My name is Oliver Tex and I make noise

Talk about noise music. Reviews, rants, whatever.

Moderator: xome

Post Reply
User avatar
melkobukva
Posts: 517
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2018 6:35 pm

Re: My name is Oliver Tex and I make noise

Post by melkobukva » Sun May 20, 2018 2:53 pm

jliat wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 6:20 am
That then someone might buy – eftos in the belief that was noise...
If somebody is dumb enough to do that, serves them right.

Image

You don't have to convince me that Last.fm data is flawed. I said so myself.

I'm trying to look at a big database and see what people think. Last.fm's algorithms make obvious mistakes. They might also be intentionally biased. But not too much, because that would render the service completely useless and people would stop visiting. You have noted it yourself when you compared Merzbow to Monet. To lure the prey one needs cheese in the mousetrap. In this case cheese is accurate data. It is also evident that 'Top Artists' charts contain less obvious mistakes than 'Top Tracks' or 'Top Albums', so I'm using the former (and you're using mostly the latter when you highlight the flaws).

I'm more than willing to ditch Last.fm in favor of a more reliable database. You're welcome to suggest the alternatives. However, I'm afraid that all databases of this scope are owned by major media corporations.
jliat wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 6:20 am
So OK – real music – serialism is FINE and GOOD and worth the study, but the culture of Blacks and the general uninformed public – popular music is just scum. That's the argument.
You don't seriously expect me to believe that was your only takeaway from one of the most influential social thinkers of XXth century, do you?
jliat wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 6:20 am
You seem to take these writers on noise as somehow a personal affront.
First it was envy and prejudice, now it's personal affront. Not sure what you're trying to achieve with all this psychoanalytical guesswork. I see a dung pile, I call it a dung pile. Thought it was more or less like that for most other people.
jliat wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 6:20 am
But please show how the list is not valuable intellectual work.
If you want to know about Nihilism of Vomir, or political motivations in Mattin and Brassier, you can read (probably even ask) Perrot, Mattin and Brassier. I don't need middlemen "external observers" to explain noise to me. "Metapolitical fascism" of martial industrial and "Hypermasculinity" in heavy metal, even less so. I don't consider any of that valuable because I see no value in it. If you do see such a value, I'm all ears.

BTW, you might also find value in this one. I did.

Cross-Modal Perception of Noise-in-Music: Audiences Generate Spiky Shapes in Response to Auditory Roughness in a Novel Electroacoustic Concert Setting

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 4037
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: My name is Oliver Tex and I make noise

Post by jliat » Mon May 21, 2018 12:30 am

melkobukva wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 2:53 pm
jliat wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 6:20 am
That then someone might buy – eftos in the belief that was noise...
If somebody is dumb enough to do that, serves them right.
But... when Oliver Tex points at his Soundcloud and labels its contents as 'noise', he is reprimanded? By who? The Noise Experts Who Know Better disapprove. So he should Shut Up and Listen as they school him. For an internal observer this looks very much like a power/hierarchy type of thing akin to what Feyerabend wrote about. Or a strawman.

We actually didn't say he should shut up, some praised his work but pointed out within the noise genre represented here it was not really noise... but now the champion of Oliver, you, now labels him dumb.
melkobukva wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 2:53 pm
You don't have to convince me that Last.fm data is flawed.
Then why recommend it as a reliable first call for someone wanting to know about noise.
melkobukva wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 2:53 pm
I'm trying to look at a big database and see what people think. Last.fm's algorithms make obvious mistakes. They might also be intentionally biased. But not too much, because that would render the service completely useless and people would stop visiting. You have noted it yourself when you compared Merzbow to Monet. To lure the prey one needs cheese in the mousetrap. In this case cheese is accurate data. It is also evident that 'Top Artists' charts contain less obvious mistakes than 'Top Tracks' or 'Top Albums', so I'm using the former (and you're using mostly the latter when you highlight the flaws).
Brilliant! I think if you are advising a mouse where to get food... try that trap!
melkobukva wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 2:53 pm

I'm more than willing to ditch Last.fm in favor of a more reliable database. You're welcome to suggest the alternatives. However, I'm afraid that all databases of this scope are owned by major media corporations.
Which is why noise was taken up by some in academia who were anti capitalist, who you call douchebags and parasites. Noise is not a mass phenomenon, and so you can't use databases. Its origin - like some fine art- was by a few who rejected the conventions of music, both popular and classical. Obviously the alternative would be someone working in the humanities - and you've given you opinion - above.
But you cant use databases of public opinion regarding relatively small genres, and certainly not when they begin, that occurs in small networks - until it gets into The Wire! :roll:
jliat wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 6:20 am
So OK – real music – serialism is FINE and GOOD and worth the study, but the culture of Blacks and the general uninformed public – popular music is just scum. That's the argument.
melkobukva wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 2:53 pm
You don't seriously expect me to believe that was your only takeaway from one of the most influential social thinkers of XXth century, do you?
Certainly not. He was a snob and a racist. As for influential - perhaps- but only in academia especially Marxist doucbags…. I've not read all his work, but the lectures on Kant are plain wrong- he admits this, he thought negro music and popular music rubbish, and in the end rejected and labelled Marxism as a failure. And had problems with his students, especially women. But on the other hand I think he anticipated post-modernity...

