boy, let me tell you something, wumpscut is worthless

258 views
Skip to first unread message

downfall

unread,
Jul 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/2/98
to

lately i've been re-evaluating a large portion of my cd collection, and
deciding what can stay and what needs to be shipped off to the darkest
side of the world and hopefully never heard from again. in this process i
started listening to artists i hadn't even thought about in the last few
months. one of these artists was none other than rudy ratzinger, better
known as wumpscut. in the process of listening to his albums i've decided
that his work within the post industrial scene is incredibly useless.

now, don't get me wrong. there's nothing incredibly offensive about
rudy's sound. it is a palatable hybrid of leaether strip and dive...
unfortunately it's (k)nowhere as interesting. that's my main problem with
rudy. he's not as interesting.

that is what, in my eyes, makes his work utterly useless. he's not
advancing anything. he's merely combining two styles that aren't *that*
radically different stylistically from each other. he's just combining
two sounds that share a common fan base and live happily together. now,
if he were reconciling modern elektro and country, we'd have to pin a
badge to his chest for his audacity, ingenuity and attempting to
expand the curren language of post-industrial...but he's not. he's merely
blathering away with phrases that have been used before and used better.

its this type of "evolutional inbreeding" which is ruining this genre and
causing people to run off towards the richer and more interesting hills of
idm, noise, etc. the fact that very few artists care to move beyond the
pre-concieved boundaries of post-industrial is suffocating this scene and
causing major problems with variety.

another problem with the constant inbreeding, as typified by wumpscut, is
the fact that it doesn't bring in any new fans and doesn't offer anything
special that will interest newer listeners and keep jaded older listeners.
it's become an incredibly exclusive genre. that, in my eyes, is a
problem. it continually feeds on the same type of fans and, as a end
result, will end up having the same type of music being created once these
fans feel the desire to create music. ie. the metal head that comes in
via the coldwave bands will, inevitably, make coldwave oriented music.

a positive step to combat this onset of sameness (which has been happening
now for roughly a decade) has taken place in recent times. that being
the insertion of a more techno oriented style. but, despite this more
acts like wumpscut continue to surface and waste everyones time with more
of the same.

-downfall

**********"the man has no sense of reality" - george drakoulias*********
http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~sw852994 fiction, reviews and the best of rmi
**********"say what you mean and say it mean" - j.g. thirlwell**********

DSBP c/o Tommy T or cyber_burnt

unread,
Jul 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/2/98
to

downfall (sw85...@oak.cats.ohiou.edu) wrote:
: lately i've been re-evaluating a large portion of my cd collection, and

: deciding what can stay and what needs to be shipped off to the darkest
: side of the world and hopefully never heard from again. in this process i
: started listening to artists i hadn't even thought about in the last few
: months. one of these artists was none other than rudy ratzinger, better
: known as wumpscut. in the process of listening to his albums i've decided
: that his work within the post industrial scene is incredibly useless.

no....you are wrong...there is no way that :W is useless.
that is pure garbage ,man.
:
: now, don't get me wrong. there's nothing incredibly offensive about


: rudy's sound. it is a palatable hybrid of leaether strip and dive...
: unfortunately it's (k)nowhere as interesting. that's my main problem with
: rudy. he's not as interesting.

:
really...too bad thats what you think..i think :W is very fucking
intresting!!! excelllent mix of what elektro-industrial is all about.

: that is what, in my eyes, makes his work utterly useless. he's not


: advancing anything. he's merely combining two styles that aren't *that*
: radically different stylistically from each other. he's just combining
: two sounds that share a common fan base and live happily together. now,
: if he were reconciling modern elektro and country, we'd have to pin a
: badge to his chest for his audacity, ingenuity and attempting to
: expand the curren language of post-industrial...but he's not. he's merely
: blathering away with phrases that have been used before and used better.

:
you are blubbering......in order to be "worthy" we have to advance
everything and mix up a bunch of unlike styles then?? wrong!!
:WUMPSCUT uses plenty of diversity on each album..you obviously are mad
or jealous about him making it,and you never did.
electro-country don't sound good together,sorry..SNOG's new one is
o.k..but not memorable,or as good as his previous work.

: its this type of "evolutional inbreeding" which is ruining this genre and


: causing people to run off towards the richer and more interesting hills of
: idm, noise, etc. the fact that very few artists care to move beyond the
: pre-concieved boundaries of post-industrial is suffocating this scene and
: causing major problems with variety.

c'mon....noise and IDM are cool too.but more intresting and richer?...i
don't know about. combining vocals and music in a song and making it all
mix well and sound good,where everything is clear is harder than making
alot of noise,unstructured and chaotic...i do love that stuff too,don't
get your panties in a bunch,but the bands who actually combine machines
and human emotion are way more intresting than most noise and other stuff
out there.some of us like our elektro-industrial the way it is...i would
listen to rap or country or pop if i wanted to hear that shit,and
industrial is industrial!! why does it need to change so damn much for you
to be happy?

:
: another problem with the constant inbreeding, as typified by wumpscut, is


: the fact that it doesn't bring in any new fans and doesn't offer anything
: special that will interest newer listeners and keep jaded older listeners.
: it's become an incredibly exclusive genre. that, in my eyes, is a
: problem. it continually feeds on the same type of fans and, as a end
: result, will end up having the same type of music being created once these
: fans feel the desire to create music. ie. the metal head that comes in
: via the coldwave bands will, inevitably, make coldwave oriented music.

who cares what everyone else likes..if it's good ,have fun and listen to
it..:WUMPSCUT isn't hurting industrial from progression..the elitist
wankers who cry about good bands are!!!;)....and i guess you havent heard
"EMBRYO DEAD" or "BORN AGAIN" then?? those are not typical sounding
albums.
:
: a positive step to combat this onset of sameness (which has been happening


: now for roughly a decade) has taken place in recent times. that being
: the insertion of a more techno oriented style. but, despite this more
: acts like wumpscut continue to surface and waste everyones time with more
: of the same.

:
: if you don't like it fine...we don't care......i'd love to hear your
creative efforts!! if you can attack a band so hard,let us have the chance
to do it to "art thou"......:W is there,you are ??
:
: -downfall


:
: **********"the man has no sense of reality" - george drakoulias*********
: http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~sw852994 fiction, reviews and the best of rmi
: **********"say what you mean and say it mean" - j.g. thirlwell**********

:
:
:
not looking to fight no one here,just defending the music and a bro that
i think has been wrongly attacked by downfall..it's different not to like
him,but to go out and make a big stink about it shows pure jealousy,and i
like to expose that.
:
peace be with you,
----------------TOMMY T.,.,.,.,the DSBP.............no flames,no blame.

Tommy T's Cyberage Radio Show: -------------- http://cyberage.home.ml.org
Live DSBP Chat on IRC Tuesday/Friday nights 20:00:00 MST (-0700)
/join #dsbp on DALnet
Meet us there and help us spread the elektro cyber revolution!
==Transmission Complete. For further digital downloads contact:
DSBP c/o Tommy T or cyber:burnt
landmail: 237 Cagua NE, Albuquerque NM 87108, USA Planet Earth
email: bu...@nmia.com
web: http://dsbp.home.ml.org/
Biopsy: http://dsbp.home.ml.org/BIOPSY/
diverje: http://dsbp.home.ml.org/DIVERJE/
/ ______ _______ ______ _____ ELEKTRO + INDUSTRIAL + CYBER + EBM /
/ | \ |______ |_____] |_____] UNDERGROUND REVOLUTIONARY MUSIC /
/ |_____/ ______| |_____] | Diversity In Electronics /

Lars Casteen

unread,
Jul 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/2/98
to

downfall wrote:

> that is what, in my eyes, makes his work utterly useless. he's not
> advancing anything. he's merely combining two styles that aren't *that*
> radically different stylistically from each other. he's just combining
> two sounds that share a common fan base and live happily together. now,
> if he were reconciling modern elektro and country, we'd have to pin a
> badge to his chest for his audacity, ingenuity and attempting to
> expand the curren language of post-industrial...but he's not. he's merely
> blathering away with phrases that have been used before and used better.

Well, to some extent, Snog does that on the new release. And oddly enough,
there has been an overwhelmingly positive reaction to it. I think that a
certain amount of faith can be put into the opinions of post-industrial fans.
I think that the appeal of :wumpscut: is probably the appeal of exactly what
you're saying: familiarity. I'm not sure that this is such a negative thing,
though. The effects of what music is listened to aren't as far reaching as
one might think. Some people might enjoy the way :wumpscut: sounds, and might
just leave it at that. It's not essential to make a statement with everything
one chooses to listen to.

> its this type of "evolutional inbreeding" which is ruining this genre and
> causing people to run off towards the richer and more interesting hills of
> idm, noise, etc. the fact that very few artists care to move beyond the
> pre-concieved boundaries of post-industrial is suffocating this scene and
> causing major problems with variety.

Well, I'm not sure that your heart is entirely in the right place here.
You're stating that variety is needed in music, but then you state that one
must stay within the confines of one genre (by stating your animosity towards
people running towards other types of music). Noise, IDM, and
post-industrial/EBM/whatever all have a certain characteristic sound, which is
frequently stretched to and beyond the limits in the definition of that
sound. People aren't stupid. If they start to hear too much of the same
thing, they will rebel against it. The feeling towards :w: (and FLA to quite
an extent) is pretty negative through the ranks of RMI. N. Scott, for
instance is actively anti-:w:. These feelings spread eventually.

> another problem with the constant inbreeding, as typified by wumpscut, is
> the fact that it doesn't bring in any new fans and doesn't offer anything
> special that will interest newer listeners and keep jaded older listeners.
> it's become an incredibly exclusive genre. that, in my eyes, is a
> problem. it continually feeds on the same type of fans and, as a end
> result, will end up having the same type of music being created once these
> fans feel the desire to create music. ie. the metal head that comes in
> via the coldwave bands will, inevitably, make coldwave oriented music.

Well... maybe. I listen to quite a bit of coldwave, but whenever I toy with
sounds myself, I tend to steer clear of that cliched genre, even if I get a
kick out of listening to it in spare time.

> a positive step to combat this onset of sameness (which has been happening
> now for roughly a decade) has taken place in recent times. that being
> the insertion of a more techno oriented style. but, despite this more
> acts like wumpscut continue to surface and waste everyones time with more
> of the same.

This is where I totally disagree with you. The thing that built industrial
music was the feeling of experimentation. I hate to seem blunt, but techno is
decidedly not experimental. Techno tends to devote itself entirely to making
people dance, which causes stagnation rather quickly, if you're trying to
branch out. I think that what will save
industrial/post-industrial/you-know-what-I'm-talking-about is a renewed sense
of experimentation. What I like about Skinny Puppy is not the beat to the
music, or the way that people can dance to it. I like the scope and the
thoughtfulness of the music. Through experimentation, one can take a fairly
hackneyed genre, and breathe new life into it.

--
lars

np: Kalte Farben - Trust in Opium


Al Crawford

unread,
Jul 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/2/98
to

In article <Pine.OSF.3.93.98070...@oak.cats.ohiou.edu>,
sw85...@oak.cats.ohiou.edu says...

>
> that is what, in my eyes, makes his work utterly useless. he's not
> advancing anything. he's merely combining two styles that aren't *that*
> radically different stylistically from each other.

Originality and innovation aren't the sole measures of excellence for
some of us (most of us?). While I appreciate these, there's also
something to be said for someone who takes existing ideas and doesn't do
anything with them other than fine-tune them.

Music wouldn't go anywhere without the efforts of those who're constantly
evolving, but an unpleasant side effect of this is that if they hit on
something great, chances are that by the next album they'll have moved
on. Most musical approaches have enough meat to them to make more than
a single album - this is where the, umm, let's call them "non-innovators"
come in.

> its this type of "evolutional inbreeding" which is ruining this genre and
> causing people to run off towards the richer and more interesting hills of
> idm, noise, etc.

I think the running off to the hills has less to do with the relative
innovation or merits of various scenes than with the fact that the
boundaries have shifted. I see a lot of IDM as a convergence between the
dance, experimental and, yes, industrial influences. Diagram time.

1. How it is - some artists bridge the gap between genres, resulting in
a world that contains people still doing stuff easily characterised
as industrial, people still producing generic techno, and people
doing IDM. Add a third parallel stream for experimental electronic
if it helps.

Industrial Techno
| |
| |
|\ /|
| \ / |
| \ / |
| \ / |
| \ / |
| \ / |
| \ / |
Industrial IDM Techno

2. How a lot of people seem to see it, with all the "good" industrial
people seeing the light, a la Greg Earle, renouncing their eeevil
ways, and crossing the river to the chosen land of techno, while
occasionally popping across again to slum it and evangelize. The
other industrial people, being mindless zombies with no appreciation
of what makes good music, stay in the industrial ghetto and listen to
:wumpscut:

Industrial Techno
| |
| "Aah! Run away!" |
|------------------>|
| |
| |
| |
:wumpscut: IDM

> another problem with the constant inbreeding, as typified by wumpscut, is
> the fact that it doesn't bring in any new fans and doesn't offer anything
> special that will interest newer listeners and keep jaded older listeners.
> it's become an incredibly exclusive genre.

To be honest, I think getting new listeners is going to be a problem
without the genre turning into something else entirely. Killing the
patient to cure the disease is probably counter-productive. This is the
inevitable problem that all genres eventually face - the original fans
age, and the number of incoming new fans drops. Ten years down the road
exactly the same thing'll be happening to whatever IDM has become by
then. There'll be posts (or maybe holographic thought projections -
this'll be the dim distant future of 2008, by which time we'll all be as
cyber as Bill Leeb - well, except for me, I'll doubtless still be too
busy paying off my car to afford the holographic thought projection
implant) in rec.music.idm about how all the really exciting people are
now working in the Death Regka scene (regka being a fusion of death
metal, reggae and polka that'll become huge somewhere around 2006) and
how they're going to listen to that instead, while occasionally popping
back to laugh at the troglodytes who still like that old Autechre stuff.

> ie. the metal head that comes in via the coldwave bands will,
> inevitably, make coldwave oriented music.

I have a problem with this - I've never met a musician of any ability
who hasn't had remarkably varied and discerning tastes. I think it
goes with the territory. Yes, you get plenty of fans who follow a
straight line from genre to genre and never stray far from the beaten
track, and you even get some who abandon and shun whatever it is they
listened to before when they find something new (*), but the sort of
person who's inclined to make good music is also going to be inclined
to seek out a wider variety of music of their own accord.

(*) I can honestly say I've never gone off a style of music. The
different types of music that I like just pile up on top of each other.

> a positive step to combat this onset of sameness (which has been happening
> now for roughly a decade) has taken place in recent times. that being
> the insertion of a more techno oriented style. but, despite this more
> acts like wumpscut continue to surface and waste everyones time with more
> of the same.

Techno good, EBM bad. Unhh! Me like!

How much of your perception above is in the eye...erm, ear of the
listener? If you like techno, infusing elements of this into an
industrial style is good. However, to someone who likes an EBM/electro/
whatever it's called this week sound, and doesn't like techno, this sort
of influence is a bastardization, a foul monstrosity that shall not be
suffered to record. For these people, there will always be the bands
that continue to carry the torch for the existing sound, there will
always be a :wumpscut:.

When the phase where techno is the in-thing to add passes (and it will -
remember how circa 1994 it seemed industrial was going to become just
another word for metal?) some element of it will remain in the music,
then the next fad might come along, and it might be something you hate
(industrial soft jazz, say) and some bands will hop on that bandwagon,
and some will continue to produce post-techno industrial, recycling
old ideas and tweaking them.

The artists that innovate are the ones who bring new ideas into the
genre, yes. However, it's the artists who stick with one sound and
do all they can to make that sound as perfect as they can that keep
the genre going while the innovators are off innovating and
cross-fertilizing. Without the first we stagnate, but without the
second we cease to exist. Take away the likes of :wumpscut: and
its ilk, and within six months all we'd have left is a slightly
crunchy sub-genre of IDM, and within a year it's gone entirely.

Al


The Prophet of Nothing

unread,
Jul 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/3/98
to

Is it just me....or is the industrial genre the only one that gets
caught up in this "it's gotta be a brand new sound or it sucks"
mentality?

