# How Does One Enjoy Music Like This?



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

What listening "skills" are required? What knowledge? What else? If any.

Anybody care to speculate and or share?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

A well-honed facility with the "off" switch may be handy in such circumstances. Failing that, a .585 Nyati elephant rifle will usually be effective, though at some risk to your computing machinery.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

How does one enjoy crap like Handel?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

KenOC said:


> A well-honed facility with the "off" switch may be handy in such circumstances. Failing that, a .585 Nyati elephant rifle will usually be effective, though at some risk to your computing machinery.


I like the .585 solution. Very pragmatic.

Though I am still interested in finding some answers.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

How does one not enjoy that? 

But seriously, at some point you'll just have to accept the diversity of taste. You can beat people forever, they'll still disagree.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

science said:


> How does one not enjoy that?
> 
> But seriously, at some point you'll just have to accept the diversity of taste. You can beat people forever, they'll still disagree.


I have no problem with diversity of taste. All I'm asking is how do these folks appreciate it. One of the amusing response at Youtube was: "there are only two M's in life: Merzbow and Marijuana". :lol:


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> "there are only two M's in life: Merzbow and Marijuana". :lol:


High praise indeed.


----------



## palJacky (Nov 27, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> "there are only two M's in life: Merzbow and Marijuana". :lol:


Your problem is obvious. You do not like the combination of disorientation and paranoia.
It is a failing on your part. I suggest you hang out under the landing path near your local airport for hours on end until the beauty and dignity of this work ceases to confuse you. 
Music is everywhere, you just need to learn how to listen for it.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

burningdesire said:


> how does one enjoy crap like handel?


gtho........


----------



## Guest (Oct 27, 2012)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> How Does One Enjoy Music Like This?
> What listening "skills" are required? What knowledge? What else? If any.


Perhaps one doesn't. 'Enjoy' that is. But if one wants to understand (to appreciate, which is after all, a higher goal ) one might start by finding out about the artist and his work.

One could go to Wkipedia - the easy end of research...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merzbow

Your basic assumption is flawed: that 'enjoyment' is the purpose of music (even 'art' altogether, but let's leave that to another thread).


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

palJacky said:


> Your problem is obvious. You do not like the combination of disorientation and paranoia.
> It is a failing on your part. I suggest you hang out under the landing path near your local airport for hours on end until the beauty and dignity of this work ceases to confuse you.
> Music is everywhere, you just need to learn how to listen for it.


Oh, my failing I see. Care to introduce yourself, Mr Newbie? For all we know, with only nine posts so far, you have yet to gain a foothold in this community with any of your opinion. As far "music is everywhere", I don't need another Cage-ian prescription, history will be the better judge thus far on composer-comedians.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> How does one enjoy crap like Handel?


Is that really the best you can manage??


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> Perhaps one doesn't. 'Enjoy' that is. But if one wants to understand (to appreciate, which is after all, a higher goal ) one might start by finding out about the artist and his work.
> 
> One could go to Wkipedia - the easy end of research...
> 
> ...


Thanks for your correction. In that case, do provide an answer as to your perceived "higher goal" on understanding Merzbow. I await. You can do better than just quote Wikipedia, can you not?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> Perhaps one doesn't. 'Enjoy' that is. But if one wants to understand (to appreciate, which is after all, a higher goal ) one might start by finding out about the artist and his work.
> 
> One could go to Wkipedia - the easy end of research...
> 
> ...


_Pornoise was a mail art project where Akita made xerox art using discarded pornographic magazines taken from the trash, which was sent with his cassettes, the idea being that his tapes were like cheap and disposable mail-order pornography.[6][7] The name was also used for the title of Pornoise/1kg, a track on the Sexorama compilation, and is credited for artwork on a couple Merzbow releases._

MacLeod, is this your perception of "higher goal"?


----------



## Guest (Oct 27, 2012)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Thanks for your correction. In that case, do provide an answer as to your perceived "higher goal" on understanding Merzbow. I await. You can do better than just quote Wikipedia, can you not?


My wink was to indicate my doubt as to the notion that there are lower and higher goals in listening to music. I don't need wikipedia to state that if you don't 'enjoy' an art, don't assume that enjoyment is its only function. It may have another purpose (not a higher one) which involves the skills of reading and thinking about the work and the artist.


----------



## drpraetorus (Aug 9, 2012)

evolution has a great many dead ends and there are uncounted naked emperors. Wait for the verdict of time.


----------



## Guest (Oct 27, 2012)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> MacLeod, is this your perception of "higher goal"?


Ask bigshot or Lukecash - they seem to be the ones with the idea that there is a hierarchy of goals. I just know what I like, and what I have liked; I'm not sure what I'm going to like, but if you're really asking a rhetorical question ("Surely no-one is going to consider the use of pornography to make a cheap tacky statement as valid art output?") then there is no point to your post.

Except to say, 'yes' in reply.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Oh, my failing I see. Care to introduce yourself, Mr Newbie? For all we know, with only nine posts so far, you have yet to gain a foothold in this community with any of your opinion. As far "music is everywhere", I don't need another Cage-ian prescription, history will be the better judge thus far on composer-comedians.


pajJacky's got a sense of humor. His post was probably sarcastic, just having fun.

It's ok, man. We can be friends!


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

As off-putting as this Merzbow music sounds, I feel there's probably more of a compositional element to it than your average formula heavy metal song.

How can one enjoy this? Well I think you could ask the same question regarding early Penderecki, some Ligeti, Nono.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

science said:


> pajJacky's got a sense of humor. His post was probably sarcastic, just having fun.
> 
> It's ok, man. We can be friends!


I couldn't tell. I hope it was a joke...


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Andreas said:


> As off-putting as this Merzbow music sounds, I feel there's probably more of a compositional element to it than your average formula heavy metal song.
> 
> How can one enjoy this? Well I think you could ask the same question regarding early Penderecki, some Ligeti, Nono.


Quite. and more


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> How Does One Enjoy Music Like This?





HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I have no problem with diversity of taste. All I'm asking is how do these folks appreciate it. One of the amusing response at Youtube was: "there are only two M's in life: Merzbow and *Marijuana*". :lol:


You have your answer right here :lol:


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Andreas said:


> As off-putting as this Merzbow music sounds, I feel there's probably more of a compositional element to it than your average formula heavy metal song.


I would be very interested in an elaboration of that statement. Composition is the putting together of elements in a deliberate arrangement in order to meet the artistic ends of the composer.
The 'average formula heavy metal song' if there is such a thing, is just as composed as the Merzbow piece. The elements that are being arranged are different but the principal is the same.
If you are saying that many heavy metal songs are formulaic in their structure then the same thing can be said of a Baroque da Capo aria or a classical sonata.

I would like to know if there is a reason that the _music_ of Merzbow should be a subject of discussion on a classical music forum any more than the music of Quincy Jones or Ry Cooder?


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

If you are just getting into Merzbow i'm not sure Venereology is the best starting point, even though it is his most famous. It is regarded as his "metal" album, and as we know on this board metal, like opera, is divisive. It isn't really one of my favourite Merzbow records, for an introduction I would try _Pulse Demon_, _Merzzow_ or _Music for Bondage Performance 1 & 2_ but his huge discography is quite a challenge to navigate.






That one is a little more nuanced than most of what is on Venereology, although it is clearly double evil as it is made from cut up samples of Schoenberg. BD's impertinent question has a point, what skills and knowledge does one bring when listening to Handel. Both Handel and Merzbow require different species of patience, especially a 3 hour opera, but other than that is anything else needed. While some people read scores or listen out for themes fugues and instruments, I personally just let most music wash over me, swimming in the sound world. While knowing about Handel's peregrinations about europe or Merzbow's vegetarianism might add some interesting context, to my mind at least it doesn't do much to illuminate either's music.

Maybe you should make a Handel/Merzbow mixtape, switch out all those recitatives with Merzbow noise breaks, it may help illuminate some commonality, or at least dust your speakers.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> My wink was to indicate my doubt as to the notion that there are lower and higher goals in listening to music. I don't need wikipedia to state that if you don't 'enjoy' an art, don't assume that enjoyment is its only function. It may have another purpose (not a higher one) which involves the skills of reading and thinking about the work and the artist.


So... the music is merely an attention getting device, to encourage 'getting to know' the composer? Would there be gold mine stocks in the offing?


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

One has to be in the right mood, I think?

I dunno. I really like this. Lots of interesting sounds in there--it's hardly noise at all from a sound engineer's standpoint. I can really tell that he put serious effort into it, layering different sounds and effects. There's even motivic development of a sort. Fascinating.


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> How does one enjoy crap like Handel?


Even Avant grande lovers can't enjoy stuff like that.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

quack said:


> Both Handel and Merzbow require different species of patience, especially a 3 hour opera, but other than that is anything else needed. While some people read scores or listen out for themes fugues and instruments, I personally just *let most music wash over me, swimming in the sound world*.


If that's all you want from music then I have a great idea. Put all the music you have on tape and play it all backwards and hey presto, at no extra expense you have just doubled your music collection.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Petwhac said:


> If that's all you want from music then I have a great idea. Put all the music you have on tape and play it all backwards and hey presto, at no extra expense you have just doubled your music collection.


I know, and the good thing about tapes is that they slowly stretch, so you gradually get yet another type of music, win win.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> How does one enjoy crap like Handel?


Speechless. The Mozart comments seemed harmless compared to this.


----------



## Guest (Oct 27, 2012)

Hilltroll72 said:


> So... the music is merely an attention getting device, to encourage 'getting to know' the composer? Would there be gold mine stocks in the offing?


No...well, certainly not the goldmine stocks!

Assuming a common understanding of the term 'enjoy', art output can make a statement about life, the universe and everything which provokes anger, indignation, vitriol, arousal, confusion, puzzlement...


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Andreas said:


> As off-putting as this Merzbow music sounds, I feel there's probably more of a compositional element to it than your average formula heavy metal song.
> 
> How can one enjoy this? Well I think you could ask the same question regarding early Penderecki, some Ligeti, Nono.


*facepalm*


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

quack said:


> I know, and the good thing about tapes is that they slowly stretch, so you gradually get yet another type of music, win win.


I suppose one drawback to tape is the hiss. With music such as the Merzbow example one may find oneself in the unenviable position of not knowing if the hiss is part of the composition or just an unfortunate technological artefact.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Petwhac said:


> I suppose one drawback to tape is the hiss. With music such as the Merzbow example one may find oneself in the unenviable position of not knowing if the hiss is part of the composition or just an unfortunate technological artefact.


Indeed, classical can survive relatively low quality recording equipment, well state of the art at the time perhaps, so there's lots of early 20thC recordings still loved, drenched in white noise hiss. You don't want a lot of noise in your noise though, laptop musicians generally expect a greater fidelity.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Petwhac said:


> I suppose one drawback to tape is the hiss. With music such as the Merzbow example one may find oneself in the unenviable position of not knowing if the hiss is part of the composition or just an unfortunate technological artefact.


There's a lot of electronic music (and even the Merzbow examples here) distributed in digital format that suffers from something similar: is that glitch sound part of the music, or could it be a corrupt file, or maybe a streaming problem?


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I have no problem with diversity of taste. All I'm asking is how do these folks appreciate it. One of the amusing response at Youtube was: "there are only two M's in life: Merzbow and Marijuana". :lol:


I don't know about Merzbow, but if he's the only other M I guess I have to give him a chance, because his friend isn't all that bad.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Oh, my failing I see. Care to introduce yourself, Mr Newbie? For all we know, with only nine posts so far, you have yet to gain a foothold in this community with any of your opinion. As far "music is everywhere", I don't need another Cage-ian prescription, history will be the better judge thus far on composer-comedians.


And who made history the judge of anything? Try taking a look at all of the judgments history would have you make. I doubt you would agree with a lot of it.


----------



## Zauberberg (Feb 21, 2012)

It's nice to see the expansion of your musical knowledge, HapsichordConcerto. Now try this:


----------



## Jaws (Jun 4, 2011)

Is this a recording of a radio that is not quite on the right station? It sounds like the car radio when I haven't quite got it tuned. If it carried on sounding like this I would normally turn it off. Do you need to get copyright permission to record a radio not quite tuned in and then sell the resulting recording? You might have found a gap in the market?


----------



## Jaws (Jun 4, 2011)

Zauberberg said:


> It's nice to see the expansion of your musical knowledge, HapsichordConcerto. Now try this:


Another radio that needs tuning??


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Far removed from where it's being played, preferably a thousand miles away under a bunker designed to survive nuclear attacks like the ones in Dr. Strangelove. One enjoys it by imagining the pain and agony of the enemies who are being blared with this sound on hidden megaphones.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Andreas said:


> As off-putting as this Merzbow music sounds, I feel there's probably more of a compositional element to it than your average formula heavy metal song.
> 
> How can one enjoy this? Well I think you could ask the same question regarding early Penderecki, some Ligeti, Nono.


You could ask the same question of Boccherini and Handel and Mozart.  or of Beethoven, Chopin, and Tchaikovsky, or of Ellington, Gillespie and Davis. Or even The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, and Bob Dylan.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Ramako said:


> I couldn't tell. I hope it was a joke...


Yeah, how dare somebody hear the beauty in the sounds of the world around us! Everybody should think they're ugly and ignore them like everybody else!


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> If that's all you want from music then I have a great idea. Put all the music you have on tape and play it all backwards and hey presto, at no extra expense you have just doubled your music collection.


Everything sounds awesome backwards. EVERYTHING.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> Speechless. The Mozart comments seemed harmless compared to this.


 Lighten up Neo. I don't actually think Handel is crap. I'm not really a fan, but I have enjoyed some of his music on occasion.


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> *facepalm*


(directed to Andreas)
Just keep mocking metal all you want but the fact is that it isn't as easy to play/write as some of you may think.
Yes i know that it doesn't have the complexity of the classical music etc...
But try to play a metal song on a guitar at full tempo, like Metallicas Mater of puppets and you will notice that it ain't so easy as you think.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> I suppose one drawback to tape is the hiss. With music such as the Merzbow example one may find oneself in the unenviable position of not knowing if the hiss is part of the composition or just an unfortunate technological artefact.


Why can't it be both?


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

jani said:


> (directed to Andreas)
> Just keep mocking metal all you want but the fact is that it isn't as easy to play/write as some of you may think.
> Yes i know that it doesn't have the complexity of the classical music etc...
> But try to play a metal song on a guitar at full tempo, like Metallicas Mater of puppets and you will notice that it ain't so easy as you think.


Don't sell the music short now Jani. There's plenty in the canon of metal that is WAY more complex than plenty of classical music.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> Don't sell the music short now Jani. There's plenty in the canon of metal that is WAY more complex than plenty of classical music.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

BurningDesire said:


> Everything sounds awesome backwards. EVERYTHING.


That depends on your definition of awe. Somethings sound as good backwards for sure!

As for EVERYTHING;

GNIHTYREVE

Mmmm, sounds ok but is *completely meaningless*.:lol:


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

Zauberberg said:


> It's nice to see the expansion of your musical knowledge, HapsichordConcerto. Now try this:


I'm not often judgemental, but that was hideous! :O


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> Mmmm, sounds ok but is *completely meaningless*.:lol:


Just like music!


----------



## Guest (Oct 27, 2012)

Wow. Such a nice pool. And already four pages deep before I even know about it, much less start splashing around in it.

Some really insightful comments, too. I think the one by MacLeod about enjoyment could easily be the premise of its own thread. (Edit: And the one by Burning that just came in as I was typing this one out.)

Well, everything's going well so far. I'll only make one little splashing before I go on to other pools: 

Probably scorn, derision, and incredulity are not the most useful tools for understanding something new (to you) or strange (to you). They are more useful for reinforcing prejudices.

Depends on what you want to accomplish, I guess.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

BurningDesire said:


> Just like music!


Music is only meaningless in the same way that life is meaningless.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

some guy said:


> Probably scorn, derision, and incredulity are not the most useful tools for understanding something new (to you) or strange (to you). They are more useful for reinforcing prejudices.


You could always replace the words 'new' and 'strange' with 'boring' and 'predictable'. Why should one have to praise those qualities?


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I love it when someone supports and promotes music not by being an ambassador for it to reach out and introduce new people to it, but rather to choose extreme examples to beat people over the head with and further distance them.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> Yeah, how dare somebody hear the beauty in the sounds of the world around us! Everybody should think they're ugly and ignore them like everybody else!


All things, perhaps, are beautiful, but some are more beautiful than others.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

jani said:


> (directed to Andreas)
> Just keep mocking metal all you want but the fact is that it isn't as easy to play/write as some of you may think.
> Yes i know that it doesn't have the complexity of the classical music etc...
> But try to play a metal song on a guitar at full tempo, like Metallicas Mater of puppets and you will notice that it ain't so easy as you think.


It was not my intention to mock metal. The basic song formula I was referring to applies to all kinds of genres, pop, rock, anything. Metal probably came to my mind because that Merzbow track seemed to me like an extreme evolution of industrial/metal. And maybe because some forms of metal, it seems to me, are pushing the boundaries of what even tolerant pop radio listeners would still qualify as actual music.


----------



## Guest (Oct 27, 2012)

bigshot said:


> I love it when someone supports and promotes music not by being an ambassador for it to reach out and introduce new people to it, but rather to choose extreme examples to beat people over the head with and further distance them.


If you're talking about Harpy, I certainly would never have thought of him as someone who supports and promotes new music. He chooses extreme examples _in order to_ distance people from it.

But maybe you were referring to someone else.

Anyway, reaching out and introducing mean having a pretty good idea of who the people are you're reaching out to. And that's best done with each person, one at a time, in real life, not an online forum. For some people, perhaps those with metal backgrounds, Merzbow might be exactly the right thing to draw them in. For others, maybe Stravinsky will hit the spot. Your use of "extreme" suggests that there are examples, less extreme maybe, that will be "one size fits all."

Nah. There's no one size that fits all in art, any more than there is a different (extreme?) size that fits no one.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> I would be very interested in an elaboration of that statement. Composition is the putting together of elements in a deliberate arrangement in order to meet the artistic ends of the composer.
> The 'average formula heavy metal song' if there is such a thing, is just as composed as the Merzbow piece. The elements that are being arranged are different but the principal is the same.
> If you are saying that many heavy metal songs are formulaic in their structure then the same thing can be said of a Baroque da Capo aria or a classical sonata.


The song formular I was referring to basically meant: repeated chord progressions, short melodic motifs, verse-chorus-verse structure, things like that. Most songs could practically be written out in shorthand, more or less. The Merzbow track struck me as more of a rhapsodic soundscape design, something where pretty much every second of it was unique. Unless of course it did follow a formula I simply didn't recognize, or it was completely based on chance or just random mashed together.

The point you make about classical music forms is very valid, I think. In many classical style sonata allegro movements, about half the music is redundant (the repeated exposition and the virtually identical reprise). If the development senction is somewhat brief, as quite often in Mozart and Schubert, the ratio is even worse.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

I'm a Metal fan and Baroque drew me in. I've seen others on last.fm pages saying on Corelli's page that they are a metal fan but felt dumb for not finding out about Corelli beforehand. Something about Baroque that brings out the Metalheads. Maybe it is the long hair.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

moody said:


> Is that really the best you can manage??


I took it as a heavily ironic, "You either care for what you are hearing or you don't."


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Perhaps one doesn't. 'Enjoy' that is. But if one wants to understand (to appreciate, which is after all, a higher goal ) one might start by finding out about the artist and his work.
> 
> One could go to Wkipedia - the easy end of research...
> 
> ...


Sorry, whether it is on the base level of 'enjoyment' or for another purpose, a piece made entire of sound which needs any sort of 'verbiage' to help us access it is failing on its primary level and goal - as sound which communicates on its own.

If you've had to 'explain' the piece, its purpose, intent to me _in so many words_ then the piece is lacking.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Sorry, whether it is on the base level of 'enjoyment' or for another purpose, a piece made entire of sound which needs any sort of 'verbiage' to help us access it is failing on its primary level and goal - as sound which communicates on its own.
> 
> If you've had to 'explain' the piece, its purpose, intent to me _in so many words_ then the piece is lacking.


Interestingly, I didn't need any explanation to enjoy this piece, but for a long time, I did need an explanation to enjoy anything atonal (atonal here meaning "without tonality," not "without tones").


----------



## Guest (Oct 27, 2012)

PetrB said:


> ...a piece... which needs any sort of 'verbiage' to help us access it is failing on its primary level and goal - as sound which communicates on its own.


I'm constantly surprised by how much air time this notion gets.

Far as I can tell, "communicates on its own" is a null set. We all bring something to the experience--knowledge, other experiences, prejudices (boy howdy!), enculturation. Even when quite young, we bring something. We're never tabula rasa.

It is simply not possible for anything to communicate "on its own." There are always a multitude of other things going on. Whether what we bring to a piece is what we've read or what we've already heard or what we know or what we think we know, there is no "on its own" out there.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Zauberberg said:


> It's nice to see the expansion of your musical knowledge, HapsichordConcerto. Now try this:


At least this one has a clip go with it. I just ordered the album (two copies; one for home and one for driving).


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Zauberberg said:


> It's nice to see the expansion of your musical knowledge, HapsichordConcerto. Now try this:


I much prefer the Merzbow.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

some guy said:


> I'm constantly surprised by how much air time this notion gets.
> 
> Far as I can tell, "communicates on its own" is a null set. *We* all *bring something to the experience--knowledge, other experiences, prejudices (boy howdy!), enculturation*. Even when quite young, we bring something. *We're never tabula rasa.*
> 
> It is simply not possible for anything to communicate "on its own." There are always a multitude of other things going on. Whether what we bring to a piece is what we've read or what we've already heard or what we know or what we think we know, there is no "on its own" out there.


The implied goal is to be 'on one's own' and let the thing be 'on its own.' Perhaps too 'Eastern' a concept for us Westerners to easily or readily achieve, but a goal I strongly advocate nonetheless. I maintain still, a work needing explanation or loaded with references which the audience need to know is 'weak.'

Sure, some 'acculturation' can help in something, but that same acculturation is the less than Tabula Rasa of our semiotic backdrop, which too often enough closes us down to any or nearly all ideas or works outside of that experience, and that, sadly, leads many to dismiss otherwise entirely legitimate works.

Loaded for bear with 'acculturation' just leads to expectations of similar or more of the same. Hideous envelope in which to be enclosed, imho.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

jani said:


> (directed to Andreas)
> Just keep mocking metal all you want but the fact is that it isn't as easy to play/write as some of you may think.
> Yes i know that it doesn't have the complexity of the classical music etc...
> But try to play a metal song on a guitar at full tempo, like Metallicas Mater of puppets and you will notice that it ain't so easy as you think.


It's not about being hard to play, though. That's not the ideal. The ideal is art.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Zauberberg said:


> It's nice to see the expansion of your musical knowledge, HapsichordConcerto. Now try this:


HarpsichordConcerto- At least this one has a clip go with it. I just ordered the album (two copies; one for home and one for driving).

All I can say is that I'm glad you're on the other side of the planet. We have enough hyped up psychotic drivers here. That could be used in court as an excuse for "road rage".


----------



## Turangalîla (Jan 29, 2012)

Zauberberg said:


> It's nice to see the expansion of your musical knowledge, HapsichordConcerto. Now try this:


A few of the posts on this thread have got me a little peeved, but that, that video, was truly disgusting.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Zauberberg said:


> It's nice to see the expansion of your musical knowledge, HapsichordConcerto. Now try this:


Reminds me of the third panel of Hieronymus Bosch's "Garden of Earthly Delights" triptych. I'm going to have nightmares for a month, now.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

PetrB said:


> Sorry, whether it is on the base level of 'enjoyment' or for another purpose, a piece made entire of sound which needs any sort of 'verbiage' to help us access it is failing on its primary level and goal - as sound which communicates on its own.
> 
> If you've had to 'explain' the piece, its purpose, intent to me _in so many words_ then the piece is lacking.


Then why is it that so many find gain where you find lack? You aren't allowing for possibilities here.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Kopachris said:


> Reminds me of the third panel of Hieronymus Bosch's "Garden of Earthly Delights" triptych. I'm going to have nightmares for a month, now.


At base, the same sort of thing as the finale of Symphonie Fantastique. We just need more to shock us these days. I don't like it but some might.

Some of the ideas are borrowed from a far finer video a quarter of a century old. This is the real stuff.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> What listening "skills" are required? What knowledge? What else? If any.
> 
> Anybody care to speculate and or share?


I would say none. "Musical fetish" plus it could do damage to our ears.


----------



## Guest (Oct 28, 2012)

Well, to counter Rapide's "none," I guess I could relate how I came to find Merzbow enjoyable.

My "knowledge" was years of listening to Varese and Cage and Mumma and Ashley and Lucier and Dockstader and Oliveros, among others. That knowledge makes it possible to plunge into Merzbow's sound world without much problem. I don't suggest, just by the way, that that's the only knowledge (or the only composers) that will allow you to listen to Merzbow without any problem. It was just my way.

Generally, the listening skills one needs for Merzbow are the same as for listening to anything else, the ability to hear and understand what is coming at you. Specifically, for Merzbow and other noise bands (and even for other kinds of drone minimalism like Eliane Radigue), one needs to be able to savor the small and subtle differences that such music presents. In Merzbow, for instance, one has a massive wall of extremely loud sound--the listening is twofold, one, embracing the force of the volume and, two, distinguishing all the little flaws and variations of material and such that make up the wall. If you cannot do the first, you'll never be able to do the second. And you'll probably not be able to say, as violadude recently did, that you prefer the Merzbow over the Maruosa. Or not with any confidence, anyway.

There are some noise bands that are or become simply self-indulgent, throwing anything out there so long as the volume is extreme. Masami Akita is not like that (or not that I know of--I only have about thirty Merzbow CDs, and Akita has released well over 300). He's a careful craftsman, and his music repays repeated listenings.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Lukecash12 said:


> Then why is it that so many find gain where you find lack? You aren't allowing for possibilities here.


Because many, it seems clear, want or need extramusical explanations and associations -- that is their 'bent' as it were. I think that too, is from having received the (wrong) message that a person needs 'special information' in order to enjoy or appreciate 'classical music.' I don't care a flying fig if Chopin had a toothache when he wrote the fourth Ballade, yet many feel it more than edifying to their 'experience' of the piece. I -- and others I know who 'write' -- have found 'what we write' often seems to have no immediate connection to the present emotion(s) or circumstance(s) we sit in as we first have the idea or later work on it....

OF COURSE, something 'expressive' will come out if one is at all musical and has any degree of craft. I think the notion that composers sit down to specifically 'express' something, or intentionally think to 'move the listener' in a specific emotional direction is a confabulation of combined cartoonish and Hollywood-like notions of the late romantics, and also comes from the attachment of lyric to music, especially from the pop music genres.

Sure, there are composers who think and believe, perhaps succeed, in designating, specifying and succeeding in communicating a particular specific emotion or psychological state - most of whom (I think) are working within the film-writing genre. [Perhaps opera, musical theater are very much an exception to that.] But I don't personally know of any 'purely classical' composers who go about it that way.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

PetrB said:


> Because many, it seems clear, want or need extramusical explanations and associations -- that is their 'bent' as it were. I think that too, is from having received the (wrong) message that a person needs 'special information' in order to enjoy or appreciate 'classical music.' I don't care a flying fig if Chopin had a toothache when he wrote the fourth Ballade, yet many feel it more than edifying to their 'experience' of the piece. But, I, and others I know 'write' and both they and I have found 'what we write' often seems to have no immediate connection to the present emotion(s) or circumstance(s) we sit in as we first have the idea or later work on it....
> 
> OF COURSE, something 'expressive' will come out if one is at all musical and has any degree of craft. I think the notion that composers sit down to specifically 'express' something, or intentionally think to 'move the listener' in a specific emotional direction is a confabulation of combined and cartoonish and Hollywood-like notions of the late romantics, and also comes from the attachment of lyric to music, especially from the pop music genres.
> 
> Sure, there are composers who think and believe, perhaps succeed, in designating, specifying and succeeding in communicating a particular specific emotion or psychological state - most of whom (I think) are working within the film-writing genre. I don't personally know of any 'purely classical' composers who go about it that way.


You have to be kidding me (no offense). What about opera, then? And why do so many pieces have popular titles that are specific to their extra-musical references? I would argue that that was a big part of what "purely classical" composers did. I had listened to The Trout just yesterday, so bear with me you guys for mentioning Schubert so many times to make a point, because it's still fresh on my mind. There are actual characters in it, intended to be represented by the parts. It should be obvious who plays the part of the trout: the piano.

Sorry if I've sounded like a broken record today. Once I've ingested some other piece that I can't get out of my head, I guess I'll start talking about some other composer to make points, then.


----------



## Guest (Oct 28, 2012)

some guy said:


> Probably scorn, derision, and incredulity are not the most useful tools for understanding something new (to you) or strange (to you). They are more useful for reinforcing prejudices.
> 
> Depends on what you want to accomplish, I guess.


Alas, it might seem to be the only tools some people have at their disposal!


----------



## Guest (Oct 28, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> You could always replace the words 'new' and 'strange' with 'boring' and 'predictable'. Why should one have to praise those qualities?


No one _has _to, it's just relevant to the OP. I presume that someguy, like me, took it that HC was inviting us to comment on something he found strange and new - how does one enjoy it? I don't think 'boring' or 'predictable' would be relevant words here (though HC might now lay claim to them!)



PetrB said:


> Sorry, whether it is on the base level of 'enjoyment' or for another purpose, a piece made entire of sound which needs any sort of 'verbiage' to help us access it is failing on its primary level and goal - as sound which communicates on its own.
> 
> If you've had to 'explain' the piece, its purpose, intent to me _in so many words_ then the piece is lacking.


Yet that is exactly what is often asserted here: "you'll appreciate the music so much more if you find out about it." Actually, I tend to agree that music should stand and fall on its own terms, but since it often doesn't, I was merely suggesting that before dismissing the unfamiliar out of hand, a little research might help. In any case, with 'art' becoming so multimedia, who's to say that 'music' must stand or fall on its own terms. It would seem that Merbow is not a mere musician!



Lukecash12 said:


> It's not about being hard to play, though. That's not the ideal. *The ideal is art.*


That old thing! I feel a Hanns Johst moment coming on! I misquote:



> When I hear the word art..., I release the safety on my Browning!


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> What listening "skills" are required? What knowledge? What else? If any.
> 
> Anybody care to speculate and or share?


Link doesn't work. There's just white noise.
GG


----------



## Guest (Oct 28, 2012)

GraemeG said:


> Link doesn't work. There's just white noise.
> GG


Ah, GG. If only you'd posted this right after the video. Or very shortly after.

There, this would have been truly funny.

Anyway, good try. Just too late.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

some guy said:


> Well, to counter Rapide's "none," I guess I could relate how I came to find Merzbow enjoyable.
> 
> My "knowledge" was years of listening to Varese and Cage and Mumma and Ashley and Lucier and Dockstader and Oliveros, among others. That knowledge makes it possible to plunge into Merzbow's sound world without much problem. I don't suggest, just by the way, that that's the only knowledge (or the only composers) that will allow you to listen to Merzbow without any problem. It was just my way.
> 
> ...


The essential idea in your points an be applied to any music not just Merzbow's. I am not convinced your reasons are sufficient to explain with regards to pure loud noise that is Merzbow.

The musician Merzbow appears to be a sado-maschist too. So we have a sexual pervert with questionable musical skills as well. I wonder if he plyas his music when he and his follows engage in these perverted activities.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Rapide said:


> The essential idea in your points an be applied to any music not just Merzbow's. I am not convinced your reasons are sufficient to explain with regards to pure loud noise that is Merzbow.
> 
> The musician Merzbow appears to be a sado-maschist too. So we have a sexual pervert with questionable musical skills as well. I wonder if he plyas his music when he and his follows engage in these perverted activities.


I have to say, and this coming from the perspective of someone who is seen as pretty conservative and religious, that it is healthy to acknowledge and appreciate these aspects of human nature as well. In my eyes it is just as valid a subject as any other for art, and even a more valid subject than a lot of others. Are you assuming he is a sado-masochist simply because his art tackles taboo subjects related to sex, or did you actually read somewhere that he is some sort of sado-masochist?


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Lukecash12 said:


> I have to say, and this coming from the perspective of someone who is seen as pretty conservative and religious, that it is healthy to acknowledge and appreciate these aspects of human nature as well. In my eyes it is just as valid a subject as any other for art, and even a more valid subject than a lot of others.


Sorry, which part - the Merzbow music or his sadomasichism?


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Rapide said:


> Sorry, which part - the Merzbow music or his sadomasichism?


The music which happens to choose sexuality as it's theme.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Lukecash12 said:


> The music which happens to choose sexuality as it's theme.


Yes interesting but if I wonder if the artisit here means anything in the noise? S&M is abnormal and extreme as far as I have read about and I wonder if the noise music reflects that.


----------



## Guest (Oct 28, 2012)

Any artist can be interested in S & M without being a sadomasochist themselves.

Constable was not a farmer, after all.

Art takes, or is free to take, any of life as subject matter. This gets a little problematic with music. Does Merzbow's music _depict_ sadomasochitic acts, or are those pictures in his booklets just pictures? In any case, music of all the arts is most itself. Even the most "programmatic" music is still abstract arrangements of pitches and rhythms.

Sure, paintings, even the most representative, are also abstract arrangements of pigments. But the subjects of paintings are clearly and unmistakably cows and apples and people. Music? Think of the storm in Strauss's _Alpine Symphony._ The quick little runs on the flutes are lightning? Hmmm. Takes a lot of imagination to take a run, an upward run at that, as lightning coming _down._ Whereas a white, jagged streak of paint looks unmistakably like a bolt of lightning. That Strauss. He really had me fooled there for awhile....


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

I don't understand why some people bother with Mozart, Beethoven, Ravel, and so on when simple and unorganized noise is enough beautiful for them as music. I could have listened to the car traffic instead of listening to Beethoven. I would have saved a lot of money and time this way.


----------



## Guest (Oct 28, 2012)

Renaissance said:


> I don't understand why some people bother with Mozart, Beethoven, Ravel, and so on when simple and unorganized noise is enough beautiful for them as music. I could have listened to the car traffic instead of listening to Beethoven. I would have saved a lot of money and time this way.


I don't think anyone has said that 'unorganised noise' is _enough _for them, but that they either find beauty in it or are willing to listen and consider what it value (if any) it does have for them, as well as value in M, B and R and many others.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Renaissance said:


> I don't understand why some people bother with Mozart, Beethoven, Ravel, and so on...


If it's a bother to you, then I don't understand why you do it either. I'm just having fun!


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Noise music by actual sado-masochistic pervert


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Rapide said:


> So we have a sexual pervert with questionable musical skills as well.


Just like Bruckner and Mozart 

Facetious comments aside, and a bit off topic, how does somebody's possible preference in sexual activity make them a pervert? Is that an insinuation that because somebody likes something you don't like, they must be unclean and just bad all-around?


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Erotic: using a feather, perverted: using the whole chicken.


----------



## Guest (Oct 28, 2012)

quack said:


> Noise music by actual sado-masochistic pervert


Hahahaha, excellent call, quack! The perfect complement to my "Constable was not a farmer."


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> Facetious comments aside, and a bit off topic, how does somebody's possible preference in sexual activity make them a pervert? Is that an insinuation that because somebody likes something you don't like, they must be unclean and just bad all-around?


You obviously do not engage in research. For Merzbow, if pornography represents the unconscious libido of a culture, he believes, then noise is the collective unconscious of its music. His pervert sexual practices and music go together. He has also composed music for sexual bondage films/pornography. It is not different to Marquis de Sade and his infamous deranged novel. Are you familiar with that? Perhaps not either. When art sinks down to this level, it is degenerate material.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Anybody care to speculate and or share?


I was thinking that this topic belonged in the non classical music section. I think this guy might relate to it though.


----------



## Guest (Oct 28, 2012)

It is quite a leap from this "For Merzbow, ...pornography represents the unconscious libido of a culture" to this "His pervert sexual practices." 

I'd be afraid of falling into the chasm if I tried such an enormous leap.

You're either very brave or just a dare-devil.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

quack said:


> Noise music by actual sado-masochistic pervert


Percy was not a "sado-masochistic pervert." He was merely a masochistic pervert. But in his favor:

- He donated his collection of whips and bloody shirts to the Percy Grainger Museum.
- He loved his mother. A lot.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

some guy said:


> It is quite a leap from this "For Merzbow, ...pornography represents the unconscious libido of a culture" to this "His pervert sexual practices."
> 
> I'd be afraid of falling into the chasm if I tried such an enormous leap.
> 
> You're either very brave or just a dare-devil.


Fact: Merzbow engages in S&M and bondage (read the internet pages).

Fact: Merzbow composed music for bondage films. Here is some of the music. No doubt you might enjoy the music below. In my opinion (as an artist too), this is degenerate material.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Oh dear, degenerate art, I don't see this discussion ending well.


----------



## Guest (Oct 28, 2012)

Well, I guess that means we shouldn't listen to any more Saint-Saens, then, especially the African pieces.

Nor should we listen to any more music by that pervert, Bruckner, with his strange fascination with dead bodies, particularly the burned ones.

Anyway, this line of arguing has gotten too silly for me. I'm a big fan of silly, but this is _too_ silly.

"Camelot. "Tis a silly place. Let's not go there."


----------



## Ravndal (Jun 8, 2012)

thx for introducing me to this guy. interesting stuff


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

some guy said:


> Well, I guess that means we shouldn't listen to any more Saint-Saens, then, especially the African pieces.
> 
> Nor should we listen to any more music by that pervert, Bruckner, with his strange fascination with dead bodies, particularly the burned ones.
> 
> ...


Bruckner did not compose his symphonies for necrophilias (if that is the right spelling).


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Rapide said:


> You obviously do not engage in research. For Merzbow, if pornography represents the unconscious libido of a culture, he believes, then noise is the collective unconscious of its music. His pervert sexual practices and music go together. He has also composed music for sexual bondage films/pornography. It is not different to Marquis de Sade and his infamous deranged novel. Are you familiar with that? Perhaps not either. When art sinks down to this level, it is degenerate material.


Could you kindly not bring puritanical garbage into our discussions on art? Kay, thanks.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> Could you kindly not bring puritanical garbage into our discussions on art? Kay, thanks.


I would advise you the same.


----------



## lukecubed (Nov 27, 2011)

S+M=perverts? Good grief--it's 2012 people. How are some of you managing to post all the way back from Victorian England?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

lukecubed said:


> S+M=perverts? Good grief--it's 2012 people. How are some of you managing to post all the way back from Victorian England?


2012 values are by definition better than 1912 values? Well, maybe we've gotten smarter since then! :lol:


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

KenOC said:


> 2012 values are by definition better than 1912 values? Well, maybe we've gotten smarter since then! :lol:


Well, depends on one's point of view, and also there's the fact that there really isn't enough unity in people's values to say there are THE values of 2012 or 1912. However, I think the fact that things seem to be progressing (though slowly) towards more freedoms for people, less bigotry having free-rain to cause suffering in the lives of various kinds of people, more people who are skeptical and think and deduce with reason, I think in some ways things are better than in 1912. But then again are we describing the entire world, or just select bits? There's parts of the world that may as well still be in the 1800s or earlier for how much social progress has been made.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

lukecubed said:


> S+M=perverts? Good grief--it's 2012 people. How are some of you managing to post all the way back from Victorian England?


Victorian England, ah them were the days.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Ramako said:


> Victorian England, ah them were the days.


Racism, women basically being little more than property of men, poor people living in far more retched conditions (in first world countries), gay rights in considerably worse shape (in first world countries). And Gilbert and Sullivan! Ah them were the days!


----------



## lukecubed (Nov 27, 2011)

KenOC said:


> 2012 values are by definition better than 1912 values? Well, maybe we've gotten smarter since then! :lol:


By definition? No. By specifics? Well lets see... we're less tolerant of racial, gender, and sexuality-based discrimination, though of course it still occurs. We no longer have a culture entirely bent on making people feel ashamed of their bodies and their desires. We no longer treat homosexuality as a mental disease that can be cured with shock therapy. The majority of the civilized world no longer executes criminals, though my homeland is an inglorious exception. Our science no longer endorses ridiculous assumptions like eugenics, craniology/phrenology, or racial types as fixed and logical boundaries. Plans for dealing with poverty no longer include sterilization. Lynchings are no longer accepted. Women are allowed to be employed and not feel ashamed about it. People are allowed to get out of marriages that aren't working. Some parts of the world even have child labor laws. There is still a rather sizable group of (white, male, angry) citizens in my country who would love to repeal all of this and point us back towards the middle ages, and there's still a tremendous amount of injustice and exploitation and ignorance that goes on, but, yeah, on the whole, I'm going to take 2012 over 1912, sorry.

And I wasn't even talking about them being better--I was simply pointing out that, like it or not, it's when we are. When I read a statement like "degenerate music" written in all seriousness by someone who doesn't work for PRAVDA in 1948, I can only laugh.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> Racism, women basically being little more than property of men, poor people living in far more retched conditions (in first world countries), gay rights in considerably worse shape (in first world countries). And Gilbert and Sullivan! Ah them were the days!


I was being somewhat sarcastic (because obviously there was a lot wrong then) but also there is also a lot wrong now. Victorian England is generally used as an ideologically-laden word with a meaningless accusatorial quality. One day, probably, they will talk about us like that, and quite probably for those same causes that some of us hold most dear.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

lukecubed said:


> ...but, yeah, on the whole, I'm going to take 2012 over 1912, sorry.


And so would many, of course. You have listed a jumble of values and practices; some of the latter may be value-related, others not. But sticking to the values:

- You have listed them but made no attempt to show they are better than those of 1912.
- Overall, the shift (as you have it) is to greater tolerance for some things, less tolerance for others.
- Your list seems slanted to the left end of the spectrum, and many of these values are not universally shared. Some may even be in the minority.

I would guess that a person in 1912, seeing your list and fully understanding it, might be even more horrified than you are, looking backward. So my question isn't which set of values you prefer, but why you seem to think that a specific set of values is "right." BTW, the term "degenerate art" was probably more commonly used in fascist Germany. The usual term in Stalin's Soviet Union was "formalist art."


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

KenOC said:


> ...BTW, the term "degenerate art" was probably more commonly used in fascist Germany. The usual term in Stalin's Soviet Union was "formalist art."


They both basically meant the same thing in practice: music we don't like. Or composers we don't like. Or styles we don't like. Its a catch-all arbitrary term to justify the worst types of repression.

Other than that, as regards the noise music genre, I am not a fan of it as I made clear in this thread I did relating to it a while back:
http://www.talkclassical.com/19318-byo-earplugs.html

I said what I said on that thread, but its just my opinion. People can enjoy whatever music they enjoy. If this music offers some people enjoyment, they have a right to enjoy it.


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

I would think people who enjoy that music enjoy it the same way everyone enjoys the music they enjoy.

It scratches them where they itch.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> What listening "skills" are required? What knowledge? What else? If any...Anybody care to speculate and or share?


When confronted with this music, first I decided to be informed as to the artist, and then, any titles or text. It turns out that there is an extensive article on this Japanese artist in *WIK:*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merzbow

As I suspected, the name *"Merzbow"* is based on German artist *Kurt Schwitters' "Merzbau,"* the strange interior environment he created by modifying a house. It was destroyed during WWII by bombing, and exists only as photos. Schwitters also produced exquisitely-composed collages made from bits of debris he found on walks through Berlin.

So, first off, anybody who names themselves after Kurt Schwitters is paying homage to one of my favorite abstract artists.

Next, the title:
*venereology* |vəˌni(ə)rēˈäləjē|
noun
the branch of medicine concerned with venereal diseases.

Hmm, this is a harrowing subject, so the "music" seems appropriate: negative and destructive in effect, like the subject.

In *WIK,* we find that this artist has made over 350 CD releases, so this YouTube clip is only the tip of a_ much larger iceberg._ Also, by his inclusion in WIK, it is obvious that this is a serious artist with enough recognition to warrant entry in WIK; not an obscure fringe figure or dilettante..

WIK descibed him as a _"noise artist," _and this newer designation is one which grew out of electronic music. The 6-volume *"Anthology of Noise and Electronic Music"* includes tracks by him.

Back to the questions *"...What listening "skills" are required? What knowledge? What else?,"* the answer is, perhaps,_ none of the above._ The music exists as an *"absurd" object,* unto itself, which is a very "Japanese" way of looking at things. 
The music/noise seems to ask _nothing_ from us; _it simply exists as we hear it._ Merzbow calls himself a "noise artist," so *this does not pretend to be "music" in any conventional sense; *_it seems we have crossed the threshold of "avant garde music" into the realm of "noise" as "conceptual art."_

Once again, for 99% of listeners, *the obstacle will be lack of understanding/knowledge and inability or refusal to approach "new" art.*

*"...What listening "skills" are required? What knowledge? What else?,"* imply that none are required, and that this music requires no intelligence or awareness. Since, as I said, the noise/music here exists as an *"absurd object," *those questions are rendered moot and irrelevant, and posing such questions reveals a basic disconnect and refusal to engage; *indeed, the music seems to question the very notion of "engagement" with art, and seems to be purposely alienating and "opaque."*

Unlike HarpsichordConcerto, I do not approach art in a shallow or dismissive manner, and simply "throwing it in our face" out of context is indicative of a refusal on his part to engage with this art.

Whether or not I "like it" is too simplistic; I'm pleased that it exists, and I do not feel my mindset "theatened" by it, nor do I feel compelled to denigrate it or hold it forth as an "example" of all the things I am "opposed" to. Conflict of this sort, as exemplified by this provocative thread, is indicative of unrest, insecurity, dissatisfaction, and the need to "prove" and justify one's own views.

HarpsichordConcerto's need to express his opinion on his inability or refusal to engage with the art confronting him is the real subject of this thread, not the "noise music" presented. 
I'll admit, this noise is challenging, but it is intended to be, knowing what I now know about this artist.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I would say that this video is a fantastic example of the "deferred pleasure principle"... All of the potential pleasure inherent in this video clip is deferred until after the stop button is pushed.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

bigshot said:


> Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.


Y_es, it's "noise," even the "noise artist" does not dispute that. Where do you go from there?_

"Why are you hitting yourself on the head with that hammer?"

"Because it feels so good when I stop!":lol::lol:


----------



## Guest (Jan 28, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> the "music" seems appropriate: negative and destructive in effect, like the subject.


Mostly fine with your response, million, but this is just wrong I think. Certainly it plays into the hands of those who want this music not to exist.

I always think of Dvořák's _Noonday Witch_ when I read this kind of thing. (It's significant that people from both sides use it. The anti's use it to criticize; the pro's use it to justify. It's wrong either way, I think. (It's my primary beef with Ross's _The Rest is Noise._))

Listen to _Noonday Witch._ Pretty, eh? Nice, romantic Dvořák. Easy, familiar music.

Now read the story, if you didn't already know it. Pretty horrible, eh? So where's the too simplistic one to one story:notes ratio here? Well, it's nowhere, where it's always been.

And nowhere is where "negative and destructive in effect" is in Merzbow's _Venereology._ Besides, he has produced a lot of stuff (not sure about the 350--wiki mentions the 50 CD set). What about _Frog,_ for instance? It's just as loud, just as abrasive as _Venereology._ How would one go about describing frogs as "negative and destructive"? Oh, right, the plagues in Egypt. But does Merzbow's _Frog_ have anything to do with Moses?

No.

Just as a personal addendum, I have been listening to Merzbow for a couple of decades now, since the late eighties, and I have never found his music to be negative or destructive. Powerful and exhilarating, sure thing. Maybe some other things too, but negative and destructive? Nah. I was driving my youngest son down to visit a friend in San Diego one fine day in the nineties. I put some Merzbow on for the drive. Might have even been _Venereology._ After awhile, I noticed that he'd gone to sleep. When he woke up at his friend's house, he said, "Merzbow is really soothing, isn't it dad?"

Haha! "Yes, yes he is, son!"


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> those who want this music not to exist


Are there many of them, in your opinion?

I know there's a lot of people who don't want to hear it, and who don't want to consider it "good" or "classical" or even "music," but wanting it not to exist is a _much_ more intense hostility.


----------



## Guest (Jan 28, 2013)

Yes.

They want it banned from the concert halls; they want it banned from the radio; they want it out of their record stores; they want it gone, for everyone.

They have succeeded* already with items one and two, and pretty much in three as well. I sincerely hope they never succeed in the fourth!

*Although many think they have failed so long as there's still Britten and Janáček being performed in symphony hall.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> Yes.
> 
> They want it banned from the concert halls; they want it banned from the radio; they want it out of their record stores; they want it gone, for everyone.
> 
> ...


Well, I suppose I'm less concerned because the concert hall and radio don't mean much to me. As for the record stores (or at this point, the mp3 vendors), I assume they'll try to sell me anything I want to buy.


----------



## vertigo (Jan 9, 2013)

I found this interesting...

Noise music
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Noise music is a category consisting of multiple discrete genres of music that have employed noise as a musical resource.[1]
It includes a wide range of musical styles, and sound based creative practices, that feature noise as a primary aspect. It can feature acoustically or electronically generated noise, and both traditional and unconventional musical instruments. It may incorporate live machine sounds, non-musical vocal techniques, physically manipulated audio media, processed sound recordings, field recordings, computer generated noise, stochastic processes and other randomly produced electronic signals such as distortion, feedback, static, hiss and hum. There may also be emphasis on high volume levels and lengthy, continuous pieces. More generally noise music may contain aspects such as improvisation, extended technique, cacophony and indeterminacy, and in many instances conventional use of melody, harmony, rhythm and pulse is often dispensed with.[2][3][4][5]
The Futurist art movement was important for the development of the noise aesthetic, as was the Dada art movement (a prime example being the Antisymphony concert performed on April 30, 1919 in Berlin),[6][7] and later the Surrealist and Fluxus art movements, specifically the Fluxus artists Joe Jones, Yasunao Tone, George Brecht, Robert Watts, Wolf Vostell, Yoko Ono, Nam June Paik, Walter De Maria's Ocean Music, Milan Knížák's Broken Music Composition, early LaMonte Young and Takehisa Kosugi.[8]
Contemporary noise music is often associated with extreme volume and distortion.[9] In the avant rock domain examples include Jimi Hendrix's use of feedback, Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music and Sonic Youth.[10] *Other examples of music that contain noise-based features include works by Iannis Xenakis, * Stockhausen, Helmut Lachenmann, Cornelius Cardew, Theatre of Eternal Music, Rhys Chatham, Ryoji Ikeda, Survival Research Laboratories, Whitehouse, Cabaret Voltaire, Psychic TV, Blackhouse, Jean Tinguely's recordings of his sound sculpture (specifically Bascule VII), the music of Hermann Nitsch's Orgien Mysterien Theater, and La Monte Young's bowed gong works from the late 1960s.[11] Genres such as industrial, industrial techno, lo-fi music, black metal, sludge metal and glitch music employ noise-based materials.[12][13][14]


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

some guy said:


> Yes.
> 
> They want it banned from the concert halls; they want it banned from the radio; they want it out of their record stores; they want it gone, for everyone.


It seems you're assigning intent to what is pretty much a Darwinian process. "Blame" really doesn't apply.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

KenOC said:


> It seems you're assigning intent to what is pretty much a Darwinian process. "Blame" really doesn't apply.


Maybe on the radio, I don't know. But I guess we both know there's a lot of politics behind the concert hall. So if it's Darwinian, it's at any rate not merely "natural" selection.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

science said:


> Maybe on the radio, I don't know. But I guess we both know there's a lot of politics behind the concert hall. So if it's Darwinian, it's at any rate not merely "natural" selection.


I think that even in the concert hall, beyond whatever games are played, there's a Prime Directive: Fill those seats!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

KenOC said:


> I think that even in the concert hall, beyond whatever games are played, there's a Prime Directive: Fill those seats!


Ah, that's probably true. I have no firsthand knowledge so I'll defer. I wonder though, how much pull big donors have?

I have a little firsthand knowledge of some politics at a certain university, where the musicians and audience both would probably be a little less conservative if not for big donors who're concerned to preserve Western civilization as they know it.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

science said:


> Ah, that's probably true. I have no firsthand knowledge so I'll defer. I wonder though, how much pull big donors have?
> 
> I have a little firsthand knowledge of some politics at a certain university, where the musicians and audience both would probably be a little less conservative if not for big donors who're concerned to preserve Western civilization as they know it.


Big donors have a lot of pull, at least in the concert all. Whether they are more or less "conservative" than mainline municipal audiences (as opposed to universities) is a question I can't answer. From the programming on classical FM, where big donors don't have the same degree of influence, I'd guess that audience conservatism is quite sufficient in itself.


----------



## Guest (Jan 28, 2013)

Perhaps Ken would like to explain why symphony orchestras in the U.S. are losing money all the time. Symphonies go bankrupt every time you turn around. And they're all struggling financially.

Their strategies for getting bums in the seats are failing.

Avoiding "atonal" music, avoiding even any hint of newness, even if the new thing is a hundred years old, doesn't seem to be working.

Playing a fairly limited set of warhorses isn't working. 

Hiring a fairly limited set of stars isn't working.

Sandwiching tepid "new" pieces inbetween warhorses isn't working.

Doing cross-over shows with jazz and Hollywood artists isn't working.

Fail, fail, fail.

A failure of nerve, a failure of education, a failure of engagement.

Darwin really doesn't enter into it.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

Just caught up with this thread. That "work" sounds to me like the type of nightmare "music" a future soldier experiencing post traumatic stress syndrome would hear in his sleep, replete with cyber sounding machine guns and white noise on some apocalyptic battlefield he or she has had to endure and now cannot escape, even/especially in their sleep.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

some guy said:


> Perhaps Ken would like to explain why symphony orchestras in the U.S. are losing money all the time. Symphonies go bankrupt every time you turn around. And they're all struggling financially.
> 
> Their strategies for getting bums in the seats are failing.
> 
> ...


So muni orchestras should program more "atonal" music and the halls would be overflowing? Somehow this seems unlikely. Sadly, even Darwin can't save all species!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

some guy said:


> Mostly fine with your response, million, but this is just wrong I think. Certainly it plays into the hands of those who want this music not to exist.
> 
> And nowhere is where "negative and destructive in effect" is in Merzbow's _Venereology._ Besides, he has produced a lot of stuff (not sure about the 350--wiki mentions the 50 CD set). What about _Frog,_ for instance? It's just as loud, just as abrasive as _Venereology._ How would one go about describing frogs as "negative and destructive"? Oh, right, the plagues in Egypt. But does Merzbow's _Frog_ have anything to do with Moses?...No.
> 
> ...


Well, you're right; I was just offering that as a possible aesthetic interpretation for those who might grasp at that straw. Lou Reed's "Metal Machine Music" has a similar effect on me; oddly soothing. But that still leaves the question: why did he choose the title "Venereology?" Also, I hear little fragments of screaming in there. I'm sticking with my initial impression of "negative and destructive" hypothesis, even though I know it's not provable as being "correct;" after all, this is art.
Samurai's post (above) seems to bear this out; this is not Brahms' lullabye!

Overall,I'd say this is a very successful thread, and I think we have shed a lot of light on this subject of "noise music."


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Merzbow (first time I have come across this) - that's just horrible stuff! I don't blame anyone for disliking that noise!

And I don't think the OP is actually wanting to ban the music/not engage with it as some generalisations have suggested. The fact that a thread has been started and questions raised, suggests to me that, instead of silently rejecting the music like most listeners would, questions are asked about how to approach the music.

I mean really - who in the right mind would want to listen to noise like this? It really is just garbage.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

science said:


> Well, I suppose I'm less concerned because the concert hall and radio don't mean much to me. As for the record stores (or at this point, the mp3 vendors), I assume they'll try to sell me anything I want to buy.


haha! Don't worry about the record stores, my friends. They can stock as much Merzbow as they like and can physically shelf but let the customers decide if they want to buy the music!! I would be surprised if they can make long run sustained profits!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Rapide said:


> Merzbow (first time I have come across this) - that's just horrible stuff! I don't blame anyone for disliking that noise!..And I don't think the OP is actually wanting to ban the music/not engage with it as some generalisations have suggested. The fact that a thread has been started and questions raised, suggests to me that, instead of silently rejecting the music like most listeners would, questions are asked about how to approach the music....I mean really - who in the right mind would want to listen to noise like this? It really is just garbage.


That's a perfect response to this noise, Rapide! I'm sure the artist would be very pleased. I'm serious; this is just absurd noise, on one level. I managed to milk a nice post out of it, though, so if my "beautiful mind" has seen it worthy of consideration, even as noise, it is redeemed!
I'm glad stuff like this exists; it's like epsom salts, and draws out all sorts of toxins!


----------



## vertigo (Jan 9, 2013)

Rapide said:


> You obviously do not engage in research. For Merzbow, if pornography represents the unconscious libido of a culture, he believes, then noise is the collective unconscious of its music. His pervert sexual practices and music go together. He has also composed music for sexual bondage films/pornography. It is not different to Marquis de Sade and his infamous deranged novel. Are you familiar with that? Perhaps not either. When art sinks down to this level, it is degenerate material.





Rapide said:


> Merzbow (first time I have come across this) - that's just horrible stuff! I don't blame anyone for disliking that noise!
> 
> And I don't think the OP is actually wanting to ban the music/not engage with it as some generalisations have suggested. The fact that a thread has been started and questions raised, suggests to me that, instead of silently rejecting the music like most listeners would, questions are asked about how to approach the music.
> 
> I mean really - who in the right mind would want to listen to noise like this? It really is just garbage.


I sense a lot of unsatisfied sexual fantasies and repressed anger.


----------



## Guest (Jan 29, 2013)

KenOC said:


> So muni orchestras should program more "atonal" music and the halls would be overflowing?


Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

Not.

Nice try, though.

(Haha. Also "not.")

The dilemma orchestras face is not a simple one. There is no straightforward solution. But programming newer music might bring in a different audience. Part of the situation is that programming is held hostage, not so much by aging audiences as by music directors' perception of what those audiences will accept or not. And not even so much perception as fear.

Of course a situation in which you're making decisions based on fear are going to be losing situations.

In any event, playing more new music is not something anyone has really, seriously tried, yet. It could hardly make the situation any worse. And what if it worked?

Art museums looked at modernism in the early twentieth century and decided to go for it, all stops out. Symphony orchestras looked at modernism and decided to avoid it. Art museums made out like bandits. Symphony orchestras did OK until their old audiences started to do what old people do from time to time. Namely die. And the umpteenth performance of Beethoven's ninth (lovely though that piece is) just isn't bringing in anyone to replace the dead ones. That much we do know. (And that much, as Ken very well knows, is all I was saying in my previous post.)

It's probably too late for symphony orchestras, but what the heck? If you've hit bottom, you've nothing to lose. If you've nothing to lose, you are free to be as adventurous as you like. Maybe it's time for some adventure. The people who already hate it when the orchestra plays Hindemith and Britten and Janáček, will stay away even more. With some enthusiastic publicity, you might replace those people with some new folks, who will like those three old guys and some younger composers as well. Perhaps concerts with new music will come to be seen as the concerts to attend, again.

It could happen. Monkeys could fly out [the post inexplicably breaks off at this point]


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

vertigo said:


> I sense a lot of unsatisfied sexual fantasies and repressed anger.


:lol: Though I am not suffering from vertigo due to weakness in perception.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> That's a perfect response to this noise, Rapide! I'm sure the artist would be very pleased. I'm serious; this is just absurd noise, on one level. I managed to milk a nice post out of it, though, so if my "beautiful mind" has seen it worthy of consideration, even as noise, it is redeemed!
> I'm glad stuff like this exists; it's like epsom salts, and draws out all sorts of toxins!


I think you are right. As long as nobody is getting hurt (maybe except a case of tinnitus from long term listening), it makes an interesting scene that we have noise-music! (And the audience is probably so small in numbers relatively speaking, that what difference does it make on anything, anyway).


----------



## vertigo (Jan 9, 2013)

Rapide said:


> :lol: Though I am not suffering from vertigo due to weakness in perception.


My perception is perfectly fine. 
There is no justification in calling "perverted" the sexual practices between consenting adults, whatever those may be.
You seem unable to grasp this concept.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

vertigo said:


> My perception is perfectly fine.
> There is no justification in calling "perverted" the sexual practices between consenting adults, whatever those may be.
> You seem unable to grasp this concept.


Oh that - the quote came from Wikipaedia. I thought it was interesting that someone wrote it.


----------



## vertigo (Jan 9, 2013)

Rapide said:


> Oh that - the quote came from Wikipaedia. I thought it was interesting that someone wrote it.


You must have confused "perverted" with some other word which in your mind is a synonym.
I find it hard to believe Wikipedia calls him "perverted".


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

vertigo said:


> You must have confused "perverted" with some other word which in your mind is a synonym.
> I find it hard to believe Wikipedia calls him "perverted".


How old are you?


----------



## vertigo (Jan 9, 2013)

Rapide said:


> How old are you?


How about you quote that wikipedia article.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Quack's 3rd Law of the Internet: Anyone who quotes a Wikipedia article to prove their point has already lost the argument.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I think the idea of making something more popular by giving the audience more of what it doesn't want is an unique idea. Perhaps if modern composers made music that people wanted to hear there wouldn't be a problem in the first place. The thing lacking is the music, not the orchestras and audience.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

As a former big fan of Einstürzende Neubauten, I really enjoyed that clip.


----------



## Guest (Jan 29, 2013)

bigshot said:


> I think the idea of making something more popular by giving the audience more of what it doesn't want is an unique idea. Perhaps if modern composers made music that people wanted to hear there wouldn't be a problem in the first place. The thing lacking is the music, not the orchestras and audience.


Actually, the idea of a homogenous audience with predictable wants is what is unique.

And even though there may actually be a majority of individuals in any audience that want the same thing (though no one, that I know of, has ever tried to verify this unique idea), there are always people in any audience who want different things.

In Haydn's time (you remember Haydn, right? Austrian boy. One of the "big three" of the "classical era."), concerts gave the audience everything that it wanted, that is, they gave every member of the audience something that that person could enjoy. It gave people chamber works, it gave people opera arias, it gave people symphonic works, it gave people popular tunes. Something for everyone, all in the same program, which was called a miscellany, and which persisted well into the nineteenth century in the face of the increasingly exclusionary concerts characteristic of that century.

And while "audience" can be grammatically referred to as an "it," and while audiences since Beethoven's time have been split into increasingly homogenized groups--chamber audiences, opera audiences, symphony audiences, new music audiences (yes, Virginia, new music concerts started in the nineteenth century), pop audiences--it is still true that all audiences are still made up of individuals with different tastes and different wants.

Which of those individuals is the "modern composer" going to try to please? *And if she pleases me and not you, has she failed?*

Reality check number one. If modern composers made music that (the vast majority of) people wanted to hear, they would be writing for Justin Bieber and Taylor Swift.

Reality check number two. Symphony concerts do not feature new music, anyway. It's largely music by European males who are long dead. The occasional recent piece (which sounds as if it could have been written a century ago or more, more than likely) does not in any way invalidate that generalization. The (portion of) the audience represented by bigshot (and Ramako, too, apparently) is already getting exactly what it wants, Beethoven, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Saint-Saens, maybe a little Mozart (not too much--the Posthorn is about twenty, twenty-five minutes too much).

My most memorable experience from last season at the Oregon Symphony was watching a patron go ballistic in the lobby because the orchestra had performed Britten's _Four Sea Interludes._ It had given her a raging headache, and she threatened to complain to the board. She wanted to force the symphony to never play Britten (or any other "modern" music--you know, like Janáček) ever again. And it didn't matter to her that another patron standing right beside her listening to her rant said "Well, I liked it."

No, what people who say "composers should write what the audience wants" are really saying is that "composers should write what _I_ want (and never mind what anyone else in the audience wants)."


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

some guy said:


> My most memorable experience from last season at the Oregon Symphony was watching a patron go ballistic in the lobby because the orchestra had performed Britten's _Four Sea Interludes._ It had given her a raging headache, and she threatened to complain to the board. She wanted to force the symphony to never play Britten (or any other "modern" music--you know, like Janáček) ever again. And it didn't matter to her that another patron standing right beside her listening to her rant said "Well, I liked it."


There have been several discussions on TC about potentially increasing (or at least not decreasing) revenue with more new music at concerts. Some people worry that new/modern music will drive customers away while others feel that maybe new/modern music would help the bottom line. As you and others have said, certain audience members are rather vocal about their distaste for the new stuff. Maybe the problem is that those who want the new music are not vocal enough. As they say, "The squeaky wheel gets the grease."

Of course, donors may speak louder than those who "simply" attend concerts, but I wonder if orchestras could cultivate new/modern music lovers with big bucks.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

An interesting thread which actually provided little positive answers as far as the OP was concerned except tonnes of predictable philosophical posts, but the sad fact for Merzbow is one needs some Marijuana to about to be delusional enough to enjoy the noise. Only at Talk Classical.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

I like much of Merzbow's older (80s and 90s) work, and I do not need mind altering substances in order to do so.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Rapide said:


> An interesting thread which actually provided little positive answers as far as the OP was concerned except tonnes (sic) of predictable philosophical posts...


Next time, you should do some research, then listen. Then at least you'll be more qualified to tell us about it.



Rapide said:


> ...but the sad fact for Merzbow is one needs some Marijuana to about to be delusional enough to enjoy the noise. Only at Talk Classical.


Oh, that sounds like those "Brahms bombers" I used to roll, before sitting through his _Academic Festival Overture._


----------

