Thomas D. Cox, Jr. wrote:
On Fri, November 4, 2005 6:16 pm, darnistle wrote:
You jump from point A to point Q.
Someone making noises in their studio and saying "boy, that sounds cool,
let me stick a kick drum under that and release it" could produce
anything from crap to utter brilliance. With talent and quality control
the results could be quite amazing and full of all sorts of feeling.
I've got plenty of "noise" records. Some are quite facile, uncreative
and utterly disposable. Others are strange, amazing and quite beautiful
even if the sounds are unusual, abrasive or cacophanous at times. The
fact that it isn't melody-driven (synonymous with "noise" for a lot of
people) says nothing about its quality or ability to convey a range of
emotions.
but what does say something about it is the purpose behind making the
music! there's a way to make straight up noise into a vehicle for
expression. and there's a way to make a cool sound into a track that
conveys nothing except the fact that the producer knows how to make a cool
sound. what differentiates these? the purpose of the artist. this has
absolutely nothing to do with melody, the fact that you keep trying to
bring it back to that despite my numerous examples of non-melodic and even
non-rhythmic music that i listen to says to me that youre missing the
entire point. sounds does not equal music. sound plus purpose equals
music.
tom
Did you not say "making noise is just that: making noise. its not music.
i own noise records. im not against noise. but its not the same game as
making music."???
Perhaps I'm pulling this out of thin air?
