Yes, and that is something why I have the problem.. or lets say dis-interest for the academic approach on noise.
To reply further. I think the problem of this type of academic writing is, just as was mentioned: trying to dissect something undissectable. Simple noise acts blasting sound they like, put into cultural context, surrounded by theories what has no other purpose than justification to educated man why someone would do this. While reasons of person who actually do and listen it, most often would be as blatantly obvious as enjoyment of certain sound and aesthetic beauty (even if grotesque).
Be it Hegarty or even more recent Microbionic book... it seems to spend much of its time of theories of justifying something that seems more obvious. The language of most of the academic sound books seems in my eyes jargon which you can't really associate unless you really are.. ehm.. "them".
Lets say, for example Christof Migone "sound Voice Perform" book. Idea of books about specific artists, exposing their creative multimedia works in form of printed matter, photo evidence and accompanied CD is great. But when you enter the interview section of book and it is in style of "How should the uninitiaed, the neophyte, approach complex, formally innovative radio work like yours? How is one to make sense of it, or related to it? Initially it seems alienating, off-putting, very difficult, very resistant to interpretation?"
You may have to read the question twice or more, to really see what the fuck did he just ask? And when you expand such writing into length of book, you wonder who is the target audience? Why was it made? Does it tell anything... real? You try to digest the information of Francisco Lopez chapter of Microbionic. It's ok, it's interesting... But come on! :D
I do seriously recommend reading all these books, though. It gives quite nice perspective about what one can value and what not. And that there isn't any reason to feel any way inferior with some ltd 50 raw noise tape done by youngsters, if alternative is the... ehm.. "real artist" and his ehm.. "educated audience" and the academics who will do their best to give material meaning what perhaps wasn't even looked for.
So I could conclude, what I have said many times: fuck outsider journalism, it doesn't really offer much. In context of noise, pe and industrial, I feel there is need of insider journalism. Documentation, opportunities for artists to expand their concepts, etc.
