FROM NOISE TO MEANING: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS ON THE

AESTHETICAL VALUES & FEATURES OF NOISE MUSIC

A thesis submitted to Utrecht University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of MA in Applied Musicology

Faculty of Humanities
Department of Media & Culture Studies
August 2023

Submitted by: Dimitrios Vasileias

Student number: 9498702
Supervisor: Dr. Rebekah Ahrendt
Words: 10123

1
 Acknowledgements

I would like to seize this opportunity and sincerely thank my supervisor, Dr. Rebekah Ahrendt
for her immense help and support throughout this venture. Her guidance and recommendations
were pivotal in order to deliver this piece of work in its final form and her wilfulness to help me
and my peers outside office hours is deeply appreciated.

I would also like to thank my family, for without their constant love, care and support I would
not have been where I am today; even more so imagine myself as a musicology graduate.

Last but not least, I shall thank all of my friends (you know who you are) who stood by me in the
various stages of making this project.

This project is dedicated to my loving parents, Konstantina and Giannis, my kid brother,
Anastasios as well as to my grandparents, Maria and Giannis. You mean the world to me.

2
 Abstract

The classification and historical placement of noise music within frameworks of genre, sonic
strategy, or auditory experience are hindered by its widely acknowledged ambiguity. Since the
early 20th century, when noise music was first modelled and examined, scholars often
acknowledge its polarizing nature as too broad to define in an all-enveloping sense before
doubling down into specific aspects within the noise spectrum. Consequently, there is no
definitive noise encyclopedia that encapsulates the complete history of noise, its technological
influences, and its significance within social contexts. This paper aims to explore the intricate
challenge posed by noise music in terms of interpretation, going beyond explaining it as a
simplistic dismissal of traditional norms; and in doing so, attempt to explore new approaches to
(its) musical understanding.

Recent scholarship has predominantly focused on noise-related discussions pertaining to the

differing functions and interpretations of sound – through theoretical, cultural or music-analytical
discussions. By contextualizing the interplay between noise and music in such a manner,
attention naturally shifts towards works that delve into the aesthetics of noise and its intriguing
relationship with timbre. This perspective gains further support by examining how the innovative
use of technologies has elevated noise to a more significant role and how noise aligns with, and
even surpasses, contemporary musical and cultural counterparts.

3
 Table of Contents

Chapter 1 – Introduction 5

1.1 Classifications 6
1.2 Background 8

Chapter 2 – Methodology 11

2.1 Research Investigation & Theoretical Framework 11

Chapter 3 – The Noise of Academic Discourse 13

3.1 The Many Timbres of Noise Music 13

3.2 Technology & Representations of Noise Music 17
3.3 The Sociocultural Significance of Noise (as) Music 20

Chapter 4 – The Sound of Meaning 23

4.1 Towards a Polysynthetic Reassessment of Noise Music 23

4.2 I Lead You Towards Glorious Times: Merzbow & Sonic Assault on Meaning 26

Chapter 5 - Conclusion 31

References 33

4
Chapter 1 – Introduction
By the start of the 21st century, the realm of music had undergone unprecedented expansion,
venturing into previously unimagined territories. As the once-dominant influence of Western
classical music started to diminish, the emergence of postmodern attitudes has led to a
proliferation of diverse musical genres. The wealth of recordings and historical exploration has
resulted in a compression of history, making centuries of global musical heritage accessible in
the present whilst serving as a wellspring of inspiration for composers. This phenomenon,
coupled with a profound skepticism towards overarching narratives inherent to the postmodern
era, has nurtured a unique breakaway from a dominant and uniform standard of artistic
excellence. (Wilson, 2014: 1) While some emerging musical currents still fall within the familiar
domains of classical and popular music, there are also streams that defy easy categorization;
actively striving to expose the constraints of traditional conventions in the realm of music – none
reaching such great heights in radical intensity as does noise music.

Given its intrinsic unfamiliarity and often unsettling nature, noise music presents a challenge for
interpretation, exceeding the typical issues encountered in musical understanding. Consequently,
to truly evaluate it beyond a simplistic rejection of conventional norms, one must explore novel
avenues of musical comprehension. But one must start somewhere so the question-trail begs
itself: What is noise, whose does it belong to, and how can we approach it conceptually?
Furthermore, how does noise influence our thought processes – not merely as an object, but as a
factor that shapes our thinking? At what juncture does noise shed its characteristic of being noisy
and transform into meaning, music, or signification? Alternatively, is there even a moment when
noise can exist independently?

The material available regarding the discussion of noise is much like the subject itself –
systematically inconsistent. Efforts to place noise within historical and classificatory
frameworks, whether as a genre, a strategic sonic element, or a commonplace auditory
occurrence, are hindered by its widely acknowledged ambiguity. Interestingly, most scholars
start off their papers by acknowledging the term “noise” as a polarizing subject of discussion in
Western music since the beginning of the 20 th century, and then use that as a platform to
reinforce specific topics within the noise spectrum. This means there is not one definitive noise
encyclopedia that succinctly encapsulates the history of noise, its reinforcement through

5
technology, and its reaffirmation within social contexts. In truth, the task of definitively mapping
out a history in noise is, apparently, inherently impossible. “Noise is the sum of disjointed
cultural ideas that draws from infinite contexts”, says ethnomusicologist, David Novak,
“unendingly regenerating from accumulated debris of all forms of communication, devoid of
form and meaning.” (2013: 213)

Indeed, the literature surrounding noise engages with various points of discussion. Over the last
several years, the principal texts have been primarily historical in their focus – or set within
dense parameters that help direct said academic/philosophical investigations. By contextualizing
how noise and music relate to each other, the focus naturally shifts to publications that build on
the aesthetics of noise and its curious relation to timbre. This is further supported by looking at
how the creative use of technologies have elevated noise into a more meaningful realm, and how
noise correlates to (and even supersedes) contemporary musical counterparts. As such, the
purpose of this investigation is to take on this daunting task and map out the logic behind it –
how have scholars and practitioners attempted to find meaning in noise music? What kind of
analysis do they employ in their search for understanding this niche and unconventional style,
and can we, ultimately, arrive at a unified juncture between the different theories pertaining to its
aesthetical explanations?

1.1 Classifications
Tentative of origin, the word ‘noise’ was used in Middle English in the sense of ‘quarrelling’
which in turn shares its meaning from Old French and Latin attributing the word to the sense of
feeling nauseous. In glossary terms, noise is generally understood as any unwanted sound that
interferes with the communication, measurement or processing of an information-bearing signal.
If noise is as “sound which is undesired by the recipient” (Kerse, 1975: 8), does this mean that it
is also subjective? If so, is there a difference to noise as music, and noise designed to stay noise?
At first glance, this unwanted sound quickly comes at odds with the very essence of what
(Western) music stands for – a harmonious, resonant and oftentimes divine sound-form
concentrated into structured sound-waves.

The word itself has taken on various meanings throughout the course of 20 th century music, but
there were several moments in which a change in representation brought noise into musical
consideration. (Van Nort, 2006: 173) This enables us to first identify noise in a piece of music;

6
how noise relates to music, and the different ways one arrives at noise music. If “noise music” is
understood as something separate to “ordinary music”, this suggests a relation between explicit
noise and that which is not in fact noise – Where noise lacks originality in the same manner as
music or meaning; yet its role is to indicate the castaway, the conquered primordial state, and it
cannot detach itself from this significance. (Hegarty, 2002: 193)

In the realm of music, the distinctions between pitch, sound, and noise are not distinctly
separable; instead, they form a continuous spectrum. Pitch pertains to a recurring frequency that
combines with other pitches to shape intervals, melodic patterns, harmonic relationships, and
contrapuntal interactions, as observed in numerous Western classical and popular music
traditions. The concept of sound serves a dual purpose within this context: It either broadly
encompasses all auditory occurrences, encompassing both pitch and noise, or more specifically
refers to the transition towards saturated textures that supplant pitch structures in music since the
20th century. (Delaere, 2022: 1–2)

Noise is a pivotal component of this shift, but its significance extends beyond just that. It also
signifies a particular coarseness in timbre or the distinct texture, pursuant to what renowned
French theorist, Roland Barthes coined as the “grain” of the sound (Boutin, 2016). Given the
diverse interpretations of this concept within various research subfields, it is highly unlikely to
arrive at a straightforward noise definition. For that reason, what ensues will primarily offer a
theoretical foundation for the manifold applications of the term 'noise' within this context, rather
than attempt to provide a rigid delineation.

