I usually do releases based on my own interests, in a way that the research is done regardless will there be "a release" or "art" based on them. Detailed knowledge of subject and cumulated material has usually happened before there was intent to do release about it. Very rarely material is created sort of "on demand", to follow the idea. They come in realization in moment of creation or when evaluating the material. Hearing the recorded work, that may have born out of mere improvisation, but results has strong aura that basically guides you further. In that way, my works are certainly anti-conceptual art in many aspects. While there is certainly ideas, themes and concepts, the end result itself, including is aesthetic significance is utterly important.
I think topic of conceptual art and concept album is tied together in noise, quite often. Most noise will NEVER be pure conceptual art in a way it is meant in art history. However, within noise sound, there is plenty of material where
idea seems more important than end result? Also shitloads of examples where idea is there as sound object, that works musically - but is nevertheless most likely to be filed under "idea more important than sound".
Quote from: JLIAT on March 09, 2021, 01:19:11 PM
I don't think there is a hard and fast demarcation between works which are 'aesthetic' and works which are 'conceptual' (art as idea), to say that a piece of music has no conceptual element is nonsense, and likewise though I once would have argued otherwise there is an aesthetic to even the most conceptual work.
It quickly can lead to conclusion, that we may use conceptual sound, just as a choice of word besides "thematic sound". Or that this thematic and conceptual sound does indeed work as purely aesthetic sense.
Lets say works of Con-Dom. In many cases, songs include sound elements that are not selected based on "sounding good", but because conceptually it belongs there. That release turned out musically good (atleast to some ears), would not take away fact that layering together couple train sounds and some whipping.. would be conceptual art in its core.
As we are not in that artworld, we are not bound to use their language, their terminology, or restrictions what should be done in order to be truly conceptual art. One could listen for example:
Shift: To Rid Them All And To Wash Their Filth From My Body. Dark and oppressing synth tone has sort of expressive and musical quality to it, while the other element is sound of... what I would assume to be grave digging - at least in symbolic manner. If not literally burying corpses, at least burying
them and
their filth. I consider this track one of best examples of how artist manages to push the sound beyond abstract, to become far more concrete. It still is purely idea. Sound itself may be of whatever mundane origin. Source being unknown. In case of Shift, one can say that indeed he
plays the sound as instrument, therefore it is no longer just idea, but the end result has more value. It is aesthetically interesting. Usage of effects, the compositional aspects and so on. That, to me, is not bad thing at all. Artist on the other side, could take it as a lesson. Not the other way round. Noise does not need
their guidelines or their history.
One example of at least seemingly conceptual noise would be The Rita. While artist has ton of GOOD NOISE on his discography, there is also abundance of things what seems 100% conceptual art. Lets take the recent track in New Forces comp CD as example. Would anyone say the end result would qualify as "great noise"? I have my doubts. Like in conceptual art, you require liner notes, explanation, and then "huh? yeah, nice". What you see or hear, is not the piece of art, but the concept behind it. You need to know idea what this is related to. As a sound, as "noise piece", it is certainly weakest on the comp by far, carrying pretty much zero value in sense of
stuff you'd listen to. Does it make it bad? As a conceptual art, probably not!
Out of these example, I could definitely see The Rita in museum. Or in art gallery. I could not see Shift there. I would see such institution would ruin all what can be archived in pitch black venue filled with smoke, tormenting lights and oppressive soundsystem.
There is often a bit of tongue in cheek joking about specific qualities in "tough noise". Where it indeed somehow can be seen to be nearly conceptual art. If someone presents the masked man, with rusty chain, hitting badly amplified tiny tin can on stage... how this would not be all conceptial, all idea, zero about good and tasty end result? Someone can say it is all purely
aesthetic, not
conceptual, but I guess this is merely matter of snobbish attitude where something needs to be on wall of Tate Modern and subject of thesis. I reject that.
