I understand what you're saying Black Gravel, that noise, when used without a purpose in music, is both empty and annoying. However, I don't exactly see the point of that statement, as it is often empty and annoying if an artist does something just for the sake of doing it.

I would like to know though, what exactly is a band like Nurse With Wound? If they aren't music, then what are they? Sound? Are you implying that avant-garde isn't music?

As for the album, I think it's pretty good. There are quite a few really great songs on here. In fact the only ones I don't really like are Here Should Be My Home, Cappo, and Brain Burner. I suppose because those are the more straightforward pop-punk songs on the album.

They're artists whose medium is sound. Yeah, sound. They don't create their compositions from musical elements, they create them from sounds. If there are voices, they're speaking, muttering or screaming rather than singing.

But Throbbing Gristle for example also makes music. It might be gross, but it's music.

What about when Nurse With Wound collaborates with Prefuse or Faust?

What I think you fail to comprehend is that I will never see through your eyes. The reason why industrial, noise, avant-garde, and experimental musicians make the music they do is, henerally, because they want to hear something that they feel has yet to come around. They say "Hey, I've never had the complete shit scared out of me as a result of music" and then they do it (re: Homotopy). They say "I want to create a piece of music that, however pretentious this sounds, reminds people that everything is music" and then 4'33 was created.

Music is not concrete.

And if sounds aren't musical elements, then what exatly are? What is necessary for something to be labeled "musical". Because raindrops will fall to a beat, the wind will bang a trashcan into a wall in rhythm. Songs are things that will occur in nature and in forced trials.

Then what are musical elements? And why does it matter if you speak mutter or scream? Many bands throughout the years have done spoken word songs, and even more have screamed through entire songs.

I understand that you aren't necessarily dissing "sound" by saying it's not music, but I don't see how it isn't. I understand that you don't think that the stuff you call "sound" doesn't constitute music, but what does?

I haven't listened to NWW's collaborations with P73 or anyone else. I don't like Prefuse, I'm really not crazy about the man or his music. But I'm not at in the least incredulous about the idea that Nurse With Wound can, and probably has, made music. Maybe if they set out to make a rock record, they'd be the fucking BEATLES. That whole argument is utterly immaterial. I'm saying that a lot of what they do make is not music. I say that because not everything is music. For God's sake. Not everything one can hear with their ears is "music."

You can't feed a baby into a VCR, record it (pun) and call it music. Music is a certain kind of art. "Noise composition" is another kind of art.

If a raindrop falls to a regular beat, that could be music. If you record raindrops arbitrarily falling and dissolving the corpse of a goat, that's not music. But it could be as interesting as the Raindrops Falling (Gasmask Remix) or whatever the fuck song. (Purple Plastic Pussy Remix) Don't get me started on the remix. Do not get me started.

Are some of you not following, or are you just going to disagree with absolutely anything I say? I refuse to acknowledge the existence of a person outrageous enough to disagree with what I'm saying. There's nothing controversial in it, and NO SLIGHT TO NOISE ARTISTS.

I don't mind if you're not quite ready to relinquish your quest to prove to me that I'm not as smart or handsome as I think I am. But find another way; stop nickel and diming me on matters that you'd probably agree with me on if you read more and typed less.

The problem is you don't understand avant-garde music. You obviously know your shit, I don't question that, but I don't feel that you understand that the goal these artists generally set-out with is to question the individual's perception of sound, noise, and music. This is an area where there is no right and wrong, it just isn't that concrete. You hear grating garbage grinding up baby penises, while someone else might hear a song about the suffering of a nation. I like to think that everything I listen to I hear differently than others.

Regarding No Age: Weirdo Rippers was decent, but it didn't feel grounded enough (it was a compilation anyways..). Nouns sounds like a much more structured, pop-focused album that will hold up a lot better. I actually put both of the albums on a CD and listen to them back-to-back in my car; it's interesting to hear the way their sound has progressed (mostly for the better).

I don't understand avant-garde music? I don't? I like the way you followed with a mumbled compliment, but you could have spared yourself and just not said the first thing at all.

The avant-garde is meant to challenge conventional perception? No way! It questions the notion of an objective RIGHT AND WRONG?? REALLY? Does it also attempt to re-contextualize and break down accepted notions about art and music? Dude, really...stop, because seriously you are blowing my mind. Am I back in the last two days of high school music appreciation listening to the teacher read a blurb describing avant-garde musicians? Honestly you dare to say I don't "understand" the avant-garde and then puke up that played-out tripe? I'm not gonna further lash out, but please. Really. If you want to come at me, bide your time and find a real angle. For all our sakes.


