c

c
c  c  cc
 cc
c

c
c
 cc
c
i





 



 

i

 
  


i




 
  
  
John Cage

3 

 



  

 


 

  



   

 
 
  

i


i


 

3
Victor Anand Coelho

In its brief life, the electric guitar has become one of the most powerful icons in 20th
century music. This is evidenced by looking at its role in popular music post -1950 and,
through that role, the sheer number of people exposed to it. If, as Jacques Attali says,
power and subversion are born out of music, and disorder and the world are born out of
noise (Attali, 6) then the guitar - in its pre-eminent position within the world of popular
music, and through its use of noise - becomes a tool for radical transformation. c

I will argue that the electric guitar has been instrumental in influencing, enacting, and
challenging socio-cultural and musical discourses through its use of noise in the context
of popular music. The noise I refer to here and throughout this paper indicates not only
aural noise, but also non-aural noise associated with actions and attitudes that disrupt the
normal flow of events within a culture. In effect, it covers virtually any cultural channel
from various discourses to modes of dress and speech. This non-aural noise goes by
many names: subversion, originality, idiosyncracy, transgression, all of which the electric
guitar demonstrates. Following Frances Dyson, we can also see noise ± as an aspect of
vibration and because of its ambiguous nature ± as something that unifies, ³«that
dissolves the distinction between the body and technology, nature, and culture, and
resolves the problem of representation and mediation.´ (Dyson, 11) Noise fractures and
unites simultaneously.

Before I begin, two caveats: first, when speaking of popular music, I am specifically
speaking of the popular music of North America and the United Kingdom. Second, my
use of the terms ³electric guitar´ and ³popular music´ imply one another. When I
mention one, the presence of the other is assumed. I should also say that the breadth and
depth of this topic demands more than the scope of this paper allows. The reader can take
this as an introduction to the issues that emerge in this arena.

In order to provide context and focus, I begin with three definitions of noise, acoustic,
communicative, and subjective giving particular attention to subjective noise. While we
experience noise acoustically and communicatively, its effects are subjective. It makes us
feel things, and it is those things that I am most interested in, since how we feel
determines how we act. c

From there I will consider the use of noise in music in the 20th century and how issues of
power and meaning arise from this consideration. I will then discuss noise in popular
music with a focus on the electric guitar. A discussion of the effects of popular music in
terms of identity, community, and feeling follows. I end with a look at the guitar¶s
relationship with technology, and at our relationship with guitar players, specifically in
the way we place them in positions of mythical power within the domain of popular
music.

 cc c
c
As Torben Sangild points out, a single definition of noise is not possible. He identifies
three basic types: acoustic, communicative and subjective. Michael Serres includes what
could be called a materiality of noise. ³Noise is the background of information, the
material of that form´ (Kelly, 74). According to Serres, we are constantly immersed in
noise, without which there can be no communication; it is the ground from which all
communication is drawn. Atalli: ³Nothing essential happens in the absence of noise´
(Atalli, 3).

Acoustic noise is thought of as purely physical sound, sounds that are ³impure and
irregular, neither tones nor rhythm - roaring, pealing, blurry sounds with a lot of
simultaneous frequencies, as opposed to a rounded sound with a basic frequency and its
related overtones´ (Sangild 4). This type of noise can be heard in traffic sounds, radio
static - any sound existing in our physical environment that is typically thought of as
unwanted.

In communication theory, noise is a distortion of the signal from transmitter to receiver.

This distortion of the signal can describe a condition in our relationships with other
individuals or with the culture at large. Noise in communications with other individuals
can cause misunderstandings or lack of connection, and influences our social construction
of self. Signals are constantly transmitted to us through various ideologies ± political,
consumer, musical - influencing our sense of place within the culture. If those signals are
noisy, our sense of order can be impaired resulting in problems for hegemonic systems.

Subjective noise, Sangild¶s third category, is largely a matter of personal taste and
cultural-historical situation, occurring ³almost entirely through cultural perceptions, and
individual reactions within that framework´ (Hegarty, 4). Our experience of noise is
based on the extent to which we find it meaningful in particular contexts. Noises from
nature ± the sea, the wind ± are not considered annoying even though they are not that far
from white noise which most people do find annoying. In order to find meaning, we need
to be able to name the thing we hear; we are not able to do this with many types of noise,
and even nameable noise, in the case of ideological differences or offensive sounds,
challenges or disturbs our experience of the world. Noise is non-repetitious and as such is
filled with possibility and is impossible to predict, creating more challenge and
disturbance.

