for anti-mp3.comers
Cal Crawford
mp3.com:
Your song is on hold because it appears to have encoding problems.
(silence and noise
bursts) Review the FAQ's and try again, testing the song before upload.
me:
the silences and noise bursts are completely intentional in that track
(bass2). i listened to
the encoded version and it sounded the way it was intended. please post
it the way it is.---
mp3.com:
In that case, take it out of "Love Songs". That is genre misplacement.
Notify me when
that is done, and the song will be eligible for approval.
me:
sure. i’ll put it in experimental where feelings do not exist.
balerno
seperate from experimental? or for being simply electronic? can something be
merely electronic without being experimental? how flat! can noise be dark
ambient? i like to think so, but your idea of what constitutes 'ambient' may
be different from mine...and then there's abstract, industrial electronic -
and what is extreme music? i like to think of it as being electronic but any
random search is going to throw you in front of some truly bleak thrash
metal band who think extreme boils down to loud and fast and - oh god -
satanic (Quiet at the back, stop that laughing!) then there's alternative -
alternative to what exactly?
All Good Things
Balerno
www.balerno.org.uk/humangreed
"nunya biznaz" <x@x.x> wrote in message
news:67225B82B37E9EA1.C4BBF33A...@lp.airnews.net...
> so now they're the genre police? as if noise love songs don't exist.
> >sure. i=92ll put it in experimental where feelings do not exist.
Aut
> >'genre' is such a vague area anyway. what defines noise as being
singularly
> >seperate from experimental? or for being simply electronic? can something
be
> >merely electronic without being experimental? how flat! can noise be dark
> >ambient? i like to think so, but your idea of what constitutes 'ambient'
may
> >be different from mine...and then there's abstract, industrial
electronic -
> >and what is extreme music? i like to think of it as being electronic but
any
> >random search is going to throw you in front of some truly bleak thrash
> >metal band who think extreme boils down to loud and fast and - oh god -
> >satanic (Quiet at the back, stop that laughing!) then there's
alternative -
> >alternative to what exactly?
> >All Good Things
> >Balerno
You are an idiot.
You watch too much television and drink too much Coca-Cola.
Lets kill "genre". Its for marketing men and MTV VJ's
Halogen8
of undifined sounds, sometimes with the incorporation of noise,sort of like a
fusion.Generally tends to be looser in it's composition. Experimental is where
you'll find recordings of people shouting in french with dogs barking in the
background and stuff like that.
BRXTNLE
something particular. say ambient over harsh noise. but i think noise as a
whole kind of straddles the lines of it's own genre's. i mean you have artists
who do everything whithin and out of noise. what do you call an artist/band who
covers ambient/experemental/harsh noise and then throws a casio pop tune in the
middle of a single release?? i think genre's are obsolete these days. everyone
is splitting each down the middle to create some bastard genre for their own
shit, then there are others who would argue the validity of their claim of
their own stuff a certain genre. i see this in "power electronics" all the
time. no one knows what "power electronics" even is anymore. everyone's got
their own take. i think words like experimental, harsh, ambient, electro
acoustic, should be used as adjectives, as opposed to selected styles. hell
even in non noise related music, people are pushing the boundaries of genres in
main stream music! fuckem i say.
that is all
Noisegood: It's What You Want!
http://www.geocities.com/noisegood
Jetrock
>what defines noise as being different from experimental is a good
>question. i think it boils down to genre identity, which one you relate
>to and why. noise seems more animated or immature sometimes.
>experimental seems more like serious art. experimental is like the adult
>contemporary of noise. noise is like the punk of experimental. or maybe
>experimental is intelligent noise and noise is experimental with an
>attitude. the term experimental has been around so long that noise just
>sounds worse, more immediate. i don't personally believe in any of those
>stereotypes, but they ring true more or less. we'll just have to change
>all that, or polarize it more.
"experimental" is merely a safe word for noise.
I have a pet theory that music forms should have short, one or two
syllable names. Punk. Folk. Jazz. Rap. Techno. Rave. Rock. (Rock & roll is
two one-syllable words.) Country. Blues. Ska.
As name gets longer, soul gets drained out. Alternative. Electronica.
Adult Contemporary.Even "industrial." By the time you get to the end of
the word you're already bored. Which is excellent, if you're a boring
person like a record executive. So you package punk as "alternative" (less
dangerous even than "new wave") to make it palatable to your boring
bosses who listen to adult contemporary.
