Video: People Who Do Noise

[ImpulsyStetoskopu]

Personally, I draw a distinction between noise the dictionary definition and Noise the genre. Noise the genre may well be undesirable to mainstream culture but I'm not thinking of mainstream culture when I make it or listen to it. To me, Noise is desirable sound. Those other elements you mentioned I can take or leave as I desire or not.

For you or me NOISE as music is desirable, like other cultural taboo for me... but, I think, artist in this movie have meant about NOISE only as a sound such like normal people think about that, not genre in music. Besides, each of us like noise music and our perception of this phenomena is different than the rest of society, but, when we try to describe this noise music (and noise as sound) we must do it in context of official culture.

[GEWALTMONOPOL]

"People from Portland Who Do Experimental Music"

Or "People From Portland Who Think Just Turning Up is Enough Because it's Like So Rad"

I watched this carcrash on a big screen through a pretty happening sound system in Finland a couple of years ago. I think there was whiskey on the go to heighten the experience as well. Out of many guffaws there were two that particularly stood out for unintentional comedic effect. Josh Hydeman doing a Prurient routine which must be about the weakest looking and sounding PE performance I've seen. Something about him reminded me of that fag Dennis Lyxzén and the idea of HIM doing PE made me laugh even harder. But the famous Yellow Swans disagreement in front of the camera over what the band was about is THE classic moment in this abortion. It's Spinal Tap/Bad News but in bumfuck Portland in a genre not many know or care about. There were other moments but they've slipped my mind. I don't blame Daniel Menche for keeping his distance.

This IS a valuable document but not necessarily for noise. It's an unintentional lecture in how not to be regardless of what you do. No one respects a chancer, at least not in the long run, and this film is full of them.

[martialgodmask]

but, I think, artist in this movie have meant about NOISE only as a sound such like normal people think about that, not genre in music. Besides, each of us like noise music and our perception of this phenomena is different than the rest of society, but, when we try to describe this noise music (and noise as sound) we must do it in context of official culture.

I think I've understood your point here and yes noise on a wider scale may not be desirable to non-noisers. But for a documentary like this, who is the target demographic? I wouldn't imagine it's a "general release" kind of documentary/film, it will be received for the most part by people who also "do noise" or at the very least have a rudimentary understanding of noise/industrial/related. So to make a documentary about noise, for people who like noise, to then distinguish that noise is non-desirable, seems like a point that isn't really worth making in the first place.

[Nyodene D]

If I could weigh in:

the point that Stephen and I had in making City/Ruins was to show that - within our scene at least - art is an expression that reflects life.  I've seen People Who Do Noise several times and, while i thought it was very well filmed, it had no central thesis outside of "here's what the people in this scene who make noise think." 

Rather, between our backgrounds in the scene and my background in sociology and journalism and stephen's in film, we chose to examine the scene we operate in by showing the critical (in the class-conflict critical theory sense) and socially-constructed aspects of the scene.  Namely, that these people express their frustration with class conflict and industrial collapse through their art, and that their perceptions of the scene and the imagery of their art is constructed by group definitions of "class conflict" and "economic collapse".  Ultimately, we wanted to make a documentary that wasn't a self-aggrandizing look at a scene of people, but a journalistic and sociological work examining the relations between extreme art and music.  hence the montages of factories, the short clips of performances (as opposed to the 15-20 minute sets of PWDN) and the "oral history" style rather than the "talk to me about my band" interviews. 

Admittedly, our thesis doesn't focus on parts of the Cleveland scene that don't fit in with this clique of artists that embodies our thesis.  Not for lack of trying though; in fact several drone acts (emeralds, etc) turned us down when we approached them for interviews and performances and then proceeded to get their friends to talk shit about how we neglected to mention them and the more Wolf Eyes-y / Fag Tapes-y scene.  Though, at the risk of sounding like Jliat, its hard to examine how people socially construct their world views and their place in the scene when they aren't willing to participate in a media form that is constructed as a way for people to express this exactly. 

[murderous_vision]

Yes, Emeralds seem to reflect the "whoa dude" hipster mentality previously mentioned. I can't really add anything to what Aaron said. Well stated...

[ironfistofthesun]

Sideshifting from the topic, but I have always found it strange that there has not ever been a well made documentary on industrial culture. even in the 80/90 when ptv/coil/nww/c93 were selling shitloads.

[ImpulsyStetoskopu]

Rather, between our backgrounds in the scene and my background in sociology and journalism and stephen's in film, we chose to examine the scene we operate in by showing the critical (in the class-conflict critical theory sense) and socially-constructed aspects of the scene.  Namely, that these people express their frustration with class conflict and industrial collapse through their art, and that their perceptions of the scene and the imagery of their art is constructed by group definitions of "class conflict" and "economic collapse".  Ultimately, we wanted to make a documentary that wasn't a self-aggrandizing look at a scene of people, but a journalistic and sociological work examining the relations between extreme art and music.  hence the montages of factories, the short clips of performances (as opposed to the 15-20 minute sets of PWDN) and the "oral history" style rather than the "talk to me about my band" interviews. 