Noise and noises are two different things. As media art specialist and one of the early influential
theorists on noise and music, Douglas Kahn says, “[noises] are too significant to be noises. We
know they are noises in the first place because they exist where they shouldn’t or they don’t
make sense where they should”. (1999: 21) Critics have claimed that noise is disparate to music
on the grounds of aesthetic value – or lack thereof. Their bare-bones argument being that music
is a blend of desirable and deliberate sounds whereas noise is constituted by unintentional and
unwanted sounds. But if noise is non-musical, this indicates that music itself is noisy, and
evidently noise-sounds have always been part of music. (Novak, 2015: 127) Even as its radical
incommensurability with existing musical structures was reiterated throughout the 20 th century,
noise was in fact explicitly developed as a sound aesthetic in modern music. (Ross, 2007: 11–12)

7
Essentially, noise is regarded as a relational concept, in that it can only take on meaning by
signifying something else. It is discussed as a generalized property of sound (as “noisiness”); as a
distinct sonic object within music, speech, or environmental sounds (as “a noise”); or as a
totalizing qualifier for emergent styles (e.g., “that hip-hop stuff is all noise”). But its specific
qualities are hard to define. Whether interpreted as a signal or a judgment, an absence of
meaning or a fundamental component enabling meaning, any endeavor to establish a lineage for
noise must acknowledge its multifaceted existential status, its ever-changing form over time, and
its varying interpretations among different individuals. (Haworth, 2013: 1)

The closest thing to a quantifiable form of noise is the abstraction of “white noise,” in which all
sound frequencies are present at the same time, at the same volume, across the vibrational
spectrum. But in practice, noise is always “colored,” filtered, limited, and changed by contexts of
production and reception – the differences in frequency and amplitude serve the blueprint of the
so-called colors of noise. (Ghasemi et al., 2022: 460) Simple loudness is another factor: at the
right decibel level, anything, regardless of its original source, can become noise. Noise, then, is
not really a kind of sound but a meta-discourse of sound and its social interpretation. The
presence of noise indexes a larger field of differences, even as its own particularities remain
undefined. (Cage, 1961: 10-14; Kahn, 1999: 25–26; Van Nort, 2006: 175–176; Haworth, 2013:
1; Williams, 2013: 10; Novak, 2015: 129).

1.2 Background
The general consensus attributes the genesis of noise as a by-product of increased social unrest
of a late-arriving industrialization in Italy and to the extent that noise correlates with other
transgressive tactics within the avant-garde at the time. Instigated by the rapid modernity of their
surrounding as well as war, Futurists like Luigi Russolo rejected all forms of musical expression
up to that point on the basis that “pure sound […] no longer provokes emotion”. By
incorporating the so-called noises of technological progress into the fabric of musical
composition through the use of self-made noise-intoners – known as intonarumori – the Futurists
sought to “break out of this limited circle of sounds and conquer the infinite variety of noise-
sounds" (Russolo, 1983: 24–25; Sitsky, 2002: 415). While Russolo’s noise was quite fixed in its
opposition to music, this objectification of noise as industrial soundscape and further abstraction
of noise through musical representation and mimesis effectively recuperated “noise” back into a

8
musical framework (Payton, 1976: 25-26; Van Nort, 2006: 173). Contrary to the argument that
noise clashes with music, American composer Henry Cowell claimed that “[…] a noise exists in
the very tone itself of all our musical instruments” and further argued that “this existence of
noise in music rendered any music/noise binary irrelevant” (Cowell, 2005: 23).

Decades after the Futurists’ noise manifesto and several years after Cowell celebrated noisy
tones, John Cage would identify the noise/music dialectic as a new boundary by which we might
structure our conception of “music”. Cage’s approach differed from the Futurists in that he did
not look to a source of noise, but rather to noise as a sense of ‘outside’ – relationally defined by
one’s attention and the process of listening. There was no attempt at recuperation through a
musical representation, but rather an opening up of music to the possibility of “all-sound”. He
looked to the world around him in sound and considered its musicality: ‘Wherever we are, what
we hear is mostly noise. When we ignore it, it disturbs us. When we listen to it, we find it
fascinating … We want to capture and control these sounds, to use them not as sound effects but
as musical instruments […]” (Cage, 1961: 3).

Russolo’s understanding and execution of noise was something that arose from technologies
around him; directly in contrast to the silence of pre-industrial life, which he then transformed
into musical pitches – noise made musical. Cage’s noise of diffusion and of the periphery was
always there, but his concept of noise in music was facilitated by the advent of recording,
amplification and transmission – music formed from noise. From Edgard Varèse to David Tudor,
and from musique concrète to “sound art”, a continuous work of physical representation of sound
was set in place in the decades that followed.

Kahn outlined four conditions for noise to be embraced as a rejuvenating element within musical
modernism. These conditions involve using noise in a non-imitative manner, aligning with
existing musical aspects like dissonance and timbre; paradoxically challenging the conservatism
inherent in musical modernism. Additionally, the engagement with “resident noises” containing
echoes of the world outside of music, along with the celebration of new auditory experiences (as
advocated by John Cage), and the skillful incorporation of recorded sounds into the aesthetic
framework of musical modernism, are all part of these conditions. He concludes that music's
response to artistic movements like Futurism was limited, as noise was embraced only to the
extent that it did not challenge the established integrity and independence of music. Notably,

9
noise has the potential to disrupt deeply ingrained aesthetic beliefs in music. (Kahn, 1999: 68–
139).

10
Chapter 2 – Methodology
Similar to any academic or otherwise scientific inquiry, the establishment of a robust
methodology serves a dual purpose: 1) it aids the researcher in gathering precise information
pertinent to their study at hand, and 2) it simultaneously provides a solid foundation for the
research process itself, ensuring that both the investigation and its eventual outcomes are
centered and purposeful.

2.1 Research Investigation & Theoretical Framework

In recent times, scholars have embraced a more intricate historical view of noise, recognizing it
as a multifaceted phenomenon that can be approached from diverse angles – either from the
standpoint of the noise creator or from that of the listener perceiving it as noise. Nonetheless,
there exists a disconnect between socio-historical and philosophical examinations of noise and
music-analytical investigations of noise within music.

On the socio-historical side, authors delve into various aspects, including the societal influence
of noise, the evolution of the distinct genre of noise music, the incorporation of noise in
electronically-generated music, the aesthetic considerations tied to experiencing the
“unanticipated, dissonant, and unfamiliar,” the conceptual grasp of noise as a relational process,
and the integral role of noise in comprehending sound art. (see Hegarty, 2007; Demers, 2010;
Voegelin, 2010; Hendy, 2013; Hainge, 2013; Hegarty, 2021) This body of work has also yielded
numerous edited collections that amalgamate the diverse methodologies concerning noise's role
in or as music. On the analytical front, research into the utilization of noise sounds often entails
objective descriptions and visual representations of sound occurrences. This approach is typically
founded upon characteristics such as duration, pitch range, spectral content, as a means to
frequently contemplate sound objects as self-contained musical elements. (see Chion, 1983;
Smalley, 1997)

In essence, however, theoretical explorations of noise often lack comprehensive musical

analysis, while analytical examinations of noise tend to distance themselves from theoretical
considerations. (cf. Delaere, 2022) Although there have been instances of analytical studies that
explore the creative potential of noise and encompass both perspectives, these inquiries often
remain confined to individual musical compositions. Interestingly, a noteworthy trend can be
observed: even though a growing body of literature is devoted to noise music and its closely

11
related genres (such as radical music, experimental music, and avant-garde), a considerable
segment of the scholars engaged in studying this music come from disciplines beyond the
confines of musicology. From philosophers to social theorists, these researchers explore the
ambiguous realms of noise as both music and as a broader conceptual construct – with their
ultimate aim being to ascribe their individual interpretations and significance through their
respective inquiries.

Following a methodology akin to previously employed historiographical, ethnographic, and

cultural approaches, this investigation seeks to critically assess both the theoretical and analytical
frameworks in use. The overarching goal is to comprehensively unravel the aesthetic values and
attributes inherent in noise music, striving for an all-encompassing exploration. Subsequent
chapters address topics including the interplay of noise and timbre, the interaction of noise and
its reaching influence, and the dynamic between noise and the digital realm. This is followed by
a detailed exploration of the intricate connection between institutional electronic music and the
realm of extreme noise music. A specific focus is placed on how this dynamic is manifested
within the creative output of Merzbow, an artist characterized as the central figure in Japanese
underground music, commonly known as Japanoise. (Wilson, 2018: 173; Delaere, 2022: 9)

It should be noted at this point that this investigation suffered greatly by time constraints and
limited resources available, and would have benefited greatly with the inclusion of interviews or
other relevant empirical data. (see Clarke and Cook, 2004) Nevertheless, despite these
constraints, a substantial and varied range of data from various disciples has been compiled and
examined with the intention of achieving comprehensive and well-rounded conclusions whilst
opening the door to further research.

