Does being "conventionally good" at your instrument matter in industrial/noise?

[Phenol]

I have a habit of re-reading old interviews and reviews and recently read the one with John Murphy on the Ikonen website where this little bit piqued my interest and I thought  it was maybe worth its own topic:

"In some ways we are just a bit like a more conventially orientated ..old fashioned 'Band' perhaps ..which in my subtle jaundiced mind..is possibly considered by some to be a bit of novelty in the gimmick strewn area of 'Industrial music " populated as it currently is by large numbers of boffin like non musicians ..who are content to stand or sit behind lap tops (and maybe too inhibited to live the Rockn Roll life)..and let the videos or light show do the entertainment stage show and talking ..All members of Knifeladder can play their chosen instruments conventionally well ..as each of us have had wide experience in many differing styles of music and we have the added bonus of knowing how to perform onstage ..maybe a rarity nowdays .."

The question is, does being good at an instrument count for anything in industrial/noise, does it matter at all? Do you want to see a "band" perform or is it something else that matters to you?

[Stipsi]

 I studied piano for 3 years and guitar for 7.
I can play bass pretty good too, but in my personal case, doesn't count for the music i make.
But i enjoy to play "conventional" music with "conventional" instruments when I'm really stressed or i have a negative day.

[Baglady]

Having played guitar in bands for years, I think those "skills" (I have zero talent for the instrument, but the little I learned...) are more of an obstacle - a way of thinking when making sound - that keeps me from taking potentially interesting leaps, chances and making less unexpected choices. But that's for the noise I make.

[Phenol]

I can see the points you're both making. I'm also torn personally. On the one hand I like the chaotic and unhinged, on the other I also enjoy the more composed stuff with rhythmic structures, synth riffs and melodies. I really do enjoy a well composed piece of industrial music. What I really dislike is wank. That is, things being there just for the sake of showing off (excessive soloing, jazzy shit and what not). Still, the John Murphy quote is decidedly rockist which I find funny coming from one of the fathers of experimental/industrial music. To a certain degree what makes noise great to me is how non-rockist, uncommunicative and devoid of ego and showboating and all that performative stuff it can be. Just sound. No meaning, no talent, no art, no message, no entertainment and zero fucking rock n' roll attitude. So I guess I have a foot in both camps, in a way, liking both the industrial side with all the "rockist" stuff like structures, compositions, shock tactics, stage antics and so on and the noise simply for the sake of noise. For the structured stuff it's probably a good thing to actually play the instrument whereas it might be the opposite for the unhinged stuff.

[Thermophile]

In principle things remain the same just the nature of the instrument changes. As industrial/noise are a form of electronic music, mastering the studio, the gear at your disposal, which are your instrument basically, is no different than a violinist perfecting his playing technique.

Imo, it doesn't matter at all in terms of composition.

J.Murphy has a point when it comes to how music is presented to the public in a live scenario. I guess he means the physicality involved in playing the instrument and how that energy can be communicated both visually and acoustically.

Seeing virtuosi perform the 4 seasons of Vivaldi inside a cathedral was 10 times most memorable than any industrial/noise show I have been to. People who have spent their entire life mastering their craft on some particular instrument and you can actually experience that interaction between performer and instrument (is almost as if they are having sex with it) and how the musicians sync with each other.

[Yvette]

I think the answer to these kinds of questions is always yes, but the context isn't always in a traditional notes and scales kind of format.

For instance I often make noise using a piece of aluminum, contact mic, and paint scraper. Anyone could use this same set up and come out with different sounds. Like rubbing two sticks together to try and create a Fire. The point is to use the desired set up and practice your craft. Which overtime will allow you to create your own distinctive style based on the way you use sound sources and effects that you choose to modify those sounds with.

I also had a friend like 15 years ago who got really into bowing a saw. I'd never seen someone do this in person and it was pretty interesting to see them progress at getting different tones out of the thing. Most would automatically assume an instrument like this would only be applied in an avant-garde setting but I'd suggest never assuming skills based on Societal Norms!

Knowledge is Power (Electronics)

[Andrew McIntosh]

The question is, does being good at an instrument count for anything in industrial/noise, does it matter at all?

Not to me, personally.

John Murphy was a professional musician who among other things played in a conventional pop band with Micheal Hutchinson. He had to know his shit, musically. The sense I get from that snippet from the interview is he's making a comparison between people like himself, who were more or less professional, constantly gigging musicians and people who's music is more considered a "hobby". Which doesn't just mean knowing how to play something. The fact that he added "we have the added bonus of knowing how to perform onstage", which in my experience is something of a rarity when watching people just hunch over their gear, playing with their knobs for twenty minutes to get the same old scree (maybe wearing balaclavas and having a video going in the background).