Also I'm not even close to retracting my only argument - that "noise" and "music" are different things, and that some recordings are made up entirely of one or the other. The Wrens have a track called "Fuzz" on their first album. It's noise, not music. It's art, but it's not music (although it has a very vague melody that could almost qualify it as half-music, but I'm using an example from my favorite band as a last ditch attempt to help you understand my point).

Beyond that, I've finished the paper on Virginia Woolf that kept me at this filthy computer for so long. So let's let it somewhat rest, huh.

I think I'm way too in the box because I tend to feel that music is a part of art.

You have so much confidence and you throw so much venom, but you really don't back your opinions up with anything convincing. Go enjoy your relevant noise art while I enjoy my irrelevant noise music.

seriously, black gravel, you really should stop. nobody would have ganged up on you if you hadn't consistently come off like you knew everything about music, when to be honest, i think it just comes down to personal taste.

you said: "I refuse to acknowledge the existence of a person outrageous enough to disagree with what I'm saying." i mean, really? really?! that's completely unnecessary and makes you sound like some f'ing rightwing conservative nutjob.

Noise just for the sake of noise is not, in and of itself, music. At least not by the definition implicitly understood by those in these forums, generally. Everybody understands this. But for you to attempt to reduce my side of this discussion to simply "refusing to believe" that, like I'm questioning gravity or something, may just be below you. The Great You should not be so meretricious. If you would pause for a minute yourself, you'd realize that the argument here is about the significance of context in these matters. You would be foolish to try to continue to insist that you have the market cornered on "a sensible interpretation of all noise, ever". There as more ways to repackage and attempt to sell noise as music as there are atoms in the universe, and even Great You can't be expected to have put them all in their proper place.

The Great Me, huh. Whatever.


And then DCFan not only signs on with those who think I'm being cavalier, but I'm a warmonger and a racist now as well. Ha.

In terms of staying on topic and avoiding the personal, these guys clearly have the high ground.

I'm reading this thread and it's almost frustrating. it's like you people are having two different discussions. your points of view aren't even that far and you are talking purely semantics but you are caught too deep in a sort of trance to realise it.

come on! this is the oldest debate in history! it's another version of the "what qualifies as art" debate. the "if I draw a line and put it in a museum would it make it art?"/"if I write some random words and call it a poem does it makes it one?" debate. you have a better chance convincing each other that indie is a ganre/ a type of lable...

but thats the beauty of this things. that there is no definite right and wrong here.
isn't that what avant-garde artists were aiming at? isn't the whole point experimenting with notions and challenging the boundaries of the definition of "music"? there would't be anything to challenge if the boundaries were clear and I think that most avant-garde artist would agree with that. so stop being so fanatic and defensive and enjoy this gray area. this is the beauty of it! this is the open mindedness! this is a really interesting philosophical debate and I think you would have much more fun looking at it that way than being busy furiously deffending something that isn't being attacked.
as for myself, i'm not decided. I like Noise Rock, really love some of it, absolutely adore Animal Collective and curious about pure Noise. Sometimes I listen to the odd album but I guess i'm too ADHD for that... ( BTW regarding what jGlass said: this music may require intelligence and imagination and open mindedness but there's also a little think called personal taste and I don't think someone is a superior being just for liking more "difficult" music (or art for that matter)). anyway, it may not be my thing but I respect it as art and have no problem calling it music if thats what the artist would choose to call it. but if we are opening this subject for discussion, we have to acknowledge that there's a much more complicated answer to that.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: CandyFlossGirl,

And and interesting thing that I've noticed:

quote:

And if sounds aren't musical elements, then what exatly are? What is necessary for something to be labeled "musical". Because raindrops will fall to a beat, the wind will bang a trashcan into a wall in rhythm. Songs are things that will occur in nature and in forced trials.

In the very attempt to prove sounds to be by themselves musical elements, you strengthen the opposite. notice that in the two examples you brought, you felt the need to add another "minor" element: beat and rhythm.

Aren't those concepts negligible in the world of noise and avant-gard music?

I'm going to preface this little rant by stating that i can't stop listening to this album. With that said, i think it may be just a tad over-rated.

