Talk:Noise music

message: I moved a number of titles from the references section to further reading as associated citations don't yet exist for any of them. I'm just wondering if perhaps we might loose some of the items not directly related to the subject matter? Measles (talk) 15:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job, Measles! I have wondered about some of these items myself, but how does one discover whether nothing at all of the article content relates to anything in each of the items listed? It's an awfully long list!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: no doubt there are relationships! but I would stress the "directly related to" clause; which is, admittedly, applied when supplying material for referencing: "Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."There was a fair bit of discussion at one point on the WP:OR talk page about this, particularly in the case of synthesis. The general consensus is that key texts directly related to the topic of the article are what editors should be striving to use. Measles (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Impressive work. Bravo. Valueyou (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I removed the following from the article and bring it here for discussion:
:Also a process anti-form "free noise" emerged out of the avant-garde jazz tradition with musicians such as John Coltrane, Pharoah Sanders, Ornette Coleman, Cecil Taylor, Eric Dolphy, Archie Shepp, Sun Ra and the Arkestra, Albert Ayler, Peter Brötzmann, and John Zorn.
In addition to being poorly-written, this is unreferenced, and groups together, without explanation, a number of widely varied jazz musicians.  Furthermore, I have never heard of the term "free noise" in regard to jazz. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is still unreferenced, poorly-written, lumps a bunch of musicians from over a long period of time, and just stuck into the article with no discussion of relevance or how it relates to the other music being discussed. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 14:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free noise 

message: most of these artists work in complete opposition to the avant-garde...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.52.176 (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In complete opposition to which avant-garde? (There isn't just one, you know.) Still, I agree with your edit removing "avant garde" from the opening sentence, on grounds that noise music should not be exclusively identified with avant-garde movements.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  avant-garde? 

message: Wow, an article on new music that isn't completely biased, utterly useless or factually screwed up.
Nice work! Nice article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.236.144.4 (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good! 

message: In the "Post-industrial and Post-digital" section, an anonymous user just changed "shit fi" to "lo fi".  I searched back through the article history, assuming "shit fi" had recently been added by a vandal, but found that it has said that since the section was drastically altered and expanded by Measles back in 2009.  Can someone explain this please?  Has this been incorrect this whole time? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The term shit-fi is definitely in use (see the shit-fi.com web zine, for instance, or just google "shit fi"), but it seems to be a broad classification flagging (lack of) quality, cutting across many genres, rather than a genre term or coherent approach itself. I'll defer to those more knowledgeable, but my guess is that lo-fi is more appropriate here. /ninly(talk) 19:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the information.  The articles for both of the bands that are mentioned in that subsection describe them as "lo-fi."  I had never heard of the term, but could not be certain that it was vandalism.  I decided to post here rather than revert the anon.  My guess is, "lo-fi" is more accurate. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Shit fi"? 

message: It seems to me that it is a genre, and that it deserves an article, and that this is an article on the genre.
If it isn't then this article shouldn't use :Template:Infobox music genre, and the lead shouldn't read Noise music is a term used to describe varieties of avant-garde music and sound art that may use elements such as cacophony, dissonance, atonality, noise, indeterminacy, and repetition in their realization  (my emphasis). Andrewa(talk) 01:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Is ''noise'' a music genre

message: It seems to me that it is, and that it's the same genre that is described as noise for short when the context makes the meaning clear, just as the terms rock and swing are similarly used.
If it isn't then noise music shouldn't redirect to this article, and :Category:Noise music doesn't belong in :Category:Electronic music genres or :Category:Experimental music genres, and the lead shouldn't read Noise music is a term used to describe varieties of avant-garde music and sound art that may use elements such as cacophony, dissonance, atonality, noise, indeterminacy, and repetition in their realization (bolding as in the article). Andrewa (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Is ''noise music'' a music genre

message: A search on "Noise music" -Wikipedia gets me 1,800,000 ghits. This plus the fact that we have a :Category:Noise music currently containing 88 articles and 6 subcategories, all of them containing further articles and having subcategories themselves containing further articles and in some instances further subcategories containing still further articles, seems to indicate that noise music is a significant topic. Andrewa (talk) 07:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Should ''noise music'' have its own article

message: It seems to me that it has meanings that are quite outside the scope of this article. The snare drum for example produces sounds that contain a great deal of noise.Andrewa (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: What does ''noise'' mean in music