The development of a subjective experience of noise from revulsion to acceptance is

considered necessary by some if the experience of music is to develop. The history of
music holds many examples of this development, from the acceptance of polyphony to
Ô
 
 and beyondIndeed, as Paul Hegarty points out, avant-garde music is
always initially considered noise. ³Only later does the old noise come to be seen as
legitimate music.´ (Hegarty, 10) This implies an effort to diminish the power of noise. By
using it in music, we integrate it into an existing system and remove its transgressive
strength. In this way, the composer becomes instrumental in establishing order through
the removal of subversion, the opposite effect that many composers intend.

In order to move from revulsion to acceptance we need to learn to listen differently, or as

Joanna Demers says, to listen aesthetically, to accept that sounds from the outside world
³«can have aesthetic interest and that we can listen to them for more than just their
informational value.´ (Demers, 16) This is difficult and it is not made easier by the fact
that noise, in its initial impact, bothers us.

What is it that bothers us? Is it simply the sound? Or is it, as Salome Voegelin points out,
that ³hearing is full of doubt: phenomenological doubt of the listener about the heard and
himself hearing it. Hearing does not offer a meta-position; there is no place where I am
not simultaneously with the heard.´ (Voegelin, xi) Since we are always simultaneously
with sound and a part of it, it is difficult to observe objectively. This places our
experience of it in question. If hearing is full of doubt, then hearing noise is doubt
multiplied exponentially, ³excluding other sounds [and] destroying sonic signifiers.´
(Voegelin, 43)

Acceptance of noise in music is a problem for those in positions of power if music, as

Attali says, ³has as its function the creation, legitimation and maintenance of order.´
(Attali, 7) Attali, operating from the perspective of political economy, asserts that noise
challenges order, which exists as the result of the transformation of noise into music,
itself a regulated system. Subjective noise, noise determined by taste, not prescription,
becomes a hindrance to the regulation of this order.

Far from being negative, the subjective acceptance of noise can act as a panacea for the
inundation of music in our lives. In exploring the effects of background music, Gabor
Csepregi, taking a cognitive/psychological approach, identifies what he considers to be
an ³addiction to music, from morning to night, at home and in the workplace,´ which
³leads to a gradual decay of our sensibilities.´ (Csepregi, 175) The acceptance of noise ±
in this case background music - can take the emphasis off music and onto sound for its
own sake, creating sound-objects and leading to a deeper awareness of our sound-world.
This attention to the sound environment is what R. Murray Schafer calls ³ear-cleaning´,
an approach to teaching that encourages awareness of the fact that noise is never not with
us. While he feels this is largely negative, I feel it can be experienced as positive. In
connecting to noise we listen more strongly and clearly. We notice more within sound
and our world expands. The background music that Csepregi decries becomes one more
piece of noise that we can experience simply as a sound object. Following the
phenomenology of Edmund Husserl through Pierre Schaeffer, we learn to ³bracket out´
the meanings of sound objects ± in this case, Muzak influencing our behaviour and
imposing order - for the sake of a deeper experience of sound. In the specific case of
background music, our conscious attention to it robs it of its power.c

 cc
cc cc 


c cc c
c
The industrialized city of the 19th century is a convenient place in which to locate the
birth of sound-noise as Luigi Russolo does in Ô



 Rising populations and
increasing use of machinery foreground the phenomenon of sound-noise in a more
obvious way than previously, but a different type of noise was being identified in the 16th
and 17th century. According to Atalli, this was the period when the culture of the
powerless was crystallizing, a culture increasingly considered to be ³noisy´. This
expands the idea of noise from one simply of sound to one that includes relations
between humans. The idea of noise now becomes associated with marginalization,
subversion, threat.

