boy, let me tell you something, wumpscut is worthless
downfall
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
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
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
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
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
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*
>> 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)
>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
> >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
> >> 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)
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
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
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
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
>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
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
>that his work within the post industrial scene is incredibly useless.
>
>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.
>
>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
>blathering away with phrases that have been used before and used better.
>
>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.
>
>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.
>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
>via the coldwave bands will, inevitably, make coldwave oriented music.
>
>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
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
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
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
> 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
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
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)
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
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)
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
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
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...
< > > <
< > > < 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.
< >
< > 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
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
< > < > < > 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.
< > < > < >
< > < > < > 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.
< > < >
< > < > 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.
< > <
< > < 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
< > 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.
<
< 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
In article <359FE1...@jps.net>, NOSPA...@jps.net says...
< Don Muerte wrote:
< >
< > H. West wrote:
< > >
< > > 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.
< >
< > differences in dance pop muzak. What makes you think that one who grew
< > up on classical wouldn't think the same about EBM?
<
< 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.
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
> < 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
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
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
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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)
<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
>
> is :w: trying to communicate to his fans?
Okay, since you asked. I'm going to lay myself out on the line and
share a thought I had regarding the infamous project Wumpscut. Maybe
I'm hallucinating but I actually found meaning in Soylent Green. Since
the whole damn movie is about how we're eating ourselves, (literally)
maybe the song is about how we're eating ourselves metaphorically. Feel
free to call me a crack whore, this is pure speculation.
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
You know, I agree with you in principle. It is pretty sad how similair
so many songs by the same artists, or not even the same artists, sound.
But I think to decree from the P-I (as you so nicely abbreviated it) is
dead, might be a hasty conclusion. Somewhere at the fringes of the
gunk, new stuff is being done. Sometimes by accident. But things are
still happening. They're just being somewhat obscured. I like P-I the
way it is right now, which is not to say I don't welcome change. But
maybe there's only a certain rate at which things can change in a
healthy way. Maybe people can only stomach so much at a time, or
innovate only so much from given current standards of music.
>
> 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
>
(Grin) Well my theory has only been to question to a certain degree and
leave the rest as inevitable.
WinterMute.
Rep>Korrupt
RyanEReid
>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.
See my last post. The symphony form originally consisted of four movements, the
first in Sonata Allegro form(fast, lively), the second in a slow, lyrical form,
the third a dance/scherzo(joke) form, and the final a fast finale. Beginning
with the Romantic period, this was twisted into something totally different
until symphony just meant a long piece usually consisting of four movements.
Let's also not forget that this was a time period where art was in a large part
defined by the church.
(I|)=-ryan-reid--tha-waveshape-kyd--fustigate-=(|I)
RyanEReid
>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.
Uh, compare one of Vivaldi or Beethoven's symphonies to one of Tchaikovsky's or
even moreso Scheonberg's..
>I didn't know the purpose of EBM was innovation. The purpose of Industrial
>maybe, but EBM isn't Industrial.
Thank you for finally establishing that fact for everyone. Everyone needs to
re-read that last line a few times.
(I|)=-ryan-reid--tha-waveshape-kyd--fustigate-=(|I)
RyanEReid
>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.
This is what I'm gathering, because even a two year old can see progression
from Palestrina to Vivaldi to Beethoven to Brahms to Ravel to Copland to
Stockhaussen.
(I|)=-ryan-reid--tha-waveshape-kyd--fustigate-=(|I)
H. West
says...
Or from CV to Skinny Puppy to Front 242 to FLA to Leatherstrip to Wumpscut. Or
haven't you heard much of them?
H. West
says...
< >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.
<
< first in Sonata Allegro form(fast, lively), the second in a slow, lyrical form,
< the third a dance/scherzo(joke) form, and the final a fast finale. Beginning
< with the Romantic period, this was twisted into something totally different
< until symphony just meant a long piece usually consisting of four movements.
I used symphony in my analogy because it is a non-innovative genre, like EBM.
That is the only thing I ever insinuated about symphony. If you are
contradicting me, then you must be saying that symphony is innovative, as that
is the only possible contradictory stance. Please explain how symphony is more
innovative than EBM.
--
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
< 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.
Since SP was first to do distorted EBM, when Wumpscut does it he is not
original, because SP did it before him. How are you making the distinction
between not being original because someone did what you are doing first and
ripping off.
< > Are you saying that Rudy is original?
<
< No. That's what you said.
Years of socializing with humans capable of comprehending sarcasm has spoiled
me. I apologize.
< Don't change your words to save face.
That's mearly the inconsistancies in your perceptual perversions. Cut down on
the coffee and the paranoia should subside.
< > < 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?
You know, Empty, you really do seem to have a great deal of contempt for me. Now
I don't want to "insert words in your mouth" here, but you seem to be on quite
the holy quest to spite me. I'm not speaking of a ideological inconsistancy, but
more of a pathetic personal grudge. Perhaps emotions should stay off of usenet.
I'd hate to think I'm making someone cry.
< 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.
You said "I like to start off my paragraphs with a topic statement, and then
expand/refute it." The purpose of a topic sentence is to define a topic. IE if
you were refuting that Wumpscut is an SP ripoff your topic sentence might be
"Wumpscut is not an SP ripoff." If your topic sentence was "Wumpscut is an SP
ripoff" that would be your topic and you would be agreeing with me. If you
define your topic with your topic sentence and then refute your topic you are
picking a fight with yourself, since you are defying what you are talking about.
If you refute your topic sentence you are arguing with yourself. Please drop
this now. Nitpicking is bothersome.
Again, this is variety. If you create something within a set standard of rules
based on predefined notions you are not being innovative.
< > 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.
The first time someone mixed two different styles it was innovative, because
that had never been done before. If you take rap (which is not new) and rock
(which is not new) and combine (which is not new) you have added no new
elements. The creation is new but it is made up entirely of preexisting notions.
Nothing new. Therefore it is not innovative.
< > < > 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.
Whenever you create music for a genre you are ignoring innovative potential by
confining yourself to a genre. EBM could be very different than it is now, and
symphony could be something else entirely. They both only take advantage of a
small portion of infinite available innovation. If EBM is bad for not taking
full advantage of innovation, then symphony is bad for doing the same thing.
< > < 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.
Again, how is ripping off different than building on. If he rips off Aphex Twin
then he is building on his music to create his own.
< > < 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.
Did you pop in the soothing ocean sounds tape in the middle of writing this?
< > < 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 why is lack of innovation to blame. Your whole argument is based on a
unfounded possible explanation for an unverified speculation.
< > < 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.
Maybe I should get a chip on my shoulder and track you down across RMI. Then I'd
be cool too.
< > < 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.
"Cheap shot" implies some sort of mistruth.
< > < 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.
You bitched at me for what he really said, then supposed it meant another, then
realized he meant the first thing again. That's two changes, but three results.
Shall we split the hair a sixth time.
H. West
< H. West wrote:
< >
< > In article <35A16F...@jps.net>, NOSPA...@jps.net says...
< > <
< > < 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.
< >
< > Since SP was first to do distorted EBM, when Wumpscut does it he is
< > not original, because SP did it before him.
<
< > How are you making the distinction between not being original because
< > someone did what you are doing first and ripping off.
<
< and perverting it for your own purposes. Yes, Rudy is producing the same
< kind of music, but you distinctly said that he's a Puppy ripoff, when
< the two sounds are NOT the same.
< With your reasoning, everybody today would be a ripoff. Which proves
< absolutely nothing, because we're trying to narrow things down to
< include :W: in a select group.
Really? I didn't know everyone today was creating distorted EBM. I thought it
was only a select group.
< > < Don't change your words to save face.
< >
< > That's mearly the inconsistancies in your perceptual perversions.
<
< Is someone dictating your insults to you? "Those're merely the
< inconsistencies..." If you want to insult me, spell it right.
"Grammar Flaming: usually the result of poor potty training, can usually be
corrected by several swift blows to the head. Avoid touching the Lame Flamers
palms and at all costs."
- The Lame Flaming Handbook v0.3
< And no, what I was saying has nothing to do with my specific
< perceptive.
Boy, that was about the dumbest thing you've ever said. From my perspective it
means one thing. From your perspective it means another. Whatever perspective
you have on the matter, you cannot deny that the meaning is relative to your
perspective. Well, I guess you can from your perspective.
< You said that Speedy J is a Dive/Merzbow ripoff (Which isn't true).
Ok, I admit it was a bad example that I just wrote off the top of my head.
However I atleast was able to give a bad example. The opposing side was not able
to quantify how SJ is original, even poorly.
< The
< thing about it is, you're speaking _specifically_ about Speedy J; you
< can't substitute, say, Yanni in there and have the sentence be true.
< Then you changed/expanded your statement to say that Speedy J is
< unoriginal because he builds upon previous pre-existing styles. Now, you
< can substitute any artist in there and it would still be true.
< Therefore, your statement has changed. It's simple logic.
This is another misunderstanding on your part. Someone else said he is original
because he mixes styles in a way noone else has before. I only said that is not
originality. I did not say SJ mixes styles in a way noone else has before (if
you perceived that I did I challenge you to quote me). At this point the topic
changed, and we were no longer talking about SJ, but rather what constitutes
originality. If you would perhaps read more slowly and make fewer nonsensical
assumptions this wouldn't happen.
< You did exactly the same thing about :W:. You say that he's an SP
< ripoff, which is specific to his case (And also not true). Then you say
< that he's a ripoff because he follows in the same genre, which, again,
< makes everybody other than the original artist in every genre a ripoff
< [of that original artist]. Again, your statement has changed.
Let me make it absolutely clear for you. If you follow in the same genre you are
a whore to the original artist. You have no original ideas. If you had original
ideas and were not just another ripoff, THEN YOU WOULDN'T FIT INTO THE GENRE.
Your low standards for originality are to blame for your confusion.
< > < > < 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?
< >
< > You know, Empty, you really do seem to have a great deal of contempt
< > for me.
<
< Calling names doesn't make you seem intelligent, West.
Names? My newsreader says you are MT. If this is incorrect blame my newsreader.
< I don't have contempt for many people, just the misinformed ones. Read
< this and the Speedy J thread. I jumped into both to correct you.
So you have contempt for misinformed people, and you think I am misinformed. Uh
huh. So what's the problem. By your standards you should have contempt for me.
That's what I said, that you have contempt for me.
< Consider that instead of focusing on the subject, you chose to insult me
< when I exposed your ignorance and plea for attention.
I chose to insult you because you insulted me. Don't lie to save face here. I
was talking with someone else. I wasn't talking about you or to you or even
thinking about you or anyone like you or anyone who knows your mother. You then
jumped in and insulted me. I hadn't said one word to you beforehand, therefore
YOU were the one to start insulting. You then project what you dispise most
about yourself (ignorance, please for attention, unprovoked flaming) onto me in
attempt to save face.
< > If you refute your topic sentence you are arguing with yourself.
< > Please drop this now. Nitpicking is bothersome.
<
< I find it strange that you said this, considering you brought it up in
< the first place.
I made a fleeting comment. You decided to deny it to make yourself look like
less of a fool. However it's all to obvious that a lesser fool would have
admitted he made a mistake or just let it go.
< > Again, this is variety. If you create something within a set standard
< > of rules based on predefined notions you are not being innovative.
<
< *Sigh*. Variety IS innovation. The opposite of variety is sameness. You
< can't have innovation in sameness. Innovation comes in variety.
< And as paradoxical as it sounds, yes, you CAN have innovation within
< boundaries.
< Let me try it again. "Minimums" are the minimums necessary to be a
< certain style of music. Once you beat that minimum, you're in. But once
< you start adding new stuff that hasn't been tried before, you're getting
< closer to the - yes, predefined - boundaries of that style of music.
< After that, you push those boundaries (Below).
