Communal Noise: Listening for Progress

The concept of community, though central to human experience, has always been perplexing to me. While I often found it easy to integrate into a group and feel accepted at its core, there has simultaneously been a force that kept me apart from fully belonging. I was part of it, yet separate. Consequently, my notion of community is somewhat tenuous and blurred, and I’ve had to search for a precise definition to anchor my perception of its “reality.” Different fields, to some extent, have specific definitions of what constitutes a “community.” In sociology and anthropology, the term is tied to geographic and cultural contexts, which can be transposed and updated to the cybernetic world. In biology and ecology, we might refer to ecosystems where the community not only extends to its context but also incorporates its environment as a member rather than a mere boundary delineating its domain. Broadly speaking, a community can be summarized as a group of beings sharing a bond, fostering mutual interaction and interdependence. Looking back, I’ve been part of communities where this bond seemed little more than shared timing, and it’s fascinating to explore what brings members of a community together in different scenarios. Equally intriguing, if not more so, is considering what changes the dynamics within a community. Is it external interference or small internal shifts in interactions that are the greater cause of disruption? Undoubtedly, entropy contributes to chaos within any community, and this very uncertainty generates beneficial information for the group’s survival. Yet, the most significant source of transformation and adaptability lies in transcending these boundaries and exposing oneself to Noise. Although the global perception often portrays Noise as something negative, in its purest definition, it is merely an external interference to a given set, which, in this case, could be a community. Whether it is negative depends almost entirely on how the interference is interpreted.

Logically, any introduction of Noise poses a threat to the integrity of a system. But combating ideological stagnation inevitably involves incorporating external data. Claude Shannon1 challenged classical notions of informational relevance by defining information as always being information, whether expected or not. Shannon also distinguished between information external to a message and the natural uncertainty of a data set. For this, he used the term entropy, adopted from the second law of thermodynamics, coined in 1865 by Rudolf Clausius2. ¹ According to Shannon, information encompasses the entire set of data within a message, and entropy measures its uncertainty—an internal characteristic. When the article was later published as a book, it included contributions from Warren Weaver who expanded Shannon’s notions beyond telecommunicatio ² ns. Weaver pointed out that entropy is not the same as Noise. Noise is an addition while entropy is the unpredictability of the message.

The control of uncertainty in mathematical communication theory was developed by Shannon based on the statistical formulations of molecular entropy from the 19th century by Ludwig Boltzmann. However, Boltzmann viewed entropy as the statistical fading of our universe3 ³ and Noise as the undulation of things, such as life on Earth. For Boltzmann, Noise was not external but an addition to the system, whereas entropy was a form of subtraction. Expanding on this, Shannon and Weaver proposed that Noise, though external, could enhance transmitted information, challenging the notion that unexpected elements are inherently malign.

Later, Norbert Wiener developed the opposite concept in cybernetics to measure the degree of predictability in information: negentropy. For Wiener, entropy equated to Noise, and determining the relevant information in a given message involved measuring its degree of negentropy ⁴ . Yet, controlling this uncertainty also diminishes freedom of choice. Any attempt to exclude information due to its irrelevance constitutes censorship, as it prevents the growth of informational complexity. However, information must be comprehensible, and both entropy and Noise can disrupt its meaning. Thus, negentropy also offers a way to isolate, capture, and harness the potential of Noise to generate new meanings, enabling the advancement of knowledge and adaptation to increased informational complexity. Balancing these concepts makes it possible to achieve a state of metastability.

Introduced by Simondon5 ⁵ in the 1960s, the concept of metastability is crucial for understanding that information must oscillate between entropic dispersion and structural rigidity to maintain its transformative potential. Noise, generally seen as an unintentional increase in entropy, can have positive informational value by specifying uncertainty and increasing system complexity, contributing to its resilience and responsiveness in unpredictable environments. In this context, Noise can be seen as a factor driving this oscillation, helping the system avoid equilibrium while promoting adaptability and innovation. It represents the harmony that allows a system to evolve without total disorder. Noise can be viewed as an external element contributing to this transformation, acting as a potential agent of change and innovation in complex systems.

