Infernal Noise Brigade Analysis
Reading about the INB again really got me thinking about the ideas of private and public space. Where exactly is that line? In the first article, Jennifer Whitney talked about the band’s experience in the local Starbucks as the band’s first ‘act of mischief’. This peaked my curiosity about this topic because although I understand why it would be considered mischief, Starbucks is a public place where many people go. There is this weird line, because the store itself is private property and there is the right to refuse service to anyone but then again it is in a very public atmosphere and anyone and everyone belongs there. People spend endless hours just sitting in the coffee shop long after their cups are empty but I suppose this is part of what a coffee shop is for. But I also can’t help but think about how many coffee shops have live music performances. This got me even more interested because that is essentially what the INB is if you reduce it down to its most simplistic form—music performance. So if there is other music played in these private/public spaces, what is the difference of the INB? I also realize that there is a stylistic difference between the INB and other coffee shop type music—but is it just because it isn’t planned that it’s not accepted? And what about in the streets? Streets are public property. Anyone can walk on them. Sure, store owners can ask people who are outside of their store to relocate if they are doing something that detracts from the environment of the store—but you can’t exactly tell someone that they can’t be on the public street. So what is it about the INB that tends to be unaccepted? What is the difference between the INB and any other marching band—on the surface anyway? Is it the level of planning? If the members of the INB scheduled a time to go play in a public place would they be sentenced with tear gas? I personally think that that would defeat the purpose of the INB but it is an interesting concept to think about.
I really think that it is essential that the INB performs in these public spaces because it allows viewers to not only observe but participate. I think that with this in your face approach allows for this participation. After the shock value of holy cow there is an entire marching band inside Starbucks—one can’t help but to dance or at least bop their head along with the music. I think that this public space is also important in the sense of how it differentiates the INB from any other band that plays on a stage. With those types of band performances, people must choose to go listen and are strictly an observer. In these auditoriums there is a line that separates the performers and the public in which it is frowned up if it is crossed. However, with the INB there is no boundary. Anything goes. These band members are literally standing right next to the people of the public they are performing for. This transforms the public from a pure observer to an active participant in the experience. And there is of course the always that completely unexpected aspect of having a full on marching band in a place you wouldn’t dream of. I think that once these viewers get over the shock value of what the INB presents in their daily life they really have the ability to become part of their performance.
Although I liked having multiple sources to learn about the INB and this type of performance I really disliked the article “Affective Composition and Aesthetics: On Dissolving the Audience and Facilitating the Mob”. I think that articles like this that are overly wordy with highly technical words really just don’t seem worth it to me. It often times is covering a topic that is not really that complicated but with word choice and sentence structure combined it is over-done. It’s like trying to teach a child to tie his or her shoes but using words and complicated structures that are beyond their capacity. I understand that there may be some really great point being made or that I can learn a lot from them—but when I have to work unbelievably hard to get a surface understanding of these points I get frustrated. I consider myself to be a fairly intelligent and well read individual but there was something about this article that just irritated me to death to read. I think it has something to do with the act of having to practically translate each sentence into something I can understand a little better and then having to go back and relate all of these sentences to each other to really get the meaning of the article. It downright pisses me off. But I’m over it now.
The concept of aesthetic politics is a rather interesting one to me. I have never really thought about an aesthetic based on experiences and processes rather than content and artistic composition. I think that this is what the INB focuses on and successfully creates this space in which the ‘art of politics’ can be pursued. The INB using these spaces is what allows them to not only get their point across but also the involvement of the public is enhancing the aesthetic of politics by guiding or allowing these connections and discussions of the communities in which they perform. I think that this is really only the jumping off point for the INB—I think that even after they have left of space their thoughts and purpose still linger, possibly forever. Those people that had the chance to experience what the INB has to offer will always remember it and then they will pass it on to those who weren’t there and so on. This is a lasting effect.
After viewing and reading all of these sources on this topic I can’t help but wonder what kinds of different things can be done to enhance the whole purpose further. In the first article there is the reference of the warrior type song when the INB was being gassed. This makes me wonder what other situations could relate to their possibly music choice. Could they say different things with different types of music? Overall, I just wish I could have experienced the INB in the flesh—maybe I’ll see something similar someday.
