Subversion of pop vs. sellout
Locke
thought. Skimming over old RMI posts I realized that these two ideas
were thrown around often with little explanation. If some artist works
within pop music structures he's either accused of 'selling out' or
hailed for 'subverting pop music', so my question is - how do you
differentiate between the two?
My theory: there is no definite way to do this, it all comes down to
personal preference. If you like something you just say 'it's
subverting pop music' and nobody can prove you wrong. If you don't like
it, you just call it a sell-out and again nobody can argue against it on
rational grounds. The dividing line between subversion and selling out
is the intention of the artist, and nobody but him knows the truth.
In interviews and public appearance the artist will always try to
project the image of being subversive, at least in industrial and
related scenes.
So how do you differentiate between these two opposites?
What does subversion of pop mean to you?
CU,
Locke
NP: Graeme Revell "Musique Brut Collection"
--
_ __ ___ _ __ ___ \\|||//
| | / \ / _/| |/ /| _| / @ @ \
| |__| || || |_ | \ | _| (| \ |)
|____|\__/ \__\|_|\_\|___| \__=__/
| |
E. Michael Hall
Locke wrote:
>
> Okay, things are going pretty slow around here again, so here's food for
> thought. Skimming over old RMI posts I realized that these two ideas
> were thrown around often with little explanation. If some artist works
> within pop music structures he's either accused of 'selling out' or
> hailed for 'subverting pop music', so my question is - how do you
> differentiate between the two?
My theory is pretty similar to yours, Locke, in that I think the
differentiation between the two lies in the intent of the artist. If
the artist is deliberately trying to sound a certain way in order to
increase album sales, I think that is what ends up diluting the art
this person or persons is trying to create. Their original vision is
sort of muddled and they become the complete antithesis of their early
visions. This isn't to say that artistic growth toward certain musical
styles is "selling out", but when it is done with deliberate intent to
make more money, I think that "selling out" is an appropriate term.
The best example of this, while not being "industrial", is probably
Metallica. Everyone calls them "sellouts" but the actual point of
them being sellouts can be seen in their musical style morphing into
what it is after a large amount of records sold. The "Black Album"
isn't the sellout album for me (although I didn't enjoy that disc at
all to be honest); the sellout occurred with the next record, when the
group pushed themselves in a musical direction that was obviously not
the next likely step artistically, seemingly only to attempt to match
the sales of the "Black" album. The desire to sell more records came
before the desire to create meaningful music in this case, and it can
be seen and heard in both the music and in their behavior. Without
getting into the whole Napster debate (which doesn't figure into my
dislike of Metallica at all), Metallica quite obviously became all
about the money and very little about the music.
Metallica did an interview with Playboy magazine a few months ago (see,
I *do* read it for the articles) and James Hetfield and Lars Ulrich are
obviously changed from their old days of bootleg demos and Cliff Burton
influence. The thing that made those first three Metallica discs (and
arguably "And Justice For All") so interesting was the fact that they
were taking the rather stodgy sensibilities of heavy metal and pushing
the boundaries back a bit. Since Burton's death, they have devolved
more and more into the typical rock and roll formula with none of the
innovation of the Burton-era works. Hetfield even forbade Jason Newsted
from releasing a solo jazz project because it "wasn't Metallica worthy"
and would seemingly "dilute the band's overall impact" (as if that was
even possible at that point). One man's artistic drive was being
effectively silenced because the "ruler" of the band wanted all the
energy to be channelled toward a tired formula to make a quick buck.
Of course, this is all just my opinion, and I'm sure that many/some will
disagree with me on several points I've made, and that's fine. My main
point is that selling out occurs, for me at least, when the artist puts
financial rewards above artistic merit. Sure, people want to sell as
many records as they can and appeal to a larger group, but when they
intentionally skew their sound in a more accessible direction? That's
the invisible line that is usually crossed for me.
Hail Brak,
Mike
--
"What doesn't kill you makes you stronger; that must make me Hercules."
-J.G. Thirlwell
Locke
|Of course, this is all just my opinion, and I'm sure that many/some will
|disagree with me on several points I've made, and that's fine. My main
|point is that selling out occurs, for me at least, when the artist puts
|financial rewards above artistic merit. Sure, people want to sell as
|many records as they can and appeal to a larger group, but when they
|intentionally skew their sound in a more accessible direction? That's
|the invisible line that is usually crossed for me.
Well yes, that's the definition of sell-out, but who (aside from the
artist in the privacy of his own bedroom) can really tell if this has
happened? One could also argue that Metallica was stuck in a rut and
trying to escape it by taking influences from popular developments in
the music scene ...
In case of Metallica the answer seems pretty clear to us, but who really
knows the truth?
Anyway, thanks for the input ...
CU,
Locke
NP: Wiseblood "Dirtdish"
gigabrake
> Okay, things are going pretty slow around here again, so here's food for
> thought. Skimming over old RMI posts I realized that these two ideas
> were thrown around often with little explanation. If some artist works
> within pop music structures he's either accused of 'selling out' or
> hailed for 'subverting pop music', so my question is - how do you
> differentiate between the two?
you've got the answer staring you right in the face
>
> NP: Graeme Revell "Musique Brut Collection"
Mr.Revell is as good a test case as any...his venture into soundtracks
didn't subvert anything what so ever...keeps churning non distinct and
non descript score after score..could have been the work of any
overpaid hollywood hack....
but that means he has sold out?? No way..he is making a comfortable
living doing what he loves doing best (which I hope is making music
and not making cheesy pap :) )...he has got a past full of amazing
forages into extreme experimentation, and nobody can deny him that (I
do hope that he could get a chance to incorporate some of his past
into his recent work...but I guess the soundtracks for "The
Negotiator" doesn't exactly call for it :)...)
I mean even later SPK is pretty watered down synthpopy affair...
I mean so what if somebody sells out?...maybe a paradigm shift has
occured.......the mass market's sensibilities have caught up with
yours...
does it mean you stop listening to these artists new stuff???...
If it doesn't do anything for you anymore...yes? It's the time for you
to move on....(As was the case with me and the last Download...I sold
it back the next day :()
If it still rocks your socks off..who cares...enjoy it and revel in
their success...
Mind you I wasn't always of this forgiving a view...guess I am just
getting older :)
Cheers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gigabrake
http://www.mp3.com/gsr
J. Wood
> What does subversion of pop mean to you?
Snog.
J
Nicolas Chevreux
see one good examples of "subversion of pop".The only band that could
have achieved that, IMHO, is Laibach, but I am not sure they wetn far
enough.
Nicolas
-
Nicolas Chevreux
ICQ: 52843011
Locke
|Locke wrote:
|> What does subversion of pop mean to you?
|
|Snog.
Now that's a good start (although it was kinda to be expected).
But can you explain what makes Snog's use of samples and/or pop hooks
more subversive than Bill Leeb's? Or V/Vm's more than Puff Daddy's?
Gosh, I start to sound like Volt-Hair's little brother ...
CU,
Locke
NP: Suicide "Second album"
Locke
|I agree with you on how fake this distinction is, and I still have to
|see one good examples of "subversion of pop".The only band that could
|have achieved that, IMHO, is Laibach, but I am not sure they wetn far
|enough.
I don't know what you expect from a good example, but I think the
history of industrial music is full of attempts of subversion of pop.
From the top of my mind ... Throbbing Gristle's "20 Jazz Funk Greats",
half of Negativland's career, Snog, Big City Orchestra, little chunks of
Foetus, dance mixes of Einstürzende Neubauten (Yü Gung, Feurio!), Coil's
"Tainted Love" ...
CU,
Locke
NP: Suicide "Second Album"
StvCD7
>personal preference. If you like something you just say 'it's
>subverting pop music' and nobody can prove you wrong. If you don't like
>it, you just call it a sell-out and again nobody can argue against it on
>rational grounds. The dividing line between subversion and selling out
>is the intention of the artist, and nobody but him knows the truth.
>In interviews and public appearance the artist will always try to
>project the image of being subversive, at least in industrial and
>related scenes.
>
>So how do you differentiate between these two opposites?
>What does subversion of pop mean to you?
>
My understanding of these two themes are manifested in 2 very obvious (and
ironicly,) popular examples:
1. Weird Al Yankovich- it is obvious that Weird Al not only 'subverted'
popular music trends by releasing music that usually wouldn't be a DJ favorite
in local nightclubs and hotspots; but even making parodies of the most popluar
artists of the time. In fact, Weird Al managed to create an entirely new
appreciation for such overplayed hits in the top 40 and doing it in good taste,
at that. In this case, it was apparent that his parodies were done in good
humor and of the highest standards of comedy- likewise becoming a "pop star" in
the process despite the fact that his records didn't make it to "sellout"
status, thus keeping his 'indie' credibility (at least in terms of net worth).
Although his career DID rely upon the success of MTV in the early eighties, it
is clear that his second-hand image was left intact.
2. For the more inspired approach to subversion and later, actually defining
popular music, one only has to look back ten years to the surge of "alternative
music" or "grunge", which was most realized in the band Nirvana. Not only did
they keep their old amps and pawn-shop guitars, but a new image (or lack
thereof) was being displayed as far as fashion was concerned. It wasn't just
acceptable to be homeless, wearing vintage clothes and/or being addicted to
mind-altering drugs- but it was indispensible in the cultural war against
corporate rock, spandex and heightened locks of bleached hair that dominated
the hard rock industry. Perhaps it was the sudden success of Nirvana which
unfortunately led to the label of "sellout", almost becoming an overnight
success with their hit single, "Smells Like Teen Spirit", or the abbreviated
career of frontman Kurt Cobain, who at the time was ill-prepared for such
widespread acceptance, being a new father, an addict and financially as well as
emotionally unstable. Compared to other bands of the time, such as The Red Hot
Chili Peppers, who did become successful but still kept their intergity as
artists; or even Sonic Youth or Pixies, who each had not only an impressive
discography over an extended period of years, but a loyal following and
considered influential to many popular "alternative" bands that followed.