Noise as a musical issue only became a concern in 20th century art music when
composers began thinking about the possible uses of noise for noise¶s sake as opposed to
noise for the sake of effect. Noise as an effect makes it a controlled, directed and
somehow trivial substance. Noise for its own sake gives it an autonomous voice, allowing
disorder as an acceptable alternativejcThose calling for the legitimization of noise -
Russolo (noise as the basis of composition), Edgard Varese (multi-layered textural sound
rather than melodic-harmonic emphasis, foreshadowing electronic music), John Cage
(expansion of musical sounds and the idea that all sound is music) and Pierre Schaeffer
(use of found sounds) ± were forced to work on the margins.c

Russolo and the Italian futurists were an inspiration for Dada noise - sound poetry in
particular - which created noise by foregrounding the sound of language at the expense of
meaning and structure. In many cases, this noise was ³informed by the sounds,
languages, and social positions of others´ (Kahn, 47). This can be seen as a type of early
³globalart´ in which the marginalized from a dominant culture ± European bohemians±
made use of those outside that culture as a way of creating noise. They were able to
experience the other as noise because they ³still had a base in the norms of their culture
from which these others signified noise. This admixture meant that when they marshaled
the noise of others to transgress or attack aspects of different dominant cultures, they
reinforced other aspects of domination´ (Kahn, 48). We can see this process occurring in
the work of popular musicians such as Peter Gabriel and Paul Simon. In appropriating the
music of other cultures, they draw attention to these cultures while at the same time
creating a misleading text. The power of these cultures do not reside in the way in which
popular music represents them. The voice of the other, in this case, is muted or, as Kahn
would say, dominated.c
Electro-acoustic music exposes the semiotic relationships of noise. Joanna Demers points
out that in electronic music, ³sounds function as signifiers for some underlying signified
content«sounds are created and interpreted on the basis of their perceived ability to
resemble something outside the musical work´ (Demers, 25). This is different from pre-
electronic music, which rely on form to create meaning. In electro-acoustic music there
are no generalized norms that dictate the use of form; the qualities of the sounds
themselves are responsible for meaning. While this is certainly true, sounds are not solely
responsible. We cannot, as Demers seems to want to do, disregard the important role that
form plays in the creation of meaning, regardless of the creator¶s lack of intent in using it.
She ignores the listener who will create form out of nothing if necessary.

The sounds that Demers refers to here are found sounds (what many of us think of as
noise), electronic sound (pops, crackles, white noise), as well as sampled recordings.
These sampled recordings are not generally thought of as noise, but the context in which
they¶re used (outside of traditional musical structure and form), and the way in which
they are used (isolated, broken apart and processed), is a subversion in the Atallian sense
of a breakdown of order.

In the mid to late 90s, as the general population gained access to computers and
inexpensive recording equipment, experimentation became widespread. Caleb Kelly
defines the aesthetic of glitch when he writes:

Producers took these newly developed«musical tools and

extended their use well beyond what their designers
intended«trying various methods to overload its central
processing unit (CPU) so as to produce a new tick, pop, or
click that could be sampled and then sequenced for the next
track«The noising up of the digital was part of the noisy
project of twentieth-century experimental music.

³Noising up´ digital takes the intentions of its inventors ± making sound clean ± and
turns it on its head. Noise is once again used as subversion. The approach of driving
machines to failure in the pursuit of new sounds creates an aesthetic of failure and
destruction, and challenges established order in the process.

An interesting result of this advent of inexpensive equipment and software is the

admittance of those conventionally thought of as non-musicians into the domain of
music-makers, opening up this particular subversive realm to more people and fulfilling
Atalli¶s final ³phase´ of music in which the tools of musical production are generally
accessible. Anybody with ears and a computer can now manipulate the sounds around
them, learn editing techniques and create sound/noise-worlds of their own without the
need to learn instrumental technique previously thought necessary to the practicing
musician. This ³new amateurism´ hearkens back to the time before radio and the
phonograph, when people out of necessity, created their own music with the parlor piano.
This also points to the 1950s when people began buying guitars and teaching themselves
how to make music. There is a clear relationship between the parlor piano of the 19th
century, the guitar, and the advent of inexpensive technology.

The issues surrounding noise that have been discussed thus far ± power, meaning,
aesthetics - all find their way into the domain of popular music. In popular music noise is
no longer marginalized, but becomes an important aspect of music, finding a home in the
electric guitar.

›
c c
c c cc c
c 
c
More people listen to popular music than to any other form of music. Aside from those
who listen to nothing but popular music, many who identify themselves with classical,
avante-garde and jazz will happily admit fondness for a variety of popular forms. This
leads to a saturation in the popular consciousness of music that, until fairly recently, was
considered unworthy of consideration. Its acceptance into the academy has increased its
legitimacy and profile. This broad acceptance of popular music by people from a variety
of aesthetic and cultural backgrounds brings up the distinction between art music and
popular music and the relationship between the two. This is important given the
perception of the place of art in culture and the influence that it has on society.
Comparing the two draws attention to how we locate meaning in music.

