Levels of chaos and randomness vs. composition and planning in noise

[Potier]

This is something I have been pondering for a long time and I figured I would run it by "the community". In recent years I have been reflecting on my preferences for listening as well as my recording and "production" habits. I have been paying more attention to the content of releases as well as technique and approaches people take when it comes to noise and harsh noise. Documentation and conversations have revealed such vastly different ways of coming to the table of noise. Some documentaries have taken away some of what I would call the mystique of certain noise projects. I feel that certain likes and dislikes are coded in my musical listening biography...but enough rambling, here goes:

To what extent do you see noise and harsh noise as a genre dominated by chaos and randomness both in the sounds generated as well as the approach to recording and performing? Do you see noise as a genre that relies on careful placement or even composition or do you look at noise from an angle of going wild on your gear without much thinking or pre-planning?

We have all had the typical "lucky accidents" with our gear where sounds emerged that we were not totally sure how they were made. We have recorded them if we are lucky. We have all seen shows where someone was hammering around on their pedals and synths with little to no regard to what sounds were truly made simply because they were "in the zone" or "raging" behind their noise table. We all have seen pedal chains where it really becomes impossible to trace out what does what and when. Things get knocked around and the clutter hisses on until the plug gets pulled.

My personal preferences lean heavily toward the more "academic" side of noise in a sound art context vs. the more primitive and raw spur of the moment creations. I find that I maybe have less of an appreciation for noise created in a "flailing around, rolling on the floor, scream your head off" type manner or "jam-band" recordings of noisy material.

Ultimately, where do you come out on this? Is noise potentially devalued on a broader scale due to its free-form/everybody can bang on sheet metal image? Are noise and harsh noise about being explosive and dangerous, reckless? About abandoning concepts and composition? Is there enough room for a broad variety of approaches? What are your preferences? How do you like your noise? Do you feel that there is a big difference between say an Editions Mego noise entity and the Incapacitants?

Let's discuss.

[muppet1]

This prompt is well posed and something I've thought about a fair bit as well. So much of it comes down to presentation, context, editing, etc. If a sound is recorded or processed in an interesting way and feels exploratory but disciplined somehow, it could easily be presented as something closer to sound art than jamming, though it may have arisen from the latter. This certainly comes through what I've heard of your music. The presentation in artwork and sound doesn't feel dashed off or aimless, so I read your music as being closer to studied exploration/composition/improvisation off a closed system - i.e. academic. That said, for all I know you sat down at your computer or equipment and recorded two 15 minute chunks of music with no pre-planning or intention between bowl hits to blow off some steam after work.

All of this brings to mind that fantastic Edition Omega Point imprint - Obscure Tape Music of Japan. By and large the music is academic or sound art, but long portions of the first two tracks on the Toshi Ichiyanagi - Music For Tinguely release wouldn't sound out of place on many a primitive, raw, spur of the moment noise release. Meanwhile the flatlined drum machine sound of "Environmental Mechanical Orchestra" on Tape Works Of Kuniharu Akiyama 1 aligns with many of the most dystopian and raw characteristics of certain early-80s industrial noise or even certain Baltimore/Providence circuit-bent/cracked electronics music (like that guy Door's projects Copper Glove or Dust.) On one end of things we have a person, "known for his studies of Erik Satie and Japanese film music," who was married Aki Takahashi, in the middle a shadowy, extremely prolific and creative period of underground music, the original releases of which sell online for hundreds of dollars, and then on the other end music which is slotted in my mind, perhaps unfairly, alongside a crusty jammy hipster aesthetic of Mickey Mouse swastikas, MySpace, Class of Nuke'Em High, etc. A blind taste test would likely be a different experience.

I agree with what you're saying about documentaries on noise projects - I enjoy reading oral history but in general I'd prefer not to watch a documentary on an artist whose work I connect with. I feel the same too about live footage much of the time, Incapacitants are a great example. I'd love to see them live someday and something like the Kingdom of Noise video is definitely enjoyable, but watching a 4k/binaural live recording on YouTube leaves me feeling kindof depressed and is something I avoid. I'd rather close my eyes and listen to a cd and leave it at that.
Concept, context, or presentation are what pique my interest much of the time, and a certain amount of open-endedness. The less, the better, generally. Thanks again for this prompt, I hope more people reply.

