Books about noise/experimental music

[FreakAnimalFinland]

I am already doubtful due knowing books is supposed to be quite "academic" so to say. Many times language used in such texts makes it almost unbearable reading material.

[Earth O.D.]

I am already doubtful due knowing books is supposed to be quite "academic" so to say. Many times language used in such texts makes it almost unbearable reading material.

Yes that´s a big turn-off... the overtly pedantic dissection in "Fight Your Own War" got on my nerves already.

[Balor/SS1535]

I am already doubtful due knowing books is supposed to be quite "academic" so to say. Many times language used in such texts makes it almost unbearable reading material.

Yes that´s a big turn-off... the overtly pedantic dissection in "Fight Your Own War" got on my nerves already.

Despite it's faults, Fight Your Own War is one of the better books on noise/industrial that have come out in semi-recent years.

[Balor/SS1535]

I am already doubtful due knowing books is supposed to be quite "academic" so to say. Many times language used in such texts makes it almost unbearable reading material.

Compared to Hegarty, that one is not too "academic" in the way that I think you mean.  It's actually quite the opposite, focusing on "close listening" without much theoretical structuring.  At first I really liked the idea of that, but in reality the book is mostly just him describing the sound changes in a given noise album in micro-detail (often with weird, and actually useless, spectrographic images).

From what I remember, the only "politically correct" commentary was in regards to Genocide Organ?  But very clearly he was only listening/aware of their early works.

[VORACLE]

I am already doubtful due knowing books is supposed to be quite "academic" so to say. Many times language used in such texts makes it almost unbearable reading material.

Yes that´s a big turn-off... the overtly pedantic dissection in "Fight Your Own War" got on my nerves already.

Despite it's faults, Fight Your Own War is one of the better books on noise/industrial that have come out in semi-recent years.

Agreed. I've read that one numerous times now.

[Earth O.D.]

I am already doubtful due knowing books is supposed to be quite "academic" so to say. Many times language used in such texts makes it almost unbearable reading material.

Yes that´s a big turn-off... the overtly pedantic dissection in "Fight Your Own War" got on my nerves already.

Despite it's faults, Fight Your Own War is one of the better books on noise/industrial that have come out in semi-recent years.

Agreed. I've read that one numerous times now.

I agree it has its merits and it´s still a keeper.

[FreakAnimalFinland]

Compared to Hegarty, that one is not too "academic" in the way that I think you mean.  It's actually quite the opposite, focusing on "close listening" without much theoretical structuring.  At first I really liked the idea of that, but in reality the book is mostly just him describing the sound changes in a given noise album in micro-detail (often with weird, and actually useless, spectrographic images).

From what I remember, the only "politically correct" commentary was in regards to Genocide Organ?  But very clearly he was only listening/aware of their early works.

I would be interested to hear what you make of his analysis of Grunt.

I guess it is not really "polically correct" observation, but after length GO text about controversial lyrics, in Grunt it merely casually mentions "accused of having ties to National Socialism", which is of course true, but very little to do with release that is being dealt with in the book. Double tape has way more focus on things like animal rights, consumer society, social alienation, and so on.

In GO chapter, author insists it is hard to digest the content that doesn't take stand. Don't remember the exact phrasing, but it does make one think... stand to what? Like name dropping songs like "Negros In Sky-Wars", and it could be that a lot of people will get stuck simply on the word negro and not thinking any further. I can't be sure, but I assume this song deal with the Tuskegee Airmen. Negroes trained in alabama, to fight against fascists and nazis in WWII (more GO'ish topic possible!?!?). Back in 1989 when Leichenlinie came out, it was many years before topic was popularized in hollywood movie and unlikely most of people would have any idea what it is about. Like so many of GO tracks, it would require not only intelligence but study of largely overlooked (fringe) history. Now anyone can just click couple buttons and get brief overview of topic from wikipedia or follow links to further.