In art music, emphasis is placed on cognitive understanding, the ability to document

sound and describe it. Experience of the music is largely through the mind. According to
Simon Frith, classical music ³is ³the experience of feelings under control´ (Frith, 261). In
popular music the emphasis is placed on embodied performance, an enactment in social
space. It is through live performance that the popular music most clearly influences our
behaviour, behaviour that is expressed through the body ± both the performers¶ and the
audience¶s. This physical interaction forms a link between the two and creates social
meaning through communication and a type of collaboration expressed through an
exchange of energy within the performance situation. Demers emphasizes this
importance of the body when she invokes Maurice Merlau-Ponty:³«since all perception
is necessarily bodily perception, one can therefore never speak of perception without also
speaking of the perceiver¶s physical interaction with stimuli´ (Demers, 32).

There is a moral noisiness here, a discomfort with expression through the body, which the
guitar in particular brings forward in popular music. Because it was the only amplified
instrument in any early rock and roll band, the guitar was able to create a unique noise,
which had a visceral effect different than other instruments. Elvis Presley¶s performance
on the Milton Berle Show in 1956 demonstrated a confluence of physical and musical
noise. ³«Presley¶s movements seem at once highly conventionalized and incredibly
spontaneous´ (Coelho 111) every time guitarist Scotty Moore would take a solo (see
videography, no. 7). These widely viewed performances would have the effect of
solidifying the electric guitar as 
rock and roll instrument. The physicalizing of guitar
in this way made the noise produced by the guitar more than just sound. It placed the
guitar in a sexualized context and cemented its subversive, transgressive position within
popular culture. More and more people would begin to be drawn to the guitar as listeners
and players.

This performative/transgressive aspect of the guitar, demonstrated throughout its history,

draws focus to it. The onstage theatrics of many guitar players ± jumping from monitors,
smashing their instrument, ³putting on the face´ - demonstrates passion, intensity,
commitment, and noisiness. In the case of smashing the guitar, Pete Townsend and Jimi
Hendrix enacted ³a remaking of social, cultural, music and technological discourses´
(Carfoot, 37) by demonstrating, in the words of Fluxus artist Gustav Metzger, that ³the
line between a generative and destructive reality is paper thin´ (Birrell, 1). This idea of
creation of meaning through destruction is supported in Michel Corbussen¶s discussion of
linguistic meaning in the music of Evan Parker ³The deterritorialising powers of noise
are not only destructive, they are productive as well. They can transcend the old codes
and recreate a system of differences on another level of organization...´ (Corbussen, 31).

The use of noise continues prominently with the punk rock movement of the 1970s and
early 1980s, a music based largely on the guitar. Punk effectively used noise to challenge
the existing musical discourse of the need for technical proficiency, and enacted the
social discourses of individual freedom, agency, and anti-authoritarianism. As Joshua
Clover puts it, ³The imperative logic is straightforward enough: 
 



 

 

! 
  






 "


 # (Clover, 76). The noise of punk is
based on the noise of the guitar, and invokes the values mentioned above when heard.
c
In the context of recorded music guitar noise is regulated by industry demands. In the
context of live performance, the guitarist decides how to use the available sonic resources
and power shifts into the hands of the performer. When we experience a live
performance, we are controlled, but we consent to it because in being controlled, we
experience a sense of identity, community, and feeling. These three experiences,
discussed below, are present when listening to recorded music as well, but are
attenuated. This distinction is useful to keep in mind as we consider how popular music
effects us.

! cc
c
c

1.c Identification

Simon Frith has identified two critical positions that determine how listeners experience
music. ³Bad´ music is formulaic or standardized (conservative, mainstream, production
for a market); ³good´ music is ³original´ or ³autonomous´ (radical, elite, production
determined by individual intention). People identify with one or the other, deepening
their sense of themselves, or, more accurately, their image of themselves. This image is
created as ³a presentation of self to other(s)´ and ³a presentation of self self´ in which
music can be used as ³a device for the reflexive process of remembering/constructing
who one is«´ (DeNora, 141).
When we look at popular music, we are looking at a social institution that helps create
meaning. One of the most important aspects of meaning in popular music lies in how it
helps to create a socially constructed image in relation to different groups, and how it
help us connect to other humans across geographical locations and social divisions. It
also acts in a negative fashion by creating boundaries and divisions, alienating various
groups from each other.

2.c Community

The rock concert and the folk festival are two community-building events in which to
witness an audience in the act of what Christopher Small calls 
! I mention these
two events in order to compare experiences that are at once different and similar, one a
microcosm of the other in terms of commitment to the event.

Because a festival takes place over a number of days the 

!  experience is less
intense, but no less focused. People wander in a seemingly aimless way, yet they are
always in the process of leaving one musical experience and entering another. They are
always 
!  Community is created based on broad contact.

In the rock concert experience, the focus is more intense because the time within the
experience is limited to a couple of hours. When the band takes the stage, the audience
takes to its feet as one enormous organism and quite clearly feeds the band energetically.
Focussed involvement in the experience is crucial in terms of producing a meaningful
musical experience. Community is created based on intensity.

3.c Feeling

Our experience of music is often based on feelings, emotional and physical. ³Bad´ music
offends us; it is painful, boring, ugly. Howard Becker, speaking sociologically, has made
the point that people experience aesthetic values as natural and moral. We listen to the
music we listen to because it communicates values to which we subscribe. Genre is
significant here. Rock can be perceived as either violent or liberating, country as corny or
authentic. This duality exists in all genres, and different people respond to different music
according to their feelings, which are generated by their experience in the world. Popular
music, with its richness of genres and sub-genres, brings these feelings to light.

In all three of these aspects of the popular music experience, the guitar functions as a
touchstone. The guitar helps to create our sense of identity, our awareness of community,
and our experience of feeling.

c cc 
  c

 c
c
Technology equals noise. The most technologically advanced cultures move quicker, say
more, press more buttons, drive more vehicles, produce more product, all of which
creates both aural and non-aural noise, all of which make us act in ways we otherwise
wouldn¶t if noise was not there.
The guitar has taken this noise-world and translated it into electronic sound, shaping it
with sheer volume and aural effects, mirroring the contemporary world as a result.
Amplifiers, effects pedals, computer programming, and virtualization work to shape this
world, creating a threat to the forces of authority and power through the shifting of aural
identities. These shifting identities can be seen clearly in the concept of the virtual guitar.
³«they are   guitars, because the explicit aim is to ³virtualize´ some material
reality into a ³non-physical´ form´ (Carfoot, 37). This process takes place digitally
through the modeling of amplifiers, various guitars, and other instruments in software,
which can then be played on a single guitar. The idea of virtuality brings up the idea of a
liminal domain - ³...uncorrupted by the social and political realities that dominate
traditional media´ (Dyson, 1) in which the guitar participates. This is an aspect of the
guitar that lay outside the scope of this paper, but that deserves more attention, involved
as it is in the advent of the ³new media.´

Steve Waksman, working from a cultural-historical perspective, addresses the guitar¶s

response to authority in his discussion of 1960s Detroit band The MC5¶s concerts and
their use of early guitar technology. ³«amplification was a useful weapon. As much a
the illegal substances and the unlawful cries of ³MOTHERFUCKER,´ electricity itself
became a source of contestation«The authoritarian impulse toward silence was
countered by the restless noise of youth, which was in turn amplified by the band¶s sonic
excess´ (Waksman, 213). The punk rock movement took the approach of the MC5,
increased the volume and political rhetoric, ratcheting up the transgressive effect of noise,
and creating controversy throughout most of the world as a result (see videography, nos.
8 and 9).
c
Perhaps the most famous example of guitar noise in popular music is Jimi Hendrix¶s
version of ³The Star-Spangled Banner´ at Woodstock in 1969. As Waksman describes it,
³«distortion overwhelms the melody as the guitarist deforms the song«shifting between
high-pitched screams and dive-bomber bursts of low-end crunch«with notes descending
into electronic feedback shrieks«´ (Waksman, 171). This is perhaps the most overt use
of noise in the history of music in terms of challenging power (see videography, no. 6).
c
The guitar player is historically an explorer, looking for new ways to use and transform
the instrument. Through the use of effects pedals, synthesizers, laptop computers,
virtualization, detuning, inserting objects into the strings, replacing guitar strings with
various kinds of wire, and the construction of crude guitars, the guitar has been a focal
point for technological innovation in 20th century music.

