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

[I. Rex]

I think that the quote was rather about the fact that some  industrial projects, no matter how good they sound, look quite boring live, because the viewer doesn't see any action in it, a "show" if you will. Running the phonogram from a laptop, occasionally using a couple of pedals and freezing in a static position on stage - it in my opinion is justified only in Ritual/Ambient genres, where everything should correspond to a leisurely and smooth flow of sound.

If we are talking about Noise/PE, first of all I personally always want the performer to recreate on stage that is express by his sound. There are guys who like to dig through wires on stage and press buttons to the roar and screech of a synthesizer, and it could pass for "knowing how to play an instrument in noise", but in my opinion, it's much more important to be able to perform. You don't have to roll around like Masonna, or broadcast some blatant extreme, but in my opinion the performance should keep the audience engaged.

Sometimes instrumental bands in different genres look weak on stage, even though they play their instruments professionally. What to say about the noise

[33033]

I don't think you have to be "good" just confident in your noise. Know what you're doing, and how you're doing it. The basics of volume, mixing, etc are the only thing I can see as being relevant.

[Commander15]

I think that the quote was rather about the fact that some  industrial projects, no matter how good they sound, look quite boring live, because the viewer doesn't see any action in it, a "show" if you will. Running the phonogram from a laptop, occasionally using a couple of pedals and freezing in a static position on stage - it in my opinion is justified only in Ritual/Ambient genres, where everything should correspond to a leisurely and smooth flow of sound.

If we are talking about Noise/PE, first of all I personally always want the performer to recreate on stage that is express by his sound. There are guys who like to dig through wires on stage and press buttons to the roar and screech of a synthesizer, and it could pass for "knowing how to play an instrument in noise", but in my opinion, it's much more important to be able to perform. You don't have to roll around like Masonna, or broadcast some blatant extreme, but in my opinion the performance should keep the audience engaged.

Sometimes instrumental bands in different genres look weak on stage, even though they play their instruments professionally. What to say about the noise

To me, it is the sound that matters the most, even in live action. I think that the idea of "keeping the audience engaged" in the expense of the actual content is a bit... Maybe insulting towards the actual audience? There is an built-in implication that audience is some homogenic, easily bored or distracted mass that doesn't really know how to relate to live noise without some kind of "show" or visuals etc.

[Leewar]

I have to say, i find nothing more boring than watching a noise 'show' that consists of some fella looking like he's checking his emails in a slightly vexed fashion. Or in the case of some dark ambient 'shows', looking like he's reading articles on wikipedia.

Might as well just have a DJ playing the material so the audience doesn't feel obliged to stand watching.

Though id say its 50% venues at fault too. Use the damn lights, flood the room in smoke, do something!

[Phenol]

I think that the quote was rather about the fact that some  industrial projects, no matter how good they sound, look quite boring live, because the viewer doesn't see any action in it, a "show" if you will. Running the phonogram from a laptop, occasionally using a couple of pedals and freezing in a static position on stage - it in my opinion is justified only in Ritual/Ambient genres, where everything should correspond to a leisurely and smooth flow of sound.

If we are talking about Noise/PE, first of all I personally always want the performer to recreate on stage that is express by his sound. There are guys who like to dig through wires on stage and press buttons to the roar and screech of a synthesizer, and it could pass for "knowing how to play an instrument in noise", but in my opinion, it's much more important to be able to perform. You don't have to roll around like Masonna, or broadcast some blatant extreme, but in my opinion the performance should keep the audience engaged.

Sometimes instrumental bands in different genres look weak on stage, even though they play their instruments professionally. What to say about the noise

To me, it is the sound that matters the most, even in live action. I think that the idea of "keeping the audience engaged" in the expense of the actual content is a bit... Maybe insulting towards the actual audience? There is an built-in implication that audience is some homogenic, easily bored or distracted mass that doesn't really know how to relate to live noise without some kind of "show" or visuals etc.

When it comes to live shows I've had different experiences. I've enjoyed shows where only the vocals were live (Trepaneringsritualen and In Slaughter Natives), but have been bored with shows where instruments/sound sources were played live (and enjoyed a lot of those too, to be fair). I have seen my share of boring laptop shows too and just hate those. Laptops do not belong on a stage, use a sampler or something or just hide the damned thing. With pure noise I prefer it to be all live to witness how those sounds are made, but with industrial/ambient that's often not possible due to too many layers and various kinds of sound treatments, so in that case I prefer if there's a show of some sort + live elements such as vocals and percussion. A show can be just visuals, light and smoke, stage props (although this is difficult to pull off without it getting ridiculous, Arktau Eos are able to pull this off nicely, imo.) or it can simply be that elusive thing called stage presence. Bottom line for me is, if you have nothing to SHOW an audience then why do live shows at all? I'm fine with studio only bands. I also agree that we should not underestimate audiences. Those are people who chose to show up to this kind of gig after all, so they're probably able to concentrate.

