I stumbled upon this open access book published by Taylor & Francis back in 2022 that might be of interest to some readers of this forum: 

Abstract:

Music and noise seem to be mutually exclusive. Music is generally considered as an ordered arrangement of sounds pleasing to the ear and noise as its opposite: chaotic, ugly, aggressive, sometimes even deafening. When presented in a musical context, noise can thus act as a tool to express resistance to predominant cultural values, to society or to socioeconomic structures (including those of the music industry). The oppositional stance confirms current notions of noise as something which is destructive, a belief not only cherished by hard-core rock bands but also shared by engineers and companies developing devices to suppress or reduce noise in our daily environment. In contrast to the common opinions on noise just described, this volume seeks to explore the constructive potential of noise in contemporary musical practices. Rather than viewing noise as a ‘defect’, this volume aims at studying its aesthetic and cultural potential. Within the noise music study field, most recent publications focus on subgenres such as psychedelic post-rock, industrial, hard-core punk, trash or rave, as they developed from rock and popular music. This book includes work on avant-garde music developed in the domain of classical music as well. In addition to already well-established (social) historical and aesthetical perspectives on noise and noise music, this volume offers contributions by music analysts.

Available for free download here: https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/90105" rel="nofollow - https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/90105

Hi,

I would imagine that this would be far out, and much more interesting, if it took on the history of the "noise" and how it was developed. For example, if you take "Forbidden Planet" and its very electronic sounds, they ended up becoming a part of a lot of science fiction materials, because the noises were so far out, different and helped create images in your head ... one thing that 99% of the audiences today appear to be lacking, thus the need for "lyrics" to tell them what is going on and what this or that is about! ().

The "exploration" is far more interesting than just about anything ... but that is my own experience. I have always loved the "experiments" in many arts, and the sound/music aspect is as neat and far out, as theater was in the 50's and 60's, destroying the "fourth wall" and then telling all walls to take a hike! This is one thing that popular music, has not done, compared to many of the other arts.

I'm looking around for this book ... hopefully I can get it, but it scares me to see things like this ... sometimes, the true center of its birth is missing ... and this is like saying that the instruments are the thing, and screw the folks that played them ... if the player had no "vision" or an adventurous desire to try something new and different, it would not happen ... and many of those folks are not given the credit they deserve. 

Ex: The knife by Keith Emerson ... was not a take on some of the ideas we had ... it was a way to get those two keys to continue playing ... a sustain that (likely) none of those instruments had at the time (a longer sustain, not the momentary sustain that pianos and most keyboards have). But we think of it as some extreme this or that and not give KE credit for finding a way to get that extended sound he was hoping to get and use.

The application of the "noise" is the difference, since "noise" on its own ... is not going to get any attention. Sometimes put us to sleep! But I think that Faust showed us how much fun it could be ... 

 

 

^ You mean "concrete music"?

HI,

I was thinking that Faust would be more interesting, since they used a lot of sound effects run through many synthes and other units to distort the sound. This, by itself was not knew ... Spike MIlligan (The Goons 50's English Radio Comedy) was insane and had the run of the BBC's sound effects library that apparently was at 24 LP's at one time. He would speed things up or slow them down and create a lot of far out things that defied description ... try the sock full of "custaaaard" which is throw at the wall, and occasionally at some folks ... or better yet, the pudding hurler using the ppuddings as bombs!

It was "noise" in that we could not identify the sound if it were elsewhere and not within a comedy skit ... and this hurt the Goons later and prevented them from getting on TV ... the sound effects were not going to translate well, compared to YOUR imagination of what they did and the sound was.

https://frameworkradio.net/" rel="nofollow - https://frameworkradio.net/

Hi,

Guy Guden, from 1974 for a few years used to do what we ended up calling "mind melts" which were really about the noise, and its various applications, and then infused a wee bit with comedy capers to make them easier to get through and enjoy them. But it was difficult to not hear some early Guru Guru, do noise effectively with Ax Gernrich and make them sound like broken washing machines ... doing laundry ... that got clean, too! . It was, by far, one of the best moments in Guy's show, even 50 years later ... it's hard to not enjoy or appreciate them, and several of them survived the 120 minute cassettes to be heard again, and occasionally make an appearance in the current version of SPR.

