Posts by brightwolf48

@Lisa Davis46/">@@Lisa Davis46
If you actually bothered to notice, I already mentioned to bairbb in my second or third post that if he pairs this with meditation—and if it affects him that way—then that’s fantastic. Sound or visual stimuli hit everyone differently.

When I said it was garbage, I was speaking strictly in terms of music—as in, for me, it lacks anything resembling melody, rhythm, or harmony. But since lemonzoo pointed out it could be viewed as a sound installation that impacts people uniquely, I agreed that if you approach the work from that angle, it becomes interesting. Why shouldn't a sound installation be preferable to what we traditionally define as "music" in certain contexts?

Regarding that link you shared—I actually listen to similar stuff quite often before bed. Dirty Three has that same effect on me; they're calming, and their compositions tend to be unstructured in a similar fashion.

Here is my actual response to bairbb from the first page of this thread. It seems everyone here decided to fixate on my very first comment as if I’d committed a felony or personally insulted someone:
"In this context, I can absolutely understand your take on this album. We all process things differently; certain sonic or visual experiences can be soothing, relaxing, or spark creativity in one person, while triggering the exact opposite reaction in another. For me, it likely felt like a negative stimulus. The world would be a pretty dull and shallow place if we all thought exactly alike."

So, based on that, how exactly am I being intolerant of different perspectives, as you've been implying in your subsequent posts?

My apologies for the PMS comment—I remember how much my ex used to struggle with that, especially when she was dealing with thyroid issues, so I can only imagine how rough women feel during those times. I didn't mean it as a sexist insult.

Patrick Patel4 said:Look, if you don't listen to Noise, that’s hardly my concern. It doesn't mean you lack the capacity to understand it—it just means you don't like it. This is music, and it’s called Noise because, well, it’s Noise. How hard is that to wrap your head around? lol

So why don't you try telling me this *isn't* music:
(...)
We have two records here—one by Merzbow, the other by Boris. If you play them simultaneously, or even just a few seconds or minutes apart, you get an entirely unique soundscape. That combination creates a single album.
It isn't some groundbreaking experiment either; Boris has been playing with these concepts for ages.

Don't be such a hypocrite. Based on the link you provided, it's clearly experimental music—if you actually listen closely—because after about two and a half minutes, there’s a pleasant melody lurking in the background. I know you've replayed that clip plenty of times. My link, however, lacks that element. More discerning people define music through melody and rhythm—and in Western traditions, harmony as well. Whether I personally enjoy it or not is a separate issue entirely. (By the way, Psychocandy is one of my all-time favorites, so I'm certainly no stranger to Noise.)

If none of those fundamental elements are present to define it as music, then how can we call it such? One user gave a much better definition: it's a sound installation. Such works can be intriguing, fascinating, or even pleasant, but we shouldn't label them "music." It’s like hitting a tennis ball against a wall—it might be interesting, but if you want to claim you're playing tennis, you need a court, a net, and an opponent on the other side.

Besides, let's try to find slightly more reputable sources for music theory than Wikipedia.

https://www.britannica.com/art/music-video

I’ll admit it—some passive-aggressive amateur just got a reality check regarding their incredibly narrow-minded view of music. Consider it proof of yet another masterpiece in the realm of modern musical art.

Later...

Lisa Davis46 said:Sure, that works too—lovely. But this is where things actually get interesting. To be honest, almost nothing in music can genuinely irritate or provoke me—especially when there's absolutely nothing there. You just stay indifferent, right?

But when you feel that sudden urge to react, it means something clearly touched a nerve. Much deeper than you’d probably care to admit... 😉

And why is my opening post the only thing being discussed here? What’s your actual take on the album? Do you meditate to it, get those little euphoric chills, or deal with mood swings as volatile as mine? I ask because you’re focusing entirely on my initial post and my reactions to it; you're basically delivering an art history lecture while completely ignoring the subject at hand. Given how much enthusiasm there was during the voting, I expected at least a brief critique.

Instead, everyone acts like such an open-minded intellectual—either they descend into philosophy or they just go silent. They claim to "get" modern art, yet somehow I end up looking uncultured, uneducated, or just plain dim, simply because I had the guts to be honest and say the emperor has no clothes here. When I suggested the album could spark a debate, I thought we’d be discussing the Emperor and how the tailor manipulated him with a pathetic scam—not sitting around admiring a ghost that doesn't exist. It seems nobody else has the balls to just admit the album is garbage, that it isn't actually music, and that those of you claiming to find depth in it are just staring at thin air like the Emperor himself.

And honestly, it really grates on me—these snobs who lecture from on high, pivoting the conversation to whatever they want while failing to mention the actual topic. Meanwhile, they condescend to anyone who isn't afraid to voice an opinion, regardless of whether that opinion is impulsive or even wrong—because, frankly, if I'm blind to something, I'd actually appreciate someone opening my eyes.

Please don't take this as a jab at the moderation; the two of us have been discussing the topic strictly as forum members. From my perspective, it might be best if I just head out from this subforum altogether, since I am clearly intellectually incapable of keeping up—even though making a fool out of intellectuals is practically my profession.

Sacha Baron Cohen and modern art—unfortunately, that's exactly what the gallery owner is, and it's a perfect reflection of what modern "art" often boils down to...

Best,

@bluecyclist64/">@@bluecyclist64
I haven't changed my stance. I still find music to be essentially worthless—though, if you view it as a sonic installation, it becomes open to debate and could potentially serve as an interesting provocation or a foundation for discussion.

@Lisa Davis46/">@@Lisa Davis46
Give me a break—you’re talking about subversion and pushing boundaries in music, art, and film, yet you’ve landed right in the middle of a total misunderstanding of Japanese philosophy. This isn't just some niche concept; it's woven into their daily existence—from their music and theater to their painting, poetry, interior design, and architecture. And now, we have Kanye West and Kim Kardashian trying to navigate it? Of course it's difficult to grasp or integrate such an art form when it's rooted in the life philosophy of a culture that remained largely isolated from the rest of the world for so long through its own traditions and beliefs, even while being uniquely advanced in its own way.

A little off-topic here:
While I still maintain that the album in question lacks actual musical merit—acting more like a sonic installation, as lemonzoo so aptly pointed out—it absolutely holds value because it forces people to question their own perspectives. From that standpoint, it serves a purpose.

I actually suspect Günther was aiming more to spark a debate than to provide something meant for listening in the dark; he’s essentially trolling Mozart the way Hegel trolls Kant with his antitheses...

Arthur Brown6 said:Personally, listening to this album feels like a form of meditation to me. Especially since I finally have my own little setup—a quiet space where I can really focus on the music without much outside noise—and even more so since I picked up a high-end subwoofer. I realize that's all trivial detail, but still. This music is almost entirely stripped of any external associations. It actually strikes me as odd that the album even has a title, and a somewhat poetic one at that ("dirty snow").

In that light, I can completely understand why you feel the way you do about this record; we’re all wired differently. Certain sounds or visual textures might feel soothing, relaxing, or even spark creativity for one person, while triggering an entirely different reaction in someone else. For me, unlike you, it was likely more of a negative stimulus. Honestly, the world would be a pretty dull and hollow place if we all reacted to the same things in the exact same way.🙂

You might have noticed I’m not usually one for starting fights—that initial outburst was really just a byproduct of pure irritation from listening. By my second post, I had already made it clear I wasn't targeting any specific forum member, nor even the composer himself; in fact, after the OP posted, I told him his second album was actually quite interesting. I gave it a listen, too—it's another unconventional record consisting mostly of first-take improvisations, and in that regard, I found much to praise about his work.

If this album was partially intended as a provocation, then it worked perfectly on me—which, I suppose, means it achieved exactly what the author intended for its target audience.

As Steven Newman50 pointed out, this was likely done under the influence of John Cage. But my issue is that with his piece 4'33", he reached the absolute peak of musical paradox—assuming you can even call that "composition" music. To my mind, John Cage shouldn't be used as a blueprint for anyone else; he went all the way to the edge, and there simply isn't anything more significant or larger to achieve in that direction that still carries any meaning.