I think it is sad....kind of.....people say that about the band I am
in......."Well, it is not really an original sound"......No shit....We
make music we like to listen to.....That is the key....most musicians
make music they like to hear.....Weather or not the public will like
it is generally an after-thought. All of this is just my
opinoin....and we don't have record stores beating down our door...so
maybe you are right and I am the fool....

I went to the Goodie Mob (rap) concert here in Tampa tonight....The
opening bands were sampling the hell out of the Beastie Boys "license
to ill" album.....Now there is no need to get into any arguments about
rap or anything.....my only point in this is....No one in the crowd
booed because it was not an original beat....Instead they all cheered
and danced.....There were easily 500 people at the show....a show that
only had a weeks notice....Industrial shows around here struggle to
pull 100 on 3 months notice.....I said this once before and got flamed
for a week up in here, but I'll say it again....Our own elitism is
killing our scene as much as anything ....

Disclaimer: All of this is just my opinoin....and we don't have record
stores beating down our door...so maybe you are right and I am the
fool....


Spookily yours,
The Prophet of Nothing

It ain't bragging if it's true ~Dan Bern

--------------------------------------
Check out the PRODUKT13 Homepage:
http://home1.gte.net/lishin1/index.htm
--------------------------------------

name

unread,
Jul 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/3/98
to

In article <359C1CEB...@rlc.net>, la...@rlc.net wrote:

>downfall wrote:
>
>> that is what, in my eyes, makes his work utterly useless. he's not
>> advancing anything. he's merely combining two styles that aren't *that*
>> radically different stylistically from each other. he's just combining
>> two sounds that share a common fan base and live happily together. now,
>> if he were reconciling modern elektro and country, we'd have to pin a
>> badge to his chest for his audacity, ingenuity and attempting to
>> expand the curren language of post-industrial...but he's not. he's merely
>> blathering away with phrases that have been used before and used better.

Although I would have to mention that for people who are new to this type
of music, it may be very well different to them. Which is a good thing.
If it helps someone to expand their thinking and get them more interest-
ed, more power to 'em.

>> its this type of "evolutional inbreeding" which is ruining this genre and
>> causing people to run off towards the richer and more interesting hills of

>> idm, noise, etc. the fact that very few artists care to move beyond the
>> pre-concieved boundaries of post-industrial is suffocating this scene and
>> causing major problems with variety.
>
>Well, I'm not sure that your heart is entirely in the right place here.
>You're stating that variety is needed in music, but then you state that one
>must stay within the confines of one genre (by stating your animosity towards
>people running towards other types of music). Noise, IDM, and
>post-industrial/EBM/whatever all have a certain characteristic sound, which is
>frequently stretched to and beyond the limits in the definition of that
>sound. People aren't stupid. If they start to hear too much of the same
>thing, they will rebel against it. The feeling towards :w: (and FLA to quite

Or just get to a point where you grow -really- tired of the industrial
sound. After several years of listening what's to be considered as
'industrial', I've noticed that not a whole lot has changed. Of course,
you have exceptions (such as Cevin Key's Music for Cats, IMO,) but
for the most part, it seems very homogenized and formulaic (ie. dis-
tortion, for instance.)

Having always been more into the experimental angle, I've found that
I'll have no problem listening to jungle, industrial, dnb, jazz, orchestral,
noise, punk, or whatever. For me, it's about listening and recognizing
new sound (or at least a different approach.) To me, it would be rather
naive to ignore it because it doesn't fit into a certain genre.

>Well... maybe. I listen to quite a bit of coldwave, but whenever I toy with
>sounds myself, I tend to steer clear of that cliched genre, even if I get a
>kick out of listening to it in spare time.

If I 'toy' with sounds, it's what comes from within or what particular mood
I'm in. I don't try to avoid a sound nor do I focus on one. My only hope is,
that from exposure to different elements in sound, that it would give me
some ideas to work off of---to derive my 'own' sound thereof--and possibly
take it to a new level. This is not to say that I don't have my own ideas
already--it's just that I can't be so pompous to say that my ideas weren't
influenced by -something-.

There are some very creative people out there, and they're not all cleanly
classified as 'industrial'.

>> a positive step to combat this onset of sameness (which has been happening
>> now for roughly a decade) has taken place in recent times. that being
>> the insertion of a more techno oriented style. but, despite this more
>> acts like wumpscut continue to surface and waste everyones time with more
>> of the same.
>

>This is where I totally disagree with you. The thing that built industrial
>music was the feeling of experimentation. I hate to seem blunt, but techno is
>decidedly not experimental. Techno tends to devote itself entirely to making

I would disagree. It really depends on how you view music and/or experimen-
tation. There have plenty of elements which I've heard in techno that I have
not heard in 'industrial.'

Personally, I consider jazz to be probably the most inventive and
experimental, speaking strictly as a musician.

>people dance, which causes stagnation rather quickly, if you're trying to
>branch out. I think that what will save
>industrial/post-industrial/you-know-what-I'm-talking-about is a renewed sense
>of experimentation. What I like about Skinny Puppy is not the beat to the
>music, or the way that people can dance to it. I like the scope and the
>thoughtfulness of the music. Through experimentation, one can take a fairly
>hackneyed genre, and breathe new life into it.

Unfortunately, I do believe that it's too late. Once a genre establishes
itself and the parameters thereof, there's no room left for experimentation.
It moves elsewhere--to new areas to which there are no boundaries--which
then, over time, becomes it's -own- genre. A vicious cycle, but good. :)

Anyway, just my opinion.

-name

hope raudive (just enough to annoy you)

unread,
Jul 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/3/98
to

On Fri, 03 Jul 1998 06:47:42 GMT, lis...@gte.net (The Prophet of
Nothing) wrote:

>Is it just me....or is the industrial genre the only one that gets
>caught up in this "it's gotta be a brand new sound or it sucks"
>mentality?

what do you expect from a genre that was founded on the dadaist idea
of destroying every preconceived notion of music?

hope

|
esir | r a u d i v e v o i c e s
eveile | http://members.tripod.com/~raudive (temporary home)
etaer | featuring lyrics and soundclips from
eviece __\|/__ the upcoming full-length release
amen /|\ a . v i r o u s . d e v i c e
|


Paul SC

unread,
Jul 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/3/98
to

> >Is it just me....or is the industrial genre the only one that gets
> >caught up in this "it's gotta be a brand new sound or it sucks"
> >mentality?

That is precisely why industrial music so great. It is all about
innovation and experimentation: the way art should be. I think it is
great that Industrial fans are some of the pickiest around. Although with
this hole Funker Vogt phenomenon, I'm too not sure about that anymore. :/

Paul SC

unread,
Jul 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/3/98
to

> >> its this type of "evolutional inbreeding" which is ruining this genre and
> >> causing people to run off towards the richer and more interesting hills of
> >> idm, noise, etc. the fact that very few artists care to move beyond the
> >> pre-concieved boundaries of post-industrial is suffocating this scene and
> >> causing major problems with variety.

There is definitely something to be said for this theory. The amount of
nascent EBM bands that are doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING new is frightenly
high. Too many labels are content to sign artist who produce a perhaps
well crafted but also painfully derivative product. Most of the new Zoth
stuff falls in this category and don't even get me started on Decoded
Feedback. Seriously, I could keep listing such acts all day.

Druid

hope raudive (just enough to annoy you)

unread,
Jul 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/3/98
to

On 2 Jul 1998 23:44:52 GMT, bu...@nmia.com (DSBP c/o Tommy T or
cyber_burnt) wrote:

>downfall (sw85...@oak.cats.ohiou.edu) wrote:

>: known as wumpscut. in the process of listening to his albums i've decided
>: that his work within the post industrial scene is incredibly useless.
>
>no....you are wrong...there is no way that :W is useless.
>that is pure garbage ,man.

i agree with tommy...my frisbee golf game has improved 31337% since i
replaced my high-tech aluminum carbide frisbees with :w: cd's =)



>: now, don't get me wrong. there's nothing incredibly offensive about
>: rudy's sound. it is a palatable hybrid of leaether strip and dive...
>: unfortunately it's (k)nowhere as interesting. that's my main problem with
>: rudy. he's not as interesting.
>:
>really...too bad thats what you think..i think :W is very fucking
>intresting!!! excelllent mix of what elektro-industrial is all about.

yeah, rudy utilizes all of the elements...digital synths arpeggiating
the same chord over and over with 16th notes for 6 minutes, monotonous
drum programming, cliche lyrics that are drowned in even more cliche
distortion...

>: expand the curren language of post-industrial...but he's not. he's merely
>: blathering away with phrases that have been used before and used better.
>:
>you are blubbering......in order to be "worthy" we have to advance
>everything and mix up a bunch of unlike styles then?? wrong!!

ultimately, it depends on what is more important to you...the
perpetuation of a genre or art...rudy has a done a good job of keeping
elektro/ebm/whatever moving, unfortunately 4295764 other electronic
musicians have moved past it

> :WUMPSCUT uses plenty of diversity on each album..you obviously are mad
>or jealous about him making it,and you never did.

i'll agree on the diversity bit...he sometimes uses different
combinations of annoying distortion/reverb layers on his voice and the
novelty samples are quite varied

>c'mon....noise and IDM are cool too.but more intresting and richer?...i
>don't know about. combining vocals and music in a song and making it all
>mix well and sound good,where everything is clear is harder than making
>alot of noise,unstructured and chaotic...

yeah. creating listenable chaos is a lot simpler than mixing together
a techno beat, metal guitar, and distorted vocals...scarily, there are
enough badly produced bands doing the latter category that saying it's
difficult almost seems plausible

>i do love that stuff too,don't
>get your panties in a bunch,but the bands who actually combine machines
>and human emotion are way more intresting than most noise and other stuff
>out there.

whoa. experimental music isn't emotional? artists ranging from Coil
to Merzbow to DVOA aren't combining machines and emotion?

>some of us like our elektro-industrial the way it is...i would
>listen to rap or country or pop if i wanted to hear that shit,and
>industrial is industrial!! why does it need to change so damn much for you
>to be happy?

er...:w: is far removed from industrial...listen to "subhuman" and
"soylent green" back to back sometime

>who cares what everyone else likes..if it's good ,have fun and listen to
>it

good point. i totally agree with you there.

>..it's different not to like
>him,but to go out and make a big stink about it shows pure jealousy,and i
>like to expose that.

of all the people on this newsgroup, downfall is the last person i
could ever see criticizing someone's music because of jealousy...he
just happens to have opinions and can defend them with specific
examples...furthermore, he was criticizing the art and not the artist

hope (who secretly almost likes the remix of thorns if only because
it's not quite as monotonous as other :w: tracks)

Al Crawford

unread,
Jul 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/3/98
to

In article <359cc93a...@usenet.pitt.edu>, jwms...@pitt.edu says...

>
> what do you expect from a genre that was founded on the dadaist idea
> of destroying every preconceived notion of music?

That'd be all very well if most of the innovation that's going on in the
genre was actually doing that. It isn't - sometimes the difference
between innovation and the :wumpscut:'s of this world seems to be how far
apart musically the genres they fuse are. IDM did have a period where it
was doing something new and broke out of the (very conservative) mindset
of most dance music, but now it seems to have developed its own little
set of boundaries and limits, and a lot of what I hear is just old ideas
re-expressed using contemporary technology.

Al


hal...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Jul 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/3/98
to

In article <paulsc-0307...@dialup641-pri.voicenet.com>,
pau...@voicenet.com (Paul SC) wrote:

> There is definitely something to be said for this theory. The amount of
> nascent EBM bands that are doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING new is frightenly
> high. Too many labels are content to sign artist who produce a perhaps

One question then, why did you pick Wumpscut "Embryodead" as one of your top 5
albums of the year? See
http://x10.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=323778713&CONTEXT=899487937.224591921

What a hypocrite!

Hal.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Simon Paul

unread,
Jul 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/3/98
to


hope raudive (just enough to annoy you) wrote:

> On Fri, 03 Jul 1998 06:47:42 GMT, lis...@gte.net (The Prophet of

> Nothing) wrote:
>
> >Is it just me....or is the industrial genre the only one that gets
> >caught up in this "it's gotta be a brand new sound or it sucks"
> >mentality?
>

> what do you expect from a genre that was founded on the dadaist idea
> of destroying every preconceived notion of music?
>

I for one expected alot more bands to use toilets and kitchen sinks as
instruments.. but that's just me.........unless there's a "toilet-wave"
movement I'm unaware of?

spaul
np:eon:"Spice"----HE who controls the SPICE, controls the UNIVERSE!


Co589

unread,
Jul 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/3/98
to

>er...:w: is far removed from industrial...listen to "subhuman" and
>"soylent green" back to back sometime

...hehehehe

It all became clear to me when I had the opportunity to sit in on a meeting
with a panel of 'Industrial' representatives, Genesis P. Orige being one
amongst a sea of record industry types. Gen. was becoming increasingly annoyed
about the conversation that was taking place. Interestingly enough, one of the
original memebers from Kraftwerk was in the room, and he walked out! The
conversation focused primarily around the "state" of industrial music and what
hard times it was for new bands and record labels alike to make money, sell
records, etc. The strange thing is that they (Label reps.) kept asking Gen. how
he managed. Gen. just kept saying that he never asked to be recorded or make a
record, and he could care less how many people showed up to his performances;
he would play to a crowd of two to thirty people or two hundred. He felt that
it was a 'necessity' to perform, it was his art that he had to express. What I
personally took from the forum, was that what is known as industrial today is
this entity preoccupied with consumerism, sales, numbers, etc., -all that was
once rejected. The original philosophies such as Futurism, Dadaism, etc. have
been forgotten, and the 'Industrial' artist has been left with a fear of
pleasing the increasing demands/elitism of the consumers/fans. From what I
understand of the philosophies associated with 'industrial', there should
always be a push forward, shattering boundries, conventions, familiarities
with a vengence, and total disregard for the consequences (i.e.-fame or
alienation, etc.)
--Co 58.9

chaos

unread,
Jul 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/3/98
to

hey now... you could call me a new fan... i love wumpscut... does every band
out there have to be "new" and "pioneering"????? just because something
isnt very new doesnt mean it isnt good.... if i had that attitude i would
just give up listening to music altogether...
chaos
downfall wrote in message ...

>lately i've been re-evaluating a large portion of my cd collection, and
>deciding what can stay and what needs to be shipped off to the darkest
>side of the world and hopefully never heard from again. in this process i
>started listening to artists i hadn't even thought about in the last few
>months. one of these artists was none other than rudy ratzinger, better
>known as wumpscut. in the process of listening to his albums i've decided
>that his work within the post industrial scene is incredibly useless.
>
>now, don't get me wrong. there's nothing incredibly offensive about
>rudy's sound. it is a palatable hybrid of leaether strip and dive...
>unfortunately it's (k)nowhere as interesting. that's my main problem with
>rudy. he's not as interesting.
>
>that is what, in my eyes, makes his work utterly useless. he's not
>advancing anything. he's merely combining two styles that aren't *that*
>radically different stylistically from each other. he's just combining
>two sounds that share a common fan base and live happily together. now,
>if he were reconciling modern elektro and country, we'd have to pin a
>badge to his chest for his audacity, ingenuity and attempting to
>expand the curren language of post-industrial...but he's not. he's merely
>blathering away with phrases that have been used before and used better.
>
>its this type of "evolutional inbreeding" which is ruining this genre and
>causing people to run off towards the richer and more interesting hills of
>idm, noise, etc. the fact that very few artists care to move beyond the
>pre-concieved boundaries of post-industrial is suffocating this scene and
>causing major problems with variety.
>
>another problem with the constant inbreeding, as typified by wumpscut, is
>the fact that it doesn't bring in any new fans and doesn't offer anything
>special that will interest newer listeners and keep jaded older listeners.
>it's become an incredibly exclusive genre. that, in my eyes, is a
>problem. it continually feeds on the same type of fans and, as a end
>result, will end up having the same type of music being created once these
>fans feel the desire to create music. ie. the metal head that comes in

>via the coldwave bands will, inevitably, make coldwave oriented music.
>
>a positive step to combat this onset of sameness (which has been happening
>now for roughly a decade) has taken place in recent times. that being
>the insertion of a more techno oriented style. but, despite this more
>acts like wumpscut continue to surface and waste everyones time with more
>of the same.
>
>
>

Morgan Wolfe

unread,
Jul 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/4/98
to

Co589 <co...@aol.com> wrote:

> It all became clear to me when I had the opportunity to sit in on a meeting
> with a panel of 'Industrial' representatives, Genesis P. Orige being one
> amongst a sea of record industry types. Gen. was becoming increasingly annoyed
> about the conversation that was taking place. Interestingly enough, one of the

Were the "record execs" in question representatives of independent labels,
or were they major label suits who had shown up at one of the NME's, and
were trying to figure out how to market "industrial" as the next big
thing?

