Talk:Noise music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Music/Music genres task force (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon Noise music is within the scope of the Music genres task force of the Music project, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardise music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the task force guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good and 1.0 standards.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Classical music
WikiProject icon Noise music is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
 
WikiProject Electronic music (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Industrial (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Industrial, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Industrial music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

References[edit]

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)

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)
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)
Impressive work. Bravo. Valueyou (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added some text, most of it from Chadabe, in lieu of a better source (one that deals directly with the history of noise music), but it's an improvement on linking to a web page. Measles (talk) 12:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Structure[edit]

I've made an attempt at fleshing out a structure, but I'm not even sure about going this direction, because it explicitly identifies "genres" of music which I'm not sure we should be discussing here unless we can clearly cite that they are directly related to the history/development of Noise/music. However, I think it provides a clearer overview of the various strands. Personally, I think the weakest link here is the "Post industrial" categorisation. Measles (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have been reading on this category and will expand on it with citations. Valueyou (talk) 07:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
great, but what I meant about weakest link is that I don't see an explicit connection to developments in noise music in the sources I've seen, have you got a source that place's something called "post-industrial" in the context of the history of noise music? (I'm presuming this is the umbrella term invented by music journalists to cover any music that is stylistically informed by industrial music yet is at the same time far enough removed to warrant the 'post' tag).
Unless the sources are good on this, it's too divergent, in my opinion, to include right now. Some of what might be called post-industrial is not that far removed from pop music so it simply doesn't warrant inclusion. You might as well do a section on death-metal and its precursors, but this kind of bifurcatory dot connecting is hardly the best way forward; especially as the title of this article arose as a result of someone trying to define a single genre known as "noise music".
Personally, I think it is perhaps a stretch too far to start covering any kind of music, or any composer/artist, that might have dabbled in a bit of noise making, and I don't think that is what should happen with this article, unless the claims are sourced, and that's why I mentioned already that we should try and stick as closely as possible to what the main sources dealing with the historical use of sound/noise in music have to offer. We now see a number of artists (for example Jeff Mills) being redefined as a post-industrial musicians?? and the sentence throws in the year 2000 despite the fact that Mills has been associated with techno for 20 years now. I find this kind of redefinition without strong sources problematic. Measles (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I think when I first addressed this part I was falling back on the wiki page post-industrial music. Perhaps I should link to that page. In that DJs like Jeff Mills use scraps of buzz and hiss today to often replace the high hat and bass - it is an interesting extension of noise music. No? But Jeff Mills is not the most notable to do this. I added him because of his Critical Arrangements / Le Futurisme À Paris / at the Centre Pompidou that I saw. http://vernissage.tv/blog/2008/10/23/jeff-mills-critical-arrangements-le-futurisme-a-paris-centre-pompidou-paris-interview/ Valueyou (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Mills & Hawtin go right back to the second wave of Detroit techno, add Underground Resistance to that, and yes they were influenced by artists such as Nitzer Eb, DAF, Front 242, etc. underground club sounds in the Detroit area were picking up on New Beat and EBM in the late 80's. While the fist wave were exporting Detroit techno to Eurpoe, people such as those mentioned infused techno with a harder industrial edge, eventually it became self-parody at a point because things in Europe kept getting harder and faster in response to stuff coming out on UR and +8 (Hawtin's label). This is all documented, can't remember which book, thinks it's Dan Sicko's Techno Rebels. But I think this is diverging too much, as I said.
Anyway, the date seems to be wrong, would like to see the source first, re:2000, Hawtin striped his sound right down in the early to mid 1990s (along with Robert Hood & Dan Bell), that's when minimal Techno appeared, Ricardo Villalobos has been around a while also, at least mid 90s. There is a line directly from minimal techno and the Basic Channel/Chain Reaction labels to glitch, but it's not clearly defined in the writings on the evolution of the post-digital sound, it's there if you listen to the records as they changed, things getting stripped back, until it was essentially record noise at one point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.238.248 (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes I was rounding out the year reference to "Worship The Glitch: Digital music, electronic disturbance" by Rob Young that I found in Goodman, Steve. Contagious Noise: From Digital Glitches to Audio Viruses in Parikka, Jussi and Sampson, Tony D. (eds.) The Spam Book: On Viruses, Porn and Other Anomalies From the Dark Side of Digital Culture. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. 2009. pp. 129-130 but in reading those pages over I see that he states that DJs "preoccupation with surface noise" begins in the "early to mid 1990s". You seem to know this area very well - so please correct the passage. I will change the date now. Thanks. Valueyou (talk) 10:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Name[edit]

It seems to me that this page should be moved back to "Noise music," rather than "Noise (music)." Many sources refer to "Noise music," including the recently published "Noise" Wire Primer by Nick Cain, which seems to me to be rather authoritative. Aryder779 (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Concur: I couldn't agree with you more. The current title suggests the article is about the place of noise in music (cymbals in the symphony orchestra, for example, or instrumental and vocal attack transients, etc.). "Noise music" is an established category; "Noise (music)" is not.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the archives it appears the reason for the name change has to do with confusion surrounding 'noise' as a genre of music.
Japanese noise music is generally referred to as 'noise' not 'noise music': hence the 'noise (music)' title.
What we now have here now is a history of noise in music and the arts; so why is it being summed up as "noise music" or "noise (music)"??
I'm opposed to the notion of claiming that Varese and Death Metal are "noise music", because neither are. Is it correct to use the term noise music in reference to music, or art, that utilises noise based elements in conjunction with conventional musical materials such as melody, harmony, rhythm, metre, and even dissonance? For instance, Varese did not use a siren as noise, and he vehemently opposed the vision of the Furturists. Also, death metal etc. may be fast and furious, guitars may be distorted, and vocals guttural, but musically it is actually very conventional, it really is not noise music. Same for so called industrial music genres, most are very conventional both musically and sonically.
What definitions and boundaries are we going to impose here, long term, so that we don't end up engaging in WP:OR based historical revisionism. Measles (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is, noise (music) is ambiguous, and could refer either to the genre (the topic of this article) or to the family of sounds, which have uses in many genres. I came here because I was considering creating an article on the family of sounds, rather than the genre.

I can find no "archives" related to this, and would welcome a link to any that anyone else can find. The page history of this page contains a move on 19 September 2008 from Noise music to Noise (music), with the edit summary commonly referred to as 'Noise' not 'Noise music'. Move notification posted 5 weeks ago. One affirmative response. [1], presumably referring to this discussion.

That move makes no sense to me, and there's no valid rationale given for it that I've found as yet. I am considering raising a requested move to move it back, or at worst to document the reasons for having it at this title. Andrewa (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

you are making significant changes without consensus. This article is not about a 'genre' of music. It would be better to wait for input on this before making significant changes and moves across a range of article titles. Semitransgenic talk. 11:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
This post resulted in an edit conflict, so my explanation of what I've done is belated but here it is: On reflection, and further consulting the archives of this page, I've decided to be bold and move this article from noise (music) to noise (music genre), modify the redir at noise music to still point here, and start a new stub at noise (music) to deal with the more general topic of noise in music. Note that this has not required any use of admin powers, but in any case I think there was a consensus that the title noise (music) was not a good one for the genre, and this outcome seems to answer the only objection to moving it back to noise music (about which I am now neutral, I think it's probably a good idea but the current situation is quite satifactory).
So, disagree that there is no consensus, agree that the changes are significant. What's your proposal? Would noise music be the best title, or noise (music technique)? I note that the category is Category:Noise music. Andrewa (talk) 12:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I note that the lead reads 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. [2] (and has for some time). That both goes beyond the use of noise in music, and also fails to cover the topic of noise in music fully, so it's a very poor match for the title noise (music). Andrewa (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and agree that it would be good to wait more than a few hours for comment on moves across a range of article titles, but there are no such moves made or proposed. Andrewa (talk) 12:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Note also that Category:Noise music is currently [3] a subcategory of Category:Electronic music genres. Are you saying this is incorrect?
Or, is the topic noise music a genre, but this article is about something else? If so, what?
Note also that this article uses Template:Infobox music genre. Is this also incorrect?
I'm not for a moment saying that the current situation is ideal, just that it seems to be progress. There's still a lot to do, especially if, as you claim, This article is not about a 'genre' of music. Andrewa (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Free noise[edit]

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)

    • Yes everything you say is valid. What I know of free noise (there is a festival by that name) I cannot document from books yet. However it seems obvious that Albert Ayler and the others pushed music into noise and have inspired live collective improvisational noise playing. This topic does need work. Valueyou (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
      • As nothing has happened for a year, I put the jazz section back in - into the Postmodern developments area. I still agree that it could use work, but I do think that we cannot ignore free jazz as nosiy. 81.57.34.12 (talk) 11:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
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)

avant-garde?[edit]

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)

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)

Good![edit]

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)

"Shit fi"?[edit]

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)

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)
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)

George Harrison[edit]

Could George Harrison´s "Electronic Sound" be the first noise album in popular music? --Rivet138 (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Rivet138

It could be, of course. It depends on several factors:
  1. Does it satisfy the definition of "noise music"?
  2. Was it popular music?
  3. Assuming that the answer to both of the above questions is "yes", then it is necessary that the answer to at least one of them is "no" for Unfinished Music No.1: Two Virgins, or for any other album produced before Electronic Sound.
I don't know the answers to these questions, but one crucial additional thing is needed: a reliable source to confirm each of them.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Transgenre issues[edit]

This is getting a little complicated. User:Semitransgenic has now done a cut-and-paste move [4], but and has yet to provide any rationale for it [5].

