Is There A Line Between Noise & Music?

indeed Asssf... a great read so far.    Beats the normal sh*t that passes for topics around here. 

De-Loused in the Comatorium: Music

Frances the Mute: "The line"

Amputechture: Noise

So yes, there is a line between music and noise.

erik neuteboom wrote:                          Well Assaf, interesting thread, very welcoming   Of course there is a line between noise and music but it's so subjective. I am always intrigued by the choices of progheads, why do prog metal fans love the endless scale acrobatics, why do electronic fans love the hypnotizing sound of sequencers and synthesizers, why do King Crimson fans love the nerveracking improvisations, why do Gentle Giant and Frank Zappa fans love the complexity and unorthodox approach, why do I love to be carried away by Trons, Moogs and Hammonds? And why some progheads prefer dark music with agressive lyrics and covers while others like mellow sounds and fairy tale covers? Personally I am stunned by the huge amount of prog metal fans on Prog Archives because after 15 minutes most prog metal (in the past I worked for a Dutch rock magazine, I was offered dozens of prog metal to review ) is close to noise for me but Mike En Regalia & Co. will disagree about that  !

well said Erik... another vote for the art/music ... prog.... is subjective and not written in stone

all jokes aside...  do you listen to much of the 'wacky' avant stuff Erik.. for personal or for that mag of yours.  If so what do you think of it?

All music is noise, but not all noise is music. If somthing is made for the purpose of listening its music if its just a biproduct of another activity and not intended to be listened to then its not.

andu wrote: Great reviews btw micky, seriously hahaha

thanks....  if you are going to review a one star album...make it one you like...and do it with style.

interesting  albums though... I just rate them differently that most it seems.

ghost_of_morphy wrote: Shakespeare wrote: ghost_of_morphy wrote: Shakespeare wrote: Anything that can be digested through the ears is music. At least, John Zorn thinks so. Mike Patton agrees.   As my old aesthethic professor would say, elements that occur naturally or randomly can provoke an aesthetic experience, but do not qualify as art (or in this case music) until they are arranged into some form of order. Is disorder a form of order?   Why no, they are opposites.   You either have one or the other.  It isn't art until some form of order, however loose, is imposed on it.   That's why I chose to use The Waiting Room as my example.  The first part of it sounds very random, with the band members producing various noises.  But they are hearing and reacting to what each other does and making decisions about what they are going to do or not do and that provides the structure.  But the point is that you can't call the waves crashing on the beach or wind whistling through the trees art because nobody has imposed any order (meaning) upon the experience.   Art isn't art until it is filtered through someone, however loose that filtering might be.   Of course that doesn't make something GOOD art, necessarily.   It's just a requirement for something to be art.

I respectfully disagree.

I think that making "random" noise is in a form of order, and that order is disorder.

And I do think that the sounds of waves crashing on the beach is art. If someone recorded it, would you consider it art? Or, more specifically, music? If it was used as a song intro or as a track in an ambient song? Yes, right? (Maybe not, but just bear with me.) But does that mean that before recording equipment was available, this sound was not art? I think that it is art - and music - even without being filtered through a human being or one of his many devices.

Excellent post , Dean. And regarding to the debate from the upper posts: there is such a thing as "structured chaos".

This is one:



And another:



Now these paintings are almost a century old, the first one, and over half a century old, the second. Considering what has come after them, I could say they are very well organized chaotic structures...


Edited by andu - November 11 2007 at 20:03

 Kandinsky ... I had a framed print of that over my fireplace for years.

Going back to the Waves on a Shore noise (since I introduced it ) ... this can be regarded as music if the listener decides that it is - that would be a subjective assessment, two people sat on the beach listening to the sea would have differing views. But now the artistic intention is in the act of listening, not presenting.

my ideas come very close to what Dean has said above. From an objective viewpoint, music is sound recorded for musical purposes. An interesting point 'bout natural sound in the natural environment. for me, nature is quite musical, upon many occasions I don't like listening to music in a natural environment as I feel the are so many interesting sounds I'm missing out on, especially when in under-ground train stations. While in other cases these extra additives can certainly enhance this style of anti-music. There recently was a concert in Sydney, where a group of improvisational musician played a concert on a rock platform in the bush near my parent house, integrating environmental sounds along with audience interaction into their performance.

Disorder in an interesting question. A recent concert by 'leafcutter John' demonstrates this approach quite well, imo. The instruments consisted of a laptop computer and a bike. Placed under the floor boards of the concert hall were electronic censers, which sent signals to a program (MAX/msp) running on the computer. Setup in the program were numerous pre-recorded sounds, which were triggered by John riding over the censored sections of the floor. Again the audience were encourage to participate in the undertakings, left free to meander 'round the concert hall.

Just though I would leave everyone with this interesting video 'bout the no-input musicians from the onkyo scene.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl8IMc-8-N8