As far as Genesis's comments go, they're well and good to a point, but
everyone needs to eat and pay the rent. If the artists aren't willing to
compromise, (which they shouldn't do), than I see nothing wrong with
figuring out how to expose the genre to a wider group of listeners.

Later...
Morgan

--
Morgan Wolfe "The backdrops peel and the sets give way
inf...@teleport.com and the cast gets eaten by the play."
mwo...@gladstone.uoregon.edu -V for Vendetta
http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~mwolfe

menticide

unread,
Jul 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/4/98
to

Co589 <co...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199807032321...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...

> It all became clear to me when I had the opportunity to sit in on a
meeting
> with a panel of 'Industrial' representatives, Genesis P. Orige being one
> amongst a sea of record industry types.

Sounds like we've got an industrial New World Order on our hands.

mb.

brandon k snavely

unread,
Jul 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/4/98
to

On Fri, 3 Jul 1998, hope raudive (just enough to annoy you) wrote:

> yeah, rudy utilizes all of the elements...digital synths arpeggiating
> the same chord over and over with 16th notes for 6 minutes, monotonous
> drum programming, cliche lyrics that are drowned in even more cliche
> distortion...

<yo hope!> :)

yep, all of this is true (especially the cliche lyrics & distortion)...
however, I still find some value in :w:'s stuff. some of his chord prog's
are so sweeping and over-the-top (and, dare I say it, very emotional!).
Take Claus Larsen and mix in a bit of Richard Wagner and Andrew Lloyd
Webber and you get Rudy! heh heh.

But yeah, most of the E+ and Born Again albums was very rehashed and
second-rate (oh, wait, you don't even like the classic :w: stuff do you?)
Mesner Tracks still kicks my ass -- I was just listening to it yesterday
in fact.

> hope (who secretly almost likes the remix of thorns if only because
> it's not quite as monotonous as other :w: tracks)

yick! I can't stand that rmx. that song needs to be instrumental to be
powerful. it's just me I guess.

-brandon (howz da 'burgh?)
DJ freeze "I'm falling from the edge of atmosphere....
my body is a slave to gravity" -neuroactive

Druid

unread,
Jul 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/4/98
to

In article <6nj5t3$o9j$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, hal...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

> In article <paulsc-0307...@dialup641-pri.voicenet.com>,
> pau...@voicenet.com (Paul SC) wrote:
>
> > There is definitely something to be said for this theory. The amount of
> > nascent EBM bands that are doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING new is frightenly
> > high. Too many labels are content to sign artist who produce a perhaps
>
> One question then, why did you pick Wumpscut "Embryodead" as one of your top 5
> albums of the year? See
> http://x10.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=323778713&CONTEXT=899487937.224591921
>
> What a hypocrite!

I like _Embyrodead_(not as much as earlier :W: though). In fact, I'm a
big Wumpscut fan. My comments weren't directed at Rudy's work, that just
happens to be the subject of the thread. I was referring to the Funker
Vogt's, Allied Visions, and Velvet Acid Christ's of the world(and those
are bands that do the boring thing well).

Druid

WinterMute

unread,
Jul 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/4/98
to

chaos wrote:
>
> hey now... you could call me a new fan... i love wumpscut... does every band
> out there have to be "new" and "pioneering"????? just because something
> isnt very new doesnt mean it isnt good.... if i had that attitude i would
> just give up listening to music altogether...
> chaos
Dear Chaos,
As you are new, let me enlighten new about something. You see, if it
isn't absolutely cutting age, the puritans of the scene don't like it.
Now don't misunderstand me, I have deep respect for those who can
dedicate themselves to this type of endevour. But, consequently any
type of music that isn't cutting edge, is considered second class. Just
because it's pleasant and danceable, doesn't put it in the fine arts
section of industrial.
Don't let it bother you, enjoy the music and forget the elitists.
WinterMute.

hope raudive (just enough to annoy you)

unread,
Jul 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/4/98
to

On Sat, 4 Jul 1998 01:13:08 -0400, brandon k snavely
<bks...@pitt.edu> wrote:

><yo hope!> :)

mr. freeze (good set last friday btw =)

>yep, all of this is true (especially the cliche lyrics & distortion)...
>however, I still find some value in :w:'s stuff. some of his chord prog's
>are so sweeping and over-the-top (and, dare I say it, very emotional!).
>Take Claus Larsen and mix in a bit of Richard Wagner and Andrew Lloyd
>Webber and you get Rudy! heh heh.

hm...sometime when you're around force me to listen to some of the
better :w: tracks again

>But yeah, most of the E+ and Born Again albums was very rehashed and
>second-rate (oh, wait, you don't even like the classic :w: stuff do you?)
>Mesner Tracks still kicks my ass -- I was just listening to it yesterday
>in fact.

are the mesner tracks the earlier, leatherstrip-ish material? since i
haven't owned any :w:, i generally don't remember what each cd sounds
like based on the title

>> hope (who secretly almost likes the remix of thorns if only because
>> it's not quite as monotonous as other :w: tracks)
>
>yick! I can't stand that rmx. that song needs to be instrumental to be
>powerful. it's just me I guess.

hm...i think the thing i like about the remix is the structure...i'm
not big on :w: outside of clubs, and for some reason whenever the
original thorns gets played i try to dance to it and just bored after
the first few minutes...it has a very powerful beat, but for some
reason i like my aggressive music to be a bit changier (no, that's not
a word)...the remix, as i recall, has a lot more breaks and rhythm
changes...as far as the vocals go, i have to agree that the remix
suffers in that area...actually, i'll risk my reputation as an ebm
hater for a moment and say that i'd probably like :w: more if rudy
totally abandoned the lyrics and made up for it with slightly less
minimal songs, structurally

>-brandon (howz da 'burgh?)

the sky is yellow and it smells funny an'at

actually, you need to get out here on a tuesday sometime and check out
bjp's sets at the pollinator...first time i've gotten truly excited
about hearing a weekly dj since arvin left

hope

MT

unread,
Jul 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/5/98
to

Don Muerte wrote:
>
> H. West wrote:
> >
> > If I have to train my ear and listen closely many times to decipher
> > minute differences in a piece, then that piece is not innovative. If
> > I listen to a piece and am instantly blown away by a style nowhere
> > near anything else -THAT- is innovative. No two bands sound alike
> > and any devoted fan can tell you 100 reasons why Wumpscut is
> > different than Leatherstrip, but it's still EBM and it's been done
> > before. Likewise, symphony is symphony and it's been done before.
>
> Your ear has been trained literally since birth to be able to decipher
> differences in dance pop muzak. What makes you think that one who grew
> up on classical wouldn't think the same about EBM?

Good point, Muerte, but there's another thing to consider. First, I'm
getting the impression that West is labelling these composers without
having heard too much of them. Even to the casual listener, there ARE
differences, and not just minute ones.
And "innovative" is a relative term; it is defined by the thing the
subject in question is referring to. Just because you cannot tell the
differences between A and B doesn't mean B is not innovative. It just
means you cannot -RECOGNIZE- the innovation, whereas you can hear
differences between B and C.

> > You seem to think I am attacking the symphony, I am not, I'm saying
> > the same logic that states Wumpscut is useless for not being
> > innovative should also state that Beethoven is useless for not being
> > innovative. I am -NOT- agreeing with that logic, that was an
> > assumption on your part.

I've always gotten the impression that if you bring up an argument in a
subject, you would most likely CARE about the subject, or at least know
about it. If you're not defending either side, then you really shouldn't
have said anything.
But let me just reword what I said before so there is no
misunderstanding. When you compare :W:'s lack of innovation to
Beethoven's lack of innovation, you aren't comparing these things on a
level playing field. It's like telling me the standard lightbulb today
is better than the first lightbulb. Obviously, there are other factors
to think about.
The first difference is that innovation is measured in different scales
in those different times. People then were avid classical listeners, and
thus could recognize differences between different pieces (Not that it's
impossible today). They didn't feel there was any "stagnation," and
there wasn't any problem with the survival of that music. So, that music
could have been considered innovative THEN - in a different time, when
it was contemporary. In :W:'s time, it isn't considered innovative by
anyone but the most inexperienced listeners.
The second main difference is with the survival of the musical style,
as I wrote above. Classical music wasn't dying out in any way; it wasn't
as if the lack of innovation killed it when Beethoven was alive. While
:W: is still producing the same recycled fare, the EBM scene is slowly
dying as fans are running away. It's surprising that in the past, the
most experienced listeners were the ones that were fond of classical
music, but now, the most experienced listeners are jaded and bored.
With these two fundamental differences, you can't really compare
Beethoven's supposed lack of innovation to :W:'s perceived stagnation.
The two situations are different enough to believe that there should be
different solutions and results.

> > What else would he be talking about? Read the subject. Wumpscut is
> > an EBM band.
>
> Hrm, I may have read into it a little bit too far, but I believe that
> downfall was comparing the dormant nature of EBM to the
> experimentalism of industrial.

That's exactly it. Everyone here seems to believe otherwise, and even
though I got a hint of what he was trying to say, I still interpreted
his words incorrectly. So yes, that IS what he meant.

--
Remove NOSPAM to reply.

Grinding into Emptiness, industrial e-zine: http://www.emptiness.net.

hope raudive (just enough to annoy you)

unread,
Jul 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/5/98
to

On Sun, 05 Jul 1998 13:36:27 -0400, WinterMute
<dist...@isralink.co.il> wrote:


>saved me the effort of having to do it). I think it's silly that so
>many people get upset about what the broad generalization of 'industrial
>music' is. Face it, you go into most clubs and you say industrial,
>you'll be lucky if they say Wumpscut or Evil's Toy rather than Marilyn
>fucking Manson.

oddly enough, marilyn manson is using popular culture to attack
popular culture...i wouldn't consider them industrial, but that's
definitely a part of what industrial is about

as far as the broad generalization of industrial goes, there was
already a term made for repetitive thumping dance music with no
artistic content back in the 70's...it's called disco

i'm not saying it's bad or that these bands should stop making
music...i love lots of cheesy disco/techno...i just don't see what it
has to do with industrial

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't industrial run the risk of
>becoming propaganda if it's only purpose is to oppose things?

i don't think industrial was telling people *what* to think,
necessarily, as much as it was simply trying to get people to think -
about the information they were being bombarded with in the industrial
age...part of the idea is that you can only be sure of an opinion when
you take in to account all of the information that has caused them to
have that...so, in a sense, industrial was trying to be persuasive
about certain issues maybe by getting people to question their own
beliefs on those issues, as opposed to propaganda which generally
tries to trick people into believing something they wouldn't
necessarily believe by feeding them biased information and/or
misinformation

H. West

unread,
Jul 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/5/98
to

In article <359FA7...@jps.net>, NOSPA...@jps.net says...
< H. West wrote:
< >
< > In article <359E97...@jps.net>, NOSPA...@jps.net says...
< > <
< > < You bring up a nice point, but there ARE noticeable
< > < differences between classical composers, even to the casual
< > < listener. But in those cases, the musical potential was more limited
< > < than what industrial can be today. In other words, there is MORE
< > < potential for innovation in industrial, but with classical music
< > < there wasn't all that much, relatively.
< > < And we have to consider that industrial has been reusing many
< > < elements for a very long time.
< >
< > Not as long as the symphony.
<
< Yes, but like I said, there isn't that much potential to explore
< boundaries in classical music. So in classical music, there isn't a lot
< of potential, unlike industrial, which is relatively limitless.
<
< > EBM hasn't changed much for <30 years,
<
< Are you saying EBM has been around since 1968? Is that the same EBM we
< have today? I don't think so. The earliest form of EBM that resembles
< what we have today was in Cab Volt, in the mid- to late-1980s.
< So, if EBM had its roots from something in 1968, it has changed VERY
< dramatically compared to what it is today.

Less than 30 years. That is taking into account it's roots in the first wave of
industrial.

< > symphony has remained stylistically stagnant for several millenia,
< > with the exception of Yanni, and even then only in recent years. He
< > has perverted the genre into something of his own. I guess he's the
< > next great industrial musician.
<
< Comments about Yanni aside, I think you're over-simplifying classical
< music. It has in no way been "stagnant." Perhaps if you were looking
< through the eyes of a true industrial listener, and if all you cared
< about in your music was pure innovation, THEN classical might be
< "stagnant." But take another listen - I'm beginning to think you haven't
< heard a lot of it.

There have been more changes in EBM in 10 years than there have in symphony over
several millenia, and certainly over 10 years. Not to say symphony hasn't
changed.

< > < When innovation becomes a [the] deciding factor for a genre to
< > < stay alive, it is THEN that the artists that don't bother to add
< > < anything new to music are considered useless (I suspect Downfall is
< > < looking through the eyes of a fan who knows industrial in the broad
< > < sense; it's a drastic situation).
< >
< > I didn't know the purpose of EBM was innovation. The purpose of
< > Industrial maybe, but EBM isn't Industrial.
<
< Now, back to what you were saying. I consider post-industrial to be
< just as demanding of innovation as old industrial. EBM is a sub-genre of
< post-industrial, and so I also believe that it should explore new
< realms. Or at least right now it should, seeing as how it has been
< repeating itself for about a decade.

So you're saying it's ok for symphony to stagnate but it's not ok for EBM to
stagnate because it has its roots in an innovative style? By the same token all
these styles are sub-forms of music, therefore that should all have a common
goal. EBM is a very different thing than old industrial, why should it be put up
to the same standards?

--

млл млл млл млл мллллллллллл млллллллллллл млллллллллллл
АГлВл АААААГлВл ААААГлВл АААААГлВлГлВлллллллллл лВллллллллллл ллллллллллллл А
ГлБл ГлВл ГлБл ГлБлГлБлп п л п лБл пл п п ммм пл А
АГлАл АААААГллл ААААГлАл АААААГлАлГлАл АААА п АГлБл АА л ААААААААА лВл АА л А
БГлАлммммммммммм БББГлАл БББББГлАлГлАлмммммммммГлВл ммммммммм АААА лАл АА А
БГлААААААААААБВл БББГлАл БББББГлАлГлААААААААБВлГллл лВБАААААл АААА лАл АААААА
ВГлАллплпллппппп ВВВГлАл ВВВВВГлБлГлАлппллппплп пл ллпппплАл ББББ лАл ББББББ
ВГлАл п лГллл ВВВВГлАл ВВВВВГлВлГлАл л В ВВ л л ВВ лАл ВВВВ лАл ВВВВВВ
лГлАл ллл пГлВл лллл лАл ммм лллГлАл л лллллл л ллл лАл лллл лАл лллллл
лГлБл лллллГлБл ммм лБлллплллм плГлБл пппппппппп ппппп лБл лллл лБл лллллл
ВГлВл ВВВВВГлВлГллВл лВлл лппл пГлВл лллллллл лллллллллллВл ВВВВ лВл ВВВВВВ
БГллл БББББ лллГлллл лллп Б п л ллл лллллллл ллллллллллллл ББББ ллл ББББББ
А лпл ААААА пл пл пл ААААА пл пл пл пл п пл АААА пл АААААА
л л л л л л п л л л
л л л л л л л л

еЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭИ
кСФФФФФ Ф Ф Ф Ф ФФСП
ГолВБА H. WEST 1998 АБВлнГ
РТФФ Ф Ф Ф Ф ФФФФФТй
дЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭО

H. West

unread,
Jul 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/5/98
to

In article <359FCC...@ix.netcom.com>, donm...@ix.netcom.com says...