Farewell to Jazz
T. Adorno, 1933.
The regulation that forbids the radio from broadcasting "Negro jazz" may have
created a new legal situation; but artistically it has only confirmed by its drastic
verdict what was long ago decided in fact: the end of jazz music itself. For no matter
what one wishes to understand by white or by Negro jazz, here there is nothing to
salvage.
There is much more -but i'm away from home and i'm a nobody...

melkobukva wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 2:53 pm
jliat wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 6:20 am
You seem to take these writers on noise as somehow a personal affront.
First it was envy and prejudice, now it's personal affront. Not sure what you're trying to achieve with all this psychoanalytical guesswork. I see a dung pile, I call it a dung pile. Thought it was more or less like that for most other people.
Yes its hard to see what you are getting at, first Oliver can make anything and call it noise, then he is dumb for thinking anything is noise,
-then you say a student can call shit art and its art, now a dung pile is a dung pile. And you apply this label to academics, they are not dung piles. And just to browse the 'papers' you cited, I thought it was interesting to look at the attitudes towards women found in Rap and Heavy metal especially in their collaborations.. it seems a valid topic.. also the new extreme right adopting a folk music...

melkobukva wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 2:53 pm
If you want to know about Nihilism of Vomir, or political motivations in Mattin and Brassier, you can read (probably even ask) Perrot, Mattin and Brassier. I don't need middlemen "external observers" to explain noise to me. "Metapolitical fascism" of martial industrial and "Hypermasculinity" in heavy metal, even less so. I don't consider any of that valuable because I see no value in it. If you do see such a value, I'm all ears.
Well you've called them dung prior to reading them. Brassier writes on noise, as well as other philosophers, making him in effect a middleman. I wasn't aware of the collaborations between Rap and Heavy metal... genres I have little interest in... and its not always the case of asking the artist... 'the intentional fallacy'. But moreover - Adorno can be the middleman - attempt to close down the phenomenon of Jazz!
Last edited by jliat on Mon May 21, 2018 2:56 am, edited 2 times in total.
https://soundcloud.com/jliat/sets/jliat ... variations
https://soundcloud.com/jliat/sets/jliat ... tions-from
"The most irrational thing to do is to make something worthless, with no political emotional or entertaining purpose."

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 4037
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: My name is Oliver Tex and I make noise

Post by jliat » Mon May 21, 2018 12:45 am


Actually i'm not impressed by such external* attempts to qualify and quantify noise or art. Especially in relation to audiences, which are never there in the first place. What interests me in regard to noise is the fact that in some cases actually listening to it is irrelevant. And this is not something isolated, likewise conceptual poetry has the element in some of being written NOT TO BE READ. And of being un-creative.


*They make - in this case - of seeing art as being about generating 'sensation'. Deleuze got there years ago, and IMO was wrong.
In Deleuze's case he had to then reject conceptual art... an art of mere sensation becomes just a theme park... oh ...


https://www.saatchigallery.com/aipe/sen ... cademy.htm :wall:
https://soundcloud.com/jliat/sets/jliat ... variations
https://soundcloud.com/jliat/sets/jliat ... tions-from
"The most irrational thing to do is to make something worthless, with no political emotional or entertaining purpose."

User avatar
melkobukva
Posts: 517
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2018 6:35 pm

