No offense intended, but would you really consider noise a "musical" genre?
The definition of the word noise is "sound that lacks any musical quality", so why is it sometimes referred to as if it is?
people listen to it the same way they do music. it's all about how it is interpreted. same reason field recordings can be considered music, and why rock and jazz are music even if different instruments are involved. it's still listened to like music, and just about anything can be "music to my ears", even if that's not the intent in its creation
When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.
>The definition of the word noise is "sound that lacks any musical quality", so why is it sometimes referred to as if it is?
Because language is fluid and words aren't always used in their strictly literal sense. Its all about context bro
there's only 2 criteria for something to be considered music (whether it's good or bad music can be debated)
1. it must be sound
2. it must have been recorded or arranged with the intent of creating music
therefore random noise such as that which the definition you gave is referring to is not music, but noise that is created with the intention of it being music such as that created by merzbow or masonna is music.
does that make sense?
Thanks, this aspect of it makes a lot more sense to me now.
but this raises another question - how do you get into noise? Do you necessarily begin with noise itself or are there other genres that might prepare you for the leap across?
Music is a collection of aspects related to sound. Oversimplifying it as just "sound" or "organized sounds" loses the meaning of it. Noise only has 1 single aspect of music, timbre, so I can't consider it any more than that. It's sound design.
By the way, how fucking dumb are the people who say anything recorded is music? These are the people who post on Youtube that music was invented in 1910. Music existed long before recording. Also Hanon finger exercises are arranged pitches yet not music; it can be played on a piano with no strings and still be done correctly to serve its function.
I'm sure a few people get into it after listening to noise rock, like maybe hearing the velvet underground and digging the harsher sounds. I just dove right in and listened to the sissy spacek self titled, and I loved it so I continued to listen to other projects.
honestly, for me, it just numbs everything going on in your head by overloading your ears with sound. it was great for when I needed a break from stress or I was feeling down (not a great idea to numb the pain, but it helped). that's just my take on it, based on how I felt when I got into it and why I enjoyed it, but I'm sure there's other reasons people listen to it
check out this video. fantano and this other dude have a pretty good conversation discussing the reasons why they enjoy music that doesn't follow traditional structure such as noise and drone.
for me personally, i believe that music has strong mind-altering properties and music such as noise and drone can take you to a completely new world, especially but not limited to when listened to on drugs
Depends. You can go straight off the deep end by listening to straight-up japanoise and power electronics but in my experience it's better to ease into it with genres like noise rock, or ambient with noise elements (Ben Frost, Tim Hecker, Yellow Swans, Jefre Cantu-Ledesma, etc.)
I don't think it's a question worth pondering about. There are several genres that are on the fringes of what music is and not. Genres like free improvisation, musique concrete, ambient, noise etc. all question what can be music and what not.
They generally are considered as music but in much more extreme or abstract form.
>therefore random noise such as that which the definition you gave is referring to is not music
I see this "random noise" definition as problematic. It already contains the assumption that there's no interesting content to be found. But generally when people describe something as "random noise", they're not really paying attention or listening to it.
//merzbow meme! :-)
seriously thinking about it 2day
i told my roomie the truth about the music I like and he asked for some examples so i played ferraro first, then suicide, then spk, then stutclife juggend and he was making weird faces by then
"are you ready"- ... (he was silent by now)
so i started first with earth (earth 2) and he got all upset when he asked how long does it goes like that (30 mins) so haha he got upset really upset (he studies music theory) and started going "how the shit can you like stuff like that it's basically nothing!!! nothing is going on!!!!"
so i said
"listen there's not much to think about it, its a note sustained by a long time, you can turn the volume all up everything would be trembling and your brain would not be exhausted for a second"
and he shut his damn mouth up
now i just said that to shut his mouth up off c.
if i started rambling about art and other stuff he would probably start pooping my face (because I am NOBODY to be talking about music he can't comprehend cos he's studying music theory offc) because he's superior than me
op did this answer ur question?
