I don't remember if was talking about this documentary movie here. I think that it deserved on attention:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYRw-fEG874&feature=share
This isn't generally the stuff I listen to (more experimental) so I skipped it. A documentary with the early Whitehouse most of the current Finnish guys, Taint, Deathpile, "no coast", Hospital, TF/PE, etc. Maybe some Sotos. That would be awesome. Wish I had the money to fund it myself.
It's AWFUL! Full of dumb hipster cunts who I'd be surprised if they even make noise anymore. There are a couple of exceptions but they are totally outnumbered and can't save this spectacle. It sums up everything I despised about American noise and Americans in general. The only good thing about it is that it can serve as a document of the sheer idiocy of that era of noise from America. It should be called People From Portland Who Wear Converse and Call Each Other Dude.
If you want to laugh at stupid hipster assholes with no clue, then you're in for a treat. If you want to watch something substantive then get City/Ruins - Art in the Face of Industrial Decay. It doesn't redeem PWDN (why should it?) but it portrays a genuine and intelligent music community who treat their craft with seriousness and dignity.
Quote from: RyanWreck on November 03, 2011, 11:21:26 AM
This isn't generally the stuff I listen to (more experimental) so I skipped it. A documentary with the early Whitehouse most of the current Finnish guys, Taint, Deathpile, "no coast", Hospital, TF/PE, etc. Maybe some Sotos. That would be awesome. Wish I had the money to fund it myself.
I think that we shouldn't close so called NOISE in ghetto. POWER ELECTRONICS is ONLY one of the several genres in such what I call INDUSTRIAL MUSIC. Of course we can always talking about why there is SMEGMA, and not TAINT, but this document isn't about the most important artists but about phenomena and I think this task was rightly accomplished.
Quote from: GEWALTMONOPOL on November 03, 2011, 12:45:00 PM
It's AWFUL! Full of dumb hipster cunts who I'd be surprised if they even make noise anymore. There are a couple of exceptions but they are totally outnumbered and can't save this spectacle. It sums up everything I despised about American noise and Americans in general. The only good thing about it is that it can serve as a document of the sheer idiocy of that era of noise from America. It should be called People From Portland Who Wear Converse and Call Each Other Dude.
If you want to laugh at stupid hipster assholes with no clue, then you're in for a treat. If you want to watch something substantive then get City/Ruins - Art in the Face of Industrial Decay. It doesn't redeem PWDN (why should it?) but it portrays a genuine and intelligent music community who treat their craft with seriousness and dignity.
I don't see your hate to young, American generation noise artists or your opinion about Amercicans as idiots. If they are idiots, you should say that Polish or French people are the same, why not? Do you know so well them, that you see big differences between them? Are Finnish people smarter than Americans or Polish people?
Besides, I didn't put this link because I am big fan of artists (many of them I didn't know even) who took part in this movie. But because, in my opinion, this document is interesting no valueing of artists.
Most of the people in that documentary and the noise people in general I met, heard and dealt with from that side of the pond did their nation no favours. A bunch of free for all chancers with no quality control, horrible aesthetics, weed smoking hippe fucks. The Wolf Eyes ilk. Yuck! I'm glad that shit died on it's arse.
There is another America. It's featured in the City/Ruins DVD I recommended. After a dark period of American dominance, a dominance which was very much about a release a week hubris and general arrogance towards the rest of the world, it offers great hope. Watch it or don't.
Also, what the fuck is this "hate against young people"? There's plenty of young and more or less totally unknown and inexperienced people in the City/Ruins DVD. They all, without fail, come across as thoughtful and genuine people who have interesting things to say. Unlike the waffling morons in PWDN so desperately vying for our attention.
Quote from: GEWALTMONOPOL on November 03, 2011, 01:39:14 PM
Most of the people in that documentary and the noise people in general I met, heard and dealt with from that side of the pond did their nation no favours. A bunch of free for all chancers with no quality control, horrible aesthetics, weed smoking hippe fucks. The Wolf Eyes ilk. Yuck! I'm glad that shit died on it's arse.
There is another America. It's featured in the City/Ruins DVD I recommended. After a dark period of American dominance, a dominance which was very much about a release a week hubris and general arrogance towards the rest of the world, it offers great hope. Watch it or don't.
I like WOLF EYES very much and that all scene, with HAIR POLICE, DEAD MACHINES, EMERALDS and so on, even that younger generation with ultra hipster IMPREGNABLE... I didn't see City/Ruins DVD yet, but I know about line-up and I saw some parts, and I aggre with you, this is another America, this is very good movie (I think), but I wouldn't value artists against them. All of them describe something more that hipster psychedelic funny play music or dark, mizanthropic and apocalyptic so called TRUE noise.
I don't mind hippie drivel if it has substance but that was my problem with the Portland DVD. Most people there had precious little to say at all. We all start as empty vessels that get filled over time, but why feature in such a high profile medium when you haven't had the chance to evolve into something substantive as an artist? Is that really a good way to introduce yourself to the world? It's symptomatic of the times we live in that people want to be seen and noticed without having contributed anything. It's on TV, it's in the gossip mags, gutter tabloids and most of all on the internet. Full of useless cunts with mouths and hands that spew nothing but shit. This documentary proves that noise, at least in that part of the world and at that time, was no different. As such it's a worthwhile document. It would be interesting to know how many of the people in the DVD who actually make noise now.
Wolf Eyes eh? As I'm such a gracious man you can be my friend anyway. ;-)
Quote from: GEWALTMONOPOL on November 03, 2011, 02:15:08 PM
I don't mind hippie drivel if it has substance but that was my problem with the Portland DVD. Most people there had precious little to say at all. We all start as empty vessels that get filled over time, but why feature in such a high profile medium when you haven't had the chance to evolve into something substantive as an artist? Is that really a good way to introduce yourself to the world? It's symptomatic of the times we live in that people want to be seen and noticed without having contributed anything. It's on TV, it's in the gossip mags, gutter tabloids and most of all on the internet. Full of useless cunts with mouths and hands that spew nothing but shit. This documentary proves that noise, at least in that part of the world and at that time, was no different. As such it's a worthwhile document. It would be interesting to know how many of the people in the DVD who actually make noise now.