Re: My name is Oliver Tex and I make noise

Post by melkobukva » Mon May 21, 2018 7:31 am

jliat wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 12:30 am
but now the champion of Oliver, you, now labels him dumb.
I seriously doubt he bought any Eftos tracks in the belief that was noise.
jliat wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 12:30 am
Brilliant! I think if you are advising a mouse where to get food... try that trap!
The argument that if something is not perfect, it's no good at all is sometimes called 'Nirvana fallacy'. Over the years, I have personally discovered plenty of great new artists using Last.fm. Some of which I would not have encountered by any other method. Hence I consider Last.fm not perfect, but good enough.
jliat wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 12:30 am
Which is why noise was taken up by some in academia who were anti capitalist, who you call douchebags and parasites.
I'm pretty sure the lack of independent music databases was not the reason. If it was, the logical response would be to make one, not publish papers in jornals owned by Elseveir, Springer or Wiley-Blackwell.
jliat wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 12:30 am
Noise is not a mass phenomenon, and so you can't use databases. <...> Obviously the alternative would be someone working in the humanities.
Art criticism is not the alternative to quantitative statistical research, neither 'obvious', nor even reasonable.
jliat wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 12:30 am
He was a snob and a racist.
Marinetti was a fascist, Debord was an alcoholic, Marcuse's third wife was forty years his junior. All this trivia is irrelevant to the topic.
jliat wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 6:20 am
then you say a student can call shit art and its art, now a dung pile is a dung pile. And you apply this label to academics, they are not dung piles.
An art student can call a dung pile art and it will be art as long as his interpretive community agrees. He can also choose to call it a dung pile, and then it won't be art unless somebody else in his interpretive community labels it as such. I'm not an art student though, so I don't have much choice. Contrary to your allegation, I didn't call any academics 'dung piles' so far. If I did, it would have been in a metaphorical sense.
jliat wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 6:20 am
Well you've called them dung
I did not. I call Perrot and Mattin noise artists with dozens of records. And I call Brassier an author of Nihil Unbound.

You are obviously very tired of this discussion, because your whole response is incredibly intellectually lazy. I'm eager to read what you really think, but half-assed trolling and deliberate logical fallacies don't interest me in the slightest. If you're not willing to invest any efferot in your posts anymore, we can simply stop.

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 4037
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: My name is Oliver Tex and I make noise

Post by jliat » Mon May 21, 2018 8:37 am

melkobukva wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 7:31 am
jliat wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 12:30 am
but now the champion of Oliver, you, now labels him dumb.
I seriously doubt he bought any Eftos tracks in the belief that was noise.
But some of his work which he posted links to sounded as close
to noise as Eftos. So he could listening to Eftos think that was Ok as noise.
Moreover you gave him at first carte blanche to call whatever he produced “noise” - but
now say anyone buying Eftos thinking it noise is dumb. There seems to be a contradiction there?
Or have you changed your position from “If you make techno and call it noise, then it is noise. “ , to calling techno noise is dumb?
jliat wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 12:30 am
Brilliant! I think if you are advising a mouse where to get food... try that trap!
melkobukva wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 7:31 am
The argument that if something is not perfect, it's no good at all is sometimes called 'Nirvana fallacy'. Over the years, I have personally discovered plenty of great new artists using Last.fm. Some of which I would not have encountered by any other method. Hence I consider Last.fm not perfect, but good enough.
You've shifted the argument to “perfect”. And it remains a mouse trap is not a good enough place for a mouse to find food. Precisely my point, the examples of HN and HNW I gave from LastFM which were obviously not. But we come back to your claim - “If you make techno and call it noise, then it is noise. “ - which legitimates any music as being noise if so called – so Last FM is in doing so by your argument 'perfect'., anything it calls noise is in your terms noise.

jliat wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 12:30 am
Which is why noise was taken up by some in academia who were anti capitalist, who you call douchebags and parasites.
melkobukva wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 7:31 am
I'm pretty sure the lack of independent music databases was not the reason. If it was, the logical response would be to make one, not publish papers in jornals owned by Elseveir, Springer or Wiley-Blackwell.
Sorry your editing misses my point. The nature of noise towards conventional music and its distribution was seen by some as being of interest in anti capitalist moves,of course others used it for extreme right wind purposes.
melkobukva wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 7:31 am
Art criticism is not the alternative to quantitative statistical research, neither 'obvious', nor even reasonable.
Again you are editing my posts. Of course Art Criticism is not an alternative to statistical research, or is statistical research of much use in art criticism.. I mean if 90% of the general public found Jackson Pollock's work childish, it doesn't mean it is.
melkobukva wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 7:31 am

Marinetti was a fascist, Debord was an alcoholic, Marcuse's third wife was forty years his junior. All this trivia is irrelevant to the topic.
Editing again! His attitude to music IS relevant (it was racist and elitist) , his philosophical blunders and turn ARE relevant.