I suspect Murphy was talking from the position of someone who had been there at the start of Industrial and was more used to people making more effort to create something new, and taking the subsequent risks involved as well to make it work. Whereas these days it's too easy to go through the same old motions. It's not so much about being musically adept as having your own ideas. EDIT - or, at the very least, making the effort to do something that's your own.

[Balor/SS1535]

I think so---even if it just means understanding the limits and potentials of your gear when it is used in the otherwise strange setting that is noise/industrial.  When I saw Bastard Noise play in January, he was talking to the crowd during the soundcheck and describing how using a "cheap Chinese mixer" meant that he had to be careful to cut volume whenever he switced the synth he was using.  Sure enough, he had no problems in that department once things got going---and no noticable loss in volume for the audience either!  There are also a few interesting live videos of Emil Beaulieau on Youtube where he experiences clear technical difficulties during his sets.  It's really funny, but his usual funny demeanor suddenly changes as soon as he hears that something is wrong, but he is able to quickly fix any problem thanks to his know-how with the gear he is using.

[Leewar]

In my view, all that matters is that you know how to get the results you want.

[host body]

having played music for all my life has definitely been a good thing regarding noise and experimental sound in general. I know my way around gear and just knowing the conventional rules of music (to an extent, not a trained musician by any means) also means I know how to break them in a meaningful way, or how to accentuate certain sounds and frequencies to make my noise sound the way i like. I do think this sort of complete lack of knowledge of anything related to music or gear is being glorified in noise circles, but i don't really buy it.

[Bloated Slutbag]

I do think this sort of complete lack of knowledge of anything related to music or gear is being glorified in noise circles, but i don't really buy it.

But let's not convolute lack of knowledge of (the acceptably proper instrumental making of) music with lack of knowledge of (the correct use of) gear. These are imo very different things. And for me the question is directed at the former. To which my answer is, no.

[FreakAnimalFinland]

The opening quote is related the Knifeladder. One can think, what would be for example live performance of industrial percussion that lacks sense of rhythm. Everybody missing the beat, yet.. sort of playing "music". I suppose we all have seen it? At least I have, the gringe moment when its more slapstick than machine-like firmness.
Knifeladder  isn't really noise band, but industrial unit, and there is certain point in having accuracy of percussion when playing song.

If we extend the quote to actual noise... I sometimes see people who can't make music, conclude that it is the reason they make noise. For me it gives impression that there is certain lack of effort, lack of dedication towards what it takes to master instruments and compose and play somewhat interesting music. If noise is treated as something lesser, something what doesn't require that effort, it is possible that it shows.

I personally think that noise is no lesser compared to music. What it demands to really make strong personal noise may not be connected to being conventionally good at instrument, but it may be connected to idea of being willing to spend time and effort to master your craft, even if it would be seemingly primitive and simple. Even as simple as craft of listening and recognizing good sound - as that is far more bigger role in noise than in music - I dare to say.

[Phenol]

Not trying to defend poor skill or lack of effort here, I've seen my share of amaterurish martial industrial gigs with horribly out of sync drummers, f.ex. Making the effort of knowing your shit well enough to get the results you want is of course important in industrial and noise too, but it was more the idea of being a conventionally good musician and performer as inhenrently better that I found interesting within the context of a genre that to some extent has always sought to be something else than that. There's that old school rock n' roll attitude about the whole sentiment. The accusation that industrial makers are too socially awkward to make good live shows, for instance, is funny (maybe also true...). But should industrial/noise be judged through the rock tropes? Aren't we supposed to do something else than the dinosaurs of rock? Or maybe we should just bring back the keytar and rock out Jimmy Page style. The SH 101 can be used that way, haha... (I know that's not exactly what JM is saying, but the image makes me smile).

[Commander15]

Tricky question. I feel that my 20+ years of playing more conventional rock music do affect my noise, but perhaps not in obvious way. I think it affects my relationship with gear and technical thinking the most, but also the way i think of compositions, structures and sound architecture.

When dealing with "classic" sound sources of noise and industrial, ie. mixer feedback loops, contact mic'd objects etc., the conventional way of thinking gear and instruments is rendered almost obsolete. Everything and every piece reacts differently when different variables are added into noise making situation, when dealing with traditional instruments you could always predict what is going to happen if you do something with your guitar connected to pedals and amp. I think that in noise there is always this "free improv" dimension present, that allows happy accidents and sudden changes to happen more naturally when compared to rock music. So in that sense the background in traditional music can be a bit limiting because it favors repetition, clear structures and repeatability.

[Bloated Slutbag]

I personally think that noise is no lesser compared to music.

I personally think that music is not privileged to suck noise string.