Almost forgot to comment. Out of 2 hours episode, 30 mins beginning is kind of short piece to really comment anything. Feels little awkward to pretend as if 25% of interview could be even commented. Almost like reading the headlines and reacting on that, hah...
But anyways, I did listen it right away. Been appreciating Awenydd tapes since quite early ones. Was among people he was sending his self released tapes and project also appeared on Freak Animal International CD series.
In the interview, I one topic of interest is that... is noise limitless? There is moment when he mentions disliking when someone sets limits for noise. It comes out in sort of "noise can be anything", which obviously isn't true. I could assume discussion leaves out the obvious. More accurately, noise can be so many things, that I think it is clear we have not touched all the possibilities of expression. Still it doesn't mean it could be anything. These days you got people calling almost anything "noise". Sort of bandcamp tag or whatever. Once their indie-pop has little feedback on guitar, "noise" tag may appear. Or Black Metal band has little extra distortion on recording and suddenly black noise. And so on. Sort of Women of Noise -scene style. Nothing mean anything. Doesn't have to be noise to qualify there. It can be electro-pop or cute soundscapes. It doesn't have to be women. Just whatever goes.
I would say noise, to be relevant as word, does mean something. It would make language and terms totally obsolete if someone just concludes noise can be anything. Sure it can be a lot. Culturally, sonically, technologically, (etc etc) but there is still meaning why it is called noise.
I think in discussion it actually said that there is no limits in art, and it is no artistic if there are limits? I guess anyone who is involved in art, will find out that while artistic expression as a whole, may appear limitless, there are countless limitation and definitive elements that basically makes the art. You can go to as highly narrowed level as... Graphic art? As maker of graphic art, you will quickly realize how it is art, but also how obsessed just about everybody is to have definition and limitations of what they do. Most often, things such as "print making" isn't enough. You have each work defined is it engraving, etching, drypoint, mezzotint... or is it some sort of lithography, serigraph or something. In a way, the limitation makes the art. It's not like you accept HP lazer print on 80g office paper to be what someone did with lithography. Some or many, may use mixed tech, yet more common in modern art is indeed obsessive limitation to be just that.
Another thing is reducing ego. I think at the past, at least in my own case, some words were used in ways that looking back now, may not be accurate ways of using it. Like calling something ideological music, is in pretty much all cases not true, since ideological refers to some sort of set pretty inflexible doctrines. Which is rarely the case. Intention was to use word describe actual values or beliefs as opposed to fantasy or whatever. Same thing feels like in case of "no ego". I have been quite avid spokesman against ego in music, but it really is less about the psychological self and criticism and rejection was on ego related on inflated rock'n'roll personality, exaggerated self importance, necessity of fame or visibility for things that are not really the art itself. Therefore measures like not printing name, not putting out tons of portrait photos, not appearing often on video interviews, not keen on exposing unnecessary elements of "private life" etc. BUT, the things is of course, that if by removing ego would extend into level that we leave out the personality that shapes the art to be what it is, just semi-passively be outsiders in creations... what is that? Probably worse than ego-tripping! hah... Or, basically no different. Suddenly ego becomes issue, anyways. Back in the day, people would come to me to ask signature for album or whatever. It is odd, for sure, yet what was even more annoying was to realize how any reasoning you'd start to say, would appear in ways of "I am so special, so therefore I can not give you my signature for album cover", haha... so fuck that. It may be odd to be signing covers, but it ain't as lame as hyping it up as some sort of speciality to refuse it.
So in conclusion, I do think there IS "ego" in Awenydd that makes it good. Perhaps better call it personality. There is intention, there is taste, there is hands-on approach with every tape he sends out. Including hand written letters etc. This indeed is almost diametrical opposition of releases where we are indeed listening to machines. Programmed sounds that the operator of machine can't differentiate what is good and what is bad and why should he release something or not, who could he sent it to, why should it be listened by specific person etc. There is no shortage of that type of impersonal machine sound where we are listening synths or other gear, on level of equipment test, not on level of artistic expression.
