Earlier on in the lifespan of this blog, I wanted to have discussion topics on relevant issues (like this one), but this idea didn’t go very far, mainly because I didn’t want to post topics just for the sake of it. But this one has been bugging me a for a while. And inspired by this recent much-overdue tirade against Harsh Noise complacency, I've decided to open my big mouth.
I don’t think I’m alone in being privately critical of the amount of noise/improv/sound art performers currently who offer live performances that consist of droning tones/noise and little else. I’m going to step up now and publically say that this is no longer good enough to justify me seeing your live performance.
I don’t know if it is my age and the fact that I’ve been seeing a lot of noise gigs for a long time, but it is all getting very old and uninteresting.
We’ve all been there, including myself - ‘People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones’ but I’m not throwing stones, I’m issuing a challenge.
Can we make an attempt to make these performances more interesting? Like, more structure than the usual soft/loud or slow to fast oscillations? If you are relying exclusively on drone/noise that does not vary in any other way, your drone better be tonally/texturally a thing of great beauty. Dare we suggest the taboo word ‘composition’? It doesn’t need to mean dots on paper in this sense, just a bit more thought into planning a performance so it isn’t this same old thing.
It is debatable if a straight up noise/drone performance can even be considered experimental music anymore, even in the broadest sense of the term, unless ‘experimental music’ is becoming a genre in itself.
Partly this may be due to the burgeoning live scene over the past few years, as this blog is testament to; a development that is fantastic in itself. But it is time to develop, not stagnate.
Love to hear what people think about this – please post your comments here.
I don’t think I’m alone in being privately critical of the amount of noise/improv/sound art performers currently who offer live performances that consist of droning tones/noise and little else. I’m going to step up now and publically say that this is no longer good enough to justify me seeing your live performance.
I don’t know if it is my age and the fact that I’ve been seeing a lot of noise gigs for a long time, but it is all getting very old and uninteresting.
We’ve all been there, including myself - ‘People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones’ but I’m not throwing stones, I’m issuing a challenge.
Can we make an attempt to make these performances more interesting? Like, more structure than the usual soft/loud or slow to fast oscillations? If you are relying exclusively on drone/noise that does not vary in any other way, your drone better be tonally/texturally a thing of great beauty. Dare we suggest the taboo word ‘composition’? It doesn’t need to mean dots on paper in this sense, just a bit more thought into planning a performance so it isn’t this same old thing.
It is debatable if a straight up noise/drone performance can even be considered experimental music anymore, even in the broadest sense of the term, unless ‘experimental music’ is becoming a genre in itself.
Partly this may be due to the burgeoning live scene over the past few years, as this blog is testament to; a development that is fantastic in itself. But it is time to develop, not stagnate.
Love to hear what people think about this – please post your comments here.
Comments
This implies that you used to see my live performance in the past!
http://solaranus.synthasite.com/index/smash-down-the-fucking-walls-
(+ your post Clinton)
At this site, whenever they mention noise, I've been avoiding those shows for those very reasons.
Apart from starting one hour and a half too late (hey, I have 2 kids!) it's been just crap since I have been here in Melbourne a year ago......
Cor
But yeah, HNW and drone suck. I like MUSIC.
Of course there are people who make it interesting. The Bile Worship tape on Magik Crowbar is drone I guess, but it rips.
In regards to Melbourne drone performances, I have seen a few that don't really make the most of their duration, in that if one has been allotted a 30 minute set, why not be creative, see what you can create within that framework other than one or two ideas stretched out. Try to find where it gets boring and throw in some more ideas.
Secondly, talking about 'lack of structure and abstract nature' maybe implies that we don't have a way of thinking about this music critically. (After all, everything has a structure and almost all music is abstract.)
Maybe that's the point, of course, and the fact that it's beyond critical thought is what makes it experimental. Or it could be that the audience is not forthright enough in calling out a lazy and unimaginative performance.
I'm also not partial to slowly evolving, tone generated drone, but I respect its value. I think the issue here, may be one of "good" and "bad" execution? In which case: "name names!"
There are kinda two things in here I want to pick apart and another which I'm not going to even go near which is the definition of "experimental" and (god forbid) "music".
1. What is the intention behind the noise/drone? Is the HWN stuff just to inflict pain on the audience, make it seem like the artists are pissed off and want to express that with impenetrable noise, or noise for noise sake? Is it the case that the current batch of (unnamed at the moment) artists think they are doing something new and haven't listened widely enough or had the opportunity to see what has come before and are thus doomed to be stuck in the same self discovery process as other kids using their pedals in ways not described in the manual?