< MT wrote:
< >
< > H. West wrote:
< > >
< > > In article <359E97...@jps.net>, NOSPA...@jps.net says...
< > > <
< > > < When innovation becomes a [the] deciding factor for a genre to
< > > < stay alive, it is THEN that the artists that don't bother to add
< > > < anything new to music are considered useless (I suspect Downfall is
< > > < looking through the eyes of a fan who knows industrial in the broad
< > > < sense; it's a drastic situation).
< > >
< > > I didn't know the purpose of EBM was innovation. The purpose of
< > > Industrial maybe, but EBM isn't Industrial.
< >
< > Well, that's right nice of you, but I didn't mention EBM first. YOU
< > did. So I don't know why you're bringing up innovation specific to that.
<
< That's herbert again and his assumptory nature. Sorry if I've offended
< you H West. I just hope that you'll see many of us get frustrated when
< you put words in our mouths.

It was an assumption, I assumed since we have been talking about Wumpscut he
meant EBM by industrial. I also assume that when you say "you" you mean H. West,
shall I stop doing that as well?

H. West

unread,
Jul 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/5/98
to

In article <359FC3...@ix.netcom.com>, donm...@ix.netcom.com says...
< H. West wrote:
< >
< > In article <359F30...@ix.netcom.com>, donm...@ix.netcom.com says...

< > < H. West wrote:
< > < >
< > < > In article <359E97...@jps.net>, NOSPA...@jps.net says...
< > < > < H. West wrote:
< > < > < >
< > < > < > In article
< > < > < > <Pine.OSF.3.93.98070...@oak.cats.ohiou.edu>,
< > < > < > sw85...@oak.cats.ohiou.edu says...

< > < > < > < its this type of "evolutional inbreeding" which is ruining this
< > < > < > < genre and causing people to run off towards the richer and more
< > < > < > < interesting hills of idm, noise, etc. the fact that very few
< > < > < > < artists care to move beyond the pre-concieved boundaries of
< > < > < > < post-industrial is suffocating this scene and causing major problems
< > < > < > < with variety.
< > < > < >
< > < > < > By this logic Beethoven and Vivaldi were useless as well, since they
< > < > < > did nothing but emulate the styles that came before them. Hell, the
< > < > < > differences between Wumpscut and Leatherstrip are massive compared to
< > < > < > the differences between classical composers.

< > < > <
< > < > < You bring up a nice point, but there ARE noticeable differences between
< > < > < classical composers, even to the casual listener. But in those cases,
< > < > < the musical potential was more limited than what industrial can be
< > < > < today. In other words, there is MORE potential for innovation in
< > < > < industrial, but with classical music there wasn't all that much,
< > < > < relatively.
< > < > < And we have to consider that industrial has been reusing many elements
< > < > < for a very long time.
< > < >
< > < > Not as long as the symphony. EBM hasn't changed much for <30 years, symphony has

< > < > remained stylistically stagnant for several millenia, with the exception of
< > < > Yanni, and even then only in recent years. He has perverted the genre into
< > < > something of his own. I guess he's the next great industrial musician.
< > <
< > < Your insult to classical music is an obvious reflection of your
< > < ignorance towards it. It may not sound quite so different to the
< > < untrained ear, but critics and connoiseurs will laugh in your face if
< > < you attempted to imply that industrial was anywhere near as diverse as
< > < classical composition. Not only does diversity come from composition,
< > < but it shines quite brightly in the many interpretations each conducter
< > < will act them out with. So, in all cases, one compositional piece can
< > < actually be interepreted as infinitely many different songs. It takes a
< > < long period of active listening to truly understand what being a
< > < composer is truly about.

< >
< > If I have to train my ear and listen closely many times to decipher minute
< > differences in a piece, then that piece is not innovative. If I listen to a
< > piece and am instantly blown away by a style nowhere near anything else -THAT-
< > is innovative. No two bands sound alike and any devoted fan can tell you 100
< > reasons why Wumpscut is different than Leatherstrip, but it's still EBM and it's
< > been done before. Likewise, symphony is symphony and it's been done before. You

< > seem to think I am attacking the symphony, I am not, I'm saying the same logic
< > that states Wumpscut is useless for not being innovative should also state that
< > Beethoven is useless for not being innovative. I am -NOT- agreeing with that
< > logic, that was an assumption on your part.
<
< Your ear has been trained literally since birth to be able to decipher
< differences in dance pop muzak. What makes you think that one who grew
< up on classical wouldn't think the same about EBM?

EBM isn't innovative either. They both change very slowly through gradual shifts
in style over time. Not innovative.

< > < > < When innovation becomes a [the] deciding factor for a genre to stay
< > < > < alive, it is THEN that the artists that don't bother to add anything new
< > < > < to music are considered useless (I suspect Downfall is looking through
< > < > < the eyes of a fan who knows industrial in the broad sense; it's a
< > < > < drastic situation).
< > < >
< > < > I didn't know the purpose of EBM was innovation. The purpose of Industrial
< > < > maybe, but EBM isn't Industrial.
< > <

< > < There you go again putting words in the guys mouth. If EBM was mentioned
< > < anywhere in this post, you most certainly lacked to include it in his
< > < quote.


< >
< > What else would he be talking about? Read the subject. Wumpscut is an EBM band.
<
< Hrm, I may have read into it a little bit too far, but I believe that
< downfall was comparing the dormant nature of EBM to the experimentalism

< of industrial. While wumpscut IS EBM, many people chose to label it as
< industrial. If it were to be innovative and ground-breaking like other
< bands, then we'd be perfectly willing to call it industrial. Anyway, I
< suppose that the insult was directed mainly towards EBM music, so I'll
< go ahead and give you this one.

E-mail me when you've made up your mind.

H. West

unread,
Jul 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/5/98
to

In article <359FE1...@jps.net>, NOSPA...@jps.net says...

< Don Muerte wrote:
< >
< > H. West wrote:
< > >
< > > If I have to train my ear and listen closely many times to decipher
< > > minute differences in a piece, then that piece is not innovative. If
< > > I listen to a piece and am instantly blown away by a style nowhere
< > > near anything else -THAT- is innovative. No two bands sound alike
< > > and any devoted fan can tell you 100 reasons why Wumpscut is
< > > different than Leatherstrip, but it's still EBM and it's been done
< > > before. Likewise, symphony is symphony and it's been done before.
< >
< > Your ear has been trained literally since birth to be able to decipher
< > differences in dance pop muzak. What makes you think that one who grew
< > up on classical wouldn't think the same about EBM?
<
< Good point, Muerte, but there's another thing to consider. First, I'm
< getting the impression that West is labelling these composers without
< having heard too much of them. Even to the casual listener, there ARE
< differences, and not just minute ones.
< And "innovative" is a relative term; it is defined by the thing the
< subject in question is referring to. Just because you cannot tell the
< differences between A and B doesn't mean B is not innovative. It just
< means you cannot -RECOGNIZE- the innovation, whereas you can hear
< differences between B and C.

You could say that Rudys additions to the style are innovative. He adds things
noone has before, and if you scrutinize his music you can recognize them,
however upon a casual listen it sounds like just another SP ripoff. Technically
this is innovation. What I'm talking about is innovation on a reasonable scale.
Drastic changes in music. By these standards Rudy is not innovative, as his
music adds little to what previously existed, and symphony is not innovative, as
it's changes in style are not sweeping and it remains fundamentally the same.

< But let me just reword what I said before so there is no
< misunderstanding. When you compare :W:'s lack of innovation to
< Beethoven's lack of innovation, you aren't comparing these things on a
< level playing field. It's like telling me the standard lightbulb today
< is better than the first lightbulb. Obviously, there are other factors
< to think about.
< The first difference is that innovation is measured in different scales
< in those different times. People then were avid classical listeners, and
< thus could recognize differences between different pieces (Not that it's
< impossible today). They didn't feel there was any "stagnation," and
< there wasn't any problem with the survival of that music. So, that music
< could have been considered innovative THEN - in a different time, when
< it was contemporary. In :W:'s time, it isn't considered innovative by
< anyone but the most inexperienced listeners.

So what are you talking about existentialism? This really doesn't make alot of
sense to me. If there isn't a scale by which innovation can be measured then why
talk about something which is so fluid at all. By these same standards Throbbing
Gristle, Skinny Puppy, and Coil are shit, since most people like pop and upon
hearing something like that are revolted, and only relatively few listeners
consider them good.

< The second main difference is with the survival of the musical style,
< as I wrote above. Classical music wasn't dying out in any way; it wasn't
< as if the lack of innovation killed it when Beethoven was alive. While
< :W: is still producing the same recycled fare, the EBM scene is slowly
< dying as fans are running away. It's surprising that in the past, the
< most experienced listeners were the ones that were fond of classical
< music, but now, the most experienced listeners are jaded and bored.

That's material, not artistic.

< > > What else would he be talking about? Read the subject. Wumpscut is
< > > an EBM band.
< >
< > Hrm, I may have read into it a little bit too far, but I believe that
< > downfall was comparing the dormant nature of EBM to the
< > experimentalism of industrial.
<

< That's exactly it. Everyone here seems to believe otherwise, and even
< though I got a hint of what he was trying to say, I still interpreted
< his words incorrectly. So yes, that IS what he meant.

Nobody knows. Uncertainty abounds.

adam.

unread,
Jul 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/5/98
to


On Thu, 2 Jul 1998, Al Crawford wrote:

<large snip of intelligent arguing for :wumpscut:'s place in the current
scene>

> The artists that innovate are the ones who bring new ideas into the
> genre, yes. However, it's the artists who stick with one sound and
> do all they can to make that sound as perfect as they can that keep
> the genre going while the innovators are off innovating and
> cross-fertilizing. Without the first we stagnate, but without the
> second we cease to exist. Take away the likes of :wumpscut: and
> its ilk, and within six months all we'd have left is a slightly
> crunchy sub-genre of IDM, and within a year it's gone entirely.

you have a point here in what you say, and far be it from me to defend
downfall, when he is perfectly able to do so himself. but, from what i
can see is that you may have missed the point. "keeping the genre alive"
is all well and good (no sarcasm meant). however, recycled music does not
keep it alive, it only allows it to limp along. downfall's argument (my
interpretation, anyway) is that :wumpscut: is not even adding to the scene
in the sense of sharpening his methodoloy of producing electro and thus
keeping it alive. there ARE bands that do this--the klinik is often cited
as a group that uses the same formula for music in order to perfect it.
many of front 242's albums can also be seen in this light--the same stuff,
done over and over to maximize the potential of the form. but,
:wumpscut: does not seem to be doing this, but rather simply redoing his
earlier work with another name. this was the impression that i got from
listening embryodead, and is the main reason i didn't buy it; i owned
bunkertor 7 already, and didn't need more of it. i will concede to you
this--recycled "industrial" music and the approach most take to achieve
this end won't kill the genre. as downfall said, it merely inbreeds it to
the point where it's just not worth the effort. after all, one can stay
"alive" eating packaged ramen soup, but i doubt that many of us would
consider it an option to take, especially when one has other choices.

my point--there is a significant difference in redoing a thing
with the purpose of perfecting the form of it and redoing that thing
simply due to creative stagnation. :wumpscut: seems to do the latter, as
do most of the groups i've heard lately.

adam.

p.s. let me say for the record that i don't hate :wumpscut:'s music.


MT

unread,
Jul 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/5/98
to

H. West wrote:
>
> In article <359FE1...@jps.net>, NOSPA...@jps.net says...
> <
> < Good point, Muerte, but there's another thing to consider.
> < First, I'm getting the impression that West is labelling these
> < composers without having heard too much of them. Even to the casual
> < listener, there ARE differences, and not just minute ones.
> < And "innovative" is a relative term; it is defined by the
> < thing the subject in question is referring to. Just because you
> < cannot tell the differences between A and B doesn't mean B is not
> < innovative. It just means you cannot -RECOGNIZE- the innovation,
> < whereas you can hear differences between B and C.
>
> You could say that Rudys additions to the style are innovative. He
> adds things noone has before, and if you scrutinize his music you can
> recognize them, however upon a casual listen it sounds like just
> another SP ripoff. Technically this is innovation.

Boy oh boy, did you mess up here.

First, to any listener, SP does not sound like :W:. I may be wrong in
some cases, but I can easily say that :W: is not an SP ripoff.

Second, if changing small elements in one's music is innovation, then
that also applies to classical music. Back then, there were more
differences between Bach and Beethoven than there are between LS and :W:
(Even to the casual listener). What's worse in this case is that
industrial leaves so much more _room_ for innovation, yet few utilize
that. The clincher is that in this case, EBM is going to go the way of
the extinct true industrial, and that's why innovation becomes such an
important factor.

Third, I'm going to refer to the changing small elements point again.
Over in the Speedy J thread, you were attempting to prove that Speedy J
was unoriginal because he was a ripoff of Dive, Merzbow (These two don't
sound like him), and an Aphex Twin track. You later changed your
argument to say that Speedy J is simply not original because he builds
upon previous existing styles, and basically wasted our time by changing
your argument like that (Every contemporary artist is unoriginal
according to your definition).
So, you are now speaking in a manner opposite that of what you spoke in
before. Exactly what stand do you hold?

> What I'm talking about is innovation on a reasonable scale. Drastic
> changes in music.

And that's hardly possible in classical music.

> By these standards Rudy is not innovative, as his music adds little to
> what previously existed, and symphony is not innovative, as it's
> changes in style are not sweeping and it remains fundamentally the
> same.

Again, you fail to address the issue that there are different standards
for innovation in different cases. Let's say maximum innovation (If
there were such a thing) is the value of 10. Classical music is very
strict and thus limits innovation; on that scale, it's about 8 or 9.
Industrial isn't so strict, and therefore leaves a lot more room for
innovation, placing it at about 4.
And since industrial *should* be innovating right now so it can
survive, it's has a lot of wasted potential. That's what Downfall is
ranting about.

> < But let me just reword what I said before so there is no
> < misunderstanding. When you compare :W:'s lack of innovation to
> < Beethoven's lack of innovation, you aren't comparing these things on
> < a level playing field. It's like telling me the standard lightbulb
> < today is better than the first lightbulb. Obviously, there are other
> < factors to think about.
> < The first difference is that innovation is measured in
> < different scales in those different times. People then were avid
> < classical listeners, and thus could recognize differences between
> < different pieces (Not that it's impossible today). They didn't feel
> < there was any "stagnation," and there wasn't any problem with the
> < survival of that music. So, that music could have been considered
> < innovative THEN - in a different time, when it was contemporary. In
> < :W:'s time, it isn't considered innovative by anyone but the most
> < inexperienced listeners.
>
> So what are you talking about existentialism? This really doesn't make
> alot of sense to me.

What, that I bring up existentialism? It's supporting my argument that
you can't compare classical music to industrial.

> If there isn't a scale by which innovation can be measured then why
> talk about something which is so fluid at all.

I didn't say there wasn't a scale -AT ALL-, I said there were
-DIFFERENT- scales. Back then, people didn't have as much capability to
innovate, because they were limited by both technology and classical's
own boundaries. Therefore, the potential to innovate decreases.
Now, technology is a lot better, and industrial has absolutely no
limits (Or really large ones) as seen by the acceptance of today's
artists/subgenres. So the potential to innovate increases dramatically.
And when artists like :W: kill the EBM scene by scaring off jaded fans
because they don't innovate, then they accept a disease whose cure is
pure innovation.
Basically, the EBM scene is dying because it is refusing to innovate.
It's like a man dying of thirst with a full glass in front of him. If
he's going to die, then drinking the water becomes imperative (Just like
innovating becomes the primary concern).

> By these same standards Throbbing Gristle, Skinny Puppy, and Coil are
> shit, since most people like pop and upon hearing something like that
> are revolted, and only relatively few listeners consider them good.

I'm not talking about opinionated majorities, I'm talking about very
factual time and innovative potential.

> < The second main difference is with the survival of the musical
> < style, as I wrote above. Classical music wasn't dying out in any
> < way; it wasn't as if the lack of innovation killed it when Beethoven
> < was alive. While :W: is still producing the same recycled fare, the
> < EBM scene is slowly dying as fans are running away. It's surprising
> < that in the past, the most experienced listeners were the ones that
> < were fond of classical music, but now, the most experienced
> < listeners are jaded and bored.
>
> That's material, not artistic.

Your point being...? I never said it was artistic (YOU put the word
into my mouth).
And I'm assuming you agree with the above points, that the classical
scene wasn't dying while EBM IS.

> < That's exactly it. Everyone here seems to believe otherwise,
> < and even though I got a hint of what he was trying to say, I still
> < interpreted his words incorrectly. So yes, that IS what he meant.
>
> Nobody knows. Uncertainty abounds.