I book noise shows. When I tell a venue I want to book an "experimental"
show they seem soothed by the nice long word, and envision bespectacled
lads making beep-boop noises, and are willing to go along with it. When I
say I want to book a "noise" show, they cover their ears and go "nooo!
that hurts my ears!" This is because the word NOISE has different
connotations. Even though I'm talking about the same bands performing the
same music, when I call it "experimental" it is okay, but when I call it
"noise" it becomes harsher. They all envision some band that will smash
things on stage and cause immense damage and trouble--which is almost
never the case, except for UBERKUNST.
So "experimental" is our cover word, our means of breaking through until a
space is comfortable enough with our bands to start calling them "noise"
shows in public.
--
--Rev. Jetrock, Events Coordinator,
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENTAL MUSIC FESTIVAL 2000
Sacramento, CA, September 22-24, 2000
For NF-2000 information, go to http://emrl.com/nf
Floyd Diebel
>You haven't had a point since you started posting here.
>
>> Shut the fuck up, kiwi cunt. Killing genre is my point.
>>
>>
>> >You are an idiot.
fucking rad. kick his ass.
-f
-----
fdi...@boulez.emrl.com
a/v composition and engineering.
Aut
> Shut the fuck up, kiwi cunt. Killing genre is my point.
>
>
> >You are an idiot.
> >
Aut
> "experimental" is merely a safe word for noise.
Hrm, there are lots of "experimental" artists that couldn't be considered
noise... what about the plethora of "experimental" classical artists... or
take someone like Bernhard Gunter, who's music is about a lack of sound.
I have a semiotic problem with "experimental" too... it suggests an
experiment. Most of this music isn't an experiment, its well-concieved.
> As name gets longer, soul gets drained out. Alternative. Electronica.
> Adult Contemporary.Even "industrial." By the time you get to the end of
> the word you're already bored. Which is excellent, if you're a boring
> person like a record executive. So you package punk as "alternative" (less
> dangerous even than "new wave") to make it palatable to your boring
> bosses who listen to adult contemporary
You are stupid and you have a short attention span.
> So "experimental" is our cover word, our means of breaking through until a
> space is comfortable enough with our bands to start calling them "noise"
> shows in public.
How about avant-experi-noisal.
zed
jetrock@REMOVE_ME.emrl.com (Jetrock) said unto the masses:
>I have a pet theory that music forms should have short, one or two
>syllable names. Punk. Folk. Jazz. Rap. Techno. Rave. Rock. (Rock & roll is
>two one-syllable words.) Country. Blues. Ska.
These aren't music forms, they're genre forms -- a marketing
distinction, not a an artistic one. I admit this is all most people
consider, though -- when was the last time you went a record store
with a 'minimalist' section?
>I book noise shows. When I tell a venue I want to book an "experimental"
>show they seem soothed by the nice long word, and envision bespectacled
>lads making beep-boop noises, and are willing to go along with it. When I
>say I want to book a "noise" show, they cover their ears and go "nooo!
>that hurts my ears!" This is because the word NOISE has different
>connotations. Even though I'm talking about the same bands performing the
>same music, when I call it "experimental" it is okay, but when I call it
>"noise" it becomes harsher. They all envision some band that will smash
>things on stage and cause immense damage and trouble--which is almost
>never the case, except for UBERKUNST.
Hmmm. I see the point of labeling 'noise' as 'experimental' for
marketing purposes, but personally, I get really fucking pissed when
someone refers to my music as 'experimental,' because I see that term
as implying that one is experimenting with things that may be more or
less odd now, but will be commercial in a little bit, and so, as the
'experimenter,' one will be at the forefront of this new commercial
genre. Neither position being one I want to see myself in. YMMV.
This is also why, as a 'noise' fan, I find it more respectable when
artists label themselves as 'noise.' Plus, 'experimental' tends to
include a vast array of art-rock faggots whom I care very little for.
--
Each narrow cell in which we dwell / Is a foul and dark latrine,
And the fetid breath of living Death / Chokes up each grated screen
And all, but Lust, is turned to dust / In Humanity's machine.
-- Oscar Wilde --|-- remove 'spam' and 'munge' to email. just '_@'.
Jetrock
>
>
>> "experimental" is merely a safe word for noise.
>
>Hrm, there are lots of "experimental" artists that couldn't be considered
>noise... what about the plethora of "experimental" classical artists... or
>take someone like Bernhard Gunter, who's music is about a lack of sound.
