"Improving"...an unhip word
Voltaire
whatnot I think I should mention something..it amazes me how some
people tend to think that the concept of improving or refining a sound is
something detrimental ....and yet they dont mind using computers or
VCR's which are "derivative" of the initial items invented....
there are some basic stupid assumptions people are making
If band A sounds similar to band B and band C which came before them
then band A is derivative Crap....
For example: W: is derivative of LEatherstrip and Dive.....
the question is this....what makes LS and Dive the absolute pinnacle
of the genre, and what makes them sooo good that there is nothing
about their sound that could be refined and improved upon.....?
Just because they were the first big names in the genre, why can
no one incorporate their styles into new music and have it be called anything
but derivative by avante garde snobs?
SO could one of these avant gard snobs answer a question for me:
I postulate that you are simply railing against the establishment and what
you warpedly perceive to be complacencey.....if this were not the case
then you would acknowledge that it is possible to make a record in an
established style and still have it not be derivate bevcause it incorporates
many additional other layers and elements.....
so ....lets say you are postulating :W: to be derivative of Leathersrip and
Dive....so name ONE band which you believe incorporates substantial
elemts of LS and Dive's style, BUT is not derivative of the bands....
I dont think you can, because in your mind "incorporates substantial elements"
and "is derivaitve of" is the same thing...the only people who will
ever have valuidity in the EBM genre are its founders..at least in your
eyes
I mean are you typing away on a commodore 64 now, because PC's are
"just a derivate mixture of a commodore and a TI 994a"?
Are you using the first VCR ever invented, simply because all the other
VCR's are just derivative knockoffs?
Are you driving a model T because all the other cars ever made are derivative
of it?
And before you say all these "derivative" analogies I'm making arent
valid, I could make you a list a mile long about the similarites
between the first cars, VCR's and home computers ever produced, and their
predecessors, that list would dramatically overshadow the list of
similarites between LS and :W:
So my question is this, avante gardey's....:how does one imcorporate elements
of an establised artist and still make a record which is not derivative?
If this cannot be done, then why do people do it with VCR's, cars, and
computers every day?
How how how?
I could talk more about this...I could say that all the LS and Dive
knockoffs are turning people onto a genre which makes poeple more openminded
in genreal....but you will undounbedly come up with some convoluted
argument, overintellectualized to disprove me....in the end it comes
down to taste, so your overly voluminous writing is in vain....
you are writing a thesis on why apples are better than oranges....
the fact is though, that 90% of the experimental shit out there is vapid
crap....you can make all the mix tapes you want, but take a trained
musicologist and see if he tells you how complex and intricately structured
it is....he will not......because it isnt.....I have nothing against noise
It remind me of the staic in my brain and I have heard it used interestingly
I like music that has complexity and depth...I like music that NO ONE is
going to confuse with the CD-R track on Brap. I dont really like classical
music, but you arent going to see me ragging on it the way I do power noise,
becuase I know it takes some talent to make......Merzbow does not.
Some experimental artists have talent....I think Imminent Starvations
gets overly tedious, but the mans other projects are definitive proof
he's got talent....I am VERY opening minded, and I have spend hundereds
of dollars each on artists whose discs I have perused then sold...inclding
many noise artists..some haev struck a cord (lustmord, coil, nww, lustmord,
lustmord, muslimgauze, iron halo device), some have not.....
try telling a noise artists to make something like Bunkertor 7 or
Deleriums Faces Forms and Illusions and watch them fall flat on their ass..
they cant do it... (most of them)...ask bill leeb to make power noise..
well he already did..its called the CD-R track on the Circuitry single..
So now I'm going to go...downfall, mentally masturbate over this post
all you want....try to accept the fact that not everthing that isn't
accepted by the mainstream isnt because its necessarily "deep" and
"cerebral"..it could be just because it sucks....as time goes on people
like Coil will gain more reognition for their work, because while they
may be underground they are amazingly creatively warped and imaginative...
tweak the frequncey all you want, but Merzbow is never going to catch on...
people dont get it because their is nothing to get.....the emperors
new clothes of music........I've spend much too much time on this inanane
subject as it is.....I'm sorry I've used tp few big words and too many
analogies about fucking for this to be considered "intelligent discussion"
but the fact remains there is something called "visceral appeal" and
that some music just reaches out and grabs you (kinda like..fucking)
and you cant necessarily evaluate it by asking how many similarites
it bears to something I've heard before.......
The only thing I will find any merit in is the following.....A post by
a musician who has explored both ends of the music spectrum (the lush,
melodic and complex Vs the minimal and experimental)....someone who has
done stuff like Coil's Cardinal points, dark river, and blood from the air,
Mentallos Natalia and Peril, and SP's centre bullet, and also noise oriented
stuff like Controlled Bleeding's knees and Bones, or Merzbow...
when an artists like that posts and says that the noise they made was more dificult to create than say.....Cardinal Points or Dark River, or Overtures
then I'll start to listen...I'll be happy to listen to mixtapes, but I
doubt I will find much I like note I said much....there are undountedly some
which will standout
People who could do this...COntrolled Bleeding, Die Form, Coil, Mentallo...
probably more
But allmost all other "informed discussion" about this topic is
mental wankery...and I wish all parties would simply admit it instead of
over intellectualizing it...and the most imnportant thing.....
dont be a hypocrite..if you are going to bitch up a
Voltaire
bitch up a storm aboout derivate crap then throw your VCR's , COmputer
and Cars away and raid some old fogeys garage sale or wait until
they invent Hologram VCR's and computers which utilize organic
circuitry......life is a gradual transition from one stage to another, not a
magical teleportation from point to point..so is music
I could talk more about this but I wont..sorry for the misspelling and
gerneally poor gremmar and sentence strucuture..I am fucked up right now,
which is the only way one should read a group like r.m.i and honestly I'm
looking forward more to the next Beardy Jonez post than I am to the next
"intelligent discussion" as to why power noise is the life preserver of
industrial music
Mr. Tangent
wrote:
Herein, I am not, nor will I be labeled as such, a "avant garde snob".
I just think some clarification should be injected, so I responded.
>If band A sounds similar to band B and band C which came before them
>then band A is derivative Crap....
Influence is one thing. When a band creates a virtually identical
carbon copy of the previous band it's really not a good thing. On an
artistic level, one should challenge themselves to create new things -
not clones of previous icons. Of course, this is purely on the
artistic level. I do however think that for a band to come out with a
similar album as another is okay - but in certain genres, namely
electro-industrial, it seems that this is happening with almost every
album. Industrial music - which electro is a subset of - was founded
on the principles of innovation, creativity and experimentation. Not
regurgitated stagnation. There are some great "derivative" bands out
there (haujobb being one of them) and while I don't dismiss those
bands they don't excite me as much as the pioneers - within or outside
the electro genre - that push the limits and create wholly new
environments in sound.
>For example: W: is derivative of LEatherstrip and Dive.....
>
>the question is this....what makes LS and Dive the absolute pinnacle
>of the genre, and what makes them sooo good that there is nothing
>about their sound that could be refined and improved upon.....?
I certainly didn't say this, but I know others do. Such elitist
mentality is idiotic at best. Regardless, come back to me in three
years; after you've listened to basically the same ebm album over and
over and see if you think the same way. I've liked EBM for basically
ten years now and recently I got very sick of it. I suddenly
realized, with certain exceptions, that most of it was rehashed
material. It was as if a "formula" had been found and everyone had
exploited this fatal flaw. I think it has something to do with
volume. Previous to '94 there weren't that many electro-derivative
acts - so when some band sounded like another it wasn't as bad. One
or two derivative acts I can stomach, but when you have literally
dozens of them it gets sickening and annoying. Don't get me wrong, I
*do* like quite a bit of my electro albums still (derivative or not)
but I don't see that much forward progression in most of them.
You have to realize the things that move a genre forward are the
people who are willing to stand above the crowd. The ones that are
willing to experiment, to change, to be polymorphic.
I want vertical bands, not horizontal ones.
>Just because they were the first big names in the genre, why can
>no one incorporate their styles into new music and have it be called anything
>but derivative by avante garde snobs?
No one said they can't do what they want. But just as they can
release yet another cloned F242 album, the alleged "avant garde snobs"
have the right to challenge the artistic worth of said album/band.
>SO could one of these avant gard snobs answer a question for me:
>I postulate that you are simply railing against the establishment and what
>you warpedly perceive to be complacencey.....if this were not the case
>then you would acknowledge that it is possible to make a record in an
>established style and still have it not be derivate bevcause it incorporates
>many additional other layers and elements.....
There are some brilliant albums, as I said before, that are made in
the "derivative" style. The true trailblazing albums - the ones that
sound unlike anything else - are far and few between. The simple, and
possibly sad, fact is that almost every album in it's own way is
derivative of some previous act. That doesn't give these bands the
right to "rest on their laurels" and program "cookie cutter" formula
type albums. They have a responsibility - if they fancy themselves as
artists - to push the boundaries and shatter the mold (that binds
them). Unless more bands are willing to experiment - in any genre -
then I, and countless others, are simply not interested.
Let's face it, it's just plain boring to listen to the same fucking
album over and over again.
>so ....lets say you are postulating :W: to be derivative of Leathersrip and
>Dive....so name ONE band which you believe incorporates substantial
>elemts of LS and Dive's style, BUT is not derivative of the bands....
>I dont think you can, because in your mind "incorporates substantial elements"
>and "is derivaitve of" is the same thing...the only people who will
>ever have valuidity in the EBM genre are its founders..at least in your
>eyes
You're making some radical assumptions of the people you're rallying
against. Just because someone says "so and so is derivative" doesn't
mean they don't like some derivative material from time to time. If I
find a genre of music I like then it's great to hear similar material.
That's what genre classification is all about - giving the fans
similar material to find that sounds alike. I don't think the EBM
"founders" are no more valid than the copycat bands, but we all know
they're more important - simply for the fact that they pioneered the
genre and opened it up for the others to follow.
>I mean are you typing away on a commodore 64 now, because PC's are
>"just a derivate mixture of a commodore and a TI 994a"?
>
>Are you using the first VCR ever invented, simply because all the other
>VCR's are just derivative knockoffs?
>
>Are you driving a model T because all the other cars ever made are derivative
>of it?
These are all moot examples because they differ from music in one
striking way. Music is an artistic expression. Assembly line
manufactured electronic components are not. Well, in some
Warhol-ian/Dada way they may be - but you know what I'm saying. The
use of technology is the instrument. The use of music is the end
result. Cloning technology or machines is a completely different
thing than cloning music.
>And before you say all these "derivative" analogies I'm making arent
>valid, I could make you a list a mile long about the similarites
>between the first cars, VCR's and home computers ever produced, and their
>predecessors, that list would dramatically overshadow the list of
>similarites between LS and :W:
Yes, but as I said previously, this analogy is ridiculous. If one
clones an instrument - say, a paint brush - this allows more artists
to paint (hopefully) original and breathtaking works of art. This is
a good thing. It liberates the artist, and eventually the viewer of
the art, because it allows the artist to formulate and express his/her
emotions on canvas. If the mass replication of paint brushes was not
feasible, then the world would've been robbed of countless works of
art.
Now, oppositely, if one clones the ending artwork - say, a painting -
then this lessens the singularity and solitary beauty that the
original painting held.
>So my question is this, avante gardey's....:how does one imcorporate elements
>of an establised artist and still make a record which is not derivative?
>If this cannot be done, then why do people do it with VCR's, cars, and
>computers every day?
See above.
>I could talk more about this...I could say that all the LS and Dive
>knockoffs are turning people onto a genre which makes poeple more openminded
>in genreal....but you will undounbedly come up with some convoluted
>argument, overintellectualized to disprove me....in the end it comes
>down to taste, so your overly voluminous writing is in vain....
Exactly. I will not try to banter back and forth with you here. It
is a matter of taste. But wouldn't you, honestly, want to hear new,
innovative and unheard of music? Someone once said:
"Familiarity breeds contempt"
That about sums it up.
>you are writing a thesis on why apples are better than oranges....
>the fact is though, that 90% of the experimental shit out there is vapid
>crap....
I will also agree with you here. A lot of experimental material is
simply a way for a musician to vent/express what they want in their
own personal way. I do think that is a good thing. But I don't think
releasing everything you make is a good thing either. Most of what is
released - in *every* genre - is crap and shouldn't have ever been
released. You have to be selective. There are some great
experimental releases as there are some great EBM releases. But there
is an equal - or greater - amount of "wankery". Just choose
carefully.
>you can make all the mix tapes you want, but take a trained
>musicologist and see if he tells you how complex and intricately structured
>it is....he will not......because it isnt.....I have nothing against noise
>It remind me of the staic in my brain and I have heard it used interestingly
>I like music that has complexity and depth...I like music that NO ONE is
>going to confuse with the CD-R track on Brap.
You're trying to dismiss noise, and everyone who listens to noise as
fools in some way or another. I mistakenly did the same thing in
regards to Merzbow recently, on a mailing list. As others pointed
out, even though I don't personally find Merzbow's music appealing,
there are others who find it fascinating. Here's my advice: listen to
what you like and let others listen to what they like. No music is
"better" than any others.
>I dont really like classical
>music, but you arent going to see me ragging on it the way I do power noise,
>becuase I know it takes some talent to make......Merzbow does not.
Again, "talent" is subjective. You have no basis to assume what is,
or is not, "talent". Simply because you are biased and swayed by
personal opinion.
>try telling a noise artists to make something like Bunkertor 7 or
>Deleriums Faces Forms and Illusions and watch them fall flat on their ass..
>they cant do it... (most of them)...ask bill leeb to make power noise..
>well he already did..its called the CD-R track on the Circuitry single..
You just don't get it. Let me try to explain. It's not "who can make
what". It's about *personal expression*. Let's say I create this
lovely little flower painting. And then everyone else, to my chagrin,
started painting my beloved flowers - in exactly the same way. Sure,
I'd be very displeased with it - but *no one* could replicate the
intensely self-gratifying and personal feelings that I, alone, felt
when I painted the flowers. They could copy me until the cows came
home, but couldn't get inside my mind and feel how I felt when I
painted. It's not always the end result that matters. It's the
feelings that the music invokes in both the creator and listener that
truly matters.
Mr. "long winded" Tangent [the binary police]
np: Atomu Shinzu - Act
N.Scott Kozyra
>Are you using the first VCR ever invented, simply because all the other
>VCR's are just derivative knockoffs?
>
>Are you driving a model T because all the other cars ever made are derivative
>of it?
>
>And before you say all these "derivative" analogies I'm making arent
>valid, I could make you a list a mile long about the similarites
>between the first cars, VCR's and home computers ever produced, and their
>predecessors, that list would dramatically overshadow the list of
>similarites between LS and :W:
You make some good points, but here you are comparing apples and
oranges (sorry about the cliche). Music and tools are very different,
in that one is used for pleasure and the other for function. For the
most part, people listen to music that pleases (excites, angers, etc.)
them. I would wager that a great many people that have called
Wumpscut derivative still privately enjoy the music. It's just the
elitist factor, and I for one generally try to ignore it.
N.Scott Kozyra
.erik.gloom.
.2000.
Anthony
I lost track of the EBM industrial genre for about 5 years 93 - 98, living
in an awkward time warp of late 70's and 80's Industrial. Now that I am
getting more familiar with the current musical landscape again I have to say
that industrial / EBM seems to have progressed much more significantly
between say 85 - 90 than it has between 90 - 99.
Having said that, there is a hell of a lot of good music out there. You
will never see the rapid evolution of sound like what happened during the
80's happen again. Therefore I agree with Voltaire that derivitave music
can still be good music, but I am also thankful I have heard what has come
before in all of its originality.
downfall
>Having seen all this silly bickering about clones and scene stagnation and
>whatnot I think I should mention something..
after reading over your arguments, maybe you shouldn't have...
>it amazes me how some people tend to think that the concept of improving
>or refining a sound is something detrimental ....
who ever said it was? the argument has been that once the "refining" of a
certain sound expands into its twentieth or so generation then it's no
longer expanding. it's treading the same ground over and over. at a
certain point, this will cause fans to leave the scene. a few artists
"improving" a sound is perfectly fine. just once the few become an army,
it's a problem. i thought i cleared that up, before...
>and yet they dont mind using computers or VCR's which are "derivative" of
>the initial items invented....
you're stretching. technologies and music are completely different things
and in *no* way can be judged upon the same grounds. it's like trying to
apply the rules of physics to the human condition. it just doesn't work.
>If band A sounds similar to band B and band C which came before them
>then band A is derivative Crap....
who said that band a is crap? you're assuming things not in my argument.
perhaps you need to read it again...
>For example: W: is derivative of LEatherstrip and Dive.....
>
>the question is this....what makes LS and Dive the absolute pinnacle
>of the genre, and what makes them sooo good that there is nothing
>about their sound that could be refined and improved upon.....?
again. you miss the point of the argument.
>Just because they were the first big names in the genre, why can
>no one incorporate their styles into new music and have it be called
anything
>but derivative by avante garde snobs?
see above.
>if this were not the case then you would acknowledge that it is possible to
>make a record in an established style and still have it not be derivate
>bevcause it incorporates many additional other layers and elements.....
you certainly have a loose grasp on the argument, don't you? it's
incredibly possible to do so. infact, one of my favorite records, right
now, is disatrous din's _1_ and i'd be hard pressed to *not* hear sonar in
it...but there are suitably enough changes within the sound that warrant me
keeping the work. they've added keyboards, vocals at points and beefed up
the sound, quite a bit. that's enough, at this point. however, (and this
is where, apparantly, you lose track) after fifteen bands have already
abducted the sonar sound, and added, essentially, the same touches (to,
admittedly, different degrees) what's the point of owning disastrous din, if
they were band 16?
>so ....lets say you are postulating :W: to be derivative of Leathersrip and
>Dive....so name ONE band which you believe incorporates substantial
>elemts of LS and Dive's style, BUT is not derivative of the bands....
>I dont think you can, because in your mind "incorporates substantial
elements"
>and "is derivaitve of" is the same thing...
derivative // derivatives
1 A derivative is something which has developed from something else.
...the modern derivative of the fairy story. COUNT N
2 A work or idea that is derivative is not new or original, but copies ideas
that have been used before; used showing disapproval ADJ
>the only people who will ever have valuidity in the EBM genre are its
>founders..at least in your eyes
actually, there are bands *other* than the founders that have validity in my
eyes. even a few of them are derivative. suicide commando, for one. hell,
one of my favorite ebm records, cabaret voltaire's _code_ is derivative...
>And before you say all these "derivative" analogies I'm making arent
>valid, I could make you a list a mile long about the similarites
>between the first cars, VCR's and home computers ever produced, and their
>predecessors, that list would dramatically overshadow the list of
>similarites between LS and :W:
please, don't bother. it's obvious you aren't ready to put forth any valid
analogies. you haven't done so in *either* of your major posts, on this
subject, and i really don't see that changing.
i've snipped the rest of this post because, quite frankly, it was overly
repetitive and really didn't argue against any of the points that i have
raised, and any point he actually brought up was already argued by mr.
tangent. it was either vapid verbal masturbation or attempts at inciting a
flame war or just all around wankery. please, in the future, voltaire, read
and *comprehend* an argument before you enter it. if you don't, you'll just
be wasting your time saying things that, quite frankly, you've already said
and, as a result, forcing me to repeat myself ad nauseum.
-downfall
"the man has no sense of reality" - george drakoulias
MrCreature
alot of the shit i hear right now from the industrial scene is kinda boring,
but then again, there are a few break through artists that sound good to me. I
dont beleive that other bands remaking the same sounding music is a horrible
thing, but if its not pleasing to the ear, then whats the difference? In my
mind, if someone thinks a band sucks, it shouldn't be just because they "stole
someone elses individual sound" -it should pertain to the music itself and how
it appeals to the person. You cant sit there and say a song sounds bad because
you cant respect it because it replicates another band. You can have no
respect for the musicians for their unorriginality, but if the song sounds
exactly like someone elses material, and you happen to like the other band that
first released the material, then in theory-if that bands name was stmaped on
the cover of the cd, youd like it if it appealed to you. holding a bias
against unoriginaliry is something that i do have in my blood, but you have to
honestly admit that if, lets say, band A made this great song in 1990, and then
band B made another great song in 1994 but sounds exactly like band A, and the
Cds got switched and fucked up in the assembly line, then what would you do?
Youd say the new band sucks and the old one is good-if it appeals to you. Id
do the same thing-i get tired of hearing the same sounding albums all the time
when i can hear the originals in front of them, but some bands really do
produce good material and still have the same sound of older bands. People, i
appologize for thinking out loud, for thats what im doing. Anyway-the point of
trying to make is that the music will evolve when the technology evolves. I
cant afford to say much more, aside from this: musicians have budgets, and
they maybe cant get the most up-to-date synth and are stuck with the old school
gear and can only make certain sounds with those items. THis does not make a
band SUCK. this limits the sound that the band can make. Now if the
programmer just dont know shit and has tons of good gear, then the programmer
just needs to get a little more educated about his gear, see? in other words,
dont judge a band based on their wallets, judge them based on their sound.
Dont judge a band on their "derivative" sound or whatever bullshit that is,
judge them on how they appeal to you. If you cats had been introduced to a
newer bnad before an older band, you might like the newer one better, see? get
rid of the bias-it simply makes you sound foolish, in my opinion. Im not
calling anyone foolish by saying that, either, so dont start bitching yet.
Remember, copying anothers sound is the purest form of compliment to the
musician. the reason i was writing this, though, is for you Mr. Dowmfall: Did
i miss what started this whole thing, and if so what was your original
statement that seems to have set this discussion off?
I hope i didnt piss anyone off, cuz all im trying to do is through in my point
of view, not state argument. I dont wanna hear anyone bitching about me and
what i said, for thats a very childish thing to do. Calling someone stupid for
interpreting something wrong is stupid in its self. I just thought id chime in
a little...
g'night my family...
Mike the redfrodevil
ps: yo-mama!!!!!!
Voltaire
: Voltaire wrote...
: you're stretching. technologies and music are completely different things
: and in *no* way can be judged upon the same grounds. it's like trying to
: apply the rules of physics to the human condition. it just doesn't work.
Why?
What justification do you have for that statement?
.....music is just "entertainment technology"
Technology does not clone, it evolves....so does music.
Wumpscut evolves from Dive....Pc's evolve from TI 994a's, etc
its called logical "progression"
Voltaire
: subject, and i really don't see that changing.
: i've snipped the rest of this post because, quite frankly, it was overly
: repetitive and really didn't argue against any of the points that i have
: raised, and any point he actually brought up was already argued by mr.
: tangent. it was either vapid verbal masturbation or attempts at inciting a
: flame war or just all around wankery. please, in the future, voltaire, read
: and *comprehend* an argument before you enter it.
Just answer the questions I asked.....Answer the questions instead of
dismission them as "irrelvant",,name the kind of bands I asked you to name.