[Bloated Slutbag]

If we extend the quote to actual noise... I sometimes see people who can't make music

I'd be curious as to what criteria would inform that determination. Hmmm...the manner in which the lead performer ripped off the guitar strings and proceeded to choke herself out whilst urinating in the promoter's face would seem to suggest potential room for improvement in the musical capacities.

Though in fairness there's kind of a trope in a lot of interviews with purveyors of less conventional sounds, a la "I've never received any formal training in music..." So on some level the assumption of non skills is sort of a default position.

I do agree with the idear of "knowing your gear", even if it is just knowing of how much lubrication and pressure is necessary between lump of styrofoam and mirror to produce the most excruciating donkey-getting-sawed-in-half possible. You may be surprised at how few people know these things.

[I. Rex]

To me, it is the sound that matters the most, even in live action. I think that the idea of "keeping the audience engaged" in the expense of the actual content is a bit... Maybe insulting towards the actual audience? There is an built-in implication that audience is some homogenic, easily bored or distracted mass that doesn't really know how to relate to live noise without some kind of "show" or visuals etc.

Being able to work with sound on stage is a given, and any performance accompanied by a crappy sound will look ridiculous. However, when powerful noise is accompanied by the same bright pitch on stage, it makes the performance many times stronger. I saw a part of the Wonderland Club live at Urban Spree '19 - it's probably the best example of what I mean.

[FreakAnimalFinland]

If we extend the quote to actual noise... I sometimes see people who can't make music

I'd be curious as to what criteria would inform that determination. Hmmm...the manner in which the lead performer ripped off the guitar strings and proceeded to choke herself out whilst urinating in the promoter's face would seem to suggest potential room for improvement in the musical capacities.

Though in fairness there's kind of a trope in a lot of interviews with purveyors of less conventional sounds, a la "I've never received any formal training in music..." So on some level the assumption of non skills is sort of a default position.

I do agree with the idear of "knowing your gear", even if it is just knowing of how much lubrication and pressure is necessary between lump of styrofoam and mirror to produce the most excruciating donkey-getting-sawed-in-half possible. You may be surprised at how few people know these things.

Indeed, knowing what to do, and committing doing it well (relative), whether it is functioning contact mic, or how to get your acoustic set work, even if it would just consist the styrofoam and mirror being rubbed together.

Like some mentioned here (I think), I didn't want to repeat the same conclusion, but indeed, "being conventionally good" has also that baggage that some can't get rid off. Like, lets say noise.. you do hear things like "no feedback! it will destroy the PA!". "that amp is for bass, connect vocals to...".   I recall funny stories of certain UK scifi/horror noise-"rock" unit, where other guy mentions project had to be ended when other guy wanted to tune the guitars. WCN podcast interview with Final Solution is curious that as simple as their sound is, one member insists that the two synths are tuned into same note, before gigs/recordings. Not that either of these would ruin the projects, but may show that being "conventionally good" in music, may bring some unwanted baggage in form of things that have no relevance in noise.

One thing could be technical perfection? Unable to do piece like "90s Merzbow" where piece suddenly falls into pieces and it takes some minutes from Masami to gather things and hit hard again. The guy who absolutely KNOWS how it must be, may be churning "conventionally good noise", and unable to get why the weird seemingly unfitting moment of feedback + wahwah wank was what made the song so perfect. In musical way, idea may be that lets just use the best mix, best take... not that one with parts that feels like things are getting out of hand. While, a lot of noise listeners may want exactly that things are getting out of hand. I think the real skilled guys know this, and they do not get trapped into idea of "conventionally good", but they aim for GOOD, which includes plenty of knowing, but letting noise live and breath.

[host body]

Having knowledge of music theory or an instrument can also mean you actually what's happening when you detune two synths slighty vs. when you tune them perfectly. You know what the filter does, what harmonics means, maybe you know how different instruments sit well in a mix etc. Knowing these doesn't mean you can't break the rules, but it means you can incorporate traditional musical elements done "correctly" if you wish. I don't think knowing more leads to rigidness of thought, on the contrary. It's not about how much you know, it's how you work.

I'd wager many of the "accidents" on noise classics maybe weren't accidents as much as choices, even if it's a choice to not care if it's not perfect.