative pastime. i know from my own experiences listening on my own not at an event that i often find myself starting out at relatively low volume and by degrees turning it up. and never turning it back down, because that would then sound lesser in every meaning. now, i know for a fact that by a certain point i will on some level be regretting the listening session because i really do treasure my ability to hear and to hear in great detail. but also a part of me seems to crave the levels where it is genuinely damaging.

none of the above need necessarily apply to hnw if the only thing to get out of it is it's a word. i just think there's potentially a bit and possibly a lot more to it than that. at low volume there is imo very little to distinguish an hnw from an anw or an aw or just an a. so back to the t riley fella i mentioned in another post. so saying the h is just an initial just standing for a word that is just a place-holder doesn't quite cut it for me. not quite. not yet. i'm not saying i'm beyond coming around eventually. i'm trying to keep an open mind.

I've said before, but there are some, critics and performers who see listening to noise irrelevant to its particular artistic value.

JLIAT wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2020 4:36 am I've said before, but there are some, critics and performers who see listening to noise irrelevant to its particular artistic value.

hmm. well okay i think i might agree with these critics and performers. but i hope they still might listen to it, from time to time, at the appropriate levels, to get where i'm coming from. could not this or that artistic value sit agreeably if uncomfortably alongside others? the other obvious option would be to argue for the superiority of one value over another. i'm game either way.