‰ c
c c
c
«the scene mutates into a fantasy sequence of the guitarist
as an archetypal seeker climbing a mountain in search«of
eternal truth«he is met by the sight of an ancient man
bearing a light and a staff. [The man¶s face] undergoes a
transformation backwards in time«As layers of old age are
 peeled from the face, it becomes recognizable as Page¶s
own. He is positioned as both seeker and source of wisdom
(Waksman, 242; videography, no.5).

This scene from the Led Zeppelin concert film Ô

 


reveals the
extent to which some guitarists¶ abilities are framed in power and mystery. Guitarists are
regularly referred to as heroes (Jimmy Page, Eddie van Halen) and sometimes as gods
(Eric Clapton, Jimi Hendrix). There are no other popular culture icons or instrumentalists
that we regularly refer to in this way.

Why do we treat guitar players in this way? Why has the guitar become the instrumental
icon of popular music?

The guitar hero ca social construction signifying a pre-existing structure, what Jean
Baudrillard termed a third order simulacrum in which the simulacrum, or simulation of
reality, precedes the original. In other words, our perception of the guitar player as a
powerful figure in popular culture is based on a pre-existing fabrication, a copy - or
conception - of something that may of may not have existed, mythical figures, heroes and
gods. In a sense, there is no ³electric guitar player hero/god´ as the distinction between
representation and reality vanishes. What remains is not a physical object, but a fantasy
that we map onto particular representatives of popular culture.

But why the guitarist in particular as god? If Baudrillard¶s contention - that it is the
significations of culture and media that construct perceived reality - is true then culture
and media are complicit in the creation of the electric guitar player. The transgressive
nature of the electric guitar - from its early rock and roll physicalization represented in
Elvis Presley¶s performative response to Scotty Moore¶s guitar solos, the loudness and
politicization of the MC5, Jimi Hendrix¶s sonic explorations and beyond to punk rock,
heavy metal and the noise guitar of players like Otomo Yoshihide, Fred Frith, Kieth
Rowe and Christian Fennesz (videography, nos. 1 -4) has kept it in the cultural and media
spotlight for almost 60 years. It would appear that people are attracted to subversion,
originality, idiosyncracy, and transgression and are willing to refer to those that practice
it publicly as heroes and gods.


c
c
I have approached this topic from a variety of viewpoints: phenomenological,
linguistic/semiotic, socio-cultural, aesthetic, and political. In doing so, I have presented
reasons why the electric guitar in its use of noise has had the effect it has had, effects that
can be quantified in the domains of identity, communication, and feeling through the
prism of power, performance, and linguistic and subjective meaning.c

Raymond Williams once said that ³culture is common meanings, the product of a whole
people.´ He added that, ³It is stupid and arrogant to suppose that any of these meanings
can in any way be prescribed; they are made by living, made and remade, in ways we
cannot know in advance´ (Williams, 15). These common meanings are what the guitar
trades in, that it makes and remakes as its players use it to explore new ways of
communicating sound. The demonstration of persistence in the face of resistance; the
commitment on the part of its practitioners to continually look for ways to remake it; and
the foregrounding of physical experience: these noises are the demonstration of qualities
that contribute to any healthy culture.

c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
ÿ"c
c
1. Attali, Jaques. 

$Ô
%   &'
Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, c1985.

2. Becker, Howard. i 

University of California Press: 2nd edition, 2008.
c
3. cBennet, Andy and Kevin Dawe, editors. ‘ ( 

Oxford: Berg, 2001.
c
4. Birrell. Ross. u ‘
'
)

http://www.autogena.org/Breathing/Gustav/birrell.html (accessed November, 2010)

5. Carfoot, Gavinjc#Acoustic, Electric and Virtual Noise: The Cultural Identity of the
Guitar.´ Ë
'
* , Volume 16, 2006, pp. 35-39 (Article)
Published by The MIT Press

6. Clover, Joshua. +,-,$.  /
Ô

 University of
California Press, 1989

7. Cobussen, Marcel (2005) 'Noise and ethics: On Evan Parker and Alain Badiou',
( 
Ô
(  
, 46: 1, 29 ² 42
c
8.cCoelho, Victor. Ô
( 
( 
‘ Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press, 2003
c
9. Cowell, Henry, ³The Joys of Noise,´ in  ( 
$
 
u'
'

editors Christopher Cox and Daniel Warner.New York$The Continuum International
Publishing Group Inc., 2007

10. Demers, Joanna. Ë

 Ô  


$Ô



 
&0
 
 
&
 '
London: Oxford University Press, 2010.
c
11. DeNora, Tia. ³Music and Self-Identity,´ in Ô
% '





editors Andy Bennet, Barry Shank, and Jason Toynbee. London: Routledge, 2006.

