Noise and Academia

Talk about noise music. Reviews, rants, whatever.

Moderator: xome

User avatar
WhiteWarlock
Posts: 733
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:58 am

Re: Noise and Academia

Post by WhiteWarlock » Wed Jun 27, 2018 2:26 am

too much coffee & code tonight
plus posting on some various forums
Sunrise
good thing eye am not a Hammer Film Vampyre
"She" is going to be mad
better get in bed
cheers m8!
Last edited by WhiteWarlock on Wed Jun 27, 2018 2:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 2003
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Noise and Academia

Post by jliat » Wed Jun 27, 2018 2:27 am

WhiteWarlock wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 2:00 am
How about we become productive and converse about the "techniques" of Schaeffer Stockhausen and/or Boulez?
Boulez is an interesting point, Attali sees his ideas as leading to the impossibility of what he, Attali, calls composition, by which he means the making of noise without valuing skill or sales... "A music produced by each individual .. outside of meaning, usage or exchange". This is not that far away from certain attitudes to noise. Looks at thread name and forum name.

There are those who see noise as just a minor sub-genre of P.E. and others who see it as a break with all 'conventional music' what Attali calls "Repeating"... is conventional social control, "Without the loudspeaker, we would never have conquered Germany" - Adolf Hitler.

You need lots of skill to play Boulez- none to make noise. Noise should IMO be unconcerned with others techniques...

User avatar
WhiteWarlock
Posts: 733
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:58 am

Re: Noise and Academia

Post by WhiteWarlock » Wed Jun 27, 2018 2:42 am


hey at least it's not Morty Feldman
ugh
used to get that crammed in my psyche by old mentor
plus Scriabin Schoenberg & Nancarrow

killing raven sun
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:01 pm

Re: Noise and Academia

Post by killing raven sun » Wed Jun 27, 2018 5:53 am

jliat wrote:
Mon Jun 25, 2018 8:09 am
I've come across this 'argument' often. Some dude in the mid west claiming they did Jackson Pollock paintings whilst not knowing anything...

User avatar
WhiteWarlock
Posts: 733
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:58 am

Re: Noise and Academia

Post by WhiteWarlock » Wed Jun 27, 2018 8:05 am

Image
jliat wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 25, 2018 11:09 am
I've come across this 'argument' often. Some dude in the mid west claiming they did Jackson Pollock paintings whilst not knowing anything...
well they didn't have to marry Lee Krasner 1942
for getting "fast tracked" in NYC art scene (pre splatter)
from her "Kabal" contacts
that's how Jackson Pollack got the big "Time/Life" spreads
no wonder he needed beer goggles 24/7
high price paying for getting "hooked up in scene"
Image
Image
Image
she was in the car^ so Pollack did end up "banging" Ruth Kligman "in the barn" before his fatal drunken crash...
https://www.elle.com/culture/art-design ... er-canvas/
Lee Krasner was pissed
yet Krasner ended up with his entire estate as "curator"
making fabulous fortune off selling her tortured dead "artiste"

killing raven sun
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:01 pm

Re: Noise and Academia

Post by killing raven sun » Wed Jun 27, 2018 1:42 pm

WhiteWarlock wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 12:21 am
Image


full length version:

User avatar
WhiteWarlock
Posts: 733
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:58 am

Re: Noise and Academia

Post by WhiteWarlock » Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:09 pm

Image
Pollack morphed into the real life prototype for "George Costanza"
before taking that turn way too fast
yet probably he been drinking since breakfast
since that had become his usual
oh so fucking glamorous...
suspect he was trapped in living hell being married with Lee Krasner
pass...................................................................................
Jackson Pollack is not someone that you should "emulate" or "envy"
create your own style
Image
Image
Jackson Pollack was what would be correctly termed in "Yiddish" a "Schmuck"
The picture of him and Ruthie on his lap was taken earlier the day he smashed them all up on that curve in the car
ironic his grave sort looks like that rock he's sitting on in picture
coincidence or Krasner's joke?
Don't be a Pollack!
Image

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

Re: Noise and Academia

Post by pazuzu » Sat Jun 30, 2018 4:50 am

jliat wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:07 am
“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, “

Well I hope you've got a mass of popular opinion supporting this claim. But no, its not true. If it was then the popular opinion in the USA is that global warming isnt happening, and will remain true for its time.. as well as the existence of a god who created the world on a thursday some 4,000 years ago..