Like I said, it's a cover word. We disguise our noise under an
experimental hood.
>
>I have a semiotic problem with "experimental" too... it suggests an
>experiment. Most of this music isn't an experiment, its well-concieved.
>
Most of the experimental performances I've seen were pretty ill-conceived.
Bastardized, perhaps.
>> As name gets longer, soul gets drained out. Alternative. Electronica.
>> Adult Contemporary.Even "industrial." By the time you get to the end of
>> the word you're already bored. Which is excellent, if you're a boring
>> person like a record executive. So you package punk as "alternative" (less
>> dangerous even than "new wave") to make it palatable to your boring
>> bosses who listen to adult contemporary
>
>You are stupid and you have a short attention span.
The general public are stupid and have a short attention span. This is why
popular music formats have short names, and unpopular music formats have
long names. Long words are for people who want to sound smart--people who
say "insect" instead of "bug", "canine" instead of "dog", "fornicate"
instead of "fuck", and "experimental" instead of "noise." But the stupid
masses, with their short attention spans like to fuck and listen to rock,
and they're our audience.
As for me, I am spectacularly stupid and have a miniscule attention span.
>> So "experimental" is our cover word, our means of breaking through until a
>> space is comfortable enough with our bands to start calling them "noise"
>> shows in public.
>
>How about avant-experi-noisal.
>
well, we have been known to use the "avant-garde" term before, but then
people start asking questions because they don't know what "avant-garde
music" is, whereas with "experimental" they have a preconceived notion of
what "experimental music" means for some reason. If you create a new
classification people start asking what you mean, and when you try to
explain it they'll latch onto the first descriptive term you use and hang
their preconceptions on that instead of your new term. I'd rather take
advantage of their preconceptions--I don't care what they think of my
music, other than will they let me book a show?
I really don't care what my music is defined as--you can call it noise or
experimental or avant-noisician-antimuzik or even a bucket of poo (my
music has been decribed as such.) All I know is that I get more shows when
I ask if they'd mind hosting an experimental music performance vs. hosting
a noise show.
Jetrock
>On 26 Jun 2000 20:03:50 -0700, in alt.noise,
>jetrock@REMOVE_ME.emrl.com (Jetrock) said unto the masses:
>
>>I have a pet theory that music forms should have short, one or two
>>syllable names. Punk. Folk. Jazz. Rap. Techno. Rave. Rock. (Rock & roll is
>>two one-syllable words.) Country. Blues. Ska.
>
>These aren't music forms, they're genre forms -- a marketing
>distinction, not a an artistic one. I admit this is all most people
>consider, though -- when was the last time you went a record store
>with a 'minimalist' section?
What's the difference between a music form and a genre form? Many of the
above classifications have their own defining musical characteristics.
>Hmmm. I see the point of labeling 'noise' as 'experimental' for
>marketing purposes, but personally, I get really fucking pissed when
>someone refers to my music as 'experimental,' because I see that term
>as implying that one is experimenting with things that may be more or
>less odd now, but will be commercial in a little bit, and so, as the
>'experimenter,' one will be at the forefront of this new commercial
>genre. Neither position being one I want to see myself in. YMMV.
What, you don't want to risk the possibility of twiddling effects pedals
for an arena of screaming fans? A cavalcade of blow-dried Merzbow
sound-alikes in the Top 40 charts? Oh god, the horror!
Personally, there are things I think are more likely to occur, like, say,
an invasion of lizard-men from the planet Reptar.
>This is also why, as a 'noise' fan, I find it more respectable when
>artists label themselves as 'noise.' Plus, 'experimental' tends to
>include a vast array of art-rock faggots whom I care very little for.
And "noise" tends to include a vast array of morons with effects pedals
who think it's original because it was original a few decades ago.
Remember Sturgeon's Law here.
Someday we'll be able to call it noise without having to hide behind the
experimental label. And that, I'm afraid, is when we will be faced with
the concept of pop-noise. Can the lizard-men of Reptar be far behind?
Jetrock
>On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 10:04:44 +1200, Aut <removethi...@waste.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>> Shut the fuck up, kiwi cunt. Killing genre is my point.
>>>
>>>
>>> >You are an idiot.
>
>
zed
jetrock@REMOVE_ME.emrl.com (Jetrock) said unto the masses:
>What's the difference between a music form and a genre form? Many of the
>above classifications have their own defining musical characteristics.