jliat wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 6:20 am
Well you've called them dung
melkobukva wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 7:31 am
I did not. I call Perrot and Mattin noise artists with dozens of records. And I call Brassier an author of Nihil Unbound.
Sure – but again youve edited my post! You posted this “I see a dung pile, I call it a dung pile” in relation to “these writers” - that is those you posted “On the other hand, humanities douchebags who appropriate, reinterpret and theoretize counterculture are not fine at all. They are parasitic worms...
to people who publish things like Neoliberal Noise: Attali, Foucault, & the Biopolitics of Uncool, or Bring the noise: Hypermasculinity in heavy metal and rap, or Extreme noise terror: Punk rock and the aesthetics of badness, or Reverberations: The Philosophy, Aesthetics and Politics of Noise, or Apoliteic music: Neo-folk, martial industrial and 'metapolitical fascism' and pretend it's valuable intellectual work.”
melkobukva wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 7:31 am
You are obviously very tired of this discussion, because your whole response is incredibly intellectually lazy. I'm eager to read what you really think, but half-assed trolling and deliberate logical fallacies don't interest me in the slightest. If you're not willing to invest any efferot in your posts anymore, we can simply stop.
I'm not tired. Its interesting. I've invested quite a bit of time, but you are getting personal now... so maybe you should stop. I'm not the one calling what appear fairly unpublished academics douchebags... and “half-assed trolling and deliberate logical fallacies don't interest me in the slightest.”
likewise. Was that aimed at me?
https://soundcloud.com/jliat/sets/jliat ... variations
https://soundcloud.com/jliat/sets/jliat ... tions-from
"The most irrational thing to do is to make something worthless, with no political emotional or entertaining purpose."

User avatar
melkobukva
Posts: 517
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2018 6:35 pm

Re: My name is Oliver Tex and I make noise

Post by melkobukva » Mon May 21, 2018 10:39 am

jliat wrote:
Mon May 21, 2018 8:37 am
I'm not tired. Its interesting. I've invested quite a bit of time, but you are getting personal now... so maybe you should stop. I'm not the one calling what appear fairly unpublished academics douchebags... and “half-assed trolling and deliberate logical fallacies don't interest me in the slightest.”
likewise. Was that aimed at me?
You were misrepresenting what I said to such a degree it seemed you were doing that on purpose. If you say it's not the case, I take your word on that and apologize. Will answer the rest later, got other stuff to deal with right now.

User avatar
WhiteWarlock
Posts: 2315
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:58 am

Re: My name is Oliver Tex and I make noise

Post by WhiteWarlock » Mon May 21, 2018 10:47 am

can you guys move this master debate for the new thread and stop giving Oliver Tex "free promo"
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=19828
is that logical?
especially if you have an issue with him using the term "noise" as self description
eye see his name every time you guys go back and forth in philosophical melee combat
let this thread die carry on in new arena
dedicated for the topic
otherwise regardless if you agree or disagree you are merely by proxy promoting Oliver Tex
whoever the fuck that is
why not just post:
https://olivertex.bandcamp.com

https://soundcloud.com/olivertex

I make some weird shit, new album coming out this year but for now I have two EPs and some miscellaneous shit on my soundcloud

https://www.facebook.com/olivertex/

https://twitter.com/0LIVERTEX

if you're interested at all you can feel free to follow me on these sites here. thank you

66 posts in this thread so far back und forth
2600+ hits
why can't you fight in one of my threads???
eye can make a hardcore techno dance track
call it "noise"
and you can deathmatch over why it is or isn't "noise"
:P

Debate Less
Create More

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 4037
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: My name is Oliver Tex and I make noise

Post by jliat » Tue May 22, 2018 12:18 am

Please say where i'm misrepresenting you. I have three (?) points.

1. Your use of the term “If you make techno and call it noise, then it is noise. “

a) If this is true the term in effect becomes meaningless.

b) Last-Fm can call anything noise and they are right. i.e. it becomes 'perfect' and useless.

c) If this term is accepted, calling anyone dumb for thinking something is noise is somewhat contradictory, they have your sanction to do so.

2. Last-Fm being commercial might be suspect, databases are not appropriate for identifying musical genres especially minority genres and their creation. (and studying audience responses to 'affects' is not in a particularly good critical tool..)

3. I think your calling certain academics “On the other hand, humanities douchebags who appropriate, reinterpret and theoretize counterculture are not fine at all. They are parasitic worms...” On this point I was perhaps a little personal,but as I said I was a little shocked by such IMO violent terms. I'm aware of the vast number of papers now published many of which are not of high quality, perhaps it was always so but history sorts the wheat from the chaff. I apologise for any offence I might have caused.

I did take time to check out the papers you cited, and from their abstracts they seemed interesting. I agree the use of neologisms might be thought 'over the top' but the use goes back to Heidegger, Derrida and Deleuze.. Writing dense texts was also something Adorno was prone to also.


To Whitewarlock.

Masturbating or having intercourse. ???