>The definition of the word noise is "sound that lacks any musical quality", so why is it sometimes referred to as if it is?
because that's what makes the genre interesting - making music out of nonmusical sounds. although, to be honest, i don't think most noise music consists of nonmusical sounds.
>Genres like free improvisation, musique concrete, ambient, noise etc. all question what can be music and what not.
uhh, not necessarily, unless that's the artist's specific intent
by random noise what i meant was noise that wasn't recorded or arranged with the intention of creating music. some examples of this could be birds chirping, a phone ringing, an egg frying etc. however, if someone thought to themselves "hey im gonna make some music by recording the sound of an egg frying" that, would then be classified as music. it's the same thing as visual art, it's all in the intention.
>people who make arbitrary lines between what is and isn't music
>where everything that a person likes happens to be music
>and everything he dislikes isn't
>because dismissing something entirely is easier than thinking of valid criticism
Truly worse than hitler.
Not saying anything about OP though, he's a cool dude.
As for noise, I personally think it's music because it's made with the intent of being perceived as such.
Noise isn't inherently musical, since it shares practically nothing with other written or recorded music aside from just being sound, but creating it with the intent of hearing it musically does make it music.
Other genres like musique concrete and field recordings work the same way.
Whether or not the music is shit is another story entirely.
I guess a better word for what you mean would be something like "incidental sound"
>it's all in the intention.
Part of this is the listener's job too. You can listen to any sound as music, explicitly encouraged by people like John Cage and Pauline Oliveros. And that's an interesting experience, because if you you really pay attention, you find that no sound is really mundane.
>Other genres like musique concrete and field recordings work the same way.
uhh yeah but musique concrete is explicitly intended by the composers to be music, while field recordings generally aren't
you're right incidental sound is a much better way of wording that.
that's an interesting philosophy and i can totally agree that one can find beauty or musical qualities in all sounds just as one can find beauty in all sights, however i'm still going to have to argue that something can't be truly considered music unless it was intended to be so. otherwise literally any sound could be called music.
I don't know if I subscribe to Scruffy's ideology that the listener is the true artist. There's a point to raise about intention, however. No one can truly know the intention of the artist. Someone could lie about the sounds being intended as music when they really don't believe it. There's no way to know the sincerity of the artist. You ultimately have to determine what it is by yourself. The definition of music cannot take into account human intention.
There are a lot of field recordings made for informational purposes, but there are a good deal that are made to be enjoyed musically.
The first that come to mind are
>Alvin Lucier - I am Sitting in a Room
>Olhon - Sinkhole
>Colin Olan - rec01
>Jacob Kirkegaard - 4 Rooms
You could probably make a case for something like that owl record being music, but it would be way more of a stretch.
you know that's funny because now that i think about it, birds are chirping with the intention of making beautiful music to attract a mate. so that actually meets the requirements of being considered music. i guess that was a bad example of incidental sound.
The mistake is in believing that music has some inherent value that puts it above noise. Then people get all defensive, like it needs to be considered music in order to legitimize it rather than allowing it to be its own thing and find value in that.
>I don't know if I subscribe to Scruffy's ideology that the listener is the true artist.
It really happens inside your mind. If you hear something that's beyond your understanding, you aren't perceiving music, and it's like hearing a language that you don't speak.
That's not to say that I think the "music is subjective" angle is really worth a shit, since it generally implies that personal preference is all that matters (whether or not you like something is about the least interesting thing you can say about music) and that all opinions are equally valuable (they're not) and somehow irreconcilable (knowledge and experience make a great deal of difference).
But really, in the end it's exclusively an internal thing.
>There's no way to know the sincerity of the artist.
i.e. Metal Machine Music
not hating on the discussion...and actually glad there is a noise thread on /mu/ cause Im tired of seeing all the bullshit pitchfork indie shit on here...
