Entertaining the audience

[FreakAnimalFinland]

I recall there probably was topic talking about something similar, but I'd say that forum can take bunch of topics that cross-over. Especially if it seems better to start new than resurrect years old discussion by people who may not be here anymore.

So, last week I was listening that WCN & Existence Establishment thing, Emil Beaulieau interview.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKt8uDLtt2s

There RRRon would explain that he considered his noise shows as Emil, to be performance in a way that he felt shows should be like rock gig. The best songs you got. Not whatever, but the very best you have. He talks about completing year with just about 100 live shows and losing his mind over repeating the variations of same set and now needing time to build another. We know now that it never happened.

Yesterday I was reading UNTITLED #10 (https://www.instagram.com/untitledzine/ ), where Ghost Taco (aka Devon Michigan) was talking that as a person who has strong theatre background, it is all about entertaining the audience. Insisting that its not about artist being "big dick for a second" or self indulgent. She rejects the idea that live show would be primarily emotionally cathartic to performer, that audience then flaccidly claps for. It seems rarely articulated view that someone clearly states that when performer is only focused on themselves and their own needs, it is betrayal towards idea of performance.

As opposed there would be duty to entertain. I associate that word perhaps a bit more show biz side of things, but I assume it has other flavors and to entertain is not restricted merely to consumption of time and having fun. I could assume it has something to do with what I mention in latest SI website post ( https://special-interests.net/main/harsh-ways-iii-2025/ ) :

"This is for me the inspiring element in live noise. You can stubbornly create what you intended to, without any consideration of audience or the other artists. Just doing your thing as planned. Yet, reality is, that the audience and the other artists are there, and possibly they set up specific mood that may be good to be recognized. If you are able to harness this situation, feel what is the energy and vibe, and change your plan accordingly, that is talent in my eyes."

Recently there was also talk about that other side of things. Couple people talking about recent release that indeed seemed to be all about self indulgent, personal catharsis,.. display of artists private struggles and emotions.



I know all things said above may indicate I stand for acknowledging the audience. Yes indeed, but, question would be still what really is the role of audience? I doubt there is point for creative art that you approach it like pure entertainment. One may not need to aim for audience to love it or offer them something you think they want to hear. Hit songs only -type of thing.
With a release or live, I would suppose there must be consideration of audience of some sort, even if it wasn't done for entertainment purposes per se.

Thoughts on the matter?

[NN]

The best (creative) advice I ever got is: no great art gets made in a vacuum.

[Phenol]

I think being aware that you communicate something is important in any artform, but I don't think "entertainment" in the pop/rock sense is necessarily the only way to communicate with an audience. The way you build your set, your stage antics, props, outfits or whatever you use on stage may be somewhat theatrical (or may not), but the whole thing together should support the idea you want to convey. If the idea is "pure noise", then simply making pure noise without anything to look at is probably the right way to get the mesage across. I like that, but I also like spectacles like Der Blutharsch or Einstürzende Neubauten etc.

[Phenol]

I think there's another level to this dicussion as well: what is art (noise) to you and why do you want to communicate it? Is your goal to generate art or to make yourself understood? I'm not saying the two are necessarily mutually exclusive, but the strategy differs depending on your goal.

[Penon]

Here are some thoughts I have on this subject.

***

I have a friend who likes playing the piano - she does it often and takes it seriously but it has never occurred to her to record it or make a release out of it. She just plays it, enjoys it, and that is that. Why would one go as far as learning how to record things, pack it, create online presence, promote music and then deal with postal logistics, however trivial they are, if they are doing it just for the audience of one (themselves). If an artist creates a "release" out of their music, they certainly desire for some audience, big or small, to enjoy it; if someone puts a release out there and then claims they do it only for their own personal catharsis, I struggle to believe - sounds like a cope. I am sure there are rare occasions when it is genuine - perhaps it is possible, sometimes, to do music purely for your personal goals and then treat any sales / recognision as a nice but non-essential bonus, or create releases as a way of "participating in a scene" / networking / opportunity to trade and receive music you like.

***

The above view relates to studio releases though. If you actively disregard audience at a live gig (not as part of the act but genuinely not caring), that is just disrespectful.

My first live gig was at a local community art center (I was the one who asked to be added to the bill). Promoter told me "we don't do noise music here" as this monthly gig tends to be about experimental / avantgarde / ambient, with audience expectations set accordingly. As such, the promoter asked me to perform a mellowed-down version of my material. I had two options - either to refuse to perform, or to follow the rules and to be considerate to the format of the night and expectations of the audience. Not a perfect example, but in some way it takes the idea of disregarding audience to its logical extreme - would you play something that audience actively doesn't want just because you are an artist with a vision? Just don't do a live gig then, that is a perfectly legitimate move.

***

I have added theatrics / props to my live performance out of necessity - for example, I occasionally tape a contact mic to my lips because for some songs I need to move around and have both hands free while fiddling with synths, playing bass guitar and doing vocals all at the same time. Added bonus - it has some minor entertainment value in it as well.

[Balor/SS1535]

The other thing too is that the speaker setup can have a big role in this too.  A "boring" set can be great if delivered out of a huge amp, just as a "theatrical" set that sounds horrible (in a bad way) will probably fall flat with the audience.