In conclusion, the true intention of any 'subversive' artist is not only in the
attempt to undermine the credibility of the establishment, or to appear
valuable, but to redefine the boundaries of pop culture- thus ensuring its
longevity. Whether one can exist successfully, in terms of being productive,
outside of, or even sustain over an extended period of time without the
convenience and accessibility of the mass media is still under debate. Many
feel that once an artist begins to make any profit from his or her work, or
receives allowances for his services, that that artist is then a part of the
system and is under certain rules of conduct and performance- the service or
product in itself is not a standard by which to regulate future endevours,
intention is. So it often becomes an issue and especially in a global market,
a necessity to ask the question, "Will people buy it?". If an artist submits
an idea or piece of work that is revolutionary, or even threatening to the
establishment, it is not so much the idea itself that determines the value by
which it may be used in a cultural sense, but it is the effect on commerce and
trade that becomes a factor. In other words, it may be the best thing since
sliced bread, but if people don't use it, or if it doesn't make money it won't
do any good to market it.
This is an important topic to discuss and very relevant to our discussion
group, which often asks itself the question, "where do we need to trim the fat
from and where do we need to concentrate more energy towards development?".
The issue is, and always has been, quality vs. quantity-
value vs. price. We are now in a situation where consumers can just about
obtain anything they want from anywhere in the world in a short(er) amount of
time than pre-industrial revolution era. Time becomes more of a factor, since
distances are shortened and demand usually doesn't exceed supply. It used to
be, (as an example: currency) that the less likely you were to find an object
of desire, the more value it contained. Or if the object or service in
question was of great inconvenience or consequence to the buyer, having to
travel long distances or wait longer for precious items or products that were
manufactured by hand or in limited quantity. Now we cannot always be sure that
just because the product or service is not widely known or in use that its
value will increase; or if a product or service is produced in mass quantities
or is easily more accessible does not automatically make it dispensible.
Stevi7
5AMconductions
http://community.webtv.net/TVKill/5AM
Marian Try Slaughter
>half of Negativland's career, Snog, Big City Orchestra, little chunks of
Speaking of big city orchestra... man, thats a wierd wierd cd (the beatlerape)
If I had enough ink, I could write music like that.
Simon - mhm27x5
Nicolas Chevreux
wrote:
>I don't know what you expect from a good example, but I think the
>history of industrial music is full of attempts of subversion of pop.
>
>From the top of my mind ... Throbbing Gristle's "20 Jazz Funk Greats",
>half of Negativland's career, Snog, Big City Orchestra, little chunks of
>Foetus, dance mixes of Einstürzende Neubauten (Yü Gung, Feurio!), Coil's
>"Tainted Love" ...
OK, my opinion was more than "subversion of pop" was more the use of
mainstream music and distribution to deal with more serious,
"industrial" meanings. This would mean that you sell enough CDs to
compare with pop music, hence the Laibach comparison.
Nicolas
np: Kenotaph: Promises
J. Wood
> In rec.music.industrial J. Wood said ...
> |Locke wrote:
> |> What does subversion of pop mean to you?
> |
> |Snog.
>
> Now that's a good start (although it was kinda to be expected).
> But can you explain what makes Snog's use of samples and/or pop hooks
> more subversive than Bill Leeb's? Or V/Vm's more than Puff Daddy's?
No, I can't. Maybe English doesn't have the words, or maybe it's just
one of those unquantifiable gut feelings. Probably the latter. However,
I think most here will agree with my statement, and as everyone knows,
things become more right in a gang.
J
Zoviet Squid
>> Now that's a good start (although it was kinda to be expected).
>> But can you explain what makes Snog's use of samples and/or pop hooks
>> more subversive than Bill Leeb's? Or V/Vm's more than Puff Daddy's?
>
>No, I can't. Maybe English doesn't have the words, or maybe it's just
>one of those unquantifiable gut feelings. Probably the latter. However,
>I think most here will agree with my statement, and as everyone knows,
>things become more right in a gang.
>
Listen to the music--if it 'subverts' pop music then it's subversive pop music.
Snog especially makes this apparent in his material, in his lyrics and in his
choice of sampling--there's really no question about it. The artist has to
provide some sort of context, clue or evidence to their intention if they want
to 'subvert' pop music--otherwise they're just adding to the milieu and are
either trying to be pop music or have simply failed in their attempts to
'subvert' it, IMO. In the case of 'P. Diddy' his origin and context are
obviously rooted in formulaic pop music itself--he's given us absolutely NO
reason to question otherwise. Snog, on the other hand, has.
--zs
np: confield
"shit...everything shits until it dies."--Bukowski
e n -
wrote:
>Okay, things are going pretty slow around here again, so here's food for
>thought. Skimming over old RMI posts I realized that these two ideas
>were thrown around often with little explanation. If some artist works
>within pop music structures he's either accused of 'selling out' or
>hailed for 'subverting pop music', so my question is - how do you
>differentiate between the two?
>
>My theory: there is no definite way to do this, it all comes down to
>personal preference. If you like something you just say 'it's
>subverting pop music' and nobody can prove you wrong. If you don't like
>it, you just call it a sell-out and again nobody can argue against it on
>rational grounds. The dividing line between subversion and selling out
>is the intention of the artist, and nobody but him knows the truth.
>In interviews and public appearance the artist will always try to
>project the image of being subversive, at least in industrial and
>related scenes.
>
>So how do you differentiate between these two opposites?
>What does subversion of pop mean to you?
>
>CU,
>Locke
>
>NP: Graeme Revell "Musique Brut Collection"
bit late on this (too lazy to set up computer) but to throw my bit in,
i think that you're right in that it's a highly subjective line to
draw. although i think that's the case for additional reasons.
what is at stake i think when you are addressing pop (which i consider
both a structural and a cultural label) is more than just the artist's
intent, but the audience reception, interactivity is a bit more of a
key factor due to the nature of pop.
subversion lies not just in the artist's intent, but also in whether
or not the audience, is forced to re-evaluate things, and stretch
their boundaries or definitions of pop. now this makes it difficult to
distinguish then between subversive pop and creative pop (one would
hope they're synonymous) but i suppose that's where intent comes in.
no mater what the intentions though, if there is not at least one
person listening to it forced to reevaluate the way they see music, if
only briefly, then it can't be truly subversive. i think that is why
the most clearly identifiable artists that do this are often ones that
fuse genres into things uncategorizable and into meaningful cohesive
whole as opposed to a mere pastiche (say the difference between snog
and beck. beck made it sound "good" but snog is "challenging" etc. yet
still just asaccessible) really i have no clue. but i do like pop :)
btw - manage to find info about where to order dismemberment plan yet?
sorry just curious as of all the indie bands heralded they are the
only one i've heard that i don't consider overhyped. given their place
now in that scene it's a very strong statement. (yeah so i love them.
ah well.)
np: techno animal - radio hades
Locke
|subversion lies not just in the artist's intent, but also in whether
|or not the audience, is forced to re-evaluate things, and stretch
|their boundaries or definitions of pop. now this makes it difficult to
|distinguish then between subversive pop and creative pop (one would
|hope they're synonymous) but i suppose that's where intent comes in.
Well, I think there is a clear distinction between creative and
subversive pop. Being subversive means undermining the structures
you're working in. This would require that you're creative, but
there's more to it. You still can be creative and leaving the basic
principles intact, therefore not being subversive.
|btw - manage to find info about where to order dismemberment plan yet?
|sorry just curious as of all the indie bands heralded they are the
|only one i've heard that i don't consider overhyped.
I found one of their CDs (Emergency and I) in a German mailorder
catalogue and ordered it, but it was a rather large order and I
haven't received it yet. Will probably take another week or two.
CU,
Locke
NP: Coil "Horse Rotorvator" (four more days to wait ...)
Locke
|Listen to the music--if it 'subverts' pop music then it's subversive pop music.
| Snog especially makes this apparent in his material, in his lyrics and in his
|choice of sampling--there's really no question about it. The artist has to
|provide some sort of context, clue or evidence to their intention if they want
|to 'subvert' pop music--otherwise they're just adding to the milieu and are
|either trying to be pop music or have simply failed in their attempts to
|'subvert' it, IMO.
Hmmm, even when they subvert it they're still adding to the 'milieu'.
I think it's the nature of being subversive. Snog for instance are
being played at club nights (hell, their CDs have BPMs printed on the
back sometimes). One subversive thing is that hereby they convince
the kids to stick "making the revolution sexy" bumper stickers on
their shiny cars, spread the message and finally think about it what
makes the revolution 'cool'.
But at the same time the Context you were talking about is easily
faked. Hordes of marketing specialists invest masses of corporate
dollars to produce a rebellious underground image ("context") for
their product. And who can honestly say if Snog is for real or just
some nifty marketing idea of a Metropolis executive?
CU,
Locke
NP: Coil "Horse Rotorvator"
atf
Locke wrote in message
<18jahtgut2hfefpp2...@news.online.de>...
>And who can honestly say if Snog is for real or just
>some nifty marketing idea of a Metropolis executive?
Supposedly, around when they made Shop they made a music video where they
cut in tons of subliminals of hardcore porn and the like, just microsecond
flashes. Anyway, the song ended up getting a bit of play in Australia in
malls -- so appropriate of course. As the story goes, in at least one of
them it was played on this big wall of monitors which would occasionally
freeze the image and spin it around or something. So sure enough,
eventually it freezes on one of these porn images......
Or so the story goes.
the atf
Cyberina Flux
>::In rec.music.industrial Nicolas Chevreux came up with ...