That they do, but generally speaking, the defining musical
characteristics of those genres are those which make sense to people
thinking in terms like 'this music is fast' rather than 'this music
sounds sort of minimalist abstract expressionist,' like, say, record
marketing people. I just think the second sort of distinction tends
to make more sense to people who stop to think about music in some
sort of artistic context.
>What, you don't want to risk the possibility of twiddling effects pedals
>for an arena of screaming fans? A cavalcade of blow-dried Merzbow
>sound-alikes in the Top 40 charts? Oh god, the horror!
>
>Personally, there are things I think are more likely to occur, like, say,
>an invasion of lizard-men from the planet Reptar.
Heh. Probably, but my objection was to being lumped in with such
people as wish to be 'experimental' for such reasons in more
listener-friendly genres, not that I feared for my music being played
by disc jockeys nationwide.
>And "noise" tends to include a vast array of morons with effects pedals
>who think it's original because it was original a few decades ago.
>Remember Sturgeon's Law here.
Tragically, you are right. I think the ratio may be a wee bit better
in 'noise,' but maybe it is only a little better.
>Someday we'll be able to call it noise without having to hide behind the
>experimental label. And that, I'm afraid, is when we will be faced with
>the concept of pop-noise. Can the lizard-men of Reptar be far behind?
Well, I think there may be a hidden advantage in a label that drives
some people off, but that may just be my misanthropic side coming to
bear.
Halogen8
deem what you want your shit to be called. Who cares what other people call it.
Coin a term if you get all bent out of shape over a word.
Aut
> >I have a semiotic problem with "experimental" too... it suggests an
> >experiment. Most of this music isn't an experiment, its well-concieved.
> >
> Most of the experimental performances I've seen were pretty ill-conceived.
> Bastardized, perhaps.
That too... but it doesn't make them "experimental"
> The general public are stupid and have a short attention span. This is why
> popular music formats have short names, and unpopular music formats have
> long names. Long words are for people who want to sound smart--people who
> say "insect" instead of "bug", "canine" instead of "dog", "fornicate"
> instead of "fuck", and "experimental" instead of "noise." But the stupid
> masses, with their short attention spans like to fuck and listen to rock,
> and they're our audience.
I'd like to see some statistical analysis of this. Your theory on
syllable-culture is intriguing.
> well, we have been known to use the "avant-garde" term before, but then
> people start asking questions because they don't know what "avant-garde
> music" is, whereas with "experimental" they have a preconceived notion of
> what "experimental music" means for some reason. If you create a new
> classification people start asking what you mean, and when you try to
> explain it they'll latch onto the first descriptive term you use and hang
> their preconceptions on that instead of your new term. I'd rather take
> advantage of their preconceptions--I don't care what they think of my
> music, other than will they let me book a show?
Thats why you say... "my music is kinda like Kid Rock" that always works for
me.
> I really don't care what my music is defined as--you can call it noise or
> experimental or avant-noisician-antimuzik or even a bucket of poo (my
> music has been decribed as such.) All I know is that I get more shows when
> I ask if they'd mind hosting an experimental music performance vs. hosting
> a noise show.
I like "noise",... its an honest, working-class blue-collar word. None of
this art fag shite.
Aut
>
> just what exactly is "avant-garde" anyway? what do those words mean?
> where did they come from? it must be french for noise.
"Advanced Guard". I think it originated from the Napoleonic Wars. It was a
word to describe the first line of troops that attacked an enemy position.
They were generally all brutally slaughtered, allowing the main force of the
army to march over their dead bodies to victory.
Sometime in the late 19th - early 20th century it was applied to certain art
movements that arose in France... describing their foward thinking aims.
It was probably applied to certain post-Romantic/post-classical music around
this time too.
James Dewey
> where did they come from? it must be french for noise.
At the forefront, an old military term for the front of the formation.
So avant-garde in terms of music and art is just stuff that is at the
forefront of experimentation and "one step ahead" or something. It's all
irrelevant now, I must say. It's funny, a lot of old modern composition
records have "NEW MUSIC FROM THE LEADERS OF THE AVANT-GARDE" written boldly
on the covers. Now it's 2000, and all of those things are just relics.