But to keep people happy, or at least be less annoying maybe move this to misc, and discuss points separately.
https://soundcloud.com/jliat/sets/jliat ... variations
https://soundcloud.com/jliat/sets/jliat ... tions-from
"The most irrational thing to do is to make something worthless, with no political emotional or entertaining purpose."

User avatar
melkobukva
Posts: 517
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2018 6:35 pm

Re: My name is Oliver Tex and I make noise

Post by melkobukva » Tue May 22, 2018 12:03 pm

jliat wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 12:18 am
1. Your use of the term “If you make techno and call it noise, then it is noise. “

a) If this is true the term in effect becomes meaningless.

b) Last-Fm can call anything noise and they are right. i.e. it becomes 'perfect' and useless.

c) If this term is accepted, calling anyone dumb for thinking something is noise is somewhat contradictory, they have your sanction to do so.
You are quoting my first post in this thread:
melkobukva wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 6:00 am
The only rule of noise is no rules. If you make techno and call it noise, then it is noise.
It was made in a particular context, and the most important part of this context is the post right above mine:
amishrobots wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 1:32 am
oh, now that I actually listened, I realise you make pop music. Go buy a feedback looper, a deathmetal distortion and a delay, then come back. rely less on your laptop, more on pedals and spaghetti.
The nature of 'real noise' has been debated to death, and the posts above constitute two extremes of the opinion spectrum. So when mr. amishrobots posted one, I decided to complement it with another. The point is that thesis (buy a feedback looper) and antithesis (call it noise, then it is noise) are both wrong (and therefore both right in a way!), and it is the search of synthesis that can lead to actual understanding.

Then, in later posts, I have presented my version of synthesis:
melkobukva wrote:
Sat May 12, 2018 9:06 am
you can call anything Noise, and it's Noise as long as enough NoiseGuide posters agree
e.g. music genres are defined socially by a community with shared interests (not literally NoiseGuide )
melkobukva wrote:
Sat May 12, 2018 11:59 am
The views of Noise held by individual posters are different but by no means arbitrary.

A music genre is a set of artists that are more similar to each other than to an arbitrary set of artists. That is, Vomir, Merzbow and Daniel Menche have more similarities between them than, let's say, Vomir, Kanye West and Hildegard von Bingen.
e.g. social definition of genre necessarily has an objective component
melkobukva wrote:
Sat May 12, 2018 11:59 am
However, this is a statistical probability we're dealing with. There is no defined set of attributes all of which have to be present in every noise record. Any such a set proposed by one poster will get debated to death by his peers.
e.g. the objective components that influence the social of definition of genre are logically vague (Pablo Cobreros is a good source on that)
I'm influenced by Patrick Colm Hogan's work on literary universals

The taxonomy of scientific fields is an example of 'genres' that are defined socially under the influence of vague objective components:
melkobukva wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 11:39 pm
Another example can be found here: https://scitech-strategies.com/ - 20 million papers clustered using "a combination of citation analysis and text mining". Same story, there are plenty of areas where we can see a bowl of M&M's rather than neatly delineated "genres".
As for my 'serves the dumbass right' remark, there's a very particular reason why I supplemented it with a Trobbing Gristle cover :D
Nobody has to buy anything blind anymore, you can always listen first and decide whether it's what you need, problem solved.
People who buy things just because Internet told them to (1) deserve everything they get, and (2) are probably as real as the characters in my 'Music Deprivation in Maritime Spaces' fable.
melkobukva wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 11:39 pm
2. Last-Fm being commercial might be suspect, databases are not appropriate for identifying musical genres especially minority genres and their creation. (and studying audience responses to 'affects' is not in a particularly good critical tool..)

3. I think your calling certain academics “On the other hand, humanities douchebags who appropriate, reinterpret and theoretize counterculture are not fine at all. They are parasitic worms...” On this point I was perhaps a little personal,but as I said I was a little shocked by such IMO violent terms. I'm aware of the vast number of papers now published many of which are not of high quality, perhaps it was always so but history sorts the wheat from the chaff. I apologise for any offence I might have caused.
Both points are something I'd find interesting to discuss. However, this should probably be done in separate topics.
And a bit later. This exchange is fun, but started taking away from more substantial activities time-wise.