And the genre of noise is and was never popular. And i've offered those who claim to judge a pepsi challenge to spot the differences in HNW, and HN. No takers.
First: Realism, more precisely: Naïve Realism
Generic Realism:
a, b, and c and so on exist, and the fact that they exist and have properties such as F-ness, G-ness, and H-ness is (apart from mundane empirical dependencies of the sort sometimes encountered in everyday life) independent of anyone's beliefs, linguistic practices, conceptual schemes, and so on.
Second: This view draws on the distinction between doxa and episteme, whereas episteme is regarded as a truth that exceeds the mere, faulty beliefs held by those proposing it; it's meant to constitute what now, finally and truly, once and for all really is the case.
What must be called into question now is the status and scope of the claim of it's superior reality or reality as a (tacitly executed) claim altogether. I do agree with you insofar as we generally do ascribe existence to even most profane things unproblematically, that is, most of the times and precisely then, when we don't call the 'reality' of something into question (scepticism). In order to clarify to ourselves what it means that we naturally assume something as unproblematically existing, we have to suspend the belief that constitutes (a thesis) it's notion as real and as existing, respectively.

In doing so we may "radically leave the natural attitude altogether, put the objects we were concerned with there [that is the 'natural attitude' providing us with unproblematic 'existence-claims'] in brackets and instead reflect on our own consciousness and its structures" (REP). And in doing so we can investigate what is 'responsible' for this 'general positing' of unproblematically substrued reality of perceived things or, put differently, how it happens the way it's always, already happening. "This method has us focus on the essential structures that allow the objects naively taken for granted in the “natural attitude” (which is characteristic of both our everyday life and ordinary science) to “constitute themselves” in consciousness" (SEP).

In doing so (it's only the start of the investigation), we can dismiss the position of naive realism and the (rather dogmatic presupposition of an) independent existence of a truth of e.g. certain facts from ourselves. This entails a change in the notion of objectivity as such.
If it was then the popular opinion in the USA is that global warming isnt happening, and will remain true for its time.. as well as the existence of a god who created the world on a thursday some 4,000 years ago..
This of course is not false entirely, though, consider there being no studies indicating the existence of global warming as an issue, as a fact. There would be no objective (intersubjectively constituted) concern about the matter, notwithstanding the possibility of the constitution of that fact given the proper methods and instruments. And the idea of a God (in different manifestations) indeed did constitute the perception of reality of quite some peoples over a fair share of centuries -- and that was only able to change due to the introduction of a new ground upon which claims, formerly attributed to the caprice of a non-mundane entity, has become possible. Science has now, so to say, taken that role of a meaning-giving substruction similar to that of a largely overcome theistic one. The point is, that the scientific ascertaining of positings (such as: global warming is a thing) is also a process developing within the framework sketched above (the insufficiency of a subject-irrelative notion of truth). Such positings are, moreover, ascertained with a certain method, that is, the hypothetico-inductive method. The positing of global warming for example therefore cannot claim validity beyond a the validity of a heuristic thesis. It holds true (we assume), until proven otherwise, always leaving open the possibility of such a refutation.
That is not to say, that we do not have good reasons to believe that. Quite the opposite, I share that belief. I also think that conspiracy theorists overemphasize the point of the logical inexcludability of the possibility of the opposite. But that standpoint also gets it relativization under said 'framework', for their antithesis also becomes the prey of the same inquiry.
In nuce: understand objectivity (say, the notion of it) as something you have to constitute first and then as intersubjectivity; the rest is naive realism relying on a dogmatic foundation whilst we have the 'instruments' to investigate that what is taken for granted.


jliat wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:07 am
Who the fuck cares, well me.
O boy.


jliat wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:07 am
And the genre of noise is and was never popular. And i've offered those who claim to judge a pepsi challenge to spot the differences in HNW, and HN. No takers.
I had quite the different impression standing in a sold out concert hall in NYC one night where the release party for some Prurient album was.. celebrated. Seemed pretty pop to me.

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 2003
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Noise and Academia

Post by jliat » Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:12 am

pazuzu wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 4:50 am


First: Realism, more precisely: Naïve Realism
Generic Realism:
a, b, and c and so on exist, and the fact that they exist and have properties such as F-ness, G-ness, and H-ness is (apart from mundane empirical dependencies of the sort sometimes encountered in everyday life) independent of anyone's beliefs, linguistic practices, conceptual schemes, and so on.
Sorry I cant handle replies which just link to documents which may or may not be relevent,
I think its the onus on the poster to argue why. Because www.wiki.com must have something there to support any claim.. or if one goes up market https://plato.stanford.edu/

