MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index
 FAQ & Terms of UseFAQ & Terms Of Use   Wiggler RadioMW Radio   Muff Wiggler TwitterTwitter   Support the site @ PatreonPatreon 
 SearchSearch   RegisterSign up   Log inLog in 
WIGGLING 'LITE' IN GUEST MODE

Noise v. Noise
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> Synth Noise Goto page Previous  1, 2 [all]
Author Noise v. Noise
felixer
needspeed wrote:
felixer wrote:
drcz wrote:

*) this is a pleonasm, will is free by definition

that is an interesting discussion: is it? how do you know?
i'd like to thing so, but given the evidence i'm not so sure anymore ...


Now thats funny. But the is rather deep in nature as long as it does not degrade into twaddle and would need to be moved to another thread to explore more extemporaneously Mr. Green

there have been rather heavy scientific debates about that. i'm not sure if it is very useful for us to repeat that ...
suffice to say that it is debatable. and not just from a theological point of view hihi
cycad73
cmcavoy wrote:
What constitutes noise music v. just noise? I have ideas in my head, but I'm interested in other opinions.

I get the idea that the best answer is "noise is whatever you want it to be." I want to apply a thought framework to it, so I can say whether or not something I make is _legitimate noise_ v. _crappy noise_, but that sounds like the opposite of what noise probably is.

Is there legitimate noise? Does noise mean anything at all goes?


You're searching for a ground, some place to put your feet.

Unfortunately, it's quite useless to talk about something that doesn't exist.

There is only falling, constant falling, falling into the pit of impossibility of making something that satisfies even oneself (I know I haven't done it -- I mean to be really satisfied).

There are perhaps moments of satisfaction, that one has perhaps created something others would want to hear.

Whatever the label, the process works in exactly the same way. Changing the label does not free oneself from the processes and laws of creativity, and it does not yield certainty where certainty cannot exist.
drcz
needspeed wrote:
felixer wrote:
drcz wrote:

*) this is a pleonasm, will is free by definition

that is an interesting discussion: is it? how do you know?
i'd like to thing so, but given the evidence i'm not so sure anymore ...


Now thats funny. But the is rather deep in nature as long as it does not degrade into twaddle and would need to be moved to another thread to explore more extemporaneously Mr. Green


in case you care https://www.muffwiggler.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2508878 wink
drcz
@felixer, @cycad73, you both word it very neatly!

@cmcavoy, did you find any clues from this topic?
did you develop the framework, or maybe left it in favour of making noise? smile
felixer
cycad73 wrote:
cmcavoy wrote:
What constitutes noise music v. just noise? I have ideas in my head, but I'm interested in other opinions.

I get the idea that the best answer is "noise is whatever you want it to be." I want to apply a thought framework to it, so I can say whether or not something I make is _legitimate noise_ v. _crappy noise_, but that sounds like the opposite of what noise probably is.

Is there legitimate noise? Does noise mean anything at all goes?


You're searching for a ground, some place to put your feet.

Unfortunately, it's quite useless to talk about something that doesn't exist.

There is only falling, constant falling, falling into the pit of impossibility of making something that satisfies even oneself (I know I haven't done it -- I mean to be really satisfied).

There are perhaps moments of satisfaction, that one has perhaps created something others would want to hear.

Whatever the label, the process works in exactly the same way. Changing the label does not free oneself from the processes and laws of creativity, and it does not yield certainty where certainty cannot exist.

whoa, you're in a negative mood (only today, i hope) ... personnally i'm quite happy with the music/noise i make. my bandmates are happy and there are even a few other that like it ... and i don't consider myself particularly talented. i've done it all thru hard work. so i seems possible for 'anybody' to get to that point ... but you need some confidence: in yourself and in the fairy that is called music. she comes and visits if you are nice to her. treat her well as she is the gate to heaven ... this means you must be prepared: pratice your craft and keep your mind open ... don't dissappoint her, she doesn't like that Mr. Green
Annie Socoria
drcz wrote:
Annie Socoria wrote:
My partner and I have a similar ongoing and unsolvable debate about what constitutes "art" in general. It's an enticing yet infinite void that courts madness upon entry.

Same here, which caused me to construct the normative definition of music posted above. It surely does not cover all of it, but normative definitions save sanity.

Would you mind to share your point, or even better the points of the both of you? At least the part that might apply to music (whatever it is).


Apologies for the delay in replying. My notifications for new posts in this thread were somehow disabled.

