Been listening many old, previously listened recordings - as opposed to tons of yet unplayed releases. In some cases, you listen release once, and even if it feels great, there doesn't seem much urge or need to return it. At least not immediately. This goes to quite a lot of music.
The sheer volume of output of a lot of artists and the massive capacity of releases (like huge box-sets) makes you wonder have things changed during the years? Is a lot of noise already designed to be listened merely once - if that? Like sets of multiple CDR's, with playing time of several hours. Like in case of wall noise. How many times it can be listened, and is it supposed to be good only once, but perhaps no reason to go through it again when the goodness perhaps lies on the surface level which is absorded on first take?
I hear a lot of metal bands I consider pretty good. But fail to remember any of their riffs. Some older releases you remember every turn what songs make, and even the solos from first to last note. Many noise releases what sound like guaranteed job for noisehead, yet recollections of release are vague and distant, unless I have seriously sat down and wrote something about it. Then there are recordings which I return much more frequently. Or atleast give them multiple playingtimes instantly since it sounded so good.
Is once or twice enough? Is good release really good, if it won't lure you for another listening?
I have a friend, who's way of keeping his CD collection in order is that on regular basis he goes through every disc of collection. If he feels like he doesn't want to listen some disc today, he'll put it for sale. Meaning, collection consist only items what he could listen any day, any time. To me, it seems pretty harsh measure (considering my own listening habits based simply on mood. And certain mood may happen only once a year..), yet also logical. Only recently, I have finally come to terms of actually starting to sell away items of my own collection. Looking at release (predominantly CDR) and thinking is this good, and if it is, will I listen to it. When such decision is made, it's also easy to be much more critical in first place. Do I need to own item, if I'd only listen it once? Do I need to hunt some limited item, if it's something that'll be absorded fully in first 5 minutes of playingtime and rest feels good- yet giving nothing "special" (referring to for example drone or wall noise).
Some old stuff you listened since forever maybe just feels more secure and comfortable - so you keep going back to it , as it always strikes a chord .
You just need time and more spins to get used to new "classics" !
No doubt that these classics are rare to come out now as ever before , though .
There are very few releases I own that I think are really good and I don't listen to often. The Hafler Trio is one of them. So is Nurse With Wound, and older Dave Phillips and other Schimpfluct Grupe stuff. Most other stuff either gets many repeat listens or is in a big box of stuff I'm selling. Most releases I've heard that have come out in the last decade weren't even worth the first listen, and definitely won't ever be listened to again.
It's funny I was just going to start a thread related to this. But I'll post first in regards to the issue it hand.
I'd agree with Tisbor that many releases that you have the longest tend to become comfortable and you develop sense of knowledge and base of experience around them. In that way they provide more than just music, at least for me. I think also when getting into a new genre or even subgenre/style there's a tendency to sort of revere and return to the albums you first really enjoy or that at least peak your curiosity. As you hear more and more in that style I feel like it becomes easier to digest the music but also it makes much of it less memorable. It's like constant submersion in a style sort of makes you more numb to it.
But I think that's also why the really good releases stick out so much more. Sort of jolt you from your expectations. Then again some things take time to reveal themselves. When I return to electronic groups like Autechre now I can hear a whole new range of sounds and melodies that had just blended in previously.
So I think as collections expand, its harder to get back and re-examine something that could reveal itself as gem after a while. So I try not to be too hasty in picking things up or selling them. I feel like its worth missing out on limited cassettes/7"s/cd-rs etc if I get to spend more time with what I've already got. Personally I'm not into downloading so it can be frustrating when you miss things and have little chance to get them again, but if you've got records you love already its not so bad.
with many noise records - i regret to say - much of the punch is lost after one listen. i don't know what it is, but many times i've picked an album from the shelf remembering it to be fucking intense, then putting it on and wondering what happened: why am i not getting the same "kick" out of this as the first time? it's still okay, but i'd rather pop in some actual classic release or give something new a spin.
maybe it's the same effect as with porn (relationship) ? the same piece of video (ass) doesn't get your dick hard the same way after a few times?
I wrote something about this on the other board in December of last year.
Quote from: YQuote from: X... recordings I've listened to once or twice, but one or two dedicated listening experiences that yield great satisfaction are fine for me, ...
Excellent point. I feel the same way.
Some albums are like a live experience for me. Since you really can never relive (fully) a live show, does it lose value? I know it's not not exactly the same, but in a way it could be. Sometimes a piece is perfect for one specific moment and then it's gone, left only for memories.