< Innovation shouldn't redefine a genre completely, especially since it
< only happens on a small scale. If 5% of EBM bands are innovating by
< adding new ideas to their music, they will have redefined the boundaries
< (Which is what you're trying to say) and therefore change that genre
< completely. Yes, it will expand the boundaries, but it will also bring
< the minimums along. There will always be a constant difference between
< the minimums and the boundaries. If those 5% of bands are innovating and
< redefining the genre, then they will have kicked out a lot of the rest
< 95% because they don't meet the minimums anymore.
< So, when innovation happens on such a small scale, the best thing it
< can do is to form a new genre. If everybody releases a record like
< Snog's next year, then there would probably be a new subgenre of EBM,
< Spaghetti-M. You know. It wouldn't be enough to change the current ideas
< of EBM, so something new would have to form.
< So, to tie it all back together, innovation IS possible within
< predefined boundaries. Those predefined boundaries tell how much you can
< add to your music while still staying in that same genre. The only way
< those boundaries will change is if innovation is done on a mass scale,
< thus evolving the whole genre completely. But until then, the standards
< say you can only add so much stuff to EBM until it's not EBM anymore.
< Because a lot of stuff has been tried and defined, innovation has to be
< measured. If an electro band starts adding guitars to their music, you
< know it's only a matter of time before they make it into coldwave. Since
< most the bases are covered, it's necessary to have space for each genre
< to expand. If it changes completely, then that genre will also have
< innovation potential, but less of it (Think about the 2nd law of
< thermodynamics; as energy is transferred [genres change], heat
< [innovation] is lost).
Here is another example of you attempting to cast your own flaws onto me. You
changed what you originally said into something so general it includes
everything. By these standards Wumpscut is original, because he adds some
elements noone has before (the name of his band for instance).
< > < 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.
< >
< > The first time someone mixed two different styles it was innovative,
< > because that had never been done before. If you take rap (which is not
< > new) and rock (which is not new) and combine (which is not new) you
< > have added no new elements. The creation is new but it is made up
< > entirely of preexisting notions. Nothing new. Therefore it is not
< > innovative.
<
< Whatever weird logic you're using isn't working. You gave me a
< definition of innovation that included "new ideas." You take an old idea
< (Rap) mix it with another old idea (Rock) for the first time. That's a
< NEW IDEA (TM), and therefore it is innovation according to your own
< definition.
And if I take the preexisting notion of EBM and make a new song I have another
NEW IDEA (TM). Therefore all EBM is original as well, and symphony too.
< > If EBM is bad for not taking full advantage of innovation, then
< > symphony is bad for doing the same thing.
<
< Only if classical is ignoring their own innovation potential. However,
< it is not. In EBM's case, though, all that potential is largely
< squandered.
And the classical composer is squandering potential by writing for such a
tightly defined genre. They are both ignoring innovative potential.
< > < > 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 why is lack of innovation to blame.
<
< Because people are bored of the crap that's out there.
Yes, but how do you know this.
< > Your whole argument is based on a unfounded possible explanation for
< > an unverified speculation.
<
< No, I told you, I've made the observations not only from what I've
< heard in the music, but heard from the fans, heard from the stores, etc.
< (Complete list in some other post to Tommy T). What's sad is that
< industrial sales are getting smaller in the area, and people are bored
< enough of EBM that they're ignoring the worthwhile subgenres.
That's an unverified speculation. Look it up. And since you haven't explained
the reason for the reason why this is happening, that is an unfounded possible
explanation.
< > < 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.
< >
< > Maybe I should get a chip on my shoulder and track you down across
< > RMI. Then I'd be cool too.
<
< That would no doubt work better than your current pleas for attention.
Really? You think maybe I could attract -TWO- idiots that way?
< > < 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.
< >
< > "Cheap shot" implies some sort of mistruth.
<
< Considering you (H. West) wrote the above, where's the problem?
Problem? You are both agreeing with "the above" and implying it is untrue at the
same time. Therefore, you are the problem.
H. West
< H. West wrote:
< >
< > In article <35A50E...@jps.net>, NOSPA...@jps.net says...
< > <
< > < I'm saying "ripping off" is totally stealing everything a
< > < band's done and perverting it for your own purposes. Yes, Rudy is
< > < producing the same kind of music, but you distinctly said that he's
< > < a Puppy ripoff, when the two sounds are NOT the same.
< > < With your reasoning, everybody today would be a ripoff. Which
< > < proves absolutely nothing, because we're trying to narrow things
< > < down to include :W: in a select group.
< >
< > Really? I didn't know everyone today was creating distorted EBM. I
< > thought it was only a select group.
<
< shot. Had you gone on, your question would have been answered.
< What you're saying is that :W: is not unoriginal because he's building
< upon pre-existing styles. In that case, every contemporary [And most
< before our time] artist builds upon pre-existing styles, making them ALL
< unoriginal. That means :W: is just one of a group of many. And we're
< trying to narrow things down further than that.
There are degrees of originality. Wumpscut sounds very much like other bands in
his genre, therefore he is not original. "Innovative" music has very little to
do with previous notions.
< > - The Lame Flaming Handbook v0.3
<
< It figures you'd have one of those.
"Snipping Uncomfortable Remarks: this is the true sign of the coward. He removes
the damaging portions and attempts to avert attention from his folly. If met in
person do not ask about the funny smell."
- The Lame Flaming Handbook v0.3
< > < And no, what I was saying has nothing to do with my specific
< > < perceptive.
< >
< > Boy, that was about the dumbest thing you've ever said. From my
< > perspective it means one thing. From your perspective it means
< > another. Whatever perspective you have on the matter, you cannot deny
< > that the meaning is relative to your perspective. Well, I guess you
< > can from your perspective.
<
< Considering I'm talking from YOUR perspective, not mine, YOU are saying
< the dumb stuff.
< See what I wrote above. If :W: is unoriginal, then so is every other
< artist today, with the reasons you put forth, from your own perspective.
< I'm just showing the flaws in your way of thinking. I don't know how you
< got the idea that it was my perspective I was talking about.
I don't know why you thought that was what I was thinking, considering I never
said that. Just another misinformed assumption on your part. I said the above
was your perspective. It is your perspective on my perspective. I didn't say it
was your perspective on your perspective.
< > < The thing about it is, you're speaking _specifically_ about Speedy
< > < J; you can't substitute, say, Yanni in there and have the sentence
< > < be true.
< > < Then you changed/expanded your statement to say that Speedy J
< > < is unoriginal because he builds upon previous pre-existing styles.
< > < Now, you can substitute any artist in there and it would still be
< > < true. Therefore, your statement has changed. It's simple logic.
< >
< > This is another misunderstanding on your part. Someone else said he is
< > original because he mixes styles in a way noone else has before. I
< > only said that is not originality.
<
< How is it not? If the result is different, then it's considered
< original (Because in music, it's the result that matters.
The Spice World sound track is original. It says so right on the package:
"original motion picture soundtrack." The songs on it did not exist before, they
are new. This fits the technical definition of innovative. However they are very
similar to what has been before them. While they are a separate creation and are
not exact copies, the similarities between them and other Idol Pop are great and
the differences are small. If you live in a black and white world Spice World is
innovative. If however if you look at how great a difference there is between
Spice World and other Idol Pop you can see that it is not innovative. Same thing
applies to SJ.
< > I did not say SJ mixes styles in a way noone else has before (if you
< > perceived that I did I challenge you to quote me).
<
< I never said you said that.
Then how did I say he was only unoriginal in "the big picture."
< > At this point the topic changed, and we were no longer talking about
< > SJ, but rather what constitutes originality.
<
< I must admit I didn't follow the thread that closely. By picking up
< only the occasional post and seeing the change in your two arguments, I
< made the next logical assumption from my part.
I never want to hear you bitch about misinformed arguments again.
< > < You did exactly the same thing about :W:. You say that he's an
< > < SP ripoff, which is specific to his case (And also not true). Then
< > < you say that he's a ripoff because he follows in the same genre,
< > < which, again, makes everybody other than the original artist in
< > < every genre a ripoff [of that original artist]. Again, your
< > < statement has changed.
< >
< > Let me make it absolutely clear for you. If you follow in the same
< > genre you are a whore to the original artist. You have no original
< > ideas. If you had original ideas and were not just another ripoff,
< > THEN YOU WOULDN'T FIT INTO THE GENRE. Your low standards for
< > originality are to blame for your confusion.
<
< I understand your argument perfectly, yet apparently you didn't
< understand my refutation or else you wouldn't have reiterate what you
< said.
< First, my standards for originality are not low. I suppose you could
< say that from your perspective :), but the truth is, your standards
< leave no room for music whatsoever. The way your standards work,
< everybody is a ripoff of the artists they were influenced by, with THOSE
< artists ripping off THEIR influences, and so on. This leaves only a
< handful of original artists, way back when.
By my standards no artist is 100% original. However artists that are atleast
mostly different than their predecessors are effectively "original." On the
other hand by your standards every artist--except perhaps one performing an
exact duplicate of a previous artists song--is innovative.
< What I'm saying is, it's easier to verify a band stole another band's
< sound, because that's not hard to spot. But since definitions vary among
< people (Some don't even care about subgenres), you cannot say that :W:
< is considered a ripoff of SP. It won't be true for the people that don't
< define bands in terms of genres. It will be true by my definition of :W:
< sounded exactly like SP, as that can be proven.
No matter what you call either one it's a simple matter of recognizing
similarities in structure and sound. Labels would have no affect.
< > < > You know, Empty, you really do seem to have a great deal of
< > < > contempt for me.
< > <
< > < Calling names doesn't make you seem intelligent, West.
< >
< > Names? My newsreader says you are MT. If this is incorrect blame my
< > newsreader.
<
< MT and Empty are two different things. Mocking me comes from your
< ineptitude. Don't blame your newsreader.
If you consider mockery to be such a sign of ineptitude, then perhaps you should
STOP MOCKING PEOPLE.
< > < I don't have contempt for many people, just the misinformed
< > < ones. Read this and the Speedy J thread. I jumped into both to
< > < correct you.
< >
< > So you have contempt for misinformed people, and you think I am
< > misinformed. Uh huh. So what's the problem. By your standards you
< > should have contempt for me. That's what I said, that you have
< > contempt for me.
<
< And the way you wrote it, you seemed to think that this was unfounded
< contempt. I was merely clearing it up, so you know why.
All contempt is pathetic.
< > < Consider that instead of focusing on the subject, you chose to
< > < insult me when I exposed your ignorance and plea for attention.
< >
< > I chose to insult you because you insulted me. Don't lie to save face
< > here. I was talking with someone else. I wasn't talking about you or
< > to you or even thinking about you or anyone like you or anyone who
< > knows your mother. You then jumped in and insulted me.
<
< On the contrary.
< _________
< Subject: Re: boy, let me tell you something, wumpscut is worthless
< From: sua...@idt.net (H. West)
< Date: 1998/07/06
< Message-ID: <MPG.100a1fac5...@news.idt.net>
<
< < [Snip .sig]
< <
< < Why am I not surprised?
<
< Because you've grown indifferent and feeble.
< _________
<
< This was the first flame in the thread. You flamed me first, apparently
< without realizing it (Habit, maybe).
--------
> Subject: Re: boy, let me tell you something, wumpscut is worthless
> From: MT <NOSPA...@jps.net>
> Date: Sun, 05 Jul 1998 13:28:40 -0700
> Message-ID: <359FE1...@jps.net>
>
> ...
> 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.
> ...
--------
You can't run from your own loathsomeness. Here, you say I don't know what I'm
talking about. That's a flame, and it was before what you say was the "first"
"flame" in the thread. Loathsomeness I could stand, but shame just will not do.
I ignored your petty insult. But then, when you exploded into a full tantrum I
couldn't leave your poutings ignored as before. Remember, this is still -BEFORE-
the "indifferent" quote which you claim was the first flame.
--------
> Subject: Re: boy, let me tell you something, wumpscut is worthless
> From: MT <NOSPA...@jps.net>
> Date: Sun, 05 Jul 1998 21:16:12 -0700
> Message-ID: <35A04F...@jps.net>
>
> ...
