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.
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...”
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.
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.
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
“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.
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
"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.”"