Noise/Music: A History

by Paul Hegarty

Noise/Music looks at the phenomenon of noise in music, from experimental music of the early 20th century to the Japanese noise music and glitch electronica of today. It situates different musics in their cultural and historical context, and analyses them in terms of cultural aesthetics. Paul Hegarty argues that noise is a judgement about sound, that what was noise can become acceptable as music, and that in many ways the idea of noise is similar to the idea of the avant-garde.

While it provides an excellent historical overview, the book's main concern is in the noise music that has emerged since the mid 1970s, whether through industrial music, punk, free jazz, or the purer noise of someone like Merzbow. The book progresses seamlessly from discussions of John Cage, Erik Satie, and Pauline Oliveros through to bands like Throbbing Gristle and the Boredoms. Sharp and erudite, and underpinned throughout by the ideas of thinkers like Adorno and Deleuze, Noise/Music is the perfect primer for anyone interested in the louder side of experimental music.

Genres: Music, Nonfiction, History, Art, Philosophy, Canon, Art History

221 pages, Paperback

First published August 15, 2007

About the author

Paul Hegarty is an author, musician, and lecturer in aesthetics at University College Cork. He performs in the noise band Safe and is involved in running the experimental music record label dotdotdotmusic.

Reviews

[Connor · Rating 2 out of 5]

About as engaging and informative as a review on Pulse Demon written by a 17 year-old RYM user who just discovered the work of Gilles Deleuze and Karl Marx. Both tinged in the same boring pseudo-academia pretenses.

[Walid · Rating 2 out of 5]

starts off the discussion of noise on rather interesting therotical foundations, only to ruin things one step at a time with every chapter that is being read. despite his criticism of past teleological approaches to the subject matter (or avant-garde music), i find his book to be too chronological and teleological as it slowly leads the reader to a self-indulgent, culminating panegyric on merzbow (to whom he devotes an entire chapter, instead of exploring the richness of the japanese – or otherwise – noise scene with more breadth and depth). not to mention that his theoretical references, though pertinent and interesting at first, slowly build up towards an irksome practice that almost verges on namedropping (as in, oh! let's drop some derrida in here and not bother to explicate the reason behind this reference... or that short bit on deleuze, aptly – if unimaginatively – entitled "deleuze bit," which lands from out of the blue in the middle of a discussion of the grateful dead... i mean, can it possibly get more prosaic than that?).

to keep it short (because i could go on and on ranting about this book which sounded so fucking promising at first and ended up being yet another disappointment in my unremitting quest for a decent, well-rounded and challenging book on noise (i mean come on, his chapter on industrial noise was, in all modesty, less thorough and interesting than my undergrad thesis paper, which was written 5 years ago, back when i was still a young and handsome boy)), i think that he should have been more focussed in the scope of his book and try to explore his subject matter more selectively and in-depth, rather than spread himself out too thin.

oh, and did i mention that i found the ending too new-ageish to my liking?

[pianogal · Rating 1 out of 5]

Ok, I can't read this book because I totally disagree with the author's viewpoint that noise is bad. The first ten pages of this book (which, admittedly, is all the farther I read) discuss nothing but how noise is chaos, and it's negative, and how all noise is dangerous. All noise is not dangerous...yes, it can be potentially harmful...but the sound of water in the shower is not going to damage my hearing. In fact, I think that most people who fall asleep to white noise machines might also beg to differ. The writer's style is a little pompus and over the top, so, for me, this one is a pass.

[Aaron · Rating 3 out of 5]

Whew, welcome to academia!
You thought noise music was just scritches, throbs, fubs, whistles, snaps and farts? Nope. According to Hegarty it's
Derrida, Kant, Foucault and Masami Akita. Get with the program you Naysayers!

[M-R-N-D-R · Rating 4 out of 5]

really helpful book, covers all sorts of western transgressive musics, mostly focusing on the "popular" forms (noise, japanoise, industrial, techno, prog, punk, rock and roll, sound art), and their theoretical precursors.

This book has a lot of faults. Unfortunately, free improv is only mildly covered, and classical music hardly at all covered. Both of these Heggarty looks down upon as "high" art, even though I'm not so sure it's that clear cut of a distinction--I think this is just his personal prejudice. He's also way too pretentious in quoting Adorno, Bataille, Derrida, Deleuze, Foucault, and Baudrillard every possible chance he can, sometimes unnecessarily. His writing is also unnecessarily abtruse, sometimes not to the point at all.

But still, this is a good theoretical starting point. I dig, it's worthwhile for what he's after talking about.