> Boy oh boy, did you mess up here.
> ...
> 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?
--------
This shows us three major points. 1) you trolled by flaming unprovoked and
succeeded in starting a flame war 2) you are ashamed of what you have done and
are trying to deny it 3) you have a pathetic penis envy of me.
< > You then project what you dispise most about yourself (ignorance,
< > please for attention, unprovoked flaming) onto me in attempt to save
< > face.
<
< Let's see. I know about EBM, and so do you, to some extent. I know
< about classical, but you don't. So it's ignorance on your part.
I have listened to a large amount of EBM and classical. I will give you the
benefit of the doubt and assume you have as well (I lack the precognitive
abilities which allow you to decipher what music I have and have not heard). I
am able to form coferent perceptions on these musical genres, you are not. I
suppose this isn't ignorance on your part, perhaps confusion or blind loyalty
would be better terms. Unatractive none the less.
< I don't have those atrocious .sig files that exemplify textbook
< insecurity. So you are trying to get attention.
< And you flamed me first, so you're guilty of unprovoked flaming.
These both pretty much explain each other. The third factor, your shame of what
you are, also fits in. You start a flame war with me to get attention (because
you are insecure), you then deny it because of your shame (the source of your
insecurity).
< How about that? I was right.
Shall I pat you on the head?
< > < > If you refute your topic sentence you are arguing with yourself.
< > < > Please drop this now. Nitpicking is bothersome.
< > <
< > < I find it strange that you said this, considering you brought
< > < it up in the first place.
< >
< > I made a fleeting comment. You decided to deny it to make yourself
< > look like less of a fool.
<
< Here is the complete text. Try not to rewrite these memories into your
< own paranoid version of history.
< _________
< Subject: Re: boy, let me tell you something, wumpscut is worthless
< From: sua...@idt.net (H. West)
< Date: 1998/07/06
< Message-ID: <MPG.100ae7ee6...@news.idt.net>
<
< < > < 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?
< _________
<
< I didn't deny anything. What I wrote was exactly what you wrote, only
< expanded on (To lead into the rest of my paragraph). So, you're the only
< fool here, as you're accusing me of doing something I didn't do (Which
< can be proven).
I said "I made a fleeting comment. You decided to deny it to make yourself
look like less of a fool." Thank you for saving me the trouble of quoting you to
prove your foolishness. The above, that I wrote, "You like to agree with a
statement then refute it..." was A FLEETING COMMENT. It wasn't long or detailed.
You then made a long drawn out perversion of your original comment to make
yourself look better. And now you're trying to change the subject because you
realize it doesn't make any sense to refute your topic sentence.
< > Here is another example of you attempting to cast your own flaws onto
< > me. You changed what you originally said into something so general it
< > includes everything. By these standards Wumpscut is original, because
< > he adds some elements noone has before (the name of his band for
< > instance).
<
< Uh huh. It's a nice try to put words into my mouth but if you could
< prove any of this I might actually stop laughing.
Here we have the core of your argument. Say something that doesn't make any
sense, and when you are exposed avoid the topic at all costs and flame to
distract the reader. You could strip and set your genitals on fire and it
wouldn't distract me from your stupidity, a much louder statement.
< > < Whatever weird logic you're using isn't working. You gave me a
< > < definition of innovation that included "new ideas." You take an old
< > < idea (Rap) mix it with another old idea (Rock) for the first time.
< > < That's a NEW IDEA (TM), and therefore it is innovation according to
< > < your own< definition.
< >
< > And if I take the preexisting notion of EBM and make a new song I have
< > another NEW IDEA (TM). Therefore all EBM is original as well, and
< > symphony too.
<
< Uh
Take your time.
< no.
Now that wasn't so hard.
< Making a new song is variety, but not all variety is innovation
< (Though all innovation is variety).
< So, making a new song does nothing for the concept of innovation.
< Mixing two things that haven't been mixed before (Like rock and rap)
< would be not only variety, but innovation as well.
Making a new EBM song that has never been made before is the same type of
innovation. It creates something new from something the already existed, and it
is not innovative.
< > < > If EBM is bad for not taking full advantage of innovation, then
< > < > symphony is bad for doing the same thing.
< > <
< > < Only if classical is ignoring their own innovation potential.
< > < However, it is not. In EBM's case, though, all that potential is
< > < largely squandered.
< >
< > And the classical composer is squandering potential by writing for
< > such a tightly defined genre. They are both ignoring innovative
< > potential.
<
< Again, two completely different things. Neither genre's purpose is to
< innovate. But they each have their own innovation potential. Classical
< composers are using classical's innovation potential, but ignoring the
< innovation of potential in all genres is what you're saying. Well, EBM
< is ignoring not only ITS potential, but all the other genres'
< potentials, which makes it worse.
< You can't say an rock artist is ignoring the innovation potential of
< rap and let that stand. The two are totally different genres. In the
< same way, a classical composer takes advantage of classical's potential,
< but not the potential available in rap.
By the same token you can't blame W for not taking advantage of the potential of
CV. That's just a genre in general, W is a completely different band.
< > < > And why is lack of innovation to blame.
< > <
< > < Because people are bored of the crap that's out there.
< >
< > Yes, but how do you know this.
<
< Stores around me are constantly losing sales (For industrial in
< general, including EBM). Those stores that had separate industrial
< sections are moving them back into the rock/pop sections. More and more
< industrial CDs (Mostly EBM/electro) are piling up in the used bins. The
< stores are ordering less industrial CDs.
< What could bring this on? People don't like EBM/industrial. Why would
< they sell their old CDs? Because they're bored of them. Why? As some
< people on here have put it, EBM is stagnating.
But what specifically leads you to believe that stagnation is the cause for this
perceived drop in popularity. It could be any number of things, why stagnation.
< > < No, I told you, I've made the observations not only from what
< > < I've heard in the music, but heard from the fans, heard from the
< > < stores, etc. (Complete list in some other post to Tommy T). What's
< > < sad is that industrial sales are getting smaller in the area, and
< > < people are bored enough of EBM that they're ignoring the worthwhile
< > < subgenres.
< >
< > That's an unverified speculation. Look it up. And since you haven't
< > explained the reason for the reason why this is happening, that is an
< > unfounded possible explanation.
<
< Unverified means you can't prove it. Go to your local store and ask if
< their industrial sales are increasing. That can be verified. Go to
< industrial shows/clubs and see the turnout (Most shows, clubs especially
< have dancey [Read: EBM] music). This can be proven by just looking at
< overall sales, that people are bored of industrial.
No, unverified means it hasn't been proven, not that it can't be. It is
provable, but you haven't proved it.
< > < That would no doubt work better than your current pleas for
< > < attention.
< >
< > Really? You think maybe I could attract -TWO- idiots that way?
<
< Do what I do, doubled. Hell, you're still here!
Wrong. You're still here. I was here first, you came and joined me. Already my
method works better than yours. You have to go out and troll, I have trolls come
to me.
< > < > "Cheap shot" implies some sort of mistruth.
< > <
< > < Considering you (H. West) wrote the above, where's the
< > < problem?
< >
< > Problem? You are both agreeing with "the above" and implying it is
< > untrue at the same time. Therefore, you are the problem.
<
< Uh, I'm *NOT* agreeing with the above.
"'Cheap shot' implies some sort of mistruth" is "the above." By saying there's
no problem you agree that "'Cheap shot' implies some sort of mistruth" is true.
By saying there's no problem BECAUSE I wrote "'Cheap shot' implies some sort of
mistruth" you are saying it is untrue. By being unable to recognize this you are
twice the idiot.
hope raudive (just enough to annoy you)
>See my last post. The symphony form originally consisted of four movements, the
>first in Sonata Allegro form(fast, lively), the second in a slow, lyrical form,
>the third a dance/scherzo(joke) form, and the final a fast finale.
This is in the same thread where every non-popular piece of music has
been overgeneralized as being "classical". What's funny is that
symphony's account for a fraction of all the music that was being
written in the 19th century anyway. Using them as the primary basis
for your opinions on "classical music" is like basing your opinion on
rock music around grunge.
hope raudive (just enough to annoy you)
>I used symphony in my analogy because it is a non-innovative genre, like EBM.
Um. A symphony is an organizational method, not a genre. If you're
going to post this shit at least know a little bit about what you're
talking about so you don't look like a complete idiot.
hope
MT
>
> In article <35A16F...@jps.net>, NOSPA...@jps.net says...
> <
> < 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.
>
> Since SP was first to do distorted EBM, when Wumpscut does it he is
> not original, because SP did it before him.
Yes, exactly. That I agree with.
> How are you making the distinction between not being original because
> someone did what you are doing first and ripping off.
I'm saying "ripping off" is totally stealing everything a band's done
and perverting it for your own purposes. Yes, Rudy is producing the same
kind of music, but you distinctly said that he's a Puppy ripoff, when
the two sounds are NOT the same.
With your reasoning, everybody today would be a ripoff. Which proves
absolutely nothing, because we're trying to narrow things down to
include :W: in a select group. You can say :W: is a ripoff of SP for
producing the same style of music, but then that applies to everyone in
dark EBM, and can be expanded to include music in general. That's not a
worthwhile statement; it's a way of saving face and wasting time.
> < Don't change your words to save face.
>
> That's mearly the inconsistancies in your perceptual perversions.
Is someone dictating your insults to you? "Those're merely the
inconsistencies..." If you want to insult me, spell it right.
And no, what I was saying has nothing to do with my specific
perceptive.
You said that Speedy J is a Dive/Merzbow ripoff (Which isn't true). The
thing about it is, you're speaking _specifically_ about Speedy J; you
can't substitute, say, Yanni in there and have the sentence be true.
Then you changed/expanded your statement to say that Speedy J is
unoriginal because he builds upon previous pre-existing styles. Now, you
can substitute any artist in there and it would still be true.
Therefore, your statement has changed. It's simple logic.
You did exactly the same thing about :W:. You say that he's an SP
ripoff, which is specific to his case (And also not true). Then you say
that he's a ripoff because he follows in the same genre, which, again,
makes everybody other than the original artist in every genre a ripoff
[of that original artist]. Again, your statement has changed.
In both cases, your first statement was false. Your second one was
true, but it was true for [nearly] EVERY case. In order to save face,
you changed the words in your first statement and made a very general
but true statement.
> < > < 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?
>
> You know, Empty, you really do seem to have a great deal of contempt
> for me.
Calling names doesn't make you seem intelligent, West.
I don't have contempt for many people, just the misinformed ones. Read
this and the Speedy J thread. I jumped into both to correct you.
Consider that instead of focusing on the subject, you chose to insult me
when I exposed your ignorance and plea for attention. So, the contempt I
have for you is something you brought on yourself, with your anger
against your own ignorance. Don't yell at me because you don't have a
clue what you're talking about.
> Now I don't want to "insert words in your mouth" here, but you seem to
> be on quite the holy quest to spite me.
I'm correcting you. If that spites you because you want to seem like a
know-it-all (Who doesn't know all that much), then I'm sorry. That's not
intentional, but rather a bonus.
> < 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.
>
> You said "I like to start off my paragraphs with a topic statement,
> and then expand/refute it."
If it's a statement I don't agree with, I will state that in my TS and
then refute what the original statement was. If it was something I was
trying to say, then I will expand on it.
What you said was that changing small elements in music is technically
innovation. I said, if that's the case, then it can apply to classical
music. Then I expanded on how that can apply to classical music. That's
simple sentence structure, again.
> If you refute your topic sentence you are arguing with yourself.
> Please drop this now. Nitpicking is bothersome.
I find it strange that you said this, considering you brought it up in
the first place.
> Again, this is variety. If you create something within a set standard
> of rules based on predefined notions you are not being innovative.
*Sigh*. Variety IS innovation. The opposite of variety is sameness. You
The above is true with classical as well. Only, the boundaries are VERY
strict, leaving little room for the mass innovation that EBM can have.
