Soddy keeps leaving good questions on the forum topics once in a while, but deleting them quickly. Latest one was question about what exactly is Incapacitants repeating? Or more broadly, what is noise repeating. I think that is fairly good question, despite many may feel it is too obvious to even consider further.
I think it was curious in THE RITA wcn podcast interview, where he rejected completely the recognize-ability of noise. In a way. Saying that in his work, it is always new. No hooks, no songs, just noise where flow of this noise is something you can't remember or know what happens next. Of course, from distance, it will look like it is "always the same". Which one is it? Always new, always different, even in every repeated listening.
Incapacitants, when asking what they are repeating, one could assume that looking at certain level, duo blasting harsh noise, purely improvised, I recall Mikawa even saying that many times in recording, it is hard to even know what sound is being made or which one of them is doing something. Just blasting harshness with fast paced modulation. I suppose that method is quite same since duo line-up came together. Format of most CD's is the same. Studio stuff + 20 minute live recording. CD after CD. After all that, most of albums do not sound like eachother. You can dissected their output to different "era", what are the ripping thin razor, what are the softer heavy theremin bath, what are odd weird broken toy-electronics type. There is no way someone could not make absolute distinction what is "feedback for..." vs. "ministry of foolishness". It is so vastly different. So soddy's question, what exactly "repeats"? Like mentioned before, depends how you look it. Some type of form repeats.
I my own work, this "repeating" was exactly reason why I decided to break the "template" so to say. While album, always different tracks, always different forms, different compositions... but when looking a little distance, you could see over and over again, 3-5 minute songs, 8 song 40 min CD. Despite cover art looking different, gear changing, sound changing, but something "repeats". Is that a problem? Probably not really, in any other sense than personal challenge to leap into something different consciously.
Repeating same, is tricky question. There are many artists one wishes would have not changed as much as they did. Some others, you wish they'd gamble a little, and not become almost like brand. There are levels of repetition - some keep making good noise year after year, some will produce uniform line of product about same topic, same graphic outlook. I tend to be in category who doesn't mind, or even prefers some repetition. I know some guys who want to hear just the key albums, but many times I like to hear the stuff that came inbetween. The "same", the transitions, where sound is taking shape, until it becomes something new. I can't see noise as pop music. I rather see it from perspective of art, where sketches, attempts, smaller tests, repeated mass of samey illustrations is the art - not just the one masterpiece.
Feelings when repeating is fine? Would anyone tell painter that you paint too much, stop doing that! For a lot of sound artists you got people who complain of too much while nobody is forcing to listen or look.