Sideshifting from the topic, but I have always found it strange that there has not ever been a well made documentary on industrial culture. even in the 80/90 when ptv/coil/nww/c93 were selling shitloads.

Thanks for your interesting thoughts and impressions. I think that there aren't (or are but very small) chances for one perfect documentary on noise/industrial music. Maybe many movies about that phenomenon could be solution?

But I don't agree that PTV/COIL/NWW and C93 did shitloads :)

[Andrew McIntosh]

For you or me NOISE as music is desirable, like other cultural taboo for me... but, I think, artist in this movie have meant about NOISE only as a sound such like normal people think about that, not genre in music.

I disagree. They are definitely portraying themselves as artists putting (what they call) Noise into an aesthetic context. Which is why I mentioned (in passing) that such clichés as "noise is described as undesirable sound" are not necessary when explaining Noise as music. It just sounds condescending, as if a viewer, whether a long-time lover of Noise or someone who's never heard of it, wouldn't know what the standard definition of noise is.
  It's not the trifling issue of that particular quote that bothered me. It's the fact that such trivial phrases where used in the film in the first place. There was and is so much more that could have been expressed.

Besides, each of us like noise music and our perception of this phenomena is different than the rest of society, but, when we try to describe this noise music (and noise as sound) we must do it in context of official culture.

Again I disagree. I would not want to be dis-honest with people by pretending that there is no context with Noise outside of mainstream culture, whatever that happens to be wherever anyone is. Otherwise there would be nothing to describe.

[Potier]

I really don't understand why everybody that does something different, has a different approach to noise, is younger or from a different part of the noise-globe or doesn't necessarily take everything they do serious needs to be called a loser or a poser, a stupid hippie or a hipster.

It's cool to dump all kinds of shit on people you've never met, never played with, never bought shit from or whatever...
Another example of this stupid noise-elitism cancer.

If a documentary falls short of the things you wanted to see - say it and move on. If you think it's not "sociological" or "deep" or "honest" or "true" or "artistic" enough - fine. Just skip the name-calling.

[ImpulsyStetoskopu]

I disagree. They are definitely portraying themselves as artists putting (what they call) Noise into an aesthetic context. Which is why I mentioned (in passing) that such clichés as "noise is described as undesirable sound" are not necessary when explaining Noise as music. It just sounds condescending, as if a viewer, whether a long-time lover of Noise or someone who's never heard of it, wouldn't know what the standard definition of noise is.
  It's not the trifling issue of that particular quote that bothered me. It's the fact that such trivial phrases where used in the film in the first place. There was and is so much more that could have been expressed.

OK, I think that we met in the place where is the main wall between us. I don't want definitely (as you) say what the artist meant.... I only know that NOISE as sound is undesirable in our culture. NOISE as music too (maybe because of previous phrase). I don't think these phrases are trivial. These are evident but describe where this music is located in our culture and what is true nature of this music. These problems don't touch me (I belief that mentioned artist too), even I may say more, I have been living with that conscious and I am happy man from 20 years, when I listened industrial/noise music the first time. I have only a reservation to directors of this movie that they didn't enlarge on this question which perhaps could  more inspire  someone who's never heard of it.

Again I disagree. I would not want to be dis-honest with people by pretending that there is no context with Noise outside of mainstream culture, whatever that happens to be wherever anyone is. Otherwise there would be nothing to describe.

Ok, do you think that NOISE music as one of the many faces of avant-garde in art is hang in vacuum? Every movement in avant-garde (noise music too) was REACTION to the real life, real culture, normal people and so on... We aren't able to know well NOISE music (noise as a sound) without context to official culture, knowledge of art, musicology... I think that it is so obvious... so where is problem?

[ImpulsyStetoskopu]

I really don't understand why everybody that does something different, has a different approach to noise, is younger or from a different part of the noise-globe or doesn't necessarily take everything they do serious needs to be called a loser or a poser, a stupid hippie or a hipster.

It's cool to dump all kinds of shit on people you've never met, never played with, never bought shit from or whatever...
Another example of this stupid noise-elitism cancer.

If a documentary falls short of the things you wanted to see - say it and move on. If you think it's not "sociological" or "deep" or "honest" or "true" or "artistic" enough - fine. Just skip the name-calling.

Yes, you are right, I don't understand it too ;) I have no objections to noise artists who make stupid faces, gestures, who wear coloured clothes (though I accept only black clothes in my life), who don't understand why they create noise music (who said that every artists has to know why he want to play music?) or they treat noise music as funny play (then again every kind of art must have elements play, for creator and for recipient, even this art which is ultra, very pessimistic). All of them are part of this scene too. Problem is, I think, that all of them see different NOISE music :) They are different than artists who try to say something seriuos. Only that one or so much that one.