Without delving into the sanity bending minutiae of our discussions, a massive generalization of our views would be along the lines of:

I tend to define "art" as a physical manifestation of emotion and/or ideas while my partner's views tend to skew towards the classic dictionary definition: "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination".

Both vague concepts collide, merge, oppose, and collapse at points. We've never specifically applied these views towards music.

It can get very messy, very fast.
Nelson Baboon
Annie Socoria wrote:
drcz wrote:
Annie Socoria wrote:
My partner and I have a similar ongoing and unsolvable debate about what constitutes "art" in general. It's an enticing yet infinite void that courts madness upon entry.

Same here, which caused me to construct the normative definition of music posted above. It surely does not cover all of it, but normative definitions save sanity.

Would you mind to share your point, or even better the points of the both of you? At least the part that might apply to music (whatever it is).


Apologies for the delay in replying. My notifications for new posts in this thread were somehow disabled.

Without delving into the sanity bending minutiae of our discussions, a massive generalization of our views would be along the lines of:

I tend to define "art" as a physical manifestation of emotion and/or ideas while my partner's views tend to skew towards the classic dictionary definition: "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination".

Both vague concepts collide, merge, oppose, and collapse at points. We've never specifically applied these views towards music.

It can get very messy, very fast.


the messiness here are from vague, meaningless, and cliched definitions.

the "physical manifestation of emotion"? You mean like crying? How exactly does this work anyway. I turn some knobs, sequencing simultaneously, and lo - I love the way it sounds. I record it. Is that manifesting emotion? Which emotion? Can't I just enjoy the sound?

the other definition means very little to me other than I understand the meaning of the words.
Nelson Baboon
Annie Socoria wrote:
drcz wrote:
Annie Socoria wrote:
My partner and I have a similar ongoing and unsolvable debate about what constitutes "art" in general. It's an enticing yet infinite void that courts madness upon entry.

Same here, which caused me to construct the normative definition of music posted above. It surely does not cover all of it, but normative definitions save sanity.

Would you mind to share your point, or even better the points of the both of you? At least the part that might apply to music (whatever it is).


Apologies for the delay in replying. My notifications for new posts in this thread were somehow disabled.

Without delving into the sanity bending minutiae of our discussions, a massive generalization of our views would be along the lines of:

I tend to define "art" as a physical manifestation of emotion and/or ideas while my partner's views tend to skew towards the classic dictionary definition: "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination".

Both vague concepts collide, merge, oppose, and collapse at points. We've never specifically applied these views towards music.

It can get very messy, very fast.


EDIT: Sorry for annoyance. My response was unnecessarily harsh.

I don't think that either of those definitions are helpful. But I should just stay out of this. This has been argued here at length, and we seem to be back at square one.
Annie Socoria
Quote:
EDIT: Sorry for annoyance. My response was unnecessarily harsh.

I don't think that either of those definitions are helpful. But I should just stay out of this. This has been argued here at length, and we seem to be back at square one.


No worries. As I said, it gets messy. It's ridiculously subjective. Ultimately I believe any time spent trying to define art is time better spent creating it.
Nelson Baboon
Annie Socoria wrote:
Quote:
EDIT: Sorry for annoyance. My response was unnecessarily harsh.

I don't think that either of those definitions are helpful. But I should just stay out of this. This has been argued here at length, and we seem to be back at square one.


No worries. As I said, it gets messy. It's ridiculously subjective. Ultimately I believe any time spent trying to define art is time better spent creating it.


I guess that I don't agree that the definition of music is so subjective.

I don't think that trying to be analytical about what art is competes with making art.

I think that if you are defining something, and you have counterexamples, then you don't have a definition. I think that when you really explore the issue, you move away from definitions that include the necessary properties of the sound or the playing, definitions that through around terms like 'language', and somehow that emotion is required (depending on what means by emotion, beyond being totally engaged in the listening or the making)

Ultimately I think that one has to look at elements that are generally not very familiar to most in these discussions. Linguistic questions, and more general, abstract notions of humans making sound.

