The Best Of The Average

[Andrew McIntosh]

I've been thinking about the great mass of Noise-makers who produce material that is neither the most sterling and ambitious of Noise, nor aspires to be. I think a lot of us can agree that there comes a time when just pure Noise with not pretensions is a necessity and I'm interested in knowing which projects people propose as the best of the average; those Noise makers who will never be in the same stratosphere as the better known subjects but are in no way dismissed as utter crap.

By example, I think the Haemorrhaging Fetus lp on Gaping Hole, and a few Torturing Nurse tapes, a great selections of pure, unconditional Noise that by it's nature is never going to be regarded as exceptional or unique, or even brilliant, but just plain good. These are albums I personally return to when I just want Noise. Projects like these may never be seen as among the very best and I realise that's a contentious claim for those who may favour them but it's how I see it.

So I'm interested in reading what others' recommend as projects that are "just plain good".

[FreakAnimalFinland]

One would have to maybe also think do we mean "less ambitious", or do we mean something that just isn't as interesting as phenomena or as interesting due time he started. I mean, we can look into Japanese noise for example, and we can say many names which are pretty well known and respected noise legends. But when you set next to them, they might not be bad nor even "average", but in fact very good. But they are still destined to remain for small core audience who are looking for "noise".

Last week I was reviewing The Oval Languages CD in SI#5, and said "When you know, this is not really an "album", but just some selected tracks from old tapes and remixes of guy who has probably done more ambitious works under his own project name, I wouldn't think this CD will ever be acknowledged as a classic release in the genre. However, besides it is good, it has point existing, what makes this very much recommended purchase."
And who is/was Oval Languages? Some guy from germany in 80's and 90's who did few tapes, installations and stuff like that. It's crude noise, experimental, yet also bordering industrial-noise elements. Remix is done by Das Synthetische Mischgewebe. And I'm about 90% sure that anytime, anywhere in "noise scene" you'd bring up these names, they would either not be known, or their name vaguely rings a bell, maybe due oooold connection to Esplendor Geometrico and Sounds for Counsciousness Rape.

I think, if one would want to ONLY stick on accepted classics, it makes some sense, but hardly makes sense to me. To me, importance of good release could be perhaps underlined in sentence such as above was: Has point to exist.
I mean, it's choice whether one wan't "hit music only", or perhaps looks for bigger picture. I look for bigger picture, which is needed to be able to see the peaks in decent landscape.

I guess, there are topics of "underrated noise"? Or "forgotten projects"? Often for a reason, but maybe not totally. 

[Andrew McIntosh]

Does the term "average" put people off?

[Nyodene D]

yeah, because everyone wants to be excellent/original and no one wants to be just "average".  In the US, "average" just kind of means dull, boring, slow-witted, mediocre.  From what you're saying, these bands aren't any of those things, they're just not reinventing the wheel. Who since, I dunno, Whitehouse, really has?  Best of the Average really just sounds like "best of the mediocre", which no one wants to be seen as, nor would you. 

Best of the lesser known is probably a better idea, but it's not that these projects are "average" because they're obscure or never talked about.  Odds are, they just don't impress people enough or do anything worth listening to enough to be consider "best" at anything (and I'm not applying this to any band, just the idea of a project that would fall into that). 

I think labelling bands as "average" or mediocre, essentially, in print (digital anyhow) is not really doing anyone a favor.  It's casting bands forever into a list of people not really good enough to pay attention to, which doesn't really encourage people to get better, nor does it encourage labels to give anyone a chance that winds up on the list.

I'm not saying that every band is good, not by any means.  I just don't think bands need talked about if they're not good, because what purpose does it serve to talk about how bad a band is?  Nothing, outside of drawing lines in the sand over people who think a band is good vs people who think it's bad. 

In short, best of the average is just a category that doesn't need to exist.  No one will admit to themselves that that's what they are, nor would anyone want to consider their own tastes "average". 

It's like being the best runner at the special olympics...You're still a retard.   

[Andrew McIntosh]

No one will admit to themselves that that's what they are, nor would anyone want to consider their own tastes "average".

Aaron, what you've basically done is admitted that it's about egos too easily bruised. But I made it quite clear in the original post what I meant by "average". But if the whole thing makes people feel uncomfortable I'll drop it.

[Nyodene D]

yes, i guess that's it.  No one will want to admit they have an average project because no artist wants to see himself as average, nor will anyone want to make a list of the mediocre things they listen to, especially in a scene with such close ties that people are offended. 

what good does bruising an ego (of people who don't really talk themselves up in the first place) do? The only thing it can offer is a chance for the person naming names to gain a subconscious sense of superiority in taste or talent.  Trust me, I'm an elitist and a total snob about things, but I also know how much it can hurt to see your peers that you admire slag off your work as mediocre, so i tend not to dish it out.