Guy's takes on noise and sound effects was far out ... and if I made a list of them, it would probably make a far out album ... but I bet those sound effects albums (and other proper albums!!!) took a serious beating now and then. Don't ask him about Halloween, you'll regret it! 

One of my favorite noise techniques is to put a coin inside of a child's balloon, inflate & tie the balloon, start the coin spinning in the inside circumference of the balloon, and then put it up to a microphone.  

When you do not have the money to buy a Mini Moog, you have to improvise! 

Hi,

Nice.

Not just improvise, I don't think, but also have the imagination to ... something is missing here in a spot and yesterday afternoon you had a thought about doing this and that ... and wondered what that sounded like. Also, the same thing that helped movies 100 years ago ... new sounds, some just being shown as the real thing, a gun, a locomotive, a car ... many sounds that were not recognizable by most folks around the world. Thus, specially in comedy, the desire/ability to create weirdness out of nothing or something else, was one of the creative methods of opening up the imagination.

In general, this is something that is missing, TODAY, in most music ... which can only do, or follow, the dictates that have been defined are what "music" was, and is. Thus, you get a lot of rock bands, just doing the same thing over and over again, and no ability to go "find" something new and interesting, not to mention that for most "songwriters" it has all become about being clever with a few words, and nothing else ... music, at one time, was not words, and the history of music, is very much about what a lot of that music meant, and was about ... really ... new sounds that most had not heard ... and music only travelled in the notes that were recorded on a piece of paper. THIS, btw, is very important, because everyone that could "read" the notes and visualize them, would have developed an imagination around that piece of music ... TODAY this is NOT ALLOWED. because that it what "lyrics" are for.

A sad example I heard, was when one day at the lake, I was playing Ozric Tentacles and it was a long cut, as usual, and one guy after a few minutes of it went ... where's the lyrics?

The development of "sound effects" is where a lot of noise came from, and it is sort of like saying that if you can not "define it" then it is noise ... but today, the use of the word, is very misleading and sometimes completely off key. 

The odd thing, that we don't like to say, think, about music is that it is ... organized noise that we think is now more meaningful than not. And guess where the confusion starts?

Rarely do I seek out noise, but this still looks right up my alley. When done well, noise can be cleansing. Cathartic even: 

I think that what makes "noise" more interesting is the CONTEXT with which it is used ... thus the sound of something by itself is not as good, as if it was exposed next to something else with or against it.

The scary part, for me, about the book, is how they will likely read some of our comments and then update their book with them, and consider it their original piece of work. I'm not worried about being ripped off but I have already seen, things I said 10 years ago included in a few places, and I am not going to specify them as I am not trying to embarrass anyone, and take away their "drive" to add something to the topic. It all matters in the end, but there won't be a thank you for many of us at all.

The development of "noise" and its use, has been very important to the 20th century classical music scene, but not exactly to the rock and jazz scene, that are more formulated than they are experimental. 

I'm not sure that a good book can be done about "noise" unless its history is included, and it has to have classical music, film (specially) and comedy ... if you want an experience on how to deal with noise and orchestration, get one of the Carl Stalling CD's and without the visuals, what he has done is very challenging, and something that we do not have the patience for ... you can not, even formulate a story easily enough off the sound effects since it's hard to find a link between them.

I, sometimes, wish all the comments here were valuable ... but the silence if deafening!

https://soundcloud.com/lewian/auf-dem-bau" rel="nofollow - https://soundcloud.com/lewian/auf-dem-bau

Can you link us some? 

Funex enjoying themselves (ourselves ) making noise (with limited amounts of noisiness):

https://soundcloud.com/lewian/bowed-bass-and-percussion-and-stuff-by-funex" rel="nofollow - https://soundcloud.com/lewian/bowed-bass-and-percussion-and-stuff-by-funex

This is so if you construct music and noise as opposites (as the opening sentence of the book description does). But you could also construct concepts in such a way that the opposite of music is non-music (not identical to noise), and that noise can occur on both the music and non-music side. In that way distinction from noise is not essential for constructing music as a concept. 

That's fair enough, but not asking for much I think.