ilovefuzz.com

Gearmond wrote:

Blackened Soul wrote:It's ok if you don't really understand, or you don't like what others like. I personally don't see what is wrong with "slowed down shitty new age with some ornamentals thrown in to disguise how boring it is" because that is what it is actually suppose to be. The idea of a lot of ambient is to be background music that doesn't get in the way of whatever, or something to relax to. The best ambiant stuff is where and when you can create a space or atmosphere or even just a mood more then something that WANTS your attention in a LOOK AT ME PLEASE I AM NOODLING!!! kind of way Not everything has to be groundbreaking or even interesting to be music or art or vallid. And I think you need to spend more time actually listening to different ambiant artists to get a better grasp on it.

As for drone like sunn It is the same idea of using sound for a mood and a atmosphere more then it just being a song or a style/sound but in the opposite direction from ambiant [even though the two can and do cross over a lot really] it is to overwhelm the listener with volume and overtones, really it is as much about the overtones of the note/chord as the the striking of it in the same way ass seen in the chant video, it's the same thing just a different way to go about it and subject matter.

oh no i understand completely, its just really overblown simplicity to me. as for the "not in your face" thats way more about mentality than design. i've had years of people pestering me to like ambient. i know its supposed to be made to be in the background. it misses the point because "background music" isn't a thing determined on the end of the musician.

It is based on how a/the majority react to a type of thing, music/sonic art [to be all annoying] has a lot physiological impact, which means if it was not doable and actually be used as such then no one would listen to it as such, for whatever reasons they do and such which usually fall under averages, majority rule and all that you see. Same with why noise is called noise vs not noise, most "normal" people consider most not popular musical forms to be noise or a form of noise and when you subject them to what is sold as noise guess what? they all ask "what is that noise?"

I wanna say that I like my noise taken with some sort of rhythmic underlay, perhaps best exemplified by this:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrQlDV2qcu0[/youtube]

A) If you've got the rig for it, you can Sunn yourself..Sunn Tanning, if you will.

B) I listened to Minazao for the first time, all fifty-ish minutes of it at a reasonable volume, and afterwards my hearing was totally attuned to completely different things--like rain hitting a drainpipe, that sort of stuff.

That lasted for about half an hour, and it was definitely a very cool experience that I don't usually get from more "musical" listening.

So I guess I'm obligated to post here since I've been heavily involved in the noise and power electronics scene for the past 5 years...

Noise, in sound form, is everywhere. It's the background of your work day, the air streaming over your car as you drive around. The crunching of leaves, and the person next to you yawning. Sometimes the noise can be organized or repetative, but I find that to be naturally a lot harder to find other than the random sound collages we are submitted to constantly from the time we wake up to the time we go to sleep. Even in our dreams, do we not hear sound?

But noise is also thick text set on a page. It's the typography set so horribly you can't focus on it or read it. It loses its focus and becomes nothing more than an afterthought. Noise in this sense is any sort of matter that does not grab AND HOLD the viewers attention. In that sense, a horrible logo could be an example of noise. 40 different 'no parking' signs litered down the streets of Richmond on a single block become noise.

Now, in my noise projects, they've all had different focuses. I started out with sound collage using found sounds and analog/digital manipulation. It was the organization of random sounds, or noises. They didn't have any context to them.

But I quickly moved to having a theme, or a focus, by shifting to heavier power electronics and harshnoise, in addition to using vocals to convey a message. The sounds I created became planned, organized, and even though most would consider it 'noise' it was very planned out.

In another of my projects, I focus on static. Its density, the frequencies it pushes, etc. To me it means nothing. But providing the context of a track title, or immagery, you're adding to the communication of it. I use this project to zone out. For some reason I either zone out really hard, or get into some really weird super productive zone by just having static on in the background. Low-mid static walls seem to be the most effective for me, almost like traveling in a car, aroudnd that frequency. Noise in this context is a tool.

While that was a little bit of rambling, I think that noise to those who are not into it see it as formless, or lacking notes or melody that they are so used to hearing in Radio play. But then there still are the examples of rythmic noise, which touch on beats, while still being classified as 'noise'.