> < 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.
>
> The first time someone mixed two different styles it was innovative,
> because that had never been done before. If you take rap (which is not
> new) and rock (which is not new) and combine (which is not new) you
> have added no new elements. The creation is new but it is made up
> entirely of preexisting notions. Nothing new. Therefore it is not
> innovative.
Whatever weird logic you're using isn't working. You gave me a
definition of innovation that included "new ideas." You take an old idea
(Rap) mix it with another old idea (Rock) for the first time. That's a
NEW IDEA (TM), and therefore it is innovation according to your own
definition.
Now, if you would only open up and stop thinking about the pre-existing
notions concept, this would be easier. You're thinking that if someone
mixes old ideas together, they are not being original. In that case,
you're eliminating the possibility of innovation in music completely.
That's foolish, as it leaves no room for discussion. If you don't want a
discussion, but just a forum to post your foolproof statements, then
just say so.
> < 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.
>
> Whenever you create music for a genre you are ignoring innovative
> potential by confining yourself to a genre.
Uh, no. You are confining yourself to a genre and its _own specific_
innovation potential. You are ignoring total innovation, but not
ignoring that which is possible in your own genre.
> EBM could be very different than it is now, and symphony could be
> something else entirely. They both only take advantage of a small
> portion of infinite available innovation.
That's sort of what I'm saying. Classical only has this much innovation
potential out of the infinite amount, but EBM has a LARGER share. They
are relatively small compared to infinite innovation (BTW - this is a
concept that no one can grasp or explain, so I'm glad you're picking up
on this), but EBM can still do a heck of a lot more than classical.
> If EBM is bad for not taking full advantage of innovation, then
> symphony is bad for doing the same thing.
Only if classical is ignoring their own innovation potential. However,
it is not. In EBM's case, though, all that potential is largely
squandered.
> < 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.
>
> Again, how is ripping off different than building on. If he rips off
> Aphex Twin then he is building on his music to create his own.
What you're talking about is evolution. He didn't steal the "Ventolin"
track and produce Public Energy #1 from it. I told you, it's *kind of*
similar to some stuff, but I don't hear any ripping off.
And what you were saying was that Speedy J was first a ripoff, then
second, just unoriginal in the big picture. One goes within the other,
but they're still two different things (Especially when you're expanding
your statement to make it true, instead of being more specific.
> < > 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 why is lack of innovation to blame.
Because people are bored of the crap that's out there.
> Your whole argument is based on a unfounded possible explanation for
> an unverified speculation.
No, I told you, I've made the observations not only from what I've
heard in the music, but heard from the fans, heard from the stores, etc.
(Complete list in some other post to Tommy T). What's sad is that
industrial sales are getting smaller in the area, and people are bored
enough of EBM that they're ignoring the worthwhile subgenres.
Now, you can still call me argument unfounded and speculative. However,
you cannot disagree that it's a hell of a lot more informed than
anything you've said about classical. I've heard the music I'm talking
about and have people's reactions to it; can you say the same?
> < 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.
>
> Maybe I should get a chip on my shoulder and track you down across
> RMI. Then I'd be cool too.
That would no doubt work better than your current pleas for attention.
> < 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.
>
> "Cheap shot" implies some sort of mistruth.
Considering you (H. West) wrote the above, where's the problem?
--
MT
>
> In article <35A50E...@jps.net>, NOSPA...@jps.net says...
> <
> < I'm saying "ripping off" is totally stealing everything a
> < band's done and perverting it for your own purposes. Yes, Rudy is
> < producing the same kind of music, but you distinctly said that he's
> < a Puppy ripoff, when the two sounds are NOT the same.
> < With your reasoning, everybody today would be a ripoff. Which
> < proves absolutely nothing, because we're trying to narrow things
> < down to include :W: in a select group.
>
> Really? I didn't know everyone today was creating distorted EBM. I
> thought it was only a select group.
Thanks for snipping the rest of my paragraph just to take another cheap
shot. Had you gone on, your question would have been answered.
What you're saying is that :W: is not unoriginal because he's building
upon pre-existing styles. In that case, every contemporary [And most
before our time] artist builds upon pre-existing styles, making them ALL
unoriginal. That means :W: is just one of a group of many. And we're
trying to narrow things down further than that.
> - The Lame Flaming Handbook v0.3
It figures you'd have one of those.
> < And no, what I was saying has nothing to do with my specific
> < perceptive.
>
> Boy, that was about the dumbest thing you've ever said. From my
> perspective it means one thing. From your perspective it means
> another. Whatever perspective you have on the matter, you cannot deny
> that the meaning is relative to your perspective. Well, I guess you
> can from your perspective.
Considering I'm talking from YOUR perspective, not mine, YOU are saying
the dumb stuff.
See what I wrote above. If :W: is unoriginal, then so is every other
artist today, with the reasons you put forth, from your own perspective.
I'm just showing the flaws in your way of thinking. I don't know how you
got the idea that it was my perspective I was talking about.
> < You said that Speedy J is a Dive/Merzbow ripoff (Which isn't
> < true).
>
> Ok, I admit it was a bad example that I just wrote off the top of my
> head.
Understandable; at least you admit it.
> < The thing about it is, you're speaking _specifically_ about Speedy
> < J; you can't substitute, say, Yanni in there and have the sentence
> < be true.
> < Then you changed/expanded your statement to say that Speedy J
> < is unoriginal because he builds upon previous pre-existing styles.
> < Now, you can substitute any artist in there and it would still be
> < true. Therefore, your statement has changed. It's simple logic.
>
> This is another misunderstanding on your part. Someone else said he is
> original because he mixes styles in a way noone else has before. I
> only said that is not originality.
How is it not? If the result is different, then it's considered
original (Because in music, it's the result that matters.
> I did not say SJ mixes styles in a way noone else has before (if you
> perceived that I did I challenge you to quote me).
I never said you said that.
> At this point the topic changed, and we were no longer talking about
> SJ, but rather what constitutes originality.
I must admit I didn't follow the thread that closely. By picking up
only the occasional post and seeing the change in your two arguments, I
made the next logical assumption from my part.
> < You did exactly the same thing about :W:. You say that he's an
> < SP ripoff, which is specific to his case (And also not true). Then
> < you say that he's a ripoff because he follows in the same genre,
> < which, again, makes everybody other than the original artist in
> < every genre a ripoff [of that original artist]. Again, your
> < statement has changed.
>
> Let me make it absolutely clear for you. If you follow in the same
> genre you are a whore to the original artist. You have no original
> ideas. If you had original ideas and were not just another ripoff,
> THEN YOU WOULDN'T FIT INTO THE GENRE. Your low standards for
> originality are to blame for your confusion.
I understand your argument perfectly, yet apparently you didn't
understand my refutation or else you wouldn't have reiterate what you
said.
First, my standards for originality are not low. I suppose you could
say that from your perspective :), but the truth is, your standards
leave no room for music whatsoever. The way your standards work,
everybody is a ripoff of the artists they were influenced by, with THOSE
artists ripping off THEIR influences, and so on. This leaves only a
handful of original artists, way back when.
My standards for originality curtail on variety. If an artist sounds
exactly the same as another artist, then he's damn well ripping him off.
But if he's using the same ideas to fit into the same genre, I'm not
bothered. Music is going to be divided up that way, and it appears you
don't like labelling (Or current music, for that matter).
So, yes, our views of each other's standards ARE perspective, but yours
leave little room for original music, making them ridiculous.
Second, as I wrote above, an artist needs to steal a band's sound to be
a ripoff. Since dividing music into genres is based on the country and
individual person (Definitions of musical genres vary), your definition
of "ripping off" won't always hold true, but rather it will shift.
Stealing a band's sound, though, is more easily understood, and it's
more of a common ground.
What I'm saying is, it's easier to verify a band stole another band's
sound, because that's not hard to spot. But since definitions vary among
people (Some don't even care about subgenres), you cannot say that :W:
is considered a ripoff of SP. It won't be true for the people that don't
define bands in terms of genres. It will be true by my definition of :W:
sounded exactly like SP, as that can be proven.
> < > You know, Empty, you really do seem to have a great deal of
> < > contempt for me.
> <
> < Calling names doesn't make you seem intelligent, West.
>
> Names? My newsreader says you are MT. If this is incorrect blame my
> newsreader.
MT and Empty are two different things. Mocking me comes from your
ineptitude. Don't blame your newsreader.
> < I don't have contempt for many people, just the misinformed
> < ones. Read this and the Speedy J thread. I jumped into both to
> < correct you.
>
> So you have contempt for misinformed people, and you think I am
> misinformed. Uh huh. So what's the problem. By your standards you
> should have contempt for me. That's what I said, that you have
> contempt for me.
And the way you wrote it, you seemed to think that this was unfounded
contempt. I was merely clearing it up, so you know why.
> < Consider that instead of focusing on the subject, you chose to
> < insult me when I exposed your ignorance and plea for attention.
>
> I chose to insult you because you insulted me. Don't lie to save face
> here. I was talking with someone else. I wasn't talking about you or
> to you or even thinking about you or anyone like you or anyone who
> knows your mother. You then jumped in and insulted me.
On the contrary.
_________
Subject: Re: boy, let me tell you something, wumpscut is worthless
From: sua...@idt.net (H. West)
Date: 1998/07/06
Message-ID: <MPG.100a1fac5...@news.idt.net>
< [Snip .sig]
<
< Why am I not surprised?
Because you've grown indifferent and feeble.
_________
This was the first flame in the thread. You flamed me first, apparently
without realizing it (Habit, maybe).
> I hadn't said one word to you beforehand, therefore YOU were the one
> to start insulting.
Uh, no. I can jump in a thread and not insult you, so that leaves room
for you to begin insulting me. Which you did.
> You then project what you dispise most about yourself (ignorance,
> please for attention, unprovoked flaming) onto me in attempt to save
> face.
Let's see. I know about EBM, and so do you, to some extent. I know
about classical, but you don't. So it's ignorance on your part.
I don't have those atrocious .sig files that exemplify textbook
insecurity. So you are trying to get attention.
And you flamed me first, so you're guilty of unprovoked flaming.
How about that? I was right.
> < > If you refute your topic sentence you are arguing with yourself.
> < > Please drop this now. Nitpicking is bothersome.
> <
> < I find it strange that you said this, considering you brought
> < it up in the first place.
>
> I made a fleeting comment. You decided to deny it to make yourself
> look like less of a fool.
Here is the complete text. Try not to rewrite these memories into your
own paranoid version of history.
_________
Subject: Re: boy, let me tell you something, wumpscut is worthless
From: sua...@idt.net (H. West)
Date: 1998/07/06
Message-ID: <MPG.100ae7ee6...@news.idt.net>
< > < 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?
_________
I didn't deny anything. What I wrote was exactly what you wrote, only
expanded on (To lead into the rest of my paragraph). So, you're the only
fool here, as you're accusing me of doing something I didn't do (Which
can be proven).
> However it's all to obvious that a lesser fool would have admitted he
> made a mistake or just let it go.
You should talk. You're the fool who's ranting about a musical genre he
has no idea about.
> Here is another example of you attempting to cast your own flaws onto
> me. You changed what you originally said into something so general it
> includes everything. By these standards Wumpscut is original, because
> he adds some elements noone has before (the name of his band for
> instance).
Uh huh. It's a nice try to put words into my mouth, but if you could
prove any of this I might actually stop laughing.
> < Whatever weird logic you're using isn't working. You gave me a
> < definition of innovation that included "new ideas." You take an old
> < idea (Rap) mix it with another old idea (Rock) for the first time.
> < That's a NEW IDEA (TM), and therefore it is innovation according to
> < your own< definition.
>
> And if I take the preexisting notion of EBM and make a new song I have
> another NEW IDEA (TM). Therefore all EBM is original as well, and
> symphony too.
