Album length – 45:02
Finished on 2007
Released on 2024-12-09
Released on Electron Emitter

 

Released under alias Au.B.

 

Bandcamp
Archive
Youtube

 

Noisy and chaotic experiments with where the music starts in the presence of sounds.

 

Material which is not preferred is the definition of noise. What makes music become noise? When it plays something that is not expected?

 

What if nothing is being expected, but it is just an experiment of things that did not become music yet? A by-product of exploration of how to explain an idea, before it has manifested.

 

 

Part 5 out of 8 from Joy of Creation.

 


5. What is This Noise

 

The question that arises when sound lacks composition or idea – what‘s the difference between music and just sound?

 

Or music lacking ideas, or ideas lacking a music?

 

Or a conflicting explanation?

 

Noise as a term, means some undesirable or unintended content next to something.

 

For instance, neighbours playing music in the middle of the night – the context being peace.

 

Vocalisation of something unpreferrable which could be denying desire.

 

 

If you try composing with ideas having conflicting purposes and explanations, the result is an inperceivable idea, since the explanation doesn‘t explain its content.

 

At the time I barely had an idea, that I was exploring the musical language and the sound itself, therefore shaping my own unique way of expressing the things I had to say.

 

This album is a compilation of things made in such a way – trying to purposefully make music, that doesn‘t engage you in a musical way of perceiving ideas, but rather locking you in a search for an explanation.

 

You could call it concept art, but it‘s pretty straightforward – the idea is there, I‘m just not aware of it – I‘m searching for it through different ways of explaining the lack of understanding.

 

Similarly, we tend to try and explain „our feelings”, which we can’t put into words.

 

 

What purpose does it serve to distort, or blur the explanation, hide the idea, make it complex or difficult to grasp?

 

It‘s not that it‘s purposefully made to be difficult to like and engage, but rather the artist doesn‘t know how to express or explain the idea. It isn‘t completely shaped into an explanation of understanding the reason why it‘s there. The feeling of its existence presents itself as a conflict.

 

 

Why does it feel good when you listen to music that you like?

 

Or why it doesn‘t?

 

You can either ignore the problem or proceed to explain it using multiple pages of broken psychoanalysis and biased social studies.

 

Which is what I’m doing right now because I cannot stand „music should have vocals”.

 

Why, for fuck‘s sake, it has to be the way you like it?

 

That‘s why there are some tracks, that are literal experiments with the explanation of this idea.

 

„Your music is just noise“ – no my dear, this is noise. Buzzing and screeching intensifies.

 

„No I mean I can‘t listen to it, this is like REAL noise“.

 

„Your music should have vocals and speech“ – here you go.

 

„But it doesn‘t tell anything, I can‘t understand it“.

 

Yes it does, it says a lot of ianbfiawnehiabsdggjbag, but you don‘t understand the information. The idea.

 

It‘s not the voice you‘re looking for you dumb idiot, it‘s the empty fucking track with the non-existent idea that you‘re looking for, so you could project your desire of euphoria. You want to be told to desire.

 

 

That’s why I hate speech in music, not vocalizations.

 

Because I get denied to find your idea through your unique explanation. You‘re just telling me a lie, or give a desire for euphoria – which is exactly the same what everyone else would do, except sometimes using a different explanation.

 

My desire?

 

I consciously have none and resist the ones that I know will cloud my judgement. I’m aware that desire comes in the form of knowing „this will be good“. But:

 

The evaluation of good stands on your moral understanding of what is right or not. Therefore my evaluation stands on:

 

Am I able to engage with it?

 

If it lacks engagement, which would be improving my ability to explain or find ideas, then it‘s literally pointless for me to try to engage with it.

 

The only engagement the outside world had was winning a fucking prize – approval of desire for euphoria and not having your own voice.

 

 

The engagement I search for is something that improves the known or explores the unknown. I don’t care if it’s good or bad by any moral standard, because it’s the application of the idea that makes it improving or exploring the said things.

 

The moral standard is there because someone else is benefiting from gifting people with lack of thought, whereas lack of morals somehow produces the same result as engagement with euphoria. Wha?

 

The application of thought with no moral standard, depends on the moral compass of the individual – how do you know that what you‘re doing results in a good outcome? Not only for you, but also for who, and what’s around you.

 

Everything else is just some form of masturbatory process, made to milk you dry of your brain chemistry.

 

Therefore that’s why unusual or weird excites me – I’m about to improve the „I” and everyone else around me.

 

That‘s why I‘m inspired to explore the ridiculous – I want to find something that‘s hidden, in the shadows, to be able to explain more ideas and find or form those ideas.

 

For some reason, these things are purposefully hidden, or labeled as unsafe, ridiculous, forbidden, even by law.

 

 

That‘s how you can give character to the aural ideas – they don‘t necessarily have to be perfect in their explanation, but be confusing, irritating, disengaging, or even repulsive when the ideas are about things like these.

 

The explanation is actively trying to sound the idea itself in the morally questionable way, because the idea is questionable by itself.

 

And silence is never the answer when things are not happening your way, or in the way you morally think is not right, therefore you inscript the idea of disengagement in an engaging way.

 

 

The result is you don’t necessarily feel good but like the engagement. Because you engage with disengagement – the idea of disapproval, authority over expression and experiments, bla.

 

You try to speak things that you perceive, using the language that seems appropriate, or immune to said disengagement, while still being understood what it could be worth if written in words.

 

That‘s why I actually like ridiculous stuff – I’m engaging in disengaged communication that someone else is having with this world.

 

 

What everyone else seems to communicate – „I‘m capable of loving someone“.

 

However:

 

Your definition of love is wanting to fuck.

 

Your understanding of love ends at programmed desire for nice.

 

And everyone else is capable of it. You‘re not special.

 

Tell me something about yourself.

 

Tell me who you are, what do you like, why you, why not someone else? What is happening in your head, what are your ideas, explanations for existing ones?

 

How do I know it‘s you and not someone else, if you have no idea it‘s me? I need to know who you are to this world, not to me.

 

„I like nice and fuck.“

 

That‘s why you have nothing else to offer and you like boring things.