Anyways, I have not read entire book yet, but indeed, it is very detailed noise listening to point where deconstruction of noise elements begin to lose point. I don't reject idea of diving deep into micro detail, and neither use of spectrographic images, but at times it feel like can't see the forest for the trees -phenomena. There is noise that can be dissected and deconstructed, but there are other noise where only emerging wholeness matters and focusing on micro detail can be fetishistic, but sort of irrelevant as it tells very little of the work of art.

[Balor/SS1535]

Compared to Hegarty, that one is not too "academic" in the way that I think you mean.  It's actually quite the opposite, focusing on "close listening" without much theoretical structuring.  At first I really liked the idea of that, but in reality the book is mostly just him describing the sound changes in a given noise album in micro-detail (often with weird, and actually useless, spectrographic images).

From what I remember, the only "politically correct" commentary was in regards to Genocide Organ?  But very clearly he was only listening/aware of their early works.

I would be interested to hear what you make of his analysis of Grunt.

I guess it is not really "polically correct" observation, but after length GO text about controversial lyrics, in Grunt it merely casually mentions "accused of having ties to National Socialism", which is of course true, but very little to do with release that is being dealt with in the book. Double tape has way more focus on things like animal rights, consumer society, social alienation, and so on.

In GO chapter, author insists it is hard to digest the content that doesn't take stand. Don't remember the exact phrasing, but it does make one think... stand to what? Like name dropping songs like "Negros In Sky-Wars", and it could be that a lot of people will get stuck simply on the word negro and not thinking any further. I can't be sure, but I assume this song deal with the Tuskegee Airmen. Negroes trained in alabama, to fight against fascists and nazis in WWII (more GO'ish topic possible!?!?). Back in 1989 when Leichenlinie came out, it was many years before topic was popularized in hollywood movie and unlikely most of people would have any idea what it is about. Like so many of GO tracks, it would require not only intelligence but study of largely overlooked (fringe) history. Now anyone can just click couple buttons and get brief overview of topic from wikipedia or follow links to further.

Anyways, I have not read entire book yet, but indeed, it is very detailed noise listening to point where deconstruction of noise elements begin to lose point. I don't reject idea of diving deep into micro detail, and neither use of spectrographic images, but at times it feel like can't see the forest for the trees -phenomena. There is noise that can be dissected and deconstructed, but there are other noise where only emerging wholeness matters and focusing on micro detail can be fetishistic, but sort of irrelevant as it tells very little of the work of art.

It reminds me of some post or article that I came across some years ago where the author was commenting that people might get offended at the idea of a project called "Genocide Organ"---but then be at a total loss of what exactly the name means?  The more one tries to tie the project down to particular interpretations, especially if you are approaching it as "another right-wing industrial project," seems to quickly slip and slide into confusion and indelicate interpretations.

I forget if I mentioned it above, but I thought that the more theoretical introduction was probably the best part of the book.  I liked his breakdown of the history of noise music too.

Another thing about the book, I think it has one of the better analyses of Merzbow that can be found right now.  Of course the Merzbook really sets the standard here, but sometimes a person with a bit of a critical distance can say some useful things.  A bunch of other others (especially Hegarty and Voegelin) just emphasized the "excessive" aspects of the project, not least the sheer number of releases.  On the one hand, they are totally right about this.  Graham points out, however, that Merzbow's output can actually be organized into rough periods.  I think that's a really interesting observation in contrast to the "excessive" reading of the project, in that it actually suggests that there is an organization behind everything.  In a way, the more Merzbow releases, the better we, as listeners, come to understanding the scope of the project---making it less excessive and more summarizable.

[Penon]

I was listening to few tapes of Cauldhame which is kind of PE/noise crossover I like - agressive and violent but with this ethereal synth lurking in the background making it sound more atmospheric and sophisticated than just an in-your-face sonic assault.

I was googling for more info about the project and found that the guy behind the project wrote PhD thesis on power electronics! Here is the link to the full thing: https://theses.ncl.ac.uk/jspui/bitstream/10443/4890/1/Blenkarn%20M%202020.pdf