"The Art of Noises"

Luigi Russolo, a futurist painter (1885-1947) suggests that we (the public) abandon our preconceptions of sound, and investigate the musical/lyrical quality of Noise. He distinguishes between sounds and noises. I had thought that sounds and noises were of the same "stuff" though one does have a feeling or reaction to the word "sound" versus the word "noise." For example, someone might say that there is too much noise and thus they cannot concentrate. It is rare that someone would say that there is too much "sound." A musical hierarchy definitely exists. Noises are strange, irritating, annoying, and bothersome. Sounds are pleasant, appealing and evocative of emotion and feeling. "The sounds of nature," not the noises of nature. Russolo argues that we abandon our archaic preconceptions of sound. Perhaps it is not the noise of cars on a city street, but the sound of their engines roaring in rhythmic undulations.  I think that Russolo makes an excellent case for sound or more specifically, noise, as material for an art piece. 

Noises build pictures where visual literacy fails. Our eyes serve as tools for taking in information and our brains are trained to process the images - often in learned patterns that result in judgements. Our ears work with our eyes and all too often serve the visual. Walking through the metro station blindfolded would result in an entirely different experience than walking through it with your eyes wide open. One would hear things they had most likely never heard and thus make entirely new associations- even visual associations. Perhaps we can call them sound images. It is incredibly important for people to re-interpret their environment in order to avoid creative stagnation. 

My question regarding Russolo regards his motive. Russolo was after all a Futurist and Futurism was a historically very political art movement. He champions the noise of machines and even suggests that before their existence, nature was silent. Perhaps silent of noise, but not silent of sound. How can one truly distinguish between sound and noise without giving into cultural prejudice? If Russolo was really making a case for sound as noise or noise as sound, he would make no distinction whatsoever. Russolo is obviously championing the futurist movement and the need for the mechanical in all aspects of life. I wonder how much of this article is really about the art of noises, and how much of it is about the movement of Futurism. Is is all propaganda?