This is how much of my music listening today plays out. I don't know if it is because I listen to an enormous amount of live recordings, so much so that I can't always listen to them more than once or twice, or if my attention span has changed. I tend to think it is more greatly related to the former. I've always had recordings that the listening experience is so coveted that I "save" them. I don't want to
over-listen to them inasmuch as the number of times heard. Not only can these recordings create such special moments in intensity, so they resonate clearly for great lengths of time, but also because I've listened to them intensely, leaving me with a clear memory. I think it matters how you listen to music as well. I key into atmospheres and tonality moreso than anything else. I don't need twenty listens to meld into that atmosphere, though it can certainly change over time.
So, yes, listening to recorded music has become like a live listening experience in many ways. My processing, relationship, and recollection of recorded music definitely closer resembles live listening than it ever has. It's interesting that other people feel similarly and describe their listening as such, not that what I do is so unique, but because I've wondered for a couple years now, for various reasons (limited time, number of releases, shortening attention spans), if listening has changed in this way. Certain musics are more readily adaptable to this idea, obviously. It's such a great difference to the days of listening to an album over and over and over again, studying every nook and cranny. The listening was almost like a studio process. Having lived in both environments, I don't find the processes, or results, to be just a matter of semantics.
I guess this have also something to do with mp3 (or other files), am I right? I would think availability of listening files online is like radio or live show. You listen what is available and that's it.
This was partially the question, and perhaps the more important part: I think many people now record "jams". They capture some mood/performance/sound diary. Something knowingly "imperfect" and spontaneous. What others will take a listen. Once. Or perhaps twice. Exactly like live experience. It can be good, but many times after you've seen same set played several times, it's not interesting anymore.
And I would think most of old noise wasn't just a jam, but "album" with more to it? Perhaps with higher aims.
If there is availability of cheap one-time-experiences, it would seem like good thing. The point of actually owning something you will never listen would be small. And perhaps even more so, if it's complicated and expensive to do?
I do struggle with this question, but in the end, I know that during my life when I sold stuff, very often I later wanted to hear it again. And regretted selling things away. So if I hear something very good, I tend to like to keep it even when possibility of new listening is small - at least in near future.
And MAX - you got it all wrong. Great porn is great even when it's watched multiple times!
many a times have a stumbled over some old song I hadn't heard for years remembering it being fucking great, getting goosebumps alls over. Then I listen to it and it hardly feels as good as back then. Which made me wonder if there was such a thing as the "best song in the world" that just never lost intensity. Probably just a myth.
And when ever I sold a cd in the past, I always regretted it at some point, wanting to listen to it again, even just to see if it was really that bad. So I stopped selling stuff.
Good noise tracks that really stick are harder to come by, than any other music genre. I could name 3 spontaneously:
Incapacitants - yellow silk buddha
Merzbow - cannibalism of machine
Bizarre uproar - Ei Enää Äpäriä
the last two tracks are opening tracks, where I can't remember what the rest of the tracks sound like, but those stuck with me.
Mp3 files do play a role as well. Since nearly everyone has tons of albums they downloaded, it waters down the listening experience.
I definitely prefer constructed, theme based albums to "jams". I find them much more captivating.
Quote from: FreakAnimalFinland on May 25, 2010, 11:09:52 PM
I guess this have also something to do with mp3 (or other files), am I right? I would think availability of listening files online is like radio or live show. You listen what is available and that's it.
This was directed to whom? Or just everyone?
A lot of this comes down to the way an individual listens to music/Noise; the circumstances, the reasons, the reactions, etc. And you'd have to really not know yourself to think your tastes wont change over the years.
My own method, such as it is, is to really give as good a go as possible to something new in the hopes that it'll be something I like. I don't like to deprive myself of pleasure and I feel that at least one, decent listen is not too much to ask for, for any new project/recording I encounter. This comes from doing reviews over the years. So, it's very seldom I'll piss something off after a few minutes; it'll have to be really bad, to my ears, for me to do that. Because of this, I like to think I can honestly say I don't care for "X" project or recording, because I've given it the time of day.
But, unlike other people on this board, I'm not inundated with new material every week. I don't run a label so I don't get parcels of every new project trying to establish themselves (I'm pretty much in that category myself, anyway), and I try to be as selective as possible in purchasing because I don't like to waste what little money I've got and I don't like the idea of buying something I wont want later in life. So, I can afford, perhaps, to be more lenient with material that's new to me.
for me, right now, it is really only a monetary issue. Generally, I try to keep those releases I like to listen to, and sell what I don't listen to so often.