>::|I agree with you on how fake this distinction is, and I still have to
>::|see one good examples of "subversion of pop".The only band that could
>::|have achieved that, IMHO, is Laibach, but I am not sure they wetn far
>::|enough.
>::
>::I don't know what you expect from a good example, but I think the
>::history of industrial music is full of attempts of subversion of pop.
>::
>::From the top of my mind ... Throbbing Gristle's "20 Jazz Funk Greats",
>::half of Negativland's career, Snog, Big City Orchestra, little chunks of
>::Foetus, dance mixes of Einstürzende Neubauten (Yü Gung, Feurio!), Coil's
>::"Tainted Love" ...
Psychic TVs "Good Vibrations" is the one that sticks out most in my
mind.
np - Puncture - Bottom Feeder (Minimalistic mix)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
::CyBeRiNa FLuX:: ICQ 100768264
AIM - Cyberina
Defektor - Coordinatrix
http://www.defektor.com
Starvox Music Zine - Assistant Editor
http://www.starvox.net
When I was about ten years old, we set up a lemonade stand on the sidewalk
in front of our house. But we didn't sell many glasses, and after a few
hours, we took it down. I think that was the first time I realized that the
world doesn't giva damn about you or anything you do. ~~Jack Handey
e n -
wrote:
>In rec.music.industrial e n - said ...
>|btw - manage to find info about where to order dismemberment plan yet?
>|sorry just curious as of all the indie bands heralded they are the
>|only one i've heard that i don't consider overhyped.
>
>I found one of their CDs (Emergency and I) in a German mailorder
>catalogue and ordered it, but it was a rather large order and I
>haven't received it yet. Will probably take another week or two.
when you get a chance to listen will you chime in with a review? or
email it to me? i'm curious to see what you think. the only oter
feedback i got was positive, but i'm always sort of curious. oh, have
you heard flow yet? i've not so i'm sitll sort of curious about that
as well.
>
>NP: Coil "Horse Rotorvator" (four more days to wait ...)
hmmm...that already made it to the states at 2/3 the some bizarre
price i might add. nice
too bad i'm sort of broke.
np: caspar brotzmann massaker - home
Zoviet Squid
>|Listen to the music--if it 'subverts' pop music then it's subversive pop
>music.
>| Snog especially makes this apparent in his material, in his lyrics and in
>his
>|choice of sampling--there's really no question about it. The artist has to
>|provide some sort of context, clue or evidence to their intention if they
>want
>|to 'subvert' pop music--otherwise they're just adding to the milieu and are
>|either trying to be pop music or have simply failed in their attempts to
>|'subvert' it, IMO.
>
>Hmmm, even when they subvert it they're still adding to the 'milieu'.
I meant the milieu of vapid pop-music for its own sake, not for the sake of
whatever it is they're trying to do. But yeah I see what you mean.
>I think it's the nature of being subversive. Snog for instance are
>being played at club nights (hell, their CDs have BPMs printed on the
>back sometimes). One subversive thing is that hereby they convince
>the kids to stick "making the revolution sexy" bumper stickers on
>their shiny cars, spread the message and finally think about it what
>makes the revolution 'cool'.
There will always be those who listen to it for their own reasons, of course.
>
>But at the same time the Context you were talking about is easily
>faked. Hordes of marketing specialists invest masses of corporate
>dollars to produce a rebellious underground image ("context") for
>their product. And who can honestly say if Snog is for real or just
>some nifty marketing idea of a Metropolis executive?
I agree, but my point was to distinguish among bands that have created a
context (or attempted to) of 'subverting' a static formula between ones who
obviously havn't--figuring out whether or not that supposedly 'subversive' pop
music is sincere or not comes later. You can't honestly say that the lines
between the intentions of Britney Spears and Throbbing Gristle are blurred. My
comment above was made mostly to illustrate my opposition to the puff daddy
comment.
As for deciding the sincerity of an artist you have to just commit to the most
intelligent hypothesis. For example, I think integrity has a lot to do with
this decision and so far I have no reason to question Snog's; also, take into
account just how *successful* the music is at doing it--if it isn't then it
isn't. Now if you want to keep digging deeper into the circular abyss of
continual uncertainty and doubt between definitions and these choices then by
all means flounder there, but you'll get nowhere and end up sounding like
Voltair.
--zs
atf
>oh, have you heard flow yet? i've not so i'm sitll sort of curious about
that
>as well.
You're in NYC right? Going to go to Maxwell's for his show tomorrow?
Flow is one of those records that just gets better and better.....
the atf
Tom Shear
largely in the eye of the beholder. Without knowing the artists intimately, we
really can't know their intention. If people like a band, they tend to attach
certain favorable characteristics to that band which may or may not be valid
(Snog is a good example... FLA gets slammed for their sampling and yet Lies,
Inc might as well be called "We just bought a copy of Depeche Mode's Violator
and are going to sample the fuck out of it"... as for their 'innovation' in
mixing spaghetti western music with industrial.. two words: Acid Horse... I
also find him to be one of the most annoyingly preachy bands this side of
Consolidated... although at least Thrussel seems to have a sense of humor..).
I think this is symptomatic of the tendency for a lot of people to
over-intellectualize music. Sometimes people just want to make music because
they enjoy it and want to have fun. Or to paraphrase something I have heard
time and time again, 'sometimes a train is just a triain'. It saddens me
sometimes to see people who are only into music that is obscure or experimental
simply for the fact that no one else knows about it, and thus it gives them
some sort of 'status'. Before anyone jumps on me, I am sure a lot of people
get that 'hairs on the back of your neck standing on end' feeling from very
experimental stuff (I do as well with the right stuff), but I think there's a
lot of posturing as well which loses sight of what I think music is all
about... listen to what you like and what gives you pleasure.
I can't even count the number of times I have seen interviewer's jaws drop
when they ask what I have been listening to lately and I tell them Missy
Elliott. But you know what? I like it, it inspires me, and why should anyone
care about anything beyond that? Listen to what you like. Listen to what
makes your head bob and puts a smile on your face.
Is it subversive or a sellout? Who the fuck cares? If you like it, you like
it. Stand up and be proud.
-t/a23
http://www.assemblage23.com
http://www.gashed.com
http://www.accession-records.com
e n -
wrote:
from NYC as well. dunno hw to drive. waiting for the brownies show
quite honestly. you? hey....unless you wanna give me a ride...*not
that i'll necessarily take it but...)
np: stratvm terror - pain implantations
>
>the atf
>
>
>www.seze.net/atf
>
>
Locke
|>| [dismemberment plan]
|email it to me? i'm curious to see what you think. the only oter
|feedback i got was positive, but i'm always sort of curious.
That can be arranged, I think. After we have discussed the matter
here it's only fair to the lurkers to give them at least a short note
concluding the story.
| oh, have
|you heard flow yet? i've not so i'm sitll sort of curious about that
|as well.
Uh ... it's part of the same order as the Dismemberment Plan ...
|np: caspar brotzmann massaker - home
Good album ... I've heard that Caspar Brötzmann was collaborating with
a German rapper (Thomas D, member of the very popular band "Die
phantastischen Vier") on his solo album. I know you like hip hop, so
maybe that is of interest to you. I haven't heard the Thomas D album
yet, but I will try to listen to it in a record shop as soon as I find
the time ...
CU,
Locke
NP: The The "Mind Bomb"
e n -
>e n - scribbled:
>| oh, have
>|you heard flow yet? i've not so i'm sitll sort of curious about that
>|as well.
>
>Uh ... it's part of the same order as the Dismemberment Plan ...
ah i see. alright. i've yet to grab it. hear both positive and
negative so...
juast need to hit my regular store. their cds are always cheaper.
>|np: caspar brotzmann massaker - home
>
>Good album ... I've heard that Caspar Brötzmann was collaborating with
>a German rapper (Thomas D, member of the very popular band "Die
>phantastischen Vier") on his solo album. I know you like hip hop, so
>maybe that is of interest to you. I haven't heard the Thomas D album
>yet, but I will try to listen to it in a record shop as soon as I find
>the time ...
hmmm....that definitely sounds interesting. i enjoy brotzmann but me
having to play things on low volume has been a problem as you can see
wiht my half assed reviews of the cds i purcahsed. that and being
traped like a sardine in a NYC apartment again has not done wonders
for my mood. i still need to unpack. funny though my first brotzmann
was with einheit and i shall be seeing peter on friday with william
parker. joy :)
but please do let me know once you get a chance to hear it. i'll keep
an eye out myselg and thanks for the heads up.
np: jackie-o motherfucker - fig. 5
atf
>from NYC as well. dunno hw to drive. waiting for the brownies show
>quite honestly. you? hey....unless you wanna give me a ride...*not
>that i'll necessarily take it but...)
Path train to NJ is like $1.50 and takes about 5 minutes from Manhattan.
the atf
fritter
> Is it subversive or a sellout? Who the fuck cares? If you like it, you like
>it. Stand up and be proud.
>-t/a23
*amen! i'm getting tired of people who consistently jump on the Cool Train every
time a new genre comes out. oh, i like this because it's the newest thing...not
because i actually LIKE it. i'm going to say i hate this genre because that
seems to be the prevalent opinion. a pox on all your houses!* -fritter, a
collective soul fan, also first in line for rammstein tickets. ps. hi
everyone. :>
phat mike
capacitor caused the following to appear :
> -fritter, a
> collective soul fan, also first in line for rammstein tickets.
you little rebel, you little rebel you.