I mean do you think noise has independent properties or not? My view is in a way no. I'm thinking of Heidegger's thing re Newton's laws of gravity, before Newton they were neither true nor false.. but that is not to say there are not entities before these laws... properties...
pazuzu wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 4:50 am
Second: This view draws on the distinction between doxa and episteme, whereas episteme is regarded as a truth that exceeds the mere, faulty beliefs held by those proposing it; it's meant to constitute what now, finally and truly, once and for all really is the case.
What must be called into question now is the status and scope of the claim of it's superior reality or reality as a (tacitly executed) claim altogether. I do agree with you insofar as we generally do ascribe existence to even most profane things unproblematically, that is, most of the times and precisely then, when we don't call the 'reality' of something into question (scepticism). In order to clarify to ourselves what it means that we naturally assume something as unproblematically existing, we have to suspend the belief that constitutes (a thesis) it's notion as real and as existing, respectively.
I think the idea of some non tautological (and even tautological) truth “which constitute what now, finally and truly, once and for all really is the case.” is empty. It's status can only ever be 'provisional'.
pazuzu wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 4:50 am
In doing so we may "radically leave the natural attitude altogether, put the objects we were concerned with there [that is the 'natural attitude' providing us with unproblematic 'existence-claims'] in brackets and instead reflect on our own consciousness and its structures" (REP). And in doing so we can investigate what is 'responsible' for this 'general positing' of unproblematically substrued reality of perceived things or, put differently, how it happens the way it's always, already happening. "This method has us focus on the essential structures that allow the objects naively taken for granted in the “natural attitude” (which is characteristic of both our everyday life and ordinary science) to “constitute themselves” in consciousness" (SEP).

In doing so (it's only the start of the investigation), we can dismiss the position of naive realism and the (rather dogmatic presupposition of an) independent existence of a truth of e.g. certain facts from ourselves. This entails a change in the notion of objectivity as such.
Sure. Though has anyone made 'the position of naïve realism' other than to set it up as a Strawman? Moreover how many on a day to day basis actually act and behave as if 'naïve realism' is not the case. i.e. Sold objects are solid, laying a carpet or football pitch we use Euclidian geometry...
pazuzu wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 4:50 am
If it was then the popular opinion in the USA is that global warming isnt happening, and will remain true for its time.. as well as the existence of a god who created the world on a thursday some 4,000 years ago..
This of course is not false entirely, though, consider there being no studies indicating the existence of global warming as an issue, as a fact. There would be no objective (intersubjectively constituted) concern about the matter, notwithstanding the possibility of the constitution of that fact given the proper methods and instruments. And the idea of a God (in different manifestations) indeed did constitute the perception of reality of quite some peoples over a fair share of centuries -- and that was only able to change due to the introduction of a new ground upon which claims, formerly attributed to the caprice of a non-mundane entity, has become possible. Science has now, so to say, taken that role of a meaning-giving substruction similar to that of a largely overcome theistic one.
Do you think so? Do you think the majority of the population of the USA or earth are atheists?
From two sources I get around 16%.
pazuzu wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 4:50 am
The point is, that the scientific ascertaining of positings (such as: global warming is a thing) is also a process developing within the framework sketched above (the insufficiency of a subject-irrelative notion of truth). Such positings are, moreover, ascertained with a certain method, that is, the hypothetico-inductive method. The positing of global warming for example therefore cannot claim validity beyond a the validity of a heuristic thesis. It holds true (we assume), until proven otherwise, always leaving open the possibility of such a refutation.
Does that really work? Are there are other alternative respectable theories? So rather than 'holds true' it would be better to say 'fits the evidence better', if that is the case.
pazuzu wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 4:50 am
That is not to say, that we do not have good reasons to believe that. Quite the opposite, I share that belief. I also think that conspiracy theorists overemphasize the point of the logical inexcludability of the possibility of the opposite. But that standpoint also gets it relativization under said 'framework', for their antithesis also becomes the prey of the same inquiry.
In nuce: understand objectivity (say, the notion of it) as something you have to constitute first and then as intersubjectivity; the rest is naive realism relying on a dogmatic foundation whilst we have the 'instruments' to investigate that what is taken for granted.
But this relies on a huge 'taken for granted' that anything/somethings is or should be amenable to objectivity and intersubjectively...
or that "time" is best understood reading Einstein than reading Proust...
pazuzu wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 4:50 am
jliat wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:07 am
Who the fuck cares, well me.
O boy.


jliat wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:07 am
And the genre of noise is and was never popular. And i've offered those who claim to judge a pepsi challenge to spot the differences in HNW, and HN. No takers.
I had quite the different impression standing in a sold out concert hall in NYC one night where the release party for some Prurient album was.. celebrated. Seemed pretty pop to me.
Well for a mayfly its always summer...

User avatar
DonaldKrump
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 8:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Noise and Academia

Post by DonaldKrump » Sun Jul 01, 2018 10:05 am

between videos and Pollack and side comments, this thread is roller coaster and my heads still spinning. Can't keep up with your dialogue, haha. So many subtopics...