In the past I would say I was a bit of a pack rat, never wanting to let go of items. But, for example, just the other day, I was going through my collection and realized I had records I had not listened to in 3 years, pretty silly to keep it.
I think I maintain a decent library of music. If I had better cash flow, I might not be so concerned with it.
Quote from: Zeno Marx on May 26, 2010, 01:46:27 AM
Quote from: FreakAnimalFinland on May 25, 2010, 11:09:52 PM
I guess this have also something to do with mp3 (or other files), am I right? I would think availability of listening files online is like radio or live show. You listen what is available and that's it.
This was directed to whom? Or just everyone?
It was most of all to you, although anyone can reply if they feel like it. Not attached any moral about should one or shouldn't one listen files, just pointing the lack of physical format may give it more of the radio or live show feeling, and allows to be experienced that way? ... while for example investing XXX$ to SPK LP box-set wouldn't really be wise if it's just for going once through?
I do have shitloads of boxes, which I think are meant to be pretty much listened once. And in many cases, I have yet to do even that! This consist also many big names, from Merzbow to TG to Haters..
Quote from: FreakAnimalFinland on May 25, 2010, 11:09:52 PM
And MAX - you got it all wrong. Great porn is great even when it's watched multiple times!
GREAT porn perhaps is, but GOOD porn isn't. great doesn't stop being great, but good can drop to being just okay.
for example: "tapes" by HIJOKAIDAN is always superrior, could be compared to your favourite video piece of nasty assflogging which always excites you. the new GOVERNMENT ALPHA tape ("soft drugs", i think was the name) can be good, but after maybe two listens you'll rather go back to "sporadic spectra" than the new tape. just like after the first sensation of "new" is gone in a mediocre porn, you'd rather watch something new or go back to a classic.
I'd like to agree with what Zeno Marx that there are definitely some recordings I save to give them that added impact. Some things are just too special to listen to everyday or even every week.
Quote from: FreakAnimalFinland on May 26, 2010, 10:41:39 AM
Quote from: Zeno Marx on May 26, 2010, 01:46:27 AM
Quote from: FreakAnimalFinland on May 25, 2010, 11:09:52 PM
I guess this have also something to do with mp3 (or other files), am I right? I would think availability of listening files online is like radio or live show. You listen what is available and that's it.
This was directed to whom? Or just everyone?
It was most of all to you, although anyone can reply if they feel like it. Not attached any moral about should one or shouldn't one listen files, just pointing the lack of physical format may give it more of the radio or live show feeling, and allows to be experienced that way? ... while for example investing XXX$ to SPK LP box-set wouldn't really be wise if it's just for going once through?
What I wrote applies to all my listening, be it from files or hard copy. At this point, speaking for myself, I find very little difference, if any at all, between files and hard copy. I approach them the same way. I experience the music the same way. There's no chasm in psychology between the two. I don't find more joy or value in an LP over a FLAC set. I very, very rarely listen to MP3s. Files are almost exclusively lossless running through my full stereo. The computer has been a component of my stereo system for a long time.
I have cut way, way back on buying certain types of music because of what I wrote. The first listen provides 90% of the listening value I can ever mine from it, so like you said, it is a waste of money to invest in music of that nature. Such an LP/cassette/CD becomes more like a reference tool rather than a primary listening experience. Like adding another volume to an encyclopedia set rather than exposure to a pure musical experience. I don't have the space or cash for such and endeavor. I'm not sure how I can better explain it. Hopefully, that makes some sense.
EDIT: I realized I might not have answered you in full. Nearly everything you can imagine is eventually available lossless. There are blogs, groups, and torrent trackers dedicated to vinyl and cassettes lossless. There's a growing number of people who find joy and pride in doing high-quality transfers to share with other people. So, there is very little lack of availability. My nearly every thirst to hear something in its full glory is easily quenched.
just one example: http://pbthal.blogspot.com/
Lossless or not lossless wasn't really what I even talked. It was more about:
you open radio and you like it. Listen what it has to offer and the close. Never hear again. But would you pay for it? 20 euro per listen? Perhaps not. So I think format what means cheap price or no price, gives you opportunity to give it a try without any need to enjoy it more than once.
When I actually buy something, I do hope that it's good enough for more than.. hmm, like 10mins for 7" that's 10 euros. I rather hope I can play it 10 times and be satisfied.
And the more interesting question to me is the one nobody yet commented, if they have noticed have the nature of sound nowadays more focused on one time experience. That artist didn't even consider it should be more than that.