-mike
np: v/a - krach test
--
* rewt AKA noid AKA r3wt AKA phatmike *
@apathy.ne.mediaone.net
Armitage-VI
when we were coming out of the Coldwave Industrial guitar phase
certain people seemed to be jumping all over EBM and Elektro. There
were half the rmi talking about it like they've been into it for years
listening to Wumpscut and the like. Then the other half of the people
were like NO! Elektro suckx blah blah blah.. Then not to long ago the
whole IDM thing came into play, then power electronics, then Synthpop.
BLAH BLAH BLAH.. That's what this newsgroup is for right? People agree
people disagree. I for one like a little of everything, Synthpop,
EBM,Powernoise, Coldwave etc.. I've learned that it's not any
particular subgenre I like. I like them all it's just a matter of
weeding out the bands that I really like from the ones that I'm really
not interested in. I hate to say this, but the whole Electro thing, My
god I've never heard so many bands sound the exact same. It's really
sad when you can tell that more than a dozen bands follow the exact
same recipe of distorted vocals(usually about nothing really so why
even have vocals) the 16note basslines, the triple kick 4/4 beat,
insert movie sample here. I hate to say it, but 90% of the bands on
Metropolis sound the EXACT same! It's like it's cool to like one genre
of music, but when the whole genre just copies itself it just becomes
this incestous parody of itself. I mean I find it odd, how the so
called "industrial" music scene WAS all about experimentation, and it
seems like now days, EVERYTHING in this genre of music has to be
pigeon-holed and catagorized. It's sad really, I use to be soo excited
about Industrial music. But originality seems less and less. Everyday.
I get tired of reading articles in Outburn and Interface, and all that
hooplah, and I"ll read all the reviews, that are like YOu've gotta
hear this band!! THis is the new face of Electro industrial, This is
the future,blah blah blah. Then I go and buy the CD and it's the same
re-hashed shit I"ve heard a million times before. While this genre of
music is probably the most diverse ofgenres(industrial), It still
needs a breath of fresh air(every now and then). It just seems at
times that this "cutting edge genre" is just as closed minded and
shallow as pop music, and all the other hooplah. Synthpop is just
another evolution in post industrial. If you ask me, it's the same old
ebm/electro, just now that the distorted vocals are really lame, so
now we have clean vocals and it's Synthpop.
Who cares about genres, You're lucky if you find a really good band
at all,
I'm not trying to bash everyband out there. I mean If you say hey I'm
gonna be in an industrial band, and we're gonna sample Hellraiser and
sing like Ogre. That's cool do your thing, just realize that there's a
million other bands doing the exact same thing. This also goes to show
that you don't have to be ground breaking to be good. I remember an
interview with Decoded Feedback, and they said "you don't have to be
innovative to sound good" True enough,but this also probably explains
why they are on Metropolis. I just think in this day and age there
should be some really crazy shit going on musically, and it just
doesn't seem to be on the level I think it should be on. But who
knows, maybe it is, and I've just not discovered it yet.
My opinion (and rant)
David
NP: Hanzel Und Gretyl "Transmissions from Uranus"
JT
@news.cis.dfn.de:
>>You're in NYC right? Going to go to Maxwell's for his show tomorrow?
>>Flow is one of those records that just gets better and better.....
>
> from NYC as well. dunno hw to drive. waiting for the brownies show
> quite honestly. you?
Bah! Even me, the epitome of lazy slack-ass, went to the show. It r0x0red.
And I'm not even a big Foetus fan. The opening band mostly sucked though.
--
"You can buy them at pretty much any industrial Supply store. And
when I say Industrial Supply, I don't mean the store you go to buy
Bill Leebs stolen beats, I mean the place you go to buy spot
welding materials, and big metal pipes."
http://www.mp3.com/1148pm
e n -
>jy...@pantheon.yale.edu (e n - ) wrote in news:3b15f69e.13400441
>@news.cis.dfn.de:
>
>>>You're in NYC right? Going to go to Maxwell's for his show tomorrow?
>>>Flow is one of those records that just gets better and better.....
>>
>> from NYC as well. dunno hw to drive. waiting for the brownies show
>> quite honestly. you?
>
>Bah! Even me, the epitome of lazy slack-ass, went to the show. It r0x0red.
>And I'm not even a big Foetus fan. The opening band mostly sucked though.
hey jersey boy! shouldn't give me the opportunity to call you out
while i'm drunk. basically i NEVER go into jersey so for me to
navigate can be a bit of the pain. but basically he gave me directions
and i didn't end up going cause i didn't check my email again till 9pm
for some god forsaken reason. sad to hear that about arab on radar
though. did your brother go too?
np: yo la tengo - and nothing turned itself inside out
StvCD7
JT
@news.cis.dfn.de:
> hey jersey boy! shouldn't give me the opportunity to call you out
> while i'm drunk.
Hey, I'm Californian, New Jersey sucks. :P
> i didn't end up going cause i didn't check my email again till 9pm
> for some god forsaken reason.
Well Foetus didn't go on until 10:30, you could have made it... maybe.
> sad to hear that about arab on radar
> though.
They were kinda funny but it got old real fast... and it was too monotonous.
> did your brother go too?
Yeah.
Cyberina Flux
>::people disagree. I for one like a little of everything, Synthpop,
>::EBM,Powernoise, Coldwave etc.. I've learned that it's not any
>::particular subgenre I like. I like them all it's just a matter of
>::weeding out the bands that I really like from the ones that I'm really
>::not interested in.
Thank you Jesus, I'm not alone in this cruel, cruel world.
If the song's good, play it. That's my motto!
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
::CyBeRiNa FLuX:: ICQ 100768264
AIM - Cyberina
Defektor - Coordinatrix
http://www.defektor.com
Starvox Music Zine - Assistant Editor
http://www.starvox.net
"If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried."
atf
>Bah! Even me, the epitome of lazy slack-ass, went to the show. It
r0x0red.
>And I'm not even a big Foetus fan. The opening band mostly sucked though.
It was suprisingly good, and just seemed to build as it it went. Really
great to have him playing stuff from Nail.
Could have done without moshing boy though.
the atf
JT
@slb7.atl.mindspring.net:
So where were you standing? And what did you think of the opening band?
atf
I was pretty close to the front and a little bit to the left.....
Arrived just in time to miss the opening band (which is probably just as
well).
the atf
Darren Miller
>
>> -fritter, a
>> collective soul fan, also first in line for rammstein tickets.
>
>you little rebel, you little rebel you.
>
"You rebel scum"
D.
Voltair
: My theory: there is no definite way to do this, it all comes down to
: personal preference. If you like something you just say 'it's
: subverting pop music' and nobody can prove you wrong. If you don't like
: it, you just call it a sell-out and again nobody can argue against it on
: rational grounds. The dividing line between subversion and selling out
: is the intention of the artist, and nobody but him knows the truth.
: In interviews and public appearance the artist will always try to
: project the image of being subversive, at least in industrial and
: related scenes.
Wow locke, that was the most disturbingly objective post I think Ive
ever seen you make.
Voltair
: Now that's a good start (although it was kinda to be expected).
: But can you explain what makes Snog's use of samples and/or pop hooks
: more subversive than Bill Leeb's?
Snog is being "Cynical" <snicker>
Voltair
: Snog especially makes this apparent in his material, in his lyrics and in
: his
: choice of sampling--
all the
while have his works distributed by Metropolis (one of the most capitalistic
of the "underground" labels) , taking fat cash from goths
at Convergence, and NOT having any free, and therefore
anti-capitalist, outlet for distributing his music to coincide with his
anti capitalist rhetoric. Subversive, or just hipcritical? you decide.
PLus the man cant carry a tune. But he is a damn good prgrammer, I give him
that, I just think he should stick to that, and leave the preaching at home.
At least , If hes going to preach, have someone with less nasal vocals do it.
eschaton
Voltair wrote:
>
> Zoviet Squid <tape...@aol.commienazi> wrote:
>
> : Snog especially makes this apparent in his material, in his lyrics and in
> : his
> : choice of sampling--
>
> all the
> while have his works distributed by Metropolis (one of the most capitalistic
> of the "underground" labels) , taking fat cash from goths
> at Convergence, and NOT having any free, and therefore
> anti-capitalist, outlet for distributing his music to coincide with his
> anti capitalist rhetoric. Subversive, or just hipcritical? you decide.
I think the fact that he says right on his CDs that they are copyright
free speaks for itself.
--
The ass is not a genital - Jamie Rosen
Tom Shear
free speaks for itself. <<
How could he not? He samples so freely from other people that he doesn't even
own the copyright to be able to give it away properly anyway. I'll say it
again, but Thrussel is no better than Leeb when it comes to unaltered samples.
In fact, early rumors have it he has changed his name to 'Three-diddly'... ; )
Locke
|I think the fact that he says right on his CDs that they are copyright
|free speaks for itself.
Oh really? The ones I have all carry a copyright notice. Usually the
copyrights are assigned to the IMCC or the respective labels. How
does this mean that they are copyright free?
But please don't respond to tell me the MACOS symbol means the disc is
copyright free, because it does not.
If you want to see a really copyright free album, look at a Tape
Beatles / Public Works album where it is explicitly stated that 'This
work is in the public domain.'
CU,
Locke
NP: Coil "Journey to Avebury"
Locke
|Zoviet Squid <tape...@aol.commienazi> wrote:
|: Snog especially makes this apparent in his material, in his lyrics and in
|: his
|: choice of sampling--
|
|all the
|while have his works distributed by Metropolis (one of the most capitalistic
|of the "underground" labels) , taking fat cash from goths
|at Convergence, and NOT having any free, and therefore
|anti-capitalist, outlet for distributing his music to coincide with his
|anti capitalist rhetoric. Subversive, or just hipcritical? you decide.
But you must admit that he addressed his inability to live outside of
the capitalistic market system in songs like "The Ballad", so it would
not be fair to call him hypocritical.