Wolf Eyes eh? As I'm such a gracious man you can be my friend anyway. ;-)
I wish I knew better English, so I am not able to write something more that I have in my mind... So, I hope I will clear in my views... First of all such as you I prefer artists (in music too) who want to say something because ART is specific kind of dialogue between two men. But, music is very specific. We shouldn't expect that every artist KNOW (or WANT) what he would like to say us. The nature of music is abstraction, though INDUSTRIAL/NOISE artists used/use it only a tool to express their views.... but still many of them see this music ANLY as way to catharsis. For some context of that is funny, for other more serious, but listener/recipient shouldn't leap it to heart/mind. Why? Because here is this very complicated matter which concerns with ART and artist's subconscious. I don't want to go deeper in that, but to speak clearer I prefer to see music as independent factor no link with its creator (his behaviour, official statements, character, and so on) ... Secondly, you speak that these noise hipsters are hopeless cunts. Why don't you give them a chance? Do you think that your favourite artists when they were begining, don't happen with the same or similar opinions come from Willliam BENNETT and other so called STARS on industrial/noisemusic? I think we should focus only for music, don't watch for artists if they have long hair, wear psychedelic t-shirts, shoes or do stupid gestures or make faces.
You haven't paid attention to what I've said but never mind. Lets focus on the music. With precious few exceptions it was GARBAGE!
I remember trying to watch this thing before and being put off by a few main things. Firstly, the vacuous ambiguity of the statements. Considering that Noise has been part of the western musical cannon since the Futurists, and that Industrial has been around for around three decades now, I don't think explanations of Noise being defined as "undesirable sound" and "if you don't like it etc." are really necessary. If this was to be a general documentary about Noise it would be, but this is simply a documentation of a local scene. Secondly, constantly mumbling, "like...like...like...", "the cosmos" (I was never a big fan of Pulse Emitter anyway) and (a personal bugbear) "it's kind of the point, anyone can do it" just comes across as simple dilettantism, which doesn't suggest much more for the scene being documented. Yet another documentary designed more as an introduction than an in-depth look. This time I got up to the fellow singing into a microphone holding a tea kettle before I gave up.
As for what I can hear of the actual Noise, hardly inspiring. Too much "quirk".
Quote from: Andrew McIntosh on November 04, 2011, 01:28:27 AM
Considering that Noise has been part of the western musical cannon since the Futurists, and that Industrial has been around for around three decades now, I don't think explanations of Noise being defined as "undesirable sound" and "if you don't like it etc."
I would like to behave only to this sentence. Of course NOISE (I prefer term INDUSTRIAL NOISE, this is more precise) has roots in Italian bruitism but this is ONLY roots. Futurists (actually only RUSSOLO and few artists from so called second futurism) had different relation to noise sound than all artists from industrial avant-garde of rock music or industrial noise (excluding few projects, i.e VIVENZA, SAT STOICIZMO or LE SYNDICAT, who intentionally wanted to adopt Italian bruitists' concepts). So far as futurists saw in noise sound specific beauty and symbol of movement, modern industrial/noise artists consider noise sound as exclusive "musical" tool to express their frustration and riot against modern world, Judeo-Christian values, and so on... Futurists were opponents against some values too but they saw a new industrialized world as beauty, and industrial/noise artists don't see this world in optimistic colours, and don't see here any positive values. So, we can not join them in that simple way. So, I agree with an artist from this movie who said that "noise is undesirable sound". This is definition of noise. NOISE is undiserable sound in our culture/society, doesn't it? Such as death, hard pornography, fascism, satanism, occultism, sickness... So noise is sound illustration of this exclusion from our society/dominant culture, it is synonym of all mentioned banned phenomena in our culture.
PS. Do you think really that opinions of those artists from local scene about noise as phenomena are so different to artists from other part of the world?
PPPS. Anyway, I saw this document the second time, read all posts here again, and I must agree with all who were more sceptic to this movie and most artists who took part there. In Poland are little noise scene in which are very simillar hipster artists. I am very critical against them, They focused all what here was negative written about vacuous ambiguity... I think I was too much excited because, probably, there is too less movies about this type of music/art...
They should have a different name like for this like "People from Portland Who Do Experimental Music" then it wouldn't be as misleading.
You are quite right to point out that only a few projects/artists have taken influence from the Futurists directly but that was not my point. My point was that noise, atonalism, dissonance, increased volume, abstraction, etc. has been well and truly part and parcel of western music for at least a century, taking the Futurists as a starting point ("since the Futurists", I wrote). I was referring to those elements of western music that would impact on Noise, up to and including Industrial. I am aware of the history of Futurism, by the way.
Personally, I draw a distinction between noise the dictionary definition and Noise the genre. Noise the genre may well be undesirable to mainstream culture but I'm not thinking of mainstream culture when I make it or listen to it. To me, Noise is desirable sound. Those other elements you mentioned I can take or leave as I desire or not.
No, I don't expect their views to be any different from a lot of other people who "make Noise" and that's another reason why I think this documentary is boring. In fact it reminded me of a film made at the start of the 00's of experimental musicians in Queensland, Australia - very similar in many ways. The only difference to me was the regional aspect and that at that time I hadn't seen many films like it, so I understand your enthusiasm to share this film. I'm pretty sure, either on this forum or the Troniks forum, one could track down a list of films about Noise/PE/Industrial if one was keen.
Quote from: Andrew McIntosh on November 04, 2011, 09:46:38 AM
Personally, I draw a distinction between noise the dictionary definition and Noise the genre. Noise the genre may well be undesirable to mainstream culture but I'm not thinking of mainstream culture when I make it or listen to it. To me, Noise is desirable sound. Those other elements you mentioned I can take or leave as I desire or not.
For you or me NOISE as music is desirable, like other cultural taboo for me... but, I think, artist in this movie have meant about NOISE only as a sound such like normal people think about that, not genre in music. Besides, each of us like noise music and our perception of this phenomena is different than the rest of society, but, when we try to describe this noise music (and noise as sound) we must do it in context of official culture.
Quote from: RyanWreck on November 04, 2011, 09:11:35 AM
"People from Portland Who Do Experimental Music"
Or "People From Portland Who Think Just Turning Up is Enough Because it's Like So Rad"
I watched this carcrash on a big screen through a pretty happening sound system in Finland a couple of years ago. I think there was whiskey on the go to heighten the experience as well. Out of many guffaws there were two that particularly stood out for unintentional comedic effect. Josh Hydeman doing a Prurient routine which must be about the weakest looking and sounding PE performance I've seen. Something about him reminded me of that fag Dennis Lyxzén and the idea of HIM doing PE made me laugh even harder. But the famous Yellow Swans disagreement in front of the camera over what the band was about is THE classic moment in this abortion. It's Spinal Tap/Bad News but in bumfuck Portland in a genre not many know or care about. There were other moments but they've slipped my mind. I don't blame Daniel Menche for keeping his distance.
