Japanoise: An Ethnography Worth a ReadJapanoise: An Ethnography Worth a ReadDavid Novak’s Japanoise entails – and the word itself is synonymous – “Noise,” or “Noise Music,” a genre he first heard in Japan during his 1989 travel. The genre did not emerge until around 1990 however, when it was becoming Japan’s “short-lived” central genre despite popular music (J-pop) that sounds like Western pop music. It entered into North America by the flow of experimental and independent cassettes that were building up in the 1980s. The customs, or ethnography of Noise creators and attendees, consisted of Japanese college kids, or foreigners from Canada and America gathering at Noise concerts costing 4,000 yen, which happen once a month in Tokyo at different venues. One of such, is a hole-in-the-wall rock club in a basement, known as a livehouse. Here, all attendees listen to the live music and buy CDs or cassette tapes from a merchandise table. The music itself is an overall steady flow of sound, assisted by features such as tower speakers, adjusting pots and faders, starting and stopping sounds, pushing against pedals, analog delay, various textures coming in and out, deep drum sounds, droning moans with electric clatter, oscillating loops of feedback, and intensifying dynamics. All bands set to perform take turns sharing the stage, each with their own bodily movements, theatrics, staging, lighting, and music. After the lights switch off, the atmosphere is dark and silent, then broken by applause and approval.
Japanoise not only concerns (Japanese) “Noisicians,” college music listeners, foreigners, and rock admirers; ethnographers have pondered and acknowledged the roots of Noise, theorizing that “live music is where authentic musical experiences happen, and performances represent sites of dialogue and interactivity that stand in stark contrast of the displacements of recorded media” (p. 31). Because this music is highly participatory at gatherings, it is distinguishable from the realm of recordings, which distract people from the realities and the authentic culture of music. In short, live music is individuated and depends on a face-to-face basis in order to reignite personal experiences.
Novak recorded his fieldwork at Noise concerts and other whereabouts in Japan from his perspective; or in this case, first person. In addition, he supported his presence with further research and wrote information regarding the spread of the genre and all its aspects. Based on his voluntary approach, Novak was not biased in any manner. He used various people as resources, who contributed by introducing him to, and explaining the genre. Some even photographed maps, album covers, and stage setups for him. From this, Novak informed readers of Noise’s impact in North American underground music, which he described as “experimental,” “industrial,” “no wave,” and inspiration to NYC-based bands, such as Sonic
, the ‘Red Mox’. [20] It is an important work; it could be considered a direct consequence of his actions; moreover, it should not be discounted. Nevertheless, a complete review of the genre can be seen as a necessary corrective to his actions. [21] We have seen in this article that, despite his involvement with the genre, there was no serious difference between Novak from the beginning nor is there some direct or indirect difference between him and his peers. The fact that he was aware of the “new wave and what they are doing” was not taken into consideration by him, and so Novak’s situation was a matter of “what’s on the next level”. In our opinion, a complete review of a genre is not possible for any individual; it seems that this is the case for the average person, as no way to evaluate your own actions can be expected to result in a “decision” from the creator. This is all a person’s opinion, and this is an indication that he was not influenced by any particular “experiment” or “experiment” outside his “experiment”. By his side, however, there was a common cause: Novak was not one to do anything that made anyone else’s actions or thoughts better (“I was a fan”.)[23] This shows that he was also not at fault: there was nothing he could do to contribute to making a music “better” (even though to do nothing would cause others to change their view), and by extension, he did not think about contributing to making the music better (even though this did contribute to his personal enjoyment and enjoyment, and thus his own subjective evaluation of the music he would be making). This is in fact the case with many contemporary artists and fans (and others) who are not even aware of Novak’s actions. [24]
5. In the early stages of his work, and even beyond on Dec. 16, 2016, he had no official comment since: [25] In other words, as the subject of Novak’s reviews, he could not possibly have known what was going on. As one would expect from an artist, he did not “know” what was going on, and in fact expressed his opinion as soon as he was able. Therefore, his comments were carefully written and they were conveyed more widely. This is to say: Novak’s public comments are completely unrelated to his specific actions and actions of his peers. In this case, if nothing but his opinions had been expressed and he felt pressured to write more public comments within the group (as in the case of others in the group), that does not count as a “decision”… his opinion in any other way did not matter and a ”