No, Downfall cleared up his meaning himself. If uncertainty abounds in
your own case, that's beyond our help.

[Snip .sig]

Why am I not surprised?

MT

unread,
Jul 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/5/98
to

H. West wrote:
>
> In article <359FA7...@jps.net>, NOSPA...@jps.net says...
> < H. West wrote:
> < >
> < > EBM hasn't changed much for <30 years,
> <
> < Are you saying EBM has been around since 1968? Is that the
> < same EBM we have today? I don't think so. The earliest form of EBM
> < that resembles what we have today was in Cab Volt, in the mid- to
> < late-1980s.
> < So, if EBM had its roots from something in 1968, it has
> < changed VERY dramatically compared to what it is today.
>
> Less than 30 years. That is taking into account it's roots in the
> first wave of industrial.

Well, with less than 30 years, that could mean almost anytime since
then, that's why I just pushed for the maximum. Yes, EBM did have roots
in the first wave of industrial, but if you're saying it hasn't changed
much since then, I'm going to have to question if this is really worth
the time to argue with you.

> < > symphony has remained stylistically stagnant for several millenia,
> < > with the exception of Yanni, and even then only in recent years.
> < > He has perverted the genre into something of his own. I guess he's
> < > the next great industrial musician.
> <
> < Comments about Yanni aside, I think you're over-simplifying
> < classical music. It has in no way been "stagnant." Perhaps if you
> < were looking through the eyes of a true industrial listener, and if
> < all you cared about in your music was pure innovation, THEN
> < classical might be "stagnant." But take another listen - I'm
> < beginning to think you haven't heard a lot of it.
>
> There have been more changes in EBM in 10 years than there have in
> symphony over several millenia, and certainly over 10 years. Not to
> say symphony hasn't changed.

Again, symphony -CAN'T- change all that much. It is a very strictly
defined genre, molded by what pleased people then and what kind of
instruments they had available. However, back to your comment about
Yanni, that man has changed classical into a completely different
entity. That change alone is WAY more than EBM ever progressed.
But since Yanni is more new age now than true classical, I don't think
I should use that argument. Just remember that classical can't innovate
as much as EBM can, and therefore shouldn't be held to the same
standards.
Oh, and whichever 10 years you're talking about is news to me. There
are at least two decades of distinguishable EBM work, but the latest
decade has recycled more than innovated. Even though I shouldn't be
comparing two different things, any 10 years of active symphonic
production has yielded more variety than the last 10 years of EBM.

> < Now, back to what you were saying. I consider post-industrial
> < to be just as demanding of innovation as old industrial. EBM is a
> < sub-genre of post-industrial, and so I also believe that it should
> < explore new realms. Or at least right now it should, seeing as how
> < it has been repeating itself for about a decade.
>
> So you're saying it's ok for symphony to stagnate but it's not ok for
> EBM to stagnate because it has its roots in an innovative style?

Nope. Again, you're putting words into my mouth and twisting my intent.
Symphony has NOT stagnated. That's my entire point. Stagnation has to
be measured by a scale of innovation, and that scale for symphony is
radically different from that of industrial. Symphony has achieved a lot
of its potential, while EBM has achieved only a fraction of what it can.
And while symphony was supposedly stagnating, people were still
flocking to listen to it, and not just new fans, either. Older fans
should have become more jaded, but the truth is they enjoyed classical
music because it -DIDN'T- repeat itself as you say. Not so with EBM, as
older fans _are_ jaded and are running away from it after a few years of
diehard listening.
So, EBM really and truly IS stagnating. And no, that's not okay. I'm
not saying that its purpose has always been to innovate. But it DOES
have roots in an innovative style, and when it just so happens that it's
dying because it's not coming up with any fresh, new ideas, it becomes
all the more ironic and sad. Right now, EBM MUST innovate to survive and
pull back old listeners.

> By the same token all these styles are sub-forms of music, therefore
> that should all have a common goal.

You have it backwards. We have music as the general topic. And then,
when it gets down to specific categories, they each have specific
ideals. Just like politics, with different parties and different goals.

> EBM is a very different thing than old industrial, why should it be
> put up to the same standards?

That's what I've been trying to say about comparing classical to EBM!
They're both VERY different, and should be compared.
And I'm only holding EBM to the same standards as for old industrial
because of the desperate circumstances right now. I'm basing the
solution (Innovation) on the current situation (Stagnation), and that
just _happens_ to be the same thing I would expect of old industrial
(Although for different reasons).
Classical never had the problem of dying out, so you can't compare the
situation of EBM to it. You can't say that since a healthy man doesn't
need medicine, a sick man doesn't need it, either. However, old
industrial's goals included innovation, mostly by accident of design,
not out of necessity (Interestingly enough, it died out because it
didn't innovate enough). EBM now has unwittingly modified its goals to
include innovation, and if it doesn't reach that goal, it, too, will die
out.

H. West

unread,
Jul 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/6/98
to

In article <35A04F...@jps.net>, NOSPA...@jps.net says...

< H. West wrote:
< >
< > In article <359FE1...@jps.net>, NOSPA...@jps.net says...
< > <
< > < Good point, Muerte, but there's another thing to consider.
< > < First, I'm getting the impression that West is labelling these
< > < composers without having heard too much of them. Even to the casual
< > < listener, there ARE differences, and not just minute ones.
< > < And "innovative" is a relative term; it is defined by the
< > < thing the subject in question is referring to. Just because you
< > < cannot tell the differences between A and B doesn't mean B is not
< > < innovative. It just means you cannot -RECOGNIZE- the innovation,
< > < whereas you can hear differences between B and C.
< >
< > You could say that Rudys additions to the style are innovative. He
< > adds things noone has before, and if you scrutinize his music you can
< > recognize them, however upon a casual listen it sounds like just
< > another SP ripoff. Technically this is innovation.
<
< Boy oh boy, did you mess up here.
<
< First, to any listener, SP does not sound like :W:. I may be wrong in
< some cases, but I can easily say that :W: is not an SP ripoff.

I'm struck down by the mental cacophony of that statement. Everyone I've talked
to that doesn't like Wumpscut (with the exception of Downfall) doesn't like it
because they say Rudy is just imitating Ogre. This is the first time I have ever
heard anyone say otherwise. If you can't recognize the similarities between the
two you have no business commenting on music.

< Second, if changing small elements in one's music is innovation, then
< that also applies to classical music.

That's exactly what I said. Why can't you get this.

< Back then, there were more
< differences between Bach and Beethoven than there are between LS and :W:
< (Even to the casual listener). What's worse in this case is that
< industrial leaves so much more _room_ for innovation, yet few utilize
< that.

You're talking about innovation within the confines of a genre. This is
contradictory and nonsensical. Innovation expands the boundaries of a genre. If
you "innovate" within your genre you are not innovating. The fact that symphony
is a more tightly defined genre than EBM means their is more room for innovation
in symphony. Their is more room for -VARIETY- within the genre of EBM since it
covers more ground. Variety is not innovation. Creating a new variety is
innovation.

< Third, I'm going to refer to the changing small elements point again.
< Over in the Speedy J thread, you were attempting to prove that Speedy J
< was unoriginal because he was a ripoff of Dive, Merzbow (These two don't
< sound like him), and an Aphex Twin track. You later changed your
< argument to say that Speedy J is simply not original because he builds
< upon previous existing styles, and basically wasted our time by changing
< your argument like that (Every contemporary artist is unoriginal
< according to your definition).

How are you splitting the two up. If he rips off Merzbow he is building on
Merzbow. If he doesn't rip anyone off he is being original.

<snip less interesting rants>

< > If there isn't a scale by which innovation can be measured then why
< > talk about something which is so fluid at all.
<
< I didn't say there wasn't a scale -AT ALL-, I said there were
< -DIFFERENT- scales. Back then, people didn't have as much capability to
< innovate, because they were limited by both technology and classical's
< own boundaries. Therefore, the potential to innovate decreases.
< Now, technology is a lot better, and industrial has absolutely no
< limits (Or really large ones) as seen by the acceptance of today's
< artists/subgenres. So the potential to innovate increases dramatically.
< And when artists like :W: kill the EBM scene by scaring off jaded fans
< because they don't innovate, then they accept a disease whose cure is
< pure innovation.
< Basically, the EBM scene is dying because it is refusing to innovate.
< It's like a man dying of thirst with a full glass in front of him. If
< he's going to die, then drinking the water becomes imperative (Just like
< innovating becomes the primary concern).

First, I don't know where you're getting that EBM is dying. I was under the
impression that EBM was very popular. Second, I have come to realize you are
only blindly defending symphony, as you are obviously quite a fan. You say it's
unfair for me to compare the standards of old industrial to symphony, but you
compare those standards to EBM. The purpose of symphony is not to innovate. The
purpose of EBM is not to innovate. By their own standards these genres are not
stagnating. By the standards of old industrial both of these genres are
stagnating. All I'm saying is if we judge EBM harshly by the standards of old
industrial we also must judge symphony harshly by the standards of old
industrial.

< > < That's exactly it. Everyone here seems to believe otherwise,
< > < and even though I got a hint of what he was trying to say, I still
< > < interpreted his words incorrectly. So yes, that IS what he meant.
< >
< > Nobody knows. Uncertainty abounds.
<
< No, Downfall cleared up his meaning himself. If uncertainty abounds in
< your own case, that's beyond our help.

You changed your mind three times on the matter. That was the uncertainty I was
referring to.

< [Snip .sig]
<
< Why am I not surprised?

Because you've grown indifferent and feeble.

--
мм мм мм мм ммммммммммм мммммммммммм мммммммммммм
АГллл АААААГллл ААААГллл АААААГллл ллВБАААААБВл ллВБААААААБВл ллВБААААААБВл А
АГлВл АААААГллл ААААГлВл АААААГллл лВллпплпплпл лВллппллпплпп пплпппппппплл А
ГлБл Гллл ГлБл Гллл лБлп п л п лБлп пл п п ллл пл А
АГлАл АААААГллл ААААГлАл АААААГллл лАл АААА п АГлБл АА л АААААААААГллл АА л А
БГлАлммммммммммм БББГлАл БББББГллл лАлммммммммм лВл мммммммм ААААГллл АА А
БГлААААААААААБВл БББГлАл БББББГллл лААААААААБВл ллл ллллллллл ААААГллл АААААА
ВГлАллплпллппппп ВВВГлАл ВВВВВГллл лАлппллппплп пл ллппппллл ББББГллл ББББББ
ВГлАл п лГллл ВВВВГлАл ВВВВВГллл лАл л В ВВ л л ВВГллл ВВВВГллл ВВВВВВ
лГлАл ллл пГллл ллллГлАл ммм ллл лАл л лллллл л ммлллГллл ллллГллл лллллл
лГлАл лллллГллл ммм лБлллплллм пл лАл ллллллллллмммлллллГллл ллллГллл лллллл
ВГлБл ВВВВВГллл ллВл лВВл лппл п лБл мммммммм ммммммммммллл ВВВВГллл ВВВВВВ
БГлВл БББББГллл лллл лллп Б п пл лВл лллллллл ллллллллллллл ББББГллл ББББББ
Б лпл БББББ плл пплл плл ББББББ лл плл пппппллп ппллпппплпплл ББББ плл ББББББ
А л л ААААА пл пл пл АААААА л пл АААА пл АА пл АА п пл ААААА пл АААААА

H. West

unread,
Jul 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/6/98
to

Gee... that one wasn't really interesting enough to reply to...

--
мм мм мм мм ммммммммммм мммммммммммм мммммммммммм
АГллл АААААГллл ААААГллл АААААГллл ллВБАААААБВл ллВБААААААБВл ллВБААААААБВл А
АГлВл АААААГллл ААААГлВл АААААГллл лВллпплпплпл лВллппллпплпп пплпппппппплл А
ГлБл Гллл ГлБл Гллл лБлп п л п лБлп пл п п ллл пл А
АГлАл АААААГллл ААААГлАл АААААГллл лАл АААА п АГлБл АА л АААААААААГллл АА л А
БГлАлммммммммммм БББГлАл БББББГллл лАлммммммммм лВл мммммммм ААААГллл АА А
БГлААААААААААБВл БББГлАл БББББГллл лААААААААБВл ллл ллллллллл ААААГллл АААААА
ВГлАллплпллппппп ВВВГлАл ВВВВВГллл лАлппллппплп пл ллппппллл ББББГллл ББББББ
ВГлАл п лГллл ВВВВГлАл ВВВВВГллл лАл л В ВВ л л ВВГллл ВВВВГллл ВВВВВВ
лГлАл ллл пГллл ллллГлАл ммм ллл лАл л лллллл л ммлллГллл ллллГллл лллллл
лГлАл лллллГллл ммм лБлллплллм пл лАл ллллллллллмммлллллГллл ллллГллл лллллл
ВГлБл ВВВВВГллл ллВл лВВл лппл п лБл мммммммм ммммммммммллл ВВВВГллл ВВВВВВ
БГлВл БББББГллл лллл лллп Б п пл лВл лллллллл ллллллллллллл ББББГллл ББББББ
Б лпл БББББ плл пплл плл ББББББ лл плл пппппллп ппллпппплпплл ББББ плл ББББББ

А л л ААААА пл пл пл АААААА л пл АААА пл АА пл АА п пл ААААА пл АААААА

hope raudive (just enough to annoy you)

unread,
Jul 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/6/98
to

On Sun, 05 Jul 1998 13:28:40 -0700, MT <NOSPA...@jps.net> wrote:

> Good point, Muerte, but there's another thing to consider. First, I'm
>getting the impression that West is labelling these composers without
>having heard too much of them. Even to the casual listener, there ARE
>differences, and not just minute ones.
> And "innovative" is a relative term; it is defined by the thing the
>subject in question is referring to. Just because you cannot tell the
>differences between A and B doesn't mean B is not innovative. It just
>means you cannot -RECOGNIZE- the innovation, whereas you can hear
>differences between B and C.

good point. it would be helpful, in some cases, if there would be
something to point you towards what exactly is innovative about a
particular piece of music...with pre-post-modern music there have been
volumes and volumes written about the various innovations each
composer came up with (for instance, the extremely fast tempos and
strange rhythms used by liszt in his piano pieces) and there are many
places where popular composers were shown to have been influenced by
and blatantly plagarized other, lesser known composers (the influence
of paganini's violin style on liszt's piano playing, mozart's
continuous inability to do anything but write catchy melodies while
stealing from people like alberti)

on the other hand, there really isn't anything credible being written
about innovation and the passage of ideas in post-minimalist music
(that i have found)...with the exceptions of artists who list their
influences, it's not always easy to tell where ideas were taken from
and where new ideas were created from the recombination of old
ones...since the late 70's when musical recording and performance
became readily available to almost everyone, it's become damn near
impossible to follow the trail of ideas...and what we do know is
largely left up to the knowledge and honesty of the person claiming
that something is innovative...is there really any evidence that
industrial records wasn't just doing something that someone had been
doing in their basement without exposure 5 years earlier?

>> > You seem to think I am attacking the symphony, I am not, I'm saying
>> > the same logic that states Wumpscut is useless for not being
>> > innovative should also state that Beethoven is useless for not being
>> > innovative. I am -NOT- agreeing with that logic, that was an
>> > assumption on your part.

mr west, it's best to have some knowledge of what you're discussing
before opening your mouth...regardless of how you feel about his music
beethoven was clearly an innovator...he redefined the use of tonality
through key changes and modulations that were at times awkward and
almost random (whereas, previously there was a strict system that
composers used to change from one key to another...beethoven took a
lot of heat at the time for not sticking to the system)...to people
used to listening to the strict tonality of Baroque and early
Classical music, his pieces were often criticized as being noise
because of the uneasiness and awkward tension that they provoked...he
was one of the key Classical composers who opened up the door for the
Romantic period, since the tonal palette that composers could use was
more easily altered to suit a particular emotional expression

> But let me just reword what I said before so there is no
>misunderstanding. When you compare :W:'s lack of innovation to
>Beethoven's lack of innovation, you aren't comparing these things on a
>level playing field. It's like telling me the standard lightbulb today
>is better than the first lightbulb. Obviously, there are other factors
>to think about.
> The first difference is that innovation is measured in different scales
>in those different times.