[Andrew McIntosh]

To what extent do you see noise and harsh noise as a genre dominated by chaos and randomness both in the sounds generated as well as the approach to recording and performing? Do you see noise as a genre that relies on careful placement or even composition or do you look at noise from an angle of going wild on your gear without much thinking or pre-planning?

Both, and to varying degrees. Personally I wouldn't want Noise to be restricted to relying on either one or the other. As far as recorded work goes, I'd put more emphasis on editing, which can be seen as composition, but not to the exclusion of random elements. But I also wouldn't want to determine that as the main sole factor, either. There's just too much variation to consider, to exclude.

[FreakAnimalFinland]

I have come across several examples of material where composition and the production, that appears to be "careful placement" and "composition" is most of all recognizing when things are right. Example of Giacinto Scelsi, in many works, fully improvised his cello pieces. Recorded them on tape and handed to others to write a score. He would get the score, and fix few things that didn't go quite like they ideally should have. Decades later these works are reproduced by most talented musicians, who follow the written score - that actually emerged AFTER music already had happened.

In case of noise, I'd say often there must be similar processes. Someone plays something and material emerges. When enough things seems to fall on right place, recording button is pressed or that piece of already existing recording is taken as "song". If we talk of the published album, I think the composition and planning may not differ from "jam" THAT much in process of making the actual sound, but has crucial difference in making of album/release.

I would assume even those who jam, it is often not "I will publish everything" approach, but about creating material that can be listened whether it has substance that can be taken further. With noise, if we look contemporary "cut up harsh noise" as example of something being composed. Often edited, and each echo or volume envelope carefully adjusted, etc. I have started to dislike overly precise noise. The same could be said about the "avantgarde" or John Cage or such. Whether master of his craft, there is something oddly flat and pretentious to re-play some of his works that emerged from random chaos - and now recreated and followed from score, based on strict guidelines and perhaps somewhat pretentious audience.

Beauty of noise seems most often the ear and taste of creator, who will recognize value of what happened. Whether it was random, or intended composition. This already of course puts certain bias to "compose" or... "control"? It is a fact that some control the parameters of improvisation such way that chaos is integral part or composition.

[Potier]

So much of it comes down to presentation, context, editing, etc. If a sound is recorded or processed in an interesting way and feels exploratory but disciplined somehow, it could easily be presented as something closer to sound art than jamming, though it may have arisen from the latter.

This is indeed a good point. The listener rarely has an insight into how the sounds are created which opens up a lot of opportunities to potentially even a "misrepresentation" of what actually happened during the recording process. Depending on context, the "concept" for the recording could be defined as: Let's get chaotic.

Academic noise can sound as cheap as someone tinkering with a speak & spell, speak & spell noise can sound like a carefully arranged Max MSP patch in a sense. Computer musicians and theorists like Markus Schmickler have come up with releases that sound like an old-fashioned pedal noise freak out. I guess it then becomes the context in which the artist moves around that defines how the material is received.

I agree with what you're saying about documentaries on noise projects - I enjoy reading oral history but in general I'd prefer not to watch a documentary on an artist whose work I connect with. I feel the same too about live footage much of the time, Incapacitants are a great example. I'd love to see them live someday and something like the Kingdom of Noise video is definitely enjoyable, but watching a 4k/binaural live recording on YouTube leaves me feeling kindof depressed and is something I avoid. I'd rather close my eyes and listen to a cd and leave it at that.

The recent Incapacitants documentary was an eye-opener in a sense. Prior to this I did not necessarily have a very good sense of their approach and attitude. The listener or spectator can certainly enjoy the sounds that are being made and in a live situation I believe there is a distinct raging party atmosphere that is intoxicating. I just was surprised (for example) by how little thought seems to go into the tools used. While I don't think there is anything wrong with doing noise for the sake of noise, I feel that there is an element of sloppiness or carelessness introduced that does not click with me. This can be seen as a level of purity maybe or naivety which might just be the appeal of this project.

Both, and to varying degrees. Personally I wouldn't want Noise to be restricted to relying on either one or the other. As far as recorded work goes, I'd put more emphasis on editing, which can be seen as composition, but not to the exclusion of random elements. But I also wouldn't want to determine that as the main sole factor, either. There's just too much variation to consider, to exclude.