Uh, no. Making a new song is variety, but not all variety is innovation
(Though all innovation is variety).
So, making a new song does nothing for the concept of innovation.
Mixing two things that haven't been mixed before (Like rock and rap)
would be not only variety, but innovation as well.
The first time someone produced EBM, it was original. After that, since
nobody innovated, it was just rehashed. After the first time someone
made classical, artists did innovate and therefore it IS original.
> < > If EBM is bad for not taking full advantage of innovation, then
> < > symphony is bad for doing the same thing.
> <
> < Only if classical is ignoring their own innovation potential.
> < However, it is not. In EBM's case, though, all that potential is
> < largely squandered.
>
> And the classical composer is squandering potential by writing for
> such a tightly defined genre. They are both ignoring innovative
> potential.
Again, two completely different things. Neither genre's purpose is to
innovate. But they each have their own innovation potential. Classical
composers are using classical's innovation potential, but ignoring the
innovation of potential in all genres is what you're saying. Well, EBM
is ignoring not only ITS potential, but all the other genres'
potentials, which makes it worse.
You can't say an rock artist is ignoring the innovation potential of
rap and let that stand. The two are totally different genres. In the
same way, a classical composer takes advantage of classical's potential,
but not the potential available in rap.
> < > And why is lack of innovation to blame.
> <
> < Because people are bored of the crap that's out there.
>
> Yes, but how do you know this.
Stores around me are constantly losing sales (For industrial in
general, including EBM). Those stores that had separate industrial
sections are moving them back into the rock/pop sections. More and more
industrial CDs (Mostly EBM/electro) are piling up in the used bins. The
stores are ordering less industrial CDs.
What could bring this on? People don't like EBM/industrial. Why would
they sell their old CDs? Because they're bored of them. Why? As some
people on here have put it, EBM is stagnating.
> < No, I told you, I've made the observations not only from what
> < I've heard in the music, but heard from the fans, heard from the
> < stores, etc. (Complete list in some other post to Tommy T). What's
> < sad is that industrial sales are getting smaller in the area, and
> < people are bored enough of EBM that they're ignoring the worthwhile
> < subgenres.
>
> That's an unverified speculation. Look it up. And since you haven't
> explained the reason for the reason why this is happening, that is an
> unfounded possible explanation.
Unverified means you can't prove it. Go to your local store and ask if
their industrial sales are increasing. That can be verified. Go to
industrial shows/clubs and see the turnout (Most shows, clubs especially
have dancey [Read: EBM] music). This can be proven by just looking at
overall sales, that people are bored of industrial.
The reason for this would be that it's stagnant. What other conceivable
explanations are there?
> < That would no doubt work better than your current pleas for
> < attention.
>
> Really? You think maybe I could attract -TWO- idiots that way?
Do what I do, doubled. Hell, you're still here!
> < > "Cheap shot" implies some sort of mistruth.
> <
> < Considering you (H. West) wrote the above, where's the
> < problem?
>
> Problem? You are both agreeing with "the above" and implying it is
> untrue at the same time. Therefore, you are the problem.
Uh, I'm *NOT* agreeing with the above. You say I haven't explained it.
I say you can't understand it, or are acting thus to take a cheap shot
(Meaning I think you're more intelligent than you let on). And since you
DID take a cheap shot and most likely lied (You can admit you're stupid,
but that takes the fun out of it), then YOU are my problem.
H. West
< In article <MPG.100def375...@news.idt.net>,
<
< "innovation?" It said, among other things, a "new idea" is innovation. Not an
< old one (AKA previous notions) but a NEW one. Innovation is different from
< previous notions. Therefore, it's based on the opposition or expansion of
< previous notions. Not "it has very little to do with previous notions."
This is fairly inconsistant. Later you tell me that if I require all artists to
be 100% free of all influences no artist will be innovative, therefore you must
also be saying that all artists invariably have something to do with previous
notions, otherwise 100% original artists would exist.
< > < Considering I'm talking from YOUR perspective, not mine, YOU are saying
< > < the dumb stuff.
< > < See what I wrote above. If :W: is unoriginal, then so is every other
< > < artist today, with the reasons you put forth, from your own perspective.
< > < I'm just showing the flaws in your way of thinking. I don't know how you
< > < got the idea that it was my perspective I was talking about.
< >
< > I don't know why you thought that was what I was thinking, considering I never
< > said that. Just another misinformed assumption on your part. I said the above
< > was your perspective. It is your perspective on my perspective. I didn't say
< > it was your perspective on your perspective.
<
< I can't HAVE a perspective on my perspective. That's redundant.
Yes you do. You even have a perspective on your perspective of your perspective
(the above, which is a little redundant).
< You
< said what I was saying was based on my own perspective. That's as far as it
< can go. Everything contradictory that you say to this is contradictory not
< only to yourself, but to reason as well. I am not speaking from my
< perspective, nor from my perspective on your own. I merely took -YOUR- view
< on the subject of originality and showed that it left no room for discussion.
And that's your perspective on my perspective.
< > < How is it not? If the result is different, then it's considered
< > < original (Because in music, it's the result that matters.
< >
< > The Spice World sound track is original. It says so right on the package:
< > "original motion picture soundtrack." The songs on it did not exist before,
< > they are new. This fits the technical definition of innovative. However they
< > are very similar to what has been before them. While they are a separate
< > creation and are not exact copies, the similarities between them and other
< > Idol Pop are great and the differences are small. If you live in a black and
< > white world Spice World is innovative. If however if you look at how great a
< > difference there is between Spice World and other Idol Pop you can see that it
< > is not innovative. Same thing applies to SJ.
<
< Not even remotely true. The Spice Girls soundtrack is not original or
< innovative. It's original by the definition that those specific songs haven't
< been done before, but not original in that their specific music hasn't been
< done before. Their form of pop has been repeated many times before.
But there haven't been songs exactly like theirs before. They add new elements
to their music, even if only the tones of their voices.
< Speedy J's style of techno has not been done before. It's easy to make a
< distinction there because not only are the songs original, but the musical
< style is as well ("Ventolin" does not resemble the material on the PN1 album
< other than some similar _effects_, if you listen to it again).
How is it different. You have the ambient songs, which aren't innovative any way
you look at it, and the straight four on the floor tracks with distorted
samples. Where are the new ideas.
< > < > At this point the topic changed, and we were no longer talking about
< > < > SJ, but rather what constitutes originality.
< > <
< > < I must admit I didn't follow the thread that closely. By picking up
< > < only the occasional post and seeing the change in your two arguments, I
< > < made the next logical assumption from my part.
< >
< > I never want to hear you bitch about misinformed arguments again.
<
< Uh, no. I don't think so.
Really? Think real hard about it! I wouldn't want you to be unsure.
< You have totally misinformed arguments in
< this thread, and I'm free to bring that up if you wish. However, I will not
< say that you are contradicting your stand in the Speedy J thread, since
< that's what I was wrong about. The difference is that I admit I was
< misinformed, while you struggle on blindly in your ignorance. I point this
< out repeatedly, yet you do not do anything. Once you pointed out that I was
< wrong, I ceased attack on that.
do you really believe you can successfully project all your perversions onto me?
You are incapable of forming a coherent argument, therefore you must distract
attention with wild unexplained claims of misinformation. You think I think
you're right? No, but I'm not so helpless that I can't argue my point and have
to rely on throwing sand in your face. I flame, but I don't use that as the
basis for my argument. If you want to prove that I'm misinformed atleast give
SOME SORT of explanation or reason or even hint of what wrong information I
have.
< > < I understand your argument perfectly, yet apparently you didn't
< > < understand my refutation or else you wouldn't have reiterate what you
< > < said.
< > < First, my standards for originality are not low. I suppose you could
< > < say that from your perspective :), but the truth is, your standards
< > < leave no room for music whatsoever. The way your standards work,
< > < everybody is a ripoff of the artists they were influenced by, with THOSE
< > < artists ripping off THEIR influences, and so on. This leaves only a
< > < handful of original artists, way back when.
< >
< > By my standards no artist is 100% original.
<
< That's a cowardly statement that leaves absolutely no room for
< discussion. Why do you join in a thread at all if you're going to say that no
< artist is completely original?
A while ago you agreed that there is infinite possible innovation, now you whine
because I said it's impossible to be 100% innovative. Choose one or the other,
you're not making sense right now.
< > However artists that are atleast mostly different than their predecessors are
< > effectively "original."
<
< And we know this is never going to happen. So you're effectively
< rendering all discussion on originality useless from your standpoint; why join
< in at all?
It's never going to happen from your inane perversion of my viewpoint. However,
out here in the real world, where us normal people live, it happens all the
time.
< > On the other hand by your standards every artist--except perhaps one
< > performing an exact duplicate of a previous artists song--is innovative.
<
< Did you read only the first sentences of my explanations, or just
< skip them completely? I said that no one is a ripoff unless they
< steal a band's sound, with enough leeway for individual creativity. I think
< the Stabbing Westward/NIN relationship is a great example. Everyone else,
< when they are only influenced by someone's music, but still do most of their
< creativity themselves, are not ripoffs. Innovation is a new idea (Remember
< when I agreed with your definition?) that hasn't been done before. If an
< artist is doing exactly the same type of EBM as so many other artists out
< there, then he is not innovating. Snog, on the other hand, is innovating with
< Buy Me... By my standards, artists that introduce new ideas into their
< music for the first time are innovating. That's not every artist.
Wumpscut added his voice to his music, which was a new element that had never
been added before, so by the standards you give above he is innovative.
< What you said above is completely misinformed.
Strange, since you were the informant. I should stop listening to you.
< > < MT and Empty are two different things. Mocking me comes from your
< > < ineptitude. Don't blame your newsreader.
< >
< > If you consider mockery to be such a sign of ineptitude, then perhaps you
< > should STOP MOCKING PEOPLE.
<
< I mock your uninformed arguments.
You mock that which you are incapable of understanding. Namely logic.
< You mock me for flaunting your
< ignorance.
I mock you for not being able to do otherwise.
< > All contempt is pathetic.
<
< You obviously have contempt for me, as well. How pathetic.
I have nothing but indifference towards you Empty. I can have a sense of humor
about it, but you're still less than nothing.
< Do you have any idea what you're talking about in classical in the first
< place? I wasn't flaming you, I was pointing out that you have barely even
< passing knowledge about classical music. You can treat that as a flame for
< revealing your ignorance (And calling it a flame is stretching it), but the
< truth is you provided the first flame.
And I was revealing your indifference and feeblness with my flame. The
differences are 1) my flame came after yours 2) I'm not afraid or ashamed to
admit I flamed you 3) my flame was truthful and explained, yours was nonsensical
and vague. A flame is an insult. It has nothing to do with truth. If I call you
a whore, even if you are a whore, it is still a flame. It's an insult.
< > Remember, this is still -BEFORE- the "indifferent" quote which you claim was
< > the first flame.
<
< True. You still flamed first.
I see you're familiar with non-linear time.
< > --------
< > > Subject: Re: boy, let me tell you something, wumpscut is worthless
< > > From: MT <NOSPA...@jps.net>
< > > Date: Sun, 05 Jul 1998 21:16:12 -0700
< > > Message-ID: <35A04F...@jps.net>
< > >
< > > ...
< > > Boy oh boy, did you mess up here.
< > > ...
< > > 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?
< > --------
<
< Uh, what's wrong with this? Saying you messed up is not a flame. If you
< don't understand when I explain Downfall's argument, then I can't help that
< uncertainty.
LOL! This is really pathetic. What are you so ashamed of Empty? Afraid I'll beat
you like your father or your barren mother? I could actually respect you more if
you owed up to your trolling rather than running in fear. It's not too late
Empty. I think it's time you stopped wetting your pants.
< > This shows us three major points. 1) you trolled by flaming unprovoked and
< > succeeded in starting a flame war
<
< I'm trying to keep flames out of this as much as possible.