I'm not going to further complicate matters. Let's discuss now and then fix later. Questions to be resolved below. Andrewa (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

@Andrewa ideally you should really have waited for people to comment on your proposal before making such sweeping changes to an article that up until now seems to have been of no interest to you. Your changes were done in such a manner that a straight forward reversion of a move using standard means was practically impossible. Semitransgenic talk. 10:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I made no no sweeping changes, just a single, simple, very standard move, done in a very standard way, and requiring no sysop powers, any confirmed user could have done it. This move was responding to what two other users had observed, that the name noise (music) is unsatisfactory for the article as it is and long has been, and neither you nor anybody else had replied to these comments. That is a strong consensus. Yes, it did need an admin to reverse it, that's what WP:RM is for, and it would have been easily and speedily done. In glorious hindsight I certainly made a mistake in not raising an RM on this occasion.
But it was I think an understandable mistake. As I said above, the need was raised by two other contributors, and their comments to this affect were unanswered. I could not anticipate your rash actions in response.
You might also like to read WP:OWN. Andrewa (talk) 11:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
@Andrewa this has nothing to do with "ownership." I think reverting something to its most recent stable condition and then placing a request for discussion on the matter is reasonable. Additionally, the discussion you replied to above, was, for all intents and purposes, dead (Dec. 2009), it should have been archived ages ago. Moving the article back was not a simple matter of reverting a move and deleting a redirect because the original article title had been reassigned. Anyway, this is immaterial at this point, as we appear to have moved forward. Semitransgenic talk. 12:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Disagree with most of this. The issues raised in the previous discussions were and are important and had not been resolved. Yes, you could not simply revert, that is an unfortunate restriction of the system, but that's not my fault. It may have seemed to you that I made it difficult, but that's just because you didn't understand the system. You have raised issues of ownership I believe, both in your comments and in your actions.
The problem arose because you objected so strongly to describing either noise or noise music as a music genre. You have still to provide any justification for this, despite many invitations to do so, and it took me by complete surprise.
Agree we are now moving forward. Andrewa (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
unfortunately I don't have enough time right now to detail sources that might go some way toward justifying my position re:the noise/music/genre/not-genre conundrum, however the objection related to you retitling the article 'noise (music genre)' when it is patently not about a specific genre of music; it is more generally about the use of noise based sonorities in an artistic, musical, and pseudo-musical context. Seems like a valid objection. Semitransgenic talk. 22:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
You have every right to object, and to have your views on the article name heard. You have no right at all to accuse me of acting improperly, particularly as your own subsequent actions were in clear violation of procedures. Andrewa (talk) 09:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
@Andrewa, the evidence speaks for itself, I have provided multiple reliable sources on the matter in accordance with establishing "commonly accepted mainstream scholarship" but you have refused to accept what this body of knowledge demonstrates. In addition you have presented nothing substantive in response. You dismissed a notable authority (widely cited by multiple academics) and suggested that other evidence was irrelevant. And you expect an editor to then assume that this is done in the best interests of the encyclopaedia? How long do you expect an editor to maintain AGF when presented with this kind of behaviour? Semitransgenic talk. 12:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
The problem is, you can't be judge, jury and executioner too. Wikipedia is collaborative. We have behavioural guidelines to help this collaboration, which can be a bit tense at times. I've adhered to WP:AGF I think, it's not for lack of trying if not. But it hasn't always been easy. I don't understand why you have still made no contribution to the Paul Hegarty stub article, I'm sure you're more able to write it than I am. I don't understand why you keep harping on wanting to move the article back to noise (music) but make no attempt to use the collaborative procedures which could produce this result, especially when your original complaint against me is that I didn't consult.
I did get that wrong. I've admitted it. I found what seemed like two necessary moves at about the same time, neither requiring admin authority. One seemed easy, the other seemed a potential problem, so I did the easy one and raised an RM for the other. Here's the result of that RM. So I got both of them wrong, actually. I'm human. And so are you; Your initial criticisms of, and responses to, the move were based on a complete failure to understand what had happened.
And when you accuse me of wilfull ignorance, it hurts. I'm fairly sure it's not true. Ignorance, perhaps, but that's not a crime here. But wilfull ignorance would be, in my opinion. But if it is true, or even if just the ignorance is true, you need to seek consensus on that. You can't be judge etc. any more than I can. And violating behavioural guidelines yourself is not the way to drum up support.
I have honestly tried to learn from the material you have posted, and I have learned a lot. Thank you. But I have also been frustrated by your ignoring honest questions which I thought were relevant and took a great deal of time over. The answers would have saved me a lot more time than they would have cost you, and possibly even changed my mind. I've done more research, and I've asked in my local library whether I can get copies of Hegarty and some other authors you've cited, still working on that. (ISBNs of other significant monologues would be helpful.) I'm hoping the liner notes on the Hegarty book will enable me to flesh out the article on him a little, provided the library binding hasn't made them inaccessible.
But it still seems to me that you haven't justified a move back to noise (music), I'm afraid. I think you now need to either patiently answer my good-faith questions, or give up on that article title, or seek consensus from others in support of your views. Andrewa (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
PS nor have I dismissed a notable authority (your link). What I have dismissed is your refusal to even consider evidence which points the other way.
There is no doubt an authoritative body of writers who shun the word genre in this context. You have established that and I have not contested the evidence you have presented. But that is a puzzle, as it is so contrary to the normal understanding of the term genre, as presented for example in the lead to our article genre. Perhaps the article is wrong? There's no point my speculating on what your answer might be to that, you need to tell me.
If it turns out, as I suspect and have speculated several times now, that we have a specialised usage of terms in this particular field of scholarship which is contrary to the normal understanding (in reliable sources of course), then Wikipedia policy as I understand it is to prefer the common usage in article titles. I'm not dismissing the authorities. While there are serious issues with the genre article, to me at a glance it looks adequately sourced, and accurate, and these authorities should surely be considered too. But we never got to discuss this, you just moved on and left the question hanging.
On the other and, I have tried to answer you, and have been villified for it. Which is contrary to behavoural guidelines for obvious reasons I think. Andrewa (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
OK let me apologise, I misjudged you intentions here, I often find it difficult to gauge if other editors are gaming, to push their own views.
Reading your comments above, I still think there is confusion here about the word "genre" in relation to noise music. I have tried to be very clear about the word's usage, as reflected in the examples provided. It applies to "noise music" from a particular point on; it is not used to retroactively redefine all music that has ever used noise as compositional element.
In terms of the question of common usage, and this takes the discussion right back to the point I was trying to make nearly two years ago, fans of "noise music" (the people who are common users of the term) view it as a genre that originates (roughly) with Metal Machine Music etc., the same fans invariably use the term "noise" to sum this genre up, and in common parlance, that is the word they use. Do I have sources to support this? no. This understanding stems from personal engagement with a "scene."
However, what we do have sources for, is the point about "noise music" becoming a genre proper via Japanoise, with Lou Reed et al being influential in the development of this scene. The sources in question reflect a commonly held understanding of the genre's development, it is not a specialised academic interpretation. The common view, from the sources I have seen, is also reflected in commonly accepted mainstream scholarship.
All I am saying is that if this article was simply about a clearly defined period in the development of "noise music" (genre), and it emphasised the importance of 70s noise/Japanoise/minimal noise etc. in the formation of a genre, I would have no problem calling it "noise (music genre)."
But, what we have at the moment is an article that functions in exactly the same manner as a category article such as "electronic music," it is about the use of noise in a whole host of musics, in other words, noise in music, or more succinctly "noise (music)."
Anyway, the consensus below is that we move the article to "noise music" and the 7 days has now expired. I think this should be the next step. Semitransgenic talk. 12:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Is noise a music genre[edit]

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)

Is noise music a music genre[edit]

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)

Should noise music have its own article[edit]

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)

What does noise mean in music[edit]

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)

Where to[edit]

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)