This IS a valuable document but not necessarily for noise. It's an unintentional lecture in how not to be regardless of what you do. No one respects a chancer, at least not in the long run, and this film is full of them.
Quote from: ImpulsyStetoskopu on November 04, 2011, 10:18:04 AMbut, I think, artist in this movie have meant about NOISE only as a sound such like normal people think about that, not genre in music. Besides, each of us like noise music and our perception of this phenomena is different than the rest of society, but, when we try to describe this noise music (and noise as sound) we must do it in context of official culture.
I think I've understood your point here and yes noise on a wider scale may not be desirable to non-noisers. But for a documentary like this, who is the target demographic? I wouldn't imagine it's a "general release" kind of documentary/film, it will be received for the most part by people who also "do noise" or at the very least have a rudimentary understanding of noise/industrial/related. So to make a documentary about noise, for people who like noise, to then distinguish that noise is non-desirable, seems like a point that isn't really worth making in the first place.
If I could weigh in:
the point that Stephen and I had in making City/Ruins was to show that - within our scene at least - art is an expression that reflects life. I've seen People Who Do Noise several times and, while i thought it was very well filmed, it had no central thesis outside of "here's what the people in this scene who make noise think."
Rather, between our backgrounds in the scene and my background in sociology and journalism and stephen's in film, we chose to examine the scene we operate in by showing the critical (in the class-conflict critical theory sense) and socially-constructed aspects of the scene. Namely, that these people express their frustration with class conflict and industrial collapse through their art, and that their perceptions of the scene and the imagery of their art is constructed by group definitions of "class conflict" and "economic collapse". Ultimately, we wanted to make a documentary that wasn't a self-aggrandizing look at a scene of people, but a journalistic and sociological work examining the relations between extreme art and music. hence the montages of factories, the short clips of performances (as opposed to the 15-20 minute sets of PWDN) and the "oral history" style rather than the "talk to me about my band" interviews.
Admittedly, our thesis doesn't focus on parts of the Cleveland scene that don't fit in with this clique of artists that embodies our thesis. Not for lack of trying though; in fact several drone acts (emeralds, etc) turned us down when we approached them for interviews and performances and then proceeded to get their friends to talk shit about how we neglected to mention them and the more Wolf Eyes-y / Fag Tapes-y scene. Though, at the risk of sounding like Jliat, its hard to examine how people socially construct their world views and their place in the scene when they aren't willing to participate in a media form that is constructed as a way for people to express this exactly.
Yes, Emeralds seem to reflect the "whoa dude" hipster mentality previously mentioned. I can't really add anything to what Aaron said. Well stated...
Sideshifting from the topic, but I have always found it strange that there has not ever been a well made documentary on industrial culture. even in the 80/90 when ptv/coil/nww/c93 were selling shitloads.
Quote from: Nyodene D on November 04, 2011, 07:56:01 PM
Rather, between our backgrounds in the scene and my background in sociology and journalism and stephen's in film, we chose to examine the scene we operate in by showing the critical (in the class-conflict critical theory sense) and socially-constructed aspects of the scene. Namely, that these people express their frustration with class conflict and industrial collapse through their art, and that their perceptions of the scene and the imagery of their art is constructed by group definitions of "class conflict" and "economic collapse". Ultimately, we wanted to make a documentary that wasn't a self-aggrandizing look at a scene of people, but a journalistic and sociological work examining the relations between extreme art and music. hence the montages of factories, the short clips of performances (as opposed to the 15-20 minute sets of PWDN) and the "oral history" style rather than the "talk to me about my band" interviews.
Quote from: Nyodene D on November 04, 2011, 07:56:01 PM
Sideshifting from the topic, but I have always found it strange that there has not ever been a well made documentary on industrial culture. even in the 80/90 when ptv/coil/nww/c93 were selling shitloads.
Thanks for your interesting thoughts and impressions. I think that there aren't (or are but very small) chances for one perfect documentary on noise/industrial music. Maybe many movies about that phenomenon could be solution?
But I don't agree that PTV/COIL/NWW and C93 did shitloads :)
Quote from: ImpulsyStetoskopu on November 04, 2011, 10:18:04 AM
For you or me NOISE as music is desirable, like other cultural taboo for me... but, I think, artist in this movie have meant about NOISE only as a sound such like normal people think about that, not genre in music.
I disagree. They are definitely portraying themselves as artists putting (what they call) Noise into an aesthetic context. Which is why I mentioned (in passing) that such clichés as "noise is described as undesirable sound" are not necessary when explaining Noise as music. It just sounds condescending, as if a viewer, whether a long-time lover of Noise or someone who's never heard of it, wouldn't know what the standard definition of noise is.
It's not the trifling issue of that particular quote that bothered me. It's the fact that such trivial phrases where used in the film in the first place. There was and is so much more that could have been expressed.
Quote from: ImpulsyStetoskopu on November 04, 2011, 10:18:04 AMBesides, each of us like noise music and our perception of this phenomena is different than the rest of society, but, when we try to describe this noise music (and noise as sound) we must do it in context of official culture.
Again I disagree. I would not want to be dis-honest with people by pretending that there is no context with Noise outside of mainstream culture, whatever that happens to be wherever anyone is. Otherwise there would be nothing to describe.
I really don't understand why everybody that does something different, has a different approach to noise, is younger or from a different part of the noise-globe or doesn't necessarily take everything they do serious needs to be called a loser or a poser, a stupid hippie or a hipster.
It's cool to dump all kinds of shit on people you've never met, never played with, never bought shit from or whatever...
Another example of this stupid noise-elitism cancer.
If a documentary falls short of the things you wanted to see - say it and move on. If you think it's not "sociological" or "deep" or "honest" or "true" or "artistic" enough - fine. Just skip the name-calling.
Quote from: Andrew McIntosh on November 05, 2011, 02:47:03 AM
I disagree. They are definitely portraying themselves as artists putting (what they call) Noise into an aesthetic context. Which is why I mentioned (in passing) that such clichés as "noise is described as undesirable sound" are not necessary when explaining Noise as music. It just sounds condescending, as if a viewer, whether a long-time lover of Noise or someone who's never heard of it, wouldn't know what the standard definition of noise is.