(bands that implement parts of a previous bands style but are not derivative)
justify why you should have a
different view on technology than you should on music?...there is no law
written that says that technology is quanatatively differnent than music
music IS technology (i.e. the use of instruments for some purpose)
I can admire the Wright brothers for their innvovation, I can admire
cabaret voltaire for their innovation, but when It comes right down to
it, I am going to use the most advanced means possible to get myselff
to Europe (even if the Boieng 747 is "derivative" of wright's invention,)
just like I am going to use the most advanced means possible to entertain
myself (even if Noise UNit is derivate of Cab Volt)..nostolgia is great,
but I'm not going to trash anything that comes afterward just because it has
noticeable pallalels to its predecessors
Voltaire
: dont beleive that other bands remaking the same sounding music is a horrible
: thing, but if its not pleasing to the ear, then whats the difference? In my
: mind, if someone thinks a band sucks, it shouldn't be just because they "stole
: someone elses individual sound" -it should pertain to the music itself and how
: it appeals to the person. You cant sit there and say a song sounds bad because
: you cant respect it because it replicates another band. You can have no
: respect for the musicians for their unorriginality, but if the song sounds
: exactly like someone elses material, and you happen to like the other band that
: first released the material, then in theory-if that bands name was stmaped on
: the cover of the cd, youd like it if it appealed to you. holding a bias
: against unoriginaliry is something that i do have in my blood, but you have to
: honestly admit that if, lets say, band A made this great song in 1990, and then
: band B made another great song in 1994 but sounds exactly like band A, and the
: Cds got switched and fucked up in the assembly line, then what would you do?
: Youd say the new band sucks and the old one is good-if it appeals to you.
Thank you..this is an argument I meant to make....a piece of music being
judged on extraneous factors ..like its creator, its date of creation, etc..
FOr example, what if we found out that half of Salvadore Dali's paintings
were in fact made by his son Ruber....would these paintings suddenly
suffer a massive drop in quality because you discovered they were not by the
same artists?
Would you say that they had suddenly become a "detriment" to the Surrealism
movement?
.Do you praise Skinny Puppy's "the process" until you
find out that there was an accident at the factory, and that what is actually
on the disc is Gridlock's Synthetic Form....?
C'mon someone answer theses questions...
Innovation and quality are two completely different things.....
Stringing tent poles together so you can reach up and make contact with
a power line is innovative....but not a quality decision. The fact is...
quality bands are good for any scene, because they make more converts and
further the chain of information that is necessary for artistic evolution.
Voltaire
: you're stretching. technologies and music are completely different things
: and in *no* way can be judged upon the same grounds. it's like trying to
: apply the rules of physics to the human condition. it just doesn't work.
weeeellllllll actually ..if you are a Materialist, (which I assume many
of us non religous folks are) then the laws of
pyhsics do apply to the "human condition", because all human interaction,
both internal and with the outside world, is based on biochemical reactions
and other laws of physics...so all the little workings inside our brains
are reactions which could, theoretically, be quaintified and explained
using physical laws, so also could the intereactions between each
"black box" of chemical reaction known as humans..so yes you are right,
my argument is like trying to apply the rules of physics to human behavior..
i.e it is valid....
(and NO I'm not looking to get into a MAterialism/Dualism debate!)
Damn right
mrcre...@aol.com (MrCreature) wrote:
>what voltair had to say did have some grounds to it. I personally beleive that
>alot of the shit i hear right now from the industrial scene is kinda boring,
>but then again, there are a few break through artists that sound good to me. I
Damn right
ebm and a lot of newer Industrial, IS NOT the result of technology.
Also older gear is more expensive, harder to maintain and more sought
after. Everybody wants old rolands and oberheims. Industrial bands
are real heavy on this gear. And if you own a sampler and an effects
processor, you make almost anysound (well if it's got good filters)
Skinny Puppy was doing stuff that was incredibly innovative and
orignal 13 years ago, shit that would still stand out today. Some of
it will sound dated, but stuff like Cleanse Fold Manipiulate still
stands the test of time. There gear was more more limited than my
Awe32. It's the people behind the gear that make it kick ass. I've
got a giant rig of gear, but I know that Cevin Key or Dr. Goetell
could totally whoop my ass with just an $80 Awe32, or their old SY77.
It's not the technology, it's the artists, and it's the scene. It's
very hard to sell records if you're not very dance oriented. And that
tends to make people bland, because I think people are more rigid
about what they dance to knowadays.
It'd be nice if we could blame the gear, but we can't. I'm often
thinking to myself, now if I had this XXXx gear I'd really be able to
write something good, ooh if only I had this..... The fact is gear is
soooo much cheaper now, it's so much easier to make this stuff now,
than it was 5 years ago, let alone 10 or 15.
MrCreature
>ebm and a lot of newer Industrial, IS NOT the result of technology.
>Also older gear is more expensive, harder to maintain and more sought
>after. Everybody wants old rolands and oberheims. Industrial bands
>are real heavy on this gear. And if you own a sampler and an effects
>processor, you make almost anysound (well if it's got good filters)
>Skinny Puppy was doing stuff that was incredibly innovative and
>orignal 13 years ago, shit that would still stand out today. Some of
>it will sound dated, but stuff like Cleanse Fold Manipiulate still
>stands the test of time. There gear was more more limited than my
>Awe32. It's the people behind the gear that make it kick ass. I've
>got a giant rig of gear, but I know that Cevin Key or Dr. Goetell
>could totally whoop my ass with just an $80 Awe32, or their old SY77.
i agree with you on all these aspects...i have a rig myself...but what i was
trying to say is that people stand on the shoulders of giants to get better
sound...some of these newer retro anolog keyboards-namely the prophecy-have 6
different envelopes, 4 different filters and 4 lfos to play with-some thing
that no old school gear ive ever encountered had on it. With the expension of
digital technology, the artist gets more room to experiment. give the
K2000-choose an algorythym. The nord modular-do everything with the wires on
the screen and hit the save button. you see what im saying? old school gear
is not a bad thing-i love junos and rogues as much as you do. All im saying is
that there are still some things that electronic musicians cant do with sound
that have not been discovered yet, and when the gear gets to that point, then
the music will evolve further. I wasnt trying to blame the equipment for the
monotonous music. I was simply stating a fact. Some of the digital technology
today can do more then the stuff from yesterday. And if you know just what the
fuck your doing, then you know the music can get better. Also, and im sure you
know but did not mention, that all of the old artists dont keep on useing thier
olde gear exclusively-they've evolved too, to newer equipment. Look at The
Process and tell me how different it sounds to Back and Forth. This change in
sound is an evolvement of sorts. Part of that evolution was the moving on up
from older gear to newer stuff, but still keeping the old skool stuff to use.
see what im sayin?
by the way, old skool gear rocks my ass, and im not downing it at all.
All i want people to know is that just because youve got this big ass hucheedoo
thing for 10 grand, you wont sound good unless you know what your doing. Youve
stated that point, and i agree with you on that. anyway...i also dont
understand the bias again i heard...Id take 5 crappy originals to 1 new band
that sounded like them. Did you understand at all what i was trying to say?
oh well, people have a right do disagree, but why limit yourselves to the old
fuddy duddies? whoops...i didn't mean that really. just think in terms of
appeal by sound, not by what label their on or what other band they sound like.
Please dont limit your self. and If youve got a problem with all the retro
bands of the early 80s and 90s bands, then come up with your own style and stop
bitching.
bye for now.
mike the redfrodevil
Damn right
some of these newer retro anolog keyboards-namely the prophecy-have 6
>different envelopes, 4 different filters and 4 lfos to play with-some thing
>that no old school gear ive ever encountered had on it.
What about the matrix-12?
Damn right
MrCreature
Ive heard about it but never seen on ein person. ahh well-i feel stupid for
thinking you didnt understand what i was talking about. I am the master of
misinterpretation.
thanks
mike the redfrodevil
Damn right
from the synth museum: (you'll be able to see why these 12 note
monsters still cost 2 grand.
Matrix-12
The Matrix-12, truly one of the "Monsters" of programmable
analogsynthesizers. It is basically two complete Oberheim Xpanders
hookedup to a velocity-sensitive (including release
velocity),pressure-sensitive (there were some early Matrix-12s that
did nothave pressure-sensitivity), 5-octave, 61-note (C-C) keyboard.
With24 oscillators (two VCOs per voice) it can be set up as a
12-partmonophonic or a 6-part polyphonic multi-timbral synth. The
frontpanel is exactly like the Xpander, except for one button that
switchesbetween voices 1-6 and 7-12.
Like the Xpander, each voice consists of 2 VCOs (triangle, saw,pulse,
or noise, VCO2 could be synced to VCO1), a multimode VCF(low-pass,
band-pass, notch-pass, high-pass and four "combination"filter modes),
and 4 VCA's (in line one after each oscillator and twoafter the VCF).
FM of VCO1 and the VCF is possible via VCO1.The filters can also be
set as 1-pole (6dB/octave), 2-pole(12dB/octave), 3-pole (18dB/octave),
or 4-pole (24dB/octave). Alloscillators and filters can be tuned by a
handy auto-tuned routine. Inaddition to this basic synth engine, the
Matrix-12 has a number ofseparate modules that can be inserted in any
modulation path. Theseinclude (10) LFO's with basic waves plus
sample-and-hold andrandom functions, 6 tracking generators, 6 ramp
generators, two lagprocessors (they do not necessarily have to be used
for portamento),and 1 additional global LFO to be used with the Mod
Wheel.
Unlike the Xpander, the Matrix-12 does not have individual
outputs(although they were available as an option, which involved
replacing aside panel to make room for the connectors) or CV/gate
inputs.
[from The A-Z of Analogue Synthesizers , by Peter Forrest,published by
Susurreal Publishing, Devon, England, copyright 1994Peter Forrest]
"The intention with the Matrix-12 was to offer, in a
mid-1980'scontext, an instrument that had the routing flexibilty of
the giantmodular systems of the mid-1970's, wherein almost every
parametercould interact using patch cords. The Matrix-12's "patch
cords," ofcourse, are hidden in software.
"It's an impressive-looking instrument, large to the point of
bulkiness,with an exceptionally deep main panel awash with buttons and
LEDs,like some sort of space-age board game. But it's not the system
that'sso radical on the Matrix-12 -- after all, it's fairly standard
subtractivesynthesis -- so much as the options offered.
"Beknobbed to an extent, the Matrix-12 is navigated with a pagesystem
of parameter access and soft buttons. Such a method maynow be
commonplace, but in 1985, it was new and not a littleconfusing.
"The instrument has 12 fully independent analog voices. Within a
fewyears, what would become known as multitimbralism was
alsocommonplace. Back in 1985, many of us nodded sagely at theprospect
of being able to control individual voices on dedicated MIDIchannels,
but few thought many people would ever want to bother. Intruth, the
Matrix's system does not have the multitimbral flexibility ofan 01/W,
but for independent bass, pad and obligato parts, say, it isstill more
than sufficient.
"There's nothing too frightening about the VCO/VCF/VCA
voicearchitecture. More daunting is the level of choice within each
section.Each oscillator can be independently pitched, fine-tuned and
set involume. Page 2 of the oscillator controls provides access
towaveforms -- triangle, sawtooth or variable pulse -- as well as the
lagprocessor for portamento effects, pitch bend and vibrato. VCO2
alsooffers noise as an additional waveform.
"The oscillator pages are reasonably fathomable, but once you get
intothe filter pages, where a choice of some 15 filter modes and
themyriad modulation routings (with no less than five envelope
generatorsper voice, five LFOs and a ramp generator) confront you,
then you'llneed your wits about you. Oberheim breezily informs you
that some27 modulation sources can be sent out to some 47
modulationdestinations.
"Filtering is a Matrix-12 specialty, with spectacular choices of
one-,two-, three- or four-pole lowpass; one-, two- or three-pole
highpass;two- or four-pole bandpass; band reject; phase shift; and
severalcombined filter types. Add in tricks like being able to
modulate filterresonance from keyboard dynamics, one of the LFOs,
etc., and youcan see that this is never going to be a quick or easy
instrument towork with, in spite ot the plethora of Help pages and a
clearly writtenand organized owner's manual.
"Does it sound any good once you have mastered it? Yes, it definitely
does. The Matrix-12 is a rich, multifaceted instrument, capable of
enormous complexity and fine detail, perfectly suited for progressive
noodlings a la Alan Holdsworth, who has loyally used the Matirx-12and
Xpander as a sound source for his Synthaxe guitar. This application as
a sound source for a guitar controller makes perfect useof the
Matrix-12's multitimbral capability for individual string
bendingsounds, etc. Texture hounds like The Orb also seem to have
taken theMatrix-12 into the hearts.
"This is a synth with a thousand tricks up its software. It wasn't
made in huge numbers, but since it is not for the fainthearted, most
peopleon the lookout for a Matrix-12 should be rewarded in time.
Though official production stopped far earlier, a small number of
Matrix-12swere made to order by the "new" Oberheim in 1991."
[excerpted with permission from the book, Keyfax: OmnibusEdition by
Julian Colbeck, published by Mixbooks]
Voltaire
: : i've snipped the rest of this post because, quite frankly, it was overly
: : repetitive and really didn't argue against any of the points that i have
: : raised, and any point he actually brought up was already argued by mr.
: : tangent. it was either vapid verbal masturbation or attempts at inciting a
: : flame war or just all around wankery. please, in the future, voltaire, read
: : and *comprehend* an argument before you enter it.
: Just answer the questions I asked.....Answer the questions instead of
: dismission them as "irrelvant",,name the kind of bands I asked you to name.
: (bands that implement parts of a previous bands style but are not derivative)
: justify why you should have a
: different view on technology than you should on music?...
<SILENCE>
Thanks...I rest my case.
MT
>
> : Just answer the questions I asked.....Answer the questions instead
> : of dismission them as "irrelvant",,name the kind of bands I asked
> : you to name. (bands that implement parts of a previous bands style
> : but are not derivative) justify why you should have a
> : different view on technology than you should on music?...
>
> <SILENCE>
>
> Thanks...I rest my case.
Hey, there always IS the possibility that downfall hasn't seen this
yet. He posts quite erratically. However, he does answer anything
directed to him when he sees it.
On the other hand, I don't recall you ever answering his "A downfall
act of kindness..." (Or whatever) thread that pointed out your blanket
statements about power noise. I apologize if you have and I missed it.
If you didn't, though, I'm sure you don't miss the irony/hypocrisy.
--
MT, Arbitrator and Boyscout ov Thee Church Ov Industrial
"Absolute annihilation the ultimate ideal!"
Visit Grinding into Emptiness: <http://www.emptiness.net>
Visit Base Asylum: <http://www.angelfire.com/on/asylum/>
Remove NOSPAM to reply.
Tape Me Up
>why you should have a
>: different view on technology than you should on music?...
>
Because technology and music are different. Technology provides an objective
function, music's function is much more subjective--therefore, its value is
more subjective than most technology.
Art is concept--by saying that art's function is to be aesthetically pleasing
is a matter of personal opinion, but what other people consider "art" is still
there, whether it's worthy of the name or not, it's still worthy. Technology
is a tool--it is made to do something physical, not to be a tool for the
delivery of a concept. By reproducing the concept over and over again, it
becomes null--void--it devalues what it originally stood for because its
purpose is useless. This is the responsibility of the artist: to uphold the
value and signifigance of art by not allowing it to stagnate. Originality is
what keeps art alive.
When you say bands like Merzbow and whatnot have no talent because anyone can
do it is besides the point. Many of the greatest artists out there believe
that the artist should be kept far away from the craft as possible--it's the
concept that's being delivered that counts. Contrary to Mr. Tangent, I don't
believe art's purpose is to be a vehicle for personal expression--unless this
expression is a concept that's seperate from the artist as a subject. I could
care less what the artist felt while doing it and thus seeing/hearing their
product as a result of that.
Merzbow and the like is what's known as conceptual art--it's there to present
an idea, no matter what the means (it should be noted that art whose purpose is
to cause emotion is not conceptual art, unless the emotion is part of the
concept and not simply for emotion's sake). Bands such as those also present
the concepts that industrial was founded on--by discrediting these foundations
you're discrediting the existence of the music you listening to. Think of it
as Dada-ist art, or even Futurism to a degree. The bands you've stated span
movements from Minimalism to Systemic, all of them presenting concepts that
help perpetuate art as a function--all of them pushing the boundries of art,
statements on art themselves--just like music and industrial--pieces that exist
simply to comment on itself as a being in existence. Most of these ideas
conclude that art is purely for art's sake. Technology it is not.
~tape
"shit...everything shits until it dies"--Bukowski
downfall
>: Just answer the questions I asked.....Answer the questions instead of
>: dismission them as "irrelvant",,
actually, most of your points were answered by either myself or mr. tangent.
what i dismissed as "irrelevant" was just that. pointless to the argument i
was raising and, as a result, would just waste my time.
>name the kind of bands I asked you to name. (bands that implement parts >of
a previous bands style but are not derivative)
not being derivative...i'd say it's impossible to use portions of another
bands sound and *not* be derivative. you say incorporate, i say derivative.
it's really the same thing...
to satisfy this undying urge to argue i'll *assume* what you mean is
"derivative, but adding new and different elements" so, i'm going to repost
a portion of my previous post to this thread. aparantly you missed it.
"you certainly have a loose grasp on the argument, don't you? it's
incredibly possible to do so. infact, one of my favorite records, right
now, is disatrous din's _1_ and i'd be hard pressed to *not* hear sonar in
it...there are suitably enough changes within the sound that me keeping the
work. they've added keyboards, vocals at points and beefed up the sound,
quite a bit. that's enough, at this point. however, (and this is where,
apparantly, you lose track) after fifteen bands have already abducted the
sonar sound, and added, essentially, the same touches (to, admittedly,
different degrees) what's the point of owning disastrous din, if they were
band 16?"
>: justify why you should have a different view on technology than you
should >:on music?...
they are different things, and as such should be judged upon different
grounds. when my dog shits on the floor i don't judge her upon the same
grounds as i would a human who did the same thing? understand? they are
*different* and as such, should be judged *differently.*
> <SILENCE>
actually, this is the first time i've seen this post...
>Thanks...I rest my case.
Voltaire
: apparantly, you lose track) after fifteen bands have already abducted the
: sonar sound, and added, essentially, the same touches
well what to you are the "same touches" are to many people completely
different ideas and sound structures....I've never hear any Dive
of LS that sounded like Angel or Thorns or TUrns off Pain....so I dont
think that these sounded like they have just added a few "same touches"
You would be hard pressed to mention songs they strongly resemble...
:>: justify why you should have a different view on technology than you
: should >:on music?...
: they are different things, and as such should be judged upon different
: grounds. when my dog shits on the floor i don't judge her upon the same
: grounds as i would a human who did the same thing? understand? they are
: *different* and as such, should be judged *differently.*
Bad Bad Logic......Dont they teach logic at caltech?
"They are different things"? C'mon can you think of anything more creative
than that?
If a jock is trying to punch me, I say to myself (quickly)
"I should move out of the way."
A train is barrelling toward me:
I say to myself (quickly) "I should move out of the way".
I do NOT say. "a train and a jocks fist are two differnt things, therefore
they should be judged differently" and sit there mentally masturbating
about the noises the train makes until it runs me over.....
Jocks fists are meant to hurt me...trains headed in my direction are meant
to hurt me...they are different things, for sure, but I am certainly
going to judge them the same.....
Technology is supposed to make by life better..so is music , therefore
I will judge them the same..I will marvel at the Wright brothers inventions
go see their stuff in museum..but fuck me if I aint gonna go
get on a 747 to go to europe.......
Voltaire
: Voltaire wrote:
:>
:> : Just answer the questions I asked.....Answer the questions instead
:> : of dismission them as "irrelvant",,name the kind of bands I asked
:> : different view on technology than you should on music?...
:>
:>
:> Thanks...I rest my case.
: Hey, there always IS the possibility that downfall hasn't seen this
: yet. He posts quite erratically. However, he does answer anything
: directed to him when he sees it.
: On the other hand, I don't recall you ever answering his "A downfall
: act of kindness..." (Or whatever) thread that pointed out your blanket
: statements about power noise. I apologize if you have and I missed it.
: If you didn't, though, I'm sure you don't miss the irony/hypocrisy.
You must have missed it.
Besides... I never made blanket statements..I said
"most" not all. I'm sure there is some of that POwer Noise crap I would
like....however I would probably find more stuff I like at the Kmart
music section
Voltaire
: Voltaire wrote:
:>why you should have a
:>: different view on technology than you should on music?...
:>
: Because technology and music are different. Technology provides an objective
: function, music's function is much more subjective--therefore, its value is
: more subjective than most technology.
Alright
Take a Deep Breath.
Realize that the benefits of "technology" are quite subjective also...
Granted that while you could argue that art is "more" subjective than other
technology, you could, if you engaged in enough mental masturbation
(like i am about to)
argue that the value of technology could also be made almost entirely
subjective: For example, you have to look at a technologies detriments
as well as its benefits when determining if it is effecient technology.
Say I told you I had a cure for all disease. You would say that was an
a "very advanced" technology, right? What if I then told you that
my proposed cure was dropping the diseased person in a volcano..would
you still claim this cure to be advanced technology. No you wouldn't
because the negative effects of my "cure" (namely incineration) far
outweigh its theraputic effects. So you have to weigh a technologies
negative and positive aspects before you could make a judgement on its value
as technology, wouldn't you?
And that process of evaluating positives and negatives is
almost completely subjective, thus the value of any given piece of technology
is also subjective and based on the judgement, priorities and experinces of
the indivual..gee kinda like..art
I give the following examples:
1)
Yes cars let you get you from place to place faster,
but some people would prefer a bike because the longer time between
destinations allows them time to think and engage in needed introspection..
besides cars could make you fat and unhealthy.because you didnt walk...
yes maybe you saved an enormous amount of time because you had a car but
you took 30 years off your life because you arteries were so
clogged and unexercised. Cars get you there faster but bikes let you live
longer (which is more efficient? It all depends on your priorities and
judgements)
ANd these same cars poison our atmosphere and may
one day make this world unliveable.
Besides cars kill people all the time...go talk
to somone whose family has been killed in a car wreck about the technologcal
benefits of cars..and for those of you who would say that the only
relaible means to judge transportation technology is by how fast it gets
you there, regardless of the harm it does in the process, I have your
ideal means of transportation,,an InterContinentalBallisticMissle....just
strap your self on and press the little red button....so what if you
explode when you reach your destination?..you'll get there reeel fast
2)
Using computers is good, right? Gets things done faster, right? But then
you make your existance reliant on them and someting like the y2K
bug comes around and boom! potential armageddon
3)
Vaccines and other medicines are beneficial technology because they save
people, right? Or are they bad because they allow those weak
people who would otherwise die of sickness to live and breed, thus weakening
the race? Gee I guess the technological benefits of vaccines are pretty..gasp.
.subjective.
4)
A gun is a pretty efficient means to protect your family, until
your 3 year old son shoots himself in the mouth with it.