In regards to the second question, I think its hard to tell the artists intent for sure but when people are releasing CD-rs and tapes on a monthly basis with little to distinguish one from the other I think that one time listening is part of the idea. I remember Mike Connelly talking about the sort of disposable nature of American Tapes. How each release is a quick document of evolution. Or look at the MERZBOW bird series on important. When he's doing an album every month or two for just that series alone I think there is definite question of should this be listened to more than once. Should it even be released in the first place. I think HNW and especially the newer psych-drone type shit wear out there welcome pretty quick. I alot of this stuff sells for pretty cheap, at least when its first sold, so I guess the idea of one-time listening releases is somewhat viable but it just seems like collecting clutter to me.
Quote from: FreakAnimalFinland on May 26, 2010, 06:53:13 PM
It was more about:
you open radio and you like it. Listen what it has to offer and the close. Never hear again. But would you pay for it? 20 euro per listen? Perhaps not. So I think format what means cheap price or no price, gives you opportunity to give it a try without any need to enjoy it more than once.
When I actually buy something, I do hope that it's good enough for more than.. hmm, like 10mins for 7" that's 10 euros. I rather hope I can play it 10 times and be satisfied.
I'm under the impression that anyone who truly loves music is looking for something they can connect with, find interesting, feels intrigue, etc. Free or paid for, we want to find something of value that resonates with us. We're on that never-ending search for treasure. There's lots of good music out there, but I feel there is a real shortage of GREAT music out there. It makes me fiend to the level that I don't care how these resonators come to me.
I'm finding no correlation, or probability, between free or
paid for in regard to how many times I try to like something. I know it was different years ago when I tape traded. I would have put much more effort into finding value in the things I actually purchased. That is no longer the case. I have a personal policy of listening to something three times before I file it (which is why it sometimes takes me 3 years to get to something).
Now, the question "would you pay for it?" is a good one to ask. I grabbed a free EyeHateGod show the other day that is good enough that had I heard it before hand, I would have paid for it. I don't like EyeHateGod enough to own more than a couple split 7"s and a single LP, but this recording was special.
I have to be honest. I think I understand your questions, but I'm not understanding the spirit of the questions.
my normal way of listening is pretty easy. If i really like it, i listen to it till i won't like it anymore. Means i play the stuff 10-200 times in repeat. After that i won't listen to it some years normaly and then i start it again listening till my ears bleed. But its only with the stuff i really really like.
For the other stuff, I listen to a CD/TApe/LP so long till there is something i don't like->throw it out. For example the Dissection - Somberlain CD is thrown out cause of one Gay Scream in Track 1 or 2 or such. Or play it some time and then lay it in the collection.
I don't think it has something to do with mp3 in special, its more thats there too much from everthing out. CD/CDR/Tape/LP/DVD ect ect. If i see the buy lists, i don't need mp3 to be "overheard" in a month. I have also not the time to hear all stuff intensive, so i take only the music i like really to listen intensive.
For the Music/artists, it would be much better to listen several times and with concentration, cause many Tracks/Album are not easy listening like some Pop music. You need some time to hear all the elements in the music and you need also time to realize if you like it or not. Some CD's i can hear after years again and find then new music parts i havn't heared before, for example Tiamat - Wildhoney.
Quote from: Zeno Marx on May 26, 2010, 09:44:09 PM
I have to be honest. I think I understand your questions, but I'm not understanding the spirit of the questions.
Well, these are questions simply to stir some talk, since I don't have the "answers"... so to say. I'd like to just see if there is any relation to my stubborn throughts about "state of noise" compared to its history and my own tastes,.. compared to what others may feel.
To me, the question being for example the amount of proper albums vs. whatever casually published. And what has been intent of artist/label.
I believe there used to be lots of releases where noise is result of talent, skills, vision, perhaps lots of work and such things. And when you received a tape, it was "album". You could listen tape for long time. Technically good quality that could also survive endless playing.
As opposed to many modern day releases, where everything indicates to me, that artists didn't release it to be listened. It is more about his oh so personal process. He wouldn't listen it by himself either. Cheapest and lowest junk, which is more of "demo" or "rehearsal" than "album". AND it shouldn't be taken as simple insult. Often the demo or rehearsal or live is the best material that artists or band can make.
But when you think about how many C-45 & C-60 of well thought and well made tapes there used to be which qualified as "album", opposed to countless 5-20 minute tapes or whatever length CDR's of "pointless blasts", I think ratio now is alarming. I have nothing against any length itself, but only for it's correlation towards mentality, that volume of releases seems more important than what release offers? Of course this is no news. Situation been like this for years. It just makes you wonder if artists or labels consciously favor such material and could it be different? Being my question, if they intentionally produce material that is not meant to be properly listened. They know it, and think it's good idea.
I know that this is to very much related to styles. I won't complain about such experimental genres where nature of sound and whole approach is the spontaneous act and mere documentation of certain moment, where concept of "album" is pretty vague.
One can compare it to visual arts or comics. In comics, it used to be standard that if you bought a comic book, most likely creator attempted to tell a story, draw it most likely as well as he could, have a proper piece of art. And then the new school of artists were disgusted of these "restrictions" and prefer only to capture "mood". Fast scetches with non-existent stories about their boring daily life. Few stoner doodles put as magazine. Of course some of it is good. But still, entering the comic fest or browsing the evergrowing scetchbook sections of bookshops makes you wonder what is the motivation and intent? Simply to publish? Why not finish something? Why not do actual painting, comic book or album. Why are we listening tape after tape of schetches and test tones of unfinished business? Is it good enough? Should one know in advance are you buying "rehearsal"/"jam"/"teaser" or actual "album"? Since in some cases in some styles it does make the difference.
Of course we can always say that only defining factor: is it good/great or is it not? But I would say that some motivation can affect that.
I would rather see ambitious works. Important works. Works that can't be passed by quick browse, half assed listening/discarding etc. I would be very glad to see more labels who would take such approach as conscious mission. To release albums. Good albums. So good, that they can tell band this isn't matching standards. So good that ltd 20 isn't option. But option is to keep them available and make them properly (like tape with decent dubbing), etc.
We see many of such labels, of course. There are those who do for example good tapes, you feel like flipping instantly to new rotation again. But the overall atmosphere to me, seems like utter lack of ambition to make something meaningfull. If even the creator of material hardly cared, can listener? Should be satisfied with leftovers and scraps and not even expect proper "art"?
.
.
.
...Of course, in the end this is more of observation. I'm not bitter at all. Whole this day I listened great noise from morning till now.. almost midnight (apart time when was outdoors). There ain't shortage to choose from! About 70% of material was old stuff from shelves and rest was new releases. And all of them something I know I will listen again.
This is a very interesting subject. It would be intriguing to find long-term statistics about the amount of noise releases released per year (or month or week!) and then compare this to individual people's perceptions about the evolution of their listening habits. Such statistics are, of course, nigh impossible to compile... I'm convinced, however, that certain correlations and patterns would emerge from such comparisons.
Anyway, I think there is certainly a need for more "masterpieces". Well thought out releases with structure, aim and dedication behind them. I'm sure there are people within the scene who could accomplish these, if only there was more impetus and motivation (from the punters) to do something like this. As opposed to the drive of always looking for the next thing, things forgotten within a week or a month at the latest. I know that I'm personally very much guilty of not giving enough listening attention to even the best of new albums coming out.
But there needs to be a balance. I will always have time and affection for the quickly churned out "jams" and hastily assembled small tape editions. I cannot always give 100% attention to the music I'm listening and at such times it's quite gratifying to put on something that is intrinsically pleasing to the ears but not necessarily very ambitious (to reflect my mood). For example, I have quite a few cd-r's, tapes, 7"'s and 1-sided LPs from the American Tapes discography and many of them fulfill exactly this function. They don't aim high but that's part of the human experience, sometimes one needs to just go with the flow. I have no idea who's behind all these artist-names (General Assurance, Pool Water etc.) and I really don't even care. Anonymity can be soothing, once in a while. I just decide that now it's time for some American Tapes action and grab something from the shelf. The problem is that on the whole the balance at the moment (within the scene) is too skewed to the side of the jams....
Maybe somebody have already commented on this but here is a little story from me.
I have had records sit for years even a decade before I "get" them. The first time I realised that a record can grow on you was when I bought the first KUKL lp around the time it was released. I was fourteen or fifteen and at the same time I bought a Theatre of Hate lp also. I listen to the Theatre of Hate a lot for a year (yeah, young and stupid I know) and gave the KUKL lp just a spin or two and thought it was pretty ok but not more. Roughly a year later I put it on again. Probably due to the great CRASS fold out cover and I was totally flabbergasted. It was so great! I couldn't believe I hadn't heard the greatness before.
A recording needs to have some appeal for me to keep them but I have a bunch that I keep like vine to mature. Maybe they will give me the same kick as KUKL did...
And, yeah, I sold that Theatre of Hate lp shortly after seeing the greatness of KUKL. Could never really go back after that and still they to this day they are always linked in my mind.