It's not the trifling issue of that particular quote that bothered me. It's the fact that such trivial phrases where used in the film in the first place. There was and is so much more that could have been expressed.
OK, I think that we met in the place where is the main wall between us. I don't want definitely (as you) say what the artist meant.... I only know that NOISE as sound is undesirable in our culture. NOISE as music too (maybe because of previous phrase). I don't think these phrases are trivial. These are evident but describe where this music is located in our culture and what is true nature of this music. These problems don't touch me (I belief that mentioned artist too), even I may say more, I have been living with that conscious and I am happy man from 20 years, when I listened industrial/noise music the first time. I have only a reservation to directors of this movie that they didn't enlarge on this question which perhaps could more inspire someone who's never heard of it.
Quote from: Andrew McIntosh on November 05, 2011, 02:47:03 AM
Again I disagree. I would not want to be dis-honest with people by pretending that there is no context with Noise outside of mainstream culture, whatever that happens to be wherever anyone is. Otherwise there would be nothing to describe.
Ok, do you think that NOISE music as one of the many faces of avant-garde in art is hang in vacuum? Every movement in avant-garde (noise music too) was REACTION to the real life, real culture, normal people and so on... We aren't able to know well NOISE music (noise as a sound) without context to official culture, knowledge of art, musicology... I think that it is so obvious... so where is problem?
Quote from: Potier on November 05, 2011, 06:18:22 AM
I really don't understand why everybody that does something different, has a different approach to noise, is younger or from a different part of the noise-globe or doesn't necessarily take everything they do serious needs to be called a loser or a poser, a stupid hippie or a hipster.
It's cool to dump all kinds of shit on people you've never met, never played with, never bought shit from or whatever...
Another example of this stupid noise-elitism cancer.
If a documentary falls short of the things you wanted to see - say it and move on. If you think it's not "sociological" or "deep" or "honest" or "true" or "artistic" enough - fine. Just skip the name-calling.
Yes, you are right, I don't understand it too ;) I have no objections to noise artists who make stupid faces, gestures, who wear coloured clothes (though I accept only black clothes in my life), who don't understand why they create noise music (who said that every artists has to know why he want to play music?) or they treat noise music as funny play (then again every kind of art must have elements play, for creator and for recipient, even this art which is ultra, very pessimistic). All of them are part of this scene too. Problem is, I think, that all of them see different NOISE music :) They are different than artists who try to say something seriuos. Only that one or so much that one.
Quote from: Potier on November 05, 2011, 06:18:22 AM
If a documentary falls short of the things you wanted to see - say it and move on. If you think it's not "sociological" or "deep" or "honest" or "true" or "artistic" enough - fine. Just skip the name-calling.
I did not have expectations first time. I watched it couple times, and it is most of all funny. I mean, when someone gets to see the document of Finnish noise, it is very amusing as well. It doesn't mean it wouldn't be serious, but some qualities within PE/noise is very amusing if you look it slightly from outsider perspective.
(You know, even the infamous Whitehouse riot, which has been like myths of UK PE - exposed in ALAP#1 to be one angry womyn engaging in semi-catfight with Bennett.)
What caught me in this document was that it was most of all document about new comers, or would you dare to say youth movement? Smegma crew and maybe Yellow Swans and Oscillating Innards was internationally known names, while there are bunch of artists who had at that time very little to show, very little to give and I believe it was mentioned part of them had left the "scene" before document even came out? So, in that context one wonders why I would watch document of someone who did noise over one summer in local scene and see his relatively poor performance set up in private carage for videocrew to film? Just to find out the "legacy" he left behind was ltd 30 cdr.
I think People Who Do Noise is good, because it is real and presents these people probably in ways they are.
But I also think that making document is somehow special moment, which should capture somehow noteworthy movement or issue. Of course one got these days all sorts of reality TV about very mundane things which hardly matter. But within noise there would be so much relevant and important to cover. Some of the people had been involved so short time, that it wasn't really that good time to capture what's going on. I remember when I commented this document on Noisefanatics couple years ago, some of people involved mentioned that so much change/progress had happened even while waiting document to come out. One third has quit what they did, and looking to discogs for example, shows traces of only something like one CDR or split C-20 existing.
So one would wonder, if there was energy and resources and possibly interest in noise, why to settle for this? But then again, it was probably moment when things were happening, and finding the crucial moment when it's best to do document is probably hard. You just do it.
But all in all, when you compared Portland noise doc vs. Cleveland noise doc, the first one is something I would guess could go well for film festival for people looking for curiosities, while latter would be more of noise fan audience. It is my impression. First one covers local village weirdos, doing strange stuff in relatively compact editing and short format. Latter is long and pretty detailed with issues I doubt would be high interest of non-noise viewer. With longer pieces of raw noise footage which would probably bore out people who aren't into the type of art.
Quote from: FreakAnimalFinland on November 05, 2011, 10:45:25 AM
What caught me in this document was that it was most of all document about new comers, or would you dare to say youth movement? Smegma crew and maybe Yellow Swans and Oscillating Innards was internationally known names, while there are bunch of artists who had at that time very little to show, very little to give and I believe it was mentioned part of them had left the "scene" before document even came out? So, in that context one wonders why I would watch document of someone who did noise over one summer in local scene and see his relatively poor performance set up in private carage for videocrew to film? Just to find out the "legacy" he left behind was ltd 30 cdr.
Well, I wonder if really short-existed projects should be less compelling for us and those long-existed more compelling? I know some (I am sured that you know too) projects who have been existing very long time and still they are hopeless stupid, who still have not anything interesting to say. And what for exemple about FUNCTION DISORDER or STENKA BAZIN and many more who existed only a year or two? What about projects, who started very well but they changed their profile relatively very soon (LAST FEW DAYS, 23 SKIDOO, and others)? Should they are compelling for us, or not? You say: this is natural that people change its views and so on, but are we go too far saying that this one artist has no right to be compelling only from this reason that he didn't create this music enough long probably?
I think you can't rule out what kind of legacy someone left behind and was it interesting in first place. Of course this was most of all document of "scene of city". And therefore it introduced the players of that moment, probably without paying attention how "important" or "interesting" they would be.