Even if it's bad, or derivative, or just plain offensive, is it still valid?
I can only describe my intention with what I create, and why I create drones- we are so saturated with 3 minute pop songs, to create a longer piece of music (any music) challenges the audience, but also gives them the permission to settle in and be taken on a journey. Maybe if people/the audience are clear of the intention before they sit down, or is it uncool to give it away? Do we have to make up clever descriptions of ourselves as artists/musicians that obscure that were just another person expressing our-self thru our chosen medium? Can it be as simple as "Hard as Fuck, bring ear plugs"?
2. The journey- I been to some gigs which are like a train journey through the Channel Tunnel - I enter the venue excited by the possibilities of where the acts will take me after the tunnel ride, and am prepared to put up with the hours of darkness (and noise) in the tunnel, but once in there, in the midst of looking at nothing but my reflection back through the window while looking out into the darkness, just hoping for it to end, forgetting about the wonder and loose morals of the continent that awaits me on the other side.
We need scenery, we need variation on these journeys, I agree totally with Clinton about the need for "composition" or structure, listen up noise peeps: silence can be just as powerful as noise.
So back to talking about me again for a sec, when crafting a journey for the audience I have a simple test- am i (as the performer) bored? Has a particular sound gone on too long, not varied enough? That ability to self-censor, to be able to taste yr own shit is important.
Another important part of my performances are to provide audio reactive visuals, not just a shitty VHS tape, or DVD, hoping for some kind of synchonicity, but something that reacts and responds to what is happening, to engage the audience on another level than looking at someone twiddling their knobs, or whipping their hair in time with some fragment of rhythm. Shouts of "but I can't do visuals" start up- find someone who can, collaborate, there are some many digital visual artists in melb that would love to work with some one rather than DJ's, put a "wanted: visualist to work with" ad up on here and see how many replies you get!
Drone is good enough, if it's intention is clear and it is well crafted, we're well past the point of seeing how extreme you can be, we want to hear your vision, we want you to take us on a journey, we might get bogged, see desolate landscapes, the plains of hell or apocalyptic worlds, just as much as you can show us unicorns fucking dolphins, but make it varied, unicorns vs dolphins is only interesting for the first 5 mins, then it's just boring and droll.
Ok enough from me, except if you want to come and see some drone (plus other mixed up stuff) that will truly take you on a journey (no unicorns tho) there is an afternoon gig (I'm a parent too hehe) on at Loop Bar on the 26th March at 2pm (god have I no decency but to end this with self promo, I guess not!).
Great topic!
\m/
It's a hassle to go to a venue, compared it to listening on a cd-player or iPod, and almost nobody does it. But some do - why? Is it to be in the presence of the artist? In the presence of friends? Or booze? Is it the potential for visuals, or improv, or meeting like-minded people, or some other thing you can't get at home? What could live music deliver that it doesn't currently?
In regards to the boredom of live performances, there may be many other things we need to consider as an audience. Is the performer nervous? Are they new to performing? Perhaps they have not yet managed to create more diversity in their set or they just want to get out there and start playing regardless. It might not be as simple as they just don't give a shit or have no talent. But if we're watching someone who has been performing the exact same set for ages then there is not really any excuse for it. There are one or two acts that spring to mind with this problem, but in their circumstances it may have more to do with a lack of time for rehearsing new material.
Perhaps we can name names amongst ourselves to keep this from turning into a slanging match. Scott I think you'll recall a particularly bad performance we once both witnessed, resulting in a broken guitar, but that is another story and nothing to do with drone. Zac.
Speaking of rectal microphones, nice job Solar Anus for lighting the fuse. Excellent follow-up by Clinton and the various comment contributors. I own a ton of drone and noise CDs and will practically jump on a tram to watch someone contact mic their skinned knee, pick the scabs and play it back at jet-engine volume. But I'm spending more time patiently bored than excited at too many 'experimental' shows these days.
Aussie experimental musicians need to get more experimental. Ponderous, monochrome, angsty, uninspired, lazy, copyist knob-twiddling by dabblers is starting to keep me at home.
I'm buying less local CDs because I can't tell them apart. I too dig an arvo show so that if three of the seven performers are just running a hair-dryer thru a Big Muff pedal and a Ring Mod, I can still be in my jim-jams with a cocoa at a reasonable hour.
The benefit of being a geezer is that over the last 30 years I've listened to - and occasionally agreed with - every "But you don't understand...", "You see, it's a reaction to...", "How do we define...", "You can't dictate artistic expression..." argument that defenders of bland noise trot out.
But, if you let wishy-washy, uncreative, pedestrian nonsense go unchallenged, it eventually kills experimentation with its diluting effect.