Lies and cowardess. You flame plenty, if you didn't want a flame war then YOU
WOULDN'T FLAME. I only flame you when you've flamed me. You flame civil
arguments when you can't refute them.
< YOU prefer
< to insult me at every turn, and in fact your insults now outnumber your
< worthwhile arguments.
I'm still ahead, since all your arguments are insults or not worthwhile.
< I'm not the one to blame for your foolishness.
But you atleast have to take responsibility for your own.
< > 3) you have a pathetic penis envy of me.
<
< Says the guy with a huge .sig to make up for his insecurity.
I didn't realize .sig files were so insightful into the human soul. In that case
it's no wonder you have such a penis envy, with that small ass .sig.
< > < > You then project what you dispise most about yourself (ignorance,
< > < > please for attention, unprovoked flaming) onto me in attempt to save
< > < > face.
< > <
< > < Let's see. I know about EBM, and so do you, to some extent. I know
< > < about classical, but you don't. So it's ignorance on your part.
< >
< > I have listened to a large amount of EBM and classical.
<
< Maybe EBM I can believe, but classical... No.
Feel free to back up your vague implications. I think perhaps they're too fluid
to be of any meaning or substance.
< > I am able to form coferent perceptions on these musical genres, you are not.
<
< Uh huh. Is this before or after you make no sense?
It's before you don't understand my LOGIC. Afterwards it's still coherent, if
viewed through a sound mind.
< You flame the
< most.
Wrong. I only flame when your arguments aren't entertaining enough. You flame
when you get confused. You're trying to turn this whole thing into the "who's
better informed gameshow." I've tried my best to stick to the topic of
innovation, but you keep bringing it all back down.
< Of course, though, you have provided no proof that I am supposedly
< insecure
Your pathetic contempt for me, your holy quest to prove me wrong, your small
.sig.
< > < Making a new song is variety, but not all variety is innovation
< > < (Though all innovation is variety).
< > < So, making a new song does nothing for the concept of innovation.
< > < Mixing two things that haven't been mixed before (Like rock and rap)
< > < would be not only variety, but innovation as well.
< >
< > Making a new EBM song that has never been made before is the same type of
< > innovation. It creates something new from something the already existed, and
< > it is not innovative.
<
< Making a new song is innovation, yes, but if the same elements have
< been used together before, then it is not innovation. This is simple to
< grasp. Like I said, mixing rock and rap for the first time is
< innovation. It's a new idea if it hasn't been done before, and therefore it's
< innovation. Mixing the elements of EBM together in a song HAS been done
< before, so it's NOT innovation.
Neither introduce any new elements. Both create something new from preexisting
elements. Neither are innovative.
< > < Again, two completely different things. Neither genre's purpose is to
< > < innovate. But they each have their own innovation potential. Classical
< > < composers are using classical's innovation potential, but ignoring the
< > < innovation of potential in all genres is what you're saying. Well, EBM
< > < is ignoring not only ITS potential, but all the other genres'
< > < potentials, which makes it worse.
< > < You can't say an rock artist is ignoring the innovation potential of
< > < rap and let that stand. The two are totally different genres. In the
< > < same way, a classical composer takes advantage of classical's potential,
< > < but not the potential available in rap.
< >
< > By the same token you can't blame W for not taking advantage of the potential
< > of CV. That's just a genre in general, W is a completely different band.
<
< *Sigh* If you don't understand the concept of innovation potential,
< just say so. All innovation potential is relative to its specific genre, not
< the band itself. As you said, the genre is united by similarities in
< structure and sound, therefore the bands move together in the evolution of
< that structure and sound. If you consider CV to be EBM and :W: to be EBM,
< then :W: can be blamed for not taking the advantage of the innovation
< potential CV opened up for that genre.
By the same logic W and Bach are both music and should be held to the same
standards. If that link should be ignored then the genre link between W and CV
should be ignored as well.
< > < > < That would no doubt work better than your current pleas for
< > < > < attention.
< > < >
< > < > Really? You think maybe I could attract -TWO- idiots that way?
< > <
< > < Do what I do, doubled. Hell, you're still here!
< >
< > Wrong. You're still here. I was here first, you came and joined me. Already my
< > method works better than yours. You have to go out and troll, I have trolls
< > come to me.
<
< If I came to you to correct you, I can't be a troll.
Ok, you're a child with a personal vendetta. That's not much better.
< > < > < > "Cheap shot" implies some sort of mistruth.
< > < > <
< > < > < Considering you (H. West) wrote the above, where's the
< > < > < problem?
< > < >
< > < > Problem? You are both agreeing with "the above" and implying it is
< > < > untrue at the same time. Therefore, you are the problem.
< > <
< > < Uh, I'm *NOT* agreeing with the above.
< >
< > "'Cheap shot' implies some sort of mistruth" is "the above." By saying there's
< > no problem you agree that "'Cheap shot' implies some sort of mistruth" is
< > true. By saying there's no problem BECAUSE I wrote "'Cheap shot' implies some
< > sort of mistruth" you are saying it is untrue. By being unable to recognize
< > this you are twice the idiot.
<
< Quit trolling. You said cheap shot implies some sort of mistruth. I
< said that since YOU wrote it (The cheap shot), there is no problem (You are
< known for mistruths).
You weren't referring to the "cheap shot," you were referring to "the above"
which was "'Cheap shot' implies some sort of mistruth." There is nothing above
that.
mih...@my-dejanews.com
> < shot. Had you gone on, your question would have been answered.
> < What you're saying is that :W: is not unoriginal because he's building
> < upon pre-existing styles. In that case, every contemporary [And most
> < before our time] artist builds upon pre-existing styles, making them ALL
> < unoriginal. That means :W: is just one of a group of many. And we're
> < trying to narrow things down further than that.
>
> There are degrees of originality. Wumpscut sounds very much like other bands
> in his genre, therefore he is not original.
That's exactly what I'm trying to say. But what you keep saying is
that classical artists sound alike. And you are obviously in the dark about
what you're speaking of, so I'm explaining the degrees of innovation concept
to you, to excuse their "stagnation" in your eyes.
> "Innovative" music has very little to do with previous notions.
Mm hmm. Tell me, did you understand your own definition of
"innovation?" It said, among other things, a "new idea" is innovation. Not an
old one (AKA previous notions) but a NEW one. Innovation is different from
previous notions. Therefore, it's based on the opposition or expansion of
previous notions. Not "it has very little to do with previous notions."
> "Snipping Uncomfortable Remarks: this is the true sign of the coward. He
> removes the damaging portions and attempts to avert attention from his folly.
> If met in person do not ask about the funny smell."
> - The Lame Flaming Handbook v0.3
I snip your pathetic insults in an effort to keep the flaming at a
minimum. In fact, you snip insults, too. If that bothers you because you
would rather keep the focus on the way I ignore your flames instead of your
ignorance on the subject of classical, so be it.
> < Considering I'm talking from YOUR perspective, not mine, YOU are saying
> < the dumb stuff.
> < See what I wrote above. If :W: is unoriginal, then so is every other
> < artist today, with the reasons you put forth, from your own perspective.
> < I'm just showing the flaws in your way of thinking. I don't know how you
> < got the idea that it was my perspective I was talking about.
>
> I don't know why you thought that was what I was thinking, considering I never
> said that. Just another misinformed assumption on your part. I said the above
> was your perspective. It is your perspective on my perspective. I didn't say
> it was your perspective on your perspective.
I can't HAVE a perspective on my perspective. That's redundant. You
said what I was saying was based on my own perspective. That's as far as it
can go. Everything contradictory that you say to this is contradictory not
only to yourself, but to reason as well. I am not speaking from my
perspective, nor from my perspective on your own. I merely took -YOUR- view
on the subject of originality and showed that it left no room for discussion.
> < How is it not? If the result is different, then it's considered
> < original (Because in music, it's the result that matters.
>
> The Spice World sound track is original. It says so right on the package:
> "original motion picture soundtrack." The songs on it did not exist before,
> they are new. This fits the technical definition of innovative. However they
> are very similar to what has been before them. While they are a separate
> creation and are not exact copies, the similarities between them and other
> Idol Pop are great and the differences are small. If you live in a black and
> white world Spice World is innovative. If however if you look at how great a
> difference there is between Spice World and other Idol Pop you can see that it
> is not innovative. Same thing applies to SJ.
Not even remotely true. The Spice Girls soundtrack is not original or
innovative. It's original by the definition that those specific songs haven't
been done before, but not original in that their specific music hasn't been
done before. Their form of pop has been repeated many times before.
Speedy J's style of techno has not been done before. It's easy to make a
distinction there because not only are the songs original, but the musical
style is as well ("Ventolin" does not resemble the material on the PN1 album
other than some similar _effects_, if you listen to it again).
> < > I did not say SJ mixes styles in a way noone else has before (if you
> < > perceived that I did I challenge you to quote me).
> <
> < I never said you said that.
>
> Then how did I say he was only unoriginal in "the big picture."
What you claim I said you said was that SJ mixes styles in a way no
one has before; but I never said you said that, as that is a pro-SJ argument.
You DID say that he was unoriginal in the big picture (An anti-SJ argument),
as you could not provide proof that he's a ripoff in his specific genre. You
said that since he mixes two pre-existing styles, he is not original; in that
case, EVERY musical artist out there is unoriginal, from the first musicians
to the most current. That's looking at everything in the big picture.
Speaking specific to Speedy J, had you provided some real example that he was
unoriginal (That he sounds exactly like AFX, for example, although it isn't
true), then that would not be in the big picture.
> < > At this point the topic changed, and we were no longer talking about
> < > SJ, but rather what constitutes originality.
> <
> < I must admit I didn't follow the thread that closely. By picking up
> < only the occasional post and seeing the change in your two arguments, I
> < made the next logical assumption from my part.
>
> I never want to hear you bitch about misinformed arguments again.
Uh, no. I don't think so. You have totally misinformed arguments in
this thread, and I'm free to bring that up if you wish. However, I will not
say that you are contradicting your stand in the Speedy J thread, since
that's what I was wrong about. The difference is that I admit I was
misinformed, while you struggle on blindly in your ignorance. I point this
out repeatedly, yet you do not do anything. Once you pointed out that I was
wrong, I ceased attack on that.
> < I understand your argument perfectly, yet apparently you didn't
> < understand my refutation or else you wouldn't have reiterate what you
> < said.
> < First, my standards for originality are not low. I suppose you could
> < say that from your perspective :), but the truth is, your standards
> < leave no room for music whatsoever. The way your standards work,
> < everybody is a ripoff of the artists they were influenced by, with THOSE
> < artists ripping off THEIR influences, and so on. This leaves only a
> < handful of original artists, way back when.
>
> By my standards no artist is 100% original.
That's a cowardly statement that leaves absolutely no room for
discussion. Why do you join in a thread at all if you're going to say that no
artist is completely original?
> However artists that are atleast mostly different than their predecessors are
> effectively "original."
And we know this is never going to happen. So you're effectively
rendering all discussion on originality useless from your standpoint; why join
in at all?
> On the other hand by your standards every artist--except perhaps one
> performing an exact duplicate of a previous artists song--is innovative.
Did you read only the first sentences of my explanations, or just
skip them completely? I said that no one is a ripoff unless they
steal a band's sound, with enough leeway for individual creativity. I think
the Stabbing Westward/NIN relationship is a great example. Everyone else,
when they are only influenced by someone's music, but still do most of their
creativity themselves, are not ripoffs. Innovation is a new idea (Remember
when I agreed with your definition?) that hasn't been done before. If an
artist is doing exactly the same type of EBM as so many other artists out
there, then he is not innovating. Snog, on the other hand, is innovating with
Buy Me... By my standards, artists that introduce new ideas into their
music for the first time are innovating. That's not every artist. By my
standards, an artist that steals a band's sound for his own is ripping off.
What you said above is completely misinformed.