5)
Some girls like a vibrator that stimlates their clit, while others
like an extra extension for their ass. So which vibrator is more
technologically advanced?..guess it just depends on the chick.
(Or wait are vibrators art?)
6)
There is also a great cure for all known diseases called death....Stops the
disease cold in its tracks...yes death, the next medical breakthrough
All this is, I grant, an extreme case of mental wanking...one of my degrees
was in philosopy, so I know wanking well....however the point is this:
both nature and technology evolve using a process of gradual improvement,
not a magical teleportation from one point in the evolutionary scale
to another. Why we should dismiss this idea of "logical progession"
when it comes to art is beyond me. While you may put forward the argument
that art is in some ways different from technology, you are going to
have to elucidate why the differences between art and technology are
such that you can throw away all the conventional concepts of evolution
for some other notion of freakish continual mutation. In other words,
If you are trying to convince me that eating an apple is a bad thing, you are
going to have to give a better reason than apples are different from
oranges.
The crux of my argument is this.....everything in this world almost (note I
said "almost") without exception, evolves gradually, with small changes being
made, and an occasional freakish mutation. It works. Species have evolved
technology has advanced. Occasionally a freakish mutation or mindnumbing
invention comes along which greatly advances the species or technology,
but this is VERY rare, and not the genreal rule by with nature or the
world words. I should probably use the word "principle" instead of
"rule"..I dont like rules, but if there is some principle which
works effectively then I'm not going to discard if for something differnt
just because it is "conventional". (99% percent off all freakish mutations
dont make it in nature, and neither would they in human world. that is
why most experimental music is crap..cheap untalented Gristle
riipoffs..freakish mutations that fail and will never catch on in 1000
years)
Even computer scientist (undounbtedly some of the smarter people in this
world) try to create better programs by making SLIGHT mutations in them to
try and make them run more effeiciently ..they dont reprogram the
way Deep Blue computes a beneficial board position everytime a computer
gets beaten by a human..they jusy tweak the variables a little
This call for continual massive upheaval is reactionary crap by people
wishing to seem independant and indivdualistuiic but are actually simply
"inverse followers" Wise people know that while there are some
things about the status quo that need to be changed (be it in art, technology, or music) , there are also somethings which work just fine,
and the smart man knows how to pick and choose instead of demanding a
constant and unrealistic unheaval of everything that has come before, much
like a spoilt child demanding to have his diapers changed before he has
even finished shitting himself.
I like change , I like choas , it is necessary for existence, but I dont
have to have constant change...I am oftgen too busy being a pervert
or getting blasted to sit around twiddling my thumbs waiting for the
world to magically transform everytime I walk out of my house.
Locke
>downfall <swa...@mail.calltech.com> wrote:
>: they are different things, and as such should be judged upon different
>: grounds. when my dog shits on the floor i don't judge her upon the same
>: grounds as i would a human who did the same thing? understand? they are
>: *different* and as such, should be judged *differently.*
>
>Bad Bad Logic......Dont they teach logic at caltech?
>
>"They are different things"? C'mon can you think of anything more creative
> than that?
Huh? Since when is "good logic" required to be creative?
> If a jock is trying to punch me, I say to myself (quickly)
>"I should move out of the way."
>
> A train is barrelling toward me:
>I say to myself (quickly) "I should move out of the way".
Ah ... making bad analogies is more creative, I admit.
But is it better logic? Nope.
CU,
Locke
NP: Einstuerzende Neubauten "Ende Neu"
_ __ ___ _ __ ___ \\|||//
| | / \ / _/| |/ /| _| / @ @ \
| |__| || || |_ | \ | _| locke (| \ |)
|____|\__/ \__\|_|\_\|___| @fiasko.physik.uni-jena.de \__=__/
| |
Voltaire
: Voltaire wrote in rec.music.industrial:
:>downfall <swa...@mail.calltech.com> wrote:
:>: they are different things, and as such should be judged upon different
:>: grounds. when my dog shits on the floor i don't judge her upon the same
:>: grounds as i would a human who did the same thing? understand? they are
:>: *different* and as such, should be judged *differently.*
:>
:>Bad Bad Logic......Dont they teach logic at caltech?
:>
:>"They are different things"? C'mon can you think of anything more creative
:> than that?
: Huh? Since when is "good logic" required to be creative?
:> If a jock is trying to punch me, I say to myself (quickly)
:>"I should move out of the way."
:>
:> A train is barrelling toward me:
:>I say to myself (quickly) "I should move out of the way".
: Ah ... making bad analogies is more creative, I admit.
: But is it better logic? Nope.
Aw C'mon it may be corny..but all im tryin to say is just because two things
are not the same does not nessarily imply they should be treated differently
LrdFNS0099
>Some girls like a vibrator that stimlates their clit, while others
>like an extra extension for their ass. So which vibrator is more
>technologically advanced?..guess it just depends on the chick.
>(Or wait are vibrators art?)
man, i was with you up to here. everyone knows the ass extension vibrator is
more technologoically advanced...
lrdfns
downfall
>: they are different things, and as such should be judged upon different
>: grounds. when my dog shits on the floor i don't judge her upon the same
>: grounds as i would a human who did the same thing? understand? they are
>: *different* and as such, should be judged *differently.*
>
>Bad Bad Logic......
so i assume you think the nature, and judgement, of humans and dogs are on
the same level? explain, please.
here's another example of the same act being judged differently. an animal
eats her cubs just moments after their birth. at the same time, a woman in
california grabs her newly born child and devours it whole. do you judge
them the same way? would you say, "well, that sometimes happens. it's just
human nature." if you think both should be held up to the same moral
judgements, explain, please.
>Dont they teach logic at caltech?
actually, no they don't.
>"They are different things"? C'mon can you think of anything more creative
> than that?
>
> If a jock is trying to punch me, I say to myself (quickly)
>"I should move out of the way."
>
> A train is barrelling toward me:
>I say to myself (quickly) "I should move out of the way".
>
>I do NOT say. "a train and a jocks fist are two differnt things, therefore
>they should be judged differently" and sit there mentally masturbating
>about the noises the train makes until it runs me over.....
if you stood there and took the jocks blow there's a good possibility that
you can absorb it and fight back. that isn't an option with a train. train
= death. punch = a moment of pain. completely different and as such i
would look at each situation differently.
>Jocks fists are meant to hurt me...trains headed in my direction are meant
>to hurt me...
actually, unless your mortal enemy is driving the train and has tied you to
the tracks, i seriously *doubt* the person operating the train wants to hurt
you...
>they are different things, for sure, but I am certainly going to judge them
the same.....
so you think a jock's fist will kill you?
>Technology is supposed to make by life better..so is music , therefore
>I will judge them the same..
alright. i'll just give up, and argue your analogy. and show you that you
are *wrong* using your own bad analogy. you buy a vcr that costs two
hundered dollars. the next year, technology advances and you can buy,
essentially, the same vcr except, now the fast forward is a bit faster and
the rewind is, as well. also, the onscreen display has changed a bit. now,
do you go out and buy the newest model of vcr? that's a bit closer to
what's going on within post-industrial than your 747 and wright brothers
analogy.
Locke
> Locke <locke...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : Ah ... making bad analogies is more creative, I admit.
> : But is it better logic? Nope.
>
> Aw C'mon it may be corny..but all im tryin to say is just because two things
> are not the same does not nessarily imply they should be treated differently
Well, I know what you're trying to achieve but you have
some severe problems making absolute statements about
relative categories.
Different things have to be treated differently except in some
selected cases when a similar kind of treatment can be applied for
a well established reason. And bad analogies do not count as
a good reason for this.
As for the original point of this thread - wether a musical
progression is an improvement or not is a matter of your personal
preference. If you're happy with a new electro industrial release
that sounds like a '80s clone with better treble and better bass
due to better production - go for it! Don't waste your time
arguing with downfall about how much has to be original and how
much is allowed to be derivative. I don't think you'll ever agree,
anyway.
CU,
Locke
NP: Swans "Holy Money"
_ __ ___ _ __ ___ \\|||//
| | / \ / _/| |/ /| _| / @ @ \
| |__| || || |_ | \ | _| (| \ |)
|____|\__/ \__\|_|\_\|___| \__=__/
| |
Voltaire
: Voltaire wrote..
:>
:>Bad Bad Logic......
: so i assume you think the nature, and judgement, of humans and dogs are on
: the same level? explain, please.
Your analogy was not valid:
there is no valid analogy to be made betweeen art and technology vs dogs
and humans
: here's another example of the same act being judged differently. an animal
: eats her cubs just moments after their birth. at the same time, a woman in
: california grabs her newly born child and devours it whole. do you judge
: them the same way? would you say, "well, that sometimes happens. it's just
: human nature." if you think both should be held up to the same moral
: judgements, explain, please.
why are art and technology dissimilar in the same way that dogs and human are
dissimlar..make the connection? you cant
:>Dont they teach logic at caltech?
: actually, no they don't.
Not surprising
:>"They are different things"? C'mon can you think of anything more creative
:> than that?
:>
:> If a jock is trying to punch me, I say to myself (quickly)
:>"I should move out of the way."
:>
:> A train is barrelling toward me:
:>I say to myself (quickly) "I should move out of the way".
:>
:>I do NOT say. "a train and a jocks fist are two differnt things, therefore
:>they should be judged differently" and sit there mentally masturbating
:>about the noises the train makes until it runs me over.....
: if you stood there and took the jocks blow there's a good possibility that
: you can absorb it and fight back. that isn't an option with a train. train
: = death. punch = a moment of pain. completely different and as such i
: would look at each situation differently.
<Rolls eyes> SOmehow I thought you would engage in this nitpicking....
OK.....
substitue the jocks fist for a boulder rolling toward me
Boulder = death
TRain = death
they are differnt things (dont you agree?) however I should react to them
exactlt the same i.e. get the fuck out of the way....
:>Jocks fists are meant to hurt me...trains headed in my direction are meant
:>to hurt me...
: actually, unless your mortal enemy is driving the train and has tied you to
: the tracks, i seriously *doubt* the person operating the train wants to hurt
: you...
WILL hurt me then..not "meant to" yessh semantic
nitpicking will get you knowhere
: so you think a jock's fist will kill you?
like I said make it a fuckin boulder
:>Technology is supposed to make by life better..so is music , therefore
:>I will judge them the same..
: alright. i'll just give up, and argue your analogy. and show you that you
: are *wrong* using your own bad analogy. you buy a vcr that costs two
: hundered dollars. the next year, technology advances and you can buy,
: essentially, the same vcr except, now the fast forward is a bit faster and
: the rewind is, as well. also, the onscreen display has changed a bit. now,
: do you go out and buy the newest model of vcr? that's a bit closer to
: what's going on within post-industrial than your 747 and wright brothers
: analogy.
If you think Wumpscut sounds like sped up dive you are sadly mistaken
please start naming some similarities other than 4/4 time and distorted
vocals.
(Granted there are some W that sounds very similar....Dying culture....
Capital Punishment..but ther is stil ALOT that does not)
Where the LS songs like ANgel..lIke Thorns..like Pest, like Turns off Pain?
Like Overtures where? You take the ridiulous stance that wumpscut
is like an industrial duff daddy, taking others songs speeding them
up and adding a drumbeat.....find a trained musicolgist that will verfiy the
bullshit you are driveling then i'll start listening..but you cant'''
it will remain your own vapid ramblings, so no one of any sense is listneing
Voltaire
: is like an industrial duff daddy, taking others songs speeding them
oops I mean Puff Daddy
Damn right
are cheaper, sacrafices are made to that extent. Metal parts are
replaced with breakable plastic. sound quality has gone down, when
was the last time you saw a volume gain on a consumer VCR? Wasn't in
the 90's. Also remember JVC's HQ picture? It really improved vhs
quality. But now most vcr's that claim to have HQ only have 1 or two
of the three technologies to actually reproduce HQ results.
Nice new features sure, but loss of quality on the important ones.
sorry for the tangent.
Voltaire
: Different things have to be treated differently
why ?
what sort the statement logic motivates this statement
: except in some
:: selected cases when a similar kind of treatment can be applied for
: a well established reason.
no you have to show the disimiliarities that make the two
dissimlar..I have used silly
analogies that demonastrate technology just as subjective as art
: And bad analogies do not count as
: a good reason for this.
neither does your logic for the reverse
: As for the original point of this thread - wether a musical
: progression is an improvement or not is a matter of your personal
: preference.
No..in a world like downfalls music would never get anywhere because everybody
would be off in their own little corners making avant garde garbage that
no one except themselves and 23 freinds
would ever like and that no one could draw meaningful inspiration from,
because the idea of inspiration would be outlawed because that would mean
someone would be inspired by someone else.....If no one stood on anyone
else's shoulders, music, just like anything else, would never get off the
ground....THings simply woulnt work in downfalls deluded secluded
little universe. AS it is this genre of music will progress just fine
without his vapid commentary.
: If you're happy with a new electro industrial release
: that sounds like a '80s clone with better treble and better bass
: due to better production - go for it!
There is plenty of Electro with alot more new shit than the bass
turned up.....and there is crap in every genre...so what?
Hey if you want to sit around oohing and ahhing about some guy that
electrocuted his cat and ran it through an FX processor, hey go for it...
Voltaire
: Voltaire wrote:
:> are not the same does not nessarily imply they should be treated differently
: Well, I know what you're trying to achieve but you have
: some severe problems making absolute statements about
: relative categories.
Yes that means that the categories could arguably overlap.....
ANd If you paid any attention you'd notice that my opponents were the ones
who began making the absolute statements about relative categories
"Ie music and technology are dissimilar"....so maybe you should turn this
objection to their argument instead of mine
: due to better production - go for it! Don't waste your time
: arguing with downfall about how much has to be original and how
: much is allowed to be derivative. I don't think you'll ever agree,
: anyway.
Oh I doubt it....he just needs to admit that he;s engaging in so much mental
mastursbation trying in vain to use logic instead of personal preference
to justify his likes and dislikes.....If he likes his power noise so
be it..but if he sat and down and was honest with himself , he'd realize that
there's more talent in the music section of K-mart.
Its okay to like crap..we all do..just dont put shit on a pedestal and
expect it to do anyting but drip off...
Mr. Tangent
Voltaire <jrd...@unix.amherst.edu> to write:
>: so i assume you think the nature, and judgement, of humans and dogs are on
>: the same level? explain, please.
>
>Your analogy was not valid:
>
>there is no valid analogy to be made betweeen art and technology vs dogs
>and humans
I don't always agree with downfall, but I think his analogy was valid.
I'm not going to respond to anything else on the validity of analogies
or the alleged derivation of certain bands because we're going in
circles (downfall, Voltaire and I). Let's all agree that if you like
something, then listen to it... if not, then don't. How does that
sound?
<snip>
>If you think Wumpscut sounds like sped up dive you are sadly mistaken
>please start naming some similarities other than 4/4 time and distorted
> vocals.
>(Granted there are some W that sounds very similar....Dying culture....
>Capital Punishment..but ther is stil ALOT that does not)
Not every song by :wumpscut: sounds like Dive or Leæther Strip, but
Rudy is without a doubt influenced by both of those artists. The Dive
influence is especially evident on "Music for a Slaughtering Tribe".
The Leæther Strip influence is found on almost every :wumpscut: album.
>Where the LS songs like ANgel..lIke Thorns..like Pest, like Turns off Pain?
>Like Overtures where? You take the ridiulous stance that wumpscut
>is like an industrial duff daddy, taking others songs speeding them
>up and adding a drumbeat.....find a trained musicolgist that will verfiy the
>bullshit you are driveling then i'll start listening..but you cant'''
>it will remain your own vapid ramblings, so no one of any sense is listneing
Without going into the semantics of everything, you can't sit there
and tell me that a lot of :wumpscut:'s songs don't sound like Leæther
Strip. Sure he has some songs that sound dissimilar, but Rudy is
without a doubt influenced by Claus Larsen. As I've said before, this
isn't a bad thing. Influence is good. And "imitation is the highest
form of flattery". I happen to like :wumpscut: and Leæther Strip
both, but you cannot deny the influence.
Mr. Tangent [the binary police]
Mr. Tangent
Voltaire <jrd...@unix.amherst.edu> to write:
>No..in a world like downfalls music would never get anywhere because everybody
>would be off in their own little corners making avant garde garbage that
>no one except themselves and 23 freinds
And this somehow lessens the music they listen to? What does it
matter if 1 or 1 million people like something?
>would ever like and that no one could draw meaningful inspiration from,
>because the idea of inspiration would be outlawed because that would mean
>someone would be inspired by someone else.....If no one stood on anyone
>else's shoulders, music, just like anything else, would never get off the
>ground....THings simply woulnt work in downfalls deluded secluded
>little universe.
Neither downfall or I ever said that it's wrong to draw inspiration
from another band. It is almost IMPOSSIBLE to make anything - be it
art, music, literature - without being influenced by something else.
The difference here is the *extent* of influence. If someone merely
borrows ideas - and adds to them, then this isn't such a bad thing.
But what we are saying is a lot of the electro artists now aren't
really adding anything new. They're simply repackaging the same sound
and presenting it as something new. How many times can you listen to
"Front by Front", "Solitary Confinement", "Caustic Grip" or "Too Dark
Park" regurgitated? Most of the "new breed" of electro artists are
merely ripping off aforementioned albums.
I was drawn to electro-industrial because when I found the genre it
was still innovative - years later it became a simulcra of itself. A
pale, insipid, lifeless mockery of what it once was. At one time it
sounded fresh and unlike anything I had heard previously. But now,
with dozens of bands making nearly the exact same style, they all
sound alike. If I wanted to listen to the same stuff over and over I
wouldn't have stopped listening to pop music to begin with.
>AS it is this genre of music will progress just fine
>without his vapid commentary.
That's exactly the thing - it's NOT progressing. Progress denotes
movement forward. If you are standing still how can you say it's
"progress"?
In my mind the electro movement is *regressing*. And as a result, I
buy very little electro now. I want music that both entertains me and
*challenges* me. I don't want formulaic music that is simply the "new
*insert pioneering electro band here* ".
>Hey if you want to sit around oohing and ahhing about some guy that
>electrocuted his cat and ran it through an FX processor, hey go for it...
Hey if you want to sit around oohing and ahhing over the latest album
that sounds EXACTLY like every FLA/S.P./F242/DAF release before it,
hey go for it...
Meanwhile, I'll be over here listening to something that actually
sounds unique and non-formulaic.
When a style of music is reduced to a simple formula and is copied ad
infinitum that's usually a good indication that the music style is
dried up and it's time to move on.
Mr. Tangent [the binary police]
np: Atom Heart - Orange
Tape Me Up
>Realize that the benefits of "technology" are quite subjective also...
>Granted that while you could argue that art is "more" subjective than other
>technology, you could, if you engaged in enough mental masturbation
>(like i am about to)
>argue that the value of technology could also be made almost entirely
>subjective: For example, you have to look at a technologies detriments
>as well as its benefits when determining if it is effecient technology.
<snip>
ok, I see what you're getting at, and didn't you say something against mental
masturbation in a recent post? I mean, come on, both of us can go back and
forth and come up with stuff out of our asses to justify what we say and no one
would win.
Anyhow, to discuss what's there, what I meant by objective is that technology
is created to affect us physically--not created for us to purely put a
subjective value on it and to judge it, that's secondary. Art on the other
hand is created physically but its purpose is conceptual, the means being what
we see or hear or feel. Therefore its value is primary, it was created for
such a thing, therefore its ideals and existence should be judged as such
because that is what was intended. A VCR isn't created purely for people to
judge whether it's beneficial, it's created to allow us to watch movies via
tape. In other words, technology doesn't exist purely to help dictate if it's
"efficient technology"--it isn't created to just help define itself, where as
most art, and especially industrial music's ideals, are. This is it's primary
subjective purpose, as opposed to technologie's primary and idealy objective
one.
>I give the following examples:
<snip>
Examples don't prove anything. They help illustrate, but they cannot be used
as proof. For every example you give to help illustrate your point, anyone can
give a counter-example--using the same subject matter--to help illustrate their
point contrary to yours. It might help to not rely so much on examples and
analogies.
>2)
>Using computers is good, right? Gets things done faster, right? But then
>you make your existance reliant on them and someting like the y2K
>bug comes around and boom! potential armageddon
>
I'll use this one to help illustrate what I first wrote. The fact computers
weren't made to carry a y2k virus intentionally is regardless, they were still
made with a certain ideal and purpose in mind. Any subjective value put on it
is seperate from it's objective purpose and reason for existence.
>.however the point is this:
>both nature and technology evolve using a process of gradual improvement,
>not a magical teleportation from one point in the evolutionary scale
>to another.
Nature has proved otherwise--one way of evolving is in bursts due to necessity.
Evolving takes place in many different ways, not just gradual improvement.
>Why we should dismiss this idea of "logical progession"
>when it comes to art is beyond me.
No shit. Maybe it's because this idea of "logical progression" isn't strictly
held to art or anything else, period. Evolution isn't just improving in a
minor sense over and over, it's *change* in a particular direction. Some art
doesn't evolve at all, instead it just changes or happens in no specified
direction. Direction as in an advance is a subjective term anyhow, and
doesn't apply readily to logic. "Advance" is applied when defining evolution.
Therefore not everything evolves, instead it might just "change."
>While you may put forward the argument
>that art is in some ways different from technology, you are going to
>have to elucidate why the differences between art and technology are
>such that you can throw away all the conventional concepts of evolution
>for some other notion of freakish continual mutation.
Because freakish continual mutation is just as conventional. It exists and it
happens and has been successful not only in nature, but also in the art world.
Michelangelo's evolvment into mannerism wasn't gradual, it just happened
freakishly and is successful. Technology also has its "freakish" evolving
periods because it has to start somewhere.
>In other words,
>If you are trying to convince me that eating an apple is a bad thing, you are
>going to have to give a better reason than apples are different from
>oranges.
I was under the impression I had in the rest of my post.
>The crux of my argument is this.....everything in this world almost (note I
>said "almost") without exception, evolves gradually, with small changes being
>made, and an occasional freakish mutation. It works. Species have evolved
>technology has advanced. Occasionally a freakish mutation or mindnumbing
>invention comes along which greatly advances the species or technology,
>but this is VERY rare, and not the genreal rule by with nature or the
>world words.
What do you mean by "general"? If it happens, it happens--it's part of nature
and just as acceptable. Not to mention most people would argue if art and
technology is part of "nature" anyways, and can thus be counted seperate from
these laws of "evolution." Evolution in the natural world is a science,
evolution within concepts and the mind is a philosophy--and both are tackled
and viewed differently.
>(99% percent off all freakish mutations
>dont make it in nature, and neither would they in human world. that is
>why most experimental music is crap..cheap untalented Gristle
>riipoffs..freakish mutations that fail and will never catch on in 1000
>years)
Since when was experimental music part of nature and when should this same
concept of evolution be applied in the "human world" which is governed by laws
(if governed at all by laws) far different? Experimental music is conceptual,
it's purpose and ideals initially subjective because they seek out human
perception. Are ideas, created as far as we know by us humans within our minds
part of nature and thus follow the same rules? Is this the same with
perception? Shit, I don't even wanna know if I want to go into this--could
take forever.