Some are classics, but most are relics. 1960's electronic music is no
longer new! So whenever I use the term "avant-garde", I'm usually referring
BACK to the old (possibly dead) guys like John Cage. It should be
"retro-garde" by now, but it's just a term... Some use it to just say that a
musician is weird. Avant-rock, avant-jazz, avant-crap, whatever. I wonder
if the term "experimental" will ever get outdated and be used to describe
what it originally did, shit like Tietchens and Nurse With Wound. Actually,
what do I know, I was a youngster when they were making most of their
records. I'm not the best source, but I thought I'd comment. Let's just
get on with it and accept the fact that we live in some dumb postmodern
world and there isn't anything new. We're just filling in small gaps that
are left over now, and we only hope that it doesn't start to get boring.
Hopefully we'll be dead by then and leave future generations to wallow in
the boredom that we created for them. There's always the sky to look at, I
guess.
- James
jbd...@geocities.com
http://www.freespeech.org/-_/
Jetrock
>
>> just what exactly is "avant-garde" anyway? what do those words mean?
>> where did they come from? it must be french for noise.
>
>word to describe the first line of troops that attacked an enemy position.
>They were generally all brutally slaughtered, allowing the main force of the
>army to march over their dead bodies to victory.
well, that certainly sounds like most of the noise performers I know.
Jetrock
>
>> Most of the experimental performances I've seen were pretty ill-conceived.
>> Bastardized, perhaps.
>
>That too... but it doesn't make them "experimental"
Perhaps "excremental" would be a better term.
>> The general public are stupid and have a short attention span. This is why
>> popular music formats have short names, and unpopular music formats have
>> long names. Long words are for people who want to sound smart--people who
>> say "insect" instead of "bug", "canine" instead of "dog", "fornicate"
>> instead of "fuck", and "experimental" instead of "noise." But the stupid
>> masses, with their short attention spans like to fuck and listen to rock,
>> and they're our audience.
>
>I'd like to see some statistical analysis of this. Your theory on
>syllable-culture is intriguing.
I would, but my attention span is too short.
>
>> well, we have been known to use the "avant-garde" term before, but then
>> people start asking questions because they don't know what "avant-garde
>> music" is, whereas with "experimental" they have a preconceived notion of
>> what "experimental music" means for some reason. If you create a new
>> classification people start asking what you mean, and when you try to
>> explain it they'll latch onto the first descriptive term you use and hang
>> their preconceptions on that instead of your new term. I'd rather take
>> advantage of their preconceptions--I don't care what they think of my
>> music, other than will they let me book a show?
>
>Thats why you say... "my music is kinda like Kid Rock" that always works for
>me.
damn, I'll have to try that. A bunch of people thought my last big show
was a metal show because I had pictures of COCK ESP in their death-metal
outfits and a demon-headed Evil God from an old UBERKUNST show on the
flyer.
>> I really don't care what my music is defined as--you can call it noise or
>> experimental or avant-noisician-antimuzik or even a bucket of poo (my
>> music has been decribed as such.) All I know is that I get more shows when
>> I ask if they'd mind hosting an experimental music performance vs. hosting
>> a noise show.
>
>I like "noise",... its an honest, working-class blue-collar word. None of
>this art fag shite.
Once noise is a pop-cultural sensation we'll get to use it, and it's what
the working-class blue-collar listeners will call it, and we can hang the
art-fag experimental composer terms up by their intestines.
Jetrock
>
>>Someday we'll be able to call it noise without having to hide behind the
>>experimental label. And that, I'm afraid, is when we will be faced with
>>the concept of pop-noise. Can the lizard-men of Reptar be far behind?
>
>Well, I think there may be a hidden advantage in a label that drives
>some people off, but that may just be my misanthropic side coming to
>bear.
>
people off, and Green Day set out to be as non-commercial as possible when
they started in the late 1980's--they didn't change their sound, but the
definition of what was commercial did.
It's like picking up girls in a bar--the guy who gets the most action is
the guy who looks like he really couldn't give a damn if he gets it or
not. The desperate-looking ones go home alone.
Jetrock
>its all about the XSXCXUXMX, baby.
>
>
>>semantics...word fucking, Noise, experimental, jazz, free jazz, fusion. You
>>deem what you want your shit to be called. Who cares what other people call it.
>>Coin a term if you get all bent out of shape over a word.
get down with the FLPEBRMBLE scene or get left, boyeeee!