People come and go, and some left something what changed the style of music even if band existed only short period of time. Some left behind strong line-up of solid releases still good listening today. Some left nothing and were nothing, other than perhaps nice friendly guys than happened to hang around. Of course one could argue it depicts scene well, when you include whole spectrum? I personally value more document of remarkable jobs. If I would buy artbook about history of avantgarde paintings, I'd be interested in guys who left behind remarkable body of art - even if they did it in couple of years. I wouldn't be interested who ever friends they had hanging out there, doodling something.
But as said - when documenting something that is alive - not thing of the past, it's hard to put it on perspective.
Quote from: FreakAnimalFinland on November 05, 2011, 11:44:11 AM
Of course one could argue it depicts scene well, when you include whole spectrum? I personally value more document of remarkable jobs. If I would buy artbook about history of avantgarde paintings, I'd be interested in guys who left behind remarkable body of art - even if they did it in couple of years. I wouldn't be interested who ever friends they had hanging out there, doodling something.
Yes, I share your opinion. But, in case your sentence about artbook on history of avantgarde paintings, especially in avant-garde, how and is there any tool to value this kind of art? In classic art this is possible, but not in avant-garde, I guess... At least I don't know any knowledge in theory in aesthetics about that although this is my one of the main passions for many years.
I guess it is postmodernist plague, where nothing has value and everything is relative. So people will just swallow the idea that everybody can be everything, and everything is everything. And nothing means anything anymore. Just give up in front of potential danger of brainwork and surrender in front of pranks.
The lame doodle is masterpiece, sound of distortion box is great noise album, etc.... But you can make critical evaluation = opinion based on something beyond mere gut feeling. You can value piece of creativity. If the artist or his followers can't take criticism, it's whole another issue.
Simple proof could be, that talking about book reference: When editor compiled book of avantgarde art - he makes the choices. He values what is worth of inclusion and what is not. Which works are good and which are shit. It would be utterly strange idea that you can't value avantgarde art!? Wouldn't this mean, every book is just compilation of whatever shit someone happened to make? But no. There is most often editor who compiles the essential and leaves out the shit. He/she is probably not afraid to make judgement or hide under idea that "everything is subjective", "nothing has value"...
This doesn't remove the possibility, that someone will always actually prefer the junk and gutter-trash, instead of "remarkable art", hah... Both trash and art is not beyond possibilities of finding value.
Often, the body of work, is important factor defining value. The doodle or black square itself may not have value, but its context in whole body of work and legacy of artist. His meaning in his time or in future.
In this angle, for example some works of David Jackman, are utterly useless. But those recordings in his discography together with other works create what IS Jackman.
One torn newspaper page with muddy footprint found from street is not remarkable art. But artistic intent, concept stretched beyond the mundane, may become so if it is well done. How can it be "well done", someone asks? I'd rather not take this discussion here. It may happen in "art section" if someone is into concept art?
You wrote about many problems with those knowledge about modern art struggles for many years. You write about postmodernist plague but, frankly speaking, I don't understand term POSTMODERNISM, for me this is empty term... nevermind...Only I would like to write that this isn't any plague, and I don't see any problem in present time. This is the price of freedom... I don't see in that any problem because of I am libertine and freedom is for me the main value? I don't know... Anyway, I like this "postmodernist" time, as you called, because everybody is able to contact with art, feel it in its, specfic way without academic knowledge, cultural or society cannons. Problem is only with recipients, their consciuos and purposes (shortly, with their so called souls). I ma happy that everybody can create art and every work is able to influence to other people, even in situation, when someone (maybe even smarter, with bigger knowledge) thinks that this work is total shit. Isn't it wonderful?
Quote from: FreakAnimalFinland on November 05, 2011, 10:45:25 AMBut all in all, when you compared Portland noise doc vs. Cleveland noise doc, the first one is something I would guess could go well for film festival for people looking for curiosities, while latter would be more of noise fan audience. It is my impression. First one covers local village weirdos, doing strange stuff in relatively compact editing and short format. Latter is long and pretty detailed with issues I doubt would be high interest of non-noise viewer. With longer pieces of raw noise footage which would probably bore out people who aren't into the type of art.
I can say with much certainty that had I arrived as a total outsider and seen the Portland DVD I would probably have walked away from the whole genre in disgust. Had I on the other hand seen the Cleveland DVD I would have been very puzzled and aching to find out more. Shouldn't this be obvious to people? Are people really that fucking stupid that they would choose blatant wannabees over people with an apparent urgency in their expression? I guess they are which is why my outlook on humanity is sp pessimistic.
Aaron and Stephen, here's a challenge for you. Why not bring a camera during your trip to Europe and try and capture some of the people you meet? I understand the task would probably be impossible on several different levels and would add a massive stress load on an already taxing trip. BUT, whatever you would manage to capture during you short stay, even if it would give a far from complete overview, would probably be more than worthwhile. If there are anyone I have faith in doing a good job of this it's you two.
When Death Squad was touring europe in 1998, they filmed many interviews - also in Finland. I'm pretty glad none of that was published, hah! In theory, international noise document would be interesting, BUT, also a huge challenge. The more people you involved, the less time they will have on document. Thinking 90 minutes document with live footage, and interviews, where people have mere 5 minutes if that, to talk. How can it sum up even key elements of project?
Therefore I do like the more "limited" approach. Even documenting specific label-rosters or like now, specific countries or cities. How good it could be if there would be:
Broken Flag document
Tesco Organization document
Cold Meat document
Come Organization document
etc etc.
Some of these things are really the past - so now it would be quite easy to take a look to something that already took very clear form and in some cases basically just distant history. There would be enough limited range of targets to interview, but possibly enough substance and interesting matters when focusing to the glory days.
All what you say is very clear to me and the suggestion was about one quarter serious. Actually it was more to say that if there is anyone I would trust to do a good job of something like this it would be Aaron and Stephen. They have proved themselves very capable.
A big all encompassing documentary would of course be impossible. Under those circumstances it would be more a case of "The People We Met During Our Trip To Europe". And here I am laying it all out for them. I should just shut the fuck up!
Thanks for the kind words! It is actually my plan to document the tour. At least for personal reasons. When I was in Europe in 2006 I wanted to document, but fucking airline broke my camera. A tough dick to swallow that was...
Quote from: ImpulsyStetoskopu on November 05, 2011, 01:33:52 PM
You wrote about many problems with those knowledge about modern art struggles for many years. You write about postmodernist plague but, frankly speaking, I don't understand term POSTMODERNISM, for me this is empty term... nevermind...