I agree for the most part with the rest of your post. I think another
thing to keep in mind is that the recognition of innovation in music
pre-rock&roll was largely limited to composers and people who studied
music theory and history. In 1998, it's commonplace for members of
the educated lower classes to argue over whose music is more complex
and revolutionary. In 1798, no one outside of the middle class
particularly cared or had the education to care.

For that matter, I don't think that most of the people who argue about
music being innovative now have the educational background in music to
recognize innovative ideas. How can you claim that a particular
musician is innovative without at least having done some research into
the flow of ideas which led into his music? Which is probably why I
tend to respect people more for liking music simply because they hear
it and enjoy listening to it than I do those who feel they need to
boost their cool quota by listening to only innovative music. Hell,
I'll admit I fall in the last category a lot of the time (arrogantly
so), if only because I've generally found that those who did it first,
did it best. But on the other hand, I'll freely admit that I can
listen to and create utterly derivative shit as long as it evokes an
emotional response, whether it be simply wanting to shake my ass to
Sister Machine Gun or wanting to go out and burn down an animal
research lab after listening to Ogre rant for an hour.

MT

unread,
Jul 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/6/98
to

H. West wrote:
>
> Gee... that one wasn't really interesting enough to reply to...
>

You could just SAY you're a fool; that would be much easier.

Now, instead of acting as if you're superior to everyone, take a stab
at the arguments. If you can't refute them, just say so. It isn't a big
deal to say you're wrong once in a while.

MT

unread,
Jul 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/6/98
to

H. West wrote:
>
> In article <35A04F...@jps.net>, NOSPA...@jps.net says...

> <
> < Boy oh boy, did you mess up here.
> <
> < First, to any listener, SP does not sound like :W:. I may be
> < wrong in some cases, but I can easily say that :W: is not an SP
> < ripoff.
>
> I'm struck down by the mental cacophony of that statement. Everyone
> I've talked to that doesn't like Wumpscut (with the exception of
> Downfall) doesn't like it because they say Rudy is just imitating
> Ogre. This is the first time I have ever heard anyone say otherwise.
> If you can't recognize the similarities between the two you have no
> business commenting on music.

If you cannot recognize the differences between vocals and music, then
you shouldn't even be here. I admit that Rudy sounds like Ogre in the
vocal capability, but so does almost any band with vocal distortion. The
music itself, however, doesn't bring to mind Skinny Puppy, and I'm not a
:W: fan, either (Though I like SP).

> < Second, if changing small elements in one's music is
> < innovation, then that also applies to classical music.
>
> That's exactly what I said. Why can't you get this.

Because for some strange reason, I like to start off my paragraphs with
a topic statement, and then expand/refute it. Why can't you get this?

> < Back then, there were more differences between Bach and Beethoven
> < than there are between LS and :W: (Even to the casual listener).
> < What's worse in this case is that industrial leaves so much more
> < _room_ for innovation, yet few utilize that.
>
> You're talking about innovation within the confines of a genre.

No, that's what YOU are talking about (You just keep putting words into
my mouth and twisting them, right?).
I'm talking about POTENTIAL innovation. You cannot define maximum
innovation, because it's all supposed to be new, but you can predict to
some extent how far a genre can stretch. Classical is VERY strictly
defined, and that leaves very little room to change and still be
classical. EBM is kind of lax about such boundaries, and therefore has a
lot of innovative potential.

> This is contradictory and nonsensical.

Perhaps that's because you brought it up. Do me the favor of reading my
words for what they mean, and don't twist the meanings.

> Innovation expands the boundaries of a genre. If you "innovate" within
> your genre you are not innovating.

Exactly my point. If you add new elements to your genre, then that
could be innovating. Let's say that you add small rock elements into a
classical background. That's still mostly classical, and if it's all
structured according to the symphonic definitions, then it's okay to
call it classical. That's expanding your music, and it is, therefore,
innovation.
Now, if you take the same formula above and reverse proportions (Like
Puff Daddy's "Come With Me"), you get innovation for the rock genre, but
not for classical (Because it isn't part of the classical genre).
There is very little room to innovate within classical and still BE
classical.

> The fact that symphony is a more tightly defined genre than EBM means
> their is more room for innovation in symphony.

Where did you get this idea? Once you change a genre a whole lot, it
arguable ISN'T that genre anymore. Constricting boundaries don't leave
room for new stuff.

> Their is more room for -VARIETY- within the genre of EBM since it
> covers more ground.

Actually, that's not "since it covers more ground," but "since it CAN
cover more ground." And since more variety is possible in EBM, and
variety is innovation, then EBM has more innovative potential.

> Variety is not innovation. Creating a new variety is innovation.

Um, yes it is. If you have standard classical, and you mix in standard
rock, you've just added variety to classical (Or rock). And that is....
innovation!
After all, if you mix a genre with itself, you still get the same old
thing. Mixing new elements in is variety AND innovation.

> < Third, I'm going to refer to the changing small elements point
> < again. Over in the Speedy J thread, you were attempting to prove
> < that Speedy J was unoriginal because he was a ripoff of Dive,
> < Merzbow (These two don't sound like him), and an Aphex Twin track.
> < You later changed your argument to say that Speedy J is simply not
> < original because he builds upon previous existing styles, and
> < basically wasted our time by changing your argument like that (Every
> < contemporary artist is unoriginal according to your definition).
>
> How are you splitting the two up. If he rips off Merzbow he is
> building on Merzbow. If he doesn't rip anyone off he is being
> original.

If I haven't pointed out that you either haven't heard Speedy J or you
have no idea what Merzbow and Dive sound like, I'd like to bring that up
here.
True, if he WERE ripping off an artist, I would say he is unoriginal.
You were originally saying he's a ripoff, but then said that he was
simply unoriginal in the big picture because you realized your original
argument made no sense.

> <snip less interesting rants>

I believe I had a question for you in there: Which stand do you hold?
You're telling me that subtle original techniques in Rudy's music make
him innovative/original, but then you were saying the opposite about
Speedy J. Which do you believe?

> < I didn't say there wasn't a scale -AT ALL-, I said there were
> < -DIFFERENT- scales. Back then, people didn't have as much capability
> < to innovate, because they were limited by both technology and
> < classical's own boundaries. Therefore, the potential to innovate
> < decreases.
> < Now, technology is a lot better, and industrial has absolutely
> < no limits (Or really large ones) as seen by the acceptance of
> < today's artists/subgenres. So the potential to innovate increases
> < dramatically. And when artists like :W: kill the EBM scene by
> < scaring off jaded fans because they don't innovate, then they accept
> < a disease whose cure is pure innovation.
> < Basically, the EBM scene is dying because it is refusing to
> < innovate. It's like a man dying of thirst with a full glass in front
> < of him. If he's going to die, then drinking the water becomes
> < imperative (Just like innovating becomes the primary concern).
>
> First, I don't know where you're getting that EBM is dying. I was
> under the impression that EBM was very popular.

It's popular enough, but the truth is fans are still running away from
it. It's not in immediate danger of dying, as it still has a large
fanbase, but that fanbase decreases each year as people leave. And with
absolutely no money pouring in, you can call the genre dead. Or, if that
doesn't satisfy you, with no money the artists won't create, and THEN
the genre will be dead.

> Second, I have come to realize you are only blindly defending
> symphony, as you are obviously quite a fan.

LOL! I'm sorry if I came off that way. The truth is, I've studied it,
and for the most part I hate it with a passion (I enjoy some of PIG's
pieces). But you are obviously misinformed about it, which is why I'm
here.
You, on the other hand, are contradicting yourself on two opposite
stands, so I have come to realize that you're here for the sake or
arguing.

> You say it's unfair for me to compare the standards of old industrial
> to symphony, but you compare those standards to EBM.

It's in my other post.
In any case, I'm re-explaining it below.

> The purpose of symphony is not to innovate. The purpose of EBM is not
> to innovate.

True, but "desperate times call for desperate measures." The normal
purpose of a healthy man is not to take medicine, but a sick man must.
If EBM is in danger of dyring out, then I think it's a desperate enough
situation to modify the genre's goals.
Classical never had the problem of dying out, so there wasn't any need
to change its goals. Sadly, EBM has to do something to keep the interest
of its fans, and that requires coming up with something new.
I am not comparing old industrial to EBM. I'm evaluating the current
situation and coming up with the best solution, and that happens to have
been one of the purposes of the genre that begat it (In other words,
it's coincidental).
YOU are the one doing the comparisons, so don't attack me for that.

> By their own standards these genres are not stagnating.

Stagnation means that something is not flowing or moving, like a
stagnant river. If EBM is not redefining itself, it is stagnating.
However, to reword your argument, by its own standards EBM doesn't CARE
about stagnating. It's possible for both genres to get nowhere, but
neither genre has a goal to fight off stagnation (With creative music).

> By the standards of old industrial both of these genres are
> stagnating.

By their own as well, actually.

> All I'm saying is if we judge EBM harshly by the standards of old
> industrial we also must judge symphony harshly by the standards of old
> industrial.

And I've already explained otherwise, but it's in the other post. See
above for a repeat.

> < No, Downfall cleared up his meaning himself. If uncertainty
> < abounds in your own case, that's beyond our help.
>
> You changed your mind three times on the matter. That was the
> uncertainty I was referring to.

Actually, I interpreted Downfall's words two different ways; I didn't
change my mind thrice.

> < [Snip .sig]
> <
> < Why am I not surprised?
>
> Because you've grown indifferent and feeble.

Or perhaps because I've come to expect such flashy means of
self-boasting from you.

H. West

unread,
Jul 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/6/98
to

In article <35A0F7...@jps.net>, NOSPA...@jps.net says...

< H. West wrote:
< >
< > Gee... that one wasn't really interesting enough to reply to...
< >
<
< You could just SAY you're a fool; that would be much easier.
<
< Now, instead of acting as if you're superior to everyone, take a stab
< at the arguments. If you can't refute them, just say so. It isn't a big
< deal to say you're wrong once in a while.

My only regret is that I didn't just ignore it for being so plodding. Oh but
here I'm doing it again...

--
мм мм мм мм ммммммммммм мммммммммммм мммммммммммм
АГллл АААААГллл ААААГллл АААААГллл ллВБАААААБВл ллВБААААААБВл ллВБААААААБВл А
АГлВл АААААГллл ААААГлВл АААААГллл лВллпплпплпл лВллппллпплпп пплпппппппплл А
ГлБл Гллл ГлБл Гллл лБлп п л п лБлп пл п п ллл пл А
АГлАл АААААГллл ААААГлАл АААААГллл лАл АААА п АГлБл АА л АААААААААГллл АА л А
БГлАлммммммммммм БББГлАл БББББГллл лАлммммммммм лВл мммммммм ААААГллл АА А
БГлААААААААААБВл БББГлАл БББББГллл лААААААААБВл ллл ллллллллл ААААГллл АААААА
ВГлАллплпллппппп ВВВГлАл ВВВВВГллл лАлппллппплп пл ллппппллл ББББГллл ББББББ
ВГлАл п лГллл ВВВВГлАл ВВВВВГллл лАл л В ВВ л л ВВГллл ВВВВГллл ВВВВВВ
лГлАл ллл пГллл ллллГлАл ммм ллл лАл л лллллл л ммлллГллл ллллГллл лллллл
лГлАл лллллГллл ммм лБлллплллм пл лАл ллллллллллмммлллллГллл ллллГллл лллллл
ВГлБл ВВВВВГллл ллВл лВВл лппл п лБл мммммммм ммммммммммллл ВВВВГллл ВВВВВВ
БГлВл БББББГллл лллл лллп Б п пл лВл лллллллл ллллллллллллл ББББГллл ББББББ
Б лпл БББББ плл пплл плл ББББББ лл плл пппппллп ппллпппплпплл ББББ плл ББББББ

А л л ААААА пл пл пл АААААА л пл АААА пл АА пл АА п пл ААААА пл АААААА

MT

unread,
Jul 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/6/98
to

H. West wrote:
>
> In article <35A0F7...@jps.net>, NOSPA...@jps.net says...

> < H. West wrote:
> < >
> < > Gee... that one wasn't really interesting enough to reply to...
> < >
> <
> < You could just SAY you're a fool; that would be much easier.
> <
> < Now, instead of acting as if you're superior to everyone, take
> < a stab at the arguments. If you can't refute them, just say so. It
> < isn't a big deal to say you're wrong once in a while.
>
> My only regret is that I didn't just ignore it for being so plodding.
> Oh but here I'm doing it again...

*Sigh* That's rather typical of you. You join in a conversation despite
your ignorance on the subject. When someone boxes you into a corner, you
turn tail and run, attempting to start a flame war to cover your tracks.
My only regret is that I didn't just ignore your plea for attention. Oh,


but here I'm doing it again...

--

H. West

unread,
Jul 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/6/98
to

In article <35A0F6...@jps.net>, NOSPA...@jps.net says...

< H. West wrote:
< >
< > In article <35A04F...@jps.net>, NOSPA...@jps.net says...
< > <
< > < Boy oh boy, did you mess up here.
< > <
< > < First, to any listener, SP does not sound like :W:. I may be
< > < wrong in some cases, but I can easily say that :W: is not an SP
< > < ripoff.
< >
< > I'm struck down by the mental cacophony of that statement. Everyone
< > I've talked to that doesn't like Wumpscut (with the exception of
< > Downfall) doesn't like it because they say Rudy is just imitating
< > Ogre. This is the first time I have ever heard anyone say otherwise.
< > If you can't recognize the similarities between the two you have no
< > business commenting on music.
<
< If you cannot recognize the differences between vocals and music, then
< you shouldn't even be here. I admit that Rudy sounds like Ogre in the
< vocal capability, but so does almost any band with vocal distortion. The
< music itself, however, doesn't bring to mind Skinny Puppy, and I'm not a
< :W: fan, either (Though I like SP).

SP was the first band to do distorted EBM. Rudy is emulating it. Are you saying
that Rudy is original? If not then who was it that did his type of music before
him, if it's not SP? CV did EBM, but not this type of EBM. Leatherstrip was his
direct influence, but SP was doing something very similar before him, so they
get the credit. SP did dark distorted EBM before anyone else, therefore all
subsequent dark distorted EBM is not original because they did it first.

< > < Second, if changing small elements in one's music is
< > < innovation, then that also applies to classical music.
< >
< > That's exactly what I said. Why can't you get this.
<
< Because for some strange reason, I like to start off my paragraphs with
< a topic statement, and then expand/refute it. Why can't you get this?

You like to agree with a statement then refute it? Are you picking a fight with
yourself?

< > < Back then, there were more differences between Bach and Beethoven
< > < than there are between LS and :W: (Even to the casual listener).
< > < What's worse in this case is that industrial leaves so much more
< > < _room_ for innovation, yet few utilize that.
< >
< > You're talking about innovation within the confines of a genre.
<
< No, that's what YOU are talking about (You just keep putting words into
< my mouth and twisting them, right?).

I'm wording your arguments in a way that shows their flaws. They still mean the
same thing, it's just that their gaping holes become more apparent.

< I'm talking about POTENTIAL innovation. You cannot define maximum
< innovation, because it's all supposed to be new, but you can predict to
< some extent how far a genre can stretch. Classical is VERY strictly
< defined, and that leaves very little room to change and still be
< classical. EBM is kind of lax about such boundaries, and therefore has a
< lot of innovative potential.

What happened to "No, that's what YOU are talking about." Innovating within the
boundaries of EBM (within the confines of a genre) is not innovating. It is
rehashing. The difference between Wumpscut and CV is smaller than the difference
between Bach and Yanni. Pick an argument and stick by it.

< > Innovation expands the boundaries of a genre. If you "innovate" within
< > your genre you are not innovating.
<
< Exactly my point. If you add new elements to your genre, then that
< could be innovating. Let's say that you add small rock elements into a
< classical background. That's still mostly classical, and if it's all
< structured according to the symphonic definitions, then it's okay to
< call it classical. That's expanding your music, and it is, therefore,
< innovation.
< Now, if you take the same formula above and reverse proportions (Like
< Puff Daddy's "Come With Me"), you get innovation for the rock genre, but
< not for classical (Because it isn't part of the classical genre).
< There is very little room to innovate within classical and still BE
< classical.