So for me, noise has many faces.

Blackened Soul wrote:
It is based on how a/the majority react to a type of thing, music/sonic art [to be all annoying] has a lot physiological impact, which means if it was not doable and actually be used as such then no one would listen to it as such, for whatever reasons they do and such which usually fall under averages, majority rule and all that you see. Same with why noise is called noise vs not noise, most "normal" people consider most not popular musical forms to be noise or a form of noise and when you subject them to what is sold as noise guess what? they all ask "what is that noise?"

yeah, but none of that is anything quote-unquote normal music doesnt do.

Gearmond wrote:

Blackened Soul wrote:
It is based on how a/the majority react to a type of thing, music/sonic art [to be all annoying] has a lot physiological impact, which means if it was not doable and actually be used as such then no one would listen to it as such, for whatever reasons they do and such which usually fall under averages, majority rule and all that you see. Same with why noise is called noise vs not noise, most "normal" people consider most not popular musical forms to be noise or a form of noise and when you subject them to what is sold as noise guess what? they all ask "what is that noise?"

yeah, but none of that is anything quote-unquote normal music doesnt do.

Then why hate on it?

Gearmond wrote:

Blackened Soul wrote:
It is based on how a/the majority react to a type of thing, music/sonic art [to be all annoying] has a lot physiological impact, which means if it was not doable and actually be used as such then no one would listen to it as such, for whatever reasons they do and such which usually fall under averages, majority rule and all that you see. Same with why noise is called noise vs not noise, most "normal" people consider most not popular musical forms to be noise or a form of noise and when you subject them to what is sold as noise guess what? they all ask "what is that noise?"

yeah, but none of that is anything quote-unquote normal music doesnt do.

Well, what makes it not "normal music", except for you saying it isn't?

Blackened Soul wrote:

Gearmond wrote:

Blackened Soul wrote:
It is based on how a/the majority react to a type of thing, music/sonic art [to be all annoying] has a lot physiological impact, which means if it was not doable and actually be used as such then no one would listen to it as such, for whatever reasons they do and such which usually fall under averages, majority rule and all that you see. Same with why noise is called noise vs not noise, most "normal" people consider most not popular musical forms to be noise or a form of noise and when you subject them to what is sold as noise guess what? they all ask "what is that noise?"

yeah, but none of that is anything quote-unquote normal music doesnt do.

Then why hate on it?

because the phrase putting on airs exists.

Gearmond wrote:because the phrase putting on airs exists.

Is that all you have in the end? you can say that about almost any "new" style such as postrock ect. whatever, I have wasted enough time with this.

theavondon wrote:

Gearmond wrote:

Blackened Soul wrote:
It is based on how a/the majority react to a type of thing, music/sonic art [to be all annoying] has a lot physiological impact, which means if it was not doable and actually be used as such then no one would listen to it as such, for whatever reasons they do and such which usually fall under averages, majority rule and all that you see. Same with why noise is called noise vs not noise, most "normal" people consider most not popular musical forms to be noise or a form of noise and when you subject them to what is sold as noise guess what? they all ask "what is that noise?"

yeah, but none of that is anything quote-unquote normal music doesnt do.

Well, what makes it not "normal music", except for you saying it isn't?

half pedantic asshat-ery, half solid point.

100% glory.

D.o.S. wrote:

theavondon wrote:
Well, what makes it not "normal music", except for you saying it isn't?

half pedantic asshat-ery, half solid point.

100% glory.

NSFW: show

Thank you, kind sir. Thank. You.

Blackened Soul wrote:

Gearmond wrote:because the phrase putting on airs exists.

Is that all you have in the end? you can say that about almost any "new" style such as postrock ect. whatever, I have wasted enough time with this.

you missed the point. those genres don't define themselves on aspects universal to all musics, so much as styles. i dont like ambient because its analogous to having a genre thats solely timbre.

Visceral sounds without the pretension of being called music. Or something smart and academic sounding like that