This can go to really serious academic debate, but to say long short, people who say that postmodernism is an empty term proves that postmodernism is almost finished his establishing process in the society. It is sad, because it is serious and cruel castration of art (including music, painting ect.) and philosophy. You're speaking about freedom, postmodernist philosophers and people who where bringing the flag of ultimate freedom started destroying value itself. Fuck this. Fuck this kind of freedom. Postmodernist idea is going against human itself and it's paradox, because this idea was created by the human being. Intoxicating masses of "open minded people" with this idea won't change nature of human. It will only bring frustration in every section of life we still enjoy..
Quote from: murderous_vision on November 05, 2011, 03:58:27 PM
Thanks for the kind words!
You're welcome chief. Credit given where it's due.
There's a sitcom called Portlandia which captures the characters very well. Based on the few youtube clips I've seen the problem is that it doesn't go far enough in ripping the shit out of them. This clip will give you all an idea:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVmq9dq6Nsg
Pricelsss quote:
"I gave up clowning years ago"
"Well in Portland you don't have to"
The people who made and featured in PWDN must have had that in mind throughout. The clowning never ends.
I picture a sitcom in Cleveland to be like Eraserhead.
Quote from: linxtyx on November 05, 2011, 04:46:34 PM
This can go to really serious academic debate, but to say long short, people who say that postmodernism is an empty term proves that postmodernism is almost finished his establishing process in the society. It is sad, because it is serious and cruel castration of art (including music, painting ect.) and philosophy. You're speaking about freedom, postmodernist philosophers and people who where bringing the flag of ultimate freedom started destroying value itself. Fuck this. Fuck this kind of freedom. Postmodernist idea is going against human itself and it's paradox, because this idea was created by the human being. Intoxicating masses of "open minded people" with this idea won't change nature of human. It will only bring frustration in every section of life we still enjoy..
I am affraid that you didn't understand my words well. I meant that I don't understand this term, and nothing means for me. Not because it finished his establishing process already but because I have never considered it as serious and real phonomena in art or in culture. Besides, I don't understand how philosophers or people are able to destroy any values... this is something like populistic, sick demagogy.
You wrote that "open minded people" will not change nature of human. Sorry, but what is connection between nature of human and undestroyed values? Could you mention that values?
Quote from: ImpulsyStetoskopu on November 05, 2011, 05:46:26 PM
Quote from: linxtyx on November 05, 2011, 04:46:34 PM
This can go to really serious academic debate, but to say long short, people who say that postmodernism is an empty term proves that postmodernism is almost finished his establishing process in the society. It is sad, because it is serious and cruel castration of art (including music, painting ect.) and philosophy. You're speaking about freedom, postmodernist philosophers and people who where bringing the flag of ultimate freedom started destroying value itself. Fuck this. Fuck this kind of freedom. Postmodernist idea is going against human itself and it's paradox, because this idea was created by the human being. Intoxicating masses of "open minded people" with this idea won't change nature of human. It will only bring frustration in every section of life we still enjoy..
I am affraid that you didn't understand my words well. I meant that I don't understand this term, and nothing means for me. Not because it finished his establishing process already but because I have never considered it as serious and real phonomena in art or in culture. Besides, I don't understand how philosophers or people are able to destroy any values... this is something like populistic, sick demagogy.
You wrote that "open minded people" will not change nature of human. Sorry, but what is connection between nature of human and undestroyed values? Could you mention that values?
Ah..then it's pointless to discuss further if you said that postmodernism is empty term
in that way. I understood it wrong.
But talking about destroying values it's simple, when people starting look to the value itself as not worth while or changes values into totally speculative and "open" abstractions the value itself is starting to lose it's meaning as a value. And for me your words that you can't understand how people/philosophers (it's the same in some kind of why, ain't it?...) can destroy value sounds like lack of knowledge..(but it's not time for insulting each other) I would ask (and answer in the same way) - then who
else can destroy value?
In earlier social stages values have been changing - it's more then normal, but in this stage the continent of value reached the stage where the continent is destroying the value. Like cancer eating you from the inside for an example. As Mikko mentioned "
I guess it is postmodernist plague, where nothing has value and everything is relative. So people will just swallow the idea that everybody can be everything, and everything is everything. And nothing means anything anymore." This is the idea today brought into the social arena, for an example, by the neo-communist movements. The idea of total freedom and that everything is possible, everyone can be anyone. When we put this continent into the term of value, value itself is destroyed, because value is what is not relative and is something that is not seen through the glass of compromise. And the main point I'm going to here is that this point of view from postmodernistic ideological leaders is intoxicating every section of art, slowly, but noticeably. This is going to the total destruction of subject and individuality.
Nature of human being and destruction of value? Value is what is implicated in the nature of human being, and acceptance of this kind point of view will bring only frustration into life of human. Next really complicated question would be - why this is happening? I don't have answer to this..
p.s. the idea that everything is relative sounds as bloody schizophrenic demagogy for me..
Quote from: linxtyx on November 05, 2011, 06:07:08 PM
And for me your words that you can't understand how people/philosophers (it's the same in some kind of why, ain't it?...) can destroy value sounds like lack of knowledge..
And this is the reason why I would like to talk with you about that. I have no so bigger knowledge as you and I hope to know something from people who are smarter than me.
First of all, if we discuss about values we will show what kind values are considering. I remind you that we discussed about art/music, and values which are related to this sphere. Please, tell me, what kind of values definitely are destroying by so called postmodernist philosophers or open-minded people?
Inasmuch as you wrote that "when people starting look to the value itself as not worth while or changes values into totally speculative and "open" abstractions the value itself is starting to lose it's meaning as a value", please, tell me where from and what tools you used, or somebody else, to find that when people think about values (considering their worth) the value itself is starting to lose it's meaning as a value?
And the most important question.
Inasmuch as you are opponent to postmodernism in art/culture, if you are opponent against avant-garde? I think that you should be because it writes that Avant-garde is source of postmodernism. It exactly avant-garde undermined all values in art and culture. How you, as composer/artist can use noise/power electronics (chiildren of avantgarde) to fight with all who don't respect so called "natural human values"? don't you use classic music, rock or folk? Where is your consequence?