There's a third possibility, and that is to leave the histories as they are, rewrite this article to be a general treatment of noise in music, as a split from the original article whose history is at noise (music genre). We can then move that article somewhere sensible (or leave it where it is) to cover the specialised aspects of the genre (or whatever you wish to call it). Andrewa (talk) 04:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Some things that seem agreed[edit]

(between myself and User:Semitransgenic at least)

This article noise (music):

OK so far? Anyone else object to these, or do we have consensus? Andrewa (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

despite my comments above I have to agree with your appraisal and support a move to 'noise music' as the simplest solution to this current mess, we then work on this new 'noise (music)' take. Semitransgenic talk. 10:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Progress. Andrewa (talk) 11:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, so you are prepared for me to split the article provided it's to noise (music) removing references to the (controversial concept of) genre, with material going to noise music for the genre-related aspects (which you call by other names) and the article history going there too.
Does that include retaining the music genres infobox and music genre categories for the noise music article? I can see no justification whatsoever for removing them, in terms of the lead at genre.
Would you also allow me to revert your blanking of noise (music genre) in order to restore the history there, and to allow us to start work on the genre-or-whatever-related article there? I will then raise a requested move to shift he article to noise music, but that will take a week or so to actually happen. And of course it may not, depending on consensus there. Andrewa (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


I have no objections to any of the above. Semitransgenictalk. 22:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Restored[edit]

I restored the article and talk pages to before the improper cut/paste move, from which it was just going to get more difficult to recover.

Now we can decide what title we want. I suggest "Noise music" like it says in the lead. Dicklyon (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

There is some recent discussion still at Talk:Noise (music). If someone knows a cleaner way to patch up this mess, have at it, but I would discourage either of you two who have done the cut and paste hacks from working on it. Dicklyon (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

While I object strongly to being cast as one of two who have done the cut and paste hacks, I'm more than happy to leave the fixes to others from now on if they are willing. Good luck, and thanks for taking it on.
Just for the record, the only copy-and-paste I have done here is to my own comments. I did also blank the source of the forked talk page, after it had been copied and pasted elsewhere, and after observing that I was the only one who had updated the source version and that several users had already updated the destination. Perhaps I should have done nothing, but I think it was a reasonable thing to do in the circumstances, as I was not wishing to complicate things further and/or use sysop powers.
Have you any objection to me working on the restored article now at noise (music genre), and/or restoring and expanding the stub at noise (music)? The gerneral topic of noise in music is an important topic, and the whole reason I came here in the first place. Andrewa (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if I misinterpreted the history. I think we need to sort out this article's title before building a new article at its ex-title. Dicklyon (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
No argument with restoring the article, I would have done it myself had I been uninvolved. And perhaps I made a mistake in blanking one of the forked talk pages. But I see no way to fix the mess that has now resulted from your restore of the talk page.
I have raised a move request to try to sort out the name. Andrewa (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


Noise (music genre)Noise music – Formal request to determine the name for the article on this type of music, formerly at noise (music), after much discussion and other messing about. Andrewa (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

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)
    • Commment: Thank you for this contribution, but for this "vote" to count for much you need to say why you think this. Andrewa (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support article pertains to the use of noise based sonorities in music and art more generally, it therefore engages with multiple genres of music simultaneously and is not about a single genre of music; and that is why it should be moved back to noise (music), or as an inadequate solution, moved to noise music (though the latter term traditionally refers to Japanese noise music: see Hegarthy 2007 & Atton 2011). Semitransgenic talk. 17:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support – the article says it's about noise music, not a genre called noise. If this is a genre, show us the sources that say so. Dicklyon (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment: We now have two sources for this, from different contributors (I'm one of them), see below or these diffs [6] [7] [8]. Andrewa (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support move to noise music: "Noise music" is the most common and least ambiguous term when referring the stylistic aspects. The "music genre" term is not completely accurate (noise covers many genres/movements), and is clunky. For just the general idea of noise in music, I think this warrants its own article with the title I just italicized.--¿3family6 contribs 15:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment: Excellent suggestion for the other article title. Thank you! Andrewa (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Either noise music or noise (music genre) seem perfectly acceptable titles to me, but IMO noise (music) is not, and I thought that would be uncontroversial but it proved not to be the case. My mistake, had I realised there was any problem then I would have raised an RM in the first place and (obviously) now wish I had. I'm human.

But if anyone does feel that this article belongs at noise (music) feel free to make that a counter proposal.

Note this edit summary [9] which does seem to imply support for the name noise (music). I'm very interested in seeing a rationale for this support. Andrewa (talk) 08:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
And I note that the contributor who made that comment is now in favour of this move proposal, so perhaps it's not a problem. Andrewa (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

My hope is that the (excellent) material from this article relating to the use of noise of all sorts in music generally will become the basis for the article that belongs at noise (music), and for which I previously created a stub there [10]. Andrewa (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Heads-up posted at the music genres task force discussion page [11]. Andrewa (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

A Google web search of "Noise music" "Music genre" -Wikipedia gave me 19,100 ghits (your results may vary) and the first few pages all looked relevant. But simply noise is used in context to mean noise music, just like rock and swing. Or that's the way it seems to me. Andrewa (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

@Andrewa see Atton C. (2011), Fan Discourse and the Construction of Noise Music as a Genre, Journal of Popular Music Studies, Volume 23, Issue 3, pages 324–342, September 2011 to clarify exactly why there is a problem with this article title as it stands. As I said earlier, the term noise music (or simply noise) is generally associated withJapanese noise music, that is what the article was originally trying to cover, but over time it morphed into a discussion that relates to the use of noise based sonorities in music and art more generally, it therefore engages with multiple genres of music and is not about a single genre of music; and that is why it was retitled noise (music). Semitransgenic talk. 17:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately that article seems to be available only from paid websites at which I don't have a subscription, can you give a brief quotation of the part relevant to this naming discussion? Andrewa (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
As an outside observer, I ran a Google search that showed at least two books calling it "noise/music". Just throwing this into the discussion for consideration.--¿3family6 contribs 21:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
that the term "noise music" exists is not the issue. The article does not discuss a single genre of music, it lumps a bunch of genres together under the rubric 'noise (music genre)', the article is an act of synthesis. Hegarty's book 'Noise/Music' (2007) "looks at the phenomenon of noise in music" but does not claim that all of this music should be considered a single genre. Also, other authors have gone so far as to claim that if there is something called "noise music" the only thing that characterises it is the expression of an "anti-genre" aesthetic. Semitransgenictalk. 22:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Isn't that rather splitting hairs? If we need a name for this expression of an "anti-genre" aesthetic, wouldn't a term for any category of literature or other forms of art or culture, e.g. music (my emphasis) be exactly what we want? Well, that's the lead to our article on genre. Andrewa (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Hegarthy (2007) clearly discusses "noise music" proper as a movement that has it's origins in the 1970s and which found expression as something approaching a genre in Japanese noise music during the 1980s, generally this is the music fans of this "genre" are talking about when they say "noise music." The use of noise in music and the arts, which Hegarthy also discusses in his book (one of the few on the topic), is a different subject, but that is exactly what this article is about, it is not about a singlegenre of music, how many times does need to be restated? Please read the additional source content below. Semitransgenic talk. 13:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Before I state my comment, I just want it clear that I support the title "noise music" or "noise/music", not "noise (music genre)". We don't title the electronic music article "electronic (music genre)", we say electronic music. Now, just as electronic music crosses over many styles, so does noise. Hegarthy is just one of many sources. He is noteworthy, but should be viewed in context with other sources. Noise music does not just refer to Japanoise, but Japanoise is an area where noise is a concrete style, not an cross-genre umbrella term. In other words, Japanoise helped coalesce noise into a recognizable genre, but the term noise music does not always refer to Japanoise specifically.--¿3family6 contribs 19:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
And I'm still happy with either noise music or noise (music genre), or even noise (x) provided x is not simply music. But I'm not sure that the suggestion that noise music is ambiguous, and could also refer specifically to Japanoise (which seems to be agreed to be a genre), has been adequately explored. Andrewa (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
the comment above that "Hegarthy is just one of many sources. He is noteworthy, but should be viewed in context with other sources" is not entirely accurate. On the subject of noise/music Hegarty has produced one of a handful of in-depth book length scholarly explorations of the domain as it relates to contemporary developments, Demers (2009:103) states that: "Noise is one of the most popular subjects in electronic and contemporary music studies today, and thanks to Hegarty’s work (2007;2008), we now have a critical vocabulary and historical frame in which to contextualize (or fail to contextualize, as Hegarty would see it) noise works." Noise is an aesthetic that attempts to bypass simplistic notions of genre (there is an underlying socio-political aspect to the practice) but whether or not it is actually successful in this end is a different discussion entirely. I am not suggesting that we attempt to deal with non-genre issues in a title, but the title 'noise (music)' successfully sums up what the article is about, and does so without reinforcing the notion of genre. Semitransgenic talk. 23:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── My comment on Hegarty was a little premature, I subsequently discovered that he is one of the primary authorities on noise. I don't see how "noise (music)" is different from "noise music". The later has more support in references, and is consistent with other titles such as the previously mentioned "electronic music". And it is just easier to link to/type out. The attachment of "music genre" would still be accurate, but it is clumsy, awkward, and unnecessary.--¿3family6 contribs 02:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Paul Hegarty is a practitioner of noise music and a writer on the subject, and qualified in several related fields. He should certainly be taken seriously, and his views cited in the article(s). But whether he is a reliable secondary source on the matter of whether noise music is a genre is another question entirely. His views matter, but they should be seen in context. Andrewa (talk) 03:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
See #Some reviews of Hegarty below. Andrewa (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

