Originally Posted by BacteriumFendYoke
Just going to call you on something Grea briefly before I lose my patience with the World and its oysters (not you, just in a bad mood - time for a cigarette).
I wouldn't ever classify 'noise' music as 'atonal'. Sure, there are elements of noise in atonality (and I would argue inherently so - but that's a story for another day) but to try and alleviate the paradox of 'noise music' by calling it 'atonal' suggests that there is a form of tonality to base it on in the first place. If you're really creating 'noise' as bespoke, then you don't have those reference points. Although etymologically calling it 'atonal' is correct (inasmuch as it lacks tonal centering) aesthetically it's not if you trace the lineage - at least of the terminology.
Have a ciggie, Duncan :)
Okay, to clarify - while atonality is inherently noise, there is no tonal reference point within itself
. My reference point was / is conventional music.
This reminds me of a time when I briefly went out with an experimental music theorist (who'd formerly played in an experimental outfit and was very integrated in the scene).
Early on he called me up and at the time I was listening to Larks Tongues Pt 1 (as one does). He said "Ah, listening to melodic music" to which I went "Whaaaaat??". When he played me some of his music I understood; the only melodic-ish music in his experimental collection (and the only one I could cope with at the time) was David Behrman.
A lot of people would say it's not music in the same way as people claim that a 3-year old could paint a Pollock. Evolution is a painfully slow process ...