grtwhtgrvty

I actually think that noise as a genre is rather boring and repetitive and very one dimensional. Viewing noise as a genre, I have zero interest in it. When I view noise as an element of music, as a technique... It becomes much more interesting. To me, noise is just another element of sound.

As a genre, noise is probably the most uninteresting and predictable to me. People try to claim that noise is unconventional but from a meta perspective, noise is absolutely conventional. I think it is best when treated as another element of music (rhythm, melody, harmony, noise, etc)

Noise in of itself is completely uninteresting. What is interesting about noise is the interaction between it and things like melody and rhythm, and the contrast between these elements.

I think that when you single out any element of music and made it the singular, sole aspect of your music, it becomes very boring very quickly. Strict noise music to me is like a big bowl of unseasoned, uncooked onions. That is probably why it is so offputting to you. A lot of people can enjoy onions, but it takes a special kind of person to pull an onion out of bag and start eating it straight up.

When it comes to experimental music in general... Maybe you just don't have the capacity for it. Pretty much 100% of mainstream, accessible music is just streamlined from something once experimental. That's why I find most mainstream music so dull. Because all of it is 15+ years outdated. It's interesting that you don't get how people can really enjoy experimental music, because I don't get how people can be genuinely satisfied by mainstream, unexperimental stuff. It's literally art. Why wouldn't it be experimental?

I can't even put myself in the shoes of a non experimental artist. It's almost abstract to me, the fact that someone can approach art with a conventional ideology.

That's why mainstream, streamlined stuff is so boring to me. It exists solely because of the experimental art that cleared the path for it. If something can be labeled conventional, or non experimental, it means you've heard it before. So what's the point? Obviously it's a more superficial level of enjoyment. I think that non experimental music is very shallow. There's nothing wrong with that, but I think it's important for people to realize how important experimental music actually is. Experimental music exists with or without mainstream, conventional music, but conventional music lives and breathes based on the ebb and flow of experimental sounds.

So I guess that's why I prefer experimental music. Because it's new. Because it's fresh. It's raw and it's pioneering and it's fearless and I just think it's more powerful in every conceivable way. The mainstream, overall, has a tendency to make me feel dead inside. Especially when you make music, or when you're extremely interested in music, you begin to instinctively predict the chord progressions, the rhythms, when the chorus is to happen, what the chorus is going to sound like. It's really boring when you hear the latest mainstream pop hit and you can wrap your brain around it within 15 seconds. I guess if you're not super duper into music or art, that's enough for you, and you aren't really there to have this intense, existential engagement. You're not there to have your perceptions altered. You just want fun, easy music. I have this friend that is really into mainstream Katy Perry level stuff and she isn't pursuing music or art in any conceivable way but she tries to act like she's on my level with music, and that she gets it the way I do, and that music is her life the way it is my life. I kind of just let her think it because I don't want her to feel like I'm degrading her but honestly I find it kind of insulting.