Noise and Academia

Talk about noise music. Reviews, rants, whatever.

Moderator: xome

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 2681
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Noise and Academia

Post by jliat » Mon Jun 25, 2018 7:59 am

melkobukva wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 2:46 pm
Why "noise academics" suck: an essay.
Why choose the form of an "academic" essay (argument using reason and facts) ?
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.
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.

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.
melkobukva wrote: The makers are judged by other makers and the consumers based on the quality of their work.
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: 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.
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.

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...
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.
Lets try to keep this in mind for what follows...
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
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: and ideas that bear potential significance for people outside the academic community.
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'.

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.
melkobukva wrote:
In reality, 99,9% of what academics do has no practical relevance at all,
And here you are right to a certain extent – though to give any credence to the 0.1% - 99.9%
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.... :chin: and then..... Boom!
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.
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:
"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.
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.
(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. ???
melkobukva wrote: Research is collective work,
Not all ways.
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.
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: 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.
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:
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.
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: 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 -
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:
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 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:
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 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: "Noise academics" take from "noise music" and from academia, but give back to neither. This is why they suck.
You are welcome to your opinion. That they do give back I guess you have to ignore.
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.
Academics are like anyone else,they have their dorks, selfish ambitions, some only in it for the sex or the easy life. And so.

The biggest threat to noise is the late comers who want to re-musicalize it.

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 2681
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Noise and Academia

Post by jliat » Mon Jun 25, 2018 8:09 am

"needless to say, we never heard about stockhausen or xenakis or cage at the time"

I've come across this 'argument' often. Some dude in the mid west claiming they did Jackson Pollock paintings whilst not knowing anything...
and of course its hard to prove that this is not true, but equally hard to believe that musical forms appear spontaneously.

One lives is a 'culture' where such things are subliminally around. And by 1994 such 'ideas' re sound would certainly be around.

But more importantly - for years people spilt paint, but JP got the credit, he didnt run away, but stood his ground- and called it ART.
There has been feedback and distortion, which was not wanted... untill heavy metal etc.

User avatar
melkobukva
Posts: 319
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2018 6:35 pm

Re: Noise and Academia

Post by melkobukva » Mon Jun 25, 2018 9:32 am

Wow, that's an impressively elaborate response. Thanks.
Will need some time to digest it all though.

User avatar
Fletcher
Posts: 220
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 2:43 pm
Location: Oxfordshire
Contact:

Re: Noise and Academia

Post by Fletcher » Tue Jun 26, 2018 12:32 am

I found "Fight your own war" to be an interesting read. It is a bit spread out between noise and power electronics but gives an interesting account from various people within the genres. The style and quality of writing does vary throughout due to the different contributors and in places it does read like a posh zine, but in terms of published academia on the genre (it is edited by an Oxford University professor) then I guess this counts as an important document.
www.snarerush.co.uk
An electronic music zine in occasional print format

User avatar
MKULTRA
Posts: 2777
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 6:04 am

Re: Noise and Academia

Post by MKULTRA » Tue Jun 26, 2018 4:41 am

.
Last edited by MKULTRA on Fri Aug 24, 2018 1:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 2681
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Noise and Academia

Post by jliat » Tue Jun 26, 2018 4:56 am

Sure - Greenberg was extremely important in theorizing about the wave of Abstract American painters post ww2. Its interesting to observe the earlier abstract works such as Malevich and Kandinsky (who Greenberg notoriously slagged off) didn't make such an immediate impact. Abstractionism being censored in the USSR. And of course the arrival in the US of artists from Europe...

Maybe one of the features of noise is that unlike PE it isnt automatically some emo outburst. Though i admit to know little about P.E.

killing raven sun
Posts: 831
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:01 pm

Re: Noise and Academia

Post by killing raven sun » Tue Jun 26, 2018 6:14 am

jliat wrote:
Mon Jun 25, 2018 8:09 am
but equally hard to believe that musical forms appear spontaneously.
because you expect all knowledge to spring forth from within when in reality it always exists regardless of your attention, all forms of anything already exist before recognition, the universe does not allow originality
jliat wrote:
Mon Jun 25, 2018 8:09 am
One lives is a 'culture' where such things are subliminally around
only a weak mind gives the power of perception to external objects, to be ruled by ones thoughts is to live in the smallest cage