Regardless, there are two types of ppl in here...those that like noise and those that dont
Debating on what is and what is not music will not go anywhere as its all a matter of opinion. Some ppl noise clicks with...others it will never click with...Some ppl may trully understand what us noise fans are saying, but still may not actually enjoy it and never will...
The only thing for certain is that the only ones who truly understand it and enjoy it are those that travel down that musical road (for worse or for better..especially for their ears). Noise does not just magically 'click' for someone some day...its an acquired taste that occurs over time. And for those of us who have made that journey until the unknown, theres no going back. Most are scared since literally...what comes after noise...there is nothing else left in 'music'...it is the end of the road
im not even a huge noise fan. i dont think that it's music because i want to legitimize it, i think it's music because it meets these requirements >>50812490
you're making assumptions
>it is the end of the road
thats funny i've never really thought about that before. anyways i pretty much agree with what you're saying but what i'm trying to do in this thread is show people how to determine what is and isnt music regardless of whether or not they like it. i should hope that people dont believe that something's musical integrity is based on whether or not they like it.
The question "Is noise music?" boils down to this:
"What is music?"
The definition is highly individual, without any fixed criteria save for "an art form whose medium is sound"
you could define it in a more traditional sense but music is evolving very quickly and people are pushing the boundaries further and further, and much like how duchamp's upside down urinal is still art, fringe music is still music
thats very true! I listen to stuff I dont particularly like quite a bit just because I want to hear something different...challenge myself with something new. Honestly, theres quite a good documentary called 'People Who Do Noise' if you havent seen it
(>>50812394 If you are interested, I would highly suggest you watch it too OP)...It basically discusses what does noise means from noise artists viewpoint...same as we are doing here. Moreover, theres quite a few notable artists in the documentary: Yellow Swans, Smegma, to name drop a few
here is the link:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGrN6PeIiOU
theres actually quite a few noise docs on youtube I have watched, but 'People Who Do Noise' was certainly the best...mostly because they had some reputable noise artists interviewed
>Is music just noise?
>Is music in the ears of the beholder?
>All music is frequencies, all noise is frequencies, what's the difference?
Had to write about this very thing for my uni coursework, read into Pierre Schaeffer, Pierre Henry, Musique concrète, and Elektronische Musik.
What I was getting at is you should pick one of those other definitions because those 2 you linked to are outright incorrect.
1. Music is understood as something distinct and more specific than sound so that's an inadequate attempt to define music. That's basically saying music is a physical property of the universe, which it's not.
2. Recording has no relevance whether or not something is music since music existed before recording, and the intention of another person can't be known so it's too unreliable to use for a definition.
what is and isn't music is interpretive.
by the basic definition of an "art form whose medium is sound" noise is music.
cool ill definitely give that a read. and while i agree with >>50812909
in the sense that we really have no way of knowing the artist's true intentions, i still believe that theoretically my system works. the problem with leaving the listener up to the task of determining what is and isnt music is that that implies that music is an ambiguous and unclassifiable thing because every single person is going to have a different idea of what music is. i believe that there is an overarching definition of music even if it can't necessarily be tested because like i stated above we have no way of knowing what the musician was really trying to do. people can decide for themselves what music is good and what music is bad, but there are criteria beyond the listener's interpretation that make music music. but i'm going to read that article and maybe it will change my mind who knows.
You're the most on the right track of anyone in this thread. It does essentially have to be understood as music in order to be music. The trouble is a word has no meaning unless many people can agree on one. We all kind of agree on some concept of what music is but don't know how to specify it. I can't, at least.
>Music is understood as something distinct and more specific than sound so that's an inadequate attempt to define music.
i agree. that's why there is a second criteria that must be true in order for it to be considered music.
>Recording has no relevance whether or not something is music since music existed before recording
i said it must be recorded OR ARRANGED with the intention of being music.
>the intention of another person can't be known so it's too unreliable to use for a definition.
i agree that it can't be known and therefore this system can't be used to test pre-existing music, but just because it cant be tested doesn't mean that the definition is wrong.