Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
well, slightly rambling, but still interesting!
about punk rock's musical conservatism too
highlighting a really exciting and admirable approach to music making and releasing.
Namely the huge amount of releases generally, but specifically by individual artists. Rollins says that it's a good thing, but it's not. *Anyone* could 'release' 100 albums a year if they just recorded every practice session they did, burnt 5 copies on CDr and called it a 'limited edition' album. People seem to think that the process in itself is enough, and it's not.
Noise's biggest problem has a;ways been quality control - it's a genre that doesn't really have any, and lots of relly sub-par material is released by some of the bigger names simply because they know that by sticking their name on it someone's going to buy it regardless of the quality (i'm looking at you, Merzbow) - so they just repeat this process over and over and over without ever seemingly asking themselves "is this material actually any good?".
Or is it mostly personal taste? [It's all noise to me.]
pursuit of the process as it's own end is entirely valid. the output being uncensored and unfiltered is not specific to the noise genre (look at ryan adams)though it may be typical of it. you don't need to buy every release by a band you know simply delivers their process as the end product each time - pick and choose? i just think that showing the workings is a really beautiful and valid thing to do. what's best and most important in all this is the lack of secondary or hidden motive ie to get rich, famous, blowjobs etc.
is if there are only 30 copies say, unless you rush in and order it straight off, you are not going to get a copy of it. So either you buy it without hearing it, or you arent going to hear it/have to donwnload it (legally or illegally).
a lot of noise artists put their stuff up for free download (or don't intervene) once their stuff is out of print
i definitely think its better than the record an album, tour it for two years, write another one method, that nowadays seems hopelessly outdated.
I also think that it is good to have a conversation with other artists/listeners regarding your music.
Just making the point that if you do release something, people are going to buy it regardless of the quality, or value (unless you constantly release total shit i suppose).
but to pretend that everybody is doing it because the 'process' is the most important thing isn't exactly true. plenty of ripoff merchants.
"I thought my cheap Noise cassettes were of the same value as cheap mail order pornography."
“I threw all my past music career in the garbage. There was no longer any need for concepts like 'career' and 'skill'. I stopped playing music and went in search of an alternative.”
at least with american records
you can tell something's been released for beer money when it's a C40 in a run of 26
proper CD or LP as a first release with a font that looks like it's from a mid-priced restaurant menu - no.
maybe stick to Oasis?
Neil Young takes the opposite approach. he complains in his autobigraphy that when he experiments live, people record it, stick it on You Tube, then all his fans bitch about it. Therefore he thinks he cant really experiment.
Though this probably says more about his conservative fans than anything else.
boo him offstage for his politics as if they are deer struck for the first time by headlights. neil young fans are total spoons. except me. i'm totally sweet.
'neil young fans' covers an awful lot of people. people who like rockin' in the free world for instance. and people who think that 'owner of a lonely heart' is a neil young song.
."the form for the most part goes unheard and unnoticed. I find it much to my liking, and it comprises a large fraction of my listening."
I AM HENRY ROLLINS, HEAR ME USE NEEDLESSLY CLINICAL LANGUAGE
wasn't he in some shitty metal punk band from LA?