> < What I'm saying is, it's easier to verify a band stole another band's
> < sound, because that's not hard to spot. But since definitions vary among
> < people (Some don't even care about subgenres), you cannot say that :W:
> < is considered a ripoff of SP. It won't be true for the people that don't
> < define bands in terms of genres. It will be true by my definition of :W:
> < sounded exactly like SP, as that can be proven.
>
> No matter what you call either one it's a simple matter of recognizing
> similarities in structure and sound. Labels would have no affect.
Okay, then, I'll concede this one. Labels have no effect in saying that
a band is a ripoff, but the sound does.
In the case of sound, it all comes down to definition when you say :W:
is a ripoff of SP.
> < MT and Empty are two different things. Mocking me comes from your
> < ineptitude. Don't blame your newsreader.
>
> If you consider mockery to be such a sign of ineptitude, then perhaps you
> should STOP MOCKING PEOPLE.
I mock your uninformed arguments. You mock me for flaunting your
ignorance. There's a difference.
> All contempt is pathetic.
You obviously have contempt for me, as well. How pathetic.
> < > You then jumped in and insulted me.
Do you have any idea what you're talking about in classical in the first
place? I wasn't flaming you, I was pointing out that you have barely even
passing knowledge about classical music. You can treat that as a flame for
revealing your ignorance (And calling it a flame is stretching it), but the
truth is you provided the first flame.
> Remember, this is still -BEFORE- the "indifferent" quote which you claim was
> the first flame.
True. You still flamed first.
> --------
> > Subject: Re: boy, let me tell you something, wumpscut is worthless
> > From: MT <NOSPA...@jps.net>
> > Date: Sun, 05 Jul 1998 21:16:12 -0700
> > Message-ID: <35A04F...@jps.net>
> >
> > ...
> > Boy oh boy, did you mess up here.
> > ...
> > 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?
> --------
Uh, what's wrong with this? Saying you messed up is not a flame. If you
don't understand when I explain Downfall's argument, then I can't help that
uncertainty.
> This shows us three major points. 1) you trolled by flaming unprovoked and
> succeeded in starting a flame war
I'm trying to keep flames out of this as much as possible. YOU prefer
to insult me at every turn, and in fact your insults now outnumber your
worthwhile arguments. I'm not the one to blame for your foolishness.
> 2) you are ashamed of what you have done and are trying to deny it
Let's see. You're really stretching to find something that seems like
a flame to prove I flamed first. You have the honor of being first in that
regard. You were the fool that was calling me ignorant, when you have
no idea about classical music.
> 3) you have a pathetic penis envy of me.
Says the guy with a huge .sig to make up for his insecurity.
> < > You then project what you dispise most about yourself (ignorance,
> < > please for attention, unprovoked flaming) onto me in attempt to save
> < > face.
> <
> < Let's see. I know about EBM, and so do you, to some extent. I know
> < about classical, but you don't. So it's ignorance on your part.
>
> I have listened to a large amount of EBM and classical.
Maybe EBM I can believe, but classical... No.
> I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have as well (I lack
> the precognitive abilities which allow you to decipher what music I have and
> have not heard).
Actually, it's not a precognitive ability. It's memory of what I
learned. I can read your posts and see you have not one whit of understanding
on the subject of classical music.
> I am able to form coferent perceptions on these musical genres, you are not.
Uh huh. Is this before or after you make no sense?
> I suppose this isn't ignorance on your part, perhaps confusion or blind
> loyalty would be better terms. Unatractive none the less.
If confusion makes me know what I'm talking about, you're right. Blind
loyalty? Hardly. If you believe I like classical, you can say so, but it won't
affect my arguments either way.
You, however, seem to have blind loyalty to almighty ignorance. I mean
it, you have absolutely no understanding of classical music at all.
> < I don't have those atrocious .sig files that exemplify textbook
> < insecurity. So you are trying to get attention.
> < And you flamed me first, so you're guilty of unprovoked flaming.
>
> These both pretty much explain each other. The third factor, your shame of
> what you are, also fits in. You start a flame war with me to get attention
> (because you are insecure), you then deny it because of your shame (the source
> of your insecurity).
Let's see. You provided the first recognizable flame. You flame the
most. I snip the most insults. You've been in more flame wars than I, in the
span of only a few months. It sounds to me like the case is against you.
Of course, though, you have provided no proof that I am supposedly
insecure, whereas your pleas for attention and your .sig speak for themselves.
Thanks for clearing that up, fool. Where did I say otherwise (That is
wasn't a fleeting comment)? For that matter, where did I deny anything? And
why do you insist on attacking the formation of my arguments, rather than the
arguments themselves?
> You then made a long drawn out perversion of your original comment to make
> yourself look better. And now you're trying to change the subject because you
> realize it doesn't make any sense to refute your topic sentence.
Uh, no. I merely explained the concept of paragraphing and organization
to you. That's completely different from music.
> < > Here is another example of you attempting to cast your own flaws onto
> < > me. You changed what you originally said into something so general it
> < > includes everything. By these standards Wumpscut is original, because
> < > he adds some elements noone has before (the name of his band for
> < > instance).
> <
> < Uh huh. It's a nice try to put words into my mouth but if you could
> < prove any of this I might actually stop laughing.
>
> Here we have the core of your argument. Say something that doesn't make any
> sense, and when you are exposed avoid the topic at all costs and flame to
> distract the reader. You could strip and set your genitals on fire and it
> wouldn't distract me from your stupidity, a much louder statement.
How strange that you are guilty of what you accuse me of. Please explain
the text you wrote about me changing my argument, and perhaps I won't think
you're such a fool.
> < > < Whatever weird logic you're using isn't working. You gave me a
> < > < definition of innovation that included "new ideas." You take an old
> < > < idea (Rap) mix it with another old idea (Rock) for the first time.
> < > < That's a NEW IDEA (TM), and therefore it is innovation according to
> < > < your own< definition.
> < >
> < > And if I take the preexisting notion of EBM and make a new song I have
> < > another NEW IDEA (TM). Therefore all EBM is original as well, and
> < > symphony too.
> <
> < Uh, no.
>
> Take your time. Now that wasn't so hard.
Rearranging words to take a cheap shot instead of refuting the
argument is the mark of a desperate child. I suppose you got this from your
Lame Flaming Handbook as well.
> < Making a new song is variety, but not all variety is innovation
> < (Though all innovation is variety).
> < So, making a new song does nothing for the concept of innovation.
> < Mixing two things that haven't been mixed before (Like rock and rap)
> < would be not only variety, but innovation as well.
>
> Making a new EBM song that has never been made before is the same type of
> innovation. It creates something new from something the already existed, and
> it is not innovative.
Making a new song is innovation, yes, but if the same elements have
been used together before, then it is not innovation. This is simple to
grasp. Like I said, mixing rock and rap for the first time is
innovation. It's a new idea if it hasn't been done before, and therefore it's
innovation. Mixing the elements of EBM together in a song HAS been done
before, so it's NOT innovation.
> < Again, two completely different things. Neither genre's purpose is to
> < innovate. But they each have their own innovation potential. Classical
> < composers are using classical's innovation potential, but ignoring the
> < innovation of potential in all genres is what you're saying. Well, EBM
> < is ignoring not only ITS potential, but all the other genres'
> < potentials, which makes it worse.
> < You can't say an rock artist is ignoring the innovation potential of
> < rap and let that stand. The two are totally different genres. In the
> < same way, a classical composer takes advantage of classical's potential,
> < but not the potential available in rap.
>
> By the same token you can't blame W for not taking advantage of the potential
> of CV. That's just a genre in general, W is a completely different band.
*Sigh* If you don't understand the concept of innovation potential,
just say so. All innovation potential is relative to its specific genre, not
the band itself. As you said, the genre is united by similarities in
structure and sound, therefore the bands move together in the evolution of
that structure and sound. If you consider CV to be EBM and :W: to be EBM,
then :W: can be blamed for not taking the advantage of the innovation
potential CV opened up for that genre.
> < Stores around me are constantly losing sales (For industrial in
> < general, including EBM). Those stores that had separate industrial
> < sections are moving them back into the rock/pop sections. More and more
> < industrial CDs (Mostly EBM/electro) are piling up in the used bins. The
> < stores are ordering less industrial CDs.
> < What could bring this on? People don't like EBM/industrial. Why would
> < they sell their old CDs? Because they're bored of them. Why? As some
> < people on here have put it, EBM is stagnating.
>
> But what specifically leads you to believe that stagnation is the cause for
> this perceived drop in popularity. It could be any number of things, why
> stagnation.
Music is primarily for entertainment. Let's face that. As much as we
love it, it's only an entertainment medium. And the only way people can
dislike an entertainment medium is if it doesn't fulfill its purpose, to
entertain. If it's not entertaining them, then it's boring them. What could
bore them in music? If it isn't interesting, then it will bore them. How is
it not interesting? If it isn't getting anywhere.
> < Unverified means you can't prove it. Go to your local store and ask if
> < their industrial sales are increasing. That can be verified. Go to
> < industrial shows/clubs and see the turnout (Most shows, clubs especially
> < have dancey [Read: EBM] music). This can be proven by just looking at
> < overall sales, that people are bored of industrial.
>
> No, unverified means it hasn't been proven, not that it can't be. It is
> provable, but you haven't proved it.
Same diff. I just told you how I can prove it. You can take my word for
it, or you can research it yourself, but the fact is I can back up what I'm
saying.
> < > < That would no doubt work better than your current pleas for
> < > < attention.
> < >
> < > Really? You think maybe I could attract -TWO- idiots that way?
> <
> < Do what I do, doubled. Hell, you're still here!
>
> Wrong. You're still here. I was here first, you came and joined me. Already my
> method works better than yours. You have to go out and troll, I have trolls
> come to me.
If I came to you to correct you, I can't be a troll. I'm merely a
corrector, while you're the moronic troll (As evidenced by your persevering
ignorance and attempts to start a flame war). Even after I exposed your
ignorance, you came back for more. Therefore, you are still here for
trolling/attention.
> < > < > "Cheap shot" implies some sort of mistruth.
> < > <
> < > < Considering you (H. West) wrote the above, where's the
> < > < problem?
> < >
> < > Problem? You are both agreeing with "the above" and implying it is
> < > untrue at the same time. Therefore, you are the problem.
> <
> < Uh, I'm *NOT* agreeing with the above.
>
> "'Cheap shot' implies some sort of mistruth" is "the above." By saying there's
> no problem you agree that "'Cheap shot' implies some sort of mistruth" is
> true. By saying there's no problem BECAUSE I wrote "'Cheap shot' implies some
> sort of mistruth" you are saying it is untrue. By being unable to recognize
> this you are twice the idiot.
Quit trolling. You said cheap shot implies some sort of mistruth. I
said that since YOU wrote it (The cheap shot), there is no problem (You are
known for mistruths). I am agreeing that there is some mistruth, not saying
that it is false. And in my "Uh, I'm *NOT* agreeing with the above," I was
referring to the text directly above that statement in "the above." (It seems
you thought I was contradicting your statement.) It appears our differing
relativity is the problem.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
MT
West, if you'd stop acting like a fool we could end this thing nicely.
Now let's keep the flames out of this.
> In article <6o5lfu$ro9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mih...@my-dejanews.com says...
> < In article <MPG.100def375...@news.idt.net>,
> < sua...@idt.net (H. West) wrote:
> < > In article <35A569...@jps.net>, NOSPA...@jps.net says...
> < >
> < > "Innovative" music has very little to do with previous notions.
> <
> < Mm hmm. Tell me, did you understand your own definition of
> < "innovation?" It said, among other things, a "new idea" is
> < innovation. Not an old one (AKA previous notions) but a NEW one.
> < Innovation is different from previous notions. Therefore, it's based
> < on the opposition or expansion of previous notions. Not "it has very
> < little to do with previous notions."
>
> This is fairly inconsistant. Later you tell me that if I require all
> artists to be 100% free of all influences no artist will be
> innovative, therefore you must also be saying that all artists
> invariably have something to do with previous notions, otherwise 100%
> original artists would exist.