I'd like to clear something up. I'm referring to the english meaning of
innovation. Stop using your freak personal definition.

from Webster:
in*no*va*tion \i-ne-va-shen\ n a new idea, method, or device

Rock is not a new idea. In the rap genre, it is a foreign idea. Unless rap fans
live outside of space and time, however, it is not a new idea.

< > The fact that symphony is a more tightly defined genre than EBM means
< > their is more room for innovation in symphony.
<
< Where did you get this idea? Once you change a genre a whole lot, it
< arguable ISN'T that genre anymore. Constricting boundaries don't leave
< room for new stuff.
<
< > Their is more room for -VARIETY- within the genre of EBM since it
< > covers more ground.
<
< Actually, that's not "since it covers more ground," but "since it CAN
< cover more ground." And since more variety is possible in EBM, and
< variety is innovation, then EBM has more innovative potential.

So what is your point by this? By participating in a genre at all (even, gasp,
industrial) you are ignoring the infinite innovative potential of music in
general in favor of a predescribed confine. You can't take considerable
advantage of infinity.

< > < Third, I'm going to refer to the changing small elements point
< > < again. Over in the Speedy J thread, you were attempting to prove
< > < that Speedy J was unoriginal because he was a ripoff of Dive,
< > < Merzbow (These two don't sound like him), and an Aphex Twin track.
< > < You later changed your argument to say that Speedy J is simply not
< > < original because he builds upon previous existing styles, and
< > < basically wasted our time by changing your argument like that (Every
< > < contemporary artist is unoriginal according to your definition).
< >
< > How are you splitting the two up. If he rips off Merzbow he is
< > building on Merzbow. If he doesn't rip anyone off he is being
< > original.
<
< If I haven't pointed out that you either haven't heard Speedy J or you
< have no idea what Merzbow and Dive sound like, I'd like to bring that up
< here.

Maybe after a few years of training your ear you'll be able to recognize shit
music as well. But for now you shouldn't feel too ashamed of enjoying it.

< True, if he WERE ripping off an artist, I would say he is unoriginal.
< You were originally saying he's a ripoff, but then said that he was
< simply unoriginal in the big picture because you realized your original
< argument made no sense.

Sense? I'll take a glass thank you. Quote me when I changed my mind. I always
held that SJ was doing something that had been done before, and I still say that
now. Looking at my old posts I can't see how you could possibly extract that I
had changed my mind. You're not only putting words into my mouth, you're putting
a new mouth on my face Mr. Hypocrite.

< > <snip less interesting rants>
<
< I believe I had a question for you in there: Which stand do you hold?
< You're telling me that subtle original techniques in Rudy's music make
< him innovative/original, but then you were saying the opposite about
< Speedy J. Which do you believe?

LOL! I couldn't have possibly been clearer. I never said Rudy was innovative. I
said by (your) confused standards he is innovative. Then I said by (my) normal,
sane standards he is not innovative. I don't know what could have confused you,
but I will (semi) graciously accept your apology.

< > < I didn't say there wasn't a scale -AT ALL-, I said there were
< > < -DIFFERENT- scales. Back then, people didn't have as much capability
< > < to innovate, because they were limited by both technology and
< > < classical's own boundaries. Therefore, the potential to innovate
< > < decreases.
< > < Now, technology is a lot better, and industrial has absolutely
< > < no limits (Or really large ones) as seen by the acceptance of
< > < today's artists/subgenres. So the potential to innovate increases
< > < dramatically. And when artists like :W: kill the EBM scene by
< > < scaring off jaded fans because they don't innovate, then they accept
< > < a disease whose cure is pure innovation.
< > < Basically, the EBM scene is dying because it is refusing to
< > < innovate. It's like a man dying of thirst with a full glass in front
< > < of him. If he's going to die, then drinking the water becomes
< > < imperative (Just like innovating becomes the primary concern).
< >
< > First, I don't know where you're getting that EBM is dying. I was
< > under the impression that EBM was very popular.
<
< It's popular enough, but the truth is fans are still running away from
< it. It's not in immediate danger of dying, as it still has a large
< fanbase, but that fanbase decreases each year as people leave. And with
< absolutely no money pouring in, you can call the genre dead. Or, if that
< doesn't satisfy you, with no money the artists won't create, and THEN
< the genre will be dead.

Why do you say this? Do you run an EBM label that is losing record sales? Run a
club that's losing patrons? Making blind assumptions based on a few subjective
observations?

< You, on the other hand, are contradicting yourself on two opposite
< stands, so I have come to realize that you're here for the sake or
< arguing.

No I'm not.

< > The purpose of symphony is not to innovate. The purpose of EBM is not
< > to innovate.
<
< True, but "desperate times call for desperate measures." The normal
< purpose of a healthy man is not to take medicine, but a sick man must.
< If EBM is in danger of dyring out, then I think it's a desperate enough
< situation to modify the genre's goals.
< Classical never had the problem of dying out, so there wasn't any need
< to change its goals. Sadly, EBM has to do something to keep the interest
< of its fans, and that requires coming up with something new.
< I am not comparing old industrial to EBM. I'm evaluating the current
< situation and coming up with the best solution, and that happens to have
< been one of the purposes of the genre that begat it (In other words,
< it's coincidental).

So what are you Empty Corp? That's business, not art. You could attack someone
in a business sense for making a bad investment or something, but this has
nothing to do with music.

< > All I'm saying is if we judge EBM harshly by the standards of old
< > industrial we also must judge symphony harshly by the standards of old
< > industrial.
<
< And I've already explained otherwise

"Explained" implies some kind of coherence and meaning.

< > < No, Downfall cleared up his meaning himself. If uncertainty
< > < abounds in your own case, that's beyond our help.
< >
< > You changed your mind three times on the matter. That was the
< > uncertainty I was referring to.
<
< Actually, I interpreted Downfall's words two different ways; I didn't
< change my mind thrice.

You said it meant one thing, then said it meant another, then said it meant the
first thing again. Since you are having trouble with the math that's three (3)
times.

< > < [Snip .sig]
< > <
< > < Why am I not surprised?
< >
< > Because you've grown indifferent and feeble.
<
< Or perhaps because I've come to expect such flashy means of
< self-boasting from you.

Or maybe you're indifferent and feeble.

< Remove NOSPAM to reply.
<
< Grinding into Emptiness, industrial e-zine: http://www.emptiness.net.

--

H. West

unread,
Jul 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/6/98
to

In article <35A12C...@jps.net>, NOSPA...@jps.net says...
< H. West wrote:
< >
< > In article <35A0F7...@jps.net>, NOSPA...@jps.net says...

< > < H. West wrote:
< > < >
< > < > Gee... that one wasn't really interesting enough to reply to...
< > < >
< > <
< > < You could just SAY you're a fool; that would be much easier.
< > <
< > < Now, instead of acting as if you're superior to everyone, take
< > < a stab at the arguments. If you can't refute them, just say so. It
< > < isn't a big deal to say you're wrong once in a while.
< >
< > My only regret is that I didn't just ignore it for being so plodding.
< > Oh but here I'm doing it again...
<
< *Sigh* That's rather typical of you. You join in a conversation despite
< your ignorance on the subject. When someone boxes you into a corner, you
< turn tail and run, attempting to start a flame war to cover your tracks.

I don't mind cheap shots so much but I won't stand for lies. I haven't run away
or turned this into a flame war. I've continued the conversation (Message-ID:
<MPG.100ae7ee6...@news.idt.net>). You did not reply. Therefore you are
the one that has run away, and it was a good move considering that would bring
you less shame than your frightfully incoherent misinformed arguments. It's not
my fault you run and cry when someone pokes you in the belly.

--
мм мм мм мм ммммммммммм мммммммммммм мммммммммммм
АГллл АААААГллл ААААГллл АААААГллл ллВБАААААБВл ллВБААААААБВл ллВБААААААБВл А
АГлВл АААААГллл ААААГлВл АААААГллл лВллпплпплпл лВллппллпплпп пплпппппппплл А
ГлБл Гллл ГлБл Гллл лБлп п л п лБлп пл п п ллл пл А
АГлАл АААААГллл ААААГлАл АААААГллл лАл АААА п АГлБл АА л АААААААААГллл АА л А
БГлАлммммммммммм БББГлАл БББББГллл лАлммммммммм лВл мммммммм ААААГллл АА А
БГлААААААААААБВл БББГлАл БББББГллл лААААААААБВл ллл ллллллллл ААААГллл АААААА
ВГлАллплпллппппп ВВВГлАл ВВВВВГллл лАлппллппплп пл ллппппллл ББББГллл ББББББ
ВГлАл п лГллл ВВВВГлАл ВВВВВГллл лАл л В ВВ л л ВВГллл ВВВВГллл ВВВВВВ
лГлАл ллл пГллл ллллГлАл ммм ллл лАл л лллллл л ммлллГллл ллллГллл лллллл
лГлАл лллллГллл ммм лБлллплллм пл лАл ллллллллллмммлллллГллл ллллГллл лллллл
ВГлБл ВВВВВГллл ллВл лВВл лппл п лБл мммммммм ммммммммммллл ВВВВГллл ВВВВВВ
БГлВл БББББГллл лллл лллп Б п пл лВл лллллллл ллллллллллллл ББББГллл ББББББ
Б лпл БББББ плл пплл плл ББББББ лл плл пппппллп ппллпппплпплл ББББ плл ББББББ

А л л ААААА пл пл пл АААААА л пл АААА пл АА пл АА п пл ААААА пл АААААА

DSBP c/o Tommy T or cyber_burnt

unread,
Jul 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/6/98
to

MT (NOSPA...@jps.net) wrote:

: H. West wrote:
: >
: > Gee... that one wasn't really interesting enough to reply to...
: >
:
: You could just SAY you're a fool; that would be much easier.
:
: Now, instead of acting as if you're superior to everyone, take a stab
: at the arguments. If you can't refute them, just say so. It isn't a big
: deal to say you're wrong once in a while.
:
: --
: Remove NOSPAM to reply.
:
: Grinding into Emptiness, industrial e-zine: http://www.emptiness.net.

-- you know what?? YOU ARE WRONG MT!! and all the little wanking sissies
that whine about the same things you do!! how do you know if industrial is
dying or dead?? what do you do??? well.dude,i'm heavily involved and i
know it's growing more everyday...but people like you and downfall are so
determined to show us all...that it is dying and you are right about
something you don't know about!! if you don't like the stuff and want to
rag on it fine,but you are very misinformed and ridiculously funny in your
posts about what "you think" is happeneing!! just cause you want it to die
doesn't mean shit....thousands of us,with me in the front line will be
supporting it and getting the words of new bands spread and heard...you do
not know of what you are talking!!
and since when did the cool e-zine grinding into emptiness take you as a
writer?? shit you don't even like the genre the zines all about...so what
are you gonna sabotage that too??? not a chance...we grow as you talk.
you stare as we climb.
=-=-=-=-=-=--==-TOMMY T.,.,.,.,,the DSBP...........keeping the I in RMI!
Tommy T's Cyberage Radio Show: -------------- http://cyberage.home.ml.org
Live DSBP Chat on IRC Tuesday/Friday nights 20:00:00 MST (-0700)
/join #dsbp on DALnet
Meet us there and help us spread the elektro cyber revolution!
==Transmission Complete. For further digital downloads contact:
DSBP c/o Tommy T or cyber:burnt
landmail: 237 Cagua NE, Albuquerque NM 87108, USA Planet Earth
email: bu...@nmia.com
web: http://dsbp.home.ml.org/
Biopsy: http://dsbp.home.ml.org/BIOPSY/
diverje: http://dsbp.home.ml.org/DIVERJE/
/ ______ _______ ______ _____ ELEKTRO + INDUSTRIAL + CYBER + EBM /
/ | \ |______ |_____] |_____] UNDERGROUND REVOLUTIONARY MUSIC /
/ |_____/ ______| |_____] | Diversity In Electronics /

MT

unread,
Jul 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/6/98
to

H. West wrote:
>
> In article <35A12C...@jps.net>, NOSPA...@jps.net says...

> <
> < *Sigh* That's rather typical of you. You join in a
> < conversation despite your ignorance on the subject. When someone
> < boxes you into a corner, you turn tail and run, attempting to start
> < a flame war to cover your tracks.
>
> I don't mind cheap shots so much but I won't stand for lies. I haven't
> run away or turned this into a flame war.

You've run away from the last relevant post in this section of the
thread. And our last exchange seemed to me like it would lead into a
flame war (You've ATTEMPTED to start a flame war by saying my comments
are boring, because you cannot reply).

> I've continued the conversation (Message-ID:
> <MPG.100ae7ee6...@news.idt.net>). You did not reply.

Because I did not see it. If it had not showed up on my server, I can
do nothing except wait until it shows up in DejaNews and reply from
there. Not everyone is constantly on the 'net like you.

> Therefore you are the one that has run away, and it was a good move
> considering that would bring you less shame than your frightfully
> incoherent misinformed arguments.

You know as well as I do that my arguments are the only ones making
sense out of us two. I don't attempt to put words into your mouth or
twist your words. I have replied to everything you've written that is
worth my time (And even those things that AREN'T worth my time). It's
rather rude of you to run away from my post because you cannot reply and
then attempt to say I scared you off.

> It's not my fault you run and cry when someone pokes you in the belly.

Don't forget, YOU are the one that ran away. Don't pass your faults
onto me.

MT

unread,
Jul 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/6/98
to

H. West wrote:
>
> In article <35A0F6...@jps.net>, NOSPA...@jps.net says...

> <
> < If you cannot recognize the differences between vocals and
> < music, then you shouldn't even be here. I admit that Rudy sounds
> < like Ogre in the vocal capability, but so does almost any band with
> < vocal distortion. The music itself, however, doesn't bring to mind
> < Skinny Puppy, and I'm not a :W: fan, either (Though I like SP).
>
> SP was the first band to do distorted EBM.

If you want to oversimplify it, then I suppose that could apply.

> Rudy is emulating it.

Rudy is following in the footsteps of the same genre. That's not
emulation. I'm not saying he's original, but he certainly isn't a Puppy
ripoff unless I think your way.
Y'know, this is exactly the same thing you did over in the Speedy J
thread. First you say that So-and-So (Speedy J, :W:) are ripoffs of
Shim-and-Sham (Dive/Merzbow/AFX, SP). And when you're wrong on that, you
subtly twist your words as if you were ALWAYS meant that So-and-So was
unoriginal in the big picture.
Stick with one stand.

> Are you saying that Rudy is original?

No. That's what you said.

> If not then who was it that did his type of music before him, if it's
> not SP? CV did EBM, but not this type of EBM. Leatherstrip was his
> direct influence, but SP was doing something very similar before him,
> so they get the credit. SP did dark distorted EBM before anyone else,
> therefore all subsequent dark distorted EBM is not original because
> they did it first.

Yes, and I agree with that. But what you were saying before was that
:W: is a SP ripoff, not that he's unoriginal because he produces music
in the same genre. Don't change your words to save face.

> < Because for some strange reason, I like to start off my
> < paragraphs with a topic statement, and then expand/refute it. Why
> < can't you get this?
>
> You like to agree with a statement then refute it? Are you picking a
> fight with yourself?

You like to insert words into my mouth? Are you TRYING to sound like a
fool?
I start paragraphs off with topic sentences. Most people usually learn
that somewhere in elementary school. I give a brief description of the
idea you will expect to see in the next few sentences. If I disagree
with something you said, I will write that in the first sentence. If I
agree, or want to use that for my own purposes, I will say that as well.
It's simple writing structure.

> < No, that's what YOU are talking about (You just keep putting
> < words into my mouth and twisting them, right?).
>
> I'm wording your arguments in a way that shows their flaws. They still
> mean the same thing, it's just that their gaping holes become more
> apparent.

And that's how you get so confused. When you reword them, you CHANGE
the meanings on purpose, despite your claims to the contrary. Knock it
off and it'll make more sense to you.

> < I'm talking about POTENTIAL innovation. You cannot define
> < maximum innovation, because it's all supposed to be new, but you can
> < predict to some extent how far a genre can stretch. Classical is
> < VERY strictly defined, and that leaves very little room to change
> < and still be classical. EBM is kind of lax about such boundaries,
> < and therefore has a lot of innovative potential.
>
> What happened to "No, that's what YOU are talking about." Innovating
> within the boundaries of EBM (within the confines of a genre) is not
> innovating. It is rehashing.

