Change of Structure in Noise Compositions

[Jaakko V.]

About analog / digital - i'm not that negative about digitally created "ambient" but I think there was something lost in the transfer of recording processes. Where earlier all you could do while creating was listening, now I tend to think its more about creating "interesting" structure on computer screen? Whole body of work is often lost in changing/altering sounds, maximizing the overall feel with mass of blurred atmospheres. To me, simple is most often best while listening, but on computer screen it looks boring.

Quoting the above from the dark ambient thread. The effects of digital recording on the sound of noise have already been discussed a lot, but beyond the sound itself, I think it's evident that there has been a significant change in track structures as well. Listening to some great and skillful '90s harsh noise for example, regardless of the skill it's often still somewhat rugged, the changes are not quite so sharp, precise and exact, the track structures can be rather loose and wild, panning can sound abrupt and brutish, and all kinds of what the fuck moments here and there. I like this a lot, noise being slightly "out of hand", while evidently being hand made. Nowadays especially in the cut-up genre things can get much more detailed, with razor sharp edits, micro snippets being inserted etc. It's all very precise, wonderful and under the control. But sometimes I feel some of the authentic energy can be lost here. Not that it couldn't be very entertaining as well.

The possibility of doing edits on the screen is an obvious change but also the visual timeline itself can potentially alter the way people perceive their tracks. Whereas before all one could do was trust one's ears and intuition, now it's being laid out before the eyes. It can easily look boring, the overall structure not impressive enough, certain parts too short or long etc., forcing one the make fundamental choices concerning the composition. Many people try to avoid this. For example Mika Vainio, doing both very structured beat stuff and more abstract soundscapes has always consciously avoided the timeline approach. Rashad Becker has talked about this in relation to the mastering process. And so on... Do you find it distracting, neutral or great that the track can be visually interpreted while making it? Are you consciously finding ways to go around this if working on a computer (I assume many people who'd rather have an image of pure analog work are actually also using computers). And is it just my perception or is it actually audible that the structural core of noise has changed bit in the 2000s?

[FreakAnimalFinland]

I would say it appears correct observation.
There was link to that NOR NOISE documentary on one topic recently. There one guy explains his view on what is "experimental sound". In nutshell, I think his view could be: Throwing things together without fully knowing what will emerge.  Man in the interview concluded that his work is NOT experimental. That he is fully aware what he is doing and what he wants to achieve and how.

But his definition of experimental could mean noise session, where one keeps feeding energy and abrupt changes, basically being conscious what is doing, but always on border that it might go to slightly wrong direction as there is unpredictable elements.

This is very much opposed to situation, where noise is generated on screen, where every change of volume, panning, cross-mix or even effect might be handled by carefully adjusted envelopes, what can be re-re-re-adjusted until it is 100% perfection. But then question might come: Is it? Is it perfect noise, if it is a bit too nice, a bit too clean, a bit too predictable and tidy. Unable to capture moment where something is right there on edge of getting slightly out of hand, but manages to keep its momentum till end of release. In such cases unexpected things tend to emerge.

Most works I have done in recent years is basically live-in-studio recordings, where few details are thrown afterwards. Recording main core of works as simple stereo-track will mean individual elements can't be "corrected" as they are inside-the-noise so to say. For some it might appear as curse, not be able to "correct" some flaws, but this is good way to keep spontaneous elements and unexpected things even in complex noise.

[l.b.]

Are you consciously finding ways to go around this if working on a computer (I assume many people who'd rather have an image of pure analog work are actually also using computers).

yeah this. of course everyone loves analog, and in terms of *creating* sound I find it much better. even while running an entirely-tape set up, for instance, computer always comes into play at least in terms of capturing a final mix. it seems also, when it comes to sending material to labels, people request lossless files instead of a tape in the mail or whatever. the computer has become, unfortunately or not, an indispensable tool, not only for music but also for work and social life. maybe it's just because i'm shit with computers, but my little self-imposed rule is to not use sounds *created* digitally. computer is there for capturing a finished piece.