12. Dyson, Frances.  
'
 $u


& 
 


( 
Berkely: University of California Press, 2009.

13. Frith, Simon. %
  

$1
2 
% '
Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1996.

14. Hegarty, Paul. 

'
$/
New York: The Continuum International
Publishing Group Inc., 2007
 15. Hegarty, Paul, ³Full With Noise: Theory and Japanese Noise Music,´ (

article a097 (11/8/2001), http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=314 [accessed
November 14, 2010].

16. Kahn, Douglas. 

i
'
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, c1999.

17. Kelly, Caleb. (!
'
 $Ô
'  Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press, 2009.

18. Martin, Bill. !$&0
 
 '

Ô
.


.3!#Chicago:
Open Court Publishing, 2002.

19. Russolo, Luigi, ³The Art of Noises,´in  ( 
$
 

u'
'

editors Christopher Cox and Daniel Warner..New York$The Continuum International
Publishing Group Inc., 2007

20. Sangild, Torben. ³The Aesthetics of Noise.´ Published by DATANOM
Edited by Pelle Krøghol. Copyright 2002 by Sangild & DATANOM
All rights reserved 

21. Schafer, R. Murray. ³The Music of the Environment.´ in  ( 
$
 
u
'
'
editors Christopher Cox and Daniel Warner.New York$The Continuum
International Publishing Group Inc., 2007

22. Schafer, R. Murray. &(
 $

&0
 
 '
(


Berandol Music Limited, 1967.

23. Small, Christopher. '

! $Ô
'
 
%
 Ë

 Hanover:
University Press of New England, 1998.

24. Toynbee, Jason, ³From Hegemonic Centre to Global Networks,´ in % '




editors David Hesmondhalgh and Kieth Negus. London: Arnold, 2002.

25. Voegelin, Salome. Ë


 



New York: The Continuum
International Publishing Group Inc, 2010,

26. Waksman, Steveu






$Ô
&
 ‘ 
  
'
 &0


Harvard University Press, 1999.

27. Williams, Raymond. ³Culture is Ordinary.´ In Ô
i 




edited by John Higgins, 10 ± 24. 108 Cowley Road, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers,
2001.
c
28. Young, Rob. "


$Ô
/ 
i  '
'
London:
Continuum, 2002.
x c
This videography is limited to artists mentioned in the paper or, in the case of The Sex
Pistols, a particular genre.

 c
c

1. Youtube. ³Kieth Rowe. Live 2001.´

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb-GPdnfbyI&feature=relatedc(accessed November
22, 2010).

2. Youtube. ³Otomo Yoshihide guitar solo Tokyo 1994.´

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-DXwxKlE2I&feature=relatedc(accessed November
22, 2010).

3. Youtube. ³Fred Frith ± solo concert from MOZG,´

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2WSeZZV6iQ&feature=relatedc(accessed
November 23, 2010).

4. Youtube. ³Fennesz Live at Lovebytes 2006 Sheffield UK´

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKTCDweBUPgc(accessed November 23, 2010).


c
 c cc c
c

1. Youtube. ³Jimmy Page Violin Bow Solo.´

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmNHtWqcXqY&feature=relatedc
c

c c

2. Youtube. ³Jimi Hendrix Star Spangled Banner Live Woodstock.´

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIoyZFzL8rM&feature=relatedc
c

c c

3. Youtube. ³Elvis Presley Milton Berle Show 5 June 1956: Hound Dog.´
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5JALwwaASgc
c
cc

4. Youtube. ³MC5 - Kick Out the Jams.´

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iM6nasmkg7Ac
c
cc

5. Youtube. ³Sex Pistols - Anarchy in the UK.´

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvn-
PEHuv9w&feature=&p=0189022BE77C5451&index=0&playnext=1 (accessed,
December 1, 2010).