>This call for continual massive upheaval is reactionary crap by people
>wishing to seem independant and indivdualistuiic but are actually simply
>"inverse followers" Wise people know that while there are some
>things about the status quo that need to be changed (be it in art,
>technology, or music) , there are also somethings which work just fine,
>and the smart man knows how to pick and choose instead of demanding a
>constant and unrealistic unheaval of everything that has come before, much
>like a spoilt child demanding to have his diapers changed before he has
>even finished shitting himself.
I don't think any of us were saying this or even mean it. Not to mention most
of what you say is your own personal views. And right now, we think there are
some things in the status quo that need to be changed. We never said that
everything dirivative was bad--too much derivativeness (is this even a word?)
and not enough innovation is. Right now too much of the former is happening.
And like downfall has repeated in the past, bands can be somewhat
derivative--borrowing ideas here and there--yet still add their own unique
touch, commentary, concept, technique and so on, rendering the piece unique
enough to be different from what they originally derived some parts from. Not
enough of this makes the "evolving" process much slower and makes the music
much more boring, especially since industrial music's ideals were based upon
innovation. The more bands that come out with this problem, the more we're
going to be prejudiced against them because it's hurting the scene (this has
been explained repeatedly also in other threads, including this one I believe).
And when did we say we wanted what came before to be upheaved? We like what
came before because it was part of innovation--it was unique. What we hate is
this shit that's comming out now that's sounding like what came before and is
adding nothing new, nothing interesting.
These "freakish" mutations of evolution are usually the ones most worthwhile,
because we learn much from them, and the successful ones change the world--who
wouldn't aim for this? MANY times in the art world freakish mutations have
happened and been successful--if not, then we've still learned a great deal
because it's a huge surge of *new* information.
I don't want constant change, I just want there to be more change. I think you
perhaps mispercieved what we were trying to say and thought that's what we
wanted, but that isn't the case.
~tape
Tape Me Up
>>such that you can throw away all the conventional concepts of evolution
>>for some other notion of freakish continual mutation.
>
>Because freakish continual mutation is just as conventional.
Take "continual" out of this sentence--I added it in by mistake.
downfall
>there is no valid analogy to be made betweeen art and technology vs dogs
>and humans
actually, i was just using your argument, and applying it to things *other*
than music and technology, in order to expose it for what it is. ie.
completely invalid and useless.
>why are art and technology dissimilar in the same way that dogs and human
>are dissimlar..make the connection? you cant
you are really retarded, aren't you? they are different at their most basic
of levels. music is a creative representation of man, not practical (ie.
it doesn't have a routine, day to day, purpose that makes life easier) and
it's an *unimportant* thing. technology is important in life, very
practical and not a creative representation of man. ie. man can exist
without music, but can not exist without technology.
very different things that should be judged differently. if your theory of
music and technology should be judged similarly because they "both evolve by
standing on the shoulders of others" held true then the dogs and humans
argument would hold true because evolution is a universal truth, and
everything evolves by "standing on the shoulders of other things." unless,
of course, you're a creationist....
as for the rest of your argument (that mastubatory manifesto posted
elsewhere in this thread)...it's all based off the fact that you can't read
and comprehend well.
>:>Dont they teach logic at caltech?
>: actually, no they don't.
>
>Not surprising
is it common for logic to be taught in the work place?
>they are differnt things (dont you agree?) however I should react to them
>exactlt the same i.e. get the fuck out of the way....
again they are different things. a train has a set course and can be
avoided by side stepping. a boulder, rolling down a hill, is an object that
is not on a certain path. so my judgement will be different. train = jump
off the tracks. boulder = run like hell until it's past me. they are both,
essentially, the same reaction but completely different in terms of what's
required physically. what this boils down to is that your whole argument is
worthless.
>WILL hurt me then..not "meant to" yessh semantic
>nitpicking will get you knowhere
it's more evidence that your argument holds no weight...
>like I said make it a fuckin boulder
see above....
>If you think Wumpscut sounds like sped up dive you are sadly
>mistaken
you missed the *whole* point, so i'll walk you through it. i've got leather
strip. (aka the vcr bought last year) and then rudy comes along (aka the
new vcr with new onscreen display etc.) and adds some dive and brings the
atmospheric, "goth" synth element (already existant in ls) higher in the
mix. now, answer the question. i've already got the older model, why
should i run out and buy the new model?
>please start naming some similarities other than 4/4 time and distorted
> vocals.
16th note programming is quite often *very* similar, "eerie" synth lines,
"aggressive" drum programming....i can get more speciffic, if you'd like,
but i haven't listened to :w: or leaether strip in a while, so it'd probably
take a day, or so.
>You take the ridiulous stance that wumpscut is like an industrial puff
daddy, >taking others songs speeding them up and adding a drumbeat.....
where did i say that? you are seriously misreading my arguments. i think
you should take some reading comprehension courses....
>find a trained musicolgist that will verfiy the bullshit you are driveling
>then i'll start listening..but you cant''' it will remain your own vapid
>ramblings, so no one of any sense is listneing
actually, most of *your* problem with my argument is the fact that you,
apparantly, can't comprehend it. maybe you need to go to dejanews and read
it over and over again.
Voltaire
Tape Me Up <tape...@aol.commienazi> wrote:
: Ok, I see what you're getting at, and didn't you say something against mental
: masturbation in a recent post?
No..I just said that we should admit when we are doing it
: I mean, come on, both of us can go back and
: forth and come up with stuff out of our asses to justify what we say and
: no one
: would win.
Apparently we are both doing our best.
: Anyhow, to discuss what's there, what I meant by objective is that technology
: is created to affect us physically--
really?
what about prozac? thats technolgy, isnt it? medicinal technology?
it certainly isnt art.....(unless you take too much and regurgitate it
on a canvas)..yet it only effects us mentally..much like art...
technology has a purpose: to transport, to speed up....
art has a pupose: to bring about catharsis, to educate, to instill fear, to
instill wonder.....nothing humans do is without a reason , no matter how
warped that reason.....any human that makes art has a reason, a goal in making
that art, just as any human that uses tools has a goal, an intent or reason
why they use those tools..
:not created for us to purely put a
: subjective value on it and to judge it,
people who create art have an intention, a goal...just like someone who uses
a ladder to climb a roof
technology requires a judgement as to it validity as technology
(see below)
: that's secondary. Art on the other
: hand is created physically but its purpose is conceptual, the means being
: what
: we see or hear or feel.
: Therefore its value is primary, it was created for
: such a thing, therefore its ideals and existence should be judged as such
: because that is what was intended.
: A VCR isn't created purely for people to
: judge whether it's beneficial, it's created to allow us to watch movies via
: tape.
:In other words, technology doesn't exist purely to help dictate if it's
: "efficient technology"--
:it isn't created to just help define itself, where as
: most art, and especially industrial music's ideals, are. This is it's
: primary
: subjective purpose, as opposed to technologie's primary and idealy objective
: one.
:>I give the following examples:
: <snip>
: Examples don't prove anything. They help illustrate, but they cannot be used
: as proof. For every example you give to help illustrate your point, anyone can
: give a counter-example--using the same subject matter--to help illustrate their
: point contrary to yours.
I am merely using examples to demonstrate that the logic you use cannot
withstand the weight you put on it.
The point is....that you CANNOT give anything but an ambigious definition
for art, just as you cannot give anything but an ambigious definition for
technology
For something to even be considered technology requires a subjective
judgement on the part of..someone.... I have a stick...it makes holes in the
ground when I poke it in the dirt..Is that technology? To me it is, but
to you it is useless..whose to say whether that stick is a piece of
technology? Its a subjective judment. I think dumping someone
in a volcano to cure a disease is technology....most would not..who's right
Im mean hey ..it elimates the disease.
You are somehow trying to assert the untrue notion that technology has
a certain concrete and fully defineable goal
Art and technology have the following similarity:
The purpose of art :To induce a certain mental state in
either yourself or in someone else or both
The purpose of technology: To induce a certain mental state in yourself
or in someone else of or both
What is the END result of having a car?...so you will have the
mental state in which you feel you have a sufficient amount of time
to accomplish whatever you need to at point B after you get there...
Why did the cave man invent the spear? so he would have the following state
of mind: he could feel safe (he has a spear so no one will attack him)
he could feel satiated (he can hunt) etc..granted their is a physical
intermediary action between himnself and the mental state, but the
end result of any technology is to put a person in a certain mental
state..be that relaxation,. comfort, security..whatever
granted there may be physical processes involved in reaching that state
of mind i.e using the car to drive somehwew or usinmg the spear to skewer
a boar or a threatening neighbor..but in the end goal of technology
is to achieve a certain mental state
:>2)
:>Using computers is good, right? Gets things done faster, right? But then
:>you make your existance reliant on them and someting like the y2K
:>bug comes around and boom! potential armageddon
:>
: I'll use this one to help illustrate what I first wrote. The fact computers
: weren't made to carry a y2k virus intentionally is regardless, they were still
: made with a certain ideal and purpose in mind.
What exactly was that purpose?..you say a "certain ideal and pupose" so
define it exactly, and without generalities..
you cannot.
(WHy did people invent knives...to stab A, to cut B, to saw C, to carve D
the list goes on......I think that no one who invents or uses anything
can truly define the possible breadth of puposes his work may have)
In actuality computers
were not made for a specific pupose, they were made for an ambigious
multitute of puposes, many of which thier creators knew they could not even
comprehend..technology is thus vague and open ended as is art
If I create an artificially intelligent robot, what is its "purpose"?
Suppose I simply wish to create such a being and turn it loose....is it
technology? Yes. But I had no intentions as to its pupose when I created
it, did i? So we can have technology with no specific physical goal in
mind, just as we can have art without a specfifc goal in mind.
ANd sometimes art can have a definitive physcial purpose, much like you
claim technology to have, and use as basis to distinguish it from
art. For example, I may make a statue to sell. Do you then consider that
statue technology and not art? It was created for a physical pupose, ie to
get money from someone else. SO that would makes it technology, right?
And what was the Trojan Horse? Art, or technology? Difficult decision.
And suppose I make a sharp pointy stick
with faces all over it. It is art right? Now suppose my mom picks it up and
uses it to spear a boar....is it art, or technology?
Ok let us suppose I wish to make a mask, called an Oooga Booga Mask that
will make all the girls want to bone me. I make this fancy contraption
that makes me look like Darth Vader on PCP....but It doesnt work...
so it isnt technology right? Okay now suppose that some weirdo art
critic sees my mask and gives it critical acclaim and I get all this
money from endorsements and people paying to come to my house and see
my Ooonga Boonga Mask...so now the mask is art, correct? Now suppose
me getting all this fame and fortune causes chicks to flock to me..
so the mask has actually fulfilled its physcial purpose, has it not?
So it IS technology....only because its art? Right? But I thought
technology and art were two distinct categories
..isnt that what you were saying? ANd what about those War propaganda movies
they showed during WWII at theatres....those were art, right?
Movies are art, right? But the purpose of making those movies was
to inspire fanaticism against the Nazis. And maybe the movies had the
physcological result of inspiring berserker like fanaticism in Americans...
thus it was "physchological technology" ..kinda like a less passive
version of an ink blot test...so it is technology....because it is art?
Right. Problematic for your disseparate Art Vs Technology argument.
ANd if I am wrong about what the WWI movies were, or what the oonga boonga
mask was, then what was it? And before you give some reply about the
"intentionality of the creator" let me give another example...
lets say Mr Megaptera wants to make a piece of Music (i.e. Art)...and
Mr Lustmord has been retained by the governments physchological warfare
division to make a sound that will scare cultists out of wherever
they are hunkered down at (ala Waco)..so say Mr Lustord and Mr Megaptera
come together, each with their differning intentions and as a team make
a fuckin scary ass song that scares the shit out of everyone that
hears it....it this sound "technology"? or is it "art"?..who's to say?
Does it follow your little set of rules for "art"?, or does it follow
you little set of rules for "technology"?
Apparently by your assertions "art" and "technology" are as differnent
as squares and triangles...and yet it seems here we have something that is
both..so how can you explain that? Your claims that technology posseses
some quality that art inherently lacks are now difficult to reconcile.
The point of all this is to demonstate the blurred and subjective line
between art and technology, and as we will find with ANY attempts at
categorizing ANYthing, all attempts to offer an all encompasing
and objective definition of art or technology will fail because both
are so perception dependant. IN the end all we can say is that both
technology and art are use of tools for a purpose. Let me predict how the
remainder of this thread will go..your reactionary ilk will continue
to assert that art and technology are fundamentally different concepts
by attacking minor flaws in my analogies and examples, and I will contine
to offer more valid objections against any attempt to classify art and
technology as two separate entities. You will claim thay X and Y are distinct
and differnt..I will continue to give examples of cases where something
is X because it iS Y and cases where something is Y because it is X...
any attempt to classify intangible categories of anything will untimately
fail because it is subjectively based....the only thing that can be
validly said it that both technology and art are use of tools for a purpose
:>.however the point is this:
:>both nature and technology evolve using a process of gradual improvement,
:>not a magical teleportation from one point in the evolutionary scale
:>to another.
: Nature has proved otherwise--one way of evolving is in bursts due to necessity.
there is no necessity...no alien race is going to come down and
destroy us if we dont churn out another dozen groundbreaking albums like
love's secret domain or radioactivity in the next decade
: Evolving takes place in many different ways, not just gradual improvement.
Bullshit 99 percent of freak mutations are terminal...they dont make
it very long because random mutations are rarely beneficial
Ask a biologist
:>Why we should dismiss this idea of "logical progession"
:>when it comes to art is beyond me.
: No shit. Maybe it's because this idea of "logical progression" isn't strictly
: held to art or anything else, period. Evolution isn't just improving in a
: minor sense over and over, it's *change* in a particular direction.
Yes but not teleporting in a differnt directions every day.
: Some art
: doesn't evolve at all, instead it just changes or happens in no specified
: direction.
Yes a novel concept appears....99 percent of the time, it fails,
because novel and novelly worthwhile are two different things...
1 percent
of the time it suceeds and then nature or society improves on that
concept for a signifcant amount of times...our ancestors did not
crawl out of the sea in one generation, then develop the
ability to walk upright in one generation, then develop language the next
generation, then develop tools the next generation..it took ALOT of time...
alot of beings changing gradually
: Direction as in an advance is a subjective term anyhow, and
: doesn't apply readily to logic. "Advance" is applied when defining evolution.
: Therefore not everything evolves, instead it might just "change."
Yes, and like EVERYTHING else in this world 99 percent of change is gradual
and 1 % is rapid....its called a bell curve
a concept is created...very rarely in any facet
of life is a concept created perfectly the first time..it takes many
ideas, from many people, many inspirations to draw out the totality of the
idea
:>for some other notion of freakish continual mutation.
: Because freakish continual mutation is just as conventional.
:It exists and it
: happens and has been successful not only in nature,
where?
occasional freakish mutation exists..it is the exception, not the rule
evolution does not hold its breath waiting for the next freakshow..it
trudges on nonetheless
: but also in the art world.
: Michelangelo's evolvment into mannerism wasn't gradual,
Michealango is one person. Coil is one band.
There are legions of artists who will never be Michelangelo, but
are still worthwhile nonetheless, just as there are legions of artists
who will never have the freakish innovation of COil, but are wholly
worthwhile nonetheless
:it just happened
: freakishly and is successful. Technology also has its "freakish" evolving
: periods because it has to start somewhere.
Once again, where?
Occasionaly yes, but we did not leap from alexander bell to the cell phone
overnight....most technological progess was gradual
:>In other words,
:>If you are trying to convince me that eating an apple is a bad thing, you are
:>going to have to give a better reason than apples are different from
:>oranges.
: I was under the impression I had in the rest of my post.
You did, just not very well
:>The crux of my argument is this.....everything in this world almost (note I
:>said "almost") without exception, evolves gradually, with small changes being
:>made, and an occasional freakish mutation. It works. Species have evolved
:>technology has advanced. Occasionally a freakish mutation or mindnumbing
:>invention comes along which greatly advances the species or technology,
:>but this is VERY rare, and not the genreal rule by with nature or the
:>world words.
: What do you mean by "general"? If it happens, it happens--it's part of nature
: and just as acceptable.
: Not to mention most people would argue if art and
: technology is part of "nature" anyways, and can thus be counted seperate from
: these laws of "evolution."
How different is a birds nest from the houses we live in? Do we consider
Beavers damns outside the realm of nature? Do we consider the honey
made by bees to be outside of nature? By what logic do we call ourselves
anything more than very intelligent animals? We eat, we shit (as anyone
who reads your posts will be continually reminded of) we die.
: Evolution in the natural world is a science,
: evolution within concepts and the mind is a philosophy--and both are tackled
: and viewed differently.
Well only if you are a dualist. Unless you want to put forth some
proof of an intangible "spirit" or a God, then everything that goes on
in our heads (the sort of thing that inspires us to create art) is a
physical process, which works by the laws of chemistry and physics...
the same physical and chemical laws which govern the working of our
inner mind also govern the totality of the outside world, including
evolution, technology, etc....I challenge you to assert that this is
not the case....metaphysical philosophy has a basis in science, whether
it is proveable or not..all other philospohy is mental wanking
:>(99% percent off all freakish mutations
:>dont make it in nature, and neither would they in human world. that is
:>why most experimental music is crap..cheap untalented Gristle
:>riipoffs..freakish mutations that fail and will never catch on in 1000
:>years)
: Since when was experimental music part of nature
all music (including experimental)
music is the same thing as the song of a bird..it is just as much a part
of nature as the ape howling and beating on his chest.....unless you are going to argue that music is only music if it is made with something other
than the voice, at which point people like Diamanda Galas and
Pavarotti might get very mad at you.
: and when should this same
: concept of evolution be applied in the "human world" which is governed by laws
: (if governed at all by laws) far different? Experimental music is conceptual,
: it's purpose and ideals initially subjective because they seek out human
: perception. Are ideas, created as far as we know by us humans within our minds
: part of nature and thus follow the same rules?
We are made of flesh..our minds are govered by the very same rules that
make the outside world the way it is, yes....
: Is this the same with
: perception?
We perceive....cats perceive,,,hamsters perceive..we just have the ability
to introspect a bit more
Shit, I don't even wanna know if I want to go into this--could
: take forever.
Probably
:>This call for continual massive upheaval is reactionary crap by people
:>wishing to seem independant and indivdualistuiic but are actually simply
:>"inverse followers" Wise people know that while there are some
:>things about the status quo that need to be changed (be it in art,
:>technology, or music) , there are also somethings which work just fine,
:>and the smart man knows how to pick and choose instead of demanding a
:>constant and unrealistic unheaval of everything that has come before, much
:>like a spoilt child demanding to have his diapers changed before he has
:>even finished shitting himself.
: I don't think any of us were saying this or even mean it. Not to mention most
: of what you say is your own personal views.
No. Change is good. Change merely for its own sake is silly
and unproductive
:And right now, we think there are
: some things in the status quo that need to be changed.
Amen....then change it. If someone needs to do something, then YOU
do it. Sitting around pontificating about it does nothing.
I think people need to get exposed to lots of talented but
grossly unnoticed musicians, old and new. I think it will broaden their
horizons, make them think and imagine more....
So I make mix tapes ,
distribute them, try to get people turned on to good bands, try to
start clubs nights and have events where people will hear this stuff, etc.
Im not sitting around bitching about all the Dj's who should be
playing Fetich Park instead of leatherstrip..you do not realize until
you immerse yourself in mainstream culture how :out there: all the
shit we talk about on this n.g. is.....what any scene needs is manpower..
sheer numerical numbers...and I hardly think there are enough people
in this scene to justify worrying about people fleeing it....we should
worry more about all the people who would love this kind of music
and use it as a base to explore a multitude of other styles, except for the
fact that they will never hear it because all the music stores they
ever go to are stocked with WHitney Houston and the Go-GO Dolls....my beleif
is that anything that gets catchy subversive music on the shelves is
a good thing and if that means a bunch of stuff with noticeable similarites
to leatherstrip , so be it...if you really want to do a service for all
the people type up a big list of bands that arent derivate and are
unique, and review them, then have it placed in the r.m.i faq as your
service to industrial fans for all eternity
: We never said that
: everything dirivative was bad--too much derivativeness (is this even a word?)
: and not enough innovation is.
Innovation in music is up to the indivudial. There can be a billion
derivative bands, that isnt goign to stop someone like Coil or Eistruzende
Neubaten from creating music, and it isnt going to stop those same bands
from being regonzied for their creativity. Even if isolation tanks
catalog doubled in size because off al the :W: knockoffs, they are
still gonna be selling the really really out there stuff..it will even
have its own little section....Its like saying all the disney movies coming
out
are suffocating the porn industry...it just wont
: Right now too much of the former is happening.
If the former gains new fans and thus news ideas, and fuel to the collective
fire, it can never be a bad thing...
: And like downfall has repeated in the past, bands can be somewhat
: derivative--borrowing ideas here and there--yet still add their own unique
: touch, commentary, concept, technique and so on, rendering the piece unique
: enough to be different from what they originally derived some parts from. Not
: enough of this makes the "evolving" process much slower
its there..you just need to look further before bitching....the most
beautiful pearls are buried deep in the ocean,,you will not find them
waiting on your pillow
: and makes the music
: much more boring,
in your opinion yes...I mean some people fall in love with something and
never get sick of it..its called marriage (or the way marriage was meant
to be, anyway)....Newness is good, but sometimes nostolgia with a twist
can be fun, also...the truth is if Every wumpscut song sounds like LS to
you, you probably just arent that big of a fan of the style...I dont
like classical, and I would be hard pressed to tell one song in that style
from another, but Im not going to say it all "sounds the same"
: especially since industrial music's ideals were based upon
: innovation.
industrial is about fucking shit up, period...
industrial is the music of machines...machines EVOLVE via technology
I think I rest my case
: The more bands that come out with this problem, the more we're
: going to be prejudiced against them because it's hurting the scene
how?
where?
show me numbers.....
look at some of the playlists posted around here....
alot of simimlar stuff like that wasnt getting almost any airplay in the 80's
Metropolis is doing pretty fuckin well....242 wasnt a small fish
to catch....and taking all the intricacy out of their soongs and adding
boom-chuck-boom-chuck boom and going on tour
wasnt all that innvoative, but I'd say
they made some new fans, who will proabably get into cooler shit latter
on in their life....
: And when did we say we wanted what came before to be upheaved? We like what
: came before because it was part of innovation--it was unique. What we hate is
: this shit that's comming out now that's sounding like what came before and is
: adding nothing new, nothing interesting.
"Nothing new" is term which is thrown around with too much ease in this
n.g. people have a tendencey to take similarities and paint them with
wwwwaaayy to broad a brush
: These "freakish" mutations of evolution are usually the ones most worthwhile,
: because we learn much from them, and the successful ones change the world--who
: wouldn't aim for this?