From above: Noise is an aesthetic that attempts to bypass simplistic notions of genre (my emphasis)... exactly. But this is a particular, specialised use of the word noise. I think this usage is sufficiently common to deserve an article, and you seem to agree. But this usage does not cover the more general usage of the term noise in music. That more general usage, which includes this topic, is what a reader will expect to find at noise (music). So, we need to find another way to disambiguate noise. The obvious one is genre, but that term is rejected by authorities on the subject, as this rejection is itself part of what they call the aesthetic, but which would otherwise be called a genre. OK so far? Andrewa (talk) 02:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry this is becoming so long-winded, but it's important to clearly document just why the term genre is being so strongly opposed here. Andrewa (talk) 02:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so having "genre" in the title is not just clunky, it's too specific. So why not call the article "noise music"? Electroacoustic music and acousmatic music are more aesthetics than genres, and they are simply called "x music". The term "noise music" is what the article has in bold, not simply noise, as the title would suggest. It is not inaccurate either - the article is about noise as music. But I haven't really seen any objection to this as a title anyway. Unless we contesting as to whether the title should be "noise music" or "noise (music)", I don't see why we need to continue this discussion, as we all seem in agreement that "genre" is unacceptable.--¿3family6 contribs 12:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
The only real objection to that appears to be the suggestion made in several places (but not terribly coherently in any of them) that noise music refers to Japanoise in some way. But the proposal under discussion is to do exactly what you say, and it appears to me likely to succeed. The only oppose so far is an opinion unsupported by any argument, which does count but not very much. If I were closing admin, which I can't be of course, I'd consider it a rough consensus to move at this stage.
And this is a good outcome. It makes this whole question of genre irrelevant. I look forward to seeing the article develop at its new home, noting that the references in this discussion should provide some interesting material to add to it. Andrewa (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Genre or not[edit]

From the survey above: If this is a genre, show us the sources that say so. I think that misses the point completely. The only question is, if we want to call this article music (disambiguator), what's the best substitution for disambiguator? So long as there's evidence (and there is lots) that the proposed title is recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources (my emphasis), it's not necessary to find a source that says "noise" is a genre of music. That is simply a matter of definition.

It's certainly complicated because there do seem to be sources that say "noise" is not a genre of music, see above, and perhaps that's not surprising for something that is also termed an "anti-genre" aesthetic above. These views should certainly be quoted and cited in the article, but it looks to me to be a POV that we shouldn't ourselves adopt either way. We simply use the best English term available, so if there's an alternative with the same meaning but without this baggage let's find and use it. Noise (musical term} is inaccurate; Noise (musical movement) doesn't work either. Noise (musical something whose enthusiasts don't like it called a genre, but otherwise we would) doesn't work at all. Other ideas? Andrewa (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

let's clarify what we are actually talking about, most of the published work dealing with "noise music" deals with Japanese noise music and related precursor styles (see the comment further below under Japanoise for additional context on this). Atton notes that:
The term noise music is generally used to refer to contemporary musical practices that have dispensed with melody, harmony, and at times even rhythm or pulse...There is an emphasis on high volume levels and lengthy, continuous pieces. The origins of noise music are multiple. Japanese noise music begins in the early 1980s with groups such as Incapacitants and the Boredoms (who use conventional rock instruments in addition to electronics). The best-known exponent of Japanese noise music (perhaps of noise music globally) is Asami Akita, who performs as Merzbow. In the United Kingdom, the industrial music scene of the late 1970s and early 1980s can be seen as a precursor of noise music, with Throbbing Gristle generally regarded as the primary influence, inspiring performers such as Non, Whitehouse, and the New Blockaders. In the United States, the noise rock of groups such as Mars and DNA (perhaps even Sonic Youth), and the atonal improvisations of Borbetomagus can be considered as precursors. Lou Reed’s double album of feedback, Metal Machine Music (released in 1975), seems to contain the primary characteristics of what became noise music, what Howard Slater describes as “the incursion of extraneous sounds. . . the ‘noise’ of amplified micro-sounds. . . the out-and-out ear splitting conglomerations of overloaded circuitry” (157–58)...Recent theoretical interest in noise music has drawn attention to the difficulties of making sense of it as a musical practice. In addition to Hegarty, we have Brassier, Novak, Smith (“Why Hardcore” and “Splinter”), Thacker, and many of the authors collected in Mattin and Iles. Iles finds that few of the contributors to Noise and Capitalism “are interested in defining noise. . . as genre”. Amongst those who do attempt to define noise music, we find claims similar to those of Hegarty. For Brassier, noise music is a “generic anomaly,” “a genre predicated upon the negation of a genre”. Throughout these accounts we find contradiction and paradox, as if the multiple histories, practices, locations, and cultural values ascribed to noise music make it impossible to consider it as a coherent set of musical codes with a stable ideology and an identifiable sociocultural significance. At the very least, noise music appears as “genre-destabilizing.” (Atton 2011:326).
However, we are not concerned here with whether or not noise music/japanoise is a genre or "non-genre," that is a side-track, the main discussion relates to the proper naming of an article that is demonstrably an account of noise usage in music and the arts since the early 20th century: the article is not about a genre music. Semitransgenic talk. 13:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Electronic music isn't one genre either, yet it is called "electronic music". The premise of the noise article is that it is about various genres of noise. They all are a form music, so I don't see why the title couldn't just be "noise music" - unless there are sources disputing the "music" aspect.--¿3family6 contribs11:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I think this is progress.
Agree that whether or not noise music/japanoise is a genre or "non-genre" is not an issue, but for very different reasons. This is an esoteric and possibly POV distinction. So far as article naming goes, we would never disambiguate as noise (non-genre) or noise music (non-genre), simply because it's unnecessarily precise. Any category of literature or other forms of art or culture, e.g. music that authorities choose to call a non-genre is, by definition, a genre. Andrewa (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
See my above comments in the Discussion section.--¿3family6 contribs 02:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
In a section discussing noise music Landy (2007:127) observes that:
...again, we have something that covers a category more than a genre...owing to the breadth of possibilities it offers. This is typical of something being named after either its technology or its sound source.
Semitransgenic talk. 14:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Just for completeness, note that http://www.mti.dmu.ac.uk/events-conferences/sssp2009/proceedings/07_SSSP09_Wolf.pdf (the whole article well worth a read) starts out The genre noise music does not have a proper definition (my emphasis). That's the lead sentence of the abstract, so the article is going to talk about a genre, and that genre is called noise music.

Against this, we have Hegarty (a noise musician) and his followers wishing to promote a particular esoteric view of their genre, that it is a non-genre etc, and that's consistent with the idea of non-music and other deliberately arresting catchphrases that you'll also find in the literature. And good luck to them, it's fun and in their own publications, appropriate. It's deliberately arresting music, too. I'm a fan of the Residents myself, having been introduced to their stuff by the bass player in my mid-1970s band who collected their albums even at that stage.

actually Hegarty is also a published academic with a doctorate in philosophy and a masters in critical theory, but again you know better, right? Semitransgenic talk. 15:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
No personal attacks, please (and this is not the first). Yes, Paul Hegarty has published a number of books, the one on noise music appears to be at least his third, and he's a lecturer in philosophy and I'm not surprised he has a doctorate. You seem to know far more about him than I do, so why don't you use this knowledge to expand the article on him? I didn't know the subject of his higher degrees, for example. That certainly belongs in his bio. But it's his musical work that most concerns us here. Andrewa (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
hardly a personal attack, and, the thing that really serves to "hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia" is a reluctance to accept what the "best and most reputable authoritative sources" have to offer, particularly when it's clear that "commonly accepted mainstream scholarship" reflects the same view. Alleging that a source is nothing more than WP:SOAP when there is little doubt that said source is not only well researched but also widely cited, seems problematic to me. Semitransgenic talk. 23:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not saying that Hegarty's book is nothing more than WP:SOAP, which is in any case explicitly about articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages, not about sources, and I'm certainly not saying that it shouldn't be quoted and cited appropriately. Just the opposite, in fact.
But I am saying that we should see it in context, and examine what it actually says, and both of these lead me to conclude that it can't be usefully quoted as a reason not to use genre in this article title.
And I'm also suggesting that you should comment on content, not on the contributor. Phrases such as again you know better, right? and willful ignorance are simply not in accordance with this policy. Andrewa (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Even this discussion has elements of noise to it. Again, not surprising, but probably not helpful to Wikipedia.