In the realm of perception, Noise is not just a force that disrupts the processing of phenomena but also an anomaly that constantly traverses the boundary between the logical and the absurd. Conventionally, its existence is defined by its context, and the act of contemplating it negates its definition. In traditional terms, Noise exists only in relation to what is not defined as Noise. It is the negative of intentional or desired sound and using it deliberately for any purpose ceases to make it Noise. It is either disturbing and unsettling or not Noise at all. Yet, Noise can be both unwanted and functional.

Composer Henry Cowell demonstrated that Noise is also a natural element of music ⁶ , building on principles laid out by German physicist and physician Hermann Helmholtz, who had previously drawn a clear distinction between musical tones and Noise. ⁷ Though controversial at the time, this work helped define the non-repetitive nature of Noise. While a pure, Pythagorean tone is fundamentally regular, wave variations, also known as timbre, are created by irregularities contrasting with tonal periodicity. Noise is characterized by its nonrepetitive and unpredictable frequencies, distinguishing it from musical tones. It becomes musical only when integrated into an organized structure. Therefore, any timbral variation is fundamentally considered Noise, at least by uncertainty, if not by undesirability—though the timbral character of musical instruments is almost always desired within their conventional applications.

Cowell, upon hearing Varèse’s Hyperprism, began to perceive Noise differently. In his 1929 essay The Joys of Noise, he compared Noise to sex for humanity: essential, albeit impolite to mention. He concluded that Noise’s emphatic potential provokes greater emotional changes in music, while responses to musical tones are as stable as their regularity. He also likened Noise to beneficial bacteria fermenting milk into cheese, bringing musical delights.

In essence: If there is music, a message, or data, there is Noise—or at least the risk of Noise, as even the expectation of Noise can introduce unwanted elements. As Michel Serres wrote: “We are surrounded by noise. And this Noise is inextinguishable. It is outside-it is the world itself-and it is inside, produced by our living body. We are in the noises of the world, we cannot close our door to their reception, and we evolve, rolling in this incalculable swell.” ⁸

Noise’s inevitability stems from the inescapable introduction of external forces to any information that requires interpretation. Cultural differences and linguistic variations also act as Noise, complicating communication between people from different backgrounds. Even ambiguity in language is a form of Noise that can distort truth. Words or phrases with multiple meanings may be interpreted differently by listeners, leading to misunderstandings or erroneous interpretations. Emotional states and cognitive biases also function as Noise, distorting the intended message and the recipient’s perception. For example, an anxious person might interpret a neutral comment as criticism, illustrating how emotional Noise influences communication.

As Noise infiltrated artistic disciplines, it evolved throughout the XX century into an active cultural movement, exemplified by the emergence of Noise music majorly in North America and Japan ⁹ . These two communities created a duality that shaped Noise music, or Noizu (ノイズミュージック) as it became known in Japan, into what it is today. As David Novak explains in Japanoise, it is a sound characterized by constant circulation, with an ever transforming aesthetic history. Like any other circulation, it describes the distribution of goods and ideas, characterizing intercultural and global relationships, between communities. It creates culture, as shown by this duality, and highlights how flaws and irregular trajectories challenge the notion of a totalitarian global culture. Noise music, in this case, beyond being sonically noisy was, by definition, also cultural Noise. It was an external force impacting two communities, which in turn acted as Noise themselves, creating a feedback loop that shaped a genre also known for its use of feedback.

The most notable name to emerge from Japan is undoubtedly Merzbow, the project of Akita Masami, who, since the 1980s, has released over 500 works. He was influenced by the blues rock of Jimi Hendrix, Lou Reed, and Robert Fripp; Mike Ratledge’s fuzz organ from Soft Machine; the free jazz of Albert Ayler, Cecil Taylor, and Frank Wright; and the electroacoustics of Pierre Henry, Stockhausen, François Bayle, Gordon Mumma, and Xenakis. He found a way to merge all these influences, initially manipulating cassettes and later incorporating other elements like mixing desks, contact microphones, delay, and distortion. It was only during his first U.S. tour in 1990 that he began presenting his work as Noise music, moving away from the conceptual anti-instrumentalism of his earlier work. In an interview with Esoterra magazine ¹⁰ , he stated that if music were sex, Merzbow would be pornography, as Noise represents the unconscious of music.