Voltair
: isn't. Now if you want to keep digging deeper into the circular abyss of
: continual uncertainty and doubt between definitions and these choices then by
: all means flounder there, but you'll get nowhere and end up sounding like
: Voltair.
At least he'll be being honest with himself, instead of masquerading
his biased opinions and cheap, tawdy prejudices as "logic"
Voltair
>it. Stand up and be proud.
A-Men!
V
(who bought an extra copy of Toms new album, just because he is such a smart
man)
Voltair
: |anti capitalist rhetoric. Subversive, or just hipcritical? you decide.
: But you must admit that he addressed his inability to live outside of
: the capitalistic market system in songs like "The Ballad",
sorry, Im not familiar with that song, so I really cant address that
: so it would
: not be fair to call him hypocritical.
not so sure about that. I think there is a difference between being
completey outside the capitalist market system, and say, making an effort
to give a reasonable percentage of the music you make away free, in a fashion
which does not cost you money, the latter of which is something which thrussel,
to the best of my knowledge, does not do. (I will apopligize profusely if I am
actually incorrect in this partially informed asumption)
No one expects Thrussel to give away thousands
of free cds to the screaming, pimply faced masses of computer geeks and
social outcasts who find psychological solace in his cyncical and twisted
tunes, but Id have an heck of alot more respect for his anti-capitalist
preaching if , for instance, he put a small number of his old Eps and singles
up on mp3.com instead of liscening them all to Metropolis.
: NP: Coil "Journey to Avebury"
they really need to put that out on a cd...its a great piece of work
necKro23
Voltair <jrd...@unix.amherst.edu> wrote:
>not so sure about that. I think there is a difference between being
>completey outside the capitalist market system, and say, making an effort
>to give a reasonable percentage of the music you make away free, in a fashion
>which does not cost you money, the latter of which is something which thrussel,
>to the best of my knowledge, does not do. (I will apopligize profusely if I am
>actually incorrect in this partially informed asumption)
> No one expects Thrussel to give away thousands
>of free cds to the screaming, pimply faced masses of computer geeks and
>social outcasts who find psychological solace in his cyncical and twisted
>tunes, but Id have an heck of alot more respect for his anti-capitalist
>preaching if , for instance, he put a small number of his old Eps and singles
>up on mp3.com instead of liscening them all to Metropolis.
http://www.cyberden.com/imcc/html/archives.html
That is all.
--
--- "brother, you're living in the land of the bland"
---- neckro at fojar dot com
----- (you work it out)
atf
>How could he not? He samples so freely from other people that he doesn't
even
>own the copyright to be able to give it away properly anyway. I'll say it
>again, but Thrussel is no better than Leeb when it comes to unaltered
samples.
>In fact, early rumors have it he has changed his name to 'Three-diddly'...
; )
All this sampling stuff really scares you doesn't it?
the atf
Tom Shear
>>All this sampling stuff really scares you doesn't it?
Not at all, I just find it funny how people will rag on Leeb and then turn
around and praise Thrussel as being 'brilliant' when his use of unaltered
samples is just as blatant. I have no problem with sampling, but at least mess
with it a bit to 'make it yours'.
eschaton
Locke wrote:
>
> eschaton scribbled:
> |I think the fact that he says right on his CDs that they are copyright
> |free speaks for itself.
>
> Oh really? The ones I have all carry a copyright notice. Usually the
> copyrights are assigned to the IMCC or the respective labels. How
> does this mean that they are copyright free?
> But please don't respond to tell me the MACOS symbol means the disc is
> copyright free, because it does not.
One of the many symbols on the albums (at least the later day ones), is
a copyright C with a no symbol covering it up.
atf
Tom Shear wrote in message <20010606135859...@ng-fr1.aol.com>...
>Not at all, I just find it funny how people will rag on Leeb and then turn
>around and praise Thrussel as being 'brilliant' when his use of unaltered
>samples is just as blatant. I have no problem with sampling, but at least
mess
>with it a bit to 'make it yours'.
Well, though I agree that Leeb shouldn't be bashed for his blatant sampling
(nor should Puff Daddy as far as I'm concerned), I think people (such as
myself) are quite entitled to find FLA pathetic and Snog brilliant.
You know, in a not very earnest defense of Thrussell's work (because I don't
think it's necessary), he's manipulated as many samples as he hasn't, and
every album has had a lot more live instrumentation that you might
suspect.....
But this entire notion that you have to "make it yours" is pretty silly I
think.
I mean, do you like Drum and Bass at all? Those people have mined the
Winstons et al about as pathetically as possible.
the atf
Tom Shear
(nor should Puff Daddy as far as I'm concerned)<<
I do. It's fucking lazy.
>>I think people (such as myself) are quite entitled to find FLA pathetic and
Snog brilliant.<<
I never once said that you didn't have that right. I simply said that I found
it amusing. People should listen to whatever they want.
>>You know, in a not very earnest defense of Thrussell's work (because I don't
think it's necessary), he's manipulated as many samples as he hasn't, and
every album has had a lot more live instrumentation that you might
suspect.....<<
Color me impressed. I still hate his vocals (Budweiser frog, anyone?), think
his lyrics are the things of high school art room discussions, and I really
can't find a single thing I find interesting about his music. I think Black
Lung is even worse. Just cliched 303isms out the ass. But that's MY opinion.
If you think he's the cat's pajamas, great!
>>But this entire notion that you have to "make it yours" is pretty silly I
think.<<
Your entitled to your opinion. As a musician, I think it's lazy not to.
>>I mean, do you like Drum and Bass at all? Those people have mined the
Winstons et al about as pathetically as possible.<<
True, and I can't stand that stuff... if I hear the Heliocopter or Apache beat
one more time I am going to freak out. I like drum and bass, but the stuff I
find really appealing is the stuff that either makes the source nearly
unrecognizable, or makes up something new entirely. (check out Drum n' Bass
Conspiracy comp for some really good stuff)
Dayv!
>
> I think Black Lung is even worse. Just cliched 303isms out the ass.
How many Black Lung releases have you heard? Not that I expect you to
like any of them, but I think the different releases have more diversity
than "just cliched 303ism"...
--
-Dayv!
"I'm gonna fuck you in my red hot car."
atf
>Color me impressed. I still hate his vocals (Budweiser frog, anyone?),
think
>his lyrics are the things of high school art room discussions, and I really
>can't find a single thing I find interesting about his music. I think
Black
>Lung is even worse. Just cliched 303isms out the ass. But that's MY
opinion.
>If you think he's the cat's pajamas, great!
See, I think you've got this bitterness toward his music (and maybe people
liking it) that you try to disguise with this sampling debate you only
half-heartedly have an interest in.......
>>>But this entire notion that you have to "make it yours" is pretty silly I
>think.<<
>
>Your entitled to your opinion. As a musician, I think it's lazy not to.
As a musician, I've got no problem with sampling. As a fan of music I'd
rather hear a sample of depeche mode then a band just mining their sound.
>>>I mean, do you like Drum and Bass at all? Those people have mined the
>Winstons et al about as pathetically as possible.<<
>
>True, and I can't stand that stuff... if I hear the Heliocopter or Apache
beat
>one more time I am going to freak out. I like drum and bass, but the stuff
I
>find really appealing is the stuff that either makes the source nearly
>unrecognizable, or makes up something new entirely. (check out Drum n'
Bass
>Conspiracy comp for some really good stuff)
So you don't like, say, Squarepusher?
the atf
atf
>> I think Black Lung is even worse. Just cliched 303isms out the ass.
>
> How many Black Lung releases have you heard? Not that I expect you to
>like any of them, but I think the different releases have more diversity
>than "just cliched 303ism"...
Say, how is the new one anyway?
(You've got it, yes?)
the atf
eschaton
Tom Shear wrote:
>
> atf sed:
> >>All this sampling stuff really scares you doesn't it?
>
> Not at all, I just find it funny how people will rag on Leeb and then turn
> around and praise Thrussel as being 'brilliant' when his use of unaltered
> samples is just as blatant. I have no problem with sampling, but at least mess
> with it a bit to 'make it yours'.
But I think there is a certain art to combining samples too. Even if
you don't alter a sample, to mix two or more samples from disparate
songs together you need to be able to figure out ahead of time the key
and BPM of all songs in question. I don't generaly think that drum
samples are very artful though, as pitch isn't a concern
(unfortunatly... since no one ever thinks to tune their fucking drum
patches), and you can just layer until the cows come home.
Jamie Rosen
> Locke wrote:
>>
>> Oh really? The ones I have all carry a copyright notice. Usually the
>> copyrights are assigned to the IMCC or the respective labels. How
>> does this mean that they are copyright free?
>> But please don't respond to tell me the MACOS symbol means the disc is
>> copyright free, because it does not.
>
> One of the many symbols on the albums (at least the later day ones), is
> a copyright C with a no symbol covering it up.
Isn't that just the MACOS symbol? I don't have the albums handy (I'm at
the library) but I think it is...
--
I do believe it's wrong, definitely. Standing around, and laughing at
someone, infringing on people's rights.
Tom Shear
>> How many Black Lung releases have you heard? Not that I expect you to
like any of them, but I think the different releases have more diversity
than "just cliched 303ism"...<<
Obviously that's a broad generalization, but I was expecting a lot more from
the praise I had heard regarding it. I've heard 3 releases (couldn't name
them for you, although Disinformation Plague was definitely one of them), as
well as some comp tracks. Just sounded like really cliched old school trance
to me.
Tom Shear
>>See, I think you've got this bitterness toward his music (and maybe people
liking it) that you try to disguise with this sampling debate you only
half-heartedly have an interest in.......<<
Now you're really reaching... Why is it any time I express an opinion that
might not be popular in these parts, that it gets chalked up to bitterness? I
have nothing to be bitter about! Furhtermore, if I was going to be bitter
about someone why on earth would I choose Thrussel, a rather obscure artist?
