Why choose the form of an "academic" essay (argument using reason and facts) ?
True. But where did this genre come from? You make the same massive mistake as XD. There are Symphony Halls and audiences... therefore Symphonies. Movie theatres, magazines and movie goers, therefore movies. Obviously wrong as you need books before you have libraries, and even readers.melkobukva wrote:
There are people who produce and publish records, or set up shows, or publish zines etc., i.e. do some work related to a music genre. There are also people who consume the results of said work by listening to records, attending shows, reading zines.
Now lets imagine no academia, then no history... the stories, musical forms, cultural dependences and influences, use of techniques, and the related technologies simply would not exist. Without the academia, which originated in Greece none of this would be. Moreover, most of these people now producing zines, holding certain 'ideas' (that's a Platonic idea - "idea") went to school. Were 'educated'. You are mounting an 'academic' argument against academia. You would do better' in terms of being less hypocritical following the critique of the Goths and Vandals. IMO.
Again - nonsense, firstly unsupported, do we judge your essay so? And 'quality' what does that mean? You once said - fuck quality, just use popularity. Secondly - again - how can others judge the quality of an original work. One would assume to judge the quality of a thing one needs to know about it and other things. But if its new there is no objective judgement from 'others'. The whole history of science and art is littered with examples. The public, others, often are unable to judge the arrival of a new concept or artwork. Like in the 50s the average kid was into Rock And Roll, Cage and Stockhausen etc al were doing stuff judged by the public as rubbish. Pollock was ridiculed, Van Gogh ignored... the list is long. The only "artforms" which uses your idea of judgement are things like X factor, and the Eurovision Song contest and political elections...melkobukva wrote: The makers are judged by other makers and the consumers based on the quality of their work.
But you edit out of your list the academics who also follow the genre, the music press which does, and the venues which include bars, and peoples houses, but also local galleries and student venues. From the get go Noise had academics interested in it.melkobukva wrote: Eventually this results in some kind of reputation-based order which includes "genre legends", and "nobodies", and "laughing stock", and all sorts of people in between. So, here's this community of people involved in things that are of very little interest and significance for people outside this community. For an average joe they are music nerds who are weird losers at best and dangerous psychos at worst.
To point out the groundless nature of your (and others) assertion that the noise nerd was prior to academic interest i'll need to give at least one TLDR quote, of many I could.. from Paul Hegarty...
Lets try to keep this in mind for what follows...My main academic interests are critical/cultural theory and music. I have written on these since 1998, centring on the idea of noise from 2001 onward. I now edit a music series on Bloomsbury.
I am involved in music, noise and sound art, under the names Safe, Trace, La Société des Amis du Crime, The Phil Collins Project. I also make installations and sound art under my own name. I work extensively in the French experimental music scene.
No real argument with this, if it includes evaluation and re evaluation, but you miss a very important other 'supposed'... they are also intuitions where others are "educated". (ooppps!)melkobukva wrote:
Then there's academia. The community of people who, at least in principle, are supposed to investigate some aspects of the world and come up with new knowledge
That is just plain WRONG. Maybe the average Joe thinks so. But sorry no. E.g. much of pure maths is done for no potential significance. Much of physics also. The study of some obscure religion which died out years ago, or the poems of some Victorian lady... the whole point of academia in its 'creativity' as opposed to education is a freedom from purpose. As a side new and useful stuff MIGHT appear, and does. But much of what academia does might never be of 'use'. But then we never know. And also some think life is more than 'use'.melkobukva wrote: and ideas that bear potential significance for people outside the academic community.
I mean do you think Einstein or Monet worked on the principle of "potential significance" or 'do some work related to a … genre' - hell no fucking way, there was no genre called impressionism - Monet painted the picture from whence the name came, and came as a pejorative term.
And here you are right to a certain extent – though to give any credence to the 0.1% - 99.9%melkobukva wrote:
In reality, 99,9% of what academics do has no practical relevance at all,
figure you would need to do some academic research...
But as for no 'practical' relevance E=MC^2 is a good example..... for a few years nothing practical.... and then..... Boom!
Well I've shown that this isn't true. You and others might want it to be true. Like research in the USSR was. (you are from the ex USSR yes?) But an enlightened society sees knowledge - of whatever-a good in its own right. That the products of such freedom might give more to society than useful directed study is probably true. Again I think there us evidence that a good degree in any subject is not only useful but has other benefits. Famously the art schools in the UK.melkobukva wrote: but the remaining 0,1% accounts for all the computers, internets, weapons of mass destruction, and other nice things we have. This is why academics are considered smart and important folks who know better than average joe, at least when it comes to their respective fields.
There are also people with opinions about "noise music" who want to share them. Some of those people also happen to belong to academic institutions. And some of those choose to present their opinions on "noise music" as academic work. The latter is a bad thing to do.