Let us by all means get rid of the disambiguator music genre if we have alternatives, and let us try to make it a solution that will last, and I'm afraid that part of that is, let us not be too naive about what is going on here. Andrewa (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

As there is documented contention over whether noise is a genre, that would be good to mention in a specific section of the noise article. Heavy metal music has a really good section that debates the influence of classical on the style, and that could be used as an example for how to construct a similar section here (although, unlike with heavy metal, we don't have one critic/historian directly challenging another by name).--¿3family6 contribs 19:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Agree. Andrewa (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
@Andrewa you are misinterpreting the paper, Wolf mentions the word genre only 3 times, and displays no engagement with the matter as it relates to noise music, but he does, quite categorically, say the following: "Although there are a many genres in contemporary music using noise as one of their elements, these shall not be the focus of this paper. More of interest is music which consists entirely of so called noise (such as hiss, crackling or feedback sounds)." He is clearly referring to contemporary post-japanoise noise music (possibly 'lower case' as there is mention of lower volumes) as a "genre," he even mentions Merzbow directly in the opening, to indicate which "noise music" he is defining as genre. Semitransgenic talk. 23:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
There is no interpretation involved. The article speaks of the genre noise music in its very first sentence. That is a fact. Andrewa (talk) 09:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Concur with Andrewa.--¿3family6 contribs 12:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
It is wilful ignorance if one ignores that Wolf, Hegarty, Atton, Van Noort and other commentators use the term "noise music" to discuss a "genre" of which: "the industrial music scene of the late 1970s and early 1980s...[and] the noise rock of groups such as Mars and DNA (perhaps even Sonic Youth) can be seen as a precursors...[with] Lou Reed’s double album of feedback, Metal Machine Music (released in 1975)...[containing] the primary characteristics of what became noise music (Atton 2011:326).
Van Noort states that "in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Japanese artist Masami Akita further abstracted the sound and freed it from the guitar (taking Lou Reed’s 1975 album Metal Machine Music as a point of departure)...and developed a sound that has been dubbed ‘noise music’ and heralded noise as genre" (Van Noort 2006:177).
To reiterate:...with the vast growth of Japanese noise, finally, noise music becomes a genre" (Hegarty 2007:133).
Wolf references Hegarty throughout the paper, and discusses the terrain using similar distinctions, nowhere in the paper (btw an unpublished student paper) is he suggesting that "noise music" is a term that can be applied to all noise based music more generally, and in a fashsion that suggests it is a genre, in fact, as mentioned above, he writes: "Although there are a many genres in contemporary music using noise as one of their elements, these shall not be the focus of this paper." Also, Wolf states: "there is Noise Music consisting of equivalent sounds (e.g. hiss, crackling, feedback) without performing on high volume, which is often considered as main parameter for Noise Music."
The "noise music" Wolf refers to here is a style often called 'Lowercase (music)' or 'minimal noise' (Sangild 2004) the name for "a loose movement in electronic music that emphasizes very quiet sounds and the long, empty silences between them...[It] resembles what Rilke called 'inconsiderable things' - the things that one would not ordinarily pay attention to, the details, the subtleties...Lowercase recordings are often based on scientific subjects: an amplified anthill, a mobile phone running out of power and the soft pops of bacteria being flash-frozen in dry ice and methanol." (Kahney 2002, The Wire).
It seems no matter what WP:RS sources one presents, the personal views of wikipeida editors holds sway; even a published academic such as Leigh Landy, who suggests that noise music represents "something that covers a category more than a genre" is ignored.
However, is there a "genre" called noise music?
Yes there is.
Does it encapsulate, retrospectively, every instance of noise creation in music since the beginning of music history?
No it doesn't.
The majority of commentators who have published work on noise music ("commonly accepted mainstream scholarship") appear to agree that the "genre" proper arose in the late 80s early 90s.
If those disputing this have equivalent sources that we can use to support a case for defining all music that contains noise based components as a single "genre" of music please present them here.
It's better to offer the "best and most reputable authoritative sources" so we can avoid WP:GEVAL. Semitransgenic talk. 15:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Again, some very interesting points, but they don't seem to be relevant to the question at hand. And this is not the place for attacks on the integrity of Wikipedia or of its contributors. Andrewa (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
"they don't seem to be relevant to the question at hand." Well done, a remark that serves only to substantiate my previous allegation. Semitransgenic talk. 23:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Let's back up. What I was concurring with Andrewa was that the paper by Wolfe treats noise as a genre, nothing more. So, moving on, the paper by Wolfe was for an international post-graduate conference, of which Wolfe was a chair. The only problem that I can see is I'm not sure on the publishing side of things. Now, as for the "genre" debate, what exactly the genre of noise is appears nebulous, and it is a subset of the larger "aesthetic" of noise music. The emergence of the genre should be documented, and if there is debate, then that should be documented as well.--¿3family6 contribs 16:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
This discussion should focus on simply what are the pros and cons of the three suggested titles for the article connected to this talk page. This particular section should focus on whether it is acceptable to use the word genre in the title. Hegarty seems to have a bet each way, and that's exactly as you would expect. He is a philosophy lecturer, and no doubt well versed in the concept of the absurd which is in many ways similar to the current investigations of noise as an artistic... dare I say it... genre.
While his work undoubtedly deserves to be described in the article, it is little help with the title. To assert and even believe two logically inconsistent propositions, such as that noise both is and isn't a genre, is admirably noisy, but not terribly encyclopedic. We might just as logically retitle the article on surealism my big toe. Andrewa (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if I've ever seen a music genre that actually has "genre" in the title, so that appears non-standard. I was just stating that if there is debate over the term genre, it should be mentioned in the article. But not the title.--¿3family6 contribs 01:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Quite possibly there are no other articles using this particular disambiguator, and I was at first struggling to find an appropriate one. Efforts to standardise disambiguators have been very patchy, there aren't even tools to easily find what is in use as far as I know (and if there are I'd love to know). And if we move the article to noise music it's academic anyway. But from the previous talk page discussions I was anticipating problems with noise music, and when I thought of noise (music genre) it seemed an obvious solution. And there was another move at the same time that I thought might be problematic, so although it needed no admin powers I raised an RM anyway, see talk:vibrations of a circular membrane#Requested move. Wrong all three times. Not my best day. But if that's the worst of our problems we're OK. Andrewa (talk) 03:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Japanoise[edit]

From discussion above: or as an inadequate solution, moved to noise music (though the latter term traditionally refers to Japanese noise music. I'm a bit puzzled by this, as the redirect at noise music doesn't ever seem to have been pointed to Japanoise, despite the involvement of the person who made this comment, over several years.[12] But if noise music really is a synonym for Japanoise in some contexts, this is a valid argument against the move. At the very least it needs a hatnote which doesn't seem to have happened either.

for detail on this question see Hegarty 2007:133-165, the chapter dealing with Japanoise begins with:
In many ways it only makes sense to talk of noise music since the advent of various types of noise produced in Japanese music, and in terms of quantity this is really to do with the 1990s onwards...With the vast growth of Japanese noise, finally, noise music becomes a genre - a genre that is not one, to paraphrase Luce Irigaray...Japanese noise music can come in all styles, referring to all other genres, like science fiction does, but crucially, asks the question of genre...what does it mean to be categorised, categorisable, definable? This is what ties it together as a genre. Hegarty (2007:133)
note that he is talking specifically about Japanese noise music, suggesting that this is noise music proper: a genre. Up until this point in the book Noise/Music he deals with the history of noise usage in music (our article takes a similar approach), but nowhere does he suggest that it should be considered a genre; in the same manner that one might approach Japanese noise music. In the preface Hegarty explains that:
Noise/Music is about noise, about how noise relates to music, and the different ways we arrive at noise music, even if such a combination would seem contradictory...It is a history of how, in the 20th century, noise has become a resource...Although the book works through movements, approaches and practices historically, the question of whether we can legitimately do this is implicit throughout...(Hegarty 2007:ix)
This is interesting, but it doesn't answer the question. Andrewa (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
In this instance Hegarty demonstrates that in the context of discussing a genre called "noise music" Japanoise is a synonym. It seems that as far as this entire matter (above) goes you are verging on being wilfully ignorant. Can I ask, do you doubt the validity of the best sources on this topic? Could you perhaps offer sources that support the positon you are maintaining here instead of dismissing everything? Semitransgenic talk. 15:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm very sorry it has come to this. I am really trying to be reasonable, but we do seem to be going in circles.
Your source above doesn't say why noise music should not have been previously redirected to Japanoise, which was the question. It does make many interesting points, in particular that at a certain point in history noise music becomes a genre. That is of course the key issue, one that I didn't think, for semantic reasons, required a ref, but there you have one. Andrewa (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

We need an adequate solution. Andrewa (talk) 02:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

adequate = you returning it to the last stable article title: Noise (music). There was no discussion and consensus for the move was never established. Semitransgenic talk. 13:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Personally, the Japanese noise argument looks like saying that punk rock = British punk rock music. In other words, the term noise could be used to refer to Japanese noise music, just as punk rock could refer to the British punk rock scene. It doesn't mean that all noise is Japanese or all punk is British. The main style can be used to refer to a specific scene, but that doesn't mean that the specific scene is the main style.--¿3family6 contribs 12:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I fear you are flogging a dead horse here. I was quite entitled to move the page, and acted in good faith on the evidence I had. I did make a mistake in blanking the talk page you had forked, it seemed the best way out of a developing mess at the time but in hindsight I should have just flagged your cut-and-paste moves for repair and let an uninvolved admin fix it.
IMO there is no reason to restore the article as it was. It may have once been an article on the general use of noise in music, I will happily take your word for that, but it now has long been dominated by other material.
But I could be wrong. If you think I am, then again I say, propose the restore formally. That is the system, and it may not be perfect but it works fairly well. Andrewa (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Some reviews of Hegarty[edit]

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)

References 2[edit]

From the move discussion above:

In a section discussing noise music Landy (2007:127) observes that:

...again, we have something that covers a category more than a genre...owing to the breadth of possibilities it offers. This is typical of something being named after either its technology or its sound source.

Semitransgenic talk. 14:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that's probably a useful citation to add to the discussion that belongs somewhere in the article namespace on whether Noise is a genre. Landy doesn't appear in the references or external links of this article so far as I can see, and the two sections of the work online [13] [14] don't contain this passage. Can anyone supply a longer quote so we can see exactly what he's saying? Andrewa (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


From Landy 2007, pages 126-129.

The art of noise. A noise texture is not necessarily a new sound, although when placed into a musical context, it would normally qualify as such. Murray Schafer reminds us that there are four types of noise: unwanted noise, unmusical sound, any loud sound, and a disturbance in any signaling system (such as static on a telephone) (Schafer 1994, 182).

Rob Worby, a noise proponent, has suggested that “noise may well prove to be the most appropriate metaphor for the twentieth century” (Worby 2000, 138). So where does noise fit within sound-based music? The futurists introduced noise into music at the turn of the twentieth century, signaling the need to reflect industrial society in art. Today there exist entire genres of noise-based music emancipating the noise—as often suggested by Stockhausen—in a similar manner to Varèse’s search for the emancipation of the sound and Cage’s search for the emancipation of silence within a musical context. An interview with Merzbow (1999) is entitled “The Beauty of Noise.” Its introduction emphasizes his being inspired by Dadaism, surrealism, and futurism, leading to a “musical genre composed solely of pure, unadulterated noise.” Paul Hegarty considers Merzbow to be the epitome of Japanese noise, or Japanoise artists, artists involved with “ ‘noising’ inspired by free jazz, progressive rock, ‘improv,’ traditional Japanese musics, punks, throw[ing] these together in different combinations, taking the old genres to extremes. ‘Japanese noise’ represents a diverse take on the interaction and furthering of Western contemporary musics” (Hegarty 2001, 195). He therefore considers Japanese noise to be a nongenre owing to its diversity: “So, the term might not be of any obvious utility—but the development of a crossgenre, cross-category, ultra-amplified and often ultra-processed music is something specific (in its breadth and range at least) to Japan” (ibid.). Merzbow “is the pursuit of noise, as if it were music, and vice versa” (ibid., 195), rejecting sound source recognition to support the noise’s otherness. Today, “the term, ‘noise music’ [has been] incorporated into Industrial Music and . . . includes the outer edges of techno and other popular genres” (Worby 2000, 161). So, here again, we have something that covers a category more than a genre (despite noise being placed on the potential genre list earlier in this chapter) owing to the breadth of possibilities it offers. This is typical of something being named after either its technology or its sound source. As John Richards pointed out in a recent paper entitled “Getting Beyond the Medium” (Richards 2005), “lowercase sound,” a current (quiet) form of music that uses microsound and often involves noise textures, is one of very few category or genre terms that cites neither the source nor the technology.

Noise has found its way into a number of prominent titles. Jacques Attali’s Noise is one of the most often cited books concerning the place of both music and noise in late-twentieth-century society (Attali 1985). Douglas Kahn’s surreal title Noise, Water, Meat is a very personal view of twentieth-century music primarily from a cultural studies standpoint including discussions on the roles of noise in artistic developments (Kahn 1999). For our purpose the key noise issue is its relationship to music. Katharine Norman writes: “In the fold between ‘Is this music?’ and ‘Is this noise?’ there’s some room for manoeuvre. It takes a moment to decide” (Norman 2004, 178), a variation on her comment on the ambiguity between homage and ridicule above. Bernd Schulz, aware of Stockhausen’s objective of emancipating noise as musical material, believes that in sound art at least, there is “a dissolution of the border between sound and noise” (Schulz 2002, 14). Hegarty suggests that Attali offers a form of polemic where he “argues that noise is an attack on established forms of meaning, but one that brings something new” (Hegarty 2001, 193, paraphrasing Attali 1985, 33). Attali suggests that music reflects the need for order in the face of the violence of noise (Attali 1985, 85, cited in Truax 1992a, 378). So how does one react to music based on what Schafer has called “unwanted” audio? Stan Link takes a positive view. Citing popular music examples, he writes, “Noise . . . is not just a particular sound or type of sound; it is an aesthetic and technical approach to the work as a whole. . . . As part of this process, noise thus acquired a value centered largely on its phenomenal character rather than its prior relationship to music” (Link 2001, 41). He suggests further that “Noise thinly and seductively partitions perception and meaning, recognition and understanding. . . . Noise is a style of distance—a distance that can be meaningfully confused or exchanged with location, memory, presence, absence, temporality, and experience” (ibid., 47). In contrast, Alistair M. Riddell comes straight to the point: “By definition, [noise] will never substitute for music,” regardless of the fact that he is nostalgic for the noise heard on old LPs (Riddell 1996, 160). Reinhold Friedl, in a quirky presentation on sadomasochism and musical pleasure, relates the odd situation concerning the lot of contemporary music to noise: “The rise both of compositions that equal a set of technical instructions and of perhaps impossible requirements upon performers can be seen to make the act of taking pleasure in their execution a form of masochism. The audiences of increasingly intellectualised musical styles could be said to enjoy a similar relationship to performance. And in the more physical ‘noise music,’ the intended effect is often not auditory pleasure but suffering” (Friedl 2002, 29).

These remarks regarding new sounds have differed to an extent from what we have encountered in the first three subsections. Cultural studies and sound construction have presided above analytical theories. Some classification work has been done on the production aspect of microsound, but others involved in new sounds tend to avoid the search for cohesion. Although I have had students attempt to analyze noise music, I am not aware of published analyses thus far. I find this unfortunate, for we seem to be postponing gaining knowledge about music that is currently innovative.


Note also from Landy 2007 on page 68 & page 71

An issue that will be crucial to section A is the distinction between a genre in the sense of a single musical or artistic grouping (e.g., soundscape composition) and a category in which a performance situation (e.g., installation, mixed work), an aspect of technology (e.g., microsound,2 digital music), or an approach (e.g., algorithmic composition) holds a group of works together.3 The problem is that the word “genre” is often used as a synonym for “category,” leading to some ambiguity. For the remainder of this book, these two terms will be used as described in this paragraph.

Those working on the EARS project have attempted to clarify as many terms as possible to offer a view of the range of sound-based composition. Here, again, genres or categories that restrict themselves to borrowing electroacoustic techniques have not been included in the glossary and index. A look at the current6 genres and categories section of the EARS site offers interesting food for thought. To start, of the approximately eighty terms listed, very few represent genres, most of which have roots in popular music traditions and/or more recent electronica developments. One wonders how many of the following seven terms might be classified as genres as described above: acousmatic, musique concrète, ambient music, bruitisme (or noise music), house, soundscape composition, and spectralisme*.

Semitransgenic talk. 12:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

this is purely an oxymoron[edit]

"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)

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)

It's an oxymoron, all right, but that doesn't directly concern us here. What we're concerned with as an encyclopedia is to describe what is happening rather than to influence it. So for the article title, for example, we seek to determine what this thing is called, rather than asking what it should be called.

Similarly the discussion... in academic sources is something we report here, but we don't take sides. We report the important (or notable) views, and most importantly, we document exactly whose views these are by references. Even when there seems only one side to the discussion we still cite sources, but if these sources give only one possible interpretation then we report this as a fact. The atomic weight of hydrogen and the location of Paris within France, for example, are facts; There is no credible dispute of them.

Which sounds so simple, but we have in recent years unwittingly compromised the principle in a very ironic way, by preferring reliable sources in all things including article names. This then raises the question, what is reliable? And ultimately, we fall back on consensus, both within Wikipedia and within academia and everywhere else, to determine this. So we are relying on unreliable sources in order to choose and authenticate our reliable sources. It's the bootstrap problem all over again. I have no answer to this!

We address but do not solve this problem by the WikiProject system. This has the practical effect allowing local consensus to hold sway in particular areas, and we hope that if it gets badly off track then the wider community will notice and intervene. The only basis of this hope is a sort of faith (and I'm tempted to say, also love - perhaps goodwill would be a better term). But in any case, the wider community has no sounder basis for our authority than does the WikiProject.

And this brings us back to the noise movement, or genre, or thing, or music, or whatever. It's music of sorts, just as experimental music (which is a better title probably, but has already been taken as a technical term for something else) was and is. It deliberately flies in the face of convention, such as what is expressed in the Oxford Companion to Music tenth edition p.10 under Acoustics... 9. Musical and unmusical sounds which states When musical vibrations are more regular they give greater pleasure to the ear... and later The disorderliness of vibrations that lie behind "noise".... This is the first mention of noise in the section, and the entry on Noise: Its nature, effect, etc. (p.686) simply reads See Acoustics 9..

This noise movement goes a long way beyond music, into philosophy and politics, as Paul Hegarty's book (which is IMO the focus of and reason for the current excitement here) apparently makes very plain, with one reviewer (see #Some reviews of Hegarty above) complaining of the grandiose philosophical and political integrity he tries to erect around noise (via a lot of high-faluting, university Marxism). And that tradition goes back at least to the futurist Luigi Russolo, as Hegarty also points out (going by various citations and extracts).

Fascinating stuff. But the focus of this article IMO is and should remain the thing that people mean when they refer objectively rather than perjoratively to a piece of music as noise. For the still-definitive essay on the semantics of this see http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_What_There_Is but it's heavy going unless you're in to metalogic. The theory of speech acts is also relevant. Andrewa (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Noise in music[edit]

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)

A source[edit]

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)

http://www.musicandmeaning.net/issues/pdf/JMMart_2_4.pdf

Lead sentence[edit]

We have a problem with the lead IMO.

Currently reverted back to Noise music is a term used to describe varieties of avant-garde music and contemporary musical practices that have dispensed with melody, harmony, and at times even rhythm or pulse. [15]

Please note that the edit summary: revert lead. Again, confusion arising from a genre descriptor, this is not an article on the genre "noise" it is a general treatment of noise music throughout the 20th century. But there is no reference to genre in the lead, either before or after this edit. There probably should be, but I'd deliberately avoided it, hoping we could get a clear and undisputed lead. Not so it seems.

Is this article about a term? No, it's not. It's about music. Just as the article at rock music is about the music that we refer to as rock, with a lead Rock music is a genre of popular music that developed during and after the 1960s, particularly in the United Kingdom and the United States. Not Rock music is a term, although "rock music" is a term, just as "noise music" is a term.

Similarly, this article is about the music we refer to as noise. Isn't it?

Paul Hegarty has a particular program and POV, and it's great to describe this POV in a clear way. But Hegarty himself won't and can't describe it clearly, because it's part of his program to be enigmatic. Phrases such as a genre that is not a genre come to mind. This has been a part of noise music at least since the Residents and continues to be. And it's rather fun, don't get me wrong.

But on the other hand, Wikipedia articles, and particular our leads, must aim for clarity. Andrewa (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

@Andrewa forgive me if I'm wrong, but on the face of it, you appear to have taken nothing from the extended discussion above regarding the usage context of the word "noise" as it relates to a "genre" called "noise music."
It has been demonstrated above using multiple WP:RS sources what accepted mainstream scholarship have to offer on the matter, Hegarty is but one example, and even he states clearly what he means when using the word genre in relation to "noise music." This is not an article on a single genre of music, how many times does this need to be restated, and how many sources need to be provided before you will accept that your POV does not supersede recognised commentators on the subject?
As mentioned previously this article functions in a similar fashion to the electronic music article; in fact, in keeping with the format there, we should probably remove the genre info box here. Semitransgenic talk. 13:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I hope and believe you are wrong to suggest that I've taken nothing from the extended discussion above regarding the usage context of the word "noise" as it relates to a "genre" called "noise music." I've read and untangled the extended discussion (to which I was of course also a major contributor) and even used some of it in writing the noise in music article. And I've avoided the word genre. This is a pragmatic decision, it's the correct technical term (see genre) but to continue the discussion just gives undue weight to the opinion that this form (or whatever you wish to call it) of music somehow transcends the standard terminology.
But I think the problem goes deeper.
Unlike this article, the electronic music article currently has a satisfactory lead. It reads Electronic music is music that employs electronic musical instruments and electronic music technology in its production. So that article is about the music, rather than about the term. So if this article really functions in a similar fashion to the electronic music article as you say, shouldn't the lead also function similarly? Why doesn't it? Andrewa (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
@Andrewa again issuing POV in stating: "This is a pragmatic decision, it's the correct technical term (seegenre) but to continue the discussion just gives undue weight to the opinion that this form (or whatever you wish to call it) of music somehow transcends the standard terminology."
To reiterate, we are reflecting mainstream scholarship, and it appears that a majority of the commentators on the subject noise music share the same view.
How can this be undue?
The sources above clearly suggest two things:
  • Noise music as genre begins roughly with Japanoise, which was in turn directly influenced by developments from Metal Machine Music onward.
  • Noise music, as a general descriptor of 100 years of noise usage in music, equals a category consisting of multiple discrete genres of music that have employed noise as a musical resource.
The article we have here is representative of definition No. 2 because it very obviously discusses multiple strands of music practice, many of which can accurately be described as genres in their own right.
In denying the above, one is in effect saying that all of these individual genres mentioned in the article, from avant garde music, to rock, to industrial etc. are in actuality sub-genres of a 100 year old genre called noise music.
That would be quite an assertion, but I have seen nothing, in the form of verifiable sources, that could be used to substantiate this so really the question of undue relates to pushing POV when multiple scholarly sources share a different conclusion.
As for the lead, I do not see an issue with the current version. -- Semitransgenic talk. 10:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying very hard not to adopt a POV. My only agenda here is for clarity and consistency within Wikipedia, including of course referenced use of mainstream scholarship to support anything even mildly controversial.
But is Hegarty really mainstream scholarship in the field of music?
I'm quite happy to call noise music a category consisting of multiple discrete genres of music that have employed noise as a musical resource if that is what reliable sources call it. But the only sources we have so far either call it a genre or avoid calling it anything. And we can avoid calling it anything too. That's exactly what this revision attempted: Noise music (also known simply as noise) is any form of music intentionally dominated by noise.
You reverted that [16] with an edit summary Again, confusion arising from a genre descriptor, this is not an article on the genre noise it is a general treatment of noise music throughout the 20th century (italics changed to bold for formatting reasons). I guess you mean the non-genre noise?
So I've tried again [17] using your phrasing exactly. I just want a lead that says what the article is about. That's my agenda. I don't want confusion. I don't want to promote a POV that lumps together styles, forms, genres, whatever, in a way not reflected by mainstream scholarship.
Further down the track we may need to amend the genre article to correct its current lead: Genre ( /ˈʒɒnrə/ or /ˈdʒɒnrə/; from French, genre French pronunciation: [ʒɑ̃ʁ], "kind" or "sort", from Latin: genus (stem gener-), Greek: genos, γένος) is the term for any category of literature or other forms of art or entertainment, e.g. music, whether written or spoken, audial or visual, based on some set of stylistic criteria... [18] (emphasis added) to read perhaps e.g. music (except for noise music).... (;->
And this change has many other repercussions. But let's just fix the lead of this article first. Andrewa (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
On the question of category/genre consider the following (Lena and Peterson 2008:697-718):
There are two dominant approaches to the study of genre. In the first, humanities scholars typically focus attention on the "text" of a cultural object, which is abstracted from the context in which it is made or consumed (Apperley 2006; Devitt 2004; Fowler 1982; Frow 2006; Hyon 1996; Swales 1990; C. Williams 2006). Most musicologists employ this textual approach to identify genre as a set of pieces of music that share a distinctive musical language (van der Merwe 1989). Some sociologists employ the use of genre-as-text, but they are careful to show how genre is influenced by the context in which it is made and consumed.

