Talk:Noise music/Archive 2

Check tags

I hope this is a reasonable compromise, and that these tags can be removed while the references are improved and the article is generally worked on. For now I'm not making any comment on the dispute above or the accuracy of these references. With the references there people can check them, and readers are notified that there is a dispute about the references. Hopefully the article can move on from this. Thanks, Verbal chat 12:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes I think it is. If Semitransgenic, you, or others would care to hit the books and find the relevant page #s (I was working from my notebooks and am not currently in an English speaking country) that would be most useful to getting the page up to snuff. Let's all pitch in to get the page impeccable. Valueyou (talk) 12:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You've been regurgitating the same excuse now for almost two months.Hit the books? It's pretty clear from Collis (2008), Hegarty (2008), Hegarty (2002), Jensen (2005), and Van Nort (2006) that what you are presenting here is WP:OR AND WP:SYN. I may not have had time in recent months to summarise the contents of the relevant literature - for presentation here - but that does not imply that I am ignorant of the subject matter. You should really ease off with your bullshit I have a Phd crap and appreciate that you are not the only one on Wikipedia with a bit of schooling. Let me state that I do not trust your intentions, find you largely dishonest, and would rather not waste anymore time engaging with you. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Semitransgenic, you are violating WP:NPA by calling another editor "largely dishonest" and by cursing. Kindly stop doing so and focus on edits and content, not what your opinion of another editor's personality is. Continued violation can lead to being blocked. And, oh yes, please sir, do go away. Valueyou (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Page numbers?? Semitransgenic (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It's saddening to read the dispute between the two of you on this page. I suggest the discussion page be archived in the near future. It seems to me that the essential distinction between you (Valueyou and Semitransgenic) is with regard to incrementalist and non-incrementalist editing preferences. In this case, I tend toward the former, and I continue to believe that, on the whole, Valueyou's additions to this page, with some requisite editing, have been positive additions. I appreciate Valueyou's willingness to tackle the labor of improving this page, though I don't endorse all of her edits by any means. Her efforts are entirely in keeping with WP:BOLD and WP:IGNORE. I think Semitransgenic was unduly harsh, initially, in reverting many of Valueyou's edits, and fell into a combative position that's led to some of these current troubles. At the same time, it looks to me that Valueyou has responded in an unnecessarily personal manner, and tried to appeal to real-world credentials with little meaning here on Wikipedia. Subsequently, it seems clear to me that Semitransgenic's apparent momentary reference to himself as a "nazi" was a metaphor akin to the The Soup Nazi, and not at all an avowal of racism. While I think this terminology lends itself to being misunderstood, it appears that Valueyou attempted to exploit this in order to paint Semitransgenic as an anti-Semite, which seems to me to be absurd.

Now, the page as it stands doesn't pass WP:SYN and possibly also WP:NOR, as Semitransgenic points out. That's not the end of the world, but we should try to improve the page from here. I also think it suffers from a number of organizational problems. There are still passages like this: "Composers such as Arnold Schoenberg proposed the incorporation of harmonic systems that were, at the time, considered dissonant. This lead to the development of twelve tone technique and serialism. In his book 1910: the Emancipation of Dissonance Thomas J. Harrison suggests that this development might be described as a metanarrative to justify the so called dionysian pleasures of atonal noise." Now I haven't read Harrison's book, but this type of writing is obfuscatory and serves little purpose for an encyclopedia of this sort, particularly in the initial paragraph. I can make some guess at what Harrison might mean, but only because I've read Lyotard and Nietzsche, and even still I think the claim is odd. Schoenberg certainly didn't see the break with the tonal system as an exploration of noise, and *definitely* didn't see it as "Dionysian". So the page still requires a great deal of work. And Valueyou should indeed obtain his books and provide page numbers.

Now, on the "Noise (music)" vs. "Noise music" question: I think the former is better, because hardly anyone ever talks about "noise music". It's more accurate to call it noise, and specify that it's noise as considered in a musical context. Calling it "noise music" also insists more forcefully that it be considered as a genre of music, which is not a settled question.

One more issue, on what should be considered noise: It seems to me that this page should basically be devoted to the noise scene, essentially understood as the style practiced by Merzbow, Keiji Haino, Otomo Yoshihide, and other classic Japanese artists. From there, a genealogy can be traced that includes the New Blockaders, Metal Machine Music, Whitehouse, AMM, and Coltrane's Ascension. I also think that Wolf Eyes and John Wiese and Kevin Drumm are clearly noise artists, and some of the obvious precedents (Xenakis's La Légende d'Eer, for example) also should be discussed. I'd also consider onkyo to be an offshoot of noise. On the whole, I don't think that elements of noise as they present themselves in rock'n'roll or metal or hip-hop or pop music are really the subject of this page, even if sources such as Attali consider such incidences of dissonance. The page will be about everything and nothing if it aims to consider everything "noisy" in popular and classical music. Aryder779 (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Also - I think I might be in a minority on this, but I also think that some or most power noise also falls under the purview of this page. Aube, Merzbow, and Contagious Orgasm have done beat-oriented pieces, so I think that even some of the EDM or electro-industrial-inflected work remains intensely dissonant enough to be considered a form of noise. Aryder779 (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Is "Art of Noise" missing on purpose?

How can the band named after the manifesto that originated noise music be missing from the article on noise music? Am I missing something? And they're missing from the list as well. What am I not getting? Padillah (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the only thing noisy about the band named after the manifesto was the name as their sound (if I remember correctly) was on the slick synth side. Therefore they do not warrant mention of the page. Other opinions? Valueyou (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

From what I gather the band was one of the first to use the Fairlight CMI to sample everyday noises and use them in music compositions. That's the very definition of noise music. Their later stuff suffered from artistic dissonance (the two original composers grew to hate each other) but their initial idea was that of everyday noise as music. In fact their first album used no instruments at all. Padillah (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

From what you say about their use of sampling the group, perhaps, is best suited for the musique concrète page. But let's go onto http://www.deezer.com/ and refresh our memories. I did and found mostly slick material, of interest yes. Their sound lacks the atonality I associate with noise music, but perhaps I did not hear the relevant cuts. If you feel strongly that they should be under noise music, I would not object if you decide to add them to the list of noise artists. And if you might, we could use a hand with some page #s, as you might have noticed. Thanks for your interest. Valueyou (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Art of Noise are not a noise group; their use of sampling is comparable to hip-hop. If we include Art of Noise, we would definitely have to include Public Enemy, and that's not the topic of this page. Aryder779 (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I think there's more to be said about the subject of the sampling. Public Enemy would sample other songs and thus use Western standard rhythms and pitches. Art of Noise used sampling as a simple way of getting the atonal noise into the studio environment. I think Valueyou's outlook of musique concrète is much more inline but I don't think I could ever compare them to Public Enemy. Padillah (talk) 12:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I would dispute your characterization of Public Enemy as relying on standard rhythms and pitches. Their samples are sometimes distorted to the point of being bursts of noise. I also don't think Art of Noise are atonal at all (not that atonality is a necessary component of noise). Please provide sources for Art of Noise's innovations; nothing should be included on this page without references of some sort. Please see WP:NOR. In answer to your initial question: They're not "missing on purpose". Nobody here as anything against Art of Noise. We've just never seen a source that argues that they should be considered noise. Aryder779 (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Nor have I. I'm not arguing for their inclusion. The question was a simple one and it's been answered. I'm a very matter-of-fact person, I don't ask sideways questions. I honestly simply wanted to know if Art Of Noise was missing on purpose and if there was something I was missing. Even after reading the article I didn't have a good handle on what characterized Noise Music and what doesn't so I had a question. Most conversations I've had that tried to categorize music end in screaming matches because most people see most music in their own specific way, so I'm not going to get into what Public Enemy is or is not. Thanks for the help. Padillah (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok, I should have indicate the rules regarding original research from the outset. Aryder779 (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is Nine Inch Nails here? Also theres alot of groups in the list of noise musicians section that have little to do with Noise Music.

Stolen Parachute

Someone added Stolen Parachute - a group I have never heard of nor cannot find any info on the net - so I scrubbed it. Any ideas or objections? Valueyou (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Metal machine music.jpg

The image File:Metal machine music.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:NONPaganMuzak.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Boyz Noise

I fail to see how this group is a good representation of either popular music or noise music. Reverted accordingly.Hairhorn (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree.--  R. Mutt 1917  Talk 23:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Boulez: 1930s

Ross's The Rest is Noise page 362 discusses Boulez, violence and mentions the year 1948. p.363 mentions 1951 (Schoenberg's death) and Messiaen in the late forties, including his Scale of Durations and Dynamics and that Boulez organized these parameters into sets of twelve. Those pages do not mention the thirties and Boulez was born in 1925, so at most he would have been 15yo. Hyacinth (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

I have tagged a paragraph that attempts to include, en masse, atonality, twelve-tone technique, and serialism under the category of noise. While it is possible that the book cited at the end of the paragraph (which I do not have at hand to check) actually says what it is claimed to do, it seems preposterous to me that pitch-based systems should qualify as "noise", never mind that some people may be inclined to dismiss music of this nature with the word. (My grandfather—a professional cellist and flutist—used to insist that any sound made by a saxophone was nothing but noise, and so was any piece composed by Bartók, but that does not make it so.)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes you raise a key, if slippery, issue here. My own opinion is that the definition of noise in music is a shifting one where dissonance and atonality is re-conceived and utilized differently again and again over time. If you can slice into this issue with more detail, you should improve the page, as this is beyond my abilities. The question you raise touches on the issue of the definition of avant-garde practice as it passes into cannon over time. Valueyou (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Having found the book in question, the problem only deepens, since the claim made for it is not substantiated in the text of the book itself, and no page number is offered in the footnote. As a matter of fact, what appear in this article to be reference citations often turn out to be nothing of the sort. It looks like there is a lot of Original Research in here or, at the very least, improper synthesis. Definition is the central issue, as you say, and the problem is that this is a relatively new concept, so that the tried-and-true authorities, such as New Grove, do not include the term. I hope I'm not going to have to tackle this all on my own, but I will if necessary.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Jerome. I will help in any way I can from the art and avant-garde side. Perhaps together we can improve the page. I have 3 books with me that can help: (1) Chilvers & John Glaves-Smith, A Dictionary of Modern and Contemporary Art. Oxford University Press (2) Hegarty, Paul. Noise/Music: A History. Continuum International Publishing Group, 2007. (I see you call for a [citation needed] for this book and others in the References list. How is that? How does that work? What needs to be cited when citing a book? and (3) LaBelle, Brandon. Background Noise: Perspectives on Sound Art (2006) New York and London: Continuum International Publishing. I will have a go at what you have initiated.Valueyou (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Though it's not strictly policy or strictly necessary, page numbers and quotes are invaluable in writing a good wiki article. With editors all over the world, sourcing from different languages, and various forms of dubious information (vandals, POV-pushers, trolls, etc), just the name of a book doesn't do much good in checking the veracity of a statement in the article. But if I have a page number or a quote, or better yet, both, then I can in many cases hit up amazon or google books and find that specific page and quickly (a) verify that the quote is accurate (b) verify that the citation supports the in-article statement. If there's something possibly contentious in the article, providing quotes is the best way to back up the statement and will help prevent many disagreements. Instead of someone saying "that's bullshit" and removing a statement, you'll get "well I see that statement is cited and attributed to someone, but here's an alternate cited opinion we can include in the article". That's the idea, anyhow. Kellen^T 13:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well said, Kellen. In the present case, Thomas J. Harrison's 264-page book 1910: The Emancipation of Dissonance was cited without page reference, to support a claim that Harrison "suggests that this development might be described as a metanarrative to justify the so called dionysian pleasures of atonal noise". I performed a word search in this book on the Amazon site, seeking the words "noise", "metanarrative", "dionysian", and "atonal". This was an awful lot of work in order to discover that the claim was not supported by anything in that book, and I see that Valueyou has since deleted that paragraph entirely. The lingering problem here is the confusion of possible "precedents" with your actual noise musicians, and there are far too many doubtful claims remaining, including wholesale lists of names without supporting sources for verification, for example the fourth paragraph, beginning "Other examples of music that contain noise based features include…". Taken at face value, I could easily expand that list to a thousand names, starting as early as Michel Corrette in 1779, if not earlier. In fact, if the definition offered in the opening paragraph ("varieties of avant-garde music and sound art that may use elements such as cacophony, dissonance, atonality, noise, indeterminacy, and repetition in their realization"), is to be taken seriously, I think that just about any music from any period of history could be included provided only that we accept the word "avant-garde" may be applied to, for example, the late-14th-century Ars subtilior composers, or to the so-called Italian Mannerists of the late 16th century (Luca Marenzio, Carlo Gesualdo, Luzzasco Luzzaschi, etc.). The citation of Hegarty in the Definitions section is far more restrictive, and, despite the somewhat more liberal usage by Kahn (and the quite different sense of "noise" intended by Atalli) cited there also, perhaps the lede needs to be recast to reflect this—removing, for example, the references to "atonality", "indeterminacy", "repetition", and "dissonance", which are not part of the more formal definitions, and all of which are found in music falling well outside of the "noise" category.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

the question of inaccurate and problematic citations appears to stretch back over a year. It's a mish mash of stuff here, and some of it is definitely synthetic, but it would be good to define more clearly the parallel histories of noise (art/music) and set out how they have converged: using appropriate sources and specific citations that clearly support this premise. Measles (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Nest of worms there in the archive, all right. I should have thought to check it. Thanks for the pointer.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)