You Here
>
>Let's just
>get on with it and accept the fact that we live in some dumb postmodern
>world and there isn't anything new.
or so the genre police would have you believe! I'm sick of genres, they might
have been useful for me when I was 14 and looking to get into 'cool' music but
now all they do is cause me to have to walk around record stores trying to
figure out where something I'm looking for might be.
Alphabetical is all thats required. Put all genres in alphabetical order
according to artist name and maybe I'll find what I want for a change. This is
how it works with the used record pile and it works well. I flip thru
everything in a hurry and wait for something I want to scroll by. Genre isnt
an issue at all.
You Here
says...
>
>>Thats why you say... "my music is kinda like Kid Rock" that always works for
>>me.
>
>damn, I'll have to try that. A bunch of people thought my last big show
>was a metal show because I had pictures of COCK ESP in their death-metal
>outfits and a demon-headed Evil God from an old UBERKUNST show on the
>flyer.
>
well COCK ESP is the next Slipkidkornknotrockbizkit. I dont know much about
UBERKUNST but I'd venture to guess you're hoping to ride their coat tails right
onto MTV??
Jetrock
CEREMONY! NEKKID CHYXX ALL ROUND!
I will volunteer for that particular position! Y'all can keep playing
shows where five people show up, I'll take the ARENA OF SCREAMING FANS!
Jetrock
you'll find a message by someone interested in the music you'll like.
Jetrock
>>
>Yeah you tell 'em Jetrock!!!! Give those bastards a dose of noise!!!
>Lord knows they need it. And tell Fred Durst that those women just want
>his money, not...And tell the rest to burn in hell!!
>
okeydoke--who's Fred Durst?
I guess I'm starting to buy the possibility of noise being the NEXT BIG
THINGS, even if it's just in order to support my own crazed delusions of
grandeur. I still think it's a definite long shot, but it's worth a
try--and, at the very least, all the NORCAL NOISEFEST stuff we're doing
will help promote the scene on a local level. I'd be happy to see more
noise shows with 100-150 people showing up, instead of 10-15.
oh, speaking of noise ruling the planet, I have another show for you if
you want it, on August 12 with KRISTAL MARIMBA LOUNGE. I'll email you with
more details.
Jetrock
>green day didn't change their sound? have you heard anything after dookie?
>ummmm
okay, well, to be perfectly honest, I haven't heard anything before dookie
OR after dookie, and pretty much was one of those hardcore kids who didn't
listen to Green Day when they were still a Gilman/Lookout! band (though I
liked Isocracy and Crimpshrine and Operation Ivy.) So I don't really know
what they sound like, but I've heard them discussed often enough. And
since I don't pay attention to mainstream rock either, I really haven't
bothered listening to them at all.
but, isn't "dookie" the album from whence they got all the fame and deli
tray because of? So they were able to get fame without changing their
sound, and only changed their sound AFTER they got all major-labely?
Jetrock
>>well COCK ESP is the next Slipkidkornknotrockbizkit. I dont know much about
>>UBERKUNST but I'd venture to guess you're hoping to ride their coat tails
>>right
>>onto MTV??
>
>it's going to be merzbow, masonna, or aube. or me
>
because the bands that tend to become commercially successful are the ones
LEAST representative of the type of music they supposedly represent. The
noise band to hit big will be one that will leave most respectable noise
musicians shaking their heads in disgust--and, from the sound of it, COCK
ESP do just that--and so does my band, though perhaps we're losing our
edge, since I haven't seen any noise musician seriously tear apart our
lack of artistic integrity in a few years now (though that was about the
same time we stopped performing at noise shows, 1997 or so.) Heck, the
worst diss we got was when Gen Genitorturer told us "If you guys were any
good, you wouldn't need all that stuff," to which our drummer Brent
responded, "Well, we're not that good."
BRXTNLE
ummmm
>True enough. Just keep in mind that "punk" was once a label that drove
>people off, and Green Day set out to be as non-commercial as possible when
>they started in the late 1980's--they didn't change their sound, but the
>definition of what was commercial did.
BRXTNLE
>UBERKUNST but I'd venture to guess you're hoping to ride their coat tails
>right
>onto MTV??
if any noise artist is to become that well known and comercially available,
it's going to be merzbow, masonna, or aube. or me
BRXTNLE
>shows where five people show up, I'll take the ARENA OF SCREAMING FANS!
i'm with you there
jon_b...@my-deja.com
jetrock@REMOVE_ME.emrl.com (Jetrock) wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 21:44:13 GMT, You Here <sp...@spammy.spam.spam>
wrote:
> >In article <slrn8lmqpk....@boulez.emrl.com>,
jetrock@REMOVE_ME.emrl.com
> >says...