Okay, put the gun away and listen. The reason i say this is because i guess their "scene" (The Smell and hip little LA clubs alike) is what i would consider "my" scene (not that i "own" or have the scene, but it would be the scene to which i would most be associated both geographically and music-wise). The LA scene is incredibly pretentious and that detracts from the music for me. As simply a musical document, the album is absolutely amazing, but i believe that too many scene-references are mentioned when people label these guys the best new thing.

Los Angeles has had a terrible scene for some time, and just more recently got a "noise" scene with the likes of Health, No Age (and their last band Wives, which everyone needs to check out this very second), Mika Miko, BARR, etc. etc. etc. These are all pretty damn good bands, and No Age sits atop the heap, but i kind of hate how (p4k especially) glorify the scene which No Age is coming from. Yeah, LA is a dirty cess-pool, does taht affect the music incredibly in my opinion? No, not really.

Perhaps I'm just an elitist and don't like local bands hogging all the attention. But i have a feeling people have large misconceptions about this band given the inflated importance of the "LA art-scene," which is really not much more than pretentious Tony & Guy hair-stylists who say things that are just simply astounding in how ridiculous it is; things like, "Have you heard the new No Age? It transports me to a time in which I cannot remember or do not know, but somehow feels tangible and relevant and now." Okay, i didn't spend any time thinking that up, but you get the idea.

P.S. Mission Of Burma and Husker Du did this kind of thing more than 20 years ago.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: CleverName84,

quote:

Originally posted by BlackGravel:
The Great Me, huh. Whatever.


And then DCFan not only signs on with those who think I'm being cavalier, but I'm a warmonger and a racist now as well. Ha.

In terms of staying on topic and avoiding the personal, these guys clearly have the high ground.

listen dude, if you honestly thought i was calling you a racist, then that's crazy. i'm just saying that your unwillingness to concede anything to anybody is a bit extreme. so seriously, calm down.

and it wouldn't have gotten personal (at all) if you hadn't made comments like "I refuse to acknowledge the existence of a person outrageous enough to disagree with what I'm saying." i mean, if that's really how you feel, maybe this DISCUSSION forum isn't for you.

I didn't even notice there exists another large argument involving BlackGravel. I would join in, but i kind of tend to agree with him... just a smidge.

Found-Sound or Music (musique?) Concrete or Field Recordings or whatever don't really constitute music in and of itself to me. HOWEVER, when such things are utilized in the context of something that is obviously music (Godspeed, No Age sampling themselves, Tape Manipulation ala Mission of Burma, Coil, Herbert) or when someone mixes all of these elements to create something musical (DJ Shadow's Endtroducing...), I feel as though that IS indeed music.

And believe me, i don't think it takes as much talent as picking up a guitar and writing an amazing song, but i think it does take the basic elements of song-construction in order to incorporate snippets of sound into something resembling a song.

This really seems like a kind of ludicrous debate because there are people who believe everything is music. Me typing this right now creates a kind of rhythmic tapping of the keys that someone could call "music". So who cares? Everyone is right and everyone is wrong. Enough said.

quote:

Originally posted by CleverName84:
This really seems like a kind of ludicrous debate because there are people who believe everything is music. Me typing this right now creates a kind of rhythmic tapping of the keys that someone could call "music". So who cares? Everyone is right and everyone is wrong. Enough said.

actually, in the movie Atonement from last year, they used a typewriter to make the movie's theme

GOD did Atonement suck. It was like bargain basement masterpiece theater. Seeing the first five minutes, one knows EXACTLY what to expect from the rest of the movie. I lose another measure of faith reading the glowing reviews for that shit.

I understand there was a twist at the end, which might have been cool, but I didn't stick around for it. Maybe it would have changed my mind somewhat. Don't particularly care.


Another astoundingly awful movie, one I for whatever reason had to watch twice in order to evaluate properly: V for Vendetta.

Truly incredible in its terribleness.

quote:

Originally posted by CleverName84:
Found-Sound or Music (musique?) Concrete or Field Recordings or whatever don't really constitute music in and of itself to me.

I definitely consider musique concrete to be music. It's sound that has been arranged and organized by a composer.

But hell, music doesn't even have to have a composer to be music, it just needs a listener. As others have alluded to, music is all about perception.

Anyways. This has been one long drawn out argument over semantics, as someone said earlier. Silliness.

Yeah, i didn't know that musique concrete required an actual "composer," I kind of just figured it was a bunch of field-recordings put into loops that resemble songs.

I do consider Matthew Herbert's work "music" as i stated, so perhaps i just need to brush up on my hipster vernacular (i'm getting rusty).