[FreakAnimalFinland]

If a documentary falls short of the things you wanted to see - say it and move on. If you think it's not "sociological" or "deep" or "honest" or "true" or "artistic" enough - fine. Just skip the name-calling.

I did not have expectations first time. I watched it couple times, and it is most of all funny. I mean, when someone gets to see the document of Finnish noise, it is very amusing as well. It doesn't mean it wouldn't be serious, but some qualities within PE/noise is very amusing if you look it slightly from outsider perspective.

(You know, even the infamous Whitehouse riot, which has been like myths of UK PE - exposed in ALAP#1 to be one angry womyn engaging in semi-catfight with Bennett.)

What caught me in this document was that it was most of all document about new comers, or would you dare to say youth movement? Smegma crew and maybe Yellow Swans and Oscillating Innards was internationally known names, while there are bunch of artists who had at that time very little to show, very little to give and I believe it was mentioned part of them had left the "scene" before document even came out? So, in that context one wonders why I would watch document of someone who did noise over one summer in local scene and see his relatively poor performance set up in private carage for videocrew to film? Just to find out the "legacy" he left behind was ltd 30 cdr.
I think People Who Do Noise is good, because it is real and presents these people probably in ways they are.
But I also think that making document is somehow special moment, which should capture somehow noteworthy movement or issue. Of course one got these days all sorts of reality TV about very mundane things which hardly matter. But within noise there would be so much relevant and important to cover. Some of the people had been involved so short time, that it wasn't really that good time to capture what's going on. I remember when I commented this document on Noisefanatics couple years ago, some of people involved mentioned that so much change/progress had happened even while waiting document to come out. One third has quit what they did, and looking to discogs for example, shows traces of only something like one CDR or split C-20 existing.
So one would wonder, if there was energy and resources and possibly interest in noise, why to settle for this? But then again, it was probably moment when things were happening, and finding the crucial moment when it's best to do document is probably hard. You just do it.

But all in all, when you compared Portland noise doc vs. Cleveland noise doc, the first one is something I would guess could go well for film festival for people looking for curiosities, while latter would be more of noise fan audience. It is my impression. First one covers local village weirdos, doing strange stuff in relatively compact editing and short format. Latter is long and pretty detailed with issues I doubt would be high interest of non-noise viewer. With longer pieces of raw noise footage which would probably bore out people who aren't into the type of art.

[ImpulsyStetoskopu]

What caught me in this document was that it was most of all document about new comers, or would you dare to say youth movement? Smegma crew and maybe Yellow Swans and Oscillating Innards was internationally known names, while there are bunch of artists who had at that time very little to show, very little to give and I believe it was mentioned part of them had left the "scene" before document even came out? So, in that context one wonders why I would watch document of someone who did noise over one summer in local scene and see his relatively poor performance set up in private carage for videocrew to film? Just to find out the "legacy" he left behind was ltd 30 cdr.

Well, I wonder if really short-existed projects should be less compelling for us and those long-existed more compelling? I know some (I am sured that you know too) projects who have been existing very long time and still they are hopeless stupid, who still have not anything interesting to say. And what for exemple about FUNCTION DISORDER or STENKA BAZIN and many more who existed only a year or two? What about projects, who started very well but they changed their profile relatively very soon (LAST FEW DAYS, 23 SKIDOO,  and others)? Should they are compelling for us, or not? You say: this is natural that people change its views and so on, but are we go too far saying that this one artist has no right to be compelling only from this reason that he didn't create this music enough long probably?

[FreakAnimalFinland]

I think you can't rule out what kind of legacy someone left behind and was it interesting in first place. Of course this was most of all document of "scene of city". And therefore it introduced the players of that moment, probably without paying attention how "important" or "interesting" they would be.

People come and go, and some left something what changed the style of music even if band existed only short period of time. Some left behind strong line-up of solid releases still good listening today. Some left nothing and were nothing, other than perhaps nice friendly guys than happened to hang around. Of course one could argue it depicts scene well, when you include whole spectrum? I personally value more document of remarkable jobs. If I would buy artbook about history of avantgarde paintings, I'd be interested in guys who left behind remarkable body of art - even if they did it in couple of years. I wouldn't be interested who ever friends they had hanging out there, doodling something.

But as said - when documenting something that is alive - not thing of the past, it's hard to put it on perspective.

[ImpulsyStetoskopu]

Of course one could argue it depicts scene well, when you include whole spectrum? I personally value more document of remarkable jobs. If I would buy artbook about history of avantgarde paintings, I'd be interested in guys who left behind remarkable body of art - even if they did it in couple of years. I wouldn't be interested who ever friends they had hanging out there, doodling something.

Yes, I share your opinion. But, in case your sentence about artbook on history of avantgarde paintings, especially in avant-garde, how and is there any tool to value this kind of art? In classic art this is possible, but not in avant-garde, I guess... At least I don't know any knowledge in theory in aesthetics about that although this is my one of the main passions for many years.