Though practically the flagbearer of Japanoise, Akita does not claim to have invented it and views his work as part of an international artistic movement. His vast output helped to establish Noise globally as a musical genre. Many other artists have strongly influenced the international scene, some through numerous foreign collaborations, such as Boris and Keiji Haino. Interestingly, Noizu had little impact within Japan, but its international success earned Japanese artists’ greater domestic respect. They even appeared on national television, a platform afforded to the underground by the North American reception, described as a gyaku yuniô phenomenon, or reverse importation ¹¹ .

Japanoise emerged as a singular manifestation of this cultural blend, reflecting both the appropriation of other communities and local innovations. Noise and entropy. The arrival of Japanese Noise in the U.S. transformed the pre-existing Noise (e.g. Sonic Youth), turning the term “Noise” into something distinctly Japanese with the creation of the neologism “Japanoise,” which reinforced a Japanese influence on the scene. Japan was already seen as the zenith and enigma of global modernity, especially for North Americans fascinated by the cultural contrast of another economic power. It was perceived as a land of extremes, blending traditional culture with technological advancement. While the Japanese exports’ particularly “Japanese” character was not well-defined, this tendency emerged at a time when Japan’s mass production lacked identity or “smell”, as media intellectual Iwabuchi Kôichi described ¹² . Yet, as “Cool Japan” penetrated the global market, origin attributions were reintegrated into Japanese media, including Noise culture. Japan’s cultural modernization, often viewed as spontaneous, was heavily shaped by Western appreciation. Following reverse importation, there was also a welcome reception of the North American scene. The Canadian Nihilistic Spasm Band, often dubbed the godfathers of Noise, had been performing and releasing records since the 1960s but were only recognized by the Japanese Noise movement in the 1990s. They were contacted by Alchemy Records to participate in a compilation called World Music. Subsequently, they released several records with the Japanese label and even organized tours in Japan.

Today, Noise has branched out and influenced much of global music, in some cases more overtly than others. However, the more experimental and purist forms, such as Harsh Noise, still have an almost exclusively underground audience. By remaining distant from the mainstream, Noise takes longer to be assimilated, providing more space for reinterpretation and creativity. As David Novak states ¹³ , Noise is not meaningless sound but a phenomenon rich in significance that reflects and amplifies the distortions and complexities of the contemporary world. Listening to Noise is not merely experiencing an apparently chaotic sound but rather engaging with a feedback loop that connects back to the distorted realities of our time. It is an immersive and continuously transformative auditory experience. Minimalist, it paradoxically creates “nothing” that generates something, representing a continuous end and a sense of exhaustion and permanent change.

The inevitability of Noise forces us to accept it and adapt to its presence. But as with many other cases, human arrogance and selfishness can stretch interferences to unhealthy levels. Excessive Noise is, unsurprisingly, viewed as a form of pollution, affecting not only the auditory system but also cognitive performance and social participation. The World Health Organization (WHO) recognizes Noise as a public threat, with a significant portion of the European Union’s population exposed to Noise levels exceeding comfortable limits for hearing and rest, particularly due to traffic. Cecile Malaspina compares ¹⁴ noise pollution to chemical pollution in terms of its cumulative adverse effects on health, including issues like hearing loss, learning difficulties, and even increased aggressive behaviour.

However, Noise pollution extends beyond the auditory domain. As technology evolves faster than we globally adapt to its progress, new forms of Noise emerge, primarily linked to how ordinary humans process the information they are exposed to. Michio Kaku suggests ¹⁵ that humanity has already achieved the first means of communication for a Class 1 civilization on the Kardashev scale: the internet. However, according to Carl Sagan’s calculations, we are only a Class 0.7 civilization, meaning we have a tool too advanced for our societal status.

Kaku also estimates that we won’t reach Class 1 until 2100, indicating we still have a long way to adapt fully to this new reality. Humanity is clearly unprepared, not only for the amount of information the internet offers but also for the sheer reach of each voice’s potential audience.