: MANY times in the art world freakish mutations have
: happened and been successful--
MANY? like who? how many Dali's were there? how many Geigers?
I'd say occasionally....do you know how many fuckin artists this world has
seen? Legions....
:if not, then we've still learned a great deal
: because it's a huge surge of *new* information.
new does not neceassarily mean helpful useful informative or interesting
What is the benefit of your mother constantly lecturing you about
the "oob of fubs" or "the reason your glub should schlack"?
: I don't want constant change, I just want there to be more change.
Then change yourself . Change your underwear. Change the way others think
by example, not by belittling others efforts to do basically the same thing
you are. The fact is, VAC and noisex both make by baptist aunt
itch, and for that I commend them both. Just because you'd rather blast
peoples minds open with a shot gun doesnt mean you should bitch because
someone else tries to pry it open with a crow bar.
: I think you
: perhaps mispercieved what we were trying to say and thought that's what we
: wanted, but that isn't the case.
Or was just looking for someone to argue with :)
Voltaire
downfall <swa...@mail.calltech.com> wrote:
: Voltaire wrote...
:>there is no valid analogy to be made betweeen art and technology vs dogs
:>and humans
: actually, i was just using your argument, and applying it to things *other*
: than music and technology, in order to expose it for what it is. ie.
: completely invalid and useless.
there is quite simply NO connection between the differnces between art
and technology and the differrnces between cats and people
:>why are art and technology dissimilar in the same way that dogs and human
:>are dissimlar..make the connection? you cant
: you are really retarded, aren't you? they are different at their most basic
: of levels. music is a creative representation of man, not practical (ie.
: it doesn't have a routine, day to day, purpose that makes life easier) and
: it's an *unimportant* thing.
see my posts to your buddy tape worm
: technology is important in life,
ahhhhhhh...now you are using the terms "important" and "unimportant"
in what is supposed to be an objective arguement.....ha those arent
ambigious terms AT ALL
: very
: practical and not a creative representation of man. ie. man can exist
: without music, but can not exist without technology.
our ancestors existed for quite awhile without technology
: very different things that should be judged differently. if your theory of
: music and technology should be judged similarly because they "both evolve by
: standing on the shoulders of others" held true then
:the dogs and humans
: argument would hold true because evolution is a universal truth, and
: everything evolves by "standing on the shoulders of other things." unless,
: of course, you're a creationist....
dogs are less evolved
than humans...
no one is argueing that technology is more or less evolved than art, are
they?
something you would have learned if you ever took a logic class is the
following:
there are two kinds of differnces..differences of degree and differences
of kind......so using an argument about a differnce in degree (ie the
intellectual diffence between dogs and humans) has no bearing in an
argument regarding differnces of KIND (i.e. the alleged differnce between
art and technology)
: as for the rest of your argument (that mastubatory manifesto posted
: elsewhere in this thread)...it's all based off the fact that you can't read
: and comprehend well.
Okay Mr Clinton..what is your definition of "is"?
:>:>Dont they teach logic at caltech?
:>: actually, no they don't.
:>
:>Not surprising
: is it common for logic to be taught in the work place?
No just something that helps your arguments make sense
:>they are differnt things (dont you agree?) however I should react to them
:>exactlt the same i.e. get the fuck out of the way....
: again they are different things. a train has a set course and can be
: avoided by side stepping. a boulder, rolling down a hill, is an object that
: is not on a certain path. so my judgement will be different.
I KNEW you would say this....OKAY
Situation 1) A TRAIN IS APPROACHING....AND I AM ON
THE TRACKS...what should I do?
Situation 2) A ROLLERCOASTER IS APPROACHING....AND I AM ON
THE TRACKS...what should I do?
TRAINS AND ROLLERCOASTERS ARE "DIFFERENT", RIGHT? however I should react
to them the same right? (step out of their path)
thanks
:>WILL hurt me then..not "meant to" yessh semantic
:>nitpicking will get you knowhere
: it's more evidence that your argument holds no weight...
its only evidence that my parents did not force me out of diapers too soon.
: see above....
:>If you think Wumpscut sounds like sped up dive you are sadly
:>mistaken
: you missed the *whole* point, so i'll walk you through it. i've got leather
: strip. (aka the vcr bought last year) and then rudy comes along (aka the
: new vcr with new onscreen display etc.) and adds some dive and brings the
: atmospheric, "goth" synth element (already existant in ls) higher in the
: mix. now, answer the question. i've already got the older model, why
: should i run out and buy the new model?
:>please start naming some similarities other than 4/4 time and distorted
:> vocals.
: 16th note programming is quite often *very* similar, "eerie" synth lines,
: "aggressive" drum programming....i can get more speciffic, if you'd like,
: but i haven't listened to :w: or leaether strip in a while, so it'd probably
: take a day, or so.
there is much more in any given song than the crap you are listing
I could name a thousand similar features of Mr.T and O.J...
physically describing them you may note many similarties...
but when you actually LOOK at them you will see they are quite different and
you cannot
mistake one of them for the other unless you are some cock-eyed Klansman
:>You take the ridiulous stance that wumpscut is like an industrial puff
: daddy, >taking others songs speeding them up and adding a drumbeat.....
: where did i say that? you are seriously misreading my arguments. i think
: you should take some reading comprehension courses....
puff daddy is sped up with a few new features (i.e. different lyrics)
added... his music is the kind of thing that fits you VCR analogy more
appropriately
:>find a trained musicolgist that will verfiy the bullshit you are driveling
:>then i'll start listening..but you cant''' it will remain your own vapid
:>ramblings, so no one of any sense is listneing
: actually, most of *your* problem with my argument is the fact that you,
: apparantly, can't comprehend it. maybe you need to go to dejanews and read
: it over and over again.
You give shitty examples to justify your points....comparing :W: to sped
up leatherstreip is just stupid. You analogies are neither amusing nor
appropriate...what more is there to say?
Voltaire
: On 19 Mar 1999 17:10:16 -0500, with raygun in hand the aliens forced
: Voltaire <jrd...@unix.amherst.edu> to write:
:>No..in a world like downfalls music would never get anywhere because everybody
:>would be off in their own little corners making avant garde garbage that
:>no one except themselves and 23 freinds
: And this somehow lessens the music they listen to? What does it
: matter if 1 or 1 million people like something?
:>would ever like and that no one could draw meaningful inspiration from,
:>because the idea of inspiration would be outlawed because that would mean
:>someone would be inspired by someone else.....If no one stood on anyone
:>else's shoulders, music, just like anything else, would never get off the
:>ground....THings simply woulnt work in downfalls deluded secluded
:>little universe.
: Neither downfall or I ever said that it's wrong to draw inspiration
: from another band. It is almost IMPOSSIBLE to make anything - be it
: art, music, literature - without being influenced by something else.
: The difference here is the *extent* of influence. If someone merely
: borrows ideas - and adds to them, then this isn't such a bad thing.
: But what we are saying is a lot of the electro artists now aren't
: really adding anything new. They're simply repackaging the same sound
: and presenting it as something new.
Yep just like all them black folks look alike..(sarcasm)
changes are if you cant tell the differnce between :W: and leatherstrip,
your probably about as big a fan of the genre as Klansmen are of black people
: I was drawn to electro-industrial because when I found the genre it
: was still innovative - years later it became a simulcra of itself. A
: pale, insipid, lifeless mockery of what it once was. At one time it
: sounded fresh and unlike anything I had heard previously. But now,
: with dozens of bands making nearly the exact same style, they all
: sound alike. If I wanted to listen to the same stuff over and over I
: wouldn't have stopped listening to pop music to begin with.
See my response to mr tape and downfall
:>AS it is this genre of music will progress just fine
:>without his vapid commentary.
: That's exactly the thing - it's NOT progressing. Progress denotes
: movement forward. If you are standing still how can you say it's
: "progress"?
: In my mind
"In my mind".....
Im glad you prefaced your statement with this phrase....In MY mind when I
shit it turns
into a bird and flys away..what occurs in the outside world is very different
the electro movement is *regressing*. And as a result, I
: buy very little electro now. I want music that both entertains me and
: *challenges* me. I don't want formulaic music that is simply the "new
: *insert pioneering electro band here* ".
:>Hey if you want to sit around oohing and ahhing about some guy that
:>electrocuted his cat and ran it through an FX processor, hey go for it...
: Hey if you want to sit around oohing and ahhing over the latest album
: that sounds EXACTLY like every FLA/S.P./F242/DAF release before it,
: hey go for it...
I dont hear it..maybe the genre just doesnt interetst you enough
: Meanwhile, I'll be over here listening to something that actually
: sounds unique and non-formulaic.
: When a style of music is reduced to a simple formula and is copied ad
: infinitum that's usually a good indication that the music style is
: dried up and it's time to move on.
Yep its time for me to stop fucking people..they all look the same..
thy;ve all got eyes ears nose a mouth man the list goes on and on....
Locke
> Locke <locke...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : Different things have to be treated differently
>
> why ?
> what sort the statement logic motivates this statement
Simple logic, plain and simple logic.
> : except in some
> :: selected cases when a similar kind of treatment can be applied for
> : a well established reason.
>
> no you have to show the disimiliarities that make the two
> dissimlar..
Well, since your mind doesn't seem to run on simple logic I'll
use some silly analogy as well.
If you have a liquid that is different from beer, would you drink it?
No, you wouldn't unless you have a very good reason to treat this
liquid the same as beer (i.e. drinking it), and that reason would
be the similarity that both liquids are beverages (Cola and beer
for instance).
> : As for the original point of this thread - wether a musical
> : progression is an improvement or not is a matter of your personal
> : preference.
>
> No..in a world like downfalls music would never get anywhere because everybody
> would be off in their own little corners making avant garde garbage that
> no one except themselves and 23 freinds
> would ever like and that no one could draw meaningful inspiration from,
> because the idea of inspiration would be outlawed because that would mean
> someone would be inspired by someone else.....
Ugh ... you're ignorant and arguing with an ignorant fool makes me
look like an idiot, so I will stop right here ...
P.S.: If you don't like to be called ignorant then re-read and
UNDERSTAND downfall's posts on this matter.
CU,
Locke
NP: Sandow "Stachelhaut"
Mr. Tangent
Voltaire <jrd...@unix.amherst.edu> to write:
>Yep just like all them black folks look alike..(sarcasm)
>changes are if you cant tell the differnce between :W: and leatherstrip,
>your probably about as big a fan of the genre as Klansmen are of black people
I've listened to electro-industrial for about ten years now and
Leæther Strip was one of the first bands I got into from this genre.
I can tell the two apart - I never said I couldn't. I've just stated,
several times, that there isn't much forward progression from
L-Strip's sound evident in :wumpscut:'s music.
>: In my mind
>
>"In my mind".....
>Im glad you prefaced your statement with this phrase....In MY mind when I
>shit it turns
>into a bird and flys away..what occurs in the outside world is very different
"In my mind" is simply a figure of speech. Everything we put forth on
this newsgroup is tainted by opinion. Your attempt to disqualify my
statement solely by the fact that is influenced by personal opinion
isn't very fair, nor valid.
>: Hey if you want to sit around oohing and ahhing over the latest album
>: that sounds EXACTLY like every FLA/S.P./F242/DAF release before it,
>: hey go for it...
>
>I dont hear it..maybe the genre just doesnt interetst you enough
Who said anything about interest? I'm very interested in
electro-industrial. I'm so interested that I hope it moves forward
beyond the present state of stagnation that seems to have encapsulated
most artists within the genre.
>: When a style of music is reduced to a simple formula and is copied ad
>: infinitum that's usually a good indication that the music style is
>: dried up and it's time to move on.
>
>Yep its time for me to stop fucking people..they all look the same..
>thy;ve all got eyes ears nose a mouth man the list goes on and on....
You're grabbing for defenses here. I would hope that you would fuck
only one person, with whom you find qualities that are unique and
inspiring. I would rather have sex with one individual who was just
that - an individual and singular. Rather than fucking hundreds that
were just like everyone else.
Example: that one person being a music style that was unique and, for
the sake of my analogy, "progressive and singular". ie. a band that
stood above the crowd and challenged the musical conventions and tried
new things, thus experimenting.
The "everyone else" being a huge faceless and bland sea of flesh, whom
all shared similar qualities and were plain in every way. Thus, these
would be the clone bands that were content being like everyone else.
If every band was content in being like everyone else we wouldn't have
industrial music. There would be no :wumpscut: for you to enjoy, as
the Throbbing Gristle's, SPK's or John Cage's wouldn't have been
motivated to do something different. They would've merely made
rock'n'roll or something else that was "safe and sterile" to make
everyone, like you, happy. Or better yet, rock'n'roll wouldn't have
even been a musical style because everyone would've thought "hey, why
change when we can make the same thing over and over again?"
Voltaire
For massive loads of intelligent fans,
it does fine. There are plenty of people doing overly
weird and kooky things. Wumpscut is not inhibiting them.
Wumpscut is making the genre new fans and is entertaining plenty of
intelligent-
openminded people. Yes everything is opinion. Some opinion is merely based
on the warped notion that simply because something bears noticeable
resemblances to something that came before, it just isn't cool or progressive.
There are lots of things that make things memorable songs that
experimental music takes out//like melody....I mean hey all those
regular songs have....gasp..melody...very derivative....
I mean its like all these crackheads that bitch about leeb's
music as if he pulled a puff daddy with enigmas first album or whatever...
totally ridiculuos....yeah he only added like 10 fucking layers of sound
to the songs but hey so lets bitch about that one track loop he borrowed
from somewhere else..yeesh...if you dont like it cause your preppy
sister likes it then just admit thats why instead of hiding behind
this innovation and originality garbage ....
There is absolutely no point in doing some shit just to be weird....
if you do something simply because everybody else ISNT doing it , you are just
as much a slave to society, but in a warped way...
Do it because it touches your soul..not just make your mom mad.
It is rather obvious that some people just like to slag anything which gains
any semblance of popularity...or which you can dance to
Dayv!
> downfall <swa...@mail.calltech.com> wrote:
> : Voltaire wrote...
> : you are really retarded, aren't you? they are different at their most basic
> : of levels. music is a creative representation of man, not practical (ie.
> : it doesn't have a routine, day to day, purpose that makes life easier) and
> : it's an *unimportant* thing.
>
> see my posts to your buddy tape worm
>
> : technology is important in life,
>
> ahhhhhhh...now you are using the terms "important" and "unimportant"
> in what is supposed to be an objective arguement.....ha those arent
> ambigious terms AT ALL
Perhaps "necesarry" would be a better term...
> : very
> : practical and not a creative representation of man. ie. man can exist
> : without music, but can not exist without technology.
>
> our ancestors existed for quite awhile without technology
No, they didn't. At least, not until you go all the way back to something
more ape than man. The had much simpler technology, of course, but a stone weapon
or a fire started from flint sparks is just as much an example of technology as
the VCR that this argument can't seem to forget.
> something you would have learned if you ever took a logic class is the
> following:
> there are two kinds of differnces..differences of degree and differences
> of kind......so using an argument about a differnce in degree (ie the
> intellectual diffence between dogs and humans) has no bearing in an
> argument regarding differnces of KIND (i.e. the alleged differnce between
> art and technology)
The fact that you have taken a course in logic does not automatically render
your arguments clear, intelligent, or logical. You use spurious logic and
distracting, meaningless analogies. Furthermore, you cloud your argument with
inflammatroy and distracting examples, such as your constant need to compare
everything to fucking.
> :>:>Dont they teach logic at caltech?
> :>: actually, no they don't.
> :>
> :>Not surprising
> : is it common for logic to be taught in the work place?
>
> No just something that helps your arguments make sense
Give it a shot then.
> TRAINS AND ROLLERCOASTERS ARE "DIFFERENT", RIGHT? however I should react
> to them the same right? (step out of their path)
> thanks
They're really not very different. They both use the same basic technology of
wheels on tracks. However, they are both used to very different effect. A train
is internally powered and serves a purpose of transportation. When you depart a
train, you are rarely at the same point at which you started. A rollercoaster
serves a purpose of amusement. When you depart a rollercoaster, you are exactly
where you started. IMO, your logic is more like a roller coaster. You are
correct in the statement that if you are on the tracks (a very stupid place to be)
then you should get the hell out of the way.
Just my $.02...
> :>WILL hurt me then..not "meant to" yessh semantic
> :>nitpicking will get you knowhere
>
> : it's more evidence that your argument holds no weight...
>
> its only evidence that my parents did not force me out of diapers too soon.
<cheap shot> Perhaps they have waited too long. You are a bit old to be
wearing them now. </cheap shot>
--
-Dayv!
"It's lonely being a cannibal, bitch."
Tape Me Up
>Tape Me Up <tape...@aol.commienazi> wrote:
>
>: Ok, I see what you're getting at, and didn't you say something against
>mental
>: masturbation in a recent post?
>
>No..I just said that we should admit when we are doing it
And by admitting it, it makes it ok? As opposed to not admitting it, it's not
valid or ok?
>: Anyhow, to discuss what's there, what I meant by objective is that
>technology
>: is created to affect us physically--
>
>really?
>what about prozac? thats technolgy, isnt it? medicinal technology?
>it certainly isnt art.....(unless you take too much and regurgitate it
>on a canvas)..yet it only effects us mentally..much like art...
Prozac and other medicines do affect us physically. Our mental effect is
induced by the physical. Prozac helps our brain emit a chemical that keeps us
from feeling too depressed and so on. That's why it's prescribed for *clinical
depression* among other things. Other medicines have things in them that kills
germs or gives us nutrients and so on, which affect us physically, and thus
helps us feel better. Just like a comfy arm chair helps us feel better at the
end of a long, hard day.
>technology has a purpose: to transport, to speed up....
>art has a pupose: to bring about catharsis, to educate, to instill fear, to
>instill wonder.....nothing humans do is without a reason , no matter how
>warped that reason.....any human that makes art has a reason, a goal in
>making
>that art, just as any human that uses tools has a goal, an intent or reason
>why they use those tools..
>
I never said otherwise. I said they both had a purpose, just that their
purposes were different.
>:not created for us to purely put a
>: subjective value on it and to judge it,
>
>people who create art have an intention, a goal...just like someone who uses
>a ladder to climb a roof
Yes...I think you're missing my point. I'm sorry if that's my fault for not
being entirely clear.
>technology requires a judgement as to it validity as technology
>(see below)
Since when was "technology" a relative term? I thought it was a noun--a
person, place, or thing. If it's technology, I'd say it's a valid form of
technology..
>I am merely using examples to demonstrate that the logic you use cannot
>withstand the weight you put on it.
And I do the same without using examples, I take your arguments and look at
them directly--I don't skirt them with questionable examples. Which is more
logical as to it's purpose?
>The point is....that you CANNOT give anything but an ambigious definition
>for art, just as you cannot give anything but an ambigious definition for
>technology
I don't find them very ambiguous. I thought I put them in fairly simple terms
for you to understand. I'm sorry if you are unable to understand them, but
then perhaps you should say "I don't understand" instead of still trying to
argue a point you're not sure of.
>For something to even be considered technology requires a subjective
>judgement on the part of..someone.... I have a stick...it makes holes in the
>ground when I poke it in the dirt..Is that technology? To me it is, but
>to you it is useless..whose to say whether that stick is a piece of
>technology? Its a subjective judment.
Not at all. This is another example that's not helping anything. If the stick
has a purpose with a practical end to help further this person for whatever
reason by poking holes in the ground, then it is technology because it DOES
have a use such as that. Technology is a noun, so is a tree, but do the
existence of trees depend on subjective judgment?
>Art and technology have the following similarity:
>
>The purpose of art :To induce a certain mental state in
>either yourself or in someone else or both
Plenty of artists would disagree with this. Some art has that purpose, others
are like literature--they present a concept through creative means, not to
induce a state whether it be mental or physical.
>The purpose of technology: To induce a certain mental state in yourself
>or in someone else of or both
So taking the stick and poking holes in the ground for whatever purpose induces
a mental state?
>What is the END result of having a car?...so you will have the
>mental state in which you feel you have a sufficient amount of time
>to accomplish whatever you need to at point B after you get there...
I don't think people created cars for that reason, though. Which is my point:
cars were created to get you somewhere faster and more efficiently--the mental
state is secondary. Art, on the other hand, is created soley for that one,
mental purpose. See what I mean?
>Why did the cave man invent the spear? so he would have the following state
>of mind: he could feel safe (he has a spear so no one will attack him)
>he could feel satiated (he can hunt) etc..granted their is a physical
>intermediary action between himnself and the mental state, but the
>end result of any technology is to put a person in a certain mental
>state..be that relaxation,. comfort, security..whatever
See above. But in addition, art isn't in existence to create simply a mental
state in the first place--so see even further above. There purposes are stiff
different. The fact technology had this "physical intermediary action" makes
it very different from art, because that "physical intermediary action" is a
huge part in the existence of that piece of technology. If it didn't exist, it
wouldn't be technology. Some artists, on the other hand, largely minimalists,
will go so far with their logic as to say art shouldn't exist because it is
pure concept. Some traditional industrial music is also founded on the
minimalist art movement. See what I'm getting at?
>granted there may be physical processes involved in reaching that state
>of mind i.e using the car to drive somehwew or usinmg the spear to skewer
>a boar or a threatening neighbor..but in the end goal of technology
>is to achieve a certain mental state
Technology isn't created because one is searching for a mental state.
Initially one sees a problem, then they use technology to help solve this
problem and in turn make themselves feel better. People utilize plenty of
technology because it's secondary--they don't have any mental state whatsoever
while using it. There is so much technology abound today, it'd be mental
overload if we were to have a mental state induced upon us with the use of
every form of technology. Pouring flouride in our drinking water is technology,
but when I drink it I don't feel anything--hell I even forget it's there.
>What exactly was that purpose?..you say a "certain ideal and pupose" so
>define it exactly, and without generalities..
>you cannot.
>(WHy did people invent knives...to stab A, to cut B, to saw C, to carve D
>the list goes on......I think that no one who invents or uses anything
>can truly define the possible breadth of puposes his work may have)
>In actuality computers
>were not made for a specific pupose, they were made for an ambigious
>multitute of puposes, many of which thier creators knew they could not even
>comprehend..technology is thus vague and open ended as is art
How could something be made for use if its purpose is ambiguous? You need to
know what it does before you can design it. Some technology is open-ended, but
hardly vague--I know what most technology was intended to do, and can even make
it do things it wasn't intended to do. Knives were made to stab, cut, slice
initially, AS WELL as being open to doing other things--this is unavoidable.
>If I create an artificially intelligent robot, what is its "purpose"?
>Suppose I simply wish to create such a being and turn it loose....is it
>technology? Yes. But I had no intentions as to its pupose when I created
>it, did i?
Of course you did. Your purpose in creating it was so it could be turned
loose. You said so yourself that every human has a reason, and its purpose
will reflect the reason you created it.
>So we can have technology with no specific physical goal in
>mind, just as we can have art without a specfifc goal in mind.
Didn't you say previously that art and technology both had goals and purposes?