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 4037
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: My name is Oliver Tex and I make noise

Post by jliat » Wed May 23, 2018 1:12 am

melkobukva wrote: The point is that thesis (buy a feedback looper) and antithesis (call it noise, then it is noise) are both wrong (and therefore both right in a way!), and it is the search of synthesis that can lead to actual understanding.
It would have been helpful if then you said this in the first place. So when you said “the only rule of noise is no rules” you really meant there is the idea of no rules and the idea of very fixed rules. And we need some dialectic to achieve some hope for future absolute? An interesting idea, if you believe understanding can be produced by or from such dialectical processes.
melkobukva wrote: you can call anything Noise, and it's Noise as long as enough NoiseGuide posters agree

e.g. music genres are defined socially by a community with shared interests (not literally NoiseGuide )
Is your synthesis. Though you didn't say so. And I responded to that. A thing isn't defined socially.
It can't be, because that wouldn't account for creativity, only explain the 'normal' situation. The Law of relativity, the existence of protons or the form of the fugue, perspective and colour theory. Conventional music is mathematical, and things like prime numbers are not social constructs. Now one definition of noise relates to the rejection of the common norms of music, so you have a point. But these norms which employ things like harmony employ something already the case. Harmony is not opinion. I think this might be a difficulty as in literature it has been considered that words have no significance in themselves, just difference, so the meaning of a word is social convention.
So whatever the arbitrary signifier is for music, the act of rejecting it is one that uses noise. And here noise is not an opinion but a rejection of Harmony etc. Just as I said, to eat a poisonous plant one falls ill not because of convention. Noise artists play very loud, again that is not a matter of opinion but measurable in the damage to hearing caused. Simply put noise or whatever you call it has those attributes. If this board re-defined noise as fugues played on tin whistles, many here would quit and another board with maybe some other term - “Din” “shit music” could be a place for those who think noise is for a better word noise. Where 'noise' was a place holder for “so loud as it causes hearing damage, lacking structure or harmony … and HNW – a continuous WALL of undifferentiated noise...”
melkobukva wrote: social definition of genre necessarily has an objective component
I think is mistaken. Social definition of what is acceptable, or good, or liked, or disliked can have an objective measure of such. But that is not of the definition. Capital punishment is the lawful killing,
societies can agree on it being OK or not OK, doesn't change the killing. Dis harmonic noise is dis harmonic noise regardless of if anyone likes it or no one likes it. I think here you are in danger of falling into something similar to the correlationist catastrophe of Meillassoux,. Without a social convention of genre nightingales couldn't sing tunes. There would be no music and no noise. Before mankind the wind was silent, there was no wind. Of course this is stupid. But more a result of the 'linguistic turn'? Isn't there something not of human social convention in a Lion's roar. Or a thunder clap. To which the word noise points.
melkobukva wrote: e.g. the objective components that influence the social of definition of genre are logically vague
But it is not always the case that social definitions define genres. 12 tone music was not a vague social definition. (there are many others and some vague.. 12 bar blues, Jazz) The playing of HNW at 160 db will not be vague. WE are not talking, well i'm not, about the social conditions as to what a word means, but the signifieds themselves. When Merzbow ' went in search of something else' it wasn't a new social definition... the social definition came after what he found, created... and someone called it noise. And it seems a reasonable word to use. OK we've talked about 'noisy' music, and sure some noise merges into music, but the examples posted, esp. Aleph Null by Oliver Tex – noise? I don't think so. Now if you want to think it is and think it is not significantly different to The Rita. Well nothing more to be said. And by saying, myself and others, that it isn't noise, is not to say its not good or bad, you seemed to criticise us for saying it wasn't noise. So what makes Aleph Null not sound like Pulse Demon. I'd say its structure, you would say the social definition?
And i'd say a waterfall would sound different to a breeze two or three million years ago. And that Vomir's “music” is more like the waterfall in its sonic structure – or lack. So Pulse Demon not sounding like a gentle breeze is not determined by social conventions.
melkobukva wrote: I'm influenced by Patrick Colm Hogan's work on literary universals
Isn't the idea of a universal something that isn't mere social convention. And things like rhyme and repetition are not defined socially or culturally. And so Oliver might have posted a poem and said, is this a sonnet? Or better does this rhyme. Or

I found this piece of Free Verse on Last-PM

“I'm a sundial and I make a both
of what is done far better by a watch”

Moreover the universals in music,like harmony – are universal. :chin:


P.S.

I think there is a problem here for certain approaches to art which ignore
the artist. (I'm aware of the intentional fallacy). This can as below lead to
"disastrous" errors.


"A poetic section is defined as follows (from Fabb, “Verse”):
in effect poems are differentiated formally from non-poems (prose)
by having some kind of additional sectioning.
(Note that if this were not true, then all language would be poetry.)"

