Why None of You Know What You’re Talking About

Many western classical theorists draw a definitive line between music and noise.  There has been continuous debate on the exact location to which that line belongs, and the argument was only further complicated with the arrival of 20^th century composers who deliberately blurred said line with the innovation of noise as music.  What’s unique and intriguing about noise as a genre of music is, of course, the blatant oxymoron.   This explains why noise has been a less popular brand of composition, not simply because its dissonance is unappealing, as much popular music involves dissonance (to the extent now causing the jarring C chord in Beethoven’s Eroica to seem laughably tame), but because it is an extremely intellectual style requiring the understanding of multiple, simultaneous representations that are occurring.  This includes the acknowledgement of what is noise and what is music, as well as the comprehension of placing the concept of one into the paradigm of another.  

                To simplify, the general, broad notion of what constitutes noise as distinct from music is the absence of distinct pitch and perceivable patterns.  Sources of such could be interference, such as the static on a radio, audible distortion (an alteration of an original sound), and/or frequencies emitted from electronic devices (the low hum of a running refrigerator).   One can take from these sources, however, and manipulate their qualities within a traditional structure for composition, thus creating music out of noise, which would technically no longer be noise now that you’ve removed its randomness/undesirability.  In the digital age, however, noise is dying.  Computers run quieter, modems aren’t crying through a dial-up, televisions buzz less.  This may be why noise continues to become more acceptable: because of the loss of the association with undesirability and obnoxiousness.  The sounds are just otherworldly now.

                So then what constitutes noise as a distinct genre?  It’s kind of like how Potter Stewart can’t define pornography, but he knows it when he sees it.  But if we were to set regulations on the genre, which should probably be done, we could fashion those after the laws of winemaking in regard to pure varietals.  To be considered a true Cabarnet Sauvingon, and thus earn your right to proclaim such on your bottle’s label, you need somewhere between 80-85% of the wine to be derived from actual cab grapes.  Within these boundaries, noise would then need to be comprised of at least 80% of sounds which can be emitted from electronic devices going wrong.  That’s a fair standard, I believe.

                And so let’s apply this to how popular forms of music are being said to now include “noise.”  A particular target I would like to shoot at is the latest M.I.A. record, which in reviews has been said to “draw from influences such as noise.”  I’ve also seen the new album listed as pop/electronic/dance/noise.  No.  No.  You can’t do that.  You can’t refer to something as noise because it gets noisy.  M.I.A. has no noise influences; dance music is just getting more distorted and over-compressed these days.  That’s all.  M.I.A. isn’t mixing beats with Merzbow.  At best, she’s a cheap blend, a table wine in a box.  Okay, just wanted to address that briefly.  But it seems noisiness is indeed infecting all new popular forms of music and so the overlap is further complicating how we discuss noise and music, which means we could be very close to entering the utopia that Cage once dreamed of where all things to all people are very much a song.  This would further diminish the commodity fetishism of recorded sound art, devaluing music as property, and the music industry will collapse in a chaotic apocalypse.  Then former RIAA agents will turn to crime in their desperation, and the streets won’t be safe, and everything will be so damn NOISY!  Luckily that will never happen.  As stated before, it’s a genre for intellectuals who have graduated to the formal operations stage of Piaget’s development theory, which requires at least a high school education.  America’s too stupid to ever fully embrace something that you can’t dance to.

Anti-Aesthetically Pleasing

I was at the Moma with P-Ballz once, when we stumbled upon a small, inflated tent made of clear plastic.  The exhibit noted that the artist was inspired by an encounter with a homeless man (obvious) and that the piece was a protest against homelessness (because it's some sort of movement?).  Disgruntled, P kicks at the tent, shouting, "More like a protest against aesthetics!"  And she was correct.  And though that tent was a product of amateurish dilettantism, many artists, from neo-dadaists to punk outsiders, are out there just to make a mess and rub it in your face.  And so on that topic, here's some random stuff that I love because it's so unlovable!

Cassis Cornuta, aka Daniel De Wereldvermaarde Botanicus, is a Dutch noisist (trying to make this a word, join in the cause) who has been creating damaged, fractured, and vandalized sound-art since the '70s.  His new LP, mag ik eens even in uw broek pissen, continues his tradition of broken-sounding anti-music, spliced and diced, which is surprisingly listenable but by no means a crowd-pleaser.  With fear that his record may be too listenable, Cassis drilled multiple spindle-holes in the center of the lp, enabling off-centered play on your turntable.  According to Cassis, the record is meant to be listened to from any and all of these "alternate centers."

The Argentinian experimental group, Reynols, has always been a favorite for fans of "other" music, especially for those who get preoccupied with the novelty of their drummer, Miguel Tomasín, who has down syndrome.  While much of their output is psychedelic rock, a great deal of their releases involved you in the experiment, such as their first album, dematerialized CD, which consisted, of course, of an empty CD case.  Then there was Blank Tapes, and yes, it's recordings of blank tapes playing, mixtures of soft, white noise.  My favorite was a 7 inch I picked up (can't remember where) of 10,000 Chickens Symphony, which is also self-explanatory, though surprisingly harsh and unrecognizably chickens (after 100 things start to distort, or so I'm told). 

Danish artist Asger Jorn in collaboration with the French artist and theorist Guy Debord put together the infamous book, Mémoires, a work of psychogeography detailed with graphics, collages, and theoretical text.  What's most referenced of this book is its cover, made of sandpaper, which will inevitably scratch the other books on the shelf, thus we have a product of pop culture designed to destroy it, or at least damage it.  This was reprinted in 2001 and may possibly be available without high collector prices.

I thought about listing some really harsh, shrill noise bands here as well, but a lot of them are being saved for another list.  Plus, I'm already bored with this.  So that's all.