12
Chapter 3 – The Noise of Academic Discourse

3.1 The Many Timbres of Noise Music

“[Timbre] is one of those subjects where the more you read and the more you have hands-on
compositional experience the more you know, but in the process you become less able to grasp
its essence.” (Smalley, 1994: 35)
An innately problematic concept for scholars and theorists alike, timbre appears as a deceptively
straightforward term. Timbre is generally perceived as a residual category, encompassing
everything except pitch, loudness, and duration. Arguably the greatest music theorist of the 19 th
century, Hermann von Helmholtz established this framework, perhaps providing the earliest
modern definition: “It is unnecessary to explain what we mean by the force and pitch of a tone.
By the quality of tone, we mean that peculiarity which distinguishes the musical tone of a violin
from that of a flute or that of a clarinet or that of the human voice, when all of these instruments
produce the same note at the same pitch.” (2011: 10) Albeit subconsciously, we all possess an
intuitive understanding of timbre as our inherent ability to quickly differentiate between two
dissimilar sounds. Since spoken language devoid of variations in vocal timbre is virtually
unimaginable, timbre constitutes the principal psychoacoustic element in distinguishing
phonemes. This plays not a crucial role in recognizing sound origins in a musical sense, but in
communication and survival as a whole. (McAdams, 2013: 35; Siedeburg et al., 2019: 3)

The instruments within our musical analysis toolkit, along with the underlying ideologies, were
not originally designed to account for timbre. Successive generations of music scholars have
generally treated timbre as either inconsequential to analysis (deemed a "secondary parameter");
beyond its purview; or simply too vexingly intricate to pin down, making it seem not worth the
effort. Instead, the focus of musicologists and music theorists has tended to center on those
aspects of sound that actively contribute to musical effects, mainly pitch and structural
arrangement. (Wallmark, 2022: 3) Timbre is thus often either synonymous with a sound's origin
or associated with a sound quality – but is rarely conceptualized as an action, a pre-requisite for
being considered within the realm of music analysis and interpretation. “To the average listener,
pitch and loudness are changeable attributes of sound, timbre is a state; pitch and loudness are
actions of sound, timbre is the essence of a sound” (Fales, 2002: 58). The main challenge faced

13
by musicologists is not primarily concerned with classification however, but rather, in our
comprehension of how timbre specifically affects listeners which remains unclear.

Much like noise, the aforementioned description presents two issues: 1) it does not provide any
insight into the actual nature of timbre, and 2) it suggests timbre as a contrasting category to
pitch, length, and volume, even though in reality, the perception of timbre is significantly
influenced by these three factors: Timbre, for a lack of a better word, “describes” the color of
sound – a direct transcription from the Greek word, ηχόχρωμα [ixóxroma]. But a sound can only
be relative to its pitch, length and volume to be musically quantifiable. Herein lies the so-called
“paradox of timbre” (cf. Fales, 2002, Van Elferen, 2011; Wallmark, 2013), and in principle, this
extends to a found paradox in noise as well – “Noise is other people’s music: my neighbours’
collection blasting at full volume through the open balcony doors on a hot and sticky summer
night.” (Voegelin, 2010: 44) Much like timbre, noise can take on both tangible (i.e., white noise)
and conceptual forms (i.e., noise as disruption/annoyance). In an effort to conceptualize the
relevant functions of noise, Danish philosopher Torben Sangild classified it into three basic
categories: acoustic noise, communicative noise, and subjective noise. (2002: 4–7)

Among the various potential interpretations of noise, acoustic noise could be considered one of
the most objective, quantifiable, and discernible definitions. According to Helmholtz, instances
of noise encompass phenomena such as the “soughing, howling and whistling of the wind, the
splashes of water, the rolling and rumbling of carriages”. These can be identified through “the
rapid alternations of different kinds of sensations of sound,” ultimately arising from irregular
vibrations or “the sensation of […] non-periodic motions.” (Helmholtz, 2011: 7) This delineation
of noise continues to be upheld in the realm of acoustics, albeit in a more refined rendition. What
Helmholtz initially denoted as “musical tones” is now recognized as pitch. Pitch refers to the
psychoacoustic aspect of sound perception that enables us to categorize a sound in relation to a
musical scale of tones, such as a chromatic or microtonal scale. (Sethares, 2005: 33; Oxenham,
2012) This perception hinges on the periodic nature of vibrations within soundwave signals,
quantified as frequency in hertz, where each hertz corresponds to a single occurrence or
oscillation of the soundwave per second. (Loy, 2011: 13–14)

Sounds with discernible pitches are typically composed of a fundamental frequency that
determines its position on the musical scale, along with a sequence of frequencies above this

14
fundamental, known as overtones, arranged in a periodic manner. (Sethares, 2005: 12–13; Tan,
2018: 15) The relative presence and amplitude of these overtones contribute significantly to the
timbral quality of the sound. (Loy, 2011: 29) In contrast, noise is characterized by an
amalgamation of non-periodic frequencies. Scholars elucidate that fully noisy sounds “are
composed of a random mix of all possible frequencies, and their spectral representation is the
statistical average of the spectral components.” (McAdams et al., 2004: 167) The differentiation
between noise and pitch becomes even more intricate due to the fact that almost all musical tones
encompass elements of noise within their composite frequencies. This presence is typically,
although not always, evident during the initial phase of the sound, known as the attack – Striking
a guitar string, breathing through a wind instrument, banging on a snare drum, or manipulating a
theremin; it all involves noisy frequencies that intersect with the pitch elements of the
instrument. Such components of noise are frequently vital for recognizing instruments and
perceiving timbre. (Fales, 2002: 62–63; Thomson, 2004: 435)

What came to be known as the concept of communicative noise originates from the influential
Shannon–Weaver model of communication. In the early days of transmitting Morse code
messages via telegraph cables, excessive noise disproportionally hindered effective
communication, making it challenging to decipher the intended signals. Efforts to address this
predicament involved enhancing cables and improving insulation to minimize external
interference. However, a significant breakthrough emerged in telegraph communication when
Shannon introduced his approach to noise reduction. Within their mathematical framework,
Shannon and Weaver outlined a communication process involving a sender encoding a message
and a receiver decoding it. Noise arises as unwelcome disruption during the message's encoding,
decoding, or within the message itself. Shannon and Weaver discovered that eliminating noise
entirely is likely unfeasible, and the key to enhancing communication lies not necessarily in
improving the channel (such as creating more robust telegraph cables), but rather in refining the
message by augmenting the transmitted data—introducing redundancy. (1949: 18–22) This
inclusion of surplus information heightens the likelihood of successfully deciphering the
intended signal; a concept later termed as the signal-to-noise ratio.

Sangild applies this communicative classification to illustrate how guitarists during the 1960s
creatively harnessed channel noise by amplifying the audio signal to generate a novel and

15
constructive distorted guitar sound effect. Nevertheless, the communicative interpretation of
noise can also extend metaphorically to signify the disruption of others' signals. For instance,
composers might employ this notion when adopting a subversive musical style that challenges
established traditions, or punk bands seeking to disrupt the signals of mainstream music culture.
In both cases, a third party introduces noise into the communication process, unsettling the
signals. (2002: 9–10)

However, it has been argued that the true innovation in Shannon and Weaver's theory was the
recognition that noise is intrinsic to the system – in that sense, noise manifests as channel
resistance, resulting in random fluctuations. (Goddard, 2022: 20) Shannon and Weaver
demonstrated that noise invariably constitutes an integral component of any information transfer,
with an increase in noise signifying an increase in information. In essence, noise embodies
information, yet the pivotal distinction, as emphasized by Weaver, lies in the intended message
information (desired by the sender) versus the extraneous information introduced by noise.
(1949: 109) Hence, within cultural historian, Greg Hainge's conceptual framework of noise, he
critiques the utilization of Shannon and Weaver's model for comprehending noise within the
realm of music. Hainge argues that while the formulas may suggest an “objective certainty”
regarding the transmission of information through a noisy channel, the distinction between noise
within the signal and the actual information is inherently subjective. This subjectivity hinges on
the presumed absolute intentionality of the original sender, which becomes the sole defining
characteristic of the information to be considered. “And if noise then becomes nothing but a
matter of personal choice, it is hard to say precisely what it is and to what it might be applied as a
descriptor.” (2013: 15)

Then, the subjective interpretation of noise poses further challenges in the realm of analysis. (cf.
Wallmark, 2013; De Ceuster, 2022; Delaere, 2022) Its significance is contingent upon our ability
to trace formerly categorized noise elements within historical contexts, allowing for an
exploration of how a musical composition aligns with that particular reception. As Sangild points
out, noise is commonly understood as “unpleasant sounds,” encompassing both everyday
language and intricate nuances. This characterization of noise is inherently subjective. The
parameters for identifying unpleasant sounds lack definitive and widely applicable criteria:
While higher frequencies and louder volumes tend to be perceived as more disagreeable, the