Nigel Fabb, University of Strathclyde 2016

"Conceptual poetry is an early twenty-first century literary movement, self-described
by its practitioners as an act of “uncreative writing.” In conceptual poetry, appropriation
is often used as a means to create new work, focused more on the initial concept rather
than the final product of the poem.
In its extreme form, such works are process-oriented and nonexpressive. Some of these works
include large amounts of information and are not intended to be read in their entirety.
One canonical conceptual text that displays these qualities is Kenneth Goldsmith’s Day,
in which he reworks the September 1, 2000, issue of , reprinting it as an 836-page book.....

Flarf poets like Nada Gordon, K. Silem Mohammad, and Gary Sullivan, who often use Google search engine
results as a primary text to create poems that are intentionally “bad” or “inappropriate.”"
https://soundcloud.com/jliat/sets/jliat ... variations
https://soundcloud.com/jliat/sets/jliat ... tions-from
"The most irrational thing to do is to make something worthless, with no political emotional or entertaining purpose."

User avatar
melkobukva
Posts: 517
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2018 6:35 pm

Re: My name is Oliver Tex and I make noise

Post by melkobukva » Wed May 23, 2018 1:58 pm

jliat wrote:
Wed May 23, 2018 1:12 am
melkobukva wrote: you can call anything Noise, and it's Noise as long as enough NoiseGuide posters agree

e.g. music genres are defined socially by a community with shared interests (not literally NoiseGuide )
Just as I said, to eat a poisonous plant one falls ill not because of convention. Noise artists play very loud, again that is not a matter of opinion but measurable in the damage to hearing caused. Simply put noise or whatever you call it has those attributes.
melkobukva wrote: social definition of genre necessarily has an objective component
I think is mistaken.
I say music genres are defined socially, you say it's wrong because noise has objective attributes. Then I say noise has objective attributes, and I'm wrong again! Despite the very fact that I said the same thing you stated a paragraph earlier yourself. I don't understand.

Things are not social constructs.

Things precede human classifications of things.

Human classifications of things are based on percieved properties of things.
jliat wrote:
Wed May 23, 2018 1:12 am
Isn't the idea of a universal something that isn't mere social convention.
Noise universals, such as
jliat wrote:
Wed May 23, 2018 1:12 am
“so loud as it causes hearing damage, lacking structure or harmony … and HNW – a continuous WALL of undifferentiated noise...”
are not social conventions. I have already said that in an earlier post.

They are statistical universals as described in Hogan's paper. As opposed to absolute universals that constitute the necessary and sufficient conditions, such as "a natural number greater than 1 that cannot be formed by multiplying two smaller natural numbers" for prime numbers.

-------------------------

As for the rest...

Take 100 hours of Merzbow and 100 hours of Brian Eno. Play them simultaneously, slowly crossfading from Merzbow to Eno on a linear scale. At the start of hour 1 it's 100% Merzbow and 0% Eno. At the end of hour 100 it's 0% Merzbow and 100% Eno. Please name the exact millisecond when what you hear stops being noise and becomes ambient.

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 4037
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: My name is Oliver Tex and I make noise

Post by jliat » Thu May 24, 2018 1:29 am

melkobukva wrote:
Wed May 23, 2018 1:58 pm

I say music genres are defined socially, you say it's wrong because noise has objective attributes. Then I say noise has objective attributes, and I'm wrong again! Despite the very fact that I said the same thing you stated a paragraph earlier yourself. I don't understand.
Its fairly simple. You seem to be saying that the objectivity of calling something part of a genre is from statistical sampling of audiences. But this just indicates popularity. And it relies on the audiences knowledge. So for instance the recent UK Brexit vote was supposed objective, but is now questioned by the remainers as to the public not being aware of what Brexit means. That Britain is in the EU at the moment is an objective fact which needs no agreement. There is a written document.

Genres in many cases cant be defined as to what they are socially, only what to call them. Impressionism was not defined socially, anymore than the use of extreme volume and feedback loops. i.e. the name 'heavy metal' might have been a social definition, but even here its usually a journalist's idea which catches on.
melkobukva wrote:
Wed May 23, 2018 1:58 pm
They are statistical universals as described in Hogan's paper.
I do hope the definition of "statistical universal" the result of a statistical sample...ad infinitum... yes the average human has 1.99999999 arms...
melkobukva wrote:
Wed May 23, 2018 1:58 pm
As for the rest...

Take 100 hours of Merzbow and 100 hours of Brian Eno. Play them simultaneously, slowly crossfading from Merzbow to Eno on a linear scale. At the start of hour 1 it's 100% Merzbow and 0% Eno. At the end of hour 100 it's 0% Merzbow and 100% Eno. Please name the exact millisecond when what you hear stops being noise and becomes ambient.
The Heap Paradox. But I'd sample and the point at which the Signal to noise ratio is more noise than signal. I think you are just using such to 'muddy the water' - mixing light from green to red at which point is green red - then you get run over on crossing...
Given your paradox TTL logic would fail - we could never be sure at what point a zero becomes a 1. Of course it does work as the engineers create a range which is between 0 and 1 which is undecidable.

