I am not very well familiar with Ted Byrnes. The usual thing, that I tend to remember band names, not the people. I suppose it is mentioned a bit later that he is also in Wood & Metal, and then its "
aah, that project!".
This is something that I would suggest to any podcast as a little adjustment for the structure. Instead of starting with long slow beginning of "how did you get into noise", it might be better to start instantly with who are you, how do we know you (what you've been doing lately, new shit happening, things that usually are somewhere in the end when podcast is just wrapping up episode), whats the interesting stuff happening right now.
I would say, this would make listener who has interest, but not all the knowledge, captured from the beginning. Otherwise, I would suspect, there is relevant question why would we be listening stories of someone highschool band etc? It is luring idea to think people would know artists, but if having a bit of realism, it could be benefit to mention to people that is being interviewed that if possible, talk as if nobody knows anything. Especially about other artists and people. This is helpful for listener. Lets say you get to hear "Matt's new stuff always slays!". And I'm wondering... Matt? Who? Shoemaker? Sam? Sam who? McKinley? Stoxen? etc. haha.. Couple advices/plans how to talk in interview is very much accepted to make it relatable for listener.
This notion of
not needing to know, is dealt in the Ted Byrnes interview. Oskar explains that it could be baggage if everybody would need to be first going through entire history of noise, to be able to start to make some. One could make great noise without any knowledge how and who were making it decades ago. In a way, I fully agree. It is not mandatory approach to noise that it would be study and research. There are plenty of other ways and reasons to approach.
But there is also another angle to it. One time, I was talking with younger artist who was very enthusiastic about nudity and splattering red paint. It was treated like new idea. Something that just came out into field of performance art. I didn't want to mention that... well... in history of roughly this type of art... the nudity and the red paint, the blood and the fake blood kind of thing.. It may not be new. Haha.
It is same situation that when in interview is being talked that everybody used scrap metal, but there is so many possibilities. Discussion how you could use glass. Wood. Stones. etc. and I am thinking... hmmm... I mean, sure, metal junk is popular because of obvious qualities. Its trusted sound, resonance, durability, and so on. This is especially for live sets. Anyone who has seen glass-noise live sets, knows why sheet of metal is more functional, hah.
But talking of these other things as if they would be obscure rarity in noise, makes me wonder what kind of noise is being listened? It is not mandatory to get educated on all things happening or happened in realms of noise, but it is helpful in a way that instead of wondering how come nobody is using glass for making noise, you could make top-5 noise/y releases using glass? Or most wild live performances using glass? Or dive into best stone recordings. Probably have to just grab Stein: Interpretationen Eines Geologischen Materials Und Seiner Symbolik -comp on mr. Ochu's label to get started. As soon as you've gone that, there is options to proceed even for purely acoustic stone noise live shows and such... Are these all NOISE with capital letters? Maybe not the baseball cap wearing HN shirt shakebox harsh noise, but in realms of same wider scene nevertheless.
Anyways, episode is good and gets better all the time by the end. Percussive qualities of noise, that is something what interesting topic. Also Byrner saying that he dislikes the sounds that lasts more than a note. Not doing any long sounds with his work. That is quite unusual in era where endless drones, echoes and stretching seems vastly more popular. It would be quite interesting topic to discuss whether such approach is kind of more noisy? When it is abrupt, fractured, not really beats and grooves, but percussive elements lacking what is traditionally musical. We are not lacking substance to observe. You could grab bunch of late 80's Merzbow cult album, that are noise/noisy, but on level of ideas, they are percussion music.
Storage for example.
Ecobondage. There was other stuff where his main idea was study object percussion. Or lets say Finns, have often possibility to see Umpio starting harsh noise sets with experimental percussion (example
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_DAwOwBo_8 just short clip from beginning).
Very much is appreciated the nod toward MANIA. Those who wonder why he is one of the masters in metal junk, I would say there is plenty to hear, but ALL AFTERMATH tape, that was the last of Mania and best. It makes one wonder what could have become of Mania if still after decades of using junk metal, really since the late 80's, he could come up with his best metal junk recordings? We talked back then that all FA Mania tapes should be collected into CD, as they well deserve it, but I just haven't got it done. All of them are great, but All Aftermath would most certainly deserve to be remembered how artist can make their best stuff last and good reminder how talking about recent things and recommending recent releases can be good. Not just hunt for ancient noise..
But now that there was some talk about noise and other sound sources, any label who likes harsh noise and Jeph Jerman etc, could want to ask him or Ben Brucato about their collaboration project called ENTITIES. This was loud harsh noise, made out of wood. As far as I know, album never came out. There was talk that it could be on Freak Animal, but never got done for various reasons. It would be kind of waste to that project never get heard by anyone... There was Brucato playing metal & wood on Jeph Jerman – The Bray Harp (on WCN), but this Entities project is something else.