16
assessment is largely influenced by personal peculiarities and cultural-historical contexts. Within
noise's domain, this subjective definition stands as the epitome of relativism, rendering nearly
anything and everything open to classification as noise. Essentially, it boils down to labeling
something as “unwanted sound.” (2002: 6)

In recent times, more advanced interpretations of the subjective understanding of noise have
emerged. Within the field of sound studies, for instance, researchers have adapted Mary
Douglas's description of dirt as “matter out of place” to parallel noise as “sound out of place” –
effectively underscoring the contextual significance of subjective noise. (Pickering & Rice,
2017: 14) The determining factor is solely the relative context to which a sound pertains,
determining whether it's accepted or rejected. By employing this definition, scholars have
conducted studies on sound pollution and the management of infringements, while also exploring
the notion of noise as an anomalous sound and the manipulation of sound for aggressive
purposes. (Ingold, 2019: 48–52; Bijsterveld, 2022: 38)

Although in contemporary times, the perspective that subjectively defines noise as completely
relative seems to be a predominant understanding, Sangild contends that, when it comes to the
aesthetic contemplation of noise, we should exercise caution and not overlook the inherent
tension in noise as a formerly disruptive aspect within subjective contexts. Even though noise
can possess a subversive quality in one scenario and be artistically appreciated in another, a
portion of what made it subversive in the first place can persist as an aesthetic element in and of
itself. In his own words: “To reach a point where a harsh, white noise is not considered
unpleasant demands a training of the senses to the point of being familiar with this expansion of
musical sounds. Reaching that point, noise will still contain a certain power due to the tension of
listening to what used to be dismissed as repulsive.” (2002: 6) In this manner, noise can embody
the aesthetic bearings of violence and anguish, or that which is abject, blending pleasure with
feeling unease. While this interpretation of subjective noise does incorporate a positive
evaluation of noise, thereby implying a constructive aesthetic potential, it still inherently
characterizes noise as fundamentally transgressive – this opens up an entirely different
conversation on what constitutes the different styles in noise music; from avant-garde to
expressive noise, and so on. (cf. Wilson, 2014: 9)

3.2 Technology & Representations of Noise Music

17
When discussing about sound and noise, the role of technology, especially through electricity
and electronics, plays a direct and crucial part in all advancements within the history of noise and
noise-based music. Technology has served as both a catalyst and a tool, driving the expansion,
exploration, or even radical transformation of the realm of refined sound. It is important to
acknowledge, however, that the concept of technology should be understood broadly before
delving into the specific impacts it has had. It has been argued, in that sense, that technology is a
relational aspect; a manner in which humans engage with the world, and, most importantly, it
acts as a “mode of revealing” or a “realm of revealing, which pertains to truth.” (Heidegger,
1977: 318) Through the developments of science and technology, noise has taken on a
multiplicity of meanings with varying degrees of concreteness. In an acoustics context, it has
come to mean very specifically a sound comprised of random fluctuations in time or of a broad
frequency spectrum – electoacoustic noise. In the context of signal processing, these sounds are
treated as residual – as a difference that cannot be directly modelled (Hegarty, 2007: 25; Hainge,
2013: 14)

To put this into context, Edgard Varèse, namely, was instrumental in the exploration of noise
during its early stages by essentially liberating percussion from rhythmic patterns, and sound
from strict pitch associations – Notably, compositions such as Amériques (1918–1921) and
Ionisation (1930–1) exemplify this approach. Building on this, he is also credited with being one
of the pioneers in envisioning a revolutionary musical language centered around the electronic
medium. (Di Scipio, 2000: 251) Indeed, the introduction of electronic sounds marked a
significant advancement in the incorporation of noise within classical contemporary music. The
concept of volume is immediately noteworthy, as it ceased to be solely dependent on the physical
exertion of a musician. Equally important, however, is the intrinsic nature of the sound material
itself. This encompasses electronically generated sounds, as seen in the collective works of many
avant-garde composers and musicians in the post-war period. Pierre Schaeffer, who directed one
of the early electronic music studios in Paris, meticulously categorized a wide array of sounds
accessible to tape music composers, a practice prefigured to a smaller extent in Russolo's
classification of 6 noise-families. (Russolo, 1983: 28) In 1948, he came up with the term,
musique concrète, as a means to oppose what he thought of as the abstraction of music made for
musical instruments. This music would be made up of “sonorous fragments that have a real
existence, and that are thought of as being clearly defined and complete sonic objects” and

18
sought to transform pre-recorded (“found”) sounds through electronic means. (Schaeffer, 1952:
22)

Across the Rhine, an ensemble of influential composers, musicians and technicians “met and
mingled” at the Cologne Studio for Elektronische Musik, founded in 1951 at the Westdeutscher
Rundfunk (WDR) broadcasting corporation in Cologne, Germany. (Iversen, 2019: 7) For the 50
years the studio was abound, it stands as a monumental institution in the evolution of “pure
electronic music” and its profound intersection with technology. From the development of
groundbreaking tools such as the melochord to the growing aspiration for greater flexibility in
composition led to a departure from the conventional "cut and paste" methods used for preparing
materials. The adoption of the play-erase-record approach, which involved constructing intricate
sound compositions on tape loops, marked a significant departure from established practices.
This technique introduced an essential human performance aspect, as it required interaction to
manage and manipulate the accumulation of events. Pioneering German composer, Karlheinz
Stockhausen's composition, Gesang der Jünglinge (1955–6) marked a pivotal moment in the
studio's artistic evolution. Contrary to the prevailing norms of the time, the piece was organized
around recordings of a young boy's voice, which were manipulated and seamlessly integrated
with electronic sounds. This departure from convention represented a noteworthy shift in the
studio's creative direction. (Manning, 2013: 64–65, Iversen, 2019: 106–107)

Around the 1960s, music technology devices such as tape machines, phonographs, oscillators,
etc., were perceived as object representations of this new way of thinking in sound. This gave
way to a systemic view of music in the context of performance and the focus shifted to how the
proliferation of this technology interacted with its surroundings. (Hegarty, 2007: 32) In listening
to these pieces, we are listening to the system itself and the process of the sounds becoming. This
type of work engenders a different listening strategy than a piece of tape collage. Content still
matters as does materials that are input to the system, but rather than the form being determined
solely by a sound’s morphology and juxtaposition, the interaction with and within the system
endows it with form. This way of thought became evident at a time when there was a shift
towards incorporating noise into live performances, and should be no surprise that Cage led the
way in this regard. His Cartridge Music (1960) exemplified a reimagining of music technology
as an instrument. Instead of using the phonograph solely as a tool for representation, the focus

19
shifted to multiple phonograph arms engaging with tangible objects. This approach went beyond
capturing and dictating the external environment; rather, it involved an interactive feedback loop
where these arms engaged with the world. When this dynamic interaction created a form and
structure not patterned after a “musical” ordering in time, a noise resulted not from any object
but from the process itself – hence, systemic noise, a term coined by frequent John Cage
collaborator, David Tudor. (Van Nort, 2006: 176)

Debates have emerged regarding whether this evolution signifies the emancipation or rather the
taming of sounds (Solomos, 2020). Nonetheless, it remains indisputable that electronic music
prompted music analysts to focus on studying recordings rather than traditional scores,
(Emerson, 2022) a challenge that had already been embraced in ethnomusicology and popular
music studies. Subsequently, scholars have refined Schaeffer's aural analytical method into a
functional approach, (Chion, 1983) and the concept of spectromorphology has emerged to
analyze the formal relationships and transitions between sonic structures (Smalley, 1997).

Today, noise-sounds have become definitive for the timbres of contemporary popular music
through the widespread use of effects, synthesizers, samplers, and studio recording techniques.
Parallel to the aforementioned developments of interactive electronic music systems, different
ways of systemic misuse via feedback and distortion were emerging in a commonly accepted
form of Western musical structure (Hegarty, 2007: 138–139; Cassidy & Einbond, 2013: 74;
Klett, 2014: 277). Recent artists working in the digital medium have focused on generating
processes that in one way or another sonify the non-deterministic qualities inherent within a
system. Thus the focus of interest reverts once again to technological mis-appropriation. (Kahn,
1999: 48; Van Nort, 2006: 177)

3.3 The Sociocultural Significance of Noise (as) Music

“Background noise is the ground of our perception, absolutely uninterrupted, it is our perennial
sustenance, the element of the software of all our logic. It is the residue and the cesspool of our
messages. No life without heat, no matter, neither; no warmth without air, no logos without
noise, either. Noise is the basic element of the software of all our logic, or it is to the logos what
matter used to be to form. Noise is the background of information, the material of that form.”
This is how French philosopher, Michel Serres (1995: 7) explains the subtle art of discerning
delicate beauty and meaning from what may appear as chaotic and tumultuous.

20
Before the use of technological objects in music, noise was perceived as a burden. Afterwards, it
became a process that obscured the line between music and the so-called “otherness” (Cage,
1961: 11). Anything can happen in noise only in its existence outside of established musical
codes. It is simply not enough, however, to define noise as ‘the outside’ or the complement to
current musical order. This sort of binarism will bring it into a meaning and representation that
succeeds in absolute noise abatement, because noise cannot carry meaning apart from itself as
meaning. (Van Nort, 2006: 175; Novak, 2013: 31; Klett, 2014: 277–278)

Numerous historians and cultural philosophers have observed that the early 20 th century
witnessed an increase in noise (generally referring to aggressive and previously unwelcome
sounds) as a musical element within classical composition. This evolution involved not only a
liberation of dissonance but also a profound expansion of the composer's sonic repertoire – a
shift described as a transition “from a musical culture centered on the note to a culture of sound.”
(Solomos, 2020: 5) Abject from traditional musical alterations such as pitch and rhythm, sound
itself became the focal point of composition. Composers attempted to break free from tonality
systems and instead forge a novel form of music that incorporated innovative approaches to pitch
structuring; unconventional instrumental techniques; incorporation of extramusical sounds into
compositions, and the use of prepared or newly designed instruments – both acoustic and
electric. (De Ceuster, 2022: 4)

Frequently, these inventive techniques and practices encountered opposition and were labeled as
noise by some. However, as French social theorist, Jacques Attali emphasized in his seminal
work on the political economy of noise, “what is noise to the older, is harmony to the new” –
essentially perceiving noise as a transgressive interference. (2009: 35) Similarly, Varèse
responded to the intricate history of his music's reception by stating, “to stubbornly conditioned
ears, anything new in music has always been called noise.” (1966: 18). In certain musical
contexts, like the punk culture of the 1970s, this parasitic potential has been harnessed as a form
of resistance, challenging socio-economic structures or the dominance of major American record
labels. Nevertheless, over time, fresh techniques become antiquated, and previously novel
sounds lose their novelty. What was once a clamorous expression of rebellion gradually evolving
into a culturally established artistic expression. From the cacophony of diverse compositional

21
innovations at the turn of the 20th century, new systems of significance emerged. (Hegarty, 2007:
146)

But the aesthetics of noise also test the centers of musical coherence against the margins of
circulation. Describing the music and speech of minorities as noise was a marker of difference in
post-colonial, multicultural, and cosmopolitan societies – for example, once rendered as noise,
black music could circulate as authentic cultural material, while continuing to signify its
fundamental incommensurability with European civilization (Schwartz, 2011: 220). The creative
force of noise is not only essential to the politics of cultural identity but also in developing
alternatives to capitalism. Interestingly, Attali influentially described noise as a “prophetic” form
of difference, which precedes the disciplining “sacrifice” of musical “channelization.” As a
revolutionary project of disorder, noise reveals the coercive repetitions of musical
commodification: “change is inscribed in noise faster than it transforms society,” and because of
this, “power has always listened to it with fascination” (Attali, 1985: 6; Drott, 2015: 731-733).
Noise also circulates as a critique of globalization; as a symbol of irreducible cultural difference
that persists within a universalist socioeconomic agenda, noise inscribes the
incommensurabilities of multicultural liberalism (Novak, 2015: 131). All these different
conceptualizations of noise overlap in contemporary global societies.

22
Chapter 4 – The Sound of Meaning

4.1 Towards a Polysynthetic Reassessment of Noise

A common thread among the academic discourse is that the concept of noise is defined through
negation — in other words, noise is characterized by the absence of distinct attributes rather than
their presence. As explained earlier, in the acoustic context, noise is delineated as vibrations
lacking a regular arrangement of partials. Within the communicative framework, noise is
identified as elements outside the intended signal, and in the subjective domain, noise
encompasses unwanted sounds. Negative definitions can often present challenges: they focus on
what something is not without addressing the actual attributes or qualities that constitute the
phenomenon. Furthermore, negative definitions can give rise to an undesirable false binary,
creating an apparent irreconcilable division. (Elbow, 1993: 54–55) For instance, if noise is
defined as the opposite of musical, then all sounds must be categorized as either noise or music,
eliminating room for ambiguity, adaptability, or an understanding of noise as a gradual spectrum
– This scenario harkens back to the enigmatic challenge of defining timbre and reveals a
comparable pattern within musicological discussions involving troublesome negative
descriptions.

Formulating a singular affirmative description for noise appears to be an unattainable task. Not
only is noise contingent on its context – as demonstrated throughout the literature presented
earlier – but frequently, when individuals discuss noise, the intended meaning remains
ambiguous. At times, composers, musicians, theorists, or analysts might concurrently allude to
multiple noise categories. (see Demers, 2010; Goddard et al., 2012; Wallmark, 2013; Delaere,
2022; Hegarty, 2022; Graham, 2023) The notion of noise remains dynamic and often lacks a
precise delineation in many conversations. In essence, achieving a solitary and comprehensive
definition of noise proves to be an elusive endeavor.

In the realm of ontological philosophy, a differentiation exists between monothetic and

polythetic, or polysynthetic classification. Usually, a monothetic characterization defines a
category through its indispensable and comprehensive attributes. However, numerous concepts
and categories defy formulation with an encompassing set of necessary and sufficient conditions.
(cf. Davies, 2004; Strong, 2018) For instance, even though various theorists in the philosophy of

23
music have asserted otherwise in the past, music itself could be considered to lack a monothetic
definition if adhering to a pragmatic constraint. In such cases, a polythetic definition emerges,
akin to Ludwig Wittgenstein's concept of "family resemblances." In this type of definition, a
singular common denominator or a specific set of attributes is absent, replaced by an open-ended
concept connected by an array of overlapping resemblances among its manifestations. (Fox,
2010: 51)

To perceive noise as a polysynthetic concept is to embrace its manifold interpretations across

historical and analytical contexts, and to adopt a descriptive rather than nominalistic approach
toward noise. This perspective contrasts with the subjective and relativistic viewpoint, which, as
argued by Hainge, “has been used to apply to everything and nothing at the same time, subject to
a whole host of mutually contradictory definitions and usages, its apparently ineffable nature the
result of divergent agendas rather than something proper to noise itself.” (2013: 8) As such, the
polythetic approach acknowledges the components that contribute to the analytical and cultural
comprehension of noise within the realm of music. It avoids favoring a singular definitive
element, encompassing various monothetic definitions (such as acoustic, communicative, and/or
subjective) to elucidate noise in specific contexts, amalgamating multiple facets of noise into a
unified understanding.

Embracing a polysynthetic interpretation of noise aligns with contemporary cultural and

theoretical approaches to the concept – From advocacies for a transdisciplinary understanding of
noise as diverse manifestations of turbulence (Goodman, 2010: 9) to contentions that a strictly
transgressive viewpoint on noise oversimplifies its essence, urging for a broader interpretation
extending beyond its association with undesirable sounds. (Thompson, 2017: 6) In this light,
noise can be characterized as a concept devoid of fixed identity, representing an unfamiliar
counterpart perpetually contrasting with the anticipated and meaningful. (Hegarty, 2021: 63) A
polysynthetic perspective also facilitates recognizing noise as a constructive element in music.
Composers and musicians can selectively utilize certain traits from the range of resemblances
within the noise family, while disregarding others, thereby moving beyond mere transgression
and subversion. This differentiation perhaps highlights the distinction between noise and mere
noisiness, or the contrast between noise functioning as music versus noise within music.

24
Nevertheless, noise can also manifest unexpectedly as an unintended yet not inherently unwanted
by-product.

Alternatively, noise can be thought of as raw material; as the sounds that exist before we, as
critical recipients, ascribe meaning to them. According to this theory, the ever-present nature of
noise is indispensable for any message, similar to how “sand is needed for stones.” (Serres, 1995:
132) As Serres notes, the universe surrounding us lacks strict structure; it is not a pristine,
ordered cosmos in which noise serves only as a disruptor. Instead, the universe represents
boundless multiplicity: “It is the global basis of all structures, it is the background noise of all
form and information, it is the milky noise of the whole of our messages gathered together.”
(1995: 111) Noise forms the foundation, encompassing all the disorderly, random substance from
which organized patterns can arise. In this light, noise can be perceived as a realm of potentiality.

Hainge builds upon Serres's notion of noise as a foundation, although he critiques Serres for
asserting that noise will always remain as potentiality. Serres posits that noise precedes events
and thus does not belong to our conscious experience – Hainge, however, contends that noise is
more than an abstract concept and is omnipresent in the materializations or transformations of
matter into expressions; it represents the “relational process through which the world and its
objects express themselves.” This viewpoint introduces yet another negative definition, with
Hainge emphasizing that noise “is nothing in and of itself” thus holding no inherent identity.
(2013: 15–23) Nevertheless, it is crucial to avoid viewing noise solely as one component within a
relational process, defined, for example, by its contrast with non-noise. Instead, noise should be
regarded as inherently mediating every relational process. Ultimately, in Hainge's ontology,
noise still retains its aspect of resistance, though not necessarily in a political sense. It serves as a
material resistance, shaping matter into expressions, transmission, and interconnectedness. As
Hainge himself asserts, “every expression is therefore born out of noise and carries noise within
it.” (2013: 18)

Viewing noise as an irreparable intermediary – the tumultuous foundation of all manifestations –

leads to the comprehension of noise as a constructive artistic element. In accordance with
Hainge, noise becomes a polysynthetic merging of information and those sounds, structures, or
timbres, whether organized or not, which result from this amalgamation. The dual nature of
noise, encompassing both the process of distortion and its productive outcome, can sometimes be

25
perplexing. (cf. Goddard et al., 2012; De Ceuster, 2022; Delaere, 2022) Nonetheless, it is this
polysynthetic duality that helps shape the aesthetic essence of noise, offering insight from
various angles and in diverse contexts.

4.2 I Lead You Towards Glorious Times: Merzbow & Sonic Assault on Meaning
Since 1979, Masami Akita has been active under the alias, Merzbow; amassing an extensive
body of work that delves into the realm of expressive sonic art, pushing the boundaries of
conventional musical practice. His output comprises over 400 solo releases along with numerous
collaborative, split, and compilation releases, establishing him as a prominent figure within the
noise music genre. His impact has been profound, influencing numerous other artists and bands.
As a pioneer in “noise music,” Merzbow holds a vast reputation, which is even more remarkable
considering the intentionally obscure nature of the noise genre. His involvement in diverse
collaborations has garnered him a broad audience, a rarity for a composer engaged in such a
groundbreaking artistic endeavor.

The name originates from the Dadaist artist, Schwitters and his most ambitious project,
Merzbau: The Cathedral of Erotic Misery (1923-1943) which involved the gradual
transformation of his house's interior through the incorporation of found materials,
predominantly discarded items. This process led to the interior becoming progressively filled
with seemingly haphazard items, unified by paint, and, as depicted in remaining photographs,
arranged into crystalline structures. (Bader, 2021: 123–124) In a similar vein, Merzbow's music
serves a comparable purpose to Schwitters', constructing a form that is so intricate it appears
formless, crafted from sonic fragments rather than physical matter. The surplus material fills
space with countless potentialities, evoking the sensation of an alternate realm being constructed
within the confines of the present one. Schwitters' materials morph into "merz," while Merzbow's
sounds take on the role of "noise." However, the latter’s approach maintains an ongoing
manipulation of the components, preventing them from ever settling. Akita himself contends:
“the name is only important to my early work, which I thought related to the concept of
Merzbau” (Pouncey, 2000: 29) This distinction may not be monumental – both creators amass
elements, yet they do so with the intention of distorting, and vice versa. (Hegarty, 2007: 156)

26
Having experimented with early works involving percussion, tapes, and samples, (for reference,
see Om Electrique (1979) Masami Akita progressed to a form of “music” characterized by
distorted, feedback-driven, and heavily processed noises produced by analog equipment,
particularly analog synthesizers and electronic devices. His compositions often consist of what
appears to be predominantly feedback and the residual aftermath of explosive sounds,
incorporating metallic scrapes, intense howls, various pulse patterns, and colored noise.
Numerous layers interact in ways that sometimes create a dense sonic mass, while at other times,
they offer a sensation of different layers or depths. Starting from the mid-1990s onwards, his
recordings have consistently been of remarkably high volume, with some CDs even mastered at
levels significantly exceeding standard norms – most notably, his American-bound releases for
Relapse Records, and two of his most celebrated works: Noisembryo (1994) and Pulse Demon
(1996). In recent releases, there is a persistent focus on specific tones or a limited set of sound
sources, mainly adhering to specific codas and/or subject matters – for example, Karasu (2009),
a component of Merzbow's 13-CD series centered around Japanese birds, stands as a reflection
of his burgeoning concern for animal rights and veganism. In this instance, Merzbow
amalgamates his distinctive approach of feedback and distortion with computer-driven
production and live percussion, evoking reminiscences of his earlier rhythmic explorations. A
noteworthy transition emerges during Merzbow's fourth phase, where his fervent advocacy
against animal cruelty introduces a compelling shift. Unlike his previous compositions that might
be deemed as abstract music, his music here bears a discernible political agenda. (Wilson, 2014:
16; Graham, 2023)

This evolution prompts an exploration into the essence of musical significance. The audience is
prompted to discern a call for societal change within a sonic expression that outwardly resembles
an onslaught of chaotic noise. Merzbow's creations engender discussions encompassing the
interplay between noise and music; the significance of aesthetic boundaries and the implications
of their transgression; the comprehension of an art form that deliberately seeks obscurity; and the
experience of the listener tasked with navigating an innovative and potentially provocative
auditory experience. (Thacker, 1999: 59–62; Hegarty, 2007: 158–162) Nevertheless, his various
“styles” all share a common thread of disruption, from noise to the disruptions within the tracks
themselves. Tracks tend to conclude abruptly, undermining the notion of a well-ordered album
with conventional titles and track durations. While Merzbow’s noise adheres to a temporal

27
musical framework, it encompasses elements that, on the surface, might not fit the conventional
definition of (authentic) music. This includes an abundance of sounds, intense concentrations,
and high volumes, as opposed to identifiable, organized successions of musical occurrences.
(Sudo, 2020: 195)

To speak about Merzbow’s music in and of itself proves to be a daunting task, let alone try to
analyze it. Indeed, when faced with a substantial volume of sonic data, it becomes impractical to
simultaneously perceive all auditory elements. Instead, our auditory faculties make choices,
whether consciously or involuntarily, regarding which sounds to give precedence within the
broader soundscape. This entails elevating specific noises in response to alterations in the
interplay of layers. (Sudo, 2020: 202) Outlined here, then, are two approaches to engaging with
(Merzbow’s) expressive noise that pushes toward an utmost level of non-musical quality: 1)
through an analytical listening mode, wherein one seeks out structure, recurrent motifs, elements
of familiarity, and technical insights into the methods behind sound production; 2) through a
holistic listening approach – equally active yet embracing a broader perspective – appreciating
sweeping developments and overall emotional impact, often endeavoring to glean meaning
through metaphorical interpretation. Generally, Merzbow’s critics/reviewers start with an
implicit assumption that the sound is devoid of anything beyond randomness and disorder. (see
Thacker, 1999: 60; Pouncey, 2000: 27) However, should we adopt an analytical listening stance,
this assumption falls notably short of accuracy – in that vein, we must not confuse a lack of
conventional musical rationale with a lack of distinctive internal logic intrinsic to expressive
noise.

Putting this to the test, one could look no further than Merzbow’s “analogue-era,” touted for
including as some of his most abrasive and “quintessential” material. (Keenan, 1999) In creating
Venereology (1995), Akita was reported heavily intoxicated with beer and highly influenced by
extreme/death metal – hence, as Hegarty muses over the album’s opener, “Ananga-Ranga” the
track commences with uneven pulsations and piercing flanged sounds. Strata of sound emerge
intermittently; momentarily overpowered by sharp notes. As it progresses, vibrant noise contends
with intricate electronic tones, with segments of high-pitched sound blocks intertwining. In the
middle section, multiple layers rise and recede, seemingly without a discernible backdrop from
which specific elements emerge, despite the listener's attempts to perceive it as such. Various

28
strata clash, persistently subjected to quick bursts of high-frequency oscillations and broad,
white-ish noise. After 22 minutes, the sense of complex layering becomes denser, resulting in
emerging sounds that resemble algal blooms or particles of debris, yet these sounds do not
ascend above the rest nor settle into a distinct pattern. Throughout the piece, minute-shifts in
sound texture briefly gain prominence, only to be engulfed once again as the composite layers’
advance, obfuscating any emergent features. This composition embodies a basic form of
emergence, wherein a semblance of order arises chaotically, yet this structure dissolves as soon
as it takes shape – only to abruptly transition unto the next track after 29 ear-piercing-induced
minutes. (2007: 159)

The tangible nature of expressive noise constitutes its core characteristic, and the unrefined
intensity of the sound often diminishes the spatial depth commonly present in music. However,
such a reading of the music appears to cede excessive influence to the listener. Focusing solely
on the auditory phenomenon neglects the substantial capacity of the human mind, encompassing
both conscious and subconscious faculties, to unearth significance surpassing mere timbre. To
exemplify an analytical reading, Wilson dissects “Spiral Blast” off the monolithic, Pulse Demon
(1996).

