Talk:Noise music/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Einsturzende

Eimsturzende Neubauten belongs here..

not really, they belong in "industrial" music, they are an important part of that scene, which in turn influenced later "noise" music. Although some of their early stuff is "noisy", mostly their music is more conventional, and their output after about 1990 is much softer and more conventional.
  "later noise music"... there's no mention of a chronology here, do you mean from schoenberg on? also, more generally this article sorely needs an explanation of noise's relationship to industrial, imho.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.241.127 (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
But if one refers in particular to their early output ('Kollaps' and earlier tapes / bootlegs), one will notice that a lot of their music is very unconventional. Much of it is free-form noise, and the members themselves have said that a lot of the early tapes were just about totally improvised. I agree with your statement in relation to the majority of your output, though.

Removed then corrected link

Doom: I'm removing this link because it doesn't work:

(It looks like theonion doesn't like "deep-linking", so don't link to them, okay?)

Doom, again:

Ooops. Spoke too soon, they've just changed their link style to a databased-backed format:

http://www.theonionavclub.com/review.php?review_id=3941

So I fixed it, and won't bore you with my opinion of sites that "re-organize" and break all the links.


Yea it changed again.. http://www.avclub.com/content/node/12373 64.60.145.90 00:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

In Times of War

For the second time, I've removed the link in this article to In Times of War - IToW are a tremendously obscure outfit (I've certainly never heard of them, and they have no entry on AMG - I suspect the article was written by IToW themselves). To link them from here gives a misleading impression of their importance. --Camembert

I think the same can be said of Decree... There was a link to their website, which wasn't accessible to me. I can't find any of their music with a popular P2P system. So I remove the mention. If someone think it deserves to be mentioned: first write an article... Guaka 18:29, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Kudos

Comment from a useless Japanese editor ;) Well done "lexor" for keeping all the best information so far but making the whole article much more coherent and readable!

Comment

Comment from a noise fan:

Although this is a fair coverage of the major early noise artists, a lot of the focus (as well as the list of noise artists) seems to concentrate on extreme noise, of the Japanese Masona ilk, when there's so much other styles of noise out there. Not sure whether this is because the authors are less knowledgable of other genres such as free noise for example, and scenes built up around Bruce Russell and others, or whether it is by intent. For example Bruce seems to be categorised under Noise rock, when a lot of that scene is noise, free noise or even free jazz.

I'm a newbie to editing here, so I didn't know whether to just jump in and add the references or not, as it seems like a fairly big change to make Noise more generic and point to Free noise and other genres, and create a new Extreme noise. Or maybe this is just my Australian perspective on the worldwide noise scene coming through.

Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages.  :-) Do what you think is most accurate, and if other people don't like it, they'll change it back.
I think I'd just leave it as one article, but I'm no expert on the various types. The templates categorize this as a type of industrial or electronic, so if you want to refer to noise jazz, probably should just make a see also link. - Omegatron 05:14, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

keep noise "simple" ??

I think it would weaken the article to remove it's focus from truly noisy, abstract music. There are plenty of articles about improvisation, noise rock, industrial, avant garde or whatever, but this one is about NOISE. The article already has plenty of links and references to "noise-related" scene like boyd rice or nihilist spasm band. Basically if it isnt harsh and noisy, why bother calling it "noise"? This also makes me wonder about the "categorization" at the bottom- it makes it look like there is some connection between "future pop" and "noise" because they are "electronic", when really this is like comparing Britney Spears and Diamanda Galas (because they are both vocalists). Just my opinion!

Yes! I'd like to see your idea implemented in a few other music definitions as well, they are far too inclusive and some are altogether wrong. I would, however, certainly say Boyd Rice deserves mention in the definition. Noise-based rock music is a pretty far cry from noise, I wouldn't say they are the same genre. Noise-based rock could be listed as a related genre but I agree that we really don't need any explanation of them here. If people want to learn about noise-based rock they should find it in it's very own entry! Sanctum 06:38, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

noise need not be harsh to be noise.

True, but if it's recognisably Jazz or Rock, I think that's not really worth including as "noise".


'it makes it look like there is some connection between "future pop" and "noise" because they are "electronic"' funny that I should see the same people at both a VNV Nation concert and at a Synapscape concert :) Just an observation! Of course, I would have to agree to a certain extent...even though I would tempted to say that the article title is both an oxymoron and a misnomer. The beginning of the article clearly states the views of Masami Akita, as are I'm sure close at least to the majority of us noise fans, that noise to noise listeners isn't really noise. Now I'm just rambling...reminds me of an Industrial Nation article I read about some noise critic who was looking what he called "listenable noise", complaining that it was hard to find noise of this type. That's even worse! The-dissonance-reports 20:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Er..VNV Nation and Synapscape are both EBM/Industrial Dance/Techno aren't they?? The Synapscape stuff I heard was just some fuzzy 4/4 beats kinda like Front242 through a distortion pedal. Certainly wasn't "noise".

There is a lot of focus on Japanese noise and very little focus on important European and international artists for example there is no mention of Schimpfluch Gruppe(runzelstirn and gugelstock, dave phillips, sudden infant) ...actually here is no entry on wiki AT ALL. I also think the importance of cassette culture (RRRECORDS) and artist like henri chopin are worthy of note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.42.72.11 (talk) 04:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

esplendor geometrico

true, the web has limited info on this band, but they were the first to compose what truly is noise music and not just noisy music - as someone else pointed out -, in the late 70s.

there cannot be an article on noise without even mentioning esplendor geometrico. simple as that.

No they weren't. Look into 50's avant garde music amongst other things. Esplendor Geometrico are not a big influence on Noise Music. You'll probably find them in "industrial music" though.

magik markers

Sorry, I know this is the wrong place for requests like these, so if you know where to move this, feel free to do so. The Magik Markers deserve their own place on wiki.

So go ahead and write about them, you obviously like them. If anyone else cares, they will add information too. But anyway- they aren't a noise band, they're a noise-rock band.

stockholm syndrome

I would love some sort of explanation as to what the supposed connection between Stockholm Syndrome and noise music is. --Cpomeara 20:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

According to AMG they are rock ([1]). Hyacinth 00:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I see, you meant Stockholm syndrome. I removed the reference to that here and the reference to this there. Hyacinth 00:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Now I *still* want to know why someone thought it should go there. Plus, why it was so obvious it should be removed. But mainly I want to know why it's there. And, if you're going to remove Stockholm Syndrome, why let cognitive dissonance stay? --Cpomeara 16:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
You didn't ask about cognitive dissonance. Hyacinth 19:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
It was added later. --Cpomeara 00:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

"noize"

many people i know and club nights flyers i've seen in the uk use the word "noize" as a catch all for rhythmic/power/industrial noise, rather than in reference to actual noise music. although i have an interest in noise music, i'm not that involved with the noise music 'scene' itself so am unsure of the exact termanology that surrounds it, so my question is this; do people in the scene use "noize" to refer to actual noise music or not, i.e., would it be worth popping a line or two on this page noting the other usage, or would it be more of an idea to remove the redirect on noize and put some information there? --MilkMiruku 12:12, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone in the noise 'scene' uses 'Noize' to refer to Noise (harsh noise etc) ... maybe odd occasions where someone has spelt it this way, but generally Noize = noisy dance music, not noise. Most harsh noise scene people in my experience aren't impressed by this usage, or the music it refers to, thus wouldn't use the term themselves.
--82.153.192.221 18:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


This is true, from what I've seen. "Noize" tends to equal harsh dance music, a la Ant-Zen bands. However, many of these bands that are known for their power noize stylings have many many songs that could just be considered noise. But genre-bending is a good thing. PS - there's a noise scene? The-dissonance-reports 20:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

yea there's a noise scene..actually there are several, Los Angeles, San francisco to name two big ones with numerous noise friendly venues and noise shows practicaly every night of the week. 64.60.145.90 20:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Use MP3 not OGG

Someone should change the songs to MP3 seeing as most people including me don't have the technology to play OGG and there really is no point to use them whatsoever. Pointless technowankery.

TECHNOWANKERY

Lucidmeatdream 19:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Ogg Vorbis is open source and does not require a liscense, while the MP3 is patented and requires a liscense to encode files... which means the majority of MP3 encoding software is illegal. I think that most would agree that a open format such as Ogg Vorbis makes the most sense for an open encyclopedia.
--timeheater 10:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Also, free players are available for most operating systems, see here.
---Bennie Noakes 19:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Sound#Audio. Hyacinth 09:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

"Mothers Against Noise"

I removed this from the page as it looks to be a joke. The only search results for "Mothers Against Noise" on the web are the site itself and messageboards with comments on it. --Graue 15:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

it's a record label, if you actually read the site. Artlondon 20:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This originally started as an interview with John Olson (Wolf Eyes). In the interview he claimed that a group of mothers concerned about their childrens hearing protested at a show that WE and Sonic Youth were doing in San Diego. There was never any other confirmation that this happened other than through this interview. A year went by without anyone hearing anything from MAN until an associate of the band dropped a link to the MAN geocities webpage. From their word circulated quickly online.

As a parody the domain motheragainstnoise.org and .com where registered and a record release was made. Olson did another interview claiming that MAN actually did exist and various cohorts of his claimed that MAN made an appearance at the No Fun Festival. What did happen is that a spoken word piece that was alledged as being created by MAN was played at the festival.

Other interesting notes were that when MAN registered their own domain motheragainstnoise.us the whois on the domain had the same mailing address as Island or Universal Records in NY which had a vague connection to Wolf Eye and a friend and former member of the band Andrew WK.

Later that year the house of a well known noiser burned down and MAN mocked the fire on the website. Coincidnetally in the last year the house of Pete Young (brother of nate young from wolf eyes) burned down but he was severely burned in the fire. It was aroun this time that the MAN website either expired or was taken down because well it wouldn't be very funny for John Olson to joke about his band mate getting burned would it?

Olson also claimed that when he came to Los Angeles to do a show that he was pulled over by a Highway patrolman who claimed that his mother was a member of MAN. Olson also contradicted himself about some of the incidents with man in a later article.. basically everything points back to Olson being the fabricator of MAN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.60.145.90 (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed link

I removed a link that showed up red. I had cut out vandalism from the bottom of the article, and based on the title, the vandalism, and the person who added all of that, I figured it was fake. If this was supposed to be there... sorry, just re-insert it. Linka 00:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I Am not a wikipedia member or whatnot, but I feel that the truth about MAN should be adressed. The Mothers Against Noise Movement is an actual movement of "mothers" who feel that Noise music in general is a destructive force on their teens. They hold regular protests outside of noise concerts and other noise based events.

No it's not, it's a publicity stunt started by Wolf Eyes and others that evolved into a label of sorts. Don't you think mothers have better things to do than protest noise shows that less than 50 people probably attend? jasker 14:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no actual proof that MAN exists besides the anecdotes of John Olson 64.60.145.90 22:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Source for quote from Masami Akita

Where's a source for his quote about pop music being "uncomfortable sound"? Did he really say this? When/where? --jasker 09:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It was in an interview...I can't remember exactly where I saw it. Maybe "the wire" magazine?
source: http://web.archive.org/web/20040716002237/http://www.japsounds.by.ru/engmerzbow.html

Original research

There's so much of it I don't know where to start... erm, template I think. Cdh1984 19:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, geez, start somewhere; otherwise what is the point of the template? Doctormatt 04:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
How about the entire section entitled 'Noise music: fetish & obsession' for a start. It's either original research or unreferenced. Cdh1984 13:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I renamed the section and removed comments on fetish and obsession. The section is now "methods and inspirations" which I think the page does need, and I think it reads now a little less like someone's personal take on things. Citations are still badly needed for most of it. Doctormatt 19:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of original research, I'd like to remove the section on masochism; it's completely unreferenced, and just sounds like opinions. Anyone object? Doctormatt 19:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

To state that noise music "lacks musical structure like harmony and rhythm" is expressing an opinion. Opinions have no place here in an article of this sort or anywhere in a forum of this kind for that matter. I should like it removed. It is in fact ignorant. Kit.music 22:12, 10 July 2007 (SWE)
Would you state it differently, or would you just remove that part entirely? I agree it is an opinion, but then we are left crafting a new lead sentence. daveh4h 21:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, yes, what do you suggest, Kit? What do you suggest distinguishes noise (music) from music generally, i.e. what is the definition of this genre? And, most important, can anyone provide a citation for a definition of noise music? It will always be an opinion - what we need is a cited one. Doctormatt 06:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Why is that an opinion? Most "noise" you'd hear if you were in the scene is composed or improvised without any consideration for "harmony or rhythm". If you want to argue about what constitutes "harmony or rhythm" that's another story. The only exceptation to this rule might be if you consider a sinewave rhythmic. Or it may be better to say that noise music uses rhythm with no consideration for meter or time signatures or a consistant tempo. At any rate the artist is not constructing the music with these concepts in mind.. they may only be incidental if they occur as it appears that many self proclaimed noise artists have no formal music training. 64.60.145.90 21:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I think what qualifies as noise can only be discerned approximately, by listening to noise, and by looking at writings about noise, discussions with noise artists, etc. There is no authority with the power to declare what noise is; all we have are various personal impressions (opinions, if you like). To me, noise (generally) lacks consistant rhythm and pitch characteristics (harmony, e.g.) of "conventional" music (in other words, I agree with the first statement in the article). I can't think of another useful description (that's why I asked Kit.music for further explanation). But, the threshold for inclusion on wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, so if an editor requests one, a citation is needed for everything in every article on Wikipedia. On the other hand, Kit.music seems to have expressed his opinion and left, so I don't think there is any pressing issue with the introduction. (This sort of genre discussion happens with every genre of music, or art generally for that matter, doesn't it? Is X a jazz musician? Is Y an example of film noir? Noise is not really different in this respect, except perhaps in the lack of available citations in comparison to more popular forms. ) By the way, we need knowledgeable people on Wikipedia to help with this article and noise artist articles - please, please feel free to contribute. Doctormatt 22:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


harmony and rhythm

I can't cite any references to the concept that noise music exclusively "lacks musical structure like harmony and rhythm" .. but it is often the only way to explain to somebody what it is not.. half the time when I try to explain it to the uninitiated they think I'm talking about ambient or they ask me if it's like Aphex Twin.... and I'm like no there are no beats.. it's not dance music or techno. But my point is that depending on how loose you want to be with the definition of "harmony and rhythm" then noise music may very well have both element but not used in the same way as typical "music".. like I said before it may only occur by accident if at all. Cage would probably be the best source for an explaination of structure in noise that coudl be easily digested 64.60.145.90 00:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If I were going to reword that first sentence it'd go something like this "Noise music is music composed of non-traditional musical elements, and lacks the typical musical structures like those found in styles composed around harmony and rhythm." Does that make sense? 64.60.145.90 00:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I think the word "typical" helps a lot, since it partially avoids the issue of whether noise (music) has musical structure. I wonder if "composed around" is clear. What about shortening to "Noise music is music composed of non-traditional musical elements, and lacks typical musical structures like harmony and rhythm." Eh? Doctormatt 01:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Well that still makes it sound like Noise excludes harmony and rhythm completely which it really doesn't. It's more like it does not obey any rules or traditions that are commonly associated with "harmony and rhythm". 64.60.145.90 01:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. I was thinking that the terms "harmony" and "rhythm" implied rules or traditions (especially harmony). Perhaps more than one sentence would be a good idea. First, it could just say "Noise music is music composed of non-traditional musical elements, and lacks typical musical structure." Then a second sentence, along the lines of, "For instance, harmony and rhythm, if present in noise music, are often unintentional and tend not to follow standard musical conventions." The current second sentence describing the non-traditional elements could follow that. What do you think? (By the way, do you have a particular recommendation for a Cage "structure in noise" reference? I can't recall a good one from the Cage I've read.) Doctormatt 05:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmony Well noise pretty much disregards Western rules for using Harmony but looking at the origin of the word "The term harmony originates in the Greek harmonía, meaning "joint, agreement, concord" [2]. In Ancient Greek music, the term was used to define the combination of contrasted elements: a higher and lower note." So noise often does have contrasting pitches. I think harsh noise and wall noise tend to be more "mono tonal". There are definately noise artists who use harmonics to create various and complimentary frequencies but the selection of frequencies or pitches is coming from a different place. Also Harsh Noise an Wall Noise probably are less harmonic and less rhythmic than other styles of noise. 64.60.145.90 18:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

structure of noise

I made this edit because I think it more to the point. "Noise music is music composed of non-traditional musical elements, and lacks the structure associated with Western Music. "64.60.145.90 20:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a good change. Noise tends to lack the structure associated with non-western music, too, doesn't it? Is it possible to describe the structure that is found in noise, to have a more positive description? What's that Cage reference you mentioned? Doctormatt 20:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Well I think it's safe to say that noise evolved from western music due to the influences of Russolo and Cage etc. Even the japanese school of noise is full of western influences considering the usage of rock n roll instruments like electric guitars etc. Cage's writings on silence is where I'd start with trying to cite theory. http://locus.cwrl.utexas.edu/freeman/?q=node/38 His 4’33” piece is sort of the opposite of what most noise is ..where the noise may be interrupted by brief silences instead of the the silence being interrupted by brief noises. Again harsh noise and wall noise is perhaps even more extreme where the tones are continious and unrelenting but I think most people define harsh noise by it being very abrasive. But that's fairly subjective so it'd be hard to nail down a definition using those parameters although psyhcoacoustically you might beable to establish that certain frequencies are generally painfull or induce fear in humans. Personally I have been using more pauses and a greater variety of volumes in my own work even though some call my own work harsh. But despite that I feel giving the ear some breathing room is good but some people like the full frontal assault and drones. To be technical even sounds that seem to be completely unmodulated may in fact be so but it's over such a long period of time the we don't perceive it and even noise can occur at different frequenices so that's why I feel dropping the issue of harmony and rhythm is a good idea. Another debate is the inclusion of Noise Rock which is much more like Western Music than most noise imo and really should be considered a sub genre of rock. 64.60.145.90 21:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing list of artists

I've removed the list of "major noise artists" as it only encourages people to add any random band they think of as "noise." It also doesn't add significantly to the article. Kellen T 12:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

External links

Please keep in mind that the external links section should be kept to a minimum (see WP:EL (even just the nutshell)). This is not the place for a link to every noise artist, label, myspace, youtube, etc., site - noise related or not. We already have a section for links to sound samples, and (under "see also") links to the list of noise musicians. Two things that I think can be reasonably linked to are essays by authorities on the theory or history of noise music, and to sites with numerous links to other noise music resources (though even this should be kept to an absolute minimum, and if someone objects to having these at all, feel free to remove them). Doctormatt 19:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added an external link of noise artists so that they the artists can add themselves without fear of judgement. 64.60.145.90 19:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

images

I reverted the addition of three images to the article today. I feel the images didn't add sufficiently to the article. Also, if we allow such images, then every noise artist out there will want a photo of themselves in this article, and how will we choose who gets in? I think it is better not to include artist images. Comments? Doctormatt 23:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

hey there. i'm unsure about this article. afaict lots of artists we can identify as noise do have a reasonable amount of structure to their work. but then again we can't define "noise music" as any kind of change to traditional structure, that would be far far [no argument here] over inclusive.

so... does tbe article want to say that 'noise' describes a continuum from structure to no structure at all. but then including schoneberg is grossly false, he would be the epitome of non noise.

i wouldn't say the article needs a complete overhaul, just some more thought to go into it ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.183.5 (talk) 11:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

i'm sorry but i'm going to say this again: there is definetly structure to schoengergs work. he introduced non traditional structures to music, but then so has every musician since dot. what the author wants to say is that noise is any radical type of music, but that's so patently false - e.g. why start with schoneberg, why not earlier musicians who were radical. this article is just nonsense! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.183.5 (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

i had a go at improving it, but i'm not sure i have - maybe every genre of music has songs with elements that are not traditionally included in music. i hope someone swim here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.183.5 (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

i made some reasonable change to that effect [sorry for the multiple edits]. i hope that everyone thinks it's an improvement - it certainly makes more sense now to my eye untrained eyes 79.67.183.5 (talk) 00:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Boyd "self-promotion" Rice

Pierre Schaeffer gets a name drop, Big Black's not mentioned, and Boyd Rice gets an entire paragraph? Yeah - that's proportionate. I'm terrible at editing, so will someone please fix this? Lankydenny (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the discussion of different artists is very disproportionate, but I don't know enough about the genre to rewrite it. = ∫tc 5th Eye 13:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Boyd Rice's influence is greatly overstated, but I don't see why Big Black deserves a mention - they were pretty much the apex of "noise rock" that everybody's trying to avoid mentioning on this page, not harshnoise at all.24.3.239.88 (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Who is WRONG?

This article mentions a noise group called WRONG, alongside Borbetomagus. Who is WRONG? Can someone provide some links? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukeprog (talk • contribs) 07:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like false information to me. I'll remove the reference. = ∫tc 5th Eye 16:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Additonal uncited material

Editor Valueyou, contributed additional uncited material despite the attempt to address already existing unsourced material. The editor in question also removed cite tags. Justification is : "What I have wrritten is fairly common knowledge". Editor is assuming foreknowledge on behalf of readers. This is not a wiki policy. Do not assume readers have prior specialist knowlege. Please note the following from WP:VERIFY I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. Please also see, WP:PROVEIT, WP:OR, WP:POV, and WP:SYN. It is not helpful to pile additional unsourced information onto an article where a problem with content already exists. It just makes more work for somebody else. Create a draft on your user page, when you have sourced all the information you wish to add, then post it.Thanks. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Before requesting a third opinion you should really make sure that there's an unresolvable dispute. I don't see one. There is no discussion on this talk page or anyone else's talk page that indicates two editors have reached an impasse. All I see are a few edit summaries in the talk page history, and those don't indicate that two editors have failed to come to agreement. I see one editor requesting citations, and another providing them.

The only problem I see is that the citations provided are horrible. References must be verifiable. Many references in this article aren't verifiable; they lack sufficient information for someone to check them. They are missing page numbers, or journal titles, or dates, or some key bit of information. Fix those, and all should be well. I have put a "pagenumbers" tag on this article. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused, who requested a third opinion? Also, I was responsible for placing the page number tag, precisely becasue of the issue outlined above. Semitransgenic (talk) 07:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
If you didn't request it, then it must have been the person with whom you are having a dispute, but as I said, some discussion on the talk page showing an attempt to resolve the dispute should take place before requesting the opinion. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't have the impression there was a dispute until I saw your post above. Semitransgenic (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Turns out Valueyou requested it, as a brand-new editor frustrated by the experience of improving this article. Looks like you guys have been resolving things cordially, though. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Synthesis

My general feeling, having checked a couple of the recently added page numbers, is that the citations are being placed in a manner that will lead a reader to view all of the information presented as having come from the cited sources: but this appears not to be the case, as the user is evidently padding the text entries with POV and other related, but unsourced, information. There are general issues with tone which, from my reading of it, seem to be inappropriate in an encyclopedic context. The section Modern to Post Modern noise is particularly problematic as it is impossible to verify if this is the editors thesis (in the context of the documented development of Noise music and how it is defined) or if this is based on an established view. Semitransgenic (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

User Value persisting with the inclusion of the following: This body of noise work from the 1960s and 70s has influenced such outstanding post-industrial noise artists as Nicolas Collins, Boyd Rice, The Psychic Workshop, Social Interiors, Matthew Underwood, If, Bwana, PBK (composer) Phillip B. Klingler, Crawling With Tarts, Andrew Deutsch, Violence and The Sacred, Art Interface, Randy Grief, Minoy, Kim Cascone, Master/slave Relationship, Oval, Maybe Mental, Kenji Siratori, Fennesz, Yasunao Tone, Architects Office, Arcane Device and others.
The user provides no sources to support the assertion made, therefore WP:OR. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The list is of important artists in this field. In my opinion Semitransgenic (talk) is overcutting my contributions and charging me with WP:SYN -- even though I am only correctly stating historical facts (and backing them up) and I have no bias POV here to put forth. Semitransgenic told me he was a format "nazi", which is OK by me, but now Semitransgenic has made content judgements such as claiming "incorrect attribution" and now eliminating new references I have added.
BTW -I agree that page #s need to be supplied and they will when I get back to my books next month (I am on vacation and working from my notebooks).Valueyou (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
If they are important it should not be difficult to find sources to support this. So please look for them. Also, please find a citation to support the claim that all of the artists listed were influenced by the body of noise work from the 1960's and 70's that is mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Semitransgenic (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


Are you an expert in this field? I am offering primary source information. This is differnt than a POV. They are important as a group not because some book said they are, but by their productivity - with which I am aware.
This is a fresh and emerging history and I would think that a PhD who has worked as an archivist at the Dia Art Foundation could offer such a list without a book saying it is OK. Valueyou (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


And why in the heck did you eliminate the new Further reading references I added?!?
  • Masami Akita, The Beauty of Noise: An Interview with Masami Akita of Merzbow (2004) in Audio Culture: Readings in Modern Music (C. Cox and D. Warner, eds.) Continuum, New York,
  • Miguel Álvarez-Fernández Dissonance, Sex and Noise: (Re)Building (Hi)Stories of Electroacoustic Music (2005) in ICMC 2005: Free Sound Conference Proceedings, Barcelona: International Computer Music Conference; International Computer Music Association; SuviSoft

You are not adding value to the entry.

Valueyou (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


Items were removed in the revert, as it would have been too time consuming to pick through your changes. Simpler to do a blanket scrub. Feel free to add them again, the removal was not intentional.
Rather than enter into a dispute about policy, expertise, or credentials I would simply ask you to carefully review WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY. You may also consider reviewing WP:CAI. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


OK Semitransgenic I redid the work you scrubbed and edited more after looking at the WPs you suggested. I think the Noise music entry is very tight now - and ask that you respect that. I will get the page #s in ASAP. Thank you. Valueyou (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the sentence This so-called Japanoise (a pun not just in English, but even in Japanese) uses now classic noise techniques along with digital technology; utalizing white noise, non-linear pulses, arrhythmic beats, distorted sound loops, unintelligible dialogue and sirens. is still being attributed to Hegarty but it seems not to be the case. Semitransgenic (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


I was using Hegarty to illuminate the general field of activity, but we can surely eliminate this statement.

Thank you. Valueyou (talk) 10:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Page Move

Move to 'Noise (music)'. Thoughts? Semitransgenic (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. Aryder779 (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


Choice examples

I saw the work on Noise music and agree with almost all of it, but I was wondering if after taking out the Smashing Pumpkins and Daft Punk (actually DP's early work is extremely noise-based) if we might not want to add other examples of noise in relative popular music - such as grunge. Nirvana, of course, comes to mind, but also Swans (band) and/or Big Black and/or the Butthole_Surfers. And/or a more pure hard core punk band like Flipper (band)?

This is covered on noise rock, which should be mentioned here, but not the focus of the article. Aryder779 (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, seems like a good group of various editors have worked this page. Perhaps we can drop the flag: Synthesis|article|topic=Example|date=August 2008 ??

Thanks Valueyou (talk) 11:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

still waiting for the page numbers. Semitransgenic (talk) 12:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


As previously stated, the page #s will have to wait for next months return home. But I was talking about the other banner on Synthesis. Valueyou (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This is covered on the noise rock page (which I wrote, mostly). I think it's enough to mention noise rock on the noise music page, include a link, and move on.
I like most of the new material you've added to the noise music page (the refs. to Hegarty, Attali, etc.). Aryder779 (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


Thanks Aryder779|. Message received. I confirm the noise rock link does it. Thanks again. Valueyou (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


A bag of cats

Actually the argument above is quite depressing to read. This is a pioneering article, if a bit messy, and can't be expected to meet all Wikipedia guidelines at once. Contributors are trying to rescue 'noise music' from the ghetto where it is currently lying: punk zines, industrial rock chapels and generally speaking a deprecatory use of the term. Noise music is considered here as an art form, not a marketing trend. Renaming this article Noise (music) is simply not consistent with Wikipedia customs, if not ridiculous. Refer to other Wikipedia articles such as Dance music, Irish music or New Age music. Will marauder Semitransgenic want to tag them 'Irish (music)', for instance? I think it would be better for everyone to stop harassing the contributors here on behalf of pending page numbers in the footnotes and start organizing the article a bit. My suggestion:

1 Definition in terms of harmony, disruption of the musical continuum, etc.
2 Historical background (Wagner, Russollo, Varèse, Schaeffer)
3 The epitome of noise (US bands, Japanese noiseniks ca 1975-1995)
4 Noise today, how it permeates all music genres

Tellus archivist (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


Pioneering article?? you mean a WP:OR article suffering from WP:NPOV issues? Please try and understand what Wikipedia is and how it works.If you have an issue with the subject title you are free to propose a change. The change to Noise (music) was made following a suggestion on this page. In 5 weeks one other editor expressed approval. Dissenting editors had ample opportunity to express their objections. If you wish to revert seek consensus on the talk page. Finally, please refrain from making personal attacks as per WP:NPA. Thank you. Happy editing! Semitransgenic (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


I agree that Semitransgenic's renaming of this article from "Noise Music" to Noise (music) is ridiculous and should be reversed as it suffers from WP:NPOV. Semitransgenic asked for our thoughts on this idea and in that none were given in no way suggests approval. His assumption that it did displays an obvious WP:NPOV. Valueyou (talk) 11:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


Silence equals concensus is standard policy. Check the guidelines. Semitransgenic (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


The silence has been broken then. You have 2 editors opposed and one in agreement. Please revise the page. Valueyou (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with "Noise (music)", as no one actually calls it "noise music". But that's just my OR... = ∫tc 5th Eye 15:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


I disagree. Calling it "noise" confuses noise music with - well - noise. And there is a page for that. Valueyou (talk) 09:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Noise (music)

  • The assertion that noise is not music requires further evidence. Please provide reference in the appropriate section. Suspicion of WP:REF issues.
  • The assertion that music is not noise requires further evidence. Please provide reference in the appropriate section. Suspicion of WP:REF issues.
  • This is original research and falls under WP:OR infringement.
  • Though there are 281,240 Wikipedia articles bearing the name 'music' in their title, none of them bears '(music)'. This infringes Wikipedia usage.

It's so fun writing like a vandal!
Tellus archivist (talk) 02:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

conclusion reached by consensus, there are countless article titles that could arguably be viewed as WP:OR please feel free to report them also. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Condemnation of self described nazi Semitransgenic

Semitransgenic has been harassing me and thus discouraging me from contributing to wiki any longer and I want to report him/her as a negative force within the music wiki area. (s)He self described him/herself as a "policy nazi" (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Valueyou) and acts like a nazi. I don't see any constructive contributions by this person other than taking pleasure in posting ugly flag signs where talk on the discussion page would be just as good - no better - because these signs drive away users of wikipedia and makes it look half-ass and UGLY. Valueyou (talk) 09:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see an issue and neither did Amatulic when Valueyou requested a third opinion. Said user has engaged in WP:OR & WP:SYN, and has refused to provide citations, as legitimately requested by Semitransgenic thus making fact checking and verification, for the purposes of authentication, difficult. Only when it has been shown that the material is not synthesis will the tags be removed. There is a pattern on behavior similar to that shown here, across a number of articles, and I see no reason why it should be encouraged. Meatspace credentials cannot be used to circumvent editorial policy, irrespective of what you and the editors associated with you may believe.
Also the 'tags offends the eye' argument is meaningless. Bad content is more offensive. As you know, on wiki, tags can be used to warn readers about the quality of information they are consuming. Considering the amount of erroneous information on the www, at least in this environment we can encourage people to think more seriously about information consumption - and maybe encourage them to question whether or not what is being consumed is accurate, biased, factual, or simply wrong. I don't think it's constructive to place limitations on this activity and there is no excuse for leaving bad, untagged information in place. The other solution is to delete the information, and that will simply cause more trouble than we have with simply tagging the item.

Semitransgenic (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


The issue is this: after a month of work I greatly improved the noise music page - providing wiki with an outstanding noise music page with extensive footnotes, some lacking only page # which I can provide in the near future (as previously explained a # of times), free of WP:OR & WP:SYN that stood - more or less - for a couple of weeks. Semitransgenic then imposed a WP:OR deadline on my providing those page #s and when I challenged that arbitrary deadline Semitransgenic falsely accused me of sock-puppetry with a friend of mine Tellus archivist who has entered his resistance to Semitransgenic's dictates. (see below) This was done to me in spite and will not stand. Amatulic's opinion pre-dates the current affair. I strongly condemn nazi Semitransgenic's tactics. Who elected him wiki god anyway? Valueyou (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


this is a misrepresentation of facts. The article has never been free of WP:OR WP:SYN, tags were at one point removed because an assurance was given that citations would be forthcoming. At least six weeks on and there is still know sign of them, hence the continued presence of the tags. In this regard, nowhere has deviation from standard policy been applied by user semitransgenic, despite the vocal protestations of user Valueyou et al. There was no arbitrary deadline applied, and in light of the nature of the information submitted to the article, deletion may have been a more appropriate approach, yet user semitransgenic instead simply commented out the problematic citations and reinstated the requests. Semitransgenic (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Citation and page numbers

Semitransgenic mis-interprets Wikipedia citation guidelines. Please refer to WP:CITE. Quote:

«An article, paragraph or sentence is usually connected to the citation in one of four ways:

1. General reference: By placing the citation in a list at the end of an article.
2. Footnote: By placing it in a footnote following the sentence or paragraph it supports.
3. Shortened footnote: By placing the citation in the list and naming only the author, year and page number in a footnote.
4. Parenthetical reference: By placing the citation in the list and naming the author, year and page number in parenthesis (Ritter 2002, p. 45).

These are the most common methods of making articles verifiable. A Wikipedia editor is free to use any of these methods or to develop new methods; no method is preferred. Each article should use the same method throughout—if an article already has some citations, an editor should adopt the method already in use or seek consensus before changing it.»

See here[2] for correct use of page numbers.

Tellus archivist (talk) 08:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


I don't see an issue and neither did Amatulic when Valueyou requested a third opinion. Said user has engaged in WP:OR & WP:SYN, and has refused to provide citations, as legitimately requested by Semitransgenic thus making fact checking and verification, for the purposes of authentication, difficult. Only when it has been shown that the material is not synthesis will the tags be removed. There is a pattern on behavior similar to that shown here, across a number of articles, and I see no reason why it should be encouraged. Meatspace credentials cannot be used to circumvent editorial policy, irrespective of what you and the editors associated with you may believe. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


I don't see why you are repeating yourself here. Amatulic offered a third opinion - that was followed - back in AUGUST. You cite an irrelevency. Valueyou (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


To clarify the points raised above please review the following guidelines.

  • Main page: Wikipedia:Verifiability

Wikipedia is by its very nature a work by people with widely different knowledge and skills. The reader needs to be assured that the material within it is reliable. The purpose of citing sources is:

When adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged

Shortcut
Main page: Wikipedia:Verifiability

Wikipedia:Verifiability says: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."

The need for citations is especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words where possible, such as, "Some people say ..." Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion. Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for expressing your own opinions or for original research. Opinions, data and statistics, and statements based on someone's scientific work should be cited and attributed to their authors in the text.

  • Finally, please view WP:CITE#HOW and note that pages numbers are a requirement. Note also in the case of challenged contributions it is especially difficult for another editor to engage in verification and fact checking if page numbers are not given. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Fresh air needed

Semitransgenic is not adressing the issue of ridiculous article title – ie Noise (music) –, a unique case on Wikipedia and an infringement of common rules. 'Segmented' article names are forbidden by Wikipedia guidelines. See WP:NPOV paragraph on article naming[3] (please read first paragraph).Semitransgenic is blatantly infringing WP:NPOV guidelines here. Unless his attitude becomes participatory and contributing, his WP:VAN will be reported to WP:AIV.
Foreign language readers are lucky enough to be allowed to read a portuguese[4] or russian[5] version of 'Noise music' article free from Red Alert signs, page #s harassement and parenthesis uglyness. It is still possible to write a nice, balanced and readable article on Wikipedia, that is . . . until Semitransgenic puts his nose into it.
Tellus archivist (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

discussed above. consensus was arrived at. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
A consensus on WP:NPOV infringement will not be taken into account by Wikipedia, I'm afraid. You don't have the power to change the rules, even if you have the will to infringe all Wikipedia guidelines.
Tellus archivist (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
perhaps you need to read WP:CON&WP:D. Feel free to raise your objections in the appropriate place.Keep up the good work! Semitransgenic (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Editing dispute on the Noise music page

I am asking for help here. As witnessed above, I have been experiencing a problem with editor Semitransgenic at the Noise music page. The issue is this: after a month of work I greatly improved the noise music page - providing wiki with an outstanding noise music page with extensive footnote citations (53 to be exact), some lacking only page # which I can provide in the next few months when I return to my library (as previously explained a # of times to Semitransgenic), free of WP:OR & WP:SYN that stood for weeks. Semitransgenic then imposed a WP:OR deadline on my providing those page #s and when I challenged that arbitrary deadline by reverting to the previous edit I am constantly stymied from doing so. Is there a 6 week deadline for page #s I am unaware of? What is the policy on this situation? My general feeling is that the display of WP:OR & WP:SYN flags turn off the wikipedia users and as I cannot provide the page #s for a few months that these flags are better left off. Please advise fellow editors. Thank you in advance. Valueyou (talk) 10:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Despite a protracted dispute with Valueyou leading to intervention of multiple editors, Valueyou's immediate action, following the conclusion of this period of disruption, was to revert the disputed article to a condition that Valueyou deemed acceptable, therefore leaving outstanding issues with WP:OR, WP:VER, WP:SYN, unaddressed. The dispute esentially relates to disagreement about tagging and to Semitransgenic's request for citations. The origin of this dispute can be traced to here. The user engaged in WP:CANVASS by copy pasting a personal attack across the talk pages of multiple articles user Semitransgenic has edited. There is also evidence of Valueyou accusing Semitransgenic of anti-semitism, resulting in Valueyou attempting to canvass ברוקולי. This last allegation arose as a result of the statement made here at 17:42 on the 10th of August. Irrespective of the nature of this hostile campaign Semitransgenic attempted to arrive at a truce but Valueyou's repsonse was instead to engage in antagonistic reversion. Please advise. Semitransgenic (talk) 10:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


I'll just file the above Semitransgenic comment in the "give em enough rope and..." department. My request above was intentionally tightly focused on the technical question at hand which Verbal has stepped in to find sensible middle ground and -- that I accept. Valueyou (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Noise_music/Archive_1&oldid=837852678"