message: Quite a lot of the material in this article does belong in the noise (music) article, but the current lead clearly focusses on the genre, as do the categories and the infobox.
It seems to me that the neatest solution at this point would be to bite the bullet and move this article from noise (music genre) to noise music. This would restore the article history, which is necessary anyway.
Noise (music) should then become an article on all uses of noise in music. See Noise#Use in Music for a start. Preserving its current article history is not important, as I'm the only contributor so far.
Alternatively, we can rewrite this article, starting with the lead, to include all uses of noise in music, and change the lead, infobox, categories and so on to match this. To do this, we'd first need to move this article back from noise (music genre) to noise (music), again to restore the history. 
I'm happy with this alternative if it's agreed to, but it's a lot more work and IMO sub-optimal so far as edit history goes. I think that the genre noise music described by the current lead will eventually be split out as an article of its own even if for the moment we make it a section of this article.
Either of these proposals should go to WP:RM, but let's see whether we can make any progress here first. Andrewa (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Where to

message: Please indicate Support or Oppose with brief reasons and evidence relating particularly to WP:AT and other policies and guidelines. Detailed discussions belong in the discussion subsection.
*Oppose I think that Noise (music genre) or Noise music genre are better titles. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 10:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: * http://www.slowreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=52 ...though to enjoy reading this as much as Hegarty enjoyed writing it, you'd need to subscribe to the grandiose philosophical and political integrity he tries to erect around noise (via a lot of high-faluting, university Marxism)...
* http://www.amazon.com/Noise-Music-History-Paul-Hegarty/dp/0826417272 Sharp and erudite, and underpinned throughout by the ideas of thinkers like Adorno and Deleuze, Noise/Music is the perfect primer for anyone interested in the louder side of experimental music.
* http://www.bookforum.com/inprint/014_03/870 Contemporary Japanese noise music, clearly Hegarty’s passion, is the heart of this book.
* http://www.newmusicbox.org/articles/A-Look-Inside-Paul-Hegartys-Noise-Music/ Links to an interview with Hegarty, and two chapters from the book, there by permission. Some of the links don't work but the page number links do and take you to the same place, as should these:
** http://www.newmusicbox.org/articles/A-Look-Inside-Paul-Hegartys-Noise-Music/2/ Interview
** http://www.newmusicbox.org/articles/A-Look-Inside-Paul-Hegartys-Noise-Music/3/ Chapter 8, Power
** http://www.newmusicbox.org/articles/A-Look-Inside-Paul-Hegartys-Noise-Music/4/ Chapter 13, Listening
* http://machinemusic.org/2010/01/12/noise-music-a-history-by-paul-hegarty/ In thirteen engaging chapters, the author discusses a century of experimentation, beginning with the Futurists and ending somewhere near the sonic excesses of Merzbow and the incessant plunders of John Oswald.
* http://ml.oxfordjournals.org/content/91/2/297.extract A paid site and the extract is meant to tease rather than inform 
* http://blogcritics.org/books/article/book-review-noisemusic-by-paul-hegarty/ But is it a history? .... though he does explain in the beginning that he did not want the book to become an extensive and pretentious discography of his album collection, to me, it became just that. Instead of Hegarty explaining the history in general of a certain style of noise, he takes certain albums -- probably ones that you've never heard, due to the sheer enormity of the noise genre -- and critically analyzes them, explaining in needless detail their point to society and their cultural relevance.
Until I get a copy, they are all I have to go on. But they do contain and link to some longish extracts. Please add any others you find helpful below. Andrewa (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Some reviews of Hegarty

message: From the move discussion above:
In a section discussing noise music Landy (2007:127) observes that: 
 Semitransgenic talk. 14:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: References 2

message: "Noise music" can't be an actual thing, that is an oxymoron. Music and noise are totally indifferent terms. It would be impossible for "noise" to be music along with the fact that the dictionary definition for noise is "loud unpleasant or causes disturbance" which is all purely an opinion..... so generally any music could be considered "noise" depending on the opinion of one person but music actually being a "noise" in-general is bullshit and frankly impossible by the standard of what music refers to.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.233.1.132 (talk) 11:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is exactly the discussion I've seen in academic sources. Basically, you are right. But it still exists, whether the term is good or not.--¿3family6 contribs 12:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  this is purely an oxymoron  

message: Noise in music is a new article, title suggested in the Requested move survey above. I didn't ever own it of course, but now it's in the main namespace I feel a sense of having thrown it to the wolves. Ah well.
Comments welcome in its talk, and of course I hope it will develop further. Andrewa (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Noise in music

message: I found a really good source that someone might want to take a look at. It could be that it already is used, but I don't know.--¿3family6 contribs 11:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A source 

message: All information from Structured Noise (music) has been merged into this article, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structured Noise (music). Northamerica1000(talk) 02:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger complete 

message: Harsh noise redirects here, but is not otherwise described in the article, except in the "Subgenres" chunk of the infobox, where it redirects to Post-industrial music, which itself does not even contain the word "harsh". However, in this article, other concepts and bands are described as "harsh noise" as if it were a definable subgenre—in one case as a wikilink (which, of course, redirects back to this article). It does look like Harsh noise existed at one point  before being redirected here.
Just pointing out an inconsistency at this stage. I hope to find time to come back and look for references/details soon. /ninly(talk) 22:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition loop: Harsh noise 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Noise music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071006115012/http://magazine.brighton.co.uk/index.asp?sec_id=1&cat_id=21&sub_id=45&art_id=2369 to http://magazine.brighton.co.uk/index.asp?art_id=2369&cat_id=21&sec_id=1&sub_id=45
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Some good examples are listed. I would suggest adding Lustmord to the list of electronic noise groups arriving on the heels of Einstürzende Neubaten. But of course there are dozens of worthy additions and ultimately there should be (if not already) a chronological list of composers, innovative performers and musical groups according to very narrow genres. Even notable works might be listed independently of the composer. For example, sharing the list with Lustmord and SPK might be Frank Zappa (through several decades), Die Form, Thrones, der Klinik, Legendary Pink Dots, John Zorn, etc. Then the similarities to avant garde classical work by Ligeti, Widor, Messiaen, Orff, Górecki, Britten, etc. must be referenced via a separate list, and the relationship to Experimental music. I think accompanying lists, however complete are a critical part of defining these genres, and lists are easier and less contentious to keep updated than main articles like this.
Another related genre or sub-genre that bears mentioning would include electronic noise performers like Merzbow and Daniel Mensche who I believe were purists about using analog only instruments and eschewed digital devices.
Fieldlab (talk) 07:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre notes plus an addition 

message: Isn't this entire article about "noise" as a genre of music?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Postmodern developments: Noise as genre" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Noise music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090113203757/http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/feature/45431-interview-lou-reed to http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/feature/45431-interview-lou-reed
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100921213858/http://ubu.artmob.ca/sound/flux_tellus/Flux-Tellus_09.mp3 to http://ubu.artmob.ca/sound/flux_tellus/Flux-Tellus_09.mp3
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060117134444/http://ubu.wfmu.org/sound/artist_tellus/Tellus-21-Artists_05_russolo.mp3 to http://ubu.wfmu.org/sound/artist_tellus/Tellus-21-Artists_05_russolo.mp3
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There are the subgenres of Electronic/Industrial Noise, some which being Powernoise, Harsh Noise, Power Electronics, & Japanoise etc. However as far as Wiki categorization is concerned there is no distinction of Electronic/Industrial Noise from Noise Rock (though there is a Noise Rock page). So a lot of electronic based Noise groups that are not distinguished specifically as Powernoise or Japanoise etc. just get labeled as Noise. Which links to this page, which is way too wide of a categorization to distinguish what kind of Noise a band is specifically. Why is that? Obviously there is a major difference between Noise music that is made with electronics vs. acoustic instruments. Why is there no "Electronic and/or Industrial Noise" page? (If you search either of those, they are redirected to science articles) JanderVK (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Electronic/Industrial Noise

message: Needs mention of Red Krayola, the Godz and AMM. There are sources that cite these all as being precursors to noise music: https://www.allmusic.com/album/the-parable-of-arable-land-mw0000274607
https://www.allmusic.com/album/ammmusic-mw0000026381
https://www.sheilaomalley.com/?p=74217
https://www.allmusic.com/artist/the-godz-mn0000763611/biography
https://www.psychedelicbabymag.com/2014/06/the-godz-interview-with-larry-kessler.html Aradicus77 (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular music section additions 

message: The lead initially defines noise music as the expressive use of noise in a musical context, but what does musical context mean when the music itself is the expressive use of noise? It’s a circular definition that is best remedied by removing the phrase “in a musical context.” 2603:6010:11F0:3C0:2823:29F5:3EED:2ACA (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead definition 

message: I would like to suggest the addition of Jimi Hendrix to this article. I find it somewhat appalling that popular artists like the Beatles and Lou Reed are mentioned here while Hendrix is omitted. The performance of the Star Spangled Banner at Woodstock in 1969, at the very least, is a culturally significant moment in the history of noise music. Hendrix regularly engaged in noise music in all of his performances beginning in 1967, if not earlier. He was not only a pioneer in the use of high volume noise, feedback, distortion and other effects, but more than any other artist, he popularized the role of noise in contemporary music.
I am also wondering if any other Black, Latinx or other artists from historically underrepresented groups should be mentioned here. The free jazz movement does seem close in spirit, if not truly overlapping with noise music, and so luminaries such as Ornette Coleman, Pharaoh Sanders and Sun Ra might be important to mention.
In addition, the idea of noise as music is not far from the experiments with tape and synthesizers performed by important women artists like Delia Derbyshire, Daphne Oram, Maryanne Amacher, Pauline Oliveros and many others. If Stockhausen is going to be mentioned here, a few of these important women could be mentioned as well. 2601:644:600:41B0:6868:5049:A40A:851C (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimi Hendrix and other important artists