Remember in Primary School when you mixed all the colours of plasticine together and it always went grey?
OK, now pass me my Haemorrhoid cream, that afternoon show at Loop sounds good. And if we're signing off with self-promos, please pick up a copy of my Merzbow book from Missing Link, otherwise I'll have to get a real job - Brett Woodward
A guitarist and bass player stood in front of some film footage making noise that didn't really develop anywhere for about 20 or so minutes, completely unrelated to the footage going on the screen behind. The bass player spent most of the time hitting the bass with a drum stick which was all very avant-garde but took us nowhere.
The chick in the other room started up the droning thing on her small organ, visuals in the background, then added some guitar over the top and her performance was better - possibly also because she was hot looking and glammed up. But I think there was some development there and a lot more thought went into her performance.
There was another forgettable performance of guitars feeding back thru amplification and some pretty bad vocalising over that. Very uninspiring.
The last performance was "Superusers" and this guy was the standout master. The sound and visuals were integrated and his performance developed thru time. You can watch his performance on the Internet.
So I don't wish to be too critical but the first guys (guit + bass + film) were totally unimaginative and I suspect they were image seekers and interlopers in this scene. The chick and Superusers had far more legitimacy and actually thought about what they were doing.
One of the best harsh noise drone things I've seen in recentish years has to be Markus Schmickler. He was boring to look at with his laptop but that was kinda signalled by "lights off". Close your eyes and let the frequencies immerse you. He was doing nothing new, very well. Thomas Koner on the other hand had a dull video that I sat there trying to work out what after effects plugins he used on and really dull rumbling drones that went nowhere.
In Bris the problem is also where to play and these days I dunno where you'd go to see a good drone gig since all the available venues cater towards droning indie rock bands.
I don't think it's just entry level individuals who are infatuated with the sounds their equipment makes. I can name names; at least two local drone producers who have a few years of experience who pretty much have done the same thing each time I've seen them. I'm not going to name names, though, because I just couldn't be arsed getting into any dramas. Suffice to say, there is an infection of the unimaginative in one of the most imaginative forms of music.
One thing, though; gimmickry can be just as bad. With due respect to Mr. Woodward (and I intend to get that Merzbow book), simply adding a few visual elements to what you already do can lead to complacency in that area. I've been to gigs that have featured visuals but can only think of one performer - Shinjuku Thief - who has truly demonstrated how audio-visual should be done. The difference is stark and seeing/hearing it done properly makes you realise what can be done, and how weak a lot of things are currently being done.
I take his main point, though; take risks. Meaning, expect to fail if necessary. I've done that; my last performance did nothing for me at all, despite positive feedback from the punters. The spark of inspiration needs to be there in the first place, otherwise you're just taking up time and room.
I think a lot of people forget that a live performance is just that - a performance. I know the arguments about concentrating on your sounds and all the rest of it but if the issue now is that the sounds themselves are dull and unimaginative it compounds the problem of sitting there watching someone stare at their gear for twenty minutes or so.
So, I agree with Clinton. It's not enough to play with your knobs. I'm not going to suggest what people should do, that's up to them. If they've got original ideas that are any good, that will show without having to be defended (I'm thinking of Abre Ojos here). It's not just about drones, it's about droning on with no point or purpose. We're all very familiar now with "experimental" sounds and whether it's composition, improvisation or total aleatory music, it has to have that real spark of inspiration to make it work. And it shows.
I think the traditional live format of 30-40 minute sets is also a problem for drone artists. Instinctively, drone artists want to do one continuous piece. This is problematic for audience members like me if your drone doesn’t cut the mustard, because by the 5 or 10 minute mark I know that I’m not interested in what I’m hearing, and worse, that it’s not going to develop significantly for the next half hour or so (stuck in that dark Channel Tunnel Scott mentioned). In some ways, I think drone music is more suited for much longer durations, like the great ‘classical’ minimalist works (Feldman comes to mind), but of course this is not always viable. Perhaps instead, drone artists could limit themselves to smaller pieces, perhaps two or three distinct ‘tracks’.
my ideal drone gig would be extremely boring shit with no visuals whatsoever - not even house lights. pure darkness, pure (loud) black drones... immersive environmental stuff that relentlessly folds you inwards.
Discussion about 'Drone' per se perhaps belongs in a separate thread (I will start one when I get a moment) - despite the title, I think Clinton is mainly bemoaning substandard performance.