You're contradicting yourself, how am I supposed to argue logically with you?
>ANd sometimes art can have a definitive physcial purpose, much like you
>claim technology to have, and use as basis to distinguish it from
>art.
You must have missed in my previous posts as to when I also distinguished from
other forms of art.
>For example,
oh boy...
>I may make a statue to sell. Do you then consider that
>statue technology and not art? It was created for a physical pupose, ie to
>get money from someone else.
Ever hear of commercial art? Commercial art is different from fine art. I'd
consider industrial music fine art. Commercial art technology? Nope. The
statue you made was created for the purpose of getting money from someone else,
but the statue itself has no purpose but to stand still and do nothing to aid
people in any physical way, as opposed to a chair that sits still and does
nothing, yet people use to sit on. The statue's purpose is for it to stand
there and for people to look at and think about, thus it's main reason for
being, the main reason a person would buy it, would be to contemplate it.
Therefore its main purpose is that of concept because they have no other use
for it standing up and sitting still.
>And what was the Trojan Horse? Art, or technology? Difficult decision.
Yes there is such a thing as functional art, but it's purpose for functioning
is to strengthen the concept for which it was made. The Trojan Horse is
technology, the Trojan's considered it art purely out of ignorance. Say if i
was a caveman, and I see a walkman, I wouldn't know what to consider it because
I wouldn't know what it is--yet if its purpose became known to me, I'd know it
was technology then. And people wonder why I'm opposed to the philosophy that
"art can be anything." Art has a definition, as does technology. They can be
stretched and bent, but they wont ever be the same.
>And suppose I make a sharp pointy stick
>with faces all over it. It is art right? Now suppose my mom picks it up and
>uses it to spear a boar....is it art, or technology?
Really bad art, because it wasn't made to spear a boar.
>Ok let us suppose I wish to make a mask, called an Oooga Booga Mask that
>will make all the girls want to bone me. I make this fancy contraption
>that makes me look like Darth Vader on PCP....but It doesnt work...
>so it isnt technology right?
I never said technology has to work, it just has to be created for a practical
purpose (and you know what I mean by practical).
>Okay now suppose that some weirdo art
>critic sees my mask and gives it critical acclaim and I get all this
>money from endorsements and people paying to come to my house and see
>my Ooonga Boonga Mask...so now the mask is art, correct?
Read above what I said about "ignorance."
And even if they did know what it was originally used for, they could consider
it art simply because they thought it looked beautiful, which is another
function of art, beauty being subjective. Even though I, personally, have a
hard time swallowing that any one art piece should be considered art simply
because it's beautiful, but that's another discussion.
>Now suppose
>me getting all this fame and fortune causes chicks to flock to me..
>so the mask has actually fulfilled its physcial purpose, has it not?
Not in the way it was idealy intended, which is one of the things that
seperates both.
>So it IS technology....only because its art? Right?
nope.
>ANd what about those War propaganda movies
>they showed during WWII at theatres....those were art, right?
>Movies are art, right? But the purpose of making those movies was
>to inspire fanaticism against the Nazis.
Listen, before you say anything further about art, take some art classes.
Inspiring fanatacism is part of the concept, but there's a whole mess of things
to consider when trying to convey a concept that will inspire--that is one of
the duties of an artist--such things as composition, what images, sounds,
frames, clips, times, etc to use in helping to bring across this concept, and
so on. Not to mention I'm a firm believer that emotions are in part conceptual
in themselves.
<snip the rest>
>Apparently by your assertions "art" and "technology" are as differnent
>as squares and triangles...and yet it seems here we have something that is
>both..so how can you explain that? Your claims that technology posseses
>some quality that art inherently lacks are now difficult to reconcile.
>
I see what you're getting at, but you need to understand that there are many
different forms of art and like I said previously--industrial music (which is
the point of this tangeant) is one kind. Some art is VERY different from
technology, others can be compared, and therefore the lines be a little
muddled. I've said this previously. Not to mention, when you see something
and dub it "art" or "technology" you are therefore rendering them different,
and causing them to be treated as different because you percieve them as
different. Your analogies in other posts about reacting to things the same
that are different, and thus making them the same, I find to be the most
fundamentally wrong analogies I've read so far. But I wont get into that
discussion--this one is already far too long.
>The point of all this is to demonstate the blurred and subjective line
>between art and technology, and as we will find with ANY attempts at
>categorizing ANYthing, all attempts to offer an all encompasing
>and objective definition of art or technology will fail because both
>are so perception dependant.
Yet they are still generally two different things. Likewise you cannot say
they are both completely the same because they are "perception dependant."
There are still definitions that apply when you dub something art or
technology, because they aren't the same thing. Sure, you will always come
across something that will be shady, and yes, defining it will call upon
perception. What you're getting at is that everything is relative and
subjective--this sort of thinking has to be discounted in a discussion because
it's a wall, a shield--even though I somewhat agree with it. Yes, there will
be holes in such things, but that doesn't mean it's invalid and should be kept
from discussion, because the rest of the construct still has to be dealt with.
Personally, I think art and technology are as different as night and day, and
I've pointed out to you above my reasons for thinking so by discounting your
examples.
>Let me predict how the
>remainder of this thread will go..your reactionary ilk will continue
>to assert that art and technology are fundamentally different concepts
>by attacking minor flaws in my analogies and examples,
Then stop using examples. Give me an example without a flaw. I predict you
can't because one doesn't exist.
>and I will contine
>to offer more valid objections against any attempt to classify art and
>technology as two separate entities. You will claim thay X and Y are distinct
>and differnt..I will continue to give examples of cases where something
>is X because it iS Y and cases where something is Y because it is X...
>any attempt to classify intangible categories of anything will untimately
>fail because it is subjectively based....the only thing that can be
>validly said it that both technology and art are use of tools for a purpose
Ok. I can see this happening. But let me say this--as far as I know, there are
kinds of technology: technology and high technology. And then there are MANY
forms of art. Art for a common reason, yet very different from technology are
most.
>there is no necessity...no alien race is going to come down and
>destroy us if we dont churn out another dozen groundbreaking albums like
>love's secret domain or radioactivity in the next decade
Most people believe there is a necessity--I for one do, because I think parts
of the scene are stagnating.
>: Evolving takes place in many different ways, not just gradual improvement.
>
>Bullshit 99 percent of freak mutations are terminal...they dont make
>it very long because random mutations are rarely beneficial
And this should apply to conceptual creativity as well as in nature how and
why?
>Yes but not teleporting in a differnt directions every day.
Which is all I want.
>Yes a novel concept appears....99 percent of the time, it fails,
>because novel and novelly worthwhile are two different things...
>1 percent
>of the time it suceeds and then nature or society improves on that
>concept for a signifcant amount of times...
And I should ask a biologist about this? Hell, I'd prefer it if parts of the
scene didn't stagnate and just came out with different stuff even if it wasn't
very successful, because we could at least learn from that. Most artists don't
even try, though...which is my big beef.
>Yes, and like EVERYTHING else in this world 99 percent of change is gradual
>and 1 % is rapid....its called a bell curve
>a concept is created...very rarely in any facet
>of life is a concept created perfectly the first time..it takes many
>ideas, from many people, many inspirations to draw out the totality of the
>idea
And all I want are more chances and more changes to learn from--not ALL changes
like you seem bent on assuming. For every successful industrial project out
there, ones we consider experiments, you're saying there are 99 more to each
one out there? I don't think so...oh and I'll be looking into that biologist to
see what he thinks about these figures.
>: Because freakish continual mutation is just as conventional.
>:It exists and it
>: happens and has been successful not only in nature,
>
>where?
>occasional freakish mutation exists..it is the exception, not the rule
>evolution does not hold its breath waiting for the next freakshow..it
>trudges on nonetheless
>
If it exists in nature, it too is a biological fact and exists on laws and
"rules." It simply doesn't happen as often. But we're not talking about
nature, we're talking about music.
>: but also in the art world.
>: Michelangelo's evolvment into mannerism wasn't gradual,
>
>Michealango is one person. Coil is one band.
>There are legions of artists who will never be Michelangelo, but
>are still worthwhile nonetheless, just as there are legions of artists
>who will never have the freakish innovation of COil, but are wholly
>worthwhile nonetheless
Not to the people or the scene they are hurting. They are worthwhile when not
in large, redundant masses that have lost meaning long ago.
>Once again, where?
>Occasionaly yes, but we did not leap from alexander bell to the cell phone
>overnight....most technological progess was gradual
Technological progress, sure, but that's because "progress" is a part of the
word "evolution." Whenever a new invention occurs, it has been a "freakish"
leap from nothing to something.
>How different is a birds nest from the houses we live in? Do we consider
>Beavers damns outside the realm of nature? Do we consider the honey
>made by bees to be outside of nature? By what logic do we call ourselves
>anything more than very intelligent animals? We eat, we shit (as anyone
>who reads your posts will be continually reminded of) we die.
>
We think, we rationalize, we use logic--we create using logic, rationale, and
thought. Oh, and we shit.
>Well only if you are a dualist. Unless you want to put forth some
>proof of an intangible "spirit" or a God, then everything that goes on
>in our heads (the sort of thing that inspires us to create art) is a
>physical process, which works by the laws of chemistry and physics...
>the same physical and chemical laws which govern the working of our
>inner mind also govern the totality of the outside world, including
>evolution, technology, etc....I challenge you to assert that this is
>not the case....metaphysical philosophy has a basis in science, whether
>it is proveable or not..all other philospohy is mental wanking
Well that's just it--it's something no one can be sure of, and because of this,
we see them as something different. Perhaps in time science will put to light
these subjects, or perhaps they never will and never can. And perhaps
philosophy will dash them to the ground again. Camus was a metaphysical
philosopher, and his conclusions defied any scientifical explanation.
>all music (including experimental)
>music is the same thing as the song of a bird..it is just as much a part
>of nature as the ape howling and beating on his chest.....unless you are
>going to argue that music is only music if it is made with something other
>than the voice, at which point people like Diamanda Galas and
>Pavarotti might get very mad at you.
Both are created differently still...see above.
>We are made of flesh..our minds are govered by the very same rules that
>make the outside world the way it is, yes....
>
>
>
I don't think anyone has been able to prove this or the likes thereof. There
are far too many unanswered questions raised about it.
>We perceive....cats perceive,,,hamsters perceive..we just have the ability
>to introspect a bit more
We also have the ability to percieve differently at will.
>No. Change is good. Change merely for its own sake is silly
>and unproductive
>
Tell that to the futurists. Anyhow, we're still not advocating change for
change's sake..we're advocating it for stagnation's sake.
>Amen....then change it. If someone needs to do something, then YOU
>do it. Sitting around pontificating about it does nothing.
I'm doing my darndest to try...one way to help is by pointing out the problem
to others so they will notice it...can't solve a problem without pointing out
to others what it is and what its nature is.
>my beleif
>is that anything that gets catchy subversive music on the shelves is
>a good thing and if that means a bunch of stuff with noticeable similarites
>to leatherstrip , so be it...
Sure, this is good to a degree; not when this sort of stuff becomes the norm of
the genre and then proceeds to define it, thus getting people rather bored and
irritated with it. Sure, one or two bands that break away from a particular
stagnating heap, such as ebm and most elektro, is good, but not enough to keep
you tied to the scene.
>Innovation in music is up to the indivudial. There can be a billion
>derivative bands, that isnt goign to stop someone like Coil or Eistruzende
>Neubaten from creating music, and it isnt going to stop those same bands
>from being regonzied for their creativity. Even if isolation tanks
>catalog doubled in size because off al the :W: knockoffs, they are
>still gonna be selling the really really out there stuff..it will even
>have its own little section....Its like saying all the disney movies coming
>out
>are suffocating the porn industry...it just wont
>
See above. People will eventually see all the knockoffs who popularize
industrial music. People will say "yeah, industrial's just a bunch of
repetative, same-sounding crap...not worth more than a handful of good bands."
Those hand full of good bands will not keep someone tied to the scene, and the
rest of the bands would devalue the artistic integrity the industrial scene
once had and what kept me loyal to it--hell, it's the reason I came into the
scene.
>: And like downfall has repeated in the past, bands can be somewhat
>: derivative--borrowing ideas here and there--yet still add their own unique
>: touch, commentary, concept, technique and so on, rendering the piece unique
>: enough to be different from what they originally derived some parts from.
>Not
>: enough of this makes the "evolving" process much slower
>
>its there..you just need to look further before bitching....the most
>beautiful pearls are buried deep in the ocean,,you will not find them
>waiting on your pillow
And there's our difference of perception. On the top, I can notice the
differences, but overall it sounds the same--when I dig, I find that it's even
more the same than I had originally thought.
>also...the truth is if Every wumpscut song sounds like LS to
>you, you probably just arent that big of a fan of the style...I dont
>like classical, and I would be hard pressed to tell one song in that style
>from another, but Im not going to say it all "sounds the same"
>
I'm very much into the style--hell it used to be all I listened to. Now I've
come to different genres to find stuff that was new, and not the same. Digging
is good in your music, but not when you have to dig SO MUCH into a band's music
to find differences because it sounds so much alike...I think that's an artist
being irresponsible..especially if there are tons and tons of others doing the
same thing he is.
>industrial is about fucking shit up, period...
>industrial is the music of machines...machines EVOLVE via technology
>I think I rest my case
>
Yeah, I think you know everything about industrial music.
>how?
>where?
>show me numbers.....
so far I've seen more people post about the scene being hurt than people
defending it.
>242 wasnt a small fish
>to catch....and taking all the intricacy out of their soongs and adding
>boom-chuck-boom-chuck boom and going on tour
>wasnt all that innvoative, but I'd say
>they made some new fans, who will proabably get into cooler shit latter
>on in their life....
>
Either that or get tired with it and just move on not thinking the scene is
even worth digging through to find a few innovative acts.
>MANY? like who? how many Dali's were there? how many Geigers?
>I'd say occasionally....do you know how many fuckin artists this world has
>seen? Legions....
And there are so many art movements and artists that you or I havn't even heard
of yet because their magnitude is so great, yet they still have their own
followings or fanbases, or are considered very worthwhile by plenty of critics.
Some just don't get *famous* for it.
>new does not neceassarily mean helpful useful informative or interesting
>
>What is the benefit of your mother constantly lecturing you about
>the "oob of fubs" or "the reason your glub should schlack"?
I wouldn't consider that information in the first place. And it's my personal
belief that any information and knowledge is good for progress or change.
>Then change yourself . Change your underwear. Change the way others think
>by example, not by belittling others efforts to do basically the same thing
>you are.
How am I belittling? If it's boring, repetative, redundant music then to me
that's a fact--I'm not going to say opinion because you might see it
differently, but I sure as hell wouldn't be able to understand why. And
perhaps I am changing the way others think, or attempting to, with these posts
even. Who are you to say I'm not doing my part? I make mix tapes like crazy
too, I'm even thinking of starting a night at my school where I give a lecture
on industrial music and introduce them to it, not to mention I'm constantly
making recommendations to friends.
>The fact is, VAC and noisex both make by baptist aunt
>itch, and for that I commend them both. Just because you'd rather blast
>peoples minds open with a shot gun doesnt mean you should bitch because
>someone else tries to pry it open with a crow bar.
So you're bitching about me bitching, huh?
>: I think you
>: perhaps mispercieved what we were trying to say and thought that's what we
>: wanted, but that isn't the case.
>
>Or was just looking for someone to argue with :)
>
Yeah I might as well admit I can be quite guilty of that as well, so you found
the right person.
Mr. Tangent
Voltaire <jrd...@unix.amherst.edu> to write:
>Its very simple. Wumpscut is not weird and kooky enough for YOU.
I like :wumpscut: - i've liked his stuff for a few years now,
actually. It's not :w: that I'm aiming my message at. It's all the
Funker Vogt/Seven Trees out there. They're all great at what they do,
and sound remarkably like Skinny Puppy/FLA/L-Strip - which, in a
perverse way, is admirable. But you have to admit they're not the
most original acts out there. If you happen to enjoy listening to
them, then that's great. I used to like listening to such bands, but
I got really tired of listening to the same thing over and over. I
guess it's a matter of contentment and patience one has with
something. I happen to have very little patience with bands that
regurgitate stuff repeatedly (and this goes for bands like Leæther
Strip who sometimes repeat themselves several albums through).
>For massive loads of intelligent fans,
>it does fine. There are plenty of people doing overly
>weird and kooky things.
It's not so much about weirdness. I do happen to like esoteric acts,
but I don't want weirdness, pop, noise or any one thing - I just want
a newness of sound, within whatever genre it happens to fall in. I'm
not against electro-industrial acts. I happen to really enjoy this
genre of music, I'm just wanting bands (such as Lassigue Bendthaus)
that challenge the framework, and at least attempt to offer something
that sounds different.
>Wumpscut is not inhibiting them.
>Wumpscut is making the genre new fans and is entertaining plenty of
>intelligent-
>openminded people.
True, I certainly like quite a few :wumpscut: tracks. I have all his
material (barring some ridiculously out of print items and the new
material, which I have yet to order).
>Yes everything is opinion. Some opinion is merely based
>on the warped notion that simply because something bears noticeable
>resemblances to something that came before, it just isn't cool or progressive.
It has nothing to do with being "cool". To quote a great and noble
historian and playwright: "Homey don't play that game"
But, some progress is needed to keep my interests. It's okay to sound
similar to other artists - just as long as the band in question is
genuinely attempting to infuse some new element into whatever they're
adding to. There are some brilliant examples of this (Front 242
adding to the sound that Kraftwerk created - yet retained enough of
their own sound as to eliminate any Kraftwerk clonisms).
>There are lots of things that make things memorable songs that
>experimental music takes out//like melody....I mean hey all those
>regular songs have....gasp..melody...very derivative....
I never said that you can't have melody. Lard knows I love melody.
Just as equally I love noise. As I've touched on previously, deriving
influence from previous acts isn't "wrong" nor is it avoidable. The
only way a band could create "entirely original" music devoid of
influence is if they had *never* heard any music before them. To
listen to something is to be, albeit if only on a subconscious level,
influenced.
>I mean its like all these crackheads that bitch about leeb's
>music as if he pulled a puff daddy with enigmas first album or whatever...
>totally ridiculuos....yeah he only added like 10 fucking layers of sound
>to the songs but hey so lets bitch about that one track loop he borrowed
>from somewhere else..yeesh...
I still like FLA too, but he is a little blatant and obvious in his
sampling. Other artists do it much more subtlety. I think the
problem with FLA (and side projects) is that he creates too much
music. He should take a break in between albums and try to come up
with some inspiring and unique music, instead of pumping out album
after album.
Quality over quantity!
>if you dont like it cause your preppy
>sister likes it then just admit thats why instead of hiding behind
>this innovation and originality garbage ....
I could care less if *insert band here* is popular. It was never
about popularity in my case. It's about stagnation and listening to
boring, repetitive music again and again.
Even my favorite bands/albums get old if I put them endlessly on
repeat. I want diversity. Perhaps that is the key issue here that
hasn't been put forth. A lot of people get tired of *insert genre
here* because they listen to music that is ONLY in that genre. To
combat genre overload fatigue, the solution is to listen to many
different genres (as I do) to get a break from whatever it is you're
getting "too much of". I listen to at least 80% (or more) of what
could be considered either electronic/ambient/idm/noise/industrial but
yet I have to listen to other stuff occasionally so as not to get
incredibly bored and/or agitated by my industrial cds. That's what
Tori Amos, Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, Cure, Portishead, Primus, Pink
Floyd, Tool, David Bowie and Radiohead (among others) are for.
>There is absolutely no point in doing some shit just to be weird....
I would rather see a band do "something weird" as opposed to something
safe, homogeneous and uninventive.
>if you do something simply because everybody else ISNT doing it , you are just
>as much a slave to society, but in a warped way...
Me thinks you're confusing social rebellion with musical invention.
>Do it because it touches your soul..not just make your mom mad.
>It is rather obvious that some people just like to slag anything which gains
>any semblance of popularity...or which you can dance to
True, but I've not once said that something has to be insanely obscure
to gain my respect. If you scroll up you'll see that I happen to
enjoy a few popular acts (NIN comes to mind), but I think most of the
real invention/ground breaking work is being done in new, unseen areas
of music (ie. unclassifiable). But, as you've so insistently pointed
out, I too grow tired of listening to experimental music constantly.
But, on the whole, I'd rather listen to hours of experimental - and
interesting works - over the prospect of listening to hours of
listless and derivative works. Of course, no one is arguing that
there aren't some great derivative works out there, as there is
horrible pieces of experimental material. There's great things in all
genres, it's all about personal taste and what you find exciting. :)
Infrazone
> I just want
>a newness of sound, within whatever genre it happens to fall in. I'm
>not against electro-industrial acts. I happen to really enjoy this
>genre of music, I'm just wanting bands (such as Lassigue Bendthaus)
>that challenge the framework, and at least attempt to offer something
>that sounds different.
Mr. Tangent, I think that all of us want this as well, bands that challenge and
offer a different sound. You said yourself in one of your comments (btw I
throughly enjoy reading your posts) that for innovation to occur, it takes
individuals to rise above the crowd and essentially lead and create. Why not
let this be yourself? If you feel so strongly, then you must act upon the
challenge and let this be your inspiration.
Doug Dauzvardis
I know I'm jumping back into this a little late, but i haven't had
internet access for awhile (spring break and all). Sorry if I rehash
anything that's already been covered.
On Fri, 19 Mar 1999, Mr. Tangent wrote:
>
> I don't always agree with downfall, but I think his analogy was valid.
> I'm not going to respond to anything else on the validity of analogies
> or the alleged derivation of certain bands because we're going in
> circles (downfall, Voltaire and I). Let's all agree that if you like
> something, then listen to it... if not, then don't. How does that
> sound?
>
We've been saying that one for years, Tangent. But no one ever seems to
listen....
> <snip>
> Not every song by :wumpscut: sounds like Dive or Leæther Strip, but
> Rudy is without a doubt influenced by both of those artists. The Dive
> influence is especially evident on "Music for a Slaughtering Tribe".
> The Leæther Strip influence is found on almost every :wumpscut: album.
>
<snip>
> Without going into the semantics of everything, you can't sit there
> and tell me that a lot of :wumpscut:'s songs don't sound like Leæther
> Strip. Sure he has some songs that sound dissimilar, but Rudy is
> without a doubt influenced by Claus Larsen. As I've said before, this
> isn't a bad thing. Influence is good. And "imitation is the highest
> form of flattery". I happen to like :wumpscut: and Leæther Strip
> both, but you cannot deny the influence.
>
> Mr. Tangent [the binary police]
>
Seems pretty silly to be arguing about Dive and Strip being influences.
Hell, Rudy himself has said that :w: WAS based on Claus's work from the
beginning (this is from the same interview in Industrial natioN that was
mentioned earlier). He's also a huge Dive fan, and similarities in sound
arose because he used a simlar programming technique in his early work.
This is why MFAST and the other early :w: had that Dirk Ivens feel to it.