Quote from: ImpulsyStetoskopu on November 05, 2011, 06:37:45 PM
Quote from: linxtyx on November 05, 2011, 06:07:08 PM
And for me your words that you can't understand how people/philosophers (it's the same in some kind of why, ain't it?...) can destroy value sounds like lack of knowledge..
And this is the reason why I would like to talk with you about that. I have no so bigger knowledge as you and I hope to know something from people who are smarter than me.
First of all, if we discuss about values we will show what kind values are considering. I remind you that we discussed about art/music, and values which are related to this sphere. Please, tell me, what kind of values definitely are destroying by so called postmodernist philosophers or open-minded people?
Inasmuch as you wrote that "when people starting look to the value itself as not worth while or changes values into totally speculative and "open" abstractions the value itself is starting to lose it's meaning as a value", please, tell me where from and what tools you used, or somebody else, to find that when people think about values (considering their worth) the value itself is starting to lose it's meaning as a value?
And the most important question.
Inasmuch as you are opponent to postmodernism in art/culture, if you are opponent against avant-garde? I think that you should be because it writes that Avant-garde is source of postmodernism. It exactly avant-garde undermined all values in art and culture. How you, as composer/artist can use noise/power electronics (chiildren of avantgarde) to fight with all who don't respect so called "natural human values"? don't you use classic music, rock or folk? Where is your consequence?
First of all, I'm looking into the big picture, not talking about particular values, but more into the human relations with the value itself. But if you need particular examples so bad, I would name (talking about industrial scene in the widest sense) : 1. Individual is respect for what he is doing (because everything is relative and everyone can do anything) 2. Because of that point of view and actions scene is mutating in the way I don't like or adore (everything what I say is totally subjective and has to be viewed like that all the time). And yes, look : when a man starts to looks into the value as pointless thing isn't this a destruction of a value? You loose a need to have any values, because, as I've already mentioned, everything is relative, no one wants to crack their brain, they just feel the need to do something (that's fine), but they're starting to lose the point of what they're doing and as a result shit loads of shitty shit is being produced every day (this topic has been discussed enough times, but I have to mention this, because it has connection to what I'm saying). But as I mentioned the value is a part of human being, so it flows from this that human can never ever erase value as it is from his conscious life; discomfort that he feels when he accepts anti-value "politics" is the only thing that still makes me believe everything can turn to the better track.
And your argument about avant-garde is totally pointless, because avant-garde is the substance that's progressing all the time, it's not some kind of system as postmodernism is - it's just something that's ahead of what is now. Postmodernism is an avant-garde of today society, art world, it even (as we talking about that) starts to come into industrial scene. What was a source of postmodernism already ain't avant-garde. Power electronics was avant-garde, 25-30 (approx.) years ago. Now, I would say, what we still have nice and good in the scene is plain establishment and I adore it. I'm going against what this scene is becoming. Of course it's kinda hard to understand that I'm saying this as I'm a newcomer comparing to the other guys, but I think I just came into this at the good time to still catch the wind of changes and I didn't like it.
And please don't twist my words. Not natural human values, but value itself as a natural symptom of human consciousness.
I think the plainest and simplest digest to what I say would be "respect your roots, respect what you're doing and don't adore progress just because it's progress".
It's gone from me being accused of being anti people younger than myself to a debate over postmodernism. Can we just agree that this documentary sucks?
Quote from: linxtyx on November 05, 2011, 07:37:01 PM
First of all, I'm looking into the big picture, not talking about particular values, but more into the human relations with the value itself. 1. Individual is respect for what he is doing (because everything is relative and everyone can do anything) 2. Because of that point of view and actions scene is mutating in the way I don't like or adore (everything what I say is totally subjective and has to be viewed like that all the time).
Ok, so who or where anybody don't respect what he is doing? Who don't respect this value? CROWLEY? I remind you that there are few interpretations CROWLEY's concept. Most people (not me) inteprets "Liber AL vel Legis-The Law is for All" different than you. Official interpretation is all freedom but only there where we don't limit freedom other person". Respect for what we are doing is the main value libertine world.
I don't understand your second "value". Who said or wrote that his subjective opinions MUST be viewed all the time? For me this isn't any value... Only two?
Quote from: linxtyx on November 05, 2011, 07:37:01 PM
And yes, look : when a man starts to looks into the value as pointless thing isn't this a destruction of a value
Exactly! Doubt is one of the main value in life of the men. If anybody boubts in god (his exist) for example this doesn't mean that this man destroys god or his belief in it. I say more, this doubt MAY strenghten his value. Of course may destroy too but this is unknown. We can not take certainty that doubt MUST destroy anything.
Quote from: linxtyx on November 05, 2011, 07:37:01 PM
What was a source of postmodernism already ain't avant-garde. Power electronics was avant-garde, 25-30 (approx.) years ago. Now, I would say, what we still have nice and good in the scene is plain establishment and I adore it.
Power electronics have never been an avant-garde, it was and is one of the consequences of avant-garde. I wrote about roots for postmodernism, and no doubt, avantgarde movements were direct reason appearing so called postmodernism. Where are you see plain establishment? In power electronics? :) What about libertines in this scene of power electronics? Do you share with them their views? Even if we consider power electronics as genre which doesn't have any relations with avantgarde and so called postmodernism, what do you say about artists from this scene who are nihilists?
Quote
Ok, so who or where anybody don't respect what he is doing? Who don't respect this value? CROWLEY? I remind you that there are few interpretations CROWLEY's concept. Most people (not me) inteprets "Liber AL vel Legis-The Law is for All" different than you. Official interpretation is all freedom but only there where we don't limit freedom other person". Respect for what we are doing is the main value libertine world.
I don't understand your second "value". Who said or wrote that his subjective opinions MUST be viewed all the time? For me this isn't any value... Only two?
I see the lack of the respect in the actions of many people - is it my delusion or just different concept and understanding of term respect. This won't be the place to discuss that. The main point I was trying to show you all the time is that continent of "everything is relative - everyone can be anyone" value is weakening the human relation with art, music, literature (and with value itself, because this kind of view is just shouting that value isn't needed anymore, because everything is possible).
p.s. "everything what I say is totally subjective and has to be viewed like that all the time" - I had in mind that I'm talking only for myself, not for group of people or some kind of ideological source.
Quote
Exactly! Doubt is one of the main value in life of the men. If anybody boubts in god (his exist) for example this doesn't mean that this man destroys god or his belief in it. I say more, this doubt MAY strenghten his value. Of course may destroy too but this is unknown. We can not take certainty that doubt MUST destroy anything.
