On Fri, November 4, 2005 6:16 pm, darnistle wrote: > You jump from point A to point Q. > > Someone making noises in their studio and saying "boy, that sounds cool, > let me stick a kick drum under that and release it" could produce > anything from crap to utter brilliance. With talent and quality control > the results could be quite amazing and full of all sorts of feeling. > > I've got plenty of "noise" records. Some are quite facile, uncreative > and utterly disposable. Others are strange, amazing and quite beautiful > even if the sounds are unusual, abrasive or cacophanous at times. The > fact that it isn't melody-driven (synonymous with "noise" for a lot of > people) says nothing about its quality or ability to convey a range of > emotions.
but what does say something about it is the purpose behind making the music! there's a way to make straight up noise into a vehicle for expression. and there's a way to make a cool sound into a track that conveys nothing except the fact that the producer knows how to make a cool sound. what differentiates these? the purpose of the artist. this has absolutely nothing to do with melody, the fact that you keep trying to bring it back to that despite my numerous examples of non-melodic and even non-rhythmic music that i listen to says to me that youre missing the entire point. sounds does not equal music. sound plus purpose equals music. tom