The second dominant approach defocalizes text and places the study of genre squarely in a social context. Some analysts apply the term to general marketing categories such as pop, clas sical, country, urban, and jazz (Negus 1999). Most studies of taste that analyze survey data to examine how groups of consumers use available genres to express their social identity or status (e.g., Mark 1998) look at very inclusive genres (e.g., rock, MOR, or classical), closer to Ennis's (1992) "streams" or Bourdieu's (1993) "fields." Others use the terms subculture (Thornton 1996), scene (Bennett 1997), or neo-tribe (Maffesoli 1996) in ways cognate with the meaning of genre here.

Alternatively, others highlight the set of cul tural practices (Becker 1982) that a music community defines as a genre and view its texts as the product of social interactions in a specific sociocultural context (Frith 1996). This approach is found in Peterson's (1997) study of the creation of country music, as well as DeVeaux (1997) on bebop jazz, Garland (1970) on soul, Bennett (2004) on the Canterbury sound, Cantwell (1984) on bluegrass, and Kahn Harris (2007) on the European varieties of heavy metal rock. Following these studies, and paraphrasing Neale's (1980:19) definition of genre in film, we define music genres as systems of orientations, expectations, and conventions that bind together an industry, performers, critics, and fans in making what they identify as a distinctive sort of music.

How many sources were offered in the previous discussion?
Mainstream scholarship includes Kahn (1999), Cascone (2000), Hegarty (2001), Sangild (2004), Van Nort (2006), Landy (2007), Hegarty (2007), Brassier (2009), Collis (2008), Atton (2011) and others.
I have no problem using the word genre in relation to noise music if we do it properly. The article needs to be reconfigured to present everything from Metal Machine Music on as the beginning of a genre, becoming genre proper with Japanpoise. Everything preceding MMM is a pre-history, they are simply examples of instances in the arts and in music where noise has been use as a creative resource.
Should we ignore research in this area and instead run with the views of wikipedia editors?
Are you actually citing a wikipeida article and using that as the sole basis of your argument?
It seems you are denying what sources offer and are in effect stating that all of the individual genres mentioned in this article, from avant garde music, to rock, to industrial etc. are sub-genres of a 100 year old genre called noise music, is that the case?
Can you provide any sources for this claim?
Do you or do you not agree that the majority of sources present noise music as a genre proper beginning with Japanoise.
Do you or do you not understnd the distinction that exits here?
Do you have sources that can be used to support the notion that all of this activity preceding MM could accurately be described as a genre?
If you do not wish to answer the questions here clearly and succinctly we will need to move to the first stage of mediated dispute resolution. Semitransgenic talk. 11:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
If that is your wish, please do so. Andrewa (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
no that is not a wish, it's a complete waste of time, but this circular discussion is futile. You seem unwilling to acknowledge that we are dealing with a body of knowledge that extends beyond the views of one notable writer (who, BTW, appears to be qualified to direct research in this field and is widely cited by other equally qualified researchers) and you have not presented sources that support your argument. Semitransgenic talk. 15:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Then please stop making empty threats, they are disruption.
Your latest version of the lead, [19] while being poorly written and formatted IMO, does not make the error of confusing the term with the topic. So the concerns raised in this section are now addressed, thank you.
I would suggest that a paragraph on the use of the term noise music somewhere in the lead would be good, but that information on the term should be left to the second paragraph of the lead at least. I would also suggest trimming the first paragraph to one sentence, and then following that by a more descriptive second paragraph, with information on use of the term noise music then in the third paragraph.
This will make the lead, and the article as a whole, far more accessible and useful to the general reader. We are a general encyclopedia, remember.
But these are just suggestions. I have no intention of attempting to implement them myself. I hope that you or some other editor may consider them. It's an excellent article overall, and a better lead would encourage people to read it. Andrewa (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
thanks for your suggestions, but don't be silly, there is no disruption, it's procedure, if two editors can not agree, there is a dispute, suggesting a move to the first dispute resolution phase is not a threat it's a perfectly valid way to find a way forward. Poorly written? it's a compromise, how would you go about summing up something that can or may include one or many of a whole host of possible features, there is no way to make a definitive statement without describing it either as a term or a genre. With a bit more content on term usage and the attendant genre matter, this can eventually be addressed Semitransgenic talk. 17:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd suggest something here, but I am not informed enough to do so.--¿3family6 contribs 19:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for joining in, it is much appreciated. I think this is replying to my comment Unlike this article, the electronic music article currently has a satisfactory lead.... The latest edits by Semitransgenic finally address this issue, albeit not as well as they might. Distinct progress. Andrewa (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Okay, how about an opening sentence like this: "Noise music, often called simply noise, is music that uses noise as a musical resource"?
Somewhere in the lede, the discussion of whether noise is a musical genre could then be mentioned. This should also be discussed in the article.--¿3family6 contribs 21:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
<------outdent

Agree with all of this. But the priority should now probably be fixing the citations. The first five, for example, are all incomplete:

  • Landy (2007:126-129)
  • Atton 2011, 326
  • Sangild 2002
  • Hegarty 2007, 3-19
  • Kelly 2009, 60–76

The complete apparatus is later in the reflist for at least one of these, but that's not normally considered adequate. Andrewa (talk) 07:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Merger complete[edit]

  YesY Merger complete 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)

Removed: Fancy[edit]

  • Artist and theorist Joseph Nechvatal maintains that noise is often loud, elaborate, interlaced and filigreed - but almost always gradient and highly phenomenological.<ref>[[Joseph Nechvatal|Nechvatal, Joseph]]. [http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ohp;idno=9618970.0001.001''Immersion Into Noise'']. Open Humanities Press in conjunction with the [[University of Michigan]] Library's Scholarly Publishing Office. Ann Arbor. 2011. p. 19</ref>

The above was removed for not being in plain English (I added and internal link to 'phenomenological'). Semitransgenic, what's wrong with this text, and what indicates the user who added it is the author of the cited text? Hyacinth (talk) 01:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so sure a reader with zero prior exposure to this topic would immediately grasp the supposition, it's artspeak, some elaboration to flesh this out would be useful. There is also no context established for why/how it relates to phenomenology (BTW the link is to a disambiguation page so we could be talking about a number of things here).
The matter of who the author is relates to activity I have seen on Wikipedia, and also to posts on external sites regarding the article.
Additionally, the book in question actually has a noise music section that practically mirrors this article and includes text taken, verbatim, from here (see earlier versions). For example: "Noise art music can feature distortion, various types of acoustically or electronically generated noise, randomly produced electronic signals and non-traditional musical instruments. Noise music may also incorporate manipulated recordings, static, hiss and hum, feedback, live machine sounds, custom noise software, circuit bent instruments, and non-musical vocal elements that push noise towards the ecstatic. The Futurist art movement was important for the development of the noise aesthetic, as was the Dada art movement...and later the Surrealist and Fluxus art movements, specifically the Fluxus artists Joe Jones, Yasunao Tone, George Brecht, Wolf Vostell, Yoko Ono, Walter De Maria's Ocean Music, La Monte Young, Robert Watts, Takehisa Kosugi and Milan Knizak’s Broken Music...During the early 1900s, a number of art music practitioners began exploring atonality. Composers such as Arnold Schoenberg proposed the incorporation of harmonic systems that were, at the time, considered dissonant. This guided the development of twelve-tone technique and serialism. In The Emancipation of Dissonance, Thomas J. Harrison, in 1910, suggested that this development might be described as a metanarrative to justify the so-called Dionysian pleasures of atonal noise. Contemporary noise music is often associated with excessive volume and distortion, particularly in the popular music domain with examples such as Boys Noize, Jimi Hendrix’s previously mentioned use of feedback, Nine Inch Nails and Lou Reed’s Metal Machine Music. "
We should note here that failure to attribute is an infringement of CC-BY-SA 3.0 which is Wikipedia's copyright criteria. This is a collaborative work, multiple editors have contributed over time. Semitransgenic talk. 06:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

References still[edit]

After a long break from this article, I've tagged the first of the references with a clarify. All of the first five references, the only ones in the lead, should be similarly tagged, as should many of the others in the extensive reflist.

This inadequate referencing was highlighted long ago [20]. In view of the controversial and esoteric claims made in the lead, it really should be fixed. Andrewa (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

And we seem to have some action [21] [22]. Good stuff. I'm not about to quibble about whether I used the correct tag or edit summary, just so long as it's fixed.
There are still a few to do. Andrewa (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Definition loop: Harsh noise[edit]

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 [23] 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)