Merzbow introduces the foundational sounds and modification techniques that persist throughout
the subsequent sections, each of which is distinctly demarcated in adjacent blocks. These blocks
encompass transformed white noise, a constant underlying bass note, manipulation of amplitude
within the subharmonic range (tremolo), and densely layered distortion. Moving into the second
part (around 1:00-3:35), the persistent bass note from the preceding section transforms into an
ascending recurring motif, lasting approximately five seconds. This ascending bass motif
assumes a central role in “Spiral Blast,” gradually emerging and eventually dominating the
auditory fabric. Merzbow seamlessly transitions the techniques employed in the first segment,
now shifted to a higher tonal range, in this second part. Feedback, filtered noise, and tremolo
interact in a frenzied counterpoint with the ascending bass motif. The third part commences
abruptly (3:36-4:30), accompanied by the abrupt disappearance of the recurring motif. Here, the
texture thins significantly, revealing brief intervals of silence punctuated by high-pitched vibrato.
Subsequently, a looped sample (accelerated to the point of incomprehensibility) becomes the
cornerstone of the final minute of “Spiral Blast,” occasionally interrupted by periodic bursts of

29
noise. The structure of the composition implies that the accelerated loop likely signifies a return
of the bass motif, although confirmation remains elusive. (2014: 361)

Note the musical terms used here indicate the presence of fundamental aesthetic principles (e.g.,
formal structure, composition, recurrence). While none of these principles are obligatory for art,
it is crucial to grasp their role in at least certain instances of Merzbow's expressive noise. It is
tempting to limit our listening experience to the level of timbre, yet doing so overlooks a
profundity that eludes many listeners. One might also contend that the aforementioned analysis
demystifies Merzbow to the extent that it becomes subject to the influence of the signifier, but a
more nuanced comprehension of expressive noise on its own terms should not necessarily imply
an inherent shift in its ontology. (Sudo, 2020: 202–203) As Hegarty eloquently surmises:

“Excess is a constant negotiation of the normal, the taboo, the structured. It does not get rid of
those, but acts as it does. […] Noise is excess to the normal economy of music, that which is to
be excluded as threat; Merzbow's recordings are about occupying this space of threat, and not
just reincorporating the threat into music.” (2007: 155)

30
Chapter 5 – Conclusion
“Meaning is not just what is consciously entertained in acts of feeling and thought; instead,
meaning reaches deep down into our corporeal encounter with our environment.”
(Johnson, 2007: 25)
“Noise is not just serious, not just a joke, not just shocking—it includes many things…but almost
no one can know and understand Noise. That’s a very good and important thing. Because—
there’s hardly anything we don’t know any more, is there? But there are still mysterious things,
right? Noise is like a ghost, like a ghost story. We know this, too, that there are still some
mysterious, but unmistakable, things; Noise must be this kind of mysterious thing.”
(Jojo Hiroshige, interviewed by Novak, 2013: 118)
By its asserted definition, noisiness defies meaning. As described by anthropologist, Jon Cruz:
“Noise and meaningful sound are opposites, and together they are part of a broader and deeper
social construct, a cultural logic, that enables and puts into motion some of the most basic
boundary-mapping interpretations of meaning available to those who work with these
categories.” (1999: 44) A full on century after Russolo’s manifestations, noise remains a
polarizing theme that now finally has enough merit to be credited unanimously as a genre. More
than just the technology itself, the possibilities it afforded sparked a progression from symbol-to-
signal, to systems representations, and the noises of the previous period became the new musical
materials. Instead of focusing on legitimizing noise as a musical style in the conventional
Westernized sense, there is more merit to perpetually consider its trajectory from where it might
have been and where it might be now – a powerful “anti-subject” of music, communication and
culture (Van Nort, 2006: 174-175; Novak, 2015: 128-130).

Contemplating noise as a polysynthetic notion, a multifaceted phenomenon, can potentially

present a source of frustration for the analyst. This endeavor has not presented a single
comprehensive methodology for dissecting noise within the realm of unified meaning, nor has it
put forth a specific set of principles for gauging or charting noise as a musical concept. There
exists no manual for the audio-visual scrutiny of extreme sounds, and no classification system
for noises is included either, akin to what can be found, for instance, in Chion's “Guide to Sound
Objects.” Rather, this investigation serves as an advocate for an inclusive approach towards the
idea of meaning in noise and subsequently of noise in music, wherein diverse aspects linked to
noise and its qualities can be explored further.

31
Noise can manifest acoustically, as observed in non-periodic components that blur pitch
information and give rise to a noise texture. However, noise need not solely adhere to this form,
as different modes of information blurring can be just as noisy. It can also be communicative,
exemplified by the external distortion of the intended signal by the sender, yet it is not confined
to this role; intentional and internal blurring within the signal is equally viable. Similarly, noise
can be subjective, where the aesthetic allure of music is marred by dissonant sounds. However,
this is not the sole scenario; the blurring elements can also hold aesthetic value. Noise
encapsulates “the enigmatic, the unforeseeable, and the immeasurable.” (Hegarty, 2021) Its
presence may evoke a reflective disquiet, provoke a search for regularity, and perpetually hint at
its seeming opposites of order and significance. Ultimately, noise assumes diverse forms, and it
is precisely this multiplicity and the vagueness inherent in its definition that constitute its
essence. By reconfiguring the edges of such forms to recuperate noise as meaningful sound, we
are able to critically interrogate the basic binarism at its core and, consequently, the social logic
that sustains it (Wallmark, 2022: 5–6)

In an effort to determine the characteristics that would classify a sound as belonging to the noise
music genre, there is a contention that each instance of noise must confront this inquiry afresh.
Moreover, it is posited that the challenge of definitively categorizing the genre itself contributes
to the aesthetics of noise, constituting an integral aspect of its artistic essence. (cf. Cascone,
2000: 13–14; Hegarty, 2007: 4–5; Haworth, 2013: 1) In the words of Douglas Kahn: ‘The
existence of noise implies a mutable world through an unruly intrusion of an other, an other that
attracts difference, heterogeneity, and productive confusion’. (1999: 22) This ‘productive
confusion’ is precisely why noise should persist in the dialogue surrounding music, and in effect,
the discourse of meaning.

32
 References

Attali, Jacques. 2009. Noise: The Political Economy of Music. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Bader, Graham. 2021. Poisoned Abstraction: Kurt Schwitters between Revolution and Exile.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Boutin, Aimée. 2016. “Roland Barthes’ Grain of the Voice: From Mélodie to Media.” Romance
Studies 34 (3-4): 163-173
Cage, John. 1961. Silence. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press.
Cascone, Kim. 2000. “The Aesthetics of Failure: ‘Post-Digital’ Tendencies in Contemporary
Computer Music.” Computer Music Journal 24 (4): 12–18.
Cassidy, Aaron and Aaron Einbond. 2013. Noise in and as music. Huddersfield: University of
Huddersfield Press.
Clarke, Eric F, and Nicholas Cook. 2004. Empirical Musicology: Aims, Methods, Prospects.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Chion, Michel. 1983. Guide to Sound Objects: Pierre Schaeffer and Musical Research, transl. by
J. Dack & C. North. Paris: Buchet/Chastel.
Cowell, Henry. 2005. “The joys of noise,” in C. Cox and D. Warner (eds.), Audio Culture:
Readings in Modern Music. New York: Continuum (originally published in 1929).
Cruz, Jon. 1999. Culture on the Margins: The Black Spiritual and the Rise of American Cultural
Interpretation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Elbow, Peter. 1993. “The Uses of Binary Thinking.” Journal of Advanced Composition 13 (1):
51–78.
Davies, David. 2004. Art as Performance. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
De Ceuster, Mark. 2022. From Beat to Noise: A Music−Analytical Inquiry Into the Function of
Noise in Contemporary Music for Non-Pitched Percussion. PhD Thesis: University of Leuven.
Delaere, Mark (ed.). 2022. “Introduction: The Blessings of Noise Music.” in Noise as a
Constructive Element in Music: Theoretical and Music-Analytical Perspectives. New York:
Routledge.
Demers, Joanna. 2010. Listening Through the Noise: The Aesthetics of Experimental Electronic
Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Di Scipio, Agostino. 2000. “The Technology of Musical Experience in the 20th Century,”
Rivista Italiana Di Musicologia 35 (1/2): 247–75.

33
Doğantan Dack, Mine. 2008. “Timbre as an Expressive Dimension in Music,” in R. Reigleand
and P. Whitehead (eds.), Spectral World Musics, 63-74. Istanbul: Pan Press.
Drott, Eric. 2015. “Rereading Jacques Attali’s Bruits.” Critical Inquiry 41 (4): 721–756.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Emmerson, Simon. 2022. “Analysing Non-Score-Based Music.” in M. Delaere (ed.). Noise as a
Constructive Element in Music: Theoretical and Music-Analytical Perspectives. New York:
Routledge.
Fales, Cornelia. 2002. “The Paradox of Timbre.” Ethnomusicology 46 (1): 56–95.
Fox, Craig. 2010. “Wittgenstein on Family Resemblance.” in K.D. Jolley (ed.), Wittgenstein:
Key Concepts, pp. 51–62. Slough: Acumen Publishing.
Ghasemi Sh, Fasih-Ramandi F, Monazzam-Esmaeelpour MR, Khodakarim Ardakani S. 2022.
“Different Colors of Noise and Their Application in Psychoacoustics: A Review Study.” J
Health Saf Work: 12(3): 459-482.
Goddard, Michael, Benjamin Halligan and Paul Hegarty. 2012. Reverberations: The Philosophy,
Aesthetics and Politics of Noise. London: Continuum.
Goddard, Michael. 2022. “Noise Annoys, Noise is the Future: Noise in Communication and
Cybernetic Theories and Popular Music Practices,” in M. Delaere (ed.), Noise as a Constructive
Element in Music: Theoretical and Music-Analytical Perspectives. New York: Routledge.
Goodman, Steven. 2010. Sonic Warfare, Affect and the Ecology of Fear. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Graham, Stephen. 2023. Becoming Noise Music: Style, Aesthetics and History. New York:
Bloomsbury Academic.
Hainge, Greg. 2013. Noise Matters: Towards an Ontology of Noise. New York: Bloomsbury.
Hawthorn, Christopher P. 2013. “Xenakian Sound Synthesis: Its Aesthetics and Influence on
'Extreme' Computer Music,” in Goddard, Michael N., Benjamin Halligan, and Nicola Spelman
(eds). Resonances: Noise and Contemporary Music. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Hendy, David. 2013. Noise: A Human History of Sound and Listening. London: Profile Books.
Hegarty, Paul. 2002. “Noise Threshold: Merzbow and the End of Natural Sound.” Organised
Sound 6 (3). Cambridge University Press: 193–200.
Hegarty, Paul. 2007. Noise/Music: A History. New York: Continuum Books.
Hegarty, Paul. 2021. Annihilating Noise. New York: Bloomsbury.
Hegarty, Paul. 2022. “Noise Not Music.” in M. Delaere (ed.). Noise as a Constructive Element
in Music: Theoretical and Music-Analytical Perspectives. New York: Routledge.

34
Heidegger, Martin. 1977. The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays. trans. by
William Lovitt. New York/London: Garland Publishing Inc.
Helmholz, Hermann von. 2011. On the Sensations of Tone: As a Physiological Basis for the
Theory of Music. 3rd edn., transl. by Alexander J. Ellis. New York: Cambridge Univeristy Press
(originally published in 1875).
Ingold, Tim. 2019. “Noise, Sound, Silence,” in K. Coessens (ed.), Sensorial Aesthetics in Music
Practices. Leuven: Leuven University Press, pp. 47–60.
Iverson, Jennifer. 2019. Electronic Inspirations. Technologies of the Cold War Musical Avant-
Garde. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jan Kromhout, Melle. 2021. The Logic of Filtering: How Noise Shapes the Sound of Recorded
Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Johnson, Mark. 2007. The Meaning of the Body: Aesthetics of Human Understanding.
London/Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Keenan, David. 1999. “Picks the Best of Merzbow.”, The Wire 198 (August): 32–3
Kerse, C.S. 1975. The Law Relating to Noise. London: Oyez.
Khan, Douglas. 1999. Noise, Water, Meat: A History of Sound in the Arts. Boston: MIT Press.
Klett, Joseph and Alison Gerber. 2014. “The Meaning of Indeterminacy: Noise Music as
Performance” Cultural Sociology 8 (3): 275–290.
Loy, Gareth. 2011. Musimathics, Volume 1: The Mathematical Foundations of Music. Boston:
MIT Press.
Manning, Peter. 2013. Electronic and Computer Music. New York: Oxford University Press.
McAdams, Stephen, Philippe Depalle, and Eric Clarke. 2004. “Analyzing Musical Sound”, in E.
Clarke, and N. Cook (eds.), Empirical Musicology: Aims, Methods, Prospects. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
McAdams, Stephen. 2013. “Musical Timbre Perception.” in D. Deutsch (ed.), The Psychology of
Music. 3rd edn. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Novak, David. 2013. Japanoise: Music at the Edge of Circulation. Durham and London: Duke
University Press.
Novak, David and Matt Sakakeeny. 2015. Keywords in Sound: Noise. Durham: Duke University
Press.
Oxenham, A. J. 2012. “Pitch perception,” The Journal of Neuroscience 32 (39): 13335–13338.
Payton, Rodney J. 1976. The Music of Futurism: Concerts and Polemics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

35
Pickering, Hugh and Tom Rice. 2017. “Noise as ‘Sound out of Place’: Investigating the Links
between Mary Douglas’ Work on Dirt and Sound Studies Research.” Journal of Sonic Studies
14.
Pouncey, Edwin. 2000. “Consumed by noise.” The Wire 198 (August): 26–32.
Ross, Alex. 2007. The Rest Is Noise. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Russolo, Luigi. 1986. The Art of Noises. 2nd edn., trans. by Barclay Brown. New York:
Pendragon Press (originally published in 1913).
Sangild, Torben. 2002. The Aesthetics of Noise. Copenhagen: Datanom.
Schaeffer, Pierre. 1952. À la recherche d’une musique concrète. Paris: Seuil.
Schwartz, Hillel. 2011. Making Noise: From Babel to the Big Bang and Beyond. New York:
Zone.
Serres, Michel. 1995. Genesis. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
Sethares, William A. 2005. Tuning, timbre, spectrum, scale. 2nd edn. London: Springer Science
& Business Media.
Siedeburg, Kai, Charalampos Saitis, Stephen McAdams, Arthur N Popper, and Richard R Fay.
2019. Timbre: Acoustics, Perception, and Cognition. Springer Handbook of Auditory Research,
Volume 69. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Smalley, Denis. 1997. “Spectromorphology: Explaining Sound-Shapes,” Organised Sound 2 (2):
107–126.
Solomos, Makis. 2020. From Music to Sound. The Emergence of Sound in 20th- and 21st-
Century Music. London: Routledge.
Sitsky, Larry. 2002. Music of the Twentieth-century Avant-garde: A Biocritical Sourcebook.
Westport and London: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Smalley, Denis. 1994. “Defining Timbre – Refining Timbre”, Contemporary Music Review 10
(2): 35–48.
Sudo, Marina. 2022. “Stretching Musicality to the Extreme: Vertical Composition in Merzbow’s
Music.” in M. Delaere (ed.). Noise as a Constructive Element in Music: Theoretical and Music-
Analytical Perspectives. New York: Routledge.
Tan, Siu-Lan, Peter Pfordresher, and Rom Harré. 2018. Psychology of music: From sound to
significance. 2nd edn. New York: Routledge.
Thacker, Eugene. 1999. “Bataille/Body/Noise: Towards a Techno-Erotics”, in B. Woodward
(ed.), Merzbook: The Pleasuredome of Noise. Melbourne and Cologne: Estreme, pp. 57–65.
Thomson, William. 2004. “From Sounds to Music: The Contextualizations of Pitch.” Music
Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal 21 (3): 431–56.

36
Thompson, Marie. 2017. Beyond Unwanted Sound: Noise, Affect and Aesthetic Moralism.
London: Bloomsbury.
Van Elferen, Isabella. 2021. Timbre: Paradox, Materialism, Vibrational Aesthetics. Alternate
Takes: Critical Responses to Popular Music. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
Van Nort, Doug. 2006. “Noise/music and representation systems.” Organised Sound 11 (2):
173–178.
Wallmark, Zachary. 2022. Nothing but Noise: Timbre and Musical Meaning at the Edge.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williams, Gavin. 2013. A Voice in the Crowd: Futurism and the Politics of Noise. California:
University of California Press.
Wilson, Scott. 2018. “Merzbow and the Noise of Object-Oriented Perversion,” in S. Matviyenko
and J. Roof (ed.), Lacan and the Posthuman. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wilson, Steven A. 2014. “The Radical Music of John Zorn, Diamanda Galás, and Merzbow: A
Hermeneutic Approach to Expressive Noise”. Graduate Dissertations and Theses. University of
Illinois: Urbana-Champaign.

37