In a pre-internet but somewhat globalized world, postmodern phenomena could already be observed, and the leading thinkers in the field preceded the cyber era. However, the internet opened faucets humanity had never crouched under to drink. The pressure is such that humanity not only drinks but drowns, and “sipping” clear information becomes extraordinarily difficult. Moreover, there is the issue of information purity. In a world saturated with informational Noise, how can we verify source credibility? Not only is information manipulation growing, but human perception also plays a starring role in interpreting reality in a post-truth world. As Baudrillard affirms:

“(…) The real is produced from miniaturized cells, matrices, and memory banks, models of control and it can be reproduced an indefinite number of times from these. It no longer needs to be rational, because it no longer measures itself against either an ideal or negative instance. It is no longer anything but operational. In fact, it is no longer really the real, because no imaginary envelops it anymore. It is a hyperreal, produced from a radiating synthesis of combinatory models in a hyperspace without atmosphere.” ¹⁶

Throughout human evolution, the concept of reality has undergone persistent transformation. As animals, our senses evolved to enable coherent interactions with our environment while filtering sensory data to avoid information overload. In other words, not only is our access to reality significantly limited by our human condition, but our individual and collective perceptions are subject to countless factors, shaping how we interpret the reality we process. All this is amplified with increased access to information. The more information, the more entropy and Noise, preventing even the most intelligent and adapted from having a clear, defined notion of what is truly real. One consequence of this atonality is the distortion of almost universally agreed-upon concepts, where even theories once globally accepted by the scientific community are being questioned due to misinterpretation and, quite frankly, the naive arrogance that common human reality can be reshaped based on personal emotions about a particular subject. Algorithms, designed to control Noise, filter out information deemed irrelevant to users, often fostering a false sense of consensus within online communities. By amplifying biases, they create echo chambers that hinder diverse perspectives and stifle critical thinking. And as artificial intelligence advances, the volume of information will only increase, and the amount of information created and processed with future quantum computers hosting AI is currently incalculable. There will always be more information. And with more information comes more Noise.

Despite this, one can feel cautiously optimistic. Human arrogance occasionally needs to be shaken to allow new concepts in and enable progress. Our rationality always tries to domesticate, punish, or ignore Noise, but countless examples show that stepping outside established conventions has led to the evolution of communal knowledge.

Examples of how Noise can be harvested and embraced to help us adapt to this environment and our humanity are virtually endless. As R. Haven Wiley states in Noise Matters: The Evolution of Communication:

“Noisy perception produces our sense of subjectivity and thus individuality. Communication, albeit noisy, allows a degree of confirmation of our use of language and thus of our thinking about ourselves. It thus rescues us from the mental chaos that would otherwise result from solipsism. It also allows a degree of confirmation for our observations of patterns in the external world. In so doing, we adjust our threshold for consilience between susceptibility and scepticism. In the end, this argument shows that we are the result of both the noise and the signals. Because of noise, as already emphasized, each of us can paraphrase Descartes, “Je communique, donc je suis”— “I communicate, therefore I am.’” ¹⁷

For some, one of the characteristics that defines us as humans is the complexity of our communication. And if communication is the product of Noise, so too are our intelligence and humanity. Communities must learn to mature and process Noise. The discovery of isotropic Noise as a remnant of the Big Bang radically altered our understanding of the cosmos’s order and structure, introducing the idea that the universe exists in a state of metastability and continuous transformation. This concept of metastability is what we must hold onto. It is the structural balance between a system’s entropy, information, and Noise that keeps us grounded in this world, and the future increasingly depends on recognizing this. By embracing Noise in the artistic realm—whether as social disturbance or as the distortion of the work material itself—in homage to Russolo, the Dadaists, Cage, and many others who have helped us view. Noise as an object of contemplation and progress, we also acknowledge its presence and benefits within communities. As Noise resists simplistic labels of good or bad; it is an inherent part of existence and acknowledging its presence is not merely necessary but vital for fostering progress. By attuning ourselves to Noise we unlock its transformative power, creating opportunities for establishing stronger communities.