I agree with you here. But when a man thinks that everything is doubtful (because it's relative - it can be so or so), the ultimate doubt destroys it's main point - if everything is doubtful then nothing is doubtful. And when you start keeping yourself out of the judgment, you just can't have any values. You just become a little cheerful sissy, even with a dark background of nihilistic implications of such writers as J. Derrida or G. Deleuze.
Quote
Power electronics have never been an avant-garde, it was and is one of the consequences of avant-garde. I wrote about roots for postmodernism, and no doubt, avantgarde movements were direct reason appearing so called postmodernism. Where are you see plain establishment? In power electronics? :) What about libertines in this scene of power electronics? Do you share with them their views? Even if we consider power electronics as genre which doesn't have any relations with avantgarde and so called postmodernism, what do you say about artists from this scene who are nihilists?
Oh..this is totally out of discuss-area. I see it one way - you see it another.
I see plain establishment in sounds/aesthetics/techniques and I see new things coming in and I just don't like them. Maybe I'm being radically conservative about this, but..
The scene HAS relations with avantgarde AND postmodernism and I DON'T like how these relations, FOR TODAY, are effecting the scene itself.
And what about nihilists? Nihilism is not the main lineament of postmodernism OR avantgarde. Many writers, artists and musicians where nihilists when postmodernism even haven't been in zygote stage.
Quote
It's gone from me being accused of being anti people younger than myself to a debate over postmodernism. Can we just agree that this documentary sucks?
And yes we can agree with this totally and end this discussion, because it's just going to transform into pointless fight, when two of us will be shouting different opinions to each others face.
Quote from: ImpulsyStetoskopu on November 05, 2011, 01:33:52 PM
I ma happy that everybody can create art and every work is able to influence to other people, even in situation, when someone (maybe even smarter, with bigger knowledge) thinks that this work is total shit. Isn't it wonderful?
No.
Quote from: GEWALTMONOPOL on November 05, 2011, 08:34:36 PM
It's gone from me being accused of being anti people younger than myself to a debate over postmodernism. Can we just agree that this documentary sucks?
Yes.
Quote from: Andrew McIntosh on November 05, 2011, 10:47:57 PM
Quote from: ImpulsyStetoskopu on November 05, 2011, 01:33:52 PM
I ma happy that everybody can create art and every work is able to influence to other people, even in situation, when someone (maybe even smarter, with bigger knowledge) thinks that this work is total shit. Isn't it wonderful?
No.
Funny :)
Quote from: linxtyx on November 05, 2011, 07:37:01 PMPower electronics was avant-garde, 25-30 (approx.) years ago.
no, it was not. it was just some 15 year old kids rebelling and/or having a laugh. this is the reason why f.e. example there is no Iphar box on Vinyl on Demand though he (VOD) is begging for years. what is cult for you is embarassing for some of the creators from back then. this is not what constitutes 'avantgarde'.
Meanwhile, People Who Do Noise is out there featuring 20, 30 and maybe even 40 year olds behaving embarrassingly. What's their excuse?
This is why I despise so many from the noise contingent. They often believe that their lack of quality control and general dumbfuckery is somehow less embarrassing - and worse - that it's actually more worthy, by the sheer fact that it's not PE. It's not. Piss on that!
Quote from: GEWALTMONOPOL on November 05, 2011, 08:34:36 PM
Can we just agree that this documentary sucks?
do we really need more then video recording of live performance? watching people talk about why they do noise and how it makes them feel isnt too interesting to me. even performances can be a bore to watch and are better just to listen too.
Quote from: STREETMEAT on November 06, 2011, 11:40:00 AM
Quote from: GEWALTMONOPOL on November 05, 2011, 08:34:36 PM
Can we just agree that this documentary sucks?
do we really need more then video recording of live performance? watching people talk about why they do noise and how it makes them feel isnt too interesting to me. even performances can be a bore to watch and are better just to listen too.
Do we really need interviews with them in magazines, reviews their records, books about their music/art?
Quote from: ImpulsyStetoskopu on November 06, 2011, 11:48:33 AM
Quote from: STREETMEAT on November 06, 2011, 11:40:00 AM
Quote from: GEWALTMONOPOL on November 05, 2011, 08:34:36 PM
Can we just agree that this documentary sucks?
do we really need more then video recording of live performance? watching people talk about why they do noise and how it makes them feel isnt too interesting to me. even performances can be a bore to watch and are better just to listen too.
Do we really need interviews with them in magazines, reviews their records, books about their music/art?
interviews i see the point of,getting in the head of artist at that time.reviews can be really bias someones amazing noise record could be total crap to me. should i like it just because (BIG NOISE ARTIST) says so? noise books.. thats a little too AVANTGARDE for me.
but hey everything will have pros and cons. things people love and another will hate. im just another sourpuss.
Quote from: STREETMEAT on November 06, 2011, 11:57:29 AM
Quote from: ImpulsyStetoskopu on November 06, 2011, 11:48:33 AM
Quote from: STREETMEAT on November 06, 2011, 11:40:00 AM
Quote from: GEWALTMONOPOL on November 05, 2011, 08:34:36 PM
Can we just agree that this documentary sucks?
do we really need more then video recording of live performance? watching people talk about why they do noise and how it makes them feel isnt too interesting to me. even performances can be a bore to watch and are better just to listen too.
Do we really need interviews with them in magazines, reviews their records, books about their music/art?
interviews i see the point of,getting in the head of artist at that time.reviews can be really bias someones amazing noise record could be total crap to me. should i like it just because (BIG NOISE ARTIST) says so? noise books.. thats a little too AVANTGARDE for me.
but hey everything will have pros and cons. things people love and another will hate. im just another sourpuss.
So, I see a typish postmodernist man here :)
Most of the people in this don't really play out that much or record any more. Portland's noise scene is pretty much in a lull except some things involving people from the Skaters, Eat Skull, Smegma, etc. which for the most part I have no interest in. I didn't live here when they made it, although Seattle isn't really any better then or now. Portland's pretty boring. Most of the harsh noise projects have gone onto more textural post noise blah blah blah OxIx > Concern, etc. There use to be a lot of house's that did shows and now that's not really happening. There definitely are people who live here and do noise who aren't spacey, art school scene fags, even if they are ignored in general.
Thank god the Yellow Swans left.