Too much control can be boring in a sense and people strive for the element of surprise or have fun with something that gets away from them for a while. Unpredictability and randomness play an important role, I agree. When thinking about this, I think a lot about modular synthesis and the role that randomness plays in that field. I think the fascination lies in not knowing exactly what the machine will throw at you and therefore stimulating a creative response process. I certainly would not want to exclude certain approaches because ultimately it all leads to discovery and growth, I just struggle a bit with the extremes on both sides of the equation.

I have come across several examples of material where composition and the production, that appears to be "careful placement" and "composition" is most of all recognizing when things are right. Example of Giacinto Scelsi, in many works, fully improvised his cello pieces. Recorded them on tape and handed to others to write a score. He would get the score, and fix few things that didn't go quite like they ideally should have. Decades later these works are reproduced by most talented musicians, who follow the written score - that actually emerged AFTER music already had happened.

Interesting insight. I think this goes to the element of gut feeling and a sort of sixth sense of what is pleasing to the own ear. The goal there is replayability obviously. The question would maybe be: Does the material the become a little less or a little more fascinating if a musician picks up the score or the sheet music and produces their own rendition of a piece?

I would assume even those who jam, it is often not "I will publish everything" approach, but about creating material that can be listened whether it has substance that can be taken further. With noise, if we look contemporary "cut up harsh noise" as example of something being composed. Often edited, and each echo or volume envelope carefully adjusted, etc. I have started to dislike overly precise noise. The same could be said about the "avantgarde" or John Cage or such. Whether master of his craft, there is something oddly flat and pretentious to re-play some of his works that emerged from random chaos - and now recreated and followed from score, based on strict guidelines and perhaps somewhat pretentious audience.

There is the replayability again, yes. I have sat through performances of Cage pieces where I wanted to disappear in a hole in the ground for the sheer cringe factor.

Cut up noise is an interesting example since it seems to have now morphed into a "post harsh noise" genre. There are releases that push the stop and start technique so far that it becomes a total and utter drag to get through them. It's almost to the point of parody. There is a level of interpretation involved in listening obviously and in the context of noise, who truly knows what was intended to sound like what when the artist first sat down to record. Is fucking up even really noticeable in a recording? Does the avid noise fan simply resort to reframe the fuckup and say: This is exactly what makes this project so great, it's unpolished.
I have met people that go as far as to look at a person playing harsh noise as an art-persona or an art subject in a sense. The person behind the table, their mannerisms, their clothing, their style gets perceived as a result of a carefully planned artistic statement when they are just an everyday regular normal guy wearing a Freddy Mercury shirt...

Beauty of noise seems most often the ear and taste of creator, who will recognize value of what happened. Whether it was random, or intended composition. This already of course puts certain bias to "compose" or... "control"? It is a fact that some control the parameters of improvisation such way that chaos is integral part or composition.

Free improvisation often gets presented as an art form and while I agree that a person needs to know what they are doing to be able to create "meaningful" improvised recordings - particularly in a live group setting, I can also see where people are coming from that see no value in someone rubbing a butter knife across a crystal glass vase for 20 minutes. I feel that in noise people will use whatever means necessary to find the texture that is pleasing and I do the same.
I realize that there is an element of the absurd in noise - I watched GX Jupitter-Larsen grind a tiny metal shovel against a metal railing - contact mic'd and fed through a death metal pedal - at Extreme Rituals a number of years ago. It made me smile more than anything and I thought about all the people that are scratching their heads when I talk to them about my taste in sound and music.

[Soloman Tump]

Presentation and price point is a key factor.

Hand crafted wooden box with leather wrap around seal containing 4 piece 12" records and a book of accompanying art...

Or pay what you want on bandcamp with some MS Paint artwork.

One might be "worth" paying £100 for, the other you might only throw £2 at.....

The music could be the same.  And I hope it is.

[holy ghost]

I have started to dislike overly precise noise. The same could be said about the "avantgarde" or John Cage or such. Whether master of his craft, there is something oddly flat and pretentious to re-play some of his works that emerged from random chaos - and now recreated and followed from score, based on strict guidelines and perhaps somewhat pretentious audience.

I totally agree with this. I am appreciative of when individuals or groups can "cut loose" and find those happy accidents (or just bomb entirely) rather than tightly composed, structured, heavily post-processed noise or experimental sound. No disrespect to anyone who finds value in delivering a finished product of exacting standards but that's what I gravitate towards.