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 2681
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Noise and Academia

Post by jliat » Tue Jun 26, 2018 6:46 am

killing raven sun wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 6:14 am
jliat wrote:
Mon Jun 25, 2018 8:09 am
but equally hard to believe that musical forms appear spontaneously.
because you expect all knowledge to spring forth from within
No if you read what I wrote I said that its hard to believe musical forms to appear spontaneously, - from within if you like - and I didn't mention knowledge yet alone all knowledge.
killing raven sun wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 6:14 am

when in reality it always exists regardless of your attention, all forms of anything already exist before recognition, the universe does not allow originality
Then my thought re music was already there in the universe...
killing raven sun wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 6:14 am
jliat wrote:
Mon Jun 25, 2018 8:09 am
One lives is a 'culture' where such things are subliminally around
only a weak mind gives the power of perception to external objects, to be ruled by ones thoughts is to live in the smallest cage
Whatever. My point was nothing to do with the priority of thinking, it was to do with how musical forms develop. Greenberg didnt dream up abstract expressionism, he gave attention to it. :doh:

killing raven sun
Posts: 831
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:01 pm

Re: Noise and Academia

Post by killing raven sun » Tue Jun 26, 2018 6:59 am

jliat wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 6:46 am
killing raven sun wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 6:14 am
jliat wrote:
Mon Jun 25, 2018 8:09 am
but equally hard to believe that musical forms appear spontaneously.
because you expect all knowledge to spring forth from within
No if you read what I wrote I said that its hard to believe musical forms to appear spontaneously, - from within if you like - and I didn't mention knowledge yet alone all knowledge.
all forms exist apart from your understanding, that they occur spontaneously or are derivitive is a thought that arises from perceiving a form as becoming when in reality all forms have always been
jliat wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 6:46 am
Whatever. My point was nothing to do with the priority of thinking, it was to do with how musical forms develop.
yeah, i know, and i am pointing out how you are once again wrong

that which already exists cannot develop

killing raven sun
Posts: 831
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:01 pm

Re: Noise and Academia

Post by killing raven sun » Tue Jun 26, 2018 7:32 am

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'.
1 racist- assuming brownskins have not contributed to the academic system

2- self importance based on identity, as if knowledge waited for plato to discover it, one of the biggest faults of the evolutionists is believing that mankind is at the pinnacle of understanding, what a larf

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 2681
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Noise and Academia

Post by jliat » Tue Jun 26, 2018 7:50 am

killing raven sun wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 7:32 am
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'.
1 racist- assuming brownskins have not contributed to the academic system
The origin of the term 'academia' ordinated with Plato's school called 'The Academy'.. of course numerous races have contributed, and i'm not even proposing academic like thinking originated there either. 'Schools' of learning existed before and after, with and without influence, Vedic, Chinese etc.
killing raven sun wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 7:32 am

2- self importance based on identity, as if knowledge waited for plato to discover it, one of the biggest faults of the evolutionists is believing that mankind is at the pinnacle of understanding, what a larf
Firstly you make the same mistake - of course knowledge existed before Plato, but not the academy. As for evolutionists believing such, i'm not aware. I think many think bacteria are making at better go at existence!

killing raven sun
Posts: 831
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:01 pm

Re: Noise and Academia

Post by killing raven sun » Tue Jun 26, 2018 7:55 am

melkobukva wrote:
The makers are judged by other makers and the consumers based on the quality of their work.
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 quality of "newness" cannot be discriminated against enough, there just is and we work with what we have

the musical term cover tune is a measure of quality or even newness, as it is a continuation of a vibration, a harmonic that may be reinforcing or detractive, and the newness factor can be a simple count of the number of individual versions, which includes every kid in their bedroom playing stairway to heaven, each version being similar but new as no two performances are the same, originality is in the act of creation

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 2681
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Noise and Academia

Post by jliat » Tue Jun 26, 2018 8:16 am

killing raven sun wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 7:55 am

the universe does not allow originality

originality is in the act of creation

I think you have a problem Houston.... :wave:

User avatar
pazuzu
Posts: 727
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 1:17 pm
Location: c3 to e4

Re: Noise and Academia

Post by pazuzu » Tue Jun 26, 2018 8:47 am

jliat wrote:
Mon Jun 25, 2018 7:59 am
melkobukva wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 2:46 pm
Why "noise academics" suck: an essay.
Why choose the form of an "academic" essay (argument using reason and facts) ?
"Academia" neither is the exclusive home of reasoning and facts, nor are they (as method and thesis) a hard prerequisite for someone working in academia. That it ought to be so is an idea, say ideal - which also is a fact - and academics are advised to commit themselves to it. More or less so in regards to different areas of interest.