But you can't get past people's presuppositions, and ultimately these discussions get back to the old definitions, which seem to prevail despite the fact that they are so often untrue.
felixer
Nelson Baboon wrote:
Can't I just enjoy the sound?

i'm sure this is what motivates most 'noise musicians': simply liking what comes out. whatever the means ... and joy is an emotion too ...
most of these discussions are just elephant talk: lots of big words and it ammounts to nothing.
just enjoy the sound ...
Nelson Baboon
i'm an idiot. I meant to edit an overly harsh post, but instead replied to it and edited it there, so the original still exists. Too late now, I guess. I apologize.
Nelson Baboon
felixer wrote:
Nelson Baboon wrote:
Can't I just enjoy the sound?

i'm sure this is what motivates most 'noise musicians': simply liking what comes out. whatever the means ... and joy is an emotion too ...
most of these discussions are just elephant talk: lots of big words and it ammounts to nothing.
just enjoy the sound ...


saying that music is the physical manifestation of emotion doesn't mean that it's the physical manifestation of the joy you feel when you make it.
felixer
Nelson Baboon wrote:
felixer wrote:
Nelson Baboon wrote:
Can't I just enjoy the sound?

i'm sure this is what motivates most 'noise musicians': simply liking what comes out. whatever the means ... and joy is an emotion too ...
most of these discussions are just elephant talk: lots of big words and it ammounts to nothing.
just enjoy the sound ...


saying that music is the physical manifestation of emotion doesn't mean that it's the physical manifestation of the joy you feel when you make it.

no it isn't, so what? look, it's really simple. what we have are recordings (physical manifestations, although it prob only lives in software on 'some' computer. with people using cloudcomputing you even don't know where those data are) and then there is the joy of listening to that (emotion). so exacltly what is it that people want more. i'm quite happy with that ... and i agree that there is a lot of shite around (musically and otherwise), but i just try to ignore it. difficult but you try ...
as an aside: as long as i'm not physically attacked and forced to defend myself, i'm (reasonably) good. and even then: i know that in the past i've defended myself and felt pretty good about it. because the fucker deserved it. likewise i'll defend myself verbally when attacked ... although this no attack, it is simply another tangle with words. and i don't care tooo much for those. i'm more into action: you are defined by what you do, not what you say. this disqualifies most politicians from a brighter future. and they know it, that's why many are so frustrated.
Nelson Baboon
which, of course, you describe with words.

yes - words and concepts do make a difference, and if we're talking about a particular claim, then unless one wants to just spout nonsense, how we talk about it does matter. If indeed we're having a conversation where clarity is actually a goal.

felixer wrote:
Nelson Baboon wrote:
felixer wrote:
Nelson Baboon wrote:
Can't I just enjoy the sound?

i'm sure this is what motivates most 'noise musicians': simply liking what comes out. whatever the means ... and joy is an emotion too ...
most of these discussions are just elephant talk: lots of big words and it ammounts to nothing.
just enjoy the sound ...


saying that music is the physical manifestation of emotion doesn't mean that it's the physical manifestation of the joy you feel when you make it.

no it isn't, so what? look, it's really simple. what we have are recordings (physical manifestations, although it prob only lives in software on 'some' computer. with people using cloudcomputing you even don't know where those data are) and then there is the joy of listening to that (emotion). so exacltly what is it that people want more. i'm quite happy with that ... and i agree that there is a lot of shite around (musically and otherwise), but i just try to ignore it. difficult but you try ...
as an aside: as long as i'm not physically attacked and forced to defend myself, i'm (reasonably) good. and even then: i know that in the past i've defended myself and felt pretty good about it. because the fucker deserved it. likewise i'll defend myself verbally when attacked ... although this no attack, it is simply another tangle with words. and i don't care tooo much for those. i'm more into action: you are defined by what you do, not what you say. this disqualifies most politicians from a brighter future. and they know it, that's why many are so frustrated.
Bataserpa
Noise music, at least for me, is a completely different approach from "regular" music.

Play noise is break barriers. It is showing that there is something else than melody, rhythms or structure in music.

I don't give a fuck what people think when I play noise and honestly discuss about this doesn't make any sense.

Noise is for feel not to talk, that's my opinion.

For the record, there is not wrong or right, good or bad in the art field if the artist makes with his heart.
felixer
Bataserpa wrote:


Noise is for feel not to talk, that's my opinion.

For the record, there is not wrong or right, good or bad in the art field if the artist makes with his heart.

well said thumbs up
felixer
Nelson Baboon wrote:
which, of course, you describe with words


yes, that is the medium here. but you know my music. disregard everything i say. just listen to the sounds cool
felixer
here's a new tracks for ya: https://soundcloud.com/felixer/noisebox2


MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> Synth Noise Goto page Previous  1, 2 [all]
Page 2 of 2
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group