There are differences between "boundaries" and "minimums." Boundaries
describe how far something can go in EBM before it becomes something
else entirely. If you add small EBM touches to an otherwise hard rock
song, you don't wind up with EBM anymore, do you? No. You've stepped
past the boundaries into something else.
Now, the minimums describe what is necessary in your music to be EBM.
If you don't meet those minimums, it's arguable that you aren't true EBM
at all, but just have influences. So, after you meet the minimum, you
still have a long way to go before you cross the boundaries and leave
the EBM genre. Everything in there is achievable with a little
creativity.
Mostly what I'm thinking about it Snog's new album, "Buy Me... And I'll
Change Your Life." It's got really strong Spaghetti Western stuff mixed
in with electro, but it's still considered [innovative] electro. If Snog
put more Spaghetti Western and less electro on it, then it would be...
Spaghetti Western, with the innovative idea of electro mixed in with it.
See my point?

> The difference between Wumpscut and CV is smaller than the difference
> between Bach and Yanni.

Yes, and why wouldn't that be true? Arguably, Yanni never WAS
classical, but rather New Age. In other words, he may have "innovated"
so much in classical that he stumbled into a totally different genre.

> < Exactly my point. If you add new elements to your genre, then
> < that could be innovating. Let's say that you add small rock elements
> < into a classical background. That's still mostly classical, and if
> < it's all structured according to the symphonic definitions, then
> < it's okay to call it classical. That's expanding your music, and it
> < is, therefore, innovation.
> < Now, if you take the same formula above and reverse
> < proportions (Like Puff Daddy's "Come With Me"), you get innovation
> < for the rock genre, but not for classical (Because it isn't part of
> < the classical genre).
> < There is very little room to innovate within classical and
> < still BE classical.
>
> I'd like to clear something up. I'm referring to the english meaning
> of innovation. Stop using your freak personal definition.

That wasn't necessary. Grow up.

> from Webster:
> in*no*va*tion \i-ne-va-shen\ n a new idea, method, or device

And from now on, when I say innovation, assume I mean a new idea. When
I'm writing, I'm usually thinking about mixing two different genres, in
a way that hasn't been done before, so think of it that way (a la
Snog).

> Rock is not a new idea. In the rap genre, it is a foreign idea. Unless
> rap fans live outside of space and time, however, it is not a new
> idea.

Exactly. Let's say no one has mixed rock and rap before. So the first
person to do it, a rock artist, begins to rap on his records. He has now
created innovation within the rock genre (I don't consider Puffy true
rap, or rap at all, so I don't know where to put him - crap, maybe). So,
to music, whatever foreign ideas you mix for the first time is
considered innovation. And whatever the base is for your mixing, that's
where the innovation is.

> < > Their is more room for -VARIETY- within the genre of EBM since it
> < > covers more ground.
> <
> < Actually, that's not "since it covers more ground," but "since
> < it CAN cover more ground." And since more variety is possible in
> < EBM, and variety is innovation, then EBM has more innovative
> < potential.
>
> So what is your point by this? By participating in a genre at all
> (even, gasp, industrial) you are ignoring the infinite innovative
> potential of music in general in favor of a predescribed confine. You
> can't take considerable advantage of infinity.

You're right (Nice way of putting it, too). If I did say that, then
I'll admit I was wrong.
What I should have said is that EBM, although more specific than
industrial, is still relatively limitless to classical music. It allows
a lot of room for new stuff while still producing EBM music.

> < > How are you splitting the two up. If he rips off Merzbow he is
> < > building on Merzbow. If he doesn't rip anyone off he is being
> < > original.
> <
> < If I haven't pointed out that you either haven't heard Speedy
> < J or you have no idea what Merzbow and Dive sound like, I'd like to
> < bring that up here.
>
> Maybe after a few years of training your ear you'll be able to
> recognize shit music as well.

I can do that right now, actually. And I form my own definition of shit
music.

> But for now you shouldn't feel too ashamed of enjoying it.

Do you have to turn EVERYTHING into an argument of insults? Really, you
do that in every thread I've seen you in.

> < True, if he WERE ripping off an artist, I would say he is
> < unoriginal. You were originally saying he's a ripoff, but then said
> < that he was simply unoriginal in the big picture because you
> < realized your original argument made no sense.
>
> Sense? I'll take a glass thank you. Quote me when I changed my mind. I
> always held that SJ was doing something that had been done before, and
> I still say that now. Looking at my old posts I can't see how you
> could possibly extract that I had changed my mind. You're not only
> putting words into my mouth, you're putting a new mouth on my face Mr.
> Hypocrite.

I don't think so. I interpreted your words the first time around as
saying that Speedy J was a ripoff of other artists (That's why you gave
examples). THEN you went for the big picture and said he's unoriginal in
the long run because he builds upon pre-existing styles. Those seem like
two different things to me; the first one is specific to Speedy J's
music, the second one attacks ALL contemporary music.

> < I believe I had a question for you in there: Which stand do
> < you hold? You're telling me that subtle original techniques in
> < Rudy's music make him innovative/original, but then you were saying
> < the opposite about Speedy J. Which do you believe?
>
> LOL! I couldn't have possibly been clearer. I never said Rudy was
> innovative. I said by (your) confused standards he is innovative. Then
> I said by (my) normal, sane standards he is not innovative. I don't
> know what could have confused you, but I will (semi) graciously accept
> your apology.

If you wouldn't mind dispensing with the insults, I will as well and
I'm sure we could manage to have a normal conversation.

By my standards, Rudy is NOT innovative. By YOUR standards he is not
innovative. Yet you said he was innovative. Yes, it's all clear to me.
Innovation to me is specific to the genre. I can listen to two
different classical artists and see that they are not alike, but can
forgive some of the "stagnation" because their boundaries don't leave a
lot of room for innovation.
However, I look at EBM and I see a lot of wasted potential, not just in
:W:, but in most of the scene in general (Out of what I've heard on my
own, that is; I haven't heard whole discogs, but I think I'm educated
enough on the subject to hear similarities, if only in a select group.
And I know it's not just a select group, as truly experienced listeners
have mentioned). So, in a genre with so much room to explore, I tend to
be much harsher when artists stagnate. And in that sense, I would never
say that :W: is original.
Which means that by my standards, :W: is not original, and you came up
with some new standards of your own. And that's why I attacked you, for
having TWO separate standards.

> < It's popular enough, but the truth is fans are still running
> < away from it. It's not in immediate danger of dying, as it still has
> < a large fanbase, but that fanbase decreases each year as people
> < leave. And with absolutely no money pouring in, you can call the
> < genre dead. Or, if that doesn't satisfy you, with no money the
> < artists won't create, and THEN the genre will be dead.
>
> Why do you say this? Do you run an EBM label that is losing record
> sales? Run a club that's losing patrons? Making blind assumptions
> based on a few subjective observations?

The last one, with a few facts thrown in from people in the industry
(They told me the fanbase is getting smaller, that's all). And it
appears you're doing exactly the same thing about classical (Without the
facts), no?

> < You, on the other hand, are contradicting yourself on two
> < opposite stands, so I have come to realize that you're here for the
> < sake or arguing.
>
> No I'm not.

Not what? Perhaps you're not here just to argue, but rather to attract
attention to yourself. I've seen that's quite normal for you.

> < True, but "desperate times call for desperate measures." The
> < normal purpose of a healthy man is not to take medicine, but a sick

> < man must. If EBM is in danger of dying out, then I think it's a

> < desperate enough situation to modify the genre's goals.
> < Classical never had the problem of dying out, so there wasn't
> < any need to change its goals. Sadly, EBM has to do something to keep
> < the interest of its fans, and that requires coming up with something
> < new.
> < I am not comparing old industrial to EBM. I'm evaluating the
> < current situation and coming up with the best solution, and that
> < happens to have been one of the purposes of the genre that begat it
> < (In other words, it's coincidental).
>
> So what are you Empty Corp? That's business, not art. You could attack
> someone in a business sense for making a bad investment or something,
> but this has nothing to do with music.

_What_ doesn't? The fact that I'm saying innovation is necessary
because it's a good business move? I'm not speaking in the business
sense, because I am not associated with any music corporation or band.
However, I WOULD like to be entertained by nice music, and I suppose
that makes me a patron of the arts. After all, if I can pick up a couple
of EBM albums and know everything that's happened, why listen to EBM at
all? Why not either try to make it better or look for some new stuff?

> < And I've already explained otherwise
>
> "Explained" implies some kind of coherence and meaning.

And it requires some kind of thought and understanding on your part.
You know as well as I do that what I said made sense. Don't tell
everyone that you cannot comprehend simple sentences just to make a
cheap shot.

> < Actually, I interpreted Downfall's words two different ways; I
> < didn't change my mind thrice.
>
> You said it meant one thing, then said it meant another, then said it
> meant the first thing again. Since you are having trouble with the
> math that's three (3) times.

Let me try to run it past you once more. I said one thing, then I said
another. Muerte reiterated what I said the second time, and I said he
was right. That's two (2) for you from me.

> < > < [Snip .sig]
> < > <
> < > < Why am I not surprised?
> < >
> < > Because you've grown indifferent and feeble.
> <
> < Or perhaps because I've come to expect such flashy means of
> < self-boasting from you.
>
> Or maybe you're indifferent and feeble.

Nah. I like mine better.

--

MT

unread,
Jul 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/6/98
to

DSBP c/o Tommy T or cyber_burnt wrote:
>
> MT (NOSPA...@jps.net) wrote:
> : H. West wrote:
> : >
> : > Gee... that one wasn't really interesting enough to reply to...
> : >
> :
> : You could just SAY you're a fool; that would be much easier.
> :
> : Now, instead of acting as if you're superior to everyone, take
> : a stab at the arguments. If you can't refute them, just say so. It
> : isn't a big deal to say you're wrong once in a while.
> :

> -- you know what?? YOU ARE WRONG MT!!

Y'know, I found the fact that you quoted EVERYTHING to be ridiculous
enough, but to say I'm wrong and then go off on a totally different
subject just amazes me.

> and all the little wanking sissies that whine about the same things
> you do!! how do you know if industrial is dying or dead??

First, I didn't say industrial is dying or dead; I'm speaking
specifically about EBM. And coldwave, if you want. The rest of the EBM
scene I don't know about. I do think that IDM would be flourishing, as
techno seems to gain more of a hold lately (At least over here).

But as for the proof for my comments? Hmm. I look in stores. I talk to
people who work in stores. They tell me (For stores that actually know
WTF industrial is and have a section for it) that sales are lagging, so
they order less copies of albums. I look in stores without industrial
sections (Most of 'em), and they have very limited selections. I get the
impression from electro/EBM bands that there just isn't that much
interest in the scene.
I talk to the elite listeners who know what they're talking about. They
tell me they're leaving the scene they originally enjoyed, going to the
more abstract subgenres. I listen to the albums that are reputedly the
best of their genre, and I still don't like 'em. I don't think I'm the
only one.
What does this lead me to believe?

> what do you do??? well.dude,i'm heavily involved

*Sigh*. Tommy, I've read about your accomplishments and I admire you
for doing so many things, but don't even bother to flourish them as if
that immediately makes you better than me. I don't care.

> and i know it's growing more everyday...

You're the first person to say something like this. Is this in
reference to industrial as a whole, including CW and EBM?

> but people like you and downfall are so determined to show us
> all...that it is dying and you are right about something you don't
> know about!!

I'm positive that Downfall would be more informed than me, but I can't
speak for him. My credentials are above. And I'm not determined to show
you that it's dying to depress you; I'm trying to WARN people that
perhaps the old stuff just isn't what we're looking for anymore. I feel
like those men holding signs that say The End is Near.

> if you don't like the stuff and want to rag on it fine,but you are
> very misinformed and ridiculously funny in your posts about what "you
> think" is happeneing!!

I got the same idea when you wrote about techno/d'n'b.

> just cause you want it to die doesn't mean shit....

Stop trying to paint easy pictures for yourself. I don't want to kill
the scene and I've said so myself.

> thousands of us,with me in the front line will be supporting it and
> getting the words of new bands spread and heard...

LOL! This is a funny picture to think about.

We are, we are INDUSTRIAL. INDUSTRIAL!
We are, we are INDUSTRIAL. INDUSTRIAL... Warriors.

> you do not know of what you are talking!!

Well, I admit that can certainly be the case. Of course, you are more
acquainted with the underground than I am... Have you considered that
this variety you may be hearing is only in the underappreciated?

> and since when did the cool e-zine grinding into emptiness take you
> as a writer??

Uh. What's today, July 6? About seven months ago.

> shit you don't even like the genre the zines all about...

Shut up, you twit. If you really don't know what you're talking about,
then don't attack me for the same thing.

> so what are you gonna sabotage that too???

Uh, yeah. I'm gonna sabotage GiE. Instead of working on my writing to
describe music better, I'm gonna sabotage what I enjoy. You make the
best sense sometimes, sweetcheeks.

> not a chance...we grow as you talk. you stare as we climb.

Well, I'm certainly happy for you, but without solid numbers I don't
think you'll do much to dissuade me from the notion that the
pop-oriented subgenres of industrial are dying.

WinterMute

unread,
Jul 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/6/98
to

hope raudive (just enough to annoy you) wrote:

>
> as far as the broad generalization of industrial goes, there was
> already a term made for repetitive thumping dance music with no
> artistic content back in the 70's...it's called disco

I find it funny that you are making the judgement that 'post-industrial'
has no artistic content, when in the later paragraph you discuss how
industrial is not about shutting your mind to other ideas. But yes, I
understand to each their own taste and so forth.

> i don't think industrial was telling people *what* to think,
> necessarily, as much as it was simply trying to get people to think -
> about the information they were being bombarded with in the industrial
> age...part of the idea is that you can only be sure of an opinion when
> you take in to account all of the information that has caused them to
> have that...so, in a sense, industrial was trying to be persuasive
> about certain issues maybe by getting people to question their own
> beliefs on those issues, as opposed to propaganda which generally
> tries to trick people into believing something they wouldn't
> necessarily believe by feeding them biased information and/or
> misinformation
>
> hope

So in your opinion, industrial is based on the concept that if we could
predict every atom and energy force in the universe we could make the
right choices? You don't at all think that we are ourselves brainwashed
into being counter-culture? Just speculative ideas.
WinterMute

hope raudive (just enough to annoy you)

unread,
Jul 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/7/98
to
On Mon, 06 Jul 1998 22:16:10 -0400, WinterMute
<dist...@isralink.co.il> wrote:


>I find it funny that you are making the judgement that 'post-industrial'
>has no artistic content,
> when in the later paragraph you discuss how
>industrial is not about shutting your mind to other ideas.

the reason i find most post-industrial music to be without artistic
merit is because it doesn't incorporate outside ideas...in fact, the
biggest problem i have with p-i music is the lack of ideas that most
musicians in the genre incorporate into their art...i mean, what ideas
is :w: trying to communicate to his fans? it seems to me that very
little thought goes into the idesas behind most of the newer p-i
material...in addition, the musical technology that is affordable now
is capable of doing so much more than most p-i musicians do with
it...a good artist, in my opinion, should be constantly challenging
themselves by taking the time to come up with and implement new
ideas...why must every dance song have a variation on the exact same
rhythm pattern at different tempos? why must a dance song use drums
at all when other instruments are capable of being used percussively?
a good artist should never be completely satisfied with what they're
doing, yet most p-i artists seem content to bang out track after track
of the exact same thing

even distinctive p-i musicians, like leatherstrip or nin for instance,
seem content to take 1 idea and use it in nearly every single piece
that they ever write...where is the challenge in that? there are so
many elements that make up music to experiment with that it's
mindboggling...yet so many musicians seem content to spew out track
after track of the exact same thing over and over...i think a good
number of the artists in this genre really need to ask themselves "why
am i making this? what am i accomplishing?"

> You don't at all think that we are ourselves brainwashed
>into being counter-culture?

I think a good number of people are, actually...I really don't have
enough faith in most people to believe that they question why they do
and think certain things...a fair amount of "being industrial" is, in
my opinion, questioning and examining ourselves and our society as
opposed to accepting things for what they are without
question...including having discussions like this and questioning the
various definitions of industrial

WinterMute

unread,
Jul 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/7/98