[Sacha Rosel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Quite an illuminating read, not only for those interested in noise as a musical genre but for anyone interested in exploring the concept of noise as failure and/or resistance to (not revolution against, as the author points out) linearity, capitalism, subjectivity, wholesomeness, virtuosity and hierarchy, aming other things. While reading, I found Hegarty's exploration of the possibility of noise within and without musical history really fascinating, though at times his highlighting the anarchic side of some musical experiments as opposed to a supposedly "rigid" marxist trend in music was a bit too much, as was his insistence on Bataille, jouissance and the violent as erotic (or the other way round), though he makes a point in explaining how this is what noise mainly consist in ideologically, especially as far as industrial music and Japan bands are concerned (and which, I also discovered reading the book, tend to be "fascistic" in concept). Being more a flâneur of electronica/dark ambient/experimental electronics than a noise fan, I explored the book as a compass and a mine hunting for possible revelations, rather than as someone reading about something they are passionate about. That said, I think the book is extremely useful for fans and non-fans alike: provided that you gave a penchant for philosophy and experimental music of some kind (there's jazz too, by the way), you will definitely find something worth pondering about in here.

[Jürgen De blonde · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting book. Interesting insights and statements on the relation between noise and music. Some passages were rather difficult for me but in the end the point he was making always became clear. A whole chapter on Merzbow might seem obsolote or might come across as idolatry, but then again, as a case study and illustration of what noise can be about this was also very interesting and got me into checking some more Merzbow than I actually did. Having opened up for Merzbow once I was kind of biased towards this artist, and not necessarily in the good sense, this has now changed. The final chapter on listening I pretty considered seminal and can, perhaps with some editing, easily stand on its own. Nice.

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

It took a few tries to get into this book, largely because of the irregular typesetting: small, long lines of sans-serif. I wish publishers would stick with normal font sizes and serif fonts. Anyway. This book is an academic take on noise music. A lot of over-inflated perceptions on the philosophy of what a lot of artists were meaning with their music. Not sure I buy all of it. However, the chapters "Industry", "Power", "Japan", and "Merzbow" were pretty good and basically covered why I thought the book would be interesting to read. Perhaps I'd have been happier just reading those four chapters.

[Dennis · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book was interesting, but horribly written. The first couple of chapters are ok, but after a while it becomes painfully apparent that this was written without an editor. It made me wonder if he was trying to make his writing an analogy to the noise he was writing about.

The names he drops are pretty good and reminded me to check out more than a few artists I'd either heard and forgotten about or heard of and never checked out. The discography is really helpful on this front.

[Patrick Brown · Rating 3 out of 5]

In the end, this was a good book. Although, clearly the author is into some crazy shit. Like music that consists of nothing but feedback and chickens.

[Brendan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not so much a history of noise as an overly-philosophical examination of various aspects of noise, this is not very engaging and rather tediously written and annotated. Closer to 2.5 stars than 3.

[Graham · Rating 3 out of 5]

Well-done work on the phenomenology of noise which utilizes and subverts trends in both academic writing and music criticism, most noticably the sort of A+B=C linear progression of influences and diffusions so well-loved by writers of both aforementioned fields. Hegarty pays some lip service to chronological progressions, utilizing a linear, teleological approach (which could be seen as either hypocritical or self-consciously post-modern, depending on how forgiving the reader is feeling), while noting that "noise" is an entirely subjective term, referring more to disruptions of established aesthetic properties and movements than to the establishment of properties and movements itself (implicitly arguing, also, that the latter negates the former).

I have few criticisms of this work, but those few that I had nagged me throughout my reading. It's obvious that Hegarty is passionate both about philosophy and music (as would befit a man who is both a philosophy professor and noise musician), but while well-versed in both it sometimes seems as if he's writing dual discourses, and while a reader as well-versed in both disciplines could draw parallels, anybody with interests leaning more towards one side or another might find the work difficult to digest (I'm less philosophically-inclined, therefore casual references to Adorno and Deleuze struck me the same way that casual references to Constellation Records or Nurse With Wound might affect the less musically-nerdy - which is to say, not very strongly). My other criticism is that within genres outside a relatively canonical avant-garde, Hegarty relies on a few accepted standbys (Hip hop experimentalism = Public Enemy, Dub = Lee Perry, Metal = barely a footnote) and hardly scratches the surface of a lot of potential material.

Basically, there are few books out there which approach this topic with remotely the depth that Hegarty does. This is very obviously a passionately assembled piece of cultural criticism, but one which is bogged down in foot-note heavy, occasionally self-contradictory language which would not necessarily be great casual reading for the average Merzbow fan.

[Christoph · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a book about music as noise: why it is, where it came from and how it came to be. Following in the footsteps of Attali's Noise this book extends the concept of noise as cultural jamming instrument and applies it to the modern era in several admittedly arbitrary genres (which would otherwise could not be respected based on the context). Those interested in abstract expressionist music and high-brow snobbery will love this book.

[sam · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent analysis of the evolution of noise from natural to cultural phenomenon. Features chapters on pretty much the full spectrum of noise types. While the specific chapters are themselves, and Hegarty admits this himself in the introduction, not encyclopedic in their scope, overall the book is a great overview of both the sound genre and the aforementioned social appropriations of noise.

[kacey · Rating 2 out of 5]

ugh. Miles Davis as poster child for Adornian aesthetic theory? no, thank you. a sloppy, uncritical application of Frankfurt School theory to a wide array of cultural productions, further obfuscated by the author's refusal of linguistic consistency. as metafiction, a brilliant burst of failure-as-noise-as-success. as scholarship, an attempt to cash in on noise's brief celebrity that doesn't even reach for substantiality.

[Jeffrey · Rating 3 out of 5]

I guess this book provided more or less what I expected it to, but it wasn't that much of a joy to read. I think it turns out that listening to this music is more enjoyable than reading about it. No prob, though, it's nice to see a thorough, scholarly take on this broad subject and I'm glad I read it.

[Bryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not perfect, but probably the best thing out there on the topic. I would prefer if the author would have stuck to either a purely theoretical-semiotic approach or a strickly formal analysis. It's a mixed bag with mixed results. It gets four stars because I'm in love with subject matter.

[Jesse · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not so much a history as an interpretation, and not nearly as compelling as it could be, at that. David Toop charts a much more readable/engaging course through similar material.

[Justin · Rating 2 out of 5]

The book reads more like college textbook than fun historical rhetoric. My entire review of the book can be found soon on Tiny Mix Tapes.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very rigorous treatment of noise as both musical form and philosophical approach. Can be a bit dry at times, but I wouldn't spite a music book for being theoretically demanding.

[Chris Bissonnette · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dense and a bit of a chore to read at times. Explores the depths of noise in number of genres.

[Ben · Rating 5 out of 5]

THE book on noise music. Unsurpassed.

[Ray Dunsmore · Rating 1 out of 5]

I went into this expecting a history of a genre that I don't often seek out but find particularly interesting nonetheless. Noise, the deliberate cultivation of off-putting, frequently disturbing and harsh sounds for the near-masochistic experience of its listener, is a very particularly odd form of music, a form that seems to deny all form or meaning inherent within that presents itself to the listener as something to be conquered - the musical equivalent of climbing K2. I'd love to get some manner of insight into the creative processes, inspirations and drives behind the artists making these things. Practically none of that is included in this book.

This book should have been titled Noise Music: A Theory so I could know well enough to avoid it honestly instead of being tricked into reading a book in which the author disavows the basic idea of a linear history of art, of highlighting specific artists to discuss style, who seems to be completely unable to even define the basic terms he spends the book dithering around. The book begins by failing to properly define the basic idea of noise for pages upon pages and ends by failing to properly define listening itself. Paul Hegarty here seems to have read so much philosophical theory by authors like Deleuze and Baudrillard and Bataille and Attali that it has permanently damaged his ability to form a cogent point and succinctly relay it to a third party. He spends the entire book rehashing vaguely related points from these authors' works, struggling to tie them into long-winded ten-dollar-word ramblings about the dissemination and consumption of music as a whole. As a result, it reads much like its sources: poorly-translated academic essays with the most stilted verbiage humanly possible. This book takes what is inarguably a fascinating, uniquely confrontational form of art and makes it exactly as interesting as the fine print on an insurance form. It's a fucking slog and you can find a more thought-provoking and insightful discussion of noise music from any given thread on the /mu/ board of 4Chan - and I intend that to read as insultingly as it possibly can.

[Dave · Rating 2 out of 5]

"This cozy humanism insists on diversity as a value in no need of further exploration, and modifies Derrida's notion of differance into a homespun, patronizing judgement, refusing alterity in favour of a recognizable, proximate form (to praise difference is to control it as a judged otherness). To think the difference between difference and alterity is to pit Levi-Strauss' positive view of culture being an accumulation of beneficial encounters against Baudrillard's insistence on alterity and turning the domesticated and/or familiar into the threatening."

Take the above paragraph, stretch it out to 200 pages, throw in the word "dialectic" at least twice per page, and you have this mess of a book. I detest this Marxist-political-pamphlet, twenty-words-where-five-would-suffice writing style.

I suppose that on some level (a level unintended by the author) this is a suitable text about noise music, since the writing itself is all noise, no signal. A terrible waste of time.

Edit: My review was a little too harsh. (But only a little.) There were a few lucid moments in the text. The chapter on free jazz was okay, and I did learn the names of some noise artists that I wasn't familiar with. So the book wasn't a complete waste of time, but I still can't recommend it.

[Riley · Rating 5 out of 5]

as someone who really enjoys experimental music, especially noise music, this book does a really good job of explaining everything noise. of course, it misses out on some underground greats (ramleh, sutcliffe jugend) and the text can be hard to decipher, but other than that an amazing read. good for anybody who enjoys and wants to learn more about noise's role in music.

[Jason Ware · Rating 1 out of 5]

I wanted this book to be interesting and informative about the history of noise music. What it is is an overly opinionated book, pedantic and unengaging. I tried to persist but had to quit, as it is dull, and there are lots of other options out there. Another annoying thing is that the formatting is very plain; with small text and not much indenting.

[Pitheinfinite · Rating 1 out of 5]

Despite the fact that he is an editor, a good half of it was just redundant sentences, poetic descriptions and irrelevant side notes. It was bad written too, semantic and synthetic editing is hugely needed for this book. It truly hurt me to read it.

[Mike Zavorskas · Rating 5 out of 5]

Not the easiest read but a great introduction to ideas about noise and I guess Bataille.

[brendan dougherty · Rating 4 out of 5]

still reading it - but great so far.