I was trying to find a way to clarify more in depth but I think that sums up my entire attitude towards noise, much like free jazz. I can live with a little structure or planning or "competence" of a set/release, or mastery (heck even "understanding") of your instrument (or at the very least, I very much appreciate you knowing how to set up and power your pedal board without delaying the show an hour because you lost the wall wart for your dumb delay pedal). I can also appreciate even in randomness when there's a concept or an idea being executed even if often times that concept is executed as much by appearance or attitude. Like this video of Vomir - everyone chugging beers and wearing garbage bags and having fun, but somehow it just makes it MORE Vomir rather than dissolving into parody https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3zeYV4oN2A.

[Potier]

I totally agree with this. I am appreciative of when individuals or groups can "cut loose" and find those happy accidents (or just bomb entirely) rather than tightly composed, structured, heavily post-processed noise or experimental sound. No disrespect to anyone who finds value in delivering a finished product of exacting standards but that's what I gravitate towards.

This is an interesting take. So what you are saying is, as long as the performers or artists are having a good time "cutting loose" you don't mind if they bomb? Would you then say that you'd purchase these "bombed deliveries" when they appear on a release?

I can live with a little structure or planning or "competence" of a set/release, or mastery (heck even "understanding") of your instrument (or at the very least, I very much appreciate you knowing how to set up and power your pedal board without delaying the show an hour because you lost the wall wart for your dumb delay pedal). I can also appreciate even in randomness when there's a concept or an idea being executed even if often times that concept is executed as much by appearance or attitude. Like this video of Vomir - everyone chugging beers and wearing garbage bags and having fun, but somehow it just makes it MORE Vomir rather than dissolving into parody https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3zeYV4oN2A.

Question here would be: Are you turned off by certain high levels of planning and composure? Certain levels of proficiency in handling gear? Do you gravitate toward a dilettante-style approach as long as it hits some of the notes you like to hear?

Vomir would likely be proud to say that there is no meaning or concept with that then representing the meaning and concept. That is where it becomes absurd again. Which is not to say I don't enjoy the occasional Vomir-listening session...

[holy ghost]

]
This is an interesting take. So what you are saying is, as long as the performers or artists are having a good time "cutting loose" you don't mind if they bomb? Would you then say that you'd purchase these "bombed deliveries" when they appear on a release?

Hmmm, I suppose I meant more in a live context, seems strange to imagine a release of a terrible live performance.... But ANYTHING is possible! My old noisecore band, we had a release of a live show that was arguably a very poor performance. I guess I would agree that yes, if people were having fun on stage I'd be more willing to overlook a shitty set that didn't click. But then again if musicians aren't clicking it's rare they will be having a lot of fun.

Question here would be: Are you turned off by certain high levels of planning and composure? Certain levels of proficiency in handling gear? Do you gravitate toward a dilettante-style approach as long as it hits some of the notes you like to hear?...

I guess it depends on a lot of factors, mostly determined by individual artist. For example, I like Wiese's solo laptop stuff just fine, but I'd be much more excited to see Sissy Spacek just fucking blasting away.

[NO PART OF IT]

I think noise is a good vehicle for intuition, which is to say, at least for me, having one foot in the raw and unpredictable, and one foot in the controlled/organized areas of approaching it.  The trick is to actually hit that sweet spot where you're not overthinking it or under-thinking it.   That's where the intuition comes in, ideally. 

[WCN]

As a listener personally, "process" is of much less importance than the "effect" of noise - I perceive and value it sensually rather than cerebrally, and a defining characteristic of sheer and pure noise, in how it feels and what it does in my brain, is chaos - even if that chaos is coming from a very calculated, studied, intentional place. The chaos of jagged sound crashing and mangling and forcing itself on the brain is what it's all about for me. I do value and analyze different noises though, so it's not about randomness or just making a racket, but understanding how to get chaos on a leash, but I often prefer when the beast if just about to break the chain. As Mikko said - the ear and taste of the creator recognizing when things are right...

[Potier]

This is an interesting take. So what you are saying is, as long as the performers or artists are having a good time "cutting loose" you don't mind if they bomb? Would you then say that you'd purchase these "bombed deliveries" when they appear on a release?