Couldn't it just possibly be that I find humor in the hypocrisy of people
slagging an artist for something, and then praising another artist who does the
same thing? That was my only point, but you've tried to turn it into something
it's not, I think.
>>As a musician, I've got no problem with sampling. As a fan of music I'd
rather hear a sample of depeche mode then a band just mining their sound.<<
You're not understanding my point. I have no problem with sampling. My
problem is with people who sample lazily and make no effort to be creative with
it.
>>So you don't like, say, Squarepusher?
Not what I've heard, but I've only heard Big Loada. Bought the new single
after hearing all the hype and it bored me to tears, and then when THAT
drumloop came in it kind of ruined it for me. Liked the b-sides though. Drum
n' bass is a really tough genre to find good stuff in because there is SO much
of it, and so much of it really doesn't do much for me... but the really good
stuff blows me away.
atf
>Now you're really reaching... Why is it any time I express an opinion that
>might not be popular in these parts, that it gets chalked up to bitterness?
I
>have nothing to be bitter about! Furhtermore, if I was going to be bitter
>about someone why on earth would I choose Thrussel, a rather obscure
artist?
>Couldn't it just possibly be that I find humor in the hypocrisy of people
>slagging an artist for something, and then praising another artist who does
the
>same thing? That was my only point, but you've tried to turn it into
something
>it's not, I think.
...
>You're not understanding my point. I have no problem with sampling. My
>problem is with people who sample lazily and make no effort to be creative
with
>it.
I don't know, you just seem to have an ax to grind about it.
I've no issue with you liking or not liking Thrussell's work, and I think
it's completely fare to point out the hypocrisy of bashing something like
FLA for its sampling and then liking Snog despite his.
But then why if your only issue is how people use samples did you bring up
this huge list of reasons why you don't like Snog, which had nothing to with
sampling?
Are we discussing sampling or not?
>>>So you don't like, say, Squarepusher?
>
>Not what I've heard, but I've only heard Big Loada. Bought the new single
>after hearing all the hype and it bored me to tears, and then when THAT
>drumloop came in it kind of ruined it for me. Liked the b-sides though.
Drum
>n' bass is a really tough genre to find good stuff in because there is SO
much
>of it, and so much of it really doesn't do much for me... but the really
good
>stuff blows me away.
Well, there is some really good Squarepusher (and parts of the new album are
really great actually), but that's not really my point. Drum and Bass is
just a good example of a genre where just about all of its identifying
elements are based around the same half-dozen or so drum samples -- Indeed a
genre that is completely based around sampling.
the atf
Tom Shear
>>I don't know, you just seem to have an ax to grind about it.
I've no issue with you liking or not liking Thrussell's work, and I think
it's completely fare to point out the hypocrisy of bashing something like
FLA for its sampling and then liking Snog despite his.
But then why if your only issue is how people use samples did you bring up
this huge list of reasons why you don't like Snog, which had nothing to with
sampling?
Are we discussing sampling or not?<<
Yeah, but we were discussing specifically FLA and Snog's use of sampling...
Since I am in the minority here, I was simply trying to explain to the vast
majority of you who DO dig Snog what specifically it was I didn't like.
(sometimes it's easier to understand someone not liking something if you know
why specifically.. at least it is for me). It was really just a side note. No
ax to grind with Thrussel or his fans at all.
JT
news:3b1df8ec$1...@amhnt2.amherst.edu:
Ahem. Step right up folks, hypocrisy at its finest!
::runs away::
--
"If you don't stop saying "futurepop," I'm going to drown you in your
own filth."
http://www.mp3.com/1148pm
JT
news:20010606175757...@ng-fk1.aol.com:
> Bought the new single
> after hearing all the hype and it bored me to tears, and then when THAT
> drumloop came in it kind of ruined it for me.
What drumloop did he sample for the new single? (I haven't heard it)
JT
@freenet9.carleton.ca:
> eschaton (hzimm...@snet.net) writes:
>> One of the many symbols on the albums (at least the later day ones), is
>> a copyright C with a no symbol covering it up.
>
> Isn't that just the MACOS symbol? I don't have the albums handy (I'm at
> the library) but I think it is...
If it's this: http://www.icomm.ca/macos/graphics/nocopyrt.gif
Then it's the MACOS (no relation to apple computers ;-) logo.
Dayv!
I dig it. It's sort of a mix between idm and ambient sounds. I
particularly like the first track. Being an EP, it is a bit short...
Dayv!
>>> How many Black Lung releases have you heard? Not that I expect you to
> like any of them, but I think the different releases have more diversity
> than "just cliched 303ism"...<<
>
> Obviously that's a broad generalization, but I was expecting a lot more from
> the praise I had heard regarding it. I've heard 3 releases (couldn't name
> them for you, although Disinformation Plague was definitely one of them), as
> well as some comp tracks. Just sounded like really cliched old school trance
> to me.
Disinformation Plague and the earlier releases (Silent Weapons...,
Depopulation Bomb) are the least interesting to me. They're also the
easiest to find in the U.S. I think the strongest releases are
Psychocivilised Society, Extraordinary popular Delusions, and Profound and
Sentimental Journey. These have a broader range of sounds and moods,
while still retaining a distinct Black Lung sound.
e n -
wrote:
>>>Well, though I agree that Leeb shouldn't be bashed for his blatant sampling
>(nor should Puff Daddy as far as I'm concerned)<<
>
>I do. It's fucking lazy.
hmmm....with puffy i'd say it more resembles covers than sampling
quite honestly. leeb i won't comment on. i havent heard enough to care
or know.\
>>>You know, in a not very earnest defense of Thrussell's work (because I don't
>think it's necessary), he's manipulated as many samples as he hasn't, and
>every album has had a lot more live instrumentation that you might
>suspect.....<<
>
>Color me impressed. I still hate his vocals (Budweiser frog, anyone?), think
>his lyrics are the things of high school art room discussions, and I really
>can't find a single thing I find interesting about his music. I think Black
>Lung is even worse. Just cliched 303isms out the ass. But that's MY opinion.
>If you think he's the cat's pajamas, great!
what is 303? but as far as black lung goes the only thing i listened
to was some 12" but i'll agree and say that what i heard was rather
uninspired and boring. not too different imo. on the other hand the
bit i heard of buy me sounded like great fun. reminds me of some mike
patton work for whatever that's worth to people here.
>
>>>But this entire notion that you have to "make it yours" is pretty silly I
>think.<<
>
>Your entitled to your opinion. As a musician, I think it's lazy not to.
by altering, or by context? you can make something yours without
altering the sample but by changing the context so radically that it
becomes something wholly new imo. i don't know if thrussel does that
as i've not heard enough of his work or the original sources, but
perhaps that's where so many find the appeal of his work?
np: modest mouse - this is a long drive for someone with nothing to
think about
Per Ekman
Talk about legally binding! Take me to court or loose me forever.
The back of _Third Mall_ clearly states that the copyright belongs to
I.M.C.C Quality Products.
*p
Voltair
:>social outcasts who find psychological solace in his cyncical and twisted
:>tunes, but Id have an heck of alot more respect for his anti-capitalist
:>preaching if , for instance, he put a small number of his old Eps and singles
:>up on mp3.com instead of liscening them all to Metropolis.
: http://www.cyberden.com/imcc/html/archives.html
: That is all.
wow. 4 whole songs.
Voltair
: You know, in a not very earnest defense of Thrussell's work (because I don't
: think it's necessary), he's manipulated as many samples as he hasn't, and
: every album has had a lot more live instrumentation that you might
: suspect.....
Why is gods name is tweaking a sample some kind of hallmark of genius?
It doesnt take an musical mozart to change a samples pitch, play it backward,
etc, etc.... Personally, I think the overall composition that the sample is
placed into is just as relevant as what is done in manipulating the sample
itself..possibly moreso.
: But this entire notion that you have to "make it yours" is pretty silly I
Voltair
: Couldn't it just possibly be that I find humor in the hypocrisy of people
: slagging an artist for something, and then praising another artist who does
: the same thing?
god knows I do. laugh with me, fatboy
Voltair
: Voltair <jrd...@unix.amherst.edu> wrote in
: news:3b1df8ec$1...@amhnt2.amherst.edu:
:> Zoviet Squid <tape...@aol.commienazi> wrote:
:>
:>: isn't. Now if you want to keep digging deeper into the circular abyss
:>: of continual uncertainty and doubt between definitions and these
:>: choices then by all means flounder there, but you'll get nowhere and
:>: end up sounding like Voltair.
:>
:> At least he'll be being honest with himself, instead of masquerading
:> his biased opinions and cheap, tawdy prejudices as "logic"
: Ahem. Step right up folks, hypocrisy at its finest!
What? You bufoon, like I even care what validity this puss filled ng gives
my beleifs. Its just fun dissecting other people.
Voltair
: necKro23 <nec...@visi.com> wrote:
: : http://www.cyberden.com/imcc/html/archives.html
: : That is all.
: wow. 4 whole songs.
yesiree...one..two ...three...four. Out of what is probably a several hundred
song (and or remix) discography. They certainly are raging against the machine.
e n -
wrote:
ha. don't start me ranting on ratm. you must really disresepct
thrussel though :)
as for copyright stuff i believe z'ev records explicitly state that
they are not covered by any copyright and are part of the public
domain.
np: radiohead - the bends
Voltair
: ha. don't start me ranting on ratm. you must really disresepct
: thrussel though :)
no, I just think that in action, if not words, hes not that much different
that the people he mocks. im not really slamming him at all, just making
an observation.
atf
JT wrote in message ...