Mezbow has already done similar with silent night. Which I posted a graph showing the slow deterioration into noise.

Note: The philosophers you linked to make a mistake, re poetry. The genre of Conceptual Poetry was made by the creators of the poems out of merely presenting already written texts.

Music - they might define - as organised sound - then 4" 33' comes along.

Conclusion - those making noise are in a better position to give definitions than Last-FM. Why? Because they created it and the definition. And even then there might be areas of discussion... but one that is never settled by an appeal to Last-FM
https://soundcloud.com/jliat/sets/jliat ... variations
https://soundcloud.com/jliat/sets/jliat ... tions-from
"The most irrational thing to do is to make something worthless, with no political emotional or entertaining purpose."

User avatar
melkobukva
Posts: 517
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2018 6:35 pm

Re: My name is Oliver Tex and I make noise

Post by melkobukva » Thu May 24, 2018 10:25 am

jliat wrote:
Thu May 24, 2018 1:29 am
I do hope the definition of "statistical universal" the result of a statistical sample...ad infinitum... yes the average human has 1.99999999 arms...

I think you are just using such to 'muddy the water' - mixing light from green to red at which point is green red - then you get run over on crossing...
Given your paradox TTL logic would fail - we could never be sure at what point a zero becomes a 1.
The fact that some concepts are vague and therefore defy definitions in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions (such as "a natural number greater than 1 that cannot be formed by multiplying two smaller natural numbers" for prime numbers) does not entail that ALL concepts are vague. Traffic lights work, but so do heaps. Is noise genre a heap or a traffic light, this is the question.

jliat wrote:
Thu May 24, 2018 1:29 am
Its fairly simple. You seem to be saying that the objectivity of calling something part of a genre is from statistical sampling of audiences. But this just indicates popularity. And it relies on the audiences knowledge.
...
Conclusion - those making noise are in a better position to give definitions than Last-FM. Why? Because they created it and the definition. And even then there might be areas of discussion...
Now we're getting onto something :)

If we ask Masami Akita, and Maso Yamazaki, and Nakajima Akifumi, and Romain Perrot, and Sam McKinlay, and James Whitehead, and Ray Brassier, and Nicola Vinciguerra, and Dominick Fernow, and Margaret Chardiet, and John Grimaldi, and Aleksandr Lebedev-Frontov, will they all agree 100% on everything that has to do with demarcation of noise as a genre?

What happens if they don't?

What if we add xdugef, MKULTRA, crochambeau, amishrobots, laura91, WhiteWarlock, Striations, ¼ dead, timdrage, DonaldKrump, Bonehole, fire, Sleep Of Ages, and ask them too? Would it even be appropriate to ask them? Who has a say on what noise is?

More importantly...

Who has a say on who has a say?

User avatar
WhiteWarlock
Posts: 2315
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:58 am

Re: My name is Oliver Tex and I make noise

Post by WhiteWarlock » Thu May 24, 2018 10:37 am

yet they will probably all unanimously agree that those Oliver Tex recordings in question aren't "noise"
and probably say WTF!?
why are you even asking that question
whilst pondering if is it some type of practical joke trick question

User avatar
melkobukva
Posts: 517
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2018 6:35 pm

Re: My name is Oliver Tex and I make noise

Post by melkobukva » Thu May 24, 2018 10:53 am

WhiteWarlock wrote:
Thu May 24, 2018 10:37 am
yet they will probably all unanimously agree that those Oliver Tex recordings in question aren't "noise"
and probably say WTF!?
why are you even asking that question
I don't think Oliver Tex recordings in question are "noise" either.
So we already have a pretty good working definition of noise: not what Oliver makes :mrgreen:
Why I'm asking.
Mr. jliat says that artists must define the genre.
Well, how can they define it if they disagree on what their genre is?
In this case they can do that only socially, as a logically vague concept, by means of statistical universals.
That's how.
If Masami Akita, Romain Perrot and Dominick Fernow can disagree on noise, we're both right at the same time, me and jliat :idea:

No, not a trick question. I have an impression that our disagreement with jliat is quantitative rather than qualitative. He sees noise as defined by a narrower community, I see it as defined by a wider community - but NOT by anybody and their grandma, there still are limits, just not as strict, so you and I have a say too in addition to Masami Akita and Romain Perrot. Don't worry, Oliver still doesn't, not untill he passes Harsh Noise Wall 101 :)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests