Reviews from the infamous Jliat

From Issue 865 of Vital Weekly

XTUL – IN THE MEMORY OF A ROSE NO ONE HAD EVER SEEN A GARDNER DIE

ENDOMETRIUM – CUNTPLOW ECLIPSE BLINDNESS 

PULSATING CYST – HORRIBLE SIGNAL 7 


Music for pleasure – programme music of horror and science-fiction phantasy where noise, produced from synthesizers is processed through echo and reverb to give such an aesthetic – of dreamlike, nightmarish scenes. If that is your thing then you will enjoy these three releases which all IMO present this aesthetic. I find the theme slightly corny, too Vincent Price horror, real horror comes in daylight wearing a suit and smiling. But this kind of gothic music is not about ‘the real’ but some imagined and exiting fiction. And that’s fine, I don’t care much for that, but this is just a question of taste, if listening to music is nothing more than a pleasurable activity. And of course this is a very questionable definition. But from my perspective, which is a certain set of ideas regarding noise, music is not up for discussion in any form. Why? Well in simple terms, and once again to wrestle noise from the musicians grip, music is (using some recent philosophical critique) correlationist. What does that mean? Well in idiots terms, music needs a human to listen to it in order for it to be music. Noise does not. So in the case here the echo and reverb is applied for the benefit of the listener, like putting syrup on your waffle. This immediately removes it from noise qua noise, which is not correlationist, into noise qua music, which is. The more idiotic one is the more noise can be appreciated, the more human one is the more music can be appreciated. This follows – does it not? Mindless things make noise, mindful things make music. This also shows that noise is not to be regarded as some Zen like uber sound either. Reverb et al are effects, special effects, as found in the movies, not real. Noise is not an effect but an affect. ‘Affect’ here being an object which may or may not give an effect – a human correlational response. I can see the objection to this review – but it would lie in my not describing the ‘effects’ of the work- but I have, or then in assuming that I place affect above effect, which in music I think might be the case. But as I said – I’m not regarding this ‘musically’ in the last instance. (jliat)