>toms...@aol.comYourMom (Tom Shear) wrote in
>news:20010606175757...@ng-fk1.aol.com:
>
>> Bought the new single
>> after hearing all the hype and it bored me to tears, and then when THAT
>> drumloop came in it kind of ruined it for me.
>
>What drumloop did he sample for the new single? (I haven't heard it)
I think he's talking about the Amen break which is in just about every
Squarepusher song ever at one point or another......
the atf
atf
>Why is gods name is tweaking a sample some kind of hallmark of genius?
>It doesnt take an musical mozart to change a samples pitch, play it
backward,
>etc, etc.... Personally, I think the overall composition that the sample is
>placed into is just as relevant as what is done in manipulating the sample
>itself..possibly moreso.
Couldn't agree more myself, but for some reason a lot of people just can't
even begin to approach it from that angle......
the atf
atf
But what is the point you're trying to make, exactly?
Because if it's that there are copyright symbols on the back of Snog albums,
you're just being naive about how the music publishing industry works.
If it's that because there are copyright symbols on Snog albums Thrussell
must be a firm supporter of it, you're just ignoring the obvious.....
the atf
Armitage-VI
> Why is gods name is tweaking a sample some kind of hallmark of genius?
> It doesnt take an musical mozart to change a samples pitch, play it backward,
> etc, etc.... Personally, I think the overall composition that the sample is
> placed into is just as relevant as what is done in manipulating the sample
> itself..possibly moreso.
But this entire notion that you have to "make it yours" is pretty
silly I
: think.
: I mean, do you like Drum and Bass at all? Those people have mined
the
: Winstons et al about as pathetically as possible.
I have to aggree with you Voltaire ,I mean The song structure is a
major factor into making a good song. I think we all agree that
sampling is good as a tool for your music. But it sucks when you base
your entire works off of samples. I mean you have to have something to
make it your own, your own programming, your own keyboarding, etc..
YOu have to be able to utilize all of this and execute it in good
form. That is what seperates the good electronic artist from the no
talent hacks...I unfortunatly fall somewhere in between, but I'm
blessed enough that I work with some very talented musicians who can
take my programming, and make something great out of it. I mean look
at Drum n Bass, that's a genre that is pretty much based around
sampling, While that's fine I think everyone agrees, that you have to
add your personal touches to it to make it original. I am against
sampling someone elses hooks, that are obvious. Which is probably why
I've never been into hip hop, cause it's too obvious who and where the
get their source material. A good sampling artist can take various
source material and make a song with it, and hide and manipulate it to
have an original sound..
Best Wishes,
Dave
www.voodou.org
Voltair
: But what is the point you're trying to make, exactly?
see below
: Because if it's that there are copyright symbols on the back of Snog albums,
: you're just being naive about how the music publishing industry works.
: If it's that because there are copyright symbols on Snog albums Thrussell
: must be a firm supporter of it, you're just ignoring the obvious.....
im not talking anything about copyrighting albums. I know its so rancourous
taiwanese bootlegers wont have such an easy time making a pirated buck
at Mr thrussels expense. If you go back an look what I was talking about,
I mentioned absolutely nothing about copyright symbols.
atf
>If you go back an look what I was talking about,>I mentioned absolutely
nothing about copyright symbols.
Right, you said:
"no, I just think that in action, if not words, hes not that much different
that the people he mocks."
And I fail to see how you've substantiated this on any level.
Enlighten me.
the atf
JT
@slb6.atl.mindspring.net:
Oh. A radio DJ my friend knows said []pusher ripped off someone for the new
single, so I thought that's what Todd was referring to.
np: Radiohead: Hunting Bears
--
"does punching yourself in the gut while you jizz induce a more
powerful climax?"
http://www.mp3.com/1148pm
JT
@news.cis.dfn.de:
> what is 303?
The Roland TB-303 bassline generator.
looky --> http://machines.hyperreal.org/manufacturers/Roland/TB-303/
JT
news:3b1f52fd$1...@amhnt2.amherst.edu:
> Why is gods name is tweaking a sample some kind of hallmark of genius?
> It doesnt take an musical mozart to change a samples pitch, play it
> backward, etc, etc.... Personally, I think the overall composition that
> the sample is placed into is just as relevant as what is done in
> manipulating the sample itself..possibly moreso.
Whoever thinks sampling is for talentless hacks, go buy DJ Shadow's
"Entroducing". If that doesn't change your mind, nothing will.
The Black Oil
Armitage-VI <armit...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4e1c8a11.01060...@posting.google.com...
> I have to aggree with you Voltaire ,I mean The song structure is a
> major factor into making a good song. I think we all agree that
> sampling is good as a tool for your music. But it sucks when you base
> your entire works off of samples.
Well, since no one else has brought him up yet, check out Phil Easter's
stuff as Stone Glass Steel and Iron Halo Device for an example of great
stuff based entirely off samples, both where the sample sources are mostly
obvious (IHD) and where the source is less apparent (SGS).
--
Greg
np: Tool "Lateralus"
"Yeah, well I'm gonna build my own lunar space lander! With blackjack
aaaaannd Hookers! Actually, forget the space lander, and the blackjack.
Ahhhh forget the whole thing!"
-Bender "Futurama"
eschaton
The Black Oil wrote:
>
> Armitage-VI <armit...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4e1c8a11.01060...@posting.google.com...
> > I have to aggree with you Voltaire ,I mean The song structure is a
> > major factor into making a good song. I think we all agree that
> > sampling is good as a tool for your music. But it sucks when you base
> > your entire works off of samples.
>
> Well, since no one else has brought him up yet, check out Phil Easter's
> stuff as Stone Glass Steel and Iron Halo Device for an example of great
> stuff based entirely off samples, both where the sample sources are mostly
> obvious (IHD) and where the source is less apparent (SGS).
It would be funny if Phil Easter and Phil Western did a project
together...they could call it east/west or something...
God I am bored.
--
The ass is not a genital - Jamie Rosen
JT
news:3b1f5464$1...@amhnt2.amherst.edu:
> JT <po...@message.invalid> wrote:
>: Voltair <jrd...@unix.amherst.edu> wrote in
>: news:3b1df8ec$1...@amhnt2.amherst.edu:
>
>:> At least he'll be being honest with himself, instead of masquerading
>:> his biased opinions and cheap, tawdy prejudices as "logic"
>
>: Ahem. Step right up folks, hypocrisy at its finest!
>
>
> What? You bufoon, like I even care what validity this puss filled ng
> gives my beleifs. Its just fun dissecting other people.
Hey, it was a joke, lighten up. Since when did I ever hold an intelligent
discussion in this NG?
Arbitrator
JT <po...@message.invalid> wrote...
>
> Voltair <jrd...@unix.amherst.edu> wrote:
> >
> > What? You bufoon, like I even care what validity this puss
> > filled ng gives my beleifs. Its just fun dissecting other
> > people.
>
> Hey, it was a joke, lighten up. Since when did I ever hold an
> intelligent discussion in this NG?
About as many times as Voltair did?
HA! The laffs just keep COMING!
NP - A Perfect Cricle: _Mer De Noms_
Voltair
: Voltair wrote in message <3b1fb566$1...@amhnt2.amherst.edu>...
: Right, you said:
Uhh have you missed some of my posts:
He preaches about the evils and shortcomings of capitlism, then embraces
it almost exclusively in regard to distribution of his music. No one is asking
him to give all his music away for free, but youd think that someone who
preaches so profusively about the evils of mass marketing would give away
more than a handful of his own releases for free, and in doing so make some
sort of signifigant, tangible sacrifice for his ideals.
Voltair
Voltair
: Hey, it was a joke, lighten up. Since when did I ever hold an intelligent
: discussion in this NG?
bend over
atf
>Uhh have you missed some of my posts:
>He preaches about the evils and shortcomings of capitlism, then embraces
>it almost exclusively in regard to distribution of his music. No one is
asking
>him to give all his music away for free, but youd think that someone who
>preaches so profusively about the evils of mass marketing would give away
>more than a handful of his own releases for free, and in doing so make some
>sort of signifigant, tangible sacrifice for his ideals.
And you've failed to substantiate this on any level.
Firstly, surely Snog lyrics/etc have been confronting their own inherent
hypocrisy, but secondly, why do you think he's exclusively embraced some
form of distribution?
Have you seen him take some stance on this that I've missed? This entire
idea that it's his duty to be making it easy for you to get any of his work
for free is just ludicrous.....
I mean, I've personally seen him give cds away to all sorts of people. The
first time he came to the US via Metropolis he had a huge stack of
Australian only Black Lung releases and he handed them all out.
In addition there are several Black Lung bootlegs (and probably Snog for all
I know) floating around which Thrussell has had absolutely no problem with
(and at least one of which had his consent).
And I know I've mentioned on this newsgroup before that he's been
instrumental in a tribute album for East Timor, and that's he's turned down
commercial work for jobs he didn't believe in.
So just what are you talking about?
the atf
Armitage-VI
> Voltair <jrd...@unix.amherst.edu> wrote in
> news:3b1f52fd$1...@amhnt2.amherst.edu:
>
> > Why is gods name is tweaking a sample some kind of hallmark of genius?
> > It doesnt take an musical mozart to change a samples pitch, play it
> > backward, etc, etc.... Personally, I think the overall composition that
> > the sample is placed into is just as relevant as what is done in
> > manipulating the sample itself..possibly moreso.
>
> Whoever thinks sampling is for talentless hacks, go buy DJ Shadow's
> "Entroducing". If that doesn't change your mind, nothing will.