Bibliography

• Attali, Jacques. Noise: The Political Economy of Music. Translated by Brian Massumi. University of Minnesota Press, 1985. Originally published in 1977.
• Baudrillard, Jean. Simulacra and Simulation. Translated by Sheila Faria Glaser. University of Michigan Press, 1994. Originally published in 1981.
• Berenguer, José Manuel. “Ruidos y sonidos: Mundos y gentes.” Quaderns-e de l’Institut Català d’Antropologia, 2005.
• Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. Translated by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976. Originally published in 1967.
• Goldsmith, Mike. Discord: The Story of Noise. Oxford University Press, 2012.
• Hainge, Greg. Noise Matters: Towards an Ontology of Noise. Bloomsbury Academic, 2013.
• Hegarty, Paul. Noise/Music: A History. Bloomsbury Academic, 2007.
• Hegarty, Paul. Annihilating Noise. Bloomsbury Academic, 2011.
• Helmholtz, Hermann L. F. On the Sensations of Tone. Translated by Alexander J. Ellis. Dover Publications, 1954. Originally published in 1863.
• Masami, Akita. “The Beauty of Noise: An Interview with Masami Akita of Merzbow.” Interview by Chad Hensley. Esoterra, no. 8 (1999): 18–23.
• Hendy, David. Noise: A Human History of Sound and Listening. Profile Books, 2013.
• Higgins, Dick, ed. Essential Henry Cowell: Selected Writings on Music. McPherson & Company, 2001.
• Kaku, Michio. The Future of Humanity: Terramorphing Mars, Interstellar Travel, Immortality, and Our Destiny Beyond Earth. Doubleday, 2018.
• Kahn, Douglas. Noise, Water, Meat: A History of Sound in the Arts. MIT Press, 1999.
• Malaspina, Cecilia. An Epistemology of Noise. Bloomsbury Academic, 2018.
• Morales, Omar. “Los Intonarumori de Luigi Russolo: El Ruido como Arte.” Paper presented at L’arte dei rumori y su centenario (100 años de arte sonoro), 2005.
• Novak, David. Japanoise: Music at the Edge of Circulation. Duke University Press, 2013.
• Russolo, Luigi. L’arte dei Rumori. Milan: Edizioni Futuriste di Poesia, 1913.
• Serres, Michel. The Parasite. Translated by Lawrence R. Schehr. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982.
• Shannon, Claude E. “A Mathematical Theory of Communication.” The Bell System Technical Journal 27, no. 3 (1948): 379–423.
• Thompson, Marie. Beyond Unwanted Sound: Noise, Affect and Aesthetic Moralism. Bloomsbury Academic, 2017.
• Voegelin, Salomé. Listening to Noise and Silence: Towards a Philosophy of Sound Art. Continuum, 2010.
• Wiley, R. Haven. Noise Matters: The Evolution of Communication. Harvard University Press, 2015.

Footnotes

1. Claude E Shannon, “A Mathematical Theory of Communication.” The Bell System Technical Journal 27, no. 3, 379–423. ↩
2. Cecilia Malaspina, An Epistemology of Noise, (Bloomsbury Academic, 2018), 4. ↩
3. Paul Hegarty, Annihilating Noise. (Bloomsbury Academic, 2011), 43. ↩
4. Malaspina, An Epistemology of Noise, 4. ↩
5. 5. Ibid, 73. ↩
6. 6. Dick Higgins, ed. Essential Henry Cowell: Selected Writings on Music. (McPherson & Company, 2001), 249-252. ↩
7. Hermann Helmholtz, On the Sensations of Tone. (Dover Publications, 1954), 56. ↩
8. Michel Serres, Le Parasite. (Grasset, 1982), 126. ↩
9. David Novak, Japanoise: Music at the Edge of Circulation, (Duke University, 2013). ↩
10. Akita Masami, “The Beauty of Noise: An Interview with Masami Akita of Merzbow.” Interviewed by Chad Hensley, Esoterra, no. 8 (1999), 18–23. ↩
11. David Novak, Japanoise: Music at the Edge of Circulation, 14. ↩
12. David Novak, Japanoise: Music at the Edge of Circulation, 9. ↩
13. David Novak, Japanoise: Music at the Edge of Circulation, 49. ↩
14. Malaspina, An Epistemology of Noise, 150. ↩
15. Michio Kaku, The Future of Humanity: Terramorphing Mars, Interstellar Travel, Immortality, and our destiny beyond Earth, (Doubleday, 2018), 254. ↩
16. Baudrillard, Jean, Simulacra and Simulation, Translated by Sheila Faria Glaser. (University of Michigan Press, 1994), 2. ↩
17. R. Haven Wiley, Noise Matters: The Evolution of Communication. (Harvard University Press, 2015), 411. ↩