As gay as it sounds, I just want to really focus on the positives, with talking about bands (especially in a public forum) or reviewing them.  I know you don't really intend to make a mean-spirited list of anything, because i read the thread.  I was simply responding to your question of if the term "average" was off-putting, which to many, I'm sure it is.  I tend not to think too much about what's innovative or not really developing because I guess I don't really care a ton whether things are new or developing.  I just want to hear something good.

[Zeno Marx]

I understand the gist of the thread.  I understand why its satisfying to listen to anchors at times and not always beacons.  I find it difficult to think of noise/experimental projects that are deserving of mention here.  It's easier for me to quote Dis hardcore bands.  I simply love the sound and structure.  There was a time when maybe 25-35% of my hardcore library was Dis-bands, and 90% of those bands would fit the focus of this thread.  They couldn't all be Disclose and Dispense.

If an artist bothered to read the initial post and was still irritated or hurt with being mentioned, that's some mighty thin, sad skin they'd have.  Considering the explained focus of the thread, I'd hope they could understand context and realize average is hardly a stab.  Maybe that's why folks aren't flocking to this thread...as if we need yet another way to flush out the fragile, delicate artists in this scene.  I reckon you could attribute that to wanting to stay positive, though that isn't quite how I'd word it.

Nyodene D's last post reeks of Echo Generation studies.  I say that far, far too often, but fucking aye does THIS scene mirror the most basic Echo studies.  You'd almost think it wasn't possible to be anymore market and socially nailed.  There was a thread a couple weeks ago on Troniks that was a bunch of pages long, and it was post after post after post of by-the-numbers Echo findings.  It was really quite sickening.  Individualism?  Ha.  More like "We got you pegged from head to toe and everything in-between.  Getting a greyhound to chase around a plastic rabbit is more difficult of a task than reading this group."

[FreakAnimalFinland]

I remember, when back in times of Freak Animal magazine, I commented many of the tapes I got as promos as "average american noise". And people were hurt. I told, it's a compliment. I mean, the "phenomenal" and "undisputed landmark" may sound better, but I do believe, that especially many of the hardcore noise heads, they don't want to listen the brilliant unique masterpieces exclusively, but they also want to hear what else is around. And while you may argue X is the best, sometimes you notice you actually listen it less than some of the stuff you rated "average"? At least what I think.
I mean, if ZM reminds of this Dis-crust trend 15 years ago, one could say many probably listened them more than Discharge itself. And I got friends, who admit Slayer is the best of thrash metal, yet they never listen to it. It seems just pointless to listen Reign in Blood, when world is full of great... ehm.. yet average thrash metal. Which is STILL very inspiring compared to the bad and the worthless.

One looking at definitions of "average", it would say for example "lacking special distinction, rank, or status"
Within noise, there are plenty. Within modern PE especially, there is plenty. You distinct bands from another perhaps merely based on vocal style, and sometimes not even that? Listening compilation, could one point out who is who? In case of unique bands as Incapacitants, Con-Dom, Genocide Organ, Whitehouse, Sudden Infant, Runderstirn & Gurgelstock, etc etc.. one could recognize these bands simply by listening unlabeled mix tape given to you. From modern bands, there are groups like Prurient who has distinctive way of vocals, keyboards, style of noises. Shift, who goes to deep with synth minimalism and unique way of vocals, Bizarre Uproar, who's vocals and methods of looping & sounds may be imitated, but you recognize when you hear the real deal. And list could go on, yet, if we talk about the topic at hand, what if, someone gives you anonymous mix tape compiled of Deadline material? What is someone pulled clips out of the dozens and dozens of MSNP re-issue tapes and you'd have to figure out what is what, and which is good and which is not. What is you'd receive RRRecycled tape, which doesn't say the artist name, but merely RECYCLED? And so on. It may be very good listening experience, but there might be plenty of average. Doesn't stand out. Doesn't have any special distinction why this material is by ____ and not by ___?
I recall this interview and later discussion with Lasse Marhaug, who clearly is one of the modern masters of noise. And he said, he may not recognize piece he made. When someone plays piece of recording, it basically could be anyone. I mean, it may happen to me, if I hear lets say 10 seconds from most unmemorable piece. But if I hear a track, I do hear did I make it or not. I find it pretty honest to admit, that due sheer amount of material, and due nature of such traditional noise blast, a lot of it, doesn't have anything unique.

I know, people have this urge of being special and unique, but it's about the time to snap to reality, and if you want to be more, maybe better work for it than day dream. If one thinks its enough just plug the distortion to white noise source, one has to face, even if it may be good to listen to, it really is average part of faceless mass of sound.

So... the best of the average faceless mass of sound?