I wasn't trying to say that sampling is for no talent hacks. Lord
knows I do my fair share of sampling, but I was just trying to state
that my personal views are that If you sample, then you've gotta have
some sort of personal substance involved as
well(programming,sequencing,etc) in order to give yourself a signature
sound. I just feel like if all you do is structure songs with other
people's material then you are more or less just a DJ. Not saying
that there's anything wrong with that, just stating that I feel like
sampling is a good tool for making music, but I personally don't rely
on samples to make a song and I avoid any sample that is obvious or
overused. But their are plenty of no talent hacks that sample (i.e.
Puff Daddy) but to me that's not even sampling, that's just taking
someone elses song and rapping over it. Sampling still get's alot of
beef, but it's also becoming a standard practice in music, I mean look
at Acid and Mixman and all the stuff they offer. Kids everywhere are
now buying this stuff to make music, I mean it use to be kids buying
guitars and drums, etc..No days it's more available every and just as
many kids are buying software and turntables, etc. Sampling is easy,
anyone can do it, The true talent with sampling is, can you make a
song that is good, and have good structure, and at the same time make
it sound like it's all your own? That's what I mean by a good
electronic artist vs. a no talent kack case in point Bill Leeb vs.
Puff Daddy, although El Leebo isn't as bad as P.Diddy, he still does
sample some REALLY obvious stuff, but I give him respect cause he
always comes up with those wicked signature FLA Basslines, and I
thought FLavour of the Weak was a cool album. I mean what he did with
those Underworld loops was great.(I think). But I find it
dissapointing when I hear a song I really like and then here the exact
same sample in another song by another band.
I just feel that if you sample you've got to make your songs sound
like something different than someone else's stuff. A cool thing about
sampling, is you can combine two different loops, manipulate them and
you've got something entirely your own. That's an example of good
sampling I think.
Best Wishes,
Dave
NP: Diverje "On Skin"
www.voodou.org
Djall
> > |Locke wrote:
> > |> What does subversion of pop mean to you?
> > |
> > |Snog.
> >
> > Now that's a good start (although it was kinda to be expected).
> > But can you explain what makes Snog's use of samples and/or pop hooks
> > more subversive than Bill Leeb's? Or V/Vm's more than Puff Daddy's?
>
> No, I can't. Maybe English doesn't have the words, or maybe it's just
> one of those unquantifiable gut feelings. Probably the latter. However,
> I think most here will agree with my statement, and as everyone knows,
> things become more right in a gang.
Hello folks...
My thoughts on the above would be, intent. P Diddy intends on
making "good"
poppie music for the masses in order to rack in the bucks. He want's
the Mtv play
and the radio play and the clothing line and the limo and the "sexy
girls". Snog,
as far as I've heard, is anti "superstar". He try's to point out
what's wrong with
commercialism and capitolism with his music. Laibach, well, I think
Laibach as well
as NSK stand for eveything that is
antipop/culture/mainstream/whathaveyou. Look at Let It Be.
One of the most popular Beatles albums ever and Laibach didn't just
cover it, they
made it their own. They formed it into an album that "the norm" won't
want to listen
to.
So there, I think intent is the difference.
llajd
JT
Voltair
: Voltair wrote in message <3b201176$1...@amhnt2.amherst.edu>...
:>Uhh have you missed some of my posts:
:>He preaches about the evils and shortcomings of capitlism, then embraces
:>it almost exclusively in regard to distribution of his music. No one is
: asking
:>him to give all his music away for free, but youd think that someone who
:>preaches so profusively about the evils of mass marketing would give away
:>more than a handful of his own releases for free, and in doing so make some
:>sort of signifigant, tangible sacrifice for his ideals.
: And you've failed to substantiate this on any level.
uhhhh. How exactly do you fail to see the hipcrosy of complaining about
capitalism (ie. selling things) and then not doing Anything which could be
conceived as "railing against capitalism" except in words? I dont know how
much more clear I could be be without repeating myself. If capitalism is
so terrible, why dive into it to such depth? Personally, I have more respect
for the unibomber than I do thrussel. At least he practices what he preaches
: Firstly, surely Snog lyrics/etc have been confronting their own inherent
: hypocrisy,
if he actually made some signifigant
financial sacrifice for his ideals (ie put
some of his old singles/eps on napster or MP3.com, instead of liscenening
every single one to metropolis) I dont thinkt he would have anywhere
near as much
"inherent" hypocrisy. No one is asking him to do this for his entire
discography, but doing it for 10 to 25% of it would be making much more
of a statement than his preaching does...
: but secondly, why do you think he's exclusively embraced some
: form of distribution?
because i dont SEE anywhere that more than a handful of his songs have
been willing
made available for free, thus, hes almost exclusivly embraced a capitalist
form of distrubution.
: Have you seen him take some stance on this that I've missed?
yeah. to make a long story short,
"capitalism is fucked up". Its a pretty common and resosant idea in his
artwork and lyrics
: This entire
: idea that it's his duty to be making it easy for you to get any of his work
: for free is just ludicrous.....
A) I dont really like most snog. I presonally dont give a fuck.
B) Yes, if hes going to preach about how terrible, bad, and fucked up it is
to engage in capitalism (.i.e selling things to people, as opposed to sharing
or giving it to them)
, he does, or he looks like a hippocrite . Let me speak very slowly, and
say it again,,,,,so you can understand: "Capitalism" is about selling things
to people. If you think the economic system that revolves around
selling things to
people is so bad, you should "share" some of what you posses, or create, with
others (especially if it doesnt cost you money to do so, i.e. electronically
distributing your music)
: I mean, I've personally seen him give cds away to all sorts of people.
wow. no other bands EVER do that. If hes so into "sharing" I wonder what all
the hubub about that black lung live bootleg floating around here last year.
should
he even care who has a copy? I got one...I wonder if he minds if I burned
if off and gave it away free....better than having some evil corportion
hawk it off the poor sheep consumers,eh?
: The
: first time he came to the US via Metropolis he had a huge stack of
: Australian only Black Lung releases and he handed them all out.
like i said, Im sure no other band has ever done that.
its called "promotional material" actually, and just about every band does it.
And , as far as slap in the face to capitalism, Id say giving napster
permission to fileshare 10% of your back catalog would be far more effective
than giving out cds to a incredibly
small fraction of the the totality of the people
who would be interested in hearing them.
: In addition there are several Black Lung bootlegs (and probably Snog for all
: I know) floating around which Thrussell has had absolutely no problem with
: (and at least one of which had his consent).
well, the only one I know about, as I mentioned earlier, caused quite a fuss
around here. grantedly, thrussel himself made no comment about it on this ng
, but one
of his freinds seems to be in a tizzy because a certain fellow with the last
name of Jones was allegedy distributing it.
: And I know I've mentioned on this newsgroup before that he's been
: instrumental in a tribute album for East Timor, and that's he's turned down
: commercial work for jobs he didn't believe in.
wow...really railing against the man there.
not sure what this has to do with the anti capitalist argument. Im not
up on east timor, is it one of those evil capitalistic countries? is that
where all the sweatshops are?
: So just what are you talking about?
Read above. Read it slowy. Try and comprehend.
JT
@amhnt2.amherst.edu:
>: Have you seen him take some stance on this that I've missed?
>
> yeah. to make a long story short,
> "capitalism is fucked up". Its a pretty common and resosant idea in his
> artwork and lyrics
Maybe it's all one huge joke. And you fell for it.
Or maybe I'm just spouting bullshit (hey, it's certainly wouldn't be the
first time)
Locke
|uhhhh. How exactly do you fail to see the hipcrosy of complaining about
|capitalism (ie. selling things) and then not doing Anything which could be
|conceived as "railing against capitalism" except in words? I dont know how
|much more clear I could be be without repeating myself. If capitalism is
|so terrible, why dive into it to such depth? Personally, I have more respect
|for the unibomber than I do thrussel. At least he practices what he preaches
Do you really know what Thrussell is doing all day? Obviously you must
... or otherwise you're just the hypocrite yourself.
|if he actually made some signifigant
| financial sacrifice for his ideals (ie put
|some of his old singles/eps on napster or MP3.com, instead of liscenening
|every single one to metropolis) I dont thinkt he would have anywhere
|near as much
|"inherent" hypocrisy. No one is asking him to do this for his entire
|discography, but doing it for 10 to 25% of it would be making much more
|of a statement than his preaching does...
I fail to see how putting stuff on MP3.com is doing anything against the
capitalist system. Whatever you feed into the capitalist economy for
free is just swallowed by it and doesn't leave any impression. Even
though it would be a Statement of sorts it still wouldn't be very
effective. Furthermore, MP3.com is owned by Vivendi (or some other
corporate conglomerate, I forgot), Napster is owned by Bertelsmann, and
by handing over your stuff for free you're just supporting these
corporations who would use your work to raise their profile and power.
So in the end it would probably be better to use your beloved small
company Metropolis to sell your music than a multinational corporation
to give it away almost for free.
Even if you share your stuff for free in some other way it won't change
the world you live in, the cashier at the supermarket would laugh in
your face if you ask him for free food as a statement against his
exploitative boss.
| [...] thus, hes almost exclusivly embraced a capitalist
|form of distrubution.
Yep ... that's the meaning of the word 'subversion' in the subject line
of this thread. Working against the system from within its structures.
|: And I know I've mentioned on this newsgroup before that he's been
|: instrumental in a tribute album for East Timor, and that's he's turned down
|: commercial work for jobs he didn't believe in.
|
|wow...really railing against the man there.
Well, it's certainly better than to give your stuff away to some fat
first world bitches who sit on their computers and download mp3s because
they've learned their capitalist lesson number one: get everything as
cheap as you possibly can.
CU,
Locke
NP: Aphex Twin "I Care Because You Do"
--
_ __ ___ _ __ ___ \\|||//
| | / \ / _/| |/ /| _| / @ @ \
| |__| || || |_ | \ | _| (| \ |)
|____|\__/ \__\|_|\_\|___| \__=__/
| |