I'm not saying that it's entirely accidental, but he doesn't sit down and
say "I'm going to make music that cmbines the styles of Dive and Leaether
Strip", as some people seem to imply. Influences tend to work much more
subtly.
>DouG<
Doug Dauzvardis
> you missed the *whole* point, so i'll walk you through it. i've got leather
> strip. (aka the vcr bought last year) and then rudy comes along (aka the
> new vcr with new onscreen display etc.) and adds some dive and brings the
> atmospheric, "goth" synth element (already existant in ls) higher in the
> mix. now, answer the question. i've already got the older model, why
> should i run out and buy the new model?
>
This is very simple to answer. Did you ever find yourself wishing that the
rewind on your vcr was faster? If so, it might be worth it to you to buy
the new model. Maybe some people wished that Dive were a bit more
dance-oriented, or that Strip put a higher emphasis on the atmospheric
stuff. To these people, :w: fills their needs. you buy the new model
because it satisfies something you found to be deficient in the original.
If you're happy with the old one, then of course you have no reason to
rush out and buy the new one. But why condemn someone who likes the new
changes if they suit them?
>DouG<
Voltaire
all sound the same to me..cuz classical isnt my thing im not sitting there
looking for the differences
I still say If your paying attention theres a good half of :W: discography
that
you aint gonna mistake for anything else
Apparently what the fundamnetal distinction we make here is that you value
weirdness over talent, I do the opposite. I would rather listen to something
complex and enjoyable, regardless of its temporal relationship to similar
works. Yes there is a certain amount of experimentation that must
go one before you start getting professionally weird..I mean scatology
isnt all that complex but its still worthwhile cauze you can see all that
lo-tek weirdness actually evolved into something...but since your talking
about innovation, I dont know why the noise snobs dont stop and think how
derivative the music they listen is of EN and TG..i mean these bands are
less scuplted and structured than Kraftwerk..so it is not as easy
to see the parrallels between them and later day noise bands, but rest
assured those parralels exist, just as those between Kraftwerk
and leatherstrip.
VelvetHeaven
: On 22 Mar 1999 06:22:43 -0500, with raygun in hand the aliens forced
: Voltaire <jrd...@unix.amherst.edu> to write:
:>Its very simple. Wumpscut is not weird and kooky enough for YOU.
: I like :wumpscut: - i've liked his stuff for a few years now,
: actually. It's not :w: that I'm aiming my message at. It's all the
: Funker Vogt/Seven Trees out there.
Oh ok then what arfe we arguing about..heh
VelvetHeaven
: Voltaire wrote:
:> Locke <locke...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:> : Different things have to be treated differently
:>
:> why ?
:> what sort the statement logic motivates this statement
: Simple logic, plain and simple logic.
:> : except in some
:> :: selected cases when a similar kind of treatment can be applied for
:> : a well established reason.
:>
:> no you have to show the disimiliarities that make the two
:> dissimlar..
: Well, since your mind doesn't seem to run on simple logic I'll
: use some silly analogy as well.
: If you have a liquid that is different from beer, would you drink it?
: No, you wouldn't unless you have a very good reason to treat this
: liquid the same as beer (i.e. drinking it), and that reason would
: be the similarity that both liquids are beverages (Cola and beer
: for instance).
i HAVE GIVEN NUMEROUS instances of the ambiguious and similar nature
of art adn technology..I have seen no one even try and refute them except
to dismiss them as pointless or whatever..
VelvetHeaven
:>Tape Me Up <tape...@aol.commienazi> wrote:
:>
:>: Ok, I see what you're getting at, and didn't you say something against
:>mental
:>: masturbation in a recent post?
:>
:>No..I just said that we should admit when we are doing it
: And by admitting it, it makes it ok? As opposed to not admitting it, it's not
: valid or ok?
Yes its called being honest with yourself
:>: Anyhow, to discuss what's there, what I meant by objective is that
:>technology
:>: is created to affect us physically--
:>
:>really?
:>what about prozac? thats technolgy, isnt it? medicinal technology?
:>it certainly isnt art.....(unless you take too much and regurgitate it
:>on a canvas)..yet it only effects us mentally..much like art...
: Prozac and other medicines do affect us physically.
So does music..the ear vibrates, the vibrations get tranmistted to our brain
and THEN we get affected mental
: Our mental effect is
: induced by the physical. Prozac helps our brain emit a chemical that keeps us
: from feeling too depressed and so on. That's why it's prescribed for *clinical
: depression* among other things.
: Other medicines have things in them that kills
: germs or gives us nutrients and so on, which affect us physically,
what about placebo sugar pills that magically cure people because they
"beleive it is curing them"....is the placebo effect art?
and thus
: helps us feel better. Just like a comfy arm chair helps us feel better at the
: end of a long, hard day.
:>technology has a purpose: to transport, to speed up....
:>art has a pupose: to bring about catharsis, to educate, to instill fear, to
:>instill wonder.....nothing humans do is without a reason , no matter how
:>warped that reason.....any human that makes art has a reason, a goal in
:>making
:>that art, just as any human that uses tools has a goal, an intent or reason
:>why they use those tools..
:>
: I never said otherwise. I said they both had a purpose, just that their
: purposes were different.
SO if I create art to get money from someone is it art or technology..
:>:not created for us to purely put a
:>: subjective value on it and to judge it,
:>
:>people who create art have an intention, a goal...just like someone who uses
:>a ladder to climb a roof
: Yes...I think you're missing my point. I'm sorry if that's my fault for not
: being entirely clear.
:>technology requires a judgement as to it validity as technology
:>(see below)
: Since when was "technology" a relative term? I thought it was a noun--a
: person, place, or thing. If it's technology, I'd say it's a valid form of
: technology..
since you havent aswered how to definite it
:>I am merely using examples to demonstrate that the logic you use cannot
:>withstand the weight you put on it.
: And I do the same without using examples, I take your arguments and look at
: them directly--I don't skirt them with questionable examples. Which is more
: logical as to it's purpose?
no I am giving similarites between art and technology whih cyou have failed
to repute
, and using examples
to show that the dinctinctions you make between art and technology are not
as cut and dry as you might claim
:>The point is....that you CANNOT give anything but an ambigious definition
:>for art, just as you cannot give anything but an ambigious definition for
:>technology
: I don't find them very ambiguous. I thought I put them in fairly simple terms
: for you to understand. I'm sorry if you are unable to understand them, but
: then perhaps you should say "I don't understand" instead of still trying to
: argue a point you're not sure of.
:>For something to even be considered technology requires a subjective
:>judgement on the part of..someone.... I have a stick...it makes holes in the
:>ground when I poke it in the dirt..Is that technology? To me it is, but
:>to you it is useless..whose to say whether that stick is a piece of
:>technology? Its a subjective judment.
: Not at all. This is another example that's not helping anything. If the stick
: has a purpose with a practical end to help further this person for whatever
: reason by poking holes in the ground, then it is technology because it DOES
: have a use such as that. Technology is a noun, so is a tree, but do the
: existence of trees depend on subjective judgment?
Trees are a life form....technology is a concept
:>Art and technology have the following similarity:
:>
:>The purpose of art :To induce a certain mental state in
:>either yourself or in someone else or both
: Plenty of artists would disagree with this. Some art has that purpose, others
: are like literature--they present a concept through creative means, not to
: induce a state whether it be mental or physical.
Someone is supposed to read it, arent they..thus someone is to be effected
mentally
:>The purpose of technology: To induce a certain mental state in yourself
:>or in someone else of or both
: So taking the stick and poking holes in the ground for whatever purpose induces
: a mental state?
:>What is the END result of having a car?...so you will have the
:>mental state in which you feel you have a sufficient amount of time
:>to accomplish whatever you need to at point B after you get there...
: I don't think people created cars for that reason, though. Which is my point:
: cars were created to get you somewhere faster and more efficiently--the mental
: state is secondary.
WHY DO YOU WANT TO GET ANYWHERE FASTER? So that you will "FEEL" like you
have more time to accomplish things....like I said if the purpose of cars
was simply "to go fast" well then a catapault would be alot better
: Art, on the other hand, is created soley for that one,
: mental purpose. See what I mean?
ANswer my questions about the art that is technology because it is art, or
vice versa
:>Why did the cave man invent the spear? so he would have the following state
:>of mind: he could feel safe (he has a spear so no one will attack him)
:>he could feel satiated (he can hunt) etc..granted their is a physical
:>intermediary action between himnself and the mental state, but the
:>end result of any technology is to put a person in a certain mental
:>state..be that relaxation,. comfort, security..whatever
: See above. But in addition,
art isn't in existence to create simply a mental
: state in the first place--
so thats why afrtists just create things and then destroy them before
anyone will see or hear them right?
so see even further above. There purposes are stiff
: different. The fact technology had this "physical intermediary action" makes
: it very different from art, because that "physical intermediary action" is a
: huge part in the existence of that piece of technology. If it didn't exist, it
: wouldn't be technology.
: Some artists, on the other hand, largely minimalists,
: will go so far with their logic as to say art shouldn't exist because it is
: pure concept. Some traditional industrial music is also founded on the
: minimalist art movement. See what I'm getting at?
There is always some physical manifestation of "art" just as there is
technolgy. otherwise it would simply be nothing
:>granted there may be physical processes involved in reaching that state
:>of mind i.e using the car to drive somehwew or usinmg the spear to skewer
:>a boar or a threatening neighbor..but in the end goal of technology
:>is to achieve a certain mental state
: Technology isn't created because one is searching for a mental state.
: Initially one sees a problem, then they use technology to help solve this
: problem and in turn make themselves feel better. People utilize plenty of
: technology because it's secondary--they don't have any mental state whatsoever
: while using it. There is so much technology abound today, it'd be mental
: overload if we were to have a mental state induced upon us with the use of
: every form of technology. Pouring flouride in our drinking water is technology,
: but when I drink it I don't feel anything--hell I even forget it's there.
:>What exactly was that purpose?..you say a "certain ideal and pupose" so
:>define it exactly, and without generalities..
:>you cannot.
:>(WHy did people invent knives...to stab A, to cut B, to saw C, to carve D
:>the list goes on......I think that no one who invents or uses anything
:>can truly define the possible breadth of puposes his work may have)
:>In actuality computers
:>were not made for a specific pupose, they were made for an ambigious
:>multitute of puposes, many of which thier creators knew they could not even
:>comprehend..technology is thus vague and open ended as is art
: How could something be made for use if its purpose is ambiguous? You need to
: know what it does before you can design it.
you only have to know a very general set of problems it can solve
Some technology is open-ended, but
: hardly vague--I know what most technology was intended to do, and can even make
: it do things it wasn't intended to do. Knives were made to stab, cut, slice
: initially, AS WELL as being open to doing other things--this is unavoidable.
:>If I create an artificially intelligent robot, what is its "purpose"?
:>Suppose I simply wish to create such a being and turn it loose....is it
:>technology? Yes. But I had no intentions as to its pupose when I created
:>it, did i?
: Of course you did. Your purpose in creating it was so it could be turned
: loose. You said so yourself that every human has a reason, and its purpose
: will reflect the reason you created it.
no suppose I dont want to turn it loose..suppose I just make it, because
I am
bored....I want it to do nothing..it merely does things incidentally of
my intentions
:>So we can have technology with no specific physical goal in
:>mind, just as we can have art without a specfifc goal in mind.
: Didn't you say previously that art and technology both had goals and purposes?
No what I said was that saying that one had goals and the other did not was
not a valid distinction, becuse either one could posses or not posses
a goal....ACTUALLY BOTH ARE AMBIGUIOS TERMS..MY POINT WAS NEITHER
CAN BE FULLY DEFINed , therefore distinctions between them are not valid
: You're contradicting yourself, how am I supposed to argue logically with you?
I am showing both catergories are ambiguious, and that for every
dissimilarity you name i can name a simmilarity
:>ANd sometimes art can have a definitive physcial purpose, much like you
:>claim technology to have, and use as basis to distinguish it from
:>art.
: You must have missed in my previous posts as to when I also distinguished from
: other forms of art.
:>For example,
: oh boy...
:>I may make a statue to sell. Do you then consider that
:>statue technology and not art? It was created for a physical pupose, ie to
:>get money from someone else.
: Ever hear of commercial art? Commercial art is different from fine art. I'd
: consider industrial music fine art.
then why do they sell it?
: Commercial art technology? Nope. The
: statue you made was created for the purpose of getting money from someone else,
: but the statue itself has no purpose but to stand still and do nothing to aid
: people in any physical way, as opposed to a chair that sits still and does
: nothing, yet people use to sit on.
OKay whay I carve an ornate throne to sell....art or technology. WHat
is I made it with my brothers help..he wants to sell it, but I think its
meant to be art..so is it art or technology
: The statue's purpose is for it to stand
: there and for people to look at and think about, thus it's main reason for
: being, the main reason a person would buy it, would be to contemplate it.
: Therefore its main purpose is that of concept because they have no other use
: for it standing up and sitting still.
:>And what was the Trojan Horse? Art, or technology? Difficult decision.
: Yes there is such a thing as functional art,
: but it's purpose for functioning
: is to strengthen the concept for which it was made.
oh you didnt just pull that out of your ass did you?
: The Trojan Horse is
: technology, the Trojan's considered it art purely out of ignorance.
Soooo.....who determines whether siomething is art or technology...
the creator or the perceiver of that phenomena? Get your story straight
: Say if i
: was a caveman, and I see a walkman, I wouldn't know what to consider it because
: I wouldn't know what it is--yet if its purpose became known to me, I'd know it
: was technology then. And people wonder why I'm opposed to the philosophy that
: "art can be anything." Art has a definition, as does technology. They can be
: stretched and bent, but they wont ever be the same.
That definition is you pulling your pud. No one can definie either except
in the own little world..truth is the answers you gave to my examples
have no basis in anyting but your opuion. YOu act like art and technology
are diffrerent just like gold and lead, when in fact their is no
physical definition of any concept
:>And suppose I make a sharp pointy stick
:>with faces all over it. It is art right? Now suppose my mom picks it up and
:>uses it to spear a boar....is it art, or technology?
: Really bad art, because it wasn't made to spear a boar.
?
:>Ok let us suppose I wish to make a mask, called an Oooga Booga Mask that
:>will make all the girls want to bone me. I make this fancy contraption
:>that makes me look like Darth Vader on PCP....but It doesnt work...
:>so it isnt technology right?
: I never said technology has to work, it just has to be created for a practical
: purpose (and you know what I mean by practical).
Practical who
:>Okay now suppose that some weirdo art
:>critic sees my mask and gives it critical acclaim and I get all this
:>money from endorsements and people paying to come to my house and see
:>my Ooonga Boonga Mask...so now the mask is art, correct?
: Read above what I said about "ignorance."
My example continues..sio answer it in its entirety
: And even if they did know what it was originally used for, they could consider
: it art simply because they thought it looked beautiful, which is another
: function of art, beauty being subjective. Even though I, personally, have a
: hard time swallowing that any one art piece should be considered art simply
: because it's beautiful, but that's another discussion.
:>Now suppose
:>me getting all this fame and fortune causes chicks to flock to me..
:>so the mask has actually fulfilled its physcial purpose, has it not?
: Not in the way it was idealy intended, which is one of the things that
: seperates both.
:>So it IS technology....only because its art? Right?
: nope.
Explain..nope means nothing...
:>ANd what about those War propaganda movies
:>they showed during WWII at theatres....those were art, right?
:>Movies are art, right? But the purpose of making those movies was
:>to inspire fanaticism against the Nazis.
: Listen, before you say anything further about art, take some art classes.
: Inspiring fanatacism is part of the concept, but there's a whole mess of things
: to consider when trying to convey a concept that will inspire-
like how much can I mentally masturbate generating artibtary definitions and
categorizations which have no physical manifestaiton in the outside world
-that is one of
: the duties of an artist--such things as composition, what images, sounds,
: frames, clips, times, etc to use in helping to bring across this concept, and
: so on. Not to mention I'm a firm believer that emotions are in part conceptual
: in themselves.
emotions are biochemical, and hence physical processes. just like everything
else
: <snip the rest>
:>Apparently by your assertions "art" and "technology" are as differnent
:>as squares and triangles...and yet it seems here we have something that is
:>both..so how can you explain that? Your claims that technology posseses
:>some quality that art inherently lacks are now difficult to reconcile.
:>
: I see what you're getting at, but you need to understand that there are many
: different forms of art and like I said previously--industrial music (which is
: the point of this tangeant) is one kind. Some art is VERY different from
: technology, others can be compared, and therefore the lines be a little
: muddled. I've said this previously. Not to mention, when you see something
: and dub it "art" or "technology" you are therefore rendering them different,
: and causing them to be treated as different because you percieve them as
: different. Your analogies in other posts about reacting to things the same
: that are different, and thus making them the same, I find to be the most
: fundamentally wrong analogies I've read so far.
then find better ones....simply because they cause problems for your
distintions
But I wont get into that
: discussion--this one is already far too long.
:>The point of all this is to demonstate the blurred and subjective line
:>between art and technology, and as we will find with ANY attempts at
:>categorizing ANYthing, all attempts to offer an all encompasing
:>and objective definition of art or technology will fail because both
:>are so perception dependant.
: Yet they are still generally two different things.
because of arbitrary and relative definitions given by people like you, and
that is the ONLY reason
: Likewise you cannot say
: they are both completely the same because they are "perception dependant."
: There are still definitions that apply when you dub something art or
: technology, because they aren't the same thing.
Because you will continually add footnotes to your own self-contricitory
deinitions of thing to ensure they are differdnt
Sure, you will always come
: across something that will be shady, and yes, defining it will call upon
: perception. What you're getting at is that everything is relative and
: subjective--this sort of thinking has to be discounted in a discussion because
: it's a wall, a shield--even though I somewhat agree with it. Yes, there will
: be holes in such things, but that doesn't mean it's invalid and should be kept
: from discussion,
No it simply means disgussions revolving around catergorizations of intangible
concepts should not be treated in a right/wrong sense
because the rest of the construct still has to be dealt with.
: Personally, I think art and technology are as different as night and day, and
: I've pointed out to you above my reasons for thinking so by discounting your
: examples.
No you've merely annonated your own ARBITRARY definitions to make
you point, and in doing so sink further and further from the
realm of objective analysis
:>Let me predict how the
:>remainder of this thread will go..your reactionary ilk will continue
:>to assert that art and technology are fundamentally different concepts
:>by attacking minor flaws in my analogies and examples,
: Then stop using examples. Give me an example without a flaw. I predict you
: can't because one doesn't exist.
I will give examples to show that your categoritions are bullshit
YOu have yet to even quote a dictionary as support you arguments.
:>and I will contine
:>to offer more valid objections against any attempt to classify art and
:>technology as two separate entities. You will claim thay X and Y are distinct
:>and differnt..I will continue to give examples of cases where something
:>is X because it iS Y and cases where something is Y because it is X...
:>any attempt to classify intangible categories of anything will untimately
:>fail because it is subjectively based....the only thing that can be
:>validly said it that both technology and art are use of tools for a purpose
: Ok. I can see this happening.
not surprising
: But let me say this--as far as I know, there are
: kinds of technology: technology and high technology.
like bongs?
: And then there are MANY
: forms of art. Art for a common reason, yet very different from technology are
: most.
your mentally masturbating agfain
:>there is no necessity...no alien race is going to come down and
:>destroy us if we dont churn out another dozen groundbreaking albums like
:>love's secret domain or radioactivity in the next decade
: Most people believe there is a necessity--I for one do, because I think parts
: of the scene are stagnating.
I think it isnt'...shall we average the IQ's of both collective
sides and settrle it that way
:>: Evolving takes place in many different ways, not just gradual improvement.
:>
:>Bullshit 99 percent of freak mutations are terminal...they dont make
:>it very long because random mutations are rarely beneficial
: And this should apply to conceptual creativity as well as in nature how and
: why?
all are physical processes..if any idea is to ever catch on and
propagate itself, it must be "contagious", much like a life form
:>Yes but not teleporting in a differnt directions every day.
: Which is all I want.
alright scotty we'll beam you up
:>Yes a novel concept appears....99 percent of the time, it fails,
:>because novel and novelly worthwhile are two different things...
:>1 percent
:>of the time it suceeds and then nature or society improves on that
:>concept for a signifcant amount of times...
: And I should ask a biologist about this? Hell, I'd prefer it if parts of the
: scene didn't stagnate and just came out with different stuff even if it wasn't
: very successful, because we could at least learn from that.
Learn what...that there's alot of crap in this world.WAEL SUPRISE SURPISE
SUPRISE!!!!
: Most artists don't
: even try, though...which is my big beef.
change is by its very definition, the exception and not the rule..otherwise
continuial tranisition would become normalcy....
:>Yes, and like EVERYTHING else in this world 99 percent of change is gradual
:>and 1 % is rapid....its called a bell curve
:>a concept is created...very rarely in any facet
:>of life is a concept created perfectly the first time..it takes many
:>ideas, from many people, many inspirations to draw out the totality of the
:>idea
: And all I want are more chances and more changes to learn from--not ALL changes
: like you seem bent on assuming. For every successful industrial project out
: there, ones we consider experiments, you're saying there are 99 more to each
: one out there?
I don't think so...oh and I'll be looking into that biologist to
: see what he thinks about these figures.
go right ahead...probably less than 1% of freak mutuation are viable, actually
:>: Because freakish continual mutation is just as conventional.
:>:It exists and it
:>: happens and has been successful not only in nature,
:>
:>where?
:>occasional freakish mutation exists..it is the exception, not the rule
:>evolution does not hold its breath waiting for the next freakshow..it
:>trudges on nonetheless
:>
: If it exists in nature, it too is a biological fact and exists on laws and
: "rules." It simply doesn't happen as often. But we're not talking about
: nature, we're talking about music.
we are nature, we make music, music is and extension of nature as is the song
of a bird
:>: but also in the art world.
:>: Michelangelo's evolvment into mannerism wasn't gradual,
:>
:>Michealango is one person. Coil is one band.
:>There are legions of artists who will never be Michelangelo, but
:>are still worthwhile nonetheless, just as there are legions of artists
:>who will never have the freakish innovation of COil, but are wholly
:>worthwhile nonetheless
: Not to the people or the scene they are hurting. They are worthwhile when not
: in large, redundant masses that have lost meaning long ago.
to you perphaps
:>Once again, where?
:>Occasionaly yes, but we did not leap from alexander bell to the cell phone
:>overnight....most technological progess was gradual
: Technological progress, sure, but that's because "progress" is a part of the
: word "evolution." Whenever a new invention occurs, it has been a "freakish"
: leap from nothing to something.
and this is rare
:>How different is a birds nest from the houses we live in? Do we consider
:>Beavers damns outside the realm of nature? Do we consider the honey
:>made by bees to be outside of nature? By what logic do we call ourselves
:>anything more than very intelligent animals? We eat, we shit (as anyone
:>who reads your posts will be continually reminded of) we die.