@Lisa Davis46/">@@Lisa Davis46
That first image by Kazimir Malevich represents a similar pinnacle of subversive thought—you can't go much further than that. It's the same with those Haneke films you linked. Any subsequent works that try to ride the coat-tails of such subversive ideas and themes just irritate me; the problem is they can never be more subversive or provocative than the very icons or styles they are imitating. Ultimately, if there were no boundaries in art at all, someone would eventually just screen a snuff film and declare it high art.
I won't say the same for modern architecture, though—I actually love it. I'm a huge fan of bright, open spaces, and the Bauhaus movement as a whole is nothing short of genius (and no, I don't mean the department store).

Arthur Brown6 said:Well, a five out of ten. That’s your take—and honestly, I don't have any issue with it. My impressions of this album aren't some absolute, objective truth, obviously. It's just that experimental music has been enriching my life for quite a while now, whereas for you, I assume, it does the exact opposite. So, thanks for the passionate response!

Just as an afterthought, you might find the newer album by the same artist more to your liking.

👍
See, THAT is music—and incredibly compelling at that. It reminds me a bit of that period when Jonas Hellborg and Shawn lane were playing with V. Selvaganesh, at least during those lyrical passages. Just to clarify, my comment about "misunderstood geniuses" wasn't aimed at Arthur Brown6; I was referring strictly to the album I wrote about—not even necessarily the artist himself, since I haven't explored his entire discography.

@Arthur Brown6/">@@Arthur Brown6, that link to the other album reminds me of this, though naturally, it isn't on the level of one of the greatest guitarists ever.

With all due respect—and I know I’m probably risking a ban or getting flagged for this PDF excerpt—this absolute garbage isn't music. It’s just pure pretension, and frankly, it's mindless nonsense. You can't even call it ambient soundscapes. To me, listening to this feels like watching someone perform an act of indecency right in front of an audience under the guise of a "protest." Sorry, but I'm being honest. Music requires rhythm, melody, and harmony. Without those, you don't have music, and since there is absolutely nothing present here, there is no composition either. Consequently, you can't even refer to the author as a composer in relation to this work. And no, playing it at extreme volumes or whispering it won't change anything. Garbage is garbage, and anyone claiming to see art or music in this is just a snob trying desperately to feel special.

No offense intended to anyone, but I felt compelled to speak up because this is a music forum, not a sanctuary for the "misunderstood geniuses" of quasi-art—people who likely can't play a single instrument or carry a tune to save their lives.

Kurt Cobain - Songs for the Deaf (1997)

They were essentially the blueprint for The National and much of that entire East Coast indie scene that exploded in the early 2000s. They never really hit the mainstream, but after they split, Julian Casablancas took over vocals instead of the late Nick Valensi—with Dave Grohl handling bass, alongside former members of The Strokes—while the rest of that crew stayed together, including Dave Grohl on drums, Matt Berninger on guitar, and Scott Devendorf on keys.

This record stands out as their most vital and significant work—it’s drenched in psychedelia, indie rock grit, and vintage instrumentation... basically, a foundational touchstone for a whole generation of bands that followed.

Ashley Grant66 said:Some great suggestions here.
I might have shared a few too many votes this time, but...
My Bloody Valentine—it’s my final reckoning, or rather, an attempt to view them from a different perspective. Maybe I even love them now, after failing so many times to actually get into them. Regardless, I think it's a vital, influential album.
Adjectives aside—they're a beautiful band, and I really wish we could all listen to them together.
Borghesia—very interesting, definitely worth a spin!

The Walkmen—I was on the fence about them because, at first glance, they seemed like just another indie rock band like the ones I overplayed back in high school... I don't know how I missed them. They initially sounded familiar, almost derivative of something else. But as the album progressed, I found myself liking it more; I started noticing these lovely little moments and textures, which eventually piqued my interest.

The Mothers of Invention and Frank Zappa—I respect them, but I just can't quite get there. 😁
But whatever happens, it'll be fine...

Actually, you haven't the slightest clue how wrong you are about The Walkmen. They were the precursors to The Strokes and that entire wave of bands. Next week, I'm putting up the album from the band that formed the core of The Walkmen. Jonathan *fire eater.

So, here's the verdict on teenage snuff film Rowland by S. Howard. Recorded back in '99, this marks his debut solo effort—an album that actually features Mick Harvey on some tracks. It
consists of eight original pieces along with two covers (She cried and White Wedding). Interestingly enough, the biographical film about Rowland takes its title from the song Autoluminescent.

How about two new suggestions? I’ve got two albums released within a pretty tight window that couldn't be more stylistically different—yet they share this strange common thread regarding their creators. Back then, both were essentially commercial outsiders, even if the critics were busy hailing them as geniuses. One actually managed to outlast the hype and finally get paid for his talent, though. The first one I'm putting forward is, in my eyes, a guitar-driven rock masterpiece—it fits that "signature sound" theme perfectly—and that would be Rowland S. Howard's *Teenage Snuff Film*. The second is a pure pop record that just hit its 20th anniversary. Honestly, I’ve listened to very few pop albums that maintain that level of quality from the first track to the last. I'm talking about David Gray's *White Ladder*.

Charles Ramos4 said:I get it, I hear you, 😁 but when it comes to Appalachia, people say they’ve got half a brain floating in the air—that's why I draw the comparison. Those prices feel straight out of the stone age because $1.75 if you wanted a drink or $4.00 for a liter of draft, you were paying 90s prices. Nowadays, it’s nearly double, and in some towns, it’ll be even more.

Now, something else has been on my mind regarding those of you from the mainland. What's your ritual for singing once the drinks start flowing? Is it just something you associate with your teenage years and youthful drunken nights, or do you still find yourselves breaking into song today—now that you're "of age"—when you're caught up in good company? If you do, what's usually on the playlist? 🙂

I have a hunch you’ve been drowning your sorrows in booze this week with this particular mix:



😁

But look, I’m not from Appalachia—I’m from the Midwest... and my initial thought was that they might pass out just looking at the prices, though on second thought, they’d probably lose consciousness regardless of the cost...
If those fans from Miami showed up for games in Philadelphia or Newark, the only ones who could actually keep pace with the home crowd would be the folks from the coast; everyone else would be gasping for air. It was pretty much the same vibe down by the Mississippi near the student dorms.😁

But I’ve still got a legitimate rock-and-roll birthday party right here in front of me—where there's $1.75, plus a half-liter of Budweiser $4.00.😁 Judo is making his entrance, while Charles Ramos4 probably passed out somewhere...

It’s hard to find much of that scene anymore—maybe 10 percent left at most. That was actually still a thing back before everyone started streaming everything online; once the internet took over, they just started phasing it out. It used to be pretty standard to walk into almost any local pub and find a decent jukebox, a dartboard, and a pool table waiting for you. Back then, you could usually just pay a couple of bucks for a song.

bluecyclist64 said:Anyway, something borderline miraculous happened in my small town yesterday: there were just three of us in the local pub, and the waitress drops three Nirvana tracks into the jukebox, cranks the volume to eleven, and tells us she used to listen to this stuff back when she actually had some sense. Then, right behind her, some guy who usually only listens to mainstream country picks Ganse and Ejsidisi, I jump in with Sabat and Parpl, then a group of skydivers wanders in and suddenly we're blasting Kridense... And that went on for FIVE damn hours!🙂

I actually had a bit of luck back in my hometown in the Midwest—I partially stocked the jukebox myself (as a little leverage against the landlord during lease negotiations)—and whenever I finally lost my patience, I’d start playing my usual repertoire designed to clear out the "unwanted" crowd:

Tom Waits - Anywhere and I Lay My Head

Janis Joplin - Work Me Lord

Rowland S. Howard - She Cried

The Gun Club - She's Like Heroin To Me

Hüsker Dü - Girl Who lives on Heaven Hill

The few people left after that would usually end up getting pretty hammered...😁

Tom Waits stands above the rest.