> >>
> >
> >>>Thats why you say... "my music is kinda like Kid Rock" that always
works for
> >>>me.
> >>
> >>damn, I'll have to try that. A bunch of people thought my last big
show
> >>was a metal show because I had pictures of COCK ESP in their death-
metal
> >>outfits and a demon-headed Evil God from an old UBERKUNST show on
the
> >>flyer.
> >>
> >
much about
> >UBERKUNST but I'd venture to guess you're hoping to ride their coat
tails right
> >onto MTV??
> >
AWARDS
> CEREMONY! NEKKID CHYXX ALL ROUND!
>
> shows where five people show up, I'll take the ARENA OF SCREAMING
FANS!
>
Lord knows they need it. And tell Fred Durst that those women just want
his money, not...And tell the rest to burn in hell!!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Andy
BRXTNLE <nois...@aol.comprimise> wrote in message
news:20000628203459...@ng-fe1.aol.com...
> green day didn't change their sound? have you heard anything after dookie?
> ummmm
i have, and it led me to the conclusion that they didn't change their sound
Floyd Diebel
>kick your own ass, floyd rose.
explain
-----
fdi...@boulez.emrl.com
a/v composition and engineering.
Aut
"BRXTNLE" <nois...@aol.comprimise> wrote in message
> >well COCK ESP is the next Slipkidkornknotrockbizkit. I dont know much
about
> >UBERKUNST but I'd venture to guess you're hoping to ride their coat tails
> >right
> >onto MTV??
>
available,
> it's going to be merzbow, masonna, or aube. or me
I doubt it... you have to have an "image".
Merzbow would never make it, he's too old and too conservative looking. He
doesnt dance.
masonna might make it, he looks cool, dances and screams into a microphone.
cock esp might make it, cause they dance they're young and they wear makeup.
You Here
says...
>
>
>>
>Maybe you should try posting to alt.* instead of alt.noise, then. Perhaps
>you'll find a message by someone interested in the music you'll like.
>
can you use wildcards like that? that sure would be handy for my spamming
Jetrock
>
>okay, well, to be perfectly honest, I haven't heard anything before dookie
>OR after dookie, and pretty much was one of those hardcore kids who didn't
oh, just to clarify, I didn't hear "Dookie" either, except maybe stuff I
inadvertently heard because it was on the radio.
Floyd Diebel
>arf arf, arf arf arf.
>
>>explain
got it. thanks.
-f
Sam M.
> From: jetrock@REMOVE_ME.emrl.com (Jetrock)
> Organization: Experimental Media Research Laboratory
> Newsgroups: alt.noise
> Date: 26 Jun 2000 20:03:50 -0700
> Subject: Re: noise or experimental
>
> On 26 Jun 2000 09:25:15 GMT, nunya biznaz <x@x.x> wrote:
>> what defines noise as being different from experimental is a good
>> question. i think it boils down to genre identity, which one you relate
>> to and why. noise seems more animated or immature sometimes.
>> experimental seems more like serious art. experimental is like the adult
>> contemporary of noise. noise is like the punk of experimental. or maybe
>> experimental is intelligent noise and noise is experimental with an
>> attitude. the term experimental has been around so long that noise just
>> sounds worse, more immediate. i don't personally believe in any of those
>> stereotypes, but they ring true more or less. we'll just have to change
>> all that, or polarize it more.
>
> "experimental" is merely a safe word for noise.
>
Not really. "Experimental" is more a catch-all/prefix for atonal/
structure-flouting musics, not to mention a record-store section for stuff
which can't be easily slotted in the genre sections. Experimental doesn't
have to be abrasive - some experimental music is all-acoustic and pretty
mellow.
Sam M.
> From: "Aut" <removethi...@waste.org>
>>
>> if any noise artist is to become that well known and comercially
> available,
>> it's going to be merzbow, masonna, or aube. or me
>
> I doubt it... you have to have an "image".
>
> Merzbow would never make it, he's too old and too conservative looking. He
> doesnt dance.
However, He has long hair, bizarre sexual proclivities, and often poses with
firearms. I think that'll go down well in the mass market.
>
BRXTNLE
consider myself an experimental artist who produces noise.
foxcalc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ2zRaN9JFk