:>
: We think, we rationalize, we use logic--we create using logic, rationale, and
: thought. Oh, and we shit.
though is a biochemical and this physcial process..a very intricate form
of what goes on with anumals
:>Well only if you are a dualist. Unless you want to put forth some
:>proof of an intangible "spirit" or a God, then everything that goes on
:>in our heads (the sort of thing that inspires us to create art) is a
:>physical process, which works by the laws of chemistry and physics...
:>the same physical and chemical laws which govern the working of our
:>inner mind also govern the totality of the outside world, including
:>evolution, technology, etc....I challenge you to assert that this is
:>not the case....metaphysical philosophy has a basis in science, whether
:>it is proveable or not..all other philospohy is mental wanking
: Well that's just it--it's something no one can be sure of, and because of this,
: we see them as something different. Perhaps in time science will put to light
: these subjects, or perhaps they never will and never can. And perhaps
: philosophy will dash them to the ground again. Camus was a metaphysical
: philosopher, and his conclusions defied any scientifical explanation.
If you say so,,,,,,,,
:>all music (including experimental)
:>music is the same thing as the song of a bird..it is just as much a part
:>of nature as the ape howling and beating on his chest.....unless you are
:>going to argue that music is only music if it is made with something other
:>than the voice, at which point people like Diamanda Galas and
:>Pavarotti might get very mad at you.
: Both are created differently still...see above.
Maybe in your subjective definition
:>We are made of flesh..our minds are govered by the very same rules that
:>make the outside world the way it is, yes....
:>
:>
:>
: I don't think anyone has been able to prove this or the likes thereof. There
: are far too many unanswered questions raised about it.
:>We perceive....cats perceive,,,hamsters perceive..we just have the ability
:>to introspect a bit more
: We also have the ability to percieve differently at will.
??????????????????
UNtil you offer proof of an intangible essenxce, we are mererly the
sum of all our parts
:>No. Change is good. Change merely for its own sake is silly
:>and unproductive
:>
: Tell that to the futurists. Anyhow, we're still not advocating change for
: change's sake..we're advocating it for stagnation's sake.
things are changing...if its too slow for you, do it youeself
:>Amen....then change it. If someone needs to do something, then YOU
:>do it. Sitting around pontificating about it does nothing.
: I'm doing my darndest to try...one way to help is by pointing out the problem
: to others so they will notice it...can't solve a problem without pointing out
: to others what it is and what its nature is.
It is a problem only in you mind
:>my beleif
:>is that anything that gets catchy subversive music on the shelves is
:>a good thing and if that means a bunch of stuff with noticeable similarites
:>to leatherstrip , so be it...
: Sure, this is good to a degree; not when this sort of stuff becomes the norm of
: the genre and then proceeds to define it,
it doesnt have to define it...
thus getting people rather bored and
: irritated with it. Sure, one or two bands that break away from a particular
: stagnating heap, such as ebm and most elektro, is good, but not enough to keep
: you tied to the scene.
:>Innovation in music is up to the indivudial. There can be a billion
:>derivative bands, that isnt goign to stop someone like Coil or Eistruzende
:>Neubaten from creating music, and it isnt going to stop those same bands
:>from being regonzied for their creativity. Even if isolation tanks
:>catalog doubled in size because off al the :W: knockoffs, they are
:>still gonna be selling the really really out there stuff..it will even
:>have its own little section....Its like saying all the disney movies coming
:>out
:>are suffocating the porn industry...it just wont
:>
: See above. People will eventually see all the knockoffs who popularize
: industrial music. People will say "yeah, industrial's just a bunch of
: repetative, same-sounding crap...not worth more than a handful of good bands."
Just like 99$ pecent of people do now and haev since the days of TG
: Those hand full of good bands will not keep someone tied to the scene, and the
: rest of the bands would devalue the artistic integrity the industrial scene
: once had and what kept me loyal to it--hell, it's the reason I came into the
: scene.
The "scene" is intgrating parts of other genres and is GROWING..yes
no bands like COIl are getting quite popular, moreso than the 80's
:>: And like downfall has repeated in the past, bands can be somewhat
:>: derivative--borrowing ideas here and there--yet still add their own unique
:>: touch, commentary, concept, technique and so on, rendering the piece unique
:>: enough to be different from what they originally derived some parts from.
:>Not
:>: enough of this makes the "evolving" process much slower
:>
:>its there..you just need to look further before bitching....the most
:>beautiful pearls are buried deep in the ocean,,you will not find them
:>waiting on your pillow
: And there's our difference of perception. On the top, I can notice the
: differences, but overall it sounds the same--when I dig, I find that it's even
: more the same than I had originally thought.
opion
:>also...the truth is if Every wumpscut song sounds like LS to
:>you, you probably just arent that big of a fan of the style...I dont
:>like classical, and I would be hard pressed to tell one song in that style
:>from another, but Im not going to say it all "sounds the same"
:>
: I'm very much into the style--hell it used to be all I listened to.
USed to ..key word..it must not have held that must fascomation for ya
Now I've
: come to different genres to find stuff that was new, and not the same. Digging
: is good in your music, but not when you have to dig SO MUCH into a band's music
: to find differences because it sounds so much alike...I think that's an artist
: being irresponsible..especially if there are tons and tons of others doing the
: same thing he is.
:>industrial is about fucking shit up, period...
:>industrial is the music of machines...machines EVOLVE via technology
:>I think I rest my case
:>
: Yeah, I think you know everything about industrial music.
its a wankoff classification..just admit it
:>how?
:>where?
:>show me numbers.....
: so far I've seen more people post about the scene being hurt than people
: defending it.
the complainers are always the loudest...most people dont bother replying
because they are busy doing things for the scene, but I like a fool take
the bait
:>242 wasnt a small fish
:>to catch....and taking all the intricacy out of their soongs and adding
:>boom-chuck-boom-chuck boom and going on tour
:>wasnt all that innvoative, but I'd say
:>they made some new fans, who will proabably get into cooler shit latter
:>on in their life....
:>
: Either that or get tired with it and just move on not thinking the scene is
: even worth digging through to find a few innovative acts.
the ration of people who will do that to those who will not is impirtant
in gnerally opeople tend to like crap fist, then sophistivate their tastes
later
:>MANY? like who? how many Dali's were there? how many Geigers?
:>I'd say occasionally....do you know how many fuckin artists this world has
:>seen? Legions....
: And there are so many art movements and artists that you or I havn't even heard
: of yet because their magnitude is so great, yet they still have their own
: followings or fanbases, or are considered very worthwhile by plenty of critics.
: Some just don't get *famous* for it.
But how differnt were they
:>new does not neceassarily mean helpful useful informative or interesting
:>
:>What is the benefit of your mother constantly lecturing you about
:>the "oob of fubs" or "the reason your glub should schlack"?
: I wouldn't consider that information in the first place.
AS neither would I half the experimental garbage that people churn out
: And it's my personal
: belief that any information and knowledge is good for progress or change.
Sometimes when I take a shit, I have visions of Mr. T..there is your
life any better because I just told you that?
:>Then change yourself . Change your underwear. Change the way others think
:>by example, not by belittling others efforts to do basically the same thing
:>you are.
: How am I belittling? If it's boring, repetative, redundant music then to me
: that's a fact--
a magical words called opinion..not fact
I'm not going to say opinion because you might see it
: differently, but I sure as hell wouldn't be able to understand why. And
: perhaps I am changing the way others think, or attempting to, with these posts
: even.
maybe you will enocurage people to sit around oohing and ahhing
at a CD-R noisse track because it is avant-garde and cool
wunderful
: Who are you to say I'm not doing my part?
Maybe you are..but you're also generating more than your fair share of
hot air.....
:>The fact is, VAC and noisex both make by baptist aunt
:>itch, and for that I commend them both. Just because you'd rather blast
:>peoples minds open with a shot gun doesnt mean you should bitch because
:>someone else tries to pry it open with a crow bar.
: So you're bitching about me bitching, huh?
I know..I twitchy that way
:>: I think you
:>: perhaps mispercieved what we were trying to say and thought that's what we
:>: wanted, but that isn't the case.
:>
:>Or was just looking for someone to argue with :)
:>
: Yeah I might as well admit I can be quite guilty of that as well, so you found
: the right person.
BEWAHWAHHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA
: ~tape
VelvetHeaven
:> ambigious terms AT ALL
: Perhaps "necesarry" would be a better term...
tisnt necessary..all we need is air and food
:> : very
:> : practical and not a creative representation of man. ie. man can exist
:> : without music, but can not exist without technology.
:>
:> our ancestors existed for quite awhile without technology
: No, they didn't. At least, not until you go all the way back to something
: more ape than man. The had much simpler technology, of course, but a stone weapon
: or a fire started from flint sparks is just as much an example of technology as
: the VCR that this argument can't seem to forget.
:> something you would have learned if you ever took a logic class is the
:> following:
:> there are two kinds of differnces..differences of degree and differences
:> of kind......so using an argument about a differnce in degree (ie the
:> intellectual diffence between dogs and humans) has no bearing in an
:> argument regarding differnces of KIND (i.e. the alleged differnce between
:> art and technology)
: The fact that you have taken a course in logic does not automatically render
: your arguments clear, intelligent, or logical.
It just helps
: You use spurious logic and
: distracting, meaningless analogies.
People give arbitary definitions....when people pull shit out of their
ass ya gotta fight fire with fire
: Furthermore, you cloud your argument with
: inflammatroy and distracting examples, such as your constant need to compare
: everything to fucking.
I'm freudian that way, biatch.
:> :>:>Dont they teach logic at caltech?
:> :>: actually, no they don't.
:> :>
:> :>Not surprising
:> : is it common for logic to be taught in the work place?
:>
:> No just something that helps your arguments make sense
: Give it a shot then.
<Bang>
:> TRAINS AND ROLLERCOASTERS ARE "DIFFERENT", RIGHT? however I should react
:> to them the same right? (step out of their path)
:> thanks
: They're really not very different.
VERY DIFFERNT??? ah so A sqaure is not very differnt from a triange..it only
has 1 teensy more side..not much at all
They both use the same basic technology of
: wheels on tracks. However, they are both used to very different effect. A train
: is internally powered and serves a purpose of transportation. When you depart a
: train, you are rarely at the same point at which you started. A rollercoaster
: serves a purpose of amusement. When you depart a rollercoaster, you are exactly
: where you started. IMO, your logic is more like a roller coaster. You are
: correct in the statement that if you are on the tracks (a very stupid place to be)
: then you should get the hell out of the way.
: Just my $.02...
now im not going to nitpick..make the train a boulder rolling dowin a
bitch, I mean ditch I am laying in,,,,now the boulder and the rollercoaster
are differwent
:> :>WILL hurt me then..not "meant to" yessh semantic
:> :>nitpicking will get you knowhere
:>
:> : it's more evidence that your argument holds no weight...
:>
:> its only evidence that my parents did not force me out of diapers too soon.
: <cheap shot> Perhaps they have waited too long. You are a bit old to be
: wearing them now. </cheap shot>
helz no I aint..I aint shat in this pair since...NAM
VoltAire
sitting
target
sitting
praying
God
is
saying
nothing
Tape Me Up
>: And by admitting it, it makes it ok? As opposed to not admitting it, it's
>not
>: valid or ok?
>
>Yes its called being honest with yourself
And this helps in what way to the argument at hand?
>: Prozac and other medicines do affect us physically.
>
>So does music..the ear vibrates, the vibrations get tranmistted to our brain
>and THEN we get affected mental
Yet the effect music induces is much more subjective than the straightforward
effect prozac was MADE to do--music can be made for one thing, but many people
will draw many different effects from it at the same time--I can't really see
people doing this with prozac, if they get more effects from it, it's a
fluke--something's wrong. In music, this isn't the case.
>: I never said otherwise. I said they both had a purpose, just that their
>: purposes were different.
>
>SO if I create art to get money from someone is it art or technology..
>
Try reading the entire post before you write such things. I explained this
further on if you had read it.
>: Since when was "technology" a relative term? I thought it was a noun--a
>: person, place, or thing. If it's technology, I'd say it's a valid form of
>: technology..
>
>since you havent aswered how to definite it
I've answered numerous times, you just keep offering up subjective
interpretations, much like you deem me guilty of doing--you're no better.
>: And I do the same without using examples, I take your arguments and look at
>: them directly--I don't skirt them with questionable examples. Which is
>more
>: logical as to it's purpose?
>
>no I am giving similarites between art and technology whih cyou have failed
>to repute
>, and using examples
>to show that the dinctinctions you make between art and technology are not
>as cut and dry as you might claim
I've refuted everyone I've responded to, the ones i didn't respond to I snipped
to save time because there are way too many.
>Trees are a life form....technology is a concept
Trees are an existing thing, so is technology--WHOA! THEY'RE THE EXACT SAME
THING!
>: Plenty of artists would disagree with this. Some art has that purpose,
>others
>: are like literature--they present a concept through creative means, not to
>: induce a state whether it be mental or physical.
>
>Someone is supposed to read it, arent they..thus someone is to be effected
>mentally
>
Ok let me know when you're done making half-assed points on things you barely
comprehend. I never said ALL art can't induce a mental state, i said some.
>WHY DO YOU WANT TO GET ANYWHERE FASTER? So that you will "FEEL" like you
>have more time to accomplish things....like I said if the purpose of cars
>was simply "to go fast" well then a catapault would be alot better
Oh ok, so whenever i enter a car i immediately think "I will get there faster
now and feel great!" People drive now-a-days because it's become so redundant
in their everyday routine that they don't feel shit anymore--kinda like most
EBM and elektro--if they were w/o their car for one day, sure they might feel
distress, but they havn't felt any mental state while being in that car for
awhile.
>: Art, on the other hand, is created soley for that one,
>: mental purpose. See what I mean?
>
>ANswer my questions about the art that is technology because it is art, or
>vice versa
I did, could you not read it?
>so thats why afrtists just create things and then destroy them before
>anyone will see or hear them right?
yeah exactly (??)
>There is always some physical manifestation of "art" just as there is
> technolgy. otherwise it would simply be nothing
And some minimalists said it being "nothing" should be the true form of their
art, because it is only concept--however this was unreliable in the art world.
Technology has to taken on a physical form, to some artists art shouldn't have
to--pretty big difference, huh?
>you only have to know a very general set of problems it can solve
So I therefore make a very general apparratus? How? I need to know exactly
where everything goes so I know it works at all!
>: Of course you did. Your purpose in creating it was so it could be turned
>: loose. You said so yourself that every human has a reason, and its purpose
>: will reflect the reason you created it.
>
>no suppose I dont want to turn it loose..suppose I just make it, because
>I am
>bored....I want it to do nothing..it merely does things incidentally of
>my intentions
Then it's purpose was to occupy you during your bordom--come on, we can both do
this back and forth. Your examples aren't proving anything.
>: Didn't you say previously that art and technology both had goals and
>purposes?
>
>No what I said was that saying that one had goals and the other did not was
>not a valid distinction, becuse either one could posses or not posses
>a goal....
You certainly did not say that, but you're saying it now--changing stories in
the middle huh? Gee you're a fun person to argue with. Not to mention every
object has a goal (object as in motion, act). So therefore our arguments would
certainly differ.
>ACTUALLY BOTH ARE AMBIGUIOS TERMS..MY POINT WAS NEITHER
>CAN BE FULLY DEFINed , therefore distinctions between them are not valid
And you still have not been able to prove this. Even if they can be loosely
defined, then there can be distinctions. The fact they can be defined at all
means there are distinctions.
>I am showing both catergories are ambiguious, and that for every
>dissimilarity you name i can name a simmilarity
And vice versa.
>then why do they sell it?
>: Ever hear of commercial art? Commercial art is different from fine art.
>I'd
>: consider industrial music fine art.
>
>then why do they sell it?
>
Many reasons--the most fundamental being that it wasn't created just to make
money, but also to present a certain idea (at least good industrial music).
Most fine art can be bought, doesn't mean it's automatically commercial art.
Buying art has been going on since art began.
>OKay whay I carve an ornate throne to sell....art or technology. WHat
>is I made it with my brothers help..he wants to sell it, but I think its
>meant to be art..so is it art or technology
Boy do i just love those examples. I guess you must have missed my point on
functional art. If it's ornate, then its ornateness can be seen as an
aesthetic, which would cause people to view it as art. It's an art piece
that's not only made to be sat upon, but to be enjoyed visually as well.
Consider the chair to be a canvas. This is all really basic and I find it odd
that you don't think enough to find these answers yourself.
>oh you didnt just pull that out of your ass did you?
No, I didn't--I had a class that dealt with the theory of functional art so I
know what I'm talking about. Want to try and discuss this w/o ignoring it with
stupid remarks?
>Soooo.....who determines whether siomething is art or technology...
>the creator or the perceiver of that phenomena? Get your story straight
>
>
My story is straight as a bullet--if you want to take your view on things, then
the perciever is the creator is everyone is anything--a tree is only a tree
because I percieved it to be--everything is subjective. I've expressed my
disliking for this concept in debate in my last post.
>That definition is you pulling your pud. No one can definie either except
>in the own little world..truth is the answers you gave to my examples
>have no basis in anyting but your opuion.
Wow, sort of like everything you've been saying too huh?
>YOu act like art and technology
>are diffrerent just like gold and lead, when in fact their is no
>physical definition of any concept
>
Hey now, enough "pulling your pud." You're just as quilty as you dub me in
this case.
>:>So it IS technology....only because its art? Right?
>
>: nope.
>
>Explain..nope means nothing...
>
I must have explained it more than once in my posts, sorry if i didn't explain
it right then and there again, but i was trying to not be redundant like
yourself.
>like how much can I mentally masturbate generating artibtary definitions and
>categorizations which have no physical manifestaiton in the outside world
hey thanks for tackling the issue, really doesn't show your ineptitude. How
can it have physical manifestations in the outside world if it's conceptual
anyhow? and by saying that you're going to reply with "then it's relative" then
i can simply say so is that. If anyone's mentally wanking the most, it's you.
>emotions are biochemical, and hence physical processes. just like everything
>else
I never said they weren't, but the biochemicals are released due to thought,
and no one has been able to deduce where that comes from.
>then find better ones....simply because they cause problems for your
>distintions
They cause no problems--i've been able to refute every one.
>because of arbitrary and relative definitions given by people like you, and
>that is the ONLY reason
>
And they're the same because of arbitrary and relative theories such as yours.
>Because you will continually add footnotes to your own self-contricitory
>deinitions of thing to ensure they are differdnt
>
They are by no means contradictory--I've been able to support each one, even if
they do include footnotes--because they are by no means simple.
>No it simply means disgussions revolving around catergorizations of
>intangible
>concepts should not be treated in a right/wrong sense
>
As opposed to a tangible concept? All discussions exist upon concept, and
assumptions are needed for progression.
>No you've merely annonated your own ARBITRARY definitions to make
>you point, and in doing so sink further and further from the
>realm of objective analysis
>
Then you might want to try being objective yourself--what you're saying is just
as arbitrary as what I'm saying. No matter what being arbitrary is a hard
thing to avoid.
>I will give examples to show that your categoritions are bullshit
>YOu have yet to even quote a dictionary as support you arguments.
aww well i'm sorry that I'm making it hard for you too by not using a
dictionary. Hey, where's the dictionary you used? Oh, and for every example
you give you prove nothing, as I've shown.
>all are physical processes..if any idea is to ever catch on and
>propagate itself, it must be "contagious", much like a life form
Yeah I can see my idea has legs and a resperitory system too.
>Learn what...that there's alot of crap in this world.
At least I'll know what not to do.
>we are nature, we make music, music is and extension of nature as is the song
>of a bird
So I guess we have no choice but to make the music that we were biologically
assigned to making?
>: Technological progress, sure, but that's because "progress" is a part of
>the
>: word "evolution." Whenever a new invention occurs, it has been a
>"freakish"
>: leap from nothing to something.
>
>and this is rare
You'd be surprised as to how many inventions are created every year.
>though is a biochemical and this physcial process..a very intricate form
>of what goes on with anumals
>
Emotions are a biochemical process, nobody as of yet knows where thought, or
certain thoughts, come from.
>UNtil you offer proof of an intangible essenxce, we are mererly the
>sum of all our parts
Thought. Certain ideas. Detailed thought. Memories. etc...
>It is a problem only in you mind
And others.
>it doesnt have to define it...
Yet that's what it's doing.
>The "scene" is intgrating parts of other genres and is GROWING..yes
>no bands like COIl are getting quite popular, moreso than the 80's
>
Yet what remains most popular in the scene is the part that's stagnating the
most, unfortunately.
>opion
you just keep hiding behind that word, boy.
>: I'm very much into the style--hell it used to be all I listened to.
>
>USed to ..key word..it must not have held that must fascomation for ya
Used to...key word...it held a ton of fascomation (??) for me until it became
boring and same-sounding. Gee you know me better than I do it seems.
>the complainers are always the loudest...most people dont bother replying
>because they are busy doing things for the scene, but I like a fool take
>the bait
Yeah I can see how this is for sure. Seems like a silly excuse to me.
>the ration of people who will do that to those who will not is impirtant
>in gnerally opeople tend to like crap fist, then sophistivate their tastes
>later
I think the ratio is far different. (are you drunk, btw?)
>AS neither would I half the experimental garbage that people churn out
Other people learn much more than stuff that sounds the same and offers, and
doesn't even attempt to offer, something more.
>Sometimes when I take a shit, I have visions of Mr. T..there is your
>life any better because I just told you that?
Yeah, I am Mr T and i'm flattered.
>maybe you will enocurage people to sit around oohing and ahhing
>at a CD-R noisse track because it is avant-garde and cool
Hopefully.
>Maybe you are..but you're also generating more than your fair share of
>hot air.....
I'm not the one who has visions of Mr T when taking a shit.
Mr. Tangent
infr...@aol.com (Infrazone) to write:
>Mr. Tangent wrote:
>> I just want
>>a newness of sound, within whatever genre it happens to fall in. I'm
>>not against electro-industrial acts. I happen to really enjoy this
>>genre of music, I'm just wanting bands (such as Lassigue Bendthaus)
>>that challenge the framework, and at least attempt to offer something
>>that sounds different.
>
>Mr. Tangent, I think that all of us want this as well, bands that challenge and
>offer a different sound. You said yourself in one of your comments (btw I
>throughly enjoy reading your posts) that for innovation to occur, it takes
>individuals to rise above the crowd and essentially lead and create. Why not
>let this be yourself? If you feel so strongly, then you must act upon the
>challenge and let this be your inspiration.
I have delved into musical forays before and plan on it again. I own
a Kurzweil K2000S - which i use concurrently with my computer - to
construct various musical collages. I haven't released anything yet,
as I get distracted easily and have some computer problems (limited
ram, no digital i/o's on my sndcard). I'm not setting out the change
the face of music, but I would hope that my music isn't such
derivative drivel as a lot of music today (note: no artist in specific
is being mentioned). I guess once I get enough material that I'm
satisfied with to release, I'll release it. Then we can see if I "put
my money where my mouth is". Thanks for the support, though. :)