I'm a big early electronic/sound art fanboy. Whenever someone tells me to listen to a work identified as "noise," it generally falls into one of three camps:
1) Something that should have been labelled as something else (usually EDM, ambient or trance)
2) Uninteresting 40 minutes of a guy hitting a guitar/dated sounding white noise, blips and samples with no discernable form, grammar or goal
3) Experimental stuff (e.g. Ryoji Ikeda) that someone thought was noise.
Is noise just a phony attempt to market depthless pretension to a mass audience?
Stockhausen always related.
>>66044181
no
Is *some* noise just a phony attempt to market depthless pretension to a (small) audience?
yeah
>>66044206
What's good noise, then?
>>66044227
kevin drumm, sickness, pedestrian deposit all immediately stand out
>>66044227
noise is a modern folk music, if you were as academically inclined as you are pretending to be you would have noticed that
seeking folk musics that fit your standard of "good" music is retarded
Tell that to Luigi Russolo
>>66044264
Thanks, I'll check it out.
>>66044266
I hadn't thought of it that way, but I can groove with that line of thinking.
The people around me who are into it make claims of it being the new wave of intellectual music. I mostly made this thread to blow off some steam from playing it cool while hanging out with them.
>>66044328
>>66044206 here
there's nothing intellectual about it imo. most of the forerunners of the genre had anti-intellectual anti-academic leanings. like many popular anti-establishment movements it has developed a scene/image around it that has little to do with the music.
of course there's noise out there that is in a very mundane sense academic.
https://ianmfraser.bandcamp.com/album/the-realness-2
for example (read the description).
there are plenty of artists that employ interesting thoughts on form/structure/spectralism/algorithms/etc/etc to create noise, but that's a far cry from "intellectual"
unrelated but stockhausen was /fa/ af
