What's That Noise?: Musical Boundaries and the Construction of Listening and Meaning
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
WHAT'S THAT NOISE?: MUSICAL BOUNDARIES AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF LISTENING AND MEANING Ian Davyd Gallimore Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Leeds School of Music Submitted January 2009 The candidate confirms that the work submitted is his own and that appropriate credit has been given where reference has been made to the work of others. This copy has been supplied on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Foremost, I would like to give thanks to my supervisor, Luke Windsor, for his enthusiasm and knowledge, for our sometimes mammoth but always enjoyable meetings, and for trusting that I knew what I was talking about when I wasn't really convinced of it myself. I am also grateful to Mic Spencer, for his remarks on an early draft of Chapter 2, and Kevin Dawe, for his helpful commentary during the formative stages of the thesis. I am indebted to my Master's supervisor, Fred Orton, for making me think harder and longer, not just about artworks but about everything, and without whose insight and vigour I might never have been able to start this thesis, never mind finish it. I would like to acknowledge the University of Reading Department of Psychology, for providing me with a workspace away from the distractions of home, sunny weather, and Wikipedia. I am especially thankful to the staff and post-grads who, during our daily lunchtime gatherings, provided much-needed relief from the stresses of writing up. To Natalie Hall and Paul Almond, whose generous hospitality provided me with the human contact seldom-experienced outside of the people at the gym I don't actually know or even talk to, I am particularly grateful. I thank Andrew Drummond, for his friendship over the last 15 years, and for ensuring my music collection always extended far beyond what I could possibly comprehend. iii I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my parents, Maureen and Steve, for their support, both moral and financial, and for raising me to become the smart, witty and modest person I am today. I especially thank my Dad, for thinking Napalm Death was a talentless racket, and thus providing source material for part of this thesis, in addition to ensuring my teenage cool rating remained intact. My mother-in-law, Marie, gave me a roof over my head, together with her friendship and humour, and ensured I was always up to date with the latest known facts. I am thankful to my wife, Caren Frosch, for her unending support and understanding, for her companionship, and for reminding me that no one gets their PhD without first completing their thesis. Finished! Finally, I would like to dedicate this thesis to John Peel and Tommy Vance, without whom I would have probably never embarked on the journey which ultimately resulted in me having the most sophisticated and discerning musical taste in the entire world. Special thanks: Anthrax, Autopsy, Bernhard Gunter, Bruce Springsteen & The E Street Band, Carnage, Dismember, Dmitri Shostakovich, Einstiirzende Neubauten, Entombed, Fugazi, Gram Parsons, Grave, Gustav Mahler, Igor Stravinsky, Jim O'Rourke, John Zorn & Naked City, Kryzsztof Penderecki, Labradford, Megadeth, Metallica, Miles Davis, Minor Threat, Morbid Angel, Napalm Death, Public Enemy, Repulsion, Santana, Septic Death, Slayer, The Smiths, Suicidal Tendencies, Thomas Kaner, Tom Waits and Youth of Today. iv ABSTRACT Taking as its starting point Jacques Derrida's argument that the picture frame is both intrinsic and extrinsic, this thesis is concerned with issues of framing within music and the impact of framing on the meaning and perception of musical works. Derrida's writings on the frame are therefore reconsidered within a musical context and used as the basis for the analysis of a number of musical works. It is argued that the theory of allegory supports a position which sees apparently autonomous works as the products of metonymy and thus as the products of the conflation of the intrinsic and extrinsic. This conflation is discussed in relationship to issues of noise and how listeners make decisions about what is and what isn't to be listened to. It is argued that noise is so deemed because of a listener's inability to effectively negotiate and participate in the cultural system within which that sound appears, rather than because of qualities of the sound itself. This is supported by the analyses of several musical works. It is shown that a constituent of this cultural noise is the extra-musical material which appears alongside the work, with individual works being created and perceived against a background of other disparate texts. Theoretical approaches to apprehending the forms and functions of these trans-texts are discussed. In particular, titles and the author figure are shown to be essential parts of an artwork which structure both how it is produced and how it is perceived. These theoretical frameworks inform the analyses of several musical works in which it is demonstrated that such trans-texts are not mere attachments but also constitutive. In conclusion, it is argued that boundaries of musical works are the sites of structural and cultural tensions which have far reaching effects on how and what music means. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. ii Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... iv Table of contents ................................................................................................................................... v List of figures ...................................................................................................................................... viii List of tables ........................................................................................................................................ viii 1 INTRODUCTION ............ ,................................................... 11 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1 1.1 A bit of everything ........................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Musical categories ........................................................................................................... 4 1.2.1 Private categories .......................................................................... ,1 •••••••••••••••••• 4 1.2.2 Genre ....................................................................................................................... 9 1.2.3 Genre as social text ........................................................................................ 11 1.2.4 The fetishism of categories and the secret thereof.. ...................... 15 1.3 Previous writings on genre ...................................................................................... 18 1.4 Aims of the thesis .......................................................................................................... 20 1.4.1 Figure and ground ......................................................................................... 20 1.4.2 Research questions ....................................................................................... 21 1.4.3 Structure of the thesis .................................................................................. 22 1.4.4 Musical examples ........................................................................................... 26 2 FRAMES AND FRAMING ........................................................................................................ 27 2.1 Introduction .............................................. 1 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• , •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 27 2.1.1 You don't know what you're talking about! ...................................... 28 2.1.2 What are you talking about? ..................................................................... 29 vi 2.2 A self-contained work? ............................................................................................... 36 2.2.1 Allegory and Ryoji Ikeda's 'Matrix [For Rooms]' ............................ 37 2.2.2 Fragmentation and Naked City's 'Speed freaks' ............................... 46 2.3 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 53 2.3.1 Hearing and listening ................................................................................... 53 2.3.2 The glow of grime .......................................................................................... 56 3 CULTURAL CODES AND CULTURAL FRAMES ............................................................ 62 3.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 62 3.1.1 Commercial categories ................................................................................ 63 3.1.2 Genre as musical frame ............................ ,.................................................. 71 3.1.3 Summary ............................................................................................................ 74 3.2 That's not music! That's just a noise! .................................................................