Hmmm, I suppose I meant more in a live context, seems strange to imagine a release of a terrible live performance.... But ANYTHING is possible! My old noisecore band, we had a release of a live show that was arguably a very poor performance. I guess I would agree that yes, if people were having fun on stage I'd be more willing to overlook a shitty set that didn't click. But then again if musicians aren't clicking it's rare they will be having a lot of fun.

You are right, live context is certainly a different story - I was just being a little flippant maybe. I do certainly feel that there are releases out there in a vast variety of genres that contain totally sub-par material - live recordings, in my experience, are extremely hit and miss - maybe not because of the musicians but because of the recording. I have seen people on stage "having fun" with a didgeridoo and a chaos pad and I wanted someone to shove a sharp pointy object into my eyes and eardrums...

Question here would be: Are you turned off by certain high levels of planning and composure? Certain levels of proficiency in handling gear? Do you gravitate toward a dilettante-style approach as long as it hits some of the notes you like to hear?...

I guess it depends on a lot of factors, mostly determined by individual artist. For example, I like Wiese's solo laptop stuff just fine, but I'd be much more excited to see Sissy Spacek just fucking blasting away.

Having never seen them perform I can just imagine how entertaining that would be. Safe to say that the people in that project know what they are doing and how to do it and how to create a certain vibe and experience for the audience and themselves. Maybe a high level of proficiency and how it is displayed can be just as off-putting as an erratic flailing type approach if it illustrates a lack of control or knowledge about what someone is doing...

I think noise is a good vehicle for intuition, which is to say, at least for me, having one foot in the raw and unpredictable, and one foot in the controlled/organized areas of approaching it.  The trick is to actually hit that sweet spot where you're not overthinking it or under-thinking it.   That's where the intuition comes in, ideally. 

I have been having conversations with people about this and it is interesting to see who works with a more "stream of consciousness" type approach where things almost flow naturally without interruption or much questioning. Plugging in your gear and letting things happen as they happen may not be everybody's approach. It appears to me there are people that "practice" or "rehearse", people that edit, chop, scrap, repeat, overdub, erase, recycle - sometimes on the fly sometimes meticulously over months in their "home studios". You could argue that the intuition in those techniques lies within the matching/assembling/organizing/dubbing process itself but I feel it then also becomes a much less "noise" or "free form" kind of exercise.

As a listener personally, "process" is of much less importance than the "effect" of noise - I perceive and value it sensually rather than cerebrally, and a defining characteristic of sheer and pure noise, in how it feels and what it does in my brain, is chaos - even if that chaos is coming from a very calculated, studied, intentional place. The chaos of jagged sound crashing and mangling and forcing itself on the brain is what it's all about for me. I do value and analyze different noises though, so it's not about randomness or just making a racket, but understanding how to get chaos on a leash, but I often prefer when the beast if just about to break the chain. As Mikko said - the ear and taste of the creator recognizing when things are right...

I agree that noise for its sheer intensity and textural depth does overpower the brain's need for contextualization and order to an extent. The turbulence is stimulating. You are right, at that point maybe it does not really matter anymore how this effect was achieved and how much planning and calculation went into it. Chaos on a leash is a great way of thinking about it.

For me at that point it goes back to the level of control over sounds created and textures explored. Do you want to see/hear someone with a distinct skill to unleash what can be seen as utter chaos within the blink of an eye and then reign it in again - maybe as reflected in cut-up noise - or are you okay with someone wrestling with "the product" of their button pushing almost endlessly until the table flips over and there is silence? How controlled can chaos be? Should the chaos be repeatable - as in a trademark sound or maybe even in the sense of a traditional "song"? 

[holy ghost]

I have seen people on stage "having fun" with a didgeridoo and a chaos pad and I wanted someone to shove a sharp pointy object into my eyes and eardrums...

Oh yeah - it's gotta be "good", however subjective that might be. I mean I'm picky as fuck about what I like but I'm more inclined to give a pass to people who aren't moping around on stage. I'll still hate it if it's like a guy "playing" a barn door and another guy banging his shoe against the floor..... I'm just not into that even if they're having a great time.....

I would say one of my all time favorite (live) records is the collaboration between Wolf Eyes and Anthony Braxton. Just a perfect meeting of the minds, a perfect moment captured and four people, two different worlds meeting up, stretching out and making it work. And on that topic, both use "composition"/pre-arranged sound in their work (obviously Braxton more so) but they were able to really get up there and just feed off each other. That to me is sort of the vibe I'm looking for when we are on this subject.