[prolapsedlielack]

When it comes to being part of the audience I like to feel engaged and involved in the show. I come from the metal/punk background so movement/crowd interaction has always stood out to me. I like to feel "singled out" by a noise artist during their sets rather than watch someone thrash around or twiddle pedals and if they are gonna sit with their gear, then make it interesting.

As the performer, I like to get into the crowd and keep them on their toes so to speak. I've taken note on who shows up together and then separate them from their friends during my set. Pushing people around, grabbing by collars of shirts or hair etc. They either walk away a fan of us or hating us.

As pointed out by Balor above, the sound is a big part of this. We recently performed together and while some of the outsiders that watched probably didn't get what he did, I could hear them talking about the force of the sound.

[Minus1]

Interesting thread.

But what does "entertaining" really mean? I am "entertained" sitting in a bathtub or a chair while a Noise CD blasts away. I've never been to a Vomir show, but I know that I would be "entertained" with him standing there, with his bag. I might bring my own bag.

I suppose the setting could help - a nice room with nice wallpaper / lighting!? Or does that matter? I'm not sure. I think I'd be entertained by Crass on the street in 1977. Do we need the bells and whistles in Noise? (Punk?)

[NN]

"This is for me the inspiring element in live noise. You can stubbornly create what you intended to, without any consideration of audience or the other artists. Just doing your thing as planned. Yet, reality is, that the audience and the other artists are there, and possibly they set up specific mood that may be good to be recognized. If you are able to harness this situation, feel what is the energy and vibe, and change your plan accordingly, that is talent in my eyes."

Recently there was also talk about that other side of things. Couple people talking about recent release that indeed seemed to be all about self indulgent, personal catharsis,.. display of artists private struggles and emotions.



I know all things said above may indicate I stand for acknowledging the audience. Yes indeed, but, question would be still what really is the role of audience? I doubt there is point for creative art that you approach it like pure entertainment. One may not need to aim for audience to love it or offer them something you think they want to hear. Hit songs only -type of thing.
With a release or live, I would suppose there must be consideration of audience of some sort, even if it wasn't done for entertainment purposes per se.

I think the best question here is: in what ways can an artist take their audience into consideration in order to make better noise?

[FreakAnimalFinland]

That is a good question. It is also related into question is artists is listening to other peoples noise. It has been examined many times, that certain artists, when they were at the very top of their creative peak, it appears that they were immersed into it. When they sort of left the noise, and started to only focus on their own material, sometimes it starts to become sucky. The perspective what is good, what is being done. Level of creativity, where couple oscillations of MS-20 or shaker with distortion ain't going to cut it.

Question could be, why anyone would play through my tape, if I didn't care even listen to it twice and it has no ideas or strength. To press XXX amount of item, I do consider what is needs to be to justify making an album. Audience certainly plays role there, even if it would be kind of theoretical and imaginary audience. I do avoid product designed to specific audience. That seems a bit lame. It is different to be able to imagine audience that perhaps doesn't currently exist, but will, when there is something they will discover they liked. (To feed audience more of what they consume is different motivation.)

[NN]

That is a good question. It is also related into question is artists is listening to other peoples noise. It has been examined many times, that certain artists, when they were at the very top of their creative peak, it appears that they were immersed into it. When they sort of left the noise, and started to only focus on their own material, sometimes it starts to become sucky. The perspective what is good, what is being done. Level of creativity, where couple oscillations of MS-20 or shaker with distortion ain't going to cut it.

Follow up questions can be asked. What other people's noise am I listening to? And why is that noise useful for my perspective on my own work? It does not even have to be good noise to be useful. For example, I prefer to listen patiently to live noise from lame artists, thinking of what I would do differently, rather than step outside the venue until their set is over.

Question could be, why anyone would play through my tape, if I didn't care even listen to it twice and it has no ideas or strength. To press XXX amount of item, I do consider what is needs to be to justify making an album. Audience certainly plays role there, even if it would be kind of theoretical and imaginary audience. I do avoid product designed to specific audience. That seems a bit lame. It is different to be able to imagine audience that perhaps doesn't currently exist, but will, when there is something they will discover they liked. (To feed audience more of what they consume is different motivation.)

This is an interesting proposition. So long as your noise provides a different, yet equivalent value to what you yourself seek in other people's noise, then the audience to-be may step forward.

[NN]

It seems today (and perhaps today more than ever?) you must know what noise is really worth buying. Perhaps the role of the audience exists actually at the individual level: to discern what is good! Development of authentic taste vs social hype. Out of this process can come the knowledge of what is worth performing and releasing. Not for self-indulgence, but rather out of respect for individuals with their own authentic taste, compatible with your own, even if they have yet to discover what they like.

[Theodore]

Noise is a small scene. If it wasn't I would say I may live in my small bubble meaning I know, I have learned who to 'follow' , what to read, who to 'spy' , who has good recommendations, etc. and I won't spend time to check everything I see mentioned as good. But such a niche, we all are in the same bubble. And what I have noticed is that 'social hype' is almost always [?] correct in noise, pretty much like democracy will work for a small clever community.

Sure, there is excellent noise that hasn't any hype and that I consider better than the best-sellers. But I can't think any artist with hype in noise that actually sucks.

So it's just development of personal taste. Not versus social hype necessarily.