But that's beside the point. I don't know where, under which circumstances or even if your cited 'essay' was published (did I overlook it on here?), but to count as an academic essay it should've been put forth within the respective circulation, i.e. a journal or at least referenced someplace like academia.edu or researchgate.com. Maybe that's beside the point, too. However, to refute your objection it should suffice to point out that even children write essays in school and are regarded to as such since it is the freest form of writing with - theoretically - very little rules. Quite unacademic. To spit out your thoughts for others the understand you have to give it some form. Call it a rant post on some message board or, to elevate it's value above that, call it an essay. Or how do you think he could've done so more appropriately?
(To say: Don't make it a subject of discussion at all is different page.)
jliat wrote:
Mon Jun 25, 2018 7:59 am
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.
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.
Wat.
jliat wrote:
Mon Jun 25, 2018 7:59 am
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.
I still don't get if your scenario is counterfactual (cf. the Wat above. You're contradicting yourself in the very next sentence), but it sounds like it's not. And if so: bullshit. You make it sound like the institutions dedicated to an object, subject or state of affairs constitute their very existence. That's nonsensical. There has to be a subject matter in order to for an academic discipline to make it it's subject matter, notwithstanding the refinement of the methods and instruments of a discipline disclosing new, formerly overlooked areas of investigation. The technical possibilities also play a role here. In your defence, I agree that there would be no such thing as history of science, literary studies, musicology, etc. that, in complicating and abstracting from the originally investigated subject matter, can have an retroactive effect on the subject matter as such. See dodecaphonic music for example. But to assume that without academic intervention there would be no use of techniques or development of techniques is a gross exaggeration, dogmatically onesided. We would still do things practise techniques and further develop techniques without science and most definitely without academia. Maybe you've got hung up in some chicken-egg strawman shit here.
jliat wrote:
Mon Jun 25, 2018 7:59 am
(that's a Platonic idea - "idea")
No it's not.
jliat wrote:
Mon Jun 25, 2018 7:59 am
melkobukva wrote: The makers are judged by other makers and the consumers based on the quality of their work.
Again - nonsense, firstly unsupported, do we judge your essay so? And 'quality' what does that mean? You once said - fuck quality, just use popularity.
I'm tempted to agree. "Quality of work" is not - or seldom - a ground for judgement about noise. But as you put it, the makers are being judged. So, in order to be regarded as hot shit in noise, you need to be hyped and persistent (Is Vomir still spitting out release after release?)
But who the fuck cares? Dragging such an expectation into noise in the first place equals carrying over a rotten seed. If you need approval, find a group of peers, get intoxicated and play sets for one another.
jliat wrote:
Mon Jun 25, 2018 7:59 am
But if its new there is no objective judgement from 'others'.
There never is. Or rather, there always is (sic!) - see how I go all academia about this shit?
Especially concerning social matters. For the sake of simplicity, the popular opinion constitutes the 'objective judgement' of a subject matter in its time and it stands true for its time, but falls short for another. The examples you've given yourself support that. But mind, the excerpt you're quoting regards the judgement of noisicians by noisicians and noiseheads, not vox populi. I'm sure Pollock was not ridiculed univocally.




Well, that was some mighty fine procrastination.
I didn't even read the rest. What's this about?
The biggest threat to noise is the late comers who want to re-musicalize it.
Let's keep it shitty <3

killing raven sun
Posts: 831
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:01 pm

Re: Noise and Academia

Post by killing raven sun » Tue Jun 26, 2018 9:03 am

jliat wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 8:16 am
killing raven sun wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 7:55 am

the universe does not allow originality

originality is in the act of creation

I think you have a problem Houston.... :wave:
as usual, it is you that has a problem, the new is the act of creation, it is a perception

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests