language & terminology of experimental sound?

[FreakAnimalFinland]

Perhaps unnecessary and geeky topic to start, but as "journalist" and person who talk about things probably 90% of time with non-native language, it seems sometimes pretty hard task to discuss on matters which are close to.. abstraction? How one can communicate about thing as "harsh noise" or power electronics for example, where things like "raw", "loud", "brutal", "sick", "innovative", "harsh", etc tell very little. And same text written of one artist may be valid for another, even if it sounds completely different.

There must be some language what carries certain weight of meaning, where "bleak industrial noise with dense layering" will tell about specific sound, and not about "whatever".

Already years ago Soddy introduced his harsh noise criteria, where this pretty limited genre was being dissected into handful of dominating elements, by which you can pretty much valuate the type of sound. If someone hasn't seen it yet, I'll include it below.
To me, it seems very interesting, and also I've seen it in use. Like the observation of seeminly identical Thirdorgan noise tapes, which are carefully analyzed by these criterias (+ written text).

I do question possibility of expanding the idea to wider range of experimental sound, but I am slightly bored with many of the "crackling fuzz of black mud flooring guttural wolf howls into void of inferno", where you just wonder what does it mean, and most of all, just conclusion it just doesn't mean anything and doesn't make any sense in first place.

I would guess that many genres, if isolated from larger context, could be dissected into similar criterias. PE. Ambient. Death industrial. Electro Acoustic. Field Recordings. etc.  Don't know how necessary it would be, but in nerdy way, I feel slightly tempted....

This is an idea I`ve toyed with for more than a few years now: to measure noise based on a few fixed criteria. Namely, harshness, density, rawness, craftsmanship, spasticity, harmonicaness. (details below)

It`s something I meant to post to alt.noise a while back. I didn`t because I was chickenshit. I decided that the rather arbitrary notion of "fixed criteria" would collapse under the cumbersome tide of outraged criticism, and be consigned forever to rot in the bowels of a bottomless flamepit. So I copped out with an open survey-style question: "Describe noise in five to eight words".

For results of the bogus survey, go here:

the science of noise, part 1

The survey results, however, in more recent hindsight, support what I`ve always felt: that most of us listen to noise for the same reasons, and are usually listening for the same damn thing.
Noise is, before anything else, a word. A word implies a limit. If we can have a limit, we can have a fixed analytical system.

The following are the categories I think would serve noise best:

Harshess. The overall sound pressure and intensity. The degree to which the sound consistently assaults the ear. The literal, physical effect on the listener`s ability to hear, both in the immediate and the forseeable future. Hearing aids, anyone? Incapacitants score high in this area, MSBR not so high.

Density. The overall depth and complexity. The degree to which the abysmal depths of noise are both hinted at and permeated. The sense of being sucked into a bottomless chasm of unimaginable diversity and motion. Skin Crime scores it big, early Masonna barely registers.

Rawness. The logical extension of a savagely twisted no-fi obsession, and the grim, brutal, barebones honesty that goes with it. Mutilated meatgrinder grit. Mangled tapehead fidelity. Burned out saturated flatulence. Knurl and early Prurient take this particular taco.

Craftsmanship. The demonstrated technique and skill, time and effort, preparing and/or performing. The extent to which the seemingly effortless flow and fluidity fools the puny brain into perceiving a "musical" context. Compositional factors may also weigh in: editing, layering, mixing, composing. Kazumoto Endo and Sickness get top marks.

Spasticity. The vertiginous sense of displacement and disorientation. The extent to which the warped noisebrain is fucked with, and rendered senseless, dazed, drunken pulp. Fresh and spontaneous whiplash nervesnap. Synaptic gaps ad stupidum. Can`t put your finger on it? Can`t get your bearings? Ready to give up and call it "noise"? All right then. Gomikawa Fumio at ya.

Harmonicaness. The world of drone. The mostly uncontrollable interplay of undertones and overtones which gently, but firmly, convey the drowsy attention span deep into the slumbering heart of Never Never Land. CCCC and early Stimbox are definite frontrunners.

There`s a fair bit of overlap, but I`m hardly suggesting this to be an exact science. Call it another tool in the eternal quest to locate the shit you wanna hear.

Here are examples of superior noise product subjected to these criteria:

Incapacitants - No Progress (Alchemy)
Harshness 10
Density 7.5
Rawness 7
Craftsmanship 5.5
Spasticity 3
Harmonicaness 8

Masonna - shinsen na clitoris (Vanilla)
Harshness 9
Density 2
Rawness 7.5
Craftsmanship 6
Spasticity 9.5
Harmonicaness 3

Gasolineman - born in the high octane fuel (out)
Harshness 9
Density 4.5
Rawness 5
Craftsmanship 7.5
Spasticity 10
Harmonicaness 1

Metrocide / Analog Weapon (23 Productions)
Harshness Metrocide 9 / Analog Weapon 8
Density Metrocide 7 / Analog Weapon 6.5
Rawness Metrocide 5.5 / Analog Weapon 7.5
Crafstmanship Metrocide 8 / Analog Weapon 6
Spasticity Metrocide 6.5 / Analog Weapon 7.5
Harmonicaness Metrocide 7.5 / Analog Weapon 2.5

The Rita / Kevin Rivard - Shin Health (self released)
Harshness 7.5
Density 4.5
Rawness 10
Craftsmanship 6
Spasticity 8
Harmonicaness 4

Mathausen Orchestra - Bloodyminded (?)
Harshness 6.5
Density 5
Rawness 8.5
Craftsmanship 4.5
Spasticity 3
Harmonicaness 7.5

Yellow Cab - s/t (GROSS)
Harshness 9.5
Density 7
Rawness 6
Craftsmanship 6.5
Spasticity 8
Harmonicaness 6.5

Killer Bug - Steaming Gash (b/b)
Harshness 10
Density 7
Rawness 2.5
Craftsmanship 8.5
Spasticity 8.5
Harmonicaness 8.5

Note: I initially meant for this system to be used as a supplement to legitimate reviews, and NOT to replace reviews proper. In my vision: "The busy noiseperv glances at the scores... vaguely interested or curious (though more probably merely offended), the perv reads the spew to follow..."

Therefore, I do not recommend that anyone, save yours truly, actually consider trying to apply the critical system I`ve outlined. Harshness, Density, Rawness, Craftsmanship, Spasticity, Harmonicaness. These are the categories that serve my noise vision best. They are unlikely to fit other individual noise visions quite so snugly. If you think that people are not taking your reviews seriously enough, then feel free to develop your own arbitrary set of relevant criteria. It could very well save the reader his or her precious time. And that`s all that matters, really.

All flames welcome.

[bitewerksMTB]

I remember Soddy reviewing the comp THE RITA did dedicated to Incapacitants & my track was the only one (I think) that received a 10 for rawness or something related to nasty atmosphere?  He definitely has a clue about what he's reviewing & not simply stating how "Amazing" everyone is.

Descript's for noise are annoying. I totally ignore them & just take opinions from the few people I trust.

[heretogo]

I'm not so sure about the usefulness of such a scoring system. I understand the appeal and as a personal "notebook system" it probably works fine. Problem is, how to universally assign scores like 6.5/10 and 7/10 for a single category? Let's say we have a full-length album, something where the basic ingredients of the sound change and don't stay constant for the full duration. How do I take the 10/10 rawness of the first 5 minutes into account if the rest of the album (30 min) is less so (say, 5/10). Is it just the arithmetic mean ((5+10)/2 = 7.5 /10) of these two values? Or should I weigh the values based on their duration (5*10/35 + 30*5/35 = 5.5 / 10 (rounded to nearest half))? Which of these would be more accurate? Maybe one should use scores like 1/3 instead? But then the scale becomes too crude to capture any subtleties. To me it seems just as arbitrary as describing something as "a screech-fest of humongous proportions, a vile distillate of gang-rape in a back alley at 4 AM".

For a sub-genre like harsh-noise such division into few elements still works sort of ok. But how to do it for other types of sound? And how useful is it really if we have to develop a new system for every genre (how many of those can we define)?

I think the answer is to learn to use language more effectively. And there these categories like harshness and density can be useful, if we all agree on what they mean. After that the words themselves can be used more accurately and incorporated into the reviews/discussions in a more meaningful way. And the skilled writer will still be able to pull off meaningful metaphors and truly make the reader understand what he/she means. I'm just now listening to The Rita's The Voyage Of The Decima MAS cd. If someone were to describe it to me as "a suffocating underwater experience, like being caught up in gushing masses of water, total immersion - no escape, a slow death" I would get a pretty good general idea on how it actually feels (keywords being "suffocating", "slow", "gushing" and "immersion"). But then that's just me, other people will probably feel differently. A very good writer/listener would be able to pull it off almost universally.

[FreakAnimalFinland]

I remember Soddy reviewing the comp THE RITA did dedicated to Incapacitants & my track was the only one (I think) that received a 10 for rawness or something related to nasty atmosphere?  He definitely has a clue about what he's reviewing & not simply stating how "Amazing" everyone is.

This is my impression. Grunt was also on the comp. but can't remember my "scores". I would guess that none of qualities reached top points, while none really low too. Which is most often, perhaps unconscious aim for certain balance & equilibrium, at least in those days. When I would read the "points", it would make sense. I could actually related to the grading and get the point.

I'm not so sure about the usefulness of such a scoring system. I understand the appeal and as a personal "notebook system" it probably works fine. Problem is, how to universally assign scores like 6.5/10 and 7/10 for a single category? Let's say we have a full-length album, something where the basic ingredients of the sound change don't stay constant for the full duration. How do I take the 10/10 rawness of the first 5 minutes into account if the rest of the album (30 min) is less so (say, 5/10). Is it just the arithmetic mean ((5+10)/2 = 7.5 /10) of these two values? Or should I weigh the values based on their duration (5*10/35 + 30*5/35 = 5.5 / 10 (rounded to nearest half))? Which of these would be more accurate? Maybe one should use scores like 1/3 instead? But then the scale becomes too crude to capture any subtleties. To me it seems just as arbitrary as describing something as "a screech-fest of humongous proportions, a vile distillate of gang-rape in a back alley at 4 AM".

There`s a fair bit of overlap, but I`m hardly suggesting this to be an exact science. Call it another tool in the eternal quest to locate the shit you wanna hear.

In case of Soddy, this is indeed limited exclusively to HARSH NOISE. Not for something else. I think what he says about harsh noise, is valid:  "most of us listen to noise for the same reasons, and are usually listening for the same damn thing. Noise is, before anything else, a word. A word implies a limit. If we can have a limit, we can have a fixed analytical system.".

For words, there are meanings. Dense is dense. a'la "The density of a material is defined as its mass per unit volume". One simply layer of sound or occasional bursts with lots of silence between is hardly "dense noise".  You could think something such as Whitehouse "new britain" being very stripped down, no density, but plenty of rawness. While Control would score high on craftmanship and density, but hardly anything on rawness and harshness.

I'm not suggesting that there should be numeric value. I have always been kind of opposed to numeric values, especially in rating how "good" album is. Never done it, never will. My example and admiration just goes to Soddy's method of trying to find language & method what applies.. hmm, lets say among the experts. I don't think numeric value indicated good or bad either. It tries to expose some sort of level. I would not feel "lacking" if my noise doesn't get high points on some of the qualities.
When someone usually asks me how some record is, I reply, "it's noise". For some its enough. Others ask, what kind of noise. Terminology of what sets apart CCCC and Incapacitants is useful. Terms what make sense, since word has a meaning what is generally accepted, beyond purely emotional personal feeling.  Soddy's post suggest people to find their preferred methods and acknowledged this to cause e-mail flood of flaming from people who disagree.


When I read "rich, seaweedy and intensively peaty. fresh, fruity and immense, with notes of cherry, ionide, toffee, smoke and sea salt all fighting for recognition". It could be description of a release. Yet it makes more sense if you're Whiskey head, and you know exactly that you need that peaty & smoky flavor with hints of salty brutality. It's not simply enough that it's light yellowish liquid that has some % of alcohol. You investigate descriptions throughly and then decide if you want to go for it. Terms have a meaning, which applies even when tastes are different. Although most of us just probably try to fool ourselves thinking the flavors are that special, hah.

But hey, this description of screech fest of 4 AM gang rape? Already used? I'm sure that'll sell records!

[heretogo]

Yeah, I agree that discussion on terminology is interesting and important. And Soddy's categories for harsh noise certainly make sense to me. Spasticity is the only one I cannot immediately put into full perspective, but even that feels somehow appropriate. Personally I'm less interested in craftmanship and more into harshness, rawness and harmonicaness.

Heh, "gang-rape at 4 AM" was made up on the spot. Feel free to use for any Freak Animal scuzz-advertisement propaganda, hah!

[Andrew McIntosh]

Oh shit.

I always hated that stupid fucking rating system for that blog. It's the kind of thing I really hoped I'd never read about here. But it's been brought up, so too bad.

Having written reviews for a few years now I find that while there's always limits to the language when it comes to describing sound it's not so much about the terminology used as the use of writing to convey ideas and emotions. As always. I've over-used some words in the past but that's more a case of trying to create readable writing, rather than worry about the over-use of words. I've used very florid, almost surrealist-descriptions and very almost blow-by-blow descriptions of what's being heard. I've used sarcastic humour and very dry description. The point is getting the idea of the sound across.

One thing I will never use, though, is a point or score system. To me it is stupid in the extreme to "rate" anything out of five, or ten, or a hundred, or whatever number you choose. Who the hell thought of that sort of thing for music reviews in the first place, I wonder? It's always rankled me.

There must be some language what carries certain weight of meaning, where "bleak industrial noise with dense layering" will tell about specific sound, and not about "whatever".

There is, it's called "good writing". In Finnish, English, or whatever language, good writing always communicates. And it starts with pure, personal honesty.

[Zeno Marx]

There must be some language what carries certain weight of meaning, where "bleak industrial noise with dense layering" will tell about specific sound, and not about "whatever".

There is, it's called "good writing". In Finnish, English, or whatever language, good writing always communicates. And it starts with pure, personal honesty.

Cosigned.  It's being literate.  It's being able to write a complete sentence and encapsulate a complete thought, rather than run-on sentences of disjointed phrases and scattered ideas.  Granted, the past couple of generations are at a severe disadvantage insofar as technology encouraging ADD, short attention spans, etc.  It's not just in their writing, because when I've tried having verbal conversations with them, it was the same syntax.

More terms.  More specific terms.  Useful development of our own language rather than nihilistic regression into more generic, less specific terms.  I've said all of this before, many, many times.  I'll sit back and enjoy the conversation, because I think it is a very important one to have.

[FreakAnimalFinland]

Well, for Andrew, I told my opinion about the rating. And also Soddy explains it is only a addition to actual review, not review itself.


With

More terms.  More specific terms.  Useful development of our own language rather than nihilistic regression into more generic, less specific terms.  I've said all of this before, many, many times.  I'll sit back and enjoy the conversation, because I think it is a very important one to have.

Is what I look into, and what topic would be about. Not focusing only on one example of someone chosen method.
I look into discussions and see kind of trends in "words". When suddenly many things are "grim", "fuzzed out", or such. What does "grim" actually mean in context of noise? Dark? Dark with ironic overtones? Sinister?

When I use terms like filthy and crude, they are basically dictionary meaning.
as:
-not carefully or expertly made; "managed to make a crude splint"; "a crude cabin of logs with bark still on them"; "rough carpentry"
-conspicuously and tastelessly indecent; "coarse language"; "a crude joke"; "crude behavior"; "an earthy sense of humor"; "a revoltingly gross expletive"; "a vulgar gesture"; "full of language so vulgar it should have been edited"
-unrefined: not refined or processed; "unrefined ore"; "crude oil"
-belonging to an early stage of technical development; characterized by simplicity and (often) crudeness; "the crude weapons and rude agricultural implements of early man"; "primitive movies of the 1890s"; "primitive living conditions in the Appalachian mountains"

filthy:
-disgustingly dirty; filled or smeared with offensive matter; "as filthy as a pigsty"; "a foul pond"; "a nasty pigsty of a room"
-dirty: vile; despicable; "a dirty (or lousy) trick"; "a filthy traitor"
-cruddy: characterized by obscenity; "had a filthy mouth"; "foul language"; "smutty jokes"

To me this language has meaning valid in concepts that can be understood.  Grim? Eerie? Bleak?  I know what these words mean, but what would be sounds or concepts related to it, other than some semi-pretentious gothy' mood making for ambient recording?

Some of you here are "lucky" to born in english as your original language. Where is abundance of words for any occasion, what some guy who last seriously studied (..if ever) the language perhaps 15 years ago...

[Strömkarlen]

What does leather taste like? Or dirt? These are common words when vine critics describe how wine taste. Myself being only an avid drinker of vine I don't really have a clue what that means. I never sat down and drank a vine reading what the critic said it would taste like. Maybe I should.

It looks like this
Acetic is that vinegar-like taste or smell born from exposure to air.

Acidic is a wine with too much acid. Wines contain acids, which vary in concentration.

Ageworthy is a term applied to wines which will benefit from further maturation in the bottle. Typical examples are either young reds with powerful tannins or very sweet young whites. Acidity can also be a factor.

Aggresive would be a wine acidic enough to make your gums tingle or with tannins in excess, so much that it would make the back of your throat feel dry.

Ample would describe a wine that feels full and generous in your mouth.

Aromatic will be applied to a wine with plenty more of perfumed, fruity scents -which normally you can appreciate before actually tasting the wine- than average. Grape varieties source of aromatic wines include Sauvignon Blanc, Riesling, Gewurztraminer, and the sweet Muscat.

And so on. Full list here http://www.world-food-and-wine.com/describing-a-wine.html

I know it is a dream but I would really like it to be a dictionary for describing noise/pe/industrial so that if something is described as power electronics actually is that and not nude dancing with screams and noise.
Hmm, I guess that also would mean that everything would be fixed and that any genre couldn't not evolve...

[Zeno Marx]

When I use terms like filthy and crude, they are basically dictionary meaning...To me this language has meaning valid in concepts that can be understood.

I agree with you and think you are correct.  The best, and most useful writers in their chosen field, don't succumb to flashy and trendy word use.  Rather than using words in their slang, or most recent trend, formal dictionary definitions are the sharpest, most appropriate way.  There's enormous leeway in the formal use of a language, and it doesn't create nearly the isolation or ambiguity that sensational journalism can manifest.

Some of you here are "lucky" to born in english as your original language. Where is abundance of words for any occasion, what some guy who last seriously studied (..if ever) the language perhaps 15 years ago...

I don't judge writers whose second, third, or fourth language is English.  For us American, mono-lingual people, message boards have been a good lesson in seeing how the world approaches, educates, etc themselves with the English language.  I'm much more judgmental of an American or Brit slaughtering the English language than someone from a non-English speaking country.

[heretogo]

Regardless of what one thinks of the scoring system, I think Soddy's experiment to dissect harsh noise to its fundamentals is interesting. Maybe the better candidate to try this is the even simpler sub-genre of harsh noise walls? But I guess this is exactly what Sam McKinley has already been doing with his projects, trying to identify the special elements of harsh noise sound and then isolate and perfect them into walls? Maybe some true HNW aficiando could give as an introduction to HNW vocabulary / the categories behind the sound?

[Tommy Carlsson]

Maybe some true HNW aficiando could give as an introduction to HNW vocabulary / the categories behind the sound?

I very much doubt it.

[ImpulsyStetoskopu]

In my opinion this is only funny game. It could be OK for pure genre in noise style, but there isn't something like that (at least in last 20 years). What is relationship between MASONNA and MERZBOW or MATHAUSEN ORCHESTRA? All of them used different expression in sound, various devices, instruments and techniques in noise creation. Yes, this is NOISE, but this NOISE is very different. Similar situation was in OLD SCHOOL INDUSTRIAL 30 years ago. THROBBING GRISTLE were different than SPK or Boyd RICE or TEST DEPT or EINSTUERZENDE NEUBAUTEN. We shouldn't score them.

[Henrik III]

Some of my ex-colleagues are attending more and more the same events with wine and cheese tasters and that's something I think is very relevant for actual _objective_ qualification of sound. But how much that is to do with music is another thing, at least for now. To these ears reviewing music in a "useful" way might be somewhere between Bananafish-like-random-adjective-overdose and I-believe-listing-all-objective-qualities-will-do-it. It is simple to be "objective" to list features, but (unfortunately) "art" rarely is so easily reducible and that's where the good writing comes into the game.

[Bloated Slutbag]

Sobriety is a fine thing.