Noise

My friend Alex Chiu and I played some music a couple of nights ago, and things went really well. He plays violin and sings a little bit, and I was playing with a synth, and we made some very loud, very long soundscapes, with a whole lot of static, reading out of a French phrase book, and playing a kalimba with a scissors. It was stuff that most people would probably hate. This makes me wonder why that is.

First possible response: it doesn't make sense. The probable rational for this would be that there is no structure to what we're doing, because for music to make "sense" (to a listener at least) having some sort of structure is important. My defense is that, even if it doesn't make sense aurally, the concept of music without  structure is an artistically important one to pursue, as it stands in opposition to the accepted norm, and pushing far beyond the norms is what art is often all about. I'm not taking credit for this idea, just restating it as a relevant argument.

Second possible response: it doesn't sound good, or it is not easy to listen to. I'm not well-enough-read on aesthetic philosophy to make a valid counter argument, but I can say from experience that a whole lot of art doesn't look good or isn't easy to understand, but is still of high quality. Easy recent example: The Counterfeiters is not an easy to watch film, but is of extremely high quality, and pushes challenging questions (in this case of morality) on the viewer. Art is supposed to affect those who view or listen to it, and repulsion or confusion are both strong feelings, far stronger than those of relaxation or comfort conjured up by the latest four chord alternapop jam. (Personally, I love relaxing music, because life is pretty hectic right now, but I try to find such relaxation in beautiful, serene musics that are well written, theoretically interesting, or that offer a counterpoint to the more chaotic sounds I enjoy. Easy listening can be a powerful tool if you frame it with chaos.)

Third possible response: it's just noise. No thought goes in, nothing interesting comes out. Defending this is easy, as noise is generally defined as "unwanted sound," as is evidenced by the common use of phrases like "signal to noise ratio" by recording technicians. This could fall apart as a semantic argument, but if it's intentional, it's not noise. If you are watching tv and it goes to the black and white specks with the loud static instead of Planet Earth, that is both visual and audio noise. If you decide to use the same sound to introduce a guitar part on a rock record, it's sound/music/signal/what you want/not noise. As to no thought going in and nothing interesting going out...well if not thought went in, nothing would come out, because producing sound requires conscious action. The term interesting can be a bit messy, but this is basically a matter of opinion. If a listener does not care to be challenged or to look at the bigger picture, beyond what the sound waves are shaped like, then sure, it's not very interesting. If he or she is looking to expand his or her horizons, or is curious about raw, on the spot artistic creation, then this kind of music is very very interesting.

I'm part of the latter crowd on that last point, and we'll be recording it the next time we do it, so that you can decide for yourself.