Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pbradley
When people put me into the situation described earlier, it is rather difficult for me as I am aware that there is much more... severe noise (I suppose) out there that I really don't care for. I always attempt to consider music in terms of painting and in this instance I consider dissonance to be merely different shades of color. Perhaps the post-modern "everything is beautiful" rhetoric is to blame but I stand by it. Using noise to accent a melody, to shake the listener in such a way to introduce them to a melody that was there are along is, in my opinion, beautiful. Would looking out onto the day first thing in the morning be as amazing without the first rays paining your eyes?
Now I'm starting to think about Heidegger's attunements but I'll spare whomever is reading and myself. But isn't it strange that the most profound uses of noise reminds us (well, at least myself) of the most profound experiences/emotions?
I suppose another answer to the question is: "Some people dismiss the fire because they were burned. I'm willing to sit back at a warm distance and watch it flicker. It seems as though I'm always edging closer to the flame.
|
I was talking about Heidegger in the context of art just last night, strangely enough. You must be a prick too!
Personally, my take on it is that 'noise' is always a bit of a mis-nomer. The general linguistic notion is that 'noise' is opposed to 'music', whereas in terms of strict musico-linguistic terms, 'noise' means 'that which falls outside of the notated musical spectrum' (I use very broad terms). Outside of India and bits of Africa, percussion is rarely used for its tonal value, and as such is considered noise; within a very strict (and retarded) Western art-music sense, anything falling outside of notation is noise; this would include Townsend's feedback as much as it would Whitehouse.
I personally hold no stock with the 'liberation' narrative applied to noise; being slightly more liberal in my desire to use adjectives, I think noise is co-extensive with the narrative of musique concréte or, more benignly, post-60s production, both of which seek to impress upon the listener (in the recording-as-artefact era) qualias adjunct to 'tonal' bases for description - viz, that noise, concréte and Pet Sounds/ Sgt Peppers all re-affirm the importance of timbre and volume dynamics to recorded sound.
'Noise-icians' often attempt to claim this is antithetical to tonal music, but for my money there's often a restricted tonal basis, or a (simulucrum-)chaotic tonal sense - the emphasis on certain tone groups, or tone clusters, which are often neglected by conventionally tonal music doesn't mean that the tonal-content is elided entirely - the truth is that it takes a backseat in favour of volume dynamics, timbre and other qualia 'neglected' until John Cage (although we shouldn't ignore Schoenberg, Stockhausen and especially Xenakis [etc] here).
And, for what it's worth, I think Penderecki, Wagner, Xenakis and the litany of musique concréte artists, coming from the academy, are infinitely more capable of fulfilling one of noise's alleged purposes of unsettling the listener.
I could write more, but I'm probably boring the arse off of anyone who's got even this far.