User avatar
WhiteWarlock
Posts: 733
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:58 am

Re: Noise and Academia

Post by WhiteWarlock » Sun Jul 01, 2018 10:18 am

Image
We haven't even gotten started yet
about the "Bromley Contingent"
and how "Academia"
supposedly created
"PUNK"
:P

User avatar
WhiteWarlock
Posts: 733
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:58 am

Re: Noise and Academia

Post by WhiteWarlock » Sun Jul 01, 2018 11:12 am

You can talk to Soo CatWoman about having your style stolen repackaged then marketed
http://www.soocatwoman.com/
Image
Image
another "Total Swindle"

User avatar
WhiteWarlock
Posts: 733
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:58 am

Re: Noise and Academia

Post by WhiteWarlock » Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:06 pm



Stokhausen even though giving "Academia" lecture
or using "College" Synthesizer
(because "normal" humans
could no way afford such back then
unless they designed their own
or worked in TV/Radio/Record Industry)
is "Karlheinz Stockhausen"
first & foremost
his spirit, essence, life experiences, struggle, suffering, insights, & epiphanies

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 2003
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Noise and Academia

Post by jliat » Sun Jul 01, 2018 11:32 pm

DonaldKrump wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 10:05 am
between videos and Pollack and side comments, this thread is roller coaster and my heads still spinning. Can't keep up with your dialogue, haha. So many subtopics...



= NOISE

User avatar
WhiteWarlock
Posts: 733
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:58 am

Re: Noise and Academia

Post by WhiteWarlock » Mon Jul 02, 2018 8:58 am

//IMPROVED NOISE

public final class ImprovedNoise {
static public double noise(double x, double y, double z) {
int X = (int)Math.floor(x) & 255, // FIND UNIT CUBE THAT
Y = (int)Math.floor(y) & 255, // CONTAINS POINT.
Z = (int)Math.floor(z) & 255;
x -= Math.floor(x); // FIND RELATIVE X,Y,Z
y -= Math.floor(y); // OF POINT IN CUBE.
z -= Math.floor(z);
double u = fade(x), // COMPUTE FADE CURVES
v = fade(y), // FOR EACH OF X,Y,Z.
w = fade(z);
int A = p[X ]+Y, AA = p[A]+Z, AB = p[A+1]+Z, // HASH COORDINATES OF
B = p[X+1]+Y, BA = p+Z, BB = p[B+1]+Z; // THE 8 CUBE CORNERS,

return lerp(w, lerp(v, lerp(u, grad(p[AA ], x , y , z ), // AND ADD
grad(p[BA ], x-1, y , z )), // BLENDED
lerp(u, grad(p[AB ], x , y-1, z ), // RESULTS
grad(p[BB ], x-1, y-1, z ))),// FROM 8
lerp(v, lerp(u, grad(p[AA+1], x , y , z-1 ), // CORNERS
grad(p[BA+1], x-1, y , z-1 )), // OF CUBE
lerp(u, grad(p[AB+1], x , y-1, z-1 ),
grad(p[BB+1], x-1, y-1, z-1 ))));
}
static double fade(double t) { return t * t * t * (t * (t * 6 - 15) + 10); }
static double lerp(double t, double a, double b) { return a + t * (b - a); }
static double grad(int hash, double x, double y, double z) {
int h = hash & 15; // CONVERT LO 4 BITS OF HASH CODE
double u = h<8 ? x : y, // INTO 12 GRADIENT DIRECTIONS.
v = h<4 ? y : h==12||h==14 ? x : z;
return ((h&1) == 0 ? u : -u) + ((h&2) == 0 ? v : -v);
}
static final int p[] = new int[512], permutation[] = { 151,160,137,91,90,15,
131,13,201,95,96,53,194,233,7,225,140,36,103,30,69,142,8,99,37,240,21,10,23,
190, 6,148,247,120,234,75,0,26,197,62,94,252,219,203,117,35,11,32,57,177,33,
88,237,149,56,87,174,20,125,136,171,168, 68,175,74,165,71,134,139,48,27,166,
77,146,158,231,83,111,229,122,60,211,133,230,220,105,92,41,55,46,245,40,244,
102,143,54, 65,25,63,161, 1,216,80,73,209,76,132,187,208, 89,18,169,200,196,
135,130,116,188,159,86,164,100,109,198,173,186, 3,64,52,217,226,250,124,123,
5,202,38,147,118,126,255,82,85,212,207,206,59,227,47,16,58,17,182,189,28,42,
223,183,170,213,119,248,152, 2,44,154,163, 70,221,153,101,155,167, 43,172,9,
129,22,39,253, 19,98,108,110,79,113,224,232,178,185, 112,104,218,246,97,228,
251,34,242,193,238,210,144,12,191,179,162,241, 81,51,145,235,249,14,239,107,
49,192,214, 31,181,199,106,157,184, 84,204,176,115,121,50,45,127, 4,150,254,
138,236,205,93,222,114,67,29,24,72,243,141,128,195,78,66,215,61,156,180
};
static { for (int i=0; i < 256 ; i++) p[256+i] = p = permutation; }
}
return takingthepiss
http://flafla2.github.io/2014/08/09/perlinnoise.html

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests