I have a habit of re-reading old interviews and reviews and recently read the one with John Murphy on the Ikonen website where this little bit piqued my interest and I thought it was maybe worth its own topic:
"In some ways we are just a bit like a more conventially orientated ..old fashioned 'Band' perhaps ..which in my subtle jaundiced mind..is possibly considered by some to be a bit of novelty in the gimmick strewn area of 'Industrial music " populated as it currently is by large numbers of boffin like non musicians ..who are content to stand or sit behind lap tops (and maybe too inhibited to live the Rockn Roll life)..and let the videos or light show do the entertainment stage show and talking ..All members of Knifeladder can play their chosen instruments conventionally well ..as each of us have had wide experience in many differing styles of music and we have the added bonus of knowing how to perform onstage ..maybe a rarity nowdays .."
The question is, does being good at an instrument count for anything in industrial/noise, does it matter at all? Do you want to see a "band" perform or is it something else that matters to you?
I studied piano for 3 years and guitar for 7.
I can play bass pretty good too, but in my personal case, doesn't count for the music i make.
But i enjoy to play "conventional" music with "conventional" instruments when I'm really stressed or i have a negative day.
Having played guitar in bands for years, I think those "skills" (I have zero talent for the instrument, but the little I learned...) are more of an obstacle - a way of thinking when making sound - that keeps me from taking potentially interesting leaps, chances and making less unexpected choices. But that's for the noise I make.
I can see the points you're both making. I'm also torn personally. On the one hand I like the chaotic and unhinged, on the other I also enjoy the more composed stuff with rhythmic structures, synth riffs and melodies. I really do enjoy a well composed piece of industrial music. What I really dislike is wank. That is, things being there just for the sake of showing off (excessive soloing, jazzy shit and what not). Still, the John Murphy quote is decidedly rockist which I find funny coming from one of the fathers of experimental/industrial music. To a certain degree what makes noise great to me is how non-rockist, uncommunicative and devoid of ego and showboating and all that performative stuff it can be. Just sound. No meaning, no talent, no art, no message, no entertainment and zero fucking rock n' roll attitude. So I guess I have a foot in both camps, in a way, liking both the industrial side with all the "rockist" stuff like structures, compositions, shock tactics, stage antics and so on and the noise simply for the sake of noise. For the structured stuff it's probably a good thing to actually play the instrument whereas it might be the opposite for the unhinged stuff.
In principle things remain the same just the nature of the instrument changes. As industrial/noise are a form of electronic music, mastering the studio, the gear at your disposal, which are your instrument basically, is no different than a violinist perfecting his playing technique.
Imo, it doesn't matter at all in terms of composition.
J.Murphy has a point when it comes to how music is presented to the public in a live scenario. I guess he means the physicality involved in playing the instrument and how that energy can be communicated both visually and acoustically.
Seeing virtuosi perform the 4 seasons of Vivaldi inside a cathedral was 10 times most memorable than any industrial/noise show I have been to. People who have spent their entire life mastering their craft on some particular instrument and you can actually experience that interaction between performer and instrument (is almost as if they are having sex with it) and how the musicians sync with each other.
I think the answer to these kinds of questions is always yes, but the context isn't always in a traditional notes and scales kind of format.
For instance I often make noise using a piece of aluminum, contact mic, and paint scraper. Anyone could use this same set up and come out with different sounds. Like rubbing two sticks together to try and create a Fire. The point is to use the desired set up and practice your craft. Which overtime will allow you to create your own distinctive style based on the way you use sound sources and effects that you choose to modify those sounds with.
I also had a friend like 15 years ago who got really into bowing a saw. I'd never seen someone do this in person and it was pretty interesting to see them progress at getting different tones out of the thing. Most would automatically assume an instrument like this would only be applied in an avant-garde setting but I'd suggest never assuming skills based on Societal Norms! (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Kmft674XPC0&pp)
Knowledge is Power (Electronics)
Quote from: Phenol on March 27, 2023, 07:28:35 PM
The question is, does being good at an instrument count for anything in industrial/noise, does it matter at all?
Not to me, personally.
John Murphy was a professional musician who among other things played in a conventional pop band with Micheal Hutchinson. He had to know his shit, musically. The sense I get from that snippet from the interview is he's making a comparison between people like himself, who were more or less professional, constantly gigging musicians and people who's music is more considered a "hobby". Which doesn't just mean knowing how to play something. The fact that he added "we have the added bonus of knowing how to perform onstage", which in my experience is something of a rarity when watching people just hunch over their gear, playing with their knobs for twenty minutes to get the same old scree (maybe wearing balaclavas and having a video going in the background).
I suspect Murphy was talking from the position of someone who had been there at the start of Industrial and was more used to people making more effort to create something new, and taking the subsequent risks involved as well to make it work. Whereas these days it's too easy to go through the same old motions. It's not so much about being musically adept as having your own ideas. EDIT - or, at the very least, making the effort to do something that's your own.
I think so---even if it just means understanding the limits and potentials of your gear when it is used in the otherwise strange setting that is noise/industrial. When I saw Bastard Noise play in January, he was talking to the crowd during the soundcheck and describing how using a "cheap Chinese mixer" meant that he had to be careful to cut volume whenever he switced the synth he was using. Sure enough, he had no problems in that department once things got going---and no noticable loss in volume for the audience either! There are also a few interesting live videos of Emil Beaulieau on Youtube where he experiences clear technical difficulties during his sets. It's really funny, but his usual funny demeanor suddenly changes as soon as he hears that something is wrong, but he is able to quickly fix any problem thanks to his know-how with the gear he is using.
In my view, all that matters is that you know how to get the results you want.
having played music for all my life has definitely been a good thing regarding noise and experimental sound in general. I know my way around gear and just knowing the conventional rules of music (to an extent, not a trained musician by any means) also means I know how to break them in a meaningful way, or how to accentuate certain sounds and frequencies to make my noise sound the way i like. I do think this sort of complete lack of knowledge of anything related to music or gear is being glorified in noise circles, but i don't really buy it.
Quote from: host body on March 28, 2023, 04:38:39 PM
I do think this sort of complete lack of knowledge of anything related to music or gear is being glorified in noise circles, but i don't really buy it.
But let's not convolute lack of knowledge of (the acceptably proper instrumental making of) music with lack of knowledge of (the correct use of) gear. These are imo very different things. And for me the question is directed at the former. To which my answer is, no.
The opening quote is related the Knifeladder. One can think, what would be for example live performance of industrial percussion that lacks sense of rhythm. Everybody missing the beat, yet.. sort of playing "music". I suppose we all have seen it? At least I have, the gringe moment when its more slapstick than machine-like firmness.
Knifeladder isn't really noise band, but industrial unit, and there is certain point in having accuracy of percussion when playing song.
If we extend the quote to actual noise... I sometimes see people who can't make music, conclude that it is the reason they make noise. For me it gives impression that there is certain lack of effort, lack of dedication towards what it takes to master instruments and compose and play somewhat interesting music. If noise is treated as something lesser, something what doesn't require that effort, it is possible that it shows.
I personally think that noise is no lesser compared to music. What it demands to really make strong personal noise may not be connected to being conventionally good at instrument, but it may be connected to idea of being willing to spend time and effort to master your craft, even if it would be seemingly primitive and simple. Even as simple as craft of listening and recognizing good sound - as that is far more bigger role in noise than in music - I dare to say.
Not trying to defend poor skill or lack of effort here, I've seen my share of amaterurish martial industrial gigs with horribly out of sync drummers, f.ex. Making the effort of knowing your shit well enough to get the results you want is of course important in industrial and noise too, but it was more the idea of being a conventionally good musician and performer as inhenrently better that I found interesting within the context of a genre that to some extent has always sought to be something else than that. There's that old school rock n' roll attitude about the whole sentiment. The accusation that industrial makers are too socially awkward to make good live shows, for instance, is funny (maybe also true...). But should industrial/noise be judged through the rock tropes? Aren't we supposed to do something else than the dinosaurs of rock? Or maybe we should just bring back the keytar and rock out Jimmy Page style. The SH 101 can be used that way, haha... (I know that's not exactly what JM is saying, but the image makes me smile).
Tricky question. I feel that my 20+ years of playing more conventional rock music do affect my noise, but perhaps not in obvious way. I think it affects my relationship with gear and technical thinking the most, but also the way i think of compositions, structures and sound architecture.
When dealing with "classic" sound sources of noise and industrial, ie. mixer feedback loops, contact mic'd objects etc., the conventional way of thinking gear and instruments is rendered almost obsolete. Everything and every piece reacts differently when different variables are added into noise making situation, when dealing with traditional instruments you could always predict what is going to happen if you do something with your guitar connected to pedals and amp. I think that in noise there is always this "free improv" dimension present, that allows happy accidents and sudden changes to happen more naturally when compared to rock music. So in that sense the background in traditional music can be a bit limiting because it favors repetition, clear structures and repeatability.
Quote from: FreakAnimalFinland on March 28, 2023, 09:01:27 PM
I personally think that noise is no lesser compared to music.
I personally think that music is not privileged to suck noise string.
I think that the quote was rather about the fact that some industrial projects, no matter how good they sound, look quite boring live, because the viewer doesn't see any action in it, a "show" if you will. Running the phonogram from a laptop, occasionally using a couple of pedals and freezing in a static position on stage - it in my opinion is justified only in Ritual/Ambient genres, where everything should correspond to a leisurely and smooth flow of sound.
If we are talking about Noise/PE, first of all I personally always want the performer to recreate on stage that is express by his sound. There are guys who like to dig through wires on stage and press buttons to the roar and screech of a synthesizer, and it could pass for "knowing how to play an instrument in noise", but in my opinion, it's much more important to be able to perform. You don't have to roll around like Masonna, or broadcast some blatant extreme, but in my opinion the performance should keep the audience engaged.
Sometimes instrumental bands in different genres look weak on stage, even though they play their instruments professionally. What to say about the noise
I don't think you have to be "good" just confident in your noise. Know what you're doing, and how you're doing it. The basics of volume, mixing, etc are the only thing I can see as being relevant.
Quote from: I. Rex on March 29, 2023, 07:26:17 PM
I think that the quote was rather about the fact that some industrial projects, no matter how good they sound, look quite boring live, because the viewer doesn't see any action in it, a "show" if you will. Running the phonogram from a laptop, occasionally using a couple of pedals and freezing in a static position on stage - it in my opinion is justified only in Ritual/Ambient genres, where everything should correspond to a leisurely and smooth flow of sound.
If we are talking about Noise/PE, first of all I personally always want the performer to recreate on stage that is express by his sound. There are guys who like to dig through wires on stage and press buttons to the roar and screech of a synthesizer, and it could pass for "knowing how to play an instrument in noise", but in my opinion, it's much more important to be able to perform. You don't have to roll around like Masonna, or broadcast some blatant extreme, but in my opinion the performance should keep the audience engaged.
Sometimes instrumental bands in different genres look weak on stage, even though they play their instruments professionally. What to say about the noise
To me, it is the sound that matters the most, even in live action. I think that the idea of "keeping the audience engaged" in the expense of the actual content is a bit... Maybe insulting towards the actual audience? There is an built-in implication that audience is some homogenic, easily bored or distracted mass that doesn't really know how to relate to live noise without some kind of "show" or visuals etc.
I have to say, i find nothing more boring than watching a noise 'show' that consists of some fella looking like he's checking his emails in a slightly vexed fashion. Or in the case of some dark ambient 'shows', looking like he's reading articles on wikipedia.
Might as well just have a DJ playing the material so the audience doesn't feel obliged to stand watching.
Though id say its 50% venues at fault too. Use the damn lights, flood the room in smoke, do something!
Quote from: Commander15 on March 31, 2023, 09:11:16 AM
Quote from: I. Rex on March 29, 2023, 07:26:17 PM
I think that the quote was rather about the fact that some industrial projects, no matter how good they sound, look quite boring live, because the viewer doesn't see any action in it, a "show" if you will. Running the phonogram from a laptop, occasionally using a couple of pedals and freezing in a static position on stage - it in my opinion is justified only in Ritual/Ambient genres, where everything should correspond to a leisurely and smooth flow of sound.
If we are talking about Noise/PE, first of all I personally always want the performer to recreate on stage that is express by his sound. There are guys who like to dig through wires on stage and press buttons to the roar and screech of a synthesizer, and it could pass for "knowing how to play an instrument in noise", but in my opinion, it's much more important to be able to perform. You don't have to roll around like Masonna, or broadcast some blatant extreme, but in my opinion the performance should keep the audience engaged.
Sometimes instrumental bands in different genres look weak on stage, even though they play their instruments professionally. What to say about the noise
To me, it is the sound that matters the most, even in live action. I think that the idea of "keeping the audience engaged" in the expense of the actual content is a bit... Maybe insulting towards the actual audience? There is an built-in implication that audience is some homogenic, easily bored or distracted mass that doesn't really know how to relate to live noise without some kind of "show" or visuals etc.
When it comes to live shows I've had different experiences. I've enjoyed shows where only the vocals were live (Trepaneringsritualen and In Slaughter Natives), but have been bored with shows where instruments/sound sources were played live (and enjoyed a lot of those too, to be fair). I have seen my share of boring laptop shows too and just hate those. Laptops do not belong on a stage, use a sampler or something or just hide the damned thing. With pure noise I prefer it to be all live to witness how those sounds are made, but with industrial/ambient that's often not possible due to too many layers and various kinds of sound treatments, so in that case I prefer if there's a show of some sort + live elements such as vocals and percussion. A show can be just visuals, light and smoke, stage props (although this is difficult to pull off without it getting ridiculous, Arktau Eos are able to pull this off nicely, imo.) or it can simply be that elusive thing called stage presence. Bottom line for me is, if you have nothing to SHOW an audience then why do live shows at all? I'm fine with studio only bands. I also agree that we should not underestimate audiences. Those are people who chose to show up to this kind of gig after all, so they're probably able to concentrate.
Quote from: FreakAnimalFinland on March 28, 2023, 09:01:27 PM
If we extend the quote to actual noise... I sometimes see people who can't make music
I'd be curious as to what criteria would inform that determination.
Hmmm...the manner in which the lead performer ripped off the guitar strings and proceeded to choke herself out whilst urinating in the promoter's face would seem to suggest potential room for improvement in the musical capacities.Though in fairness there's kind of a trope in a lot of interviews with purveyors of less conventional sounds, a la "I've never received any formal training in music..." So on some level the assumption of non skills is sort of a default position.
I do agree with the idear of "knowing your gear", even if it is just knowing of how much lubrication and pressure is necessary between lump of styrofoam and mirror to produce the most excruciating
donkey-getting-sawed-in-half possible. You may be surprised at how few people know these things.
QuoteTo me, it is the sound that matters the most, even in live action. I think that the idea of "keeping the audience engaged" in the expense of the actual content is a bit... Maybe insulting towards the actual audience? There is an built-in implication that audience is some homogenic, easily bored or distracted mass that doesn't really know how to relate to live noise without some kind of "show" or visuals etc.
Being able to work with sound on stage is a given, and any performance accompanied by a crappy sound will look ridiculous. However, when powerful noise is accompanied by the same bright pitch on stage, it makes the performance many times stronger. I saw a part of the Wonderland Club live at Urban Spree '19 - it's probably the best example of what I mean.
Quote from: Bloated Slutbag on March 31, 2023, 02:31:55 PM
Quote from: FreakAnimalFinland on March 28, 2023, 09:01:27 PM
If we extend the quote to actual noise... I sometimes see people who can't make music
I'd be curious as to what criteria would inform that determination. Hmmm...the manner in which the lead performer ripped off the guitar strings and proceeded to choke herself out whilst urinating in the promoter's face would seem to suggest potential room for improvement in the musical capacities.
Though in fairness there's kind of a trope in a lot of interviews with purveyors of less conventional sounds, a la "I've never received any formal training in music..." So on some level the assumption of non skills is sort of a default position.
I do agree with the idear of "knowing your gear", even if it is just knowing of how much lubrication and pressure is necessary between lump of styrofoam and mirror to produce the most excruciating donkey-getting-sawed-in-half possible. You may be surprised at how few people know these things.
Indeed,
knowing what to do, and committing doing it well (relative), whether it is functioning contact mic, or how to get your acoustic set work, even if it would just consist the styrofoam and mirror being rubbed together.
Like some mentioned here (I think), I didn't want to repeat the same conclusion, but indeed, "being conventionally good" has also that baggage that some can't get rid off. Like, lets say noise.. you do hear things like "no feedback! it will destroy the PA!". "that amp is for bass, connect vocals to...". I recall funny stories of certain UK scifi/horror noise-"rock" unit, where other guy mentions project had to be ended when other guy wanted to tune the guitars. WCN podcast interview with Final Solution is curious that as simple as their sound is, one member insists that the two synths are tuned into same note, before gigs/recordings. Not that either of these would ruin the projects, but may show that being "conventionally good" in music, may bring some unwanted baggage in form of things that have no relevance in noise.
One thing could be technical perfection? Unable to do piece like "90s Merzbow" where piece suddenly falls into pieces and it takes some minutes from Masami to gather things and hit hard again. The guy who absolutely KNOWS how it must be, may be churning "conventionally good noise", and unable to get why the weird seemingly unfitting moment of feedback + wahwah wank was what made the song so perfect. In musical way, idea may be that lets just use the best mix, best take... not that one with parts that feels like things are getting out of hand. While, a lot of noise listeners may want exactly that things are getting out of hand. I think the real skilled guys know this, and they do not get trapped into idea of "conventionally good", but they aim for GOOD, which includes plenty of knowing, but letting noise live and breath.
Having knowledge of music theory or an instrument can also mean you actually what's happening when you detune two synths slighty vs. when you tune them perfectly. You know what the filter does, what harmonics means, maybe you know how different instruments sit well in a mix etc. Knowing these doesn't mean you can't break the rules, but it means you can incorporate traditional musical elements done "correctly" if you wish. I don't think knowing more leads to rigidness of thought, on the contrary. It's not about how much you know, it's how you work.
I'd wager many of the "accidents" on noise classics maybe weren't accidents as much as choices, even if it's a choice to not care if it's not perfect.