Recently in The Art of Noise Category

Although I disagree with many of Russolo's statements in this article, such as "ancient life was all silence," I do think that he brings up some interesting points in his aim to distinguish "sound" and "noise." I like the idea of sound being divine, a thing of its own. Russolo describes making "sound" as a purposeful inquiry, a kind of a human way of interacting with the sonorous world that eventually developed into music. Noise, by contrast, is dissonance. While I do not think that the modern machine invented "noise," I do agree that the industrial age dramatically altered the soundscape of our time.

After reading this article and considering the distinction between sound and noise for myself, it seems to me that sound is something we appreciate and strive for, noise is less important, often "tuned out" sound that certainly can be interesting in and of itself. The article aims to chart the evolution of music into noise-sound, describing how we the mechanical age has dulled our appreciation of the great masters, and an unsatisfied palate for musical exploration of the world around us. After reading this for a second time I then preceded to make my morning coffee, conscious of the clinking silverware drawer, clap of the cupboards, the rattle of dishes, scooping, pouring, click, and of course the beloved dripping and steaming of the coffee pot. I think that background noise becomes sound when it is self-conscious.--The job of the sound artist/ noise-sound musician.

The Art of Noises seems an aptly titled piece to me. While I found the overall tone of the essay rather disagreeable while reading, I find its content rather interesting. It rings true that the only difference between what is perceived as noise, and what is perceived as music, or more simply, pleasant sound, is the frequency and regularity of vibration, and in realizing this - the understanding of all sound as different physical vibrations - the pool of what could be harnessed with the intent of creating with sound opens vastly. Hence the title, The Art of Noises
I think to reinterpret this idea and title, with the intent to apply it to Minneapolis, or anywhere for that matter, a possibly more appropriate title could be The Art of Sound, or more generally, Creation with Sound, or something less corny and bland but along the same lines. I say sound because Russolo seems obsessed with the idea of "noise," as being sound not intentionally made or heard for the purpose of listening, but if the realization of the potential for "noise" to be regarded as sound, don't they become one in the same? And if as a result noise becomes a tool to be used compositionally, does it not then cease to be "noise"? Maybe, maybe not. I would just say that if we accept the idea that all that is audible and can be made audible and can be made inaudible has creative potentia, then we find ourselves in a very fortunate position with a vast amount of resources and potential inspiration.

I don't entirely agree with Russolo in regards to his stance on disignated musical instruments.

Luigi says, "Away! Let us break out since we cannot much longer restrain our desire to create finally a new musical reality, with a generous distribution of resonant slaps in the face, discarding violins, pianos, double-basses and plainitive organs. Let us break out! " I can't conscientiously agree with casting aside these instruments. They have their place. They may be old but they have also been refined ability to communicate on their own. A Chopin nocturne is able to speak just as much as a Mozart piano concerto. I do agree with changing our ideas on how to use these instruments though and break out of old tradition to find something new.

Luigi Russolo wrote this paper near the beginning of the 20th century, if I were to show him contemporary music he may be very excited by sounds we've already grown bored with. Despite my appreciation for the old and modern instruments I agree and see the potential in the sounds outside these that the modern world provides.

My favorite modern bands use sounds outside of the guitar, drums and bass. These are often sounds with timbers you can't give a name. Along with new techniques for recording and mixing its now possible to turn these sounds into soundscapes that have never been available even until the last few decades. Despite this people rarely leave the typical model that almost modern music from any category like to fall into.

This is why I agree with every one of Luigi's conclusions and while I may appreciate many aspects of modern and old music I also have complaints and am finding much of these complaints are being or have been answered by people interested in the art within sound with out falling into stereotypical models and creating something entirely unique that belongs to the sounds alone.

So if I had to choose a new title for a modern day adaption I would probably go with the title: The art within sound

I liked this article and agree to some of the author's points. As a turntablist and future circuit bender, I have been experimenting with noise music and experimental patterns in my live and recorded sets for years along with many other dj/turntablists.

I do think that the art of noise is a good title for any scene where noise is played with and is best called art of rather than noise music because without maintaining rhythms and structure pleasant to others ears, then it must remain noise art

Read Luigi Russolo's The Art of Noise.

Post your reflections on the title of this essay The Art of Noise.

If a similar critique was made of our contemporary sound scape here in Minneapolis, what title would you choose for such an essay?