First, this is a bad thing to do as an academic. Researchers recieve their benefits - both in terms of money and social standing - because they are supposed to do something that potentially profits society as a whole.
Again unsupported claims. The significance or not of noise music can only be established via some kind of study. And no one knows, Jazz was in its origin of NO significance to academic music.. There was very very very little interest in Nietzsche when he was writing... and I would think it should be of significance to Academics working in Music History and Theory. Now you might want to argue that all study of the arts is insignificant, and for that matter all sciences which have no potential useful outcome. And if that was the case then the Genre of noise simply would not occur.melkobukva wrote:
"Noise music" is a subject of very little interest and significance for people outside the noise audience. Most importantly, it's of very little interest and significance for other academics.
(you cant do this – but study societies other than those with these structures and their art forms remain static for millennia.) And any such 'pragmatics' would be ideal for those wishing to maintain the status quo. _ You and White Warlock. ???
Not all ways.melkobukva wrote: Research is collective work,
Who said 'scientific' – and just what is that. The phenomenon of Art is way big, but the only scientific studies I've seen are useless...melkobukva wrote: it's not enough to simply publish stuff, your peers have to actually read it, find value, incorporate your ideas in their work. This is why metrics such as h-index index and impact factor exist (they don't work, but that's another story). "Noise music" is simply too small to merit separate scientific investigation.
The only academics I know who have done so have worked in departments of Music. I'm not sure about Hegarty, and I've numerous criticisms of his book. But I'm sure his work gives a far more accurate picture than white warlock's. As for contributing nothing, the interest has meant that such things as reconstructions of the Intonarumori and their performance.. detailed analysis of noise using super-collider..melkobukva wrote: People who publish essays about nasty-sounding music nobody listens to as "research papers" reap all the benefits of academia but contribute nothing. This is parasitic behaviour.
How do you know? And as i've said many people do care... I think you've a very narrow and self-opinionated view of noise, something many who have come late to the genre have. By chance I was talking to a guy who was an accountant, suit wearing, Mercedes driving kind, and when I mentioned noise, he said 'great', and that he had the Merzbow Box.melkobukva wrote:
Second, this is a bad thing to do as a noise listener. Noise listeners are the only real audience for opinions about "noise music". Nobody else cares.
Firstly i've given now three examples which show this is not the case. Noise has a much wider interest. But more importantly – the second wave 'noise musicians' in fact it seems want to re-introduce such things as “value” “judgement” and “skill”, the very things those who originated wanted to rid their work of. In short they (yourself and white warlock notably) seem to want to re-musicalize noise.melkobukva wrote: It is very easy to reach this audience. One could post on a forum, or a blog, or make a zine, or a podcast. Then you'll be judged based on the quality of your work and eventually take your place in the reputation-based order -
You mean those who want noise to be skill full music? They do publish, but also do read forums – or did until the reactionaries took it over. Or it folded. But they also formed noise 'bands' of their own and performed.melkobukva wrote:
first as a "nobody", then as a "laughing stock", or a "genre legend", or, more likely, something in between. But "noise academics" eschew this path. Instead, they publish in academic journals not intended for music nerds and often inaccessible, and shield themselves from the criticism of noise joes
You simply miss the point. If Accdemics teaching and reserching music did not consider noise, its origins and consequences they would be doing themselves and their institutions a disservice. Again , in the UK music schools were once very 'conservative', so the likes of Brian Eno, Gavin Bryars et al found themselves working within schools of fine art. And from there the work of Cage, Riley, Reich were brought to the notice of students...melkobukva wrote:
with authority borrowed from academia. Researchers are important folks who know better than average joe, at least when it comes to their respective fields, and all that. If the field is noise music, the "noise academic" is supposedly already an expert and does not have to earn credibility from the noise people like everyone else dealing with the genre. This is douchebag behavior.
You are welcome to your opinion. That they do give back I guess you have to ignore.melkobukva wrote: "Noise academics" take from "noise music" and from academia, but give back to neither. This is why they suck.
Academics are like anyone else,they have their dorks, selfish ambitions, some only in it for the sex or the easy life. And so.melkobukva wrote: I conclude this essay with a personal anecdote or, as some academics like to call it nowadays, autoethnographic research. Me and my music pals have met such people many times. Most of them were dorks with self-esteem issues who were unable to do music and unable to do proper research, but craved validation, so they tried to turn their hobby into their research field and kill two birds with one stone. Needless to say, they always ended up in the "laughing stock" category. On the other hand, there were also "genre philosophers" who published in zines, and they were well respected and sometimes rather influential, at least in regard to the local scene.
The biggest threat to noise is the late comers who want to re-musicalize it.