The last Anonymous post has a point in that 'interesting' is maybe the wrong word, maybe for 2 reasons:
- 'interesting' implies eventfulness and variety. These are common goals but not the only ones. La Monte Young shows us that a musical performance need not vary at all. Similarly, Cage demonstrated a long time ago that overwhelming variety and multiplicity leads to a similar place, and is equally valid. (Incidentally, variety can be introduced purely as a surface feature to keep the mind engaged - Steve Reich's Drumming being a good example.)
- 'interesting' appeals to the intellect. Music and sonic art also function on a visceral, sensual level that has nothing to do with intellect.
Arguably, 'interesting' is a rather middlebrow aspiration that is nice, but not crucial.
'Composition' however, in its broadest sense, is something I'd like to see more of. I'm a bit surprised to hear it's a taboo word - but if it is, then surely that means it's worth exploring?
It's hardly intellectual masturbation though to consider that musical forms need not require stimulants to be enjoyable. Then again isn't the entire "band" scene in Australia somewhat reliant on the need for punters to get shitfaced meeting the need for venue owners to get paid in order that they can book more bands for the cycle to continue?
Interested that the conversation seems to also be turning towards sound & image... Superuser Scott Sinclair is indeed a great example as he combines use of his body with audiovisual stimuli in a predominantly real-time performance that also has elements of composition required in its presention.
I recall having a conversation with Clinton and a number of other people that essentially boiled down to the idea that anyone using a laptop is boring... i think Scott demonstrates ONE way forward. I myself am much more body-image conscious though so for me the challenge is to compose interesting audio and video elements AND be able to manipulate and change them in real-time whilst distracting the audience from the perceived need to stare at me while i'm doing this.
Could the word "structure" be used in this context?
I re-read my previous comments and the responses and should apologize for offending anyone. I'm not very bright and I sometimes get in trouble with lack of appropriate communication skills.
I was trying to indicate that the woman's performance had an integral sexual element to it, but I was unable to express this in the appropriate manner.
I think also I have been commenting on a wider range of performance than strictly drone/noise. Eg the Make It Up Club bills itself as "avante garde" and "improvised" so I probably should have been more discerning.
So concerning live music performance, if all we see is somebody sitting or standing behind a laptop, our body does not do much.
But if we're watching somebody jumping around or being quite physical, our own bodies will somewhat mimic what we see by sending those small impulses to the same areas that we see moving.
"Andrew, I thought about blocking some of the sexist comments, but decided against it in the interests of open discussion. "
Mister X and Clinton - blatant, crass sexism isn't valid participation or open discussion. Mister X seemed to like Lisa's performance but couldn't be arsed finding out her name, let alone giving her the respect due a talented musician or, indeed, any person. Re-gender his statements and see how absolutely ridiculous and offensive his comments were.
I feel that the administrator of this blog needed to alert the person responsible that he was way out of line and why. I can't help but wonder if there would have been the same lack of an appropriate response to Mr X's comments if he had written something openly racist or homophobic. It seems you can still write about women as "chicks" who are "fertile" making music that gets them hot and it is dismissed as open discussion. How disappointing!
This is not a blanket mindset on my part and I know plenty of local artists using loopers as a "minor" part of their setup, the difference being that they still have plenty of other ideas on how to make an interesting set. Automating, Mystic Eyes, Seth Rees, JK Fuller, Undecisive God: used to do great things with a loop pedal while molesting or bashing his guitar (again, the physical relation to sound making) Barnaby Oliver is a great one for technique based sound making, Scratchplate: Dimitra has performed sets with a combination of layered vocals, guitar and amp noise all blended together quite nicely with some light looping.
For any of us, if we're going to take our projects live, then we have a responsibility to anyone watching and need to ask ourselves: Are we thinking from an audience perspective? Am I playing this sound for too long, am "I" bored with it, if the answer is yes then it needs further refinement. This is a worthy consideration we need to make, seeing as we attend so many shows and know what we like and dislike about them. If every performer continues to evaluate their own work and performance, maybe it could result in better experiences for an audience? But as much as we need to consider them, they still need to contribute and be involved with what we're doing. My motto is "make the most of the duration". If you're performing drones and have a 30 minute set, try and put together 3 distinct pieces. Make the set shift, evolve, ebb and flow, don't overuse each idea or worse, stick with one idea only.
Mister X, I don't know what you're on but I've caught Lisa's Mystic Eyes set at least five times now and there is nothing at all sexual about it. Unless the logic is as base as that it must be sexual merely because she's female and dressed up to perform? I also know that she is very serious about what she does and a prime example of a drone performance with thought, subtle shifts and varying tones strategically employed throughout different parts of a set.
Keep talking everyone, this thread has died in the arse already?
Orsino Nation are an experimental art music band who aren't predictable. http://www.orsinonation.com