Yes, that's a nice summation of my points. I say that innovation has
something to do with previous notions (Opposition OR expansion). There
is nothing inconsistent.
You say that innovation has little to do with previous notions. This is
just wrong.
> < I can't HAVE a perspective on my perspective. That's
> < redundant.
>
> Yes you do. You even have a perspective on your perspective of your
> perspective (the above, which is a little redundant).
Sometimes you make a lot of sense, but this isn't one of those times.
You can't have a view on your view; it's exactly the same thing.
> < You said what I was saying was based on my own perspective. That's
> < as far as it can go. Everything contradictory that you say to this
> < is contradictory not only to yourself, but to reason as well. I
> < am not speaking from my perspective, nor from my perspective on your
> < own. I merely took -YOUR- view on the subject of originality and
> < showed that it left no room for discussion.
>
> And that's your perspective on my perspective.
Which, coincidentally, is tailored to reflect your own perspective. I
am pointing out the mistakes in your point of view. Period.
> < Not even remotely true. The Spice Girls soundtrack is not
> < original or innovative. It's original by the definition that those
> < specific songs haven't been done before, but not original in that
> < their specific music hasn't been done before. Their form of pop has
> < been repeated many times before.
>
> But there haven't been songs exactly like theirs before. They add new
> elements to their music, even if only the tones of their voices.
This still fits in with what I said. The voices and style may be
unique, so the songs are original. But is the music itself original? No.
Is it innovative? No.
> < Speedy J's style of techno has not been done before. It's easy to
> < make a distinction there because not only are the songs original,
> < but the musical style is as well ("Ventolin" does not resemble the
> < material on the PN1 album other than some similar _effects_, if you > < listen to it again).
>
> How is it different. You have the ambient songs, which aren't
> innovative any way you look at it,
I recall you once said Brian Eno was innovative. Now you're confused.
Ambient CAN be innovative.
> and the straight four on the floor tracks with distorted samples.
> Where are the new ideas.
If you simplify it in this regard, then it doesn't sound original.
However, no one did the same thing he did before him, so his musical
style is still original. So are his songs.
> < > I never want to hear you bitch about misinformed arguments again.
> <
> < Uh, no. I don't think so. You have totally misinformed
> < arguments in this thread, and I'm free to bring that up if you wish.
> < However, I will not say that you are contradicting your stand in the
> < Speedy J thread, since that's what I was wrong about.
> < The difference is that I admit I was misinformed, while you
> < struggle on blindly in your ignorance. I point this out repeatedly,
> < yet you do not do anything. Once you pointed out that I was wrong, I
> < ceased attack on that.
>
> do you really believe you can successfully project all your
> perversions onto me?
Ask yourself that question. I am providing the truth here. You ARE
ignorant, it has been REPEATEDLY pointed out, and you're STILL HERE.
That's what I wrote above.
> You are incapable of forming a coherent argument, therefore you must
> distract attention with wild unexplained claims of misinformation.
Whatever you say. If you can't understand me, perhaps your
comprehension skills are the problem.
But besides that, you ARE misinformed.
> You think I think you're right? No, but I'm not so helpless that I
> can't argue my point and have to rely on throwing sand in your face.
Um, yes, you have. You repeatedly flame/insult me.
> I flame, but I don't use that as the basis for my argument. If you
> want to prove that I'm misinformed atleast give SOME SORT of
> explanation or reason or even hint of what wrong information I have.
This I have done. Many times over.
First, you don't know anything about the differences between classical
composers. You say they all sound alike, and that they are worthless for
not innovating. But that's only because you have not heard anything BY
them.
Second, you keep calling classical, "symphony," which, although is a
minor point, is annoying.
Third, you can comprehend nothing about the innovation potential
theory. Each genre has its specific potential. Yet you want to hold each
genre to one standard. When proved wrong, you said BANDS should be held
to their own standards.
> < That's a cowardly statement that leaves absolutely no room for
> < discussion. Why do you join in a thread at all if you're going to
> < say that no artist is completely original?
>
> A while ago you agreed that there is infinite possible innovation, now
> you whine because I said it's impossible to be 100% innovative.
I agree that there is infinite possible innovation, but that doesn't
mean you can be 100% innovative. What I'm pointing out is that you're
jumping into threads and saying an artist is unoriginal [You don't
mention your specific standards], then start an argument. Why argue at
all, if no one is going to sway you from your belief? It sounds like you
want to spout your view of things, which is why I said you want
attention.
> < And we know this is never going to happen. So you're
> < effectively rendering all discussion on originality useless from
> < your standpoint; why join in at all?
>
> It's never going to happen from your inane perversion of my viewpoint.
> However, out here in the real world, where us normal people live, it
> happens all the time.
Quit babbling. I said it isn't possible for an artist to be 100%
original by your standards, so why say that at all? It's not a subject
that can be discussed. It's one that you hope will attract attention to
yourself. Is that what happens all the time?
> < Did you read only the first sentences of my explanations, or
> < just skip them completely?
> < I said that no one is a ripoff unless they steal a band's
> < sound, with enough leeway for individual creativity. I think the
> < Stabbing Westward/NIN relationship is a great example. Everyone
> < else, when they are only influenced by someone's music, but still do
> < most of their creativity themselves, are not ripoffs.
> < Innovation is a new idea (Remember when I agreed with your
> < definition?) that hasn't been done before. If an artist is doing
> < exactly the same type of EBM as so many other artists out there,
> < then he is not innovating. Snog, on the other hand, is innovating
> < with Buy Me...
> < By my standards, artists that introduce new ideas into their
> < music for the first time are innovating. That's not every artist.
>
> Wumpscut added his voice to his music, which was a new element that
> had never been added before, so by the standards you give above he is
> innovative.
I said "new idea," not "new element." Is it a new idea to add a voice
to music? No. He doesn't have a new idea, and therefore he is NOT
innovative.
> < What you said above is completely misinformed.
>
> Strange, since you were the informant. I should stop listening to you.
Actually, you haven't been listening to me. If you stopped babbling,
and listen to me, the informant, you won't BE misinformed.
> < You mock me for flaunting your ignorance.
>
> I mock you for not being able to do otherwise.
If you've read my posts, I actually have given many arguments that
support what I say. Aside from those, yes, the only thing I do is mock
your ignorance.
> < Do you have any idea what you're talking about in classical in
> < the first place? I wasn't flaming you, I was pointing out that you
> < have barely even passing knowledge about classical music. You can
> < treat that as a flame for revealing your ignorance (And calling it a
> < flame is stretching it), but the truth is you provided the first
> < flame.
>
> And I was revealing your indifference and feeblness with my flame. The
> differences are 1) my flame came after yours 2) I'm not afraid or
> ashamed to admit I flamed you 3) my flame was truthful and explained,
> yours was nonsensical and vague. A flame is an insult. It has nothing
> to do with truth. If I call you a whore, even if you are a whore, it
> is still a flame. It's an insult.
There is no insult in "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."
All it says is that you brought up a stupid argument in a subject you
know nothing about. It wasn't intended to insult, whereas yours was.
None of this changes the fact that you're still misinformed, and you're
still pushing that. I got over your .sig, while you still want to flame.
Is it masochism?
> < I'm trying to keep flames out of this as much as possible.
>
> Lies and cowardess. You flame plenty, if you didn't want a flame war
> then YOU WOULDN'T FLAME. I only flame you when you've flamed me. You
> flame civil arguments when you can't refute them.
Actually, you haven't had many civil arguments. I've refuted everything
you've said that made some degree of sense, with flames tossed in
otherwise.
And I don't want a flame war, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't flame
at all. You are the one to blame for starting a flame war, as, believe
it or not, YOU run away from arguments when you cannot reply.
> < YOU prefer to insult me at every turn, and in fact your insults now
> < outnumber your worthwhile arguments.
>
> I'm still ahead, since all your arguments are insults or not
> worthwhile.
I correct myself. Instead of flaming when you cannot refute an
argument, you pretend it is below you. This charade isn't fooling
anyone.
> < > 3) you have a pathetic penis envy of me.
> <
> < Says the guy with a huge .sig to make up for his insecurity.
>
> I didn't realize .sig files were so insightful into the human soul. In
> that case it's no wonder you have such a penis envy, with that small
> ass .sig.
No, what I meant was, anyone who would put so much time into making a
.sig to boast about himself apparently has some problems.
> < > I have listened to a large amount of EBM and classical.
> <
> < Maybe EBM I can believe, but classical... No.
>
> Feel free to back up your vague implications. I think perhaps they're
> too fluid to be of any meaning or substance.
Whatever you say. Your arguments tell me you know nothing about
classical.
> < > I am able to form coferent perceptions on these musical genres,
> < > you are not.
> <
> < Uh huh. Is this before or after you make no sense?
>
> It's before you don't understand my LOGIC. Afterwards it's still
> coherent, if viewed through a sound mind.
But that's it. You don't HAVE logic. As I said, you're ignorant on the
subject of classical music. You're saying it is a stagnant genre, which
isn't remotely true. So whatever logic you're building on that base is
void. That's why you are not making sense.
> < You flame the most.
>
> Wrong. I only flame when your arguments aren't entertaining enough.
Your superior facade doesn't hide your cowardice.
> You flame when you get confused. You're trying to turn this whole
> thing into the "who's better informed gameshow." I've tried my best to
> stick to the topic of innovation, but you keep bringing it all back
> down.
I bring down your uninformed arguments. Unfortunately, I have to keep
bringing information into the picture because it's foolish on your part
to assume you can talk about a subject you know nothing about.
> < Of course, though, you have provided no proof that I am
> < supposedly insecure
>
> Your pathetic contempt for me, your holy quest to prove me wrong, your
> small .sig.
Contempt doesn't signify insecurity. Take a psychology class. If
proving someone wrong is insecure, then all teachers are insecure. It's
foolish to think that anyone correcting your stupidity has low
self-esteem.
And only elaborate .sigs hint at insecurity.
> < Making a new song is innovation, yes, but if the same elements
> < have been used together before, then it is not innovation. This is
> < simple to grasp.
> < Like I said, mixing rock and rap for the first time is
> < innovation. It's a new idea if it hasn't been done before, and
> < therefore it's innovation. Mixing the elements of EBM together in a
> < song HAS been done before, so it's NOT innovation.
>
> Neither introduce any new elements. Both create something new from
> preexisting elements. Neither are innovative.
It's not the "elements." It's the IDEA. If mixing rock and rap has not
been done before, the first person to do it introduces a new idea to the
people. He is innovating.
> < *Sigh* If you don't understand the concept of innovation
> < potential, just say so. All innovation potential is relative to its
> < specific genre, not the band itself. As you said, the genre is
> < united by similarities in structure and sound, therefore the bands
> < move together in the evolution of that structure and sound. If you
> < consider CV to be EBM and :W: to be EBM, then :W: can be blamed for
> < not taking the advantage of the innovation potential CV opened up
> < for that genre.
>
> By the same logic W and Bach are both music and should be held to the
> same standards. If that link should be ignored then the genre link
> between W and CV should be ignored as well.
Riiiiiiight. Music doesn't move as a whole together, so your argument
doesn't apply. Genres DO move together, as separate units, so the bands
in the same genre are held to the same standards.
Therefore, CV and :W:, in the same genre (This I'm basing on what
you're conveying, though I personally believe that CV is EBM and :W: is
dark EBM), are held to the same standards. Bach and :W:, NOT in the same
genre, are NOT held to the same standards.
> < Quit trolling. You said cheap shot implies some sort of
> < mistruth. I said that since YOU wrote it (The cheap shot), there is
> < no problem (You are known for mistruths). I am agreeing that there
> < is some mistruth, not saying that it is false. And in my "Uh, I'm
> < *NOT* agreeing with the above," I was referring to the text directly
> < above that statement in "the above." (It seems you thought I was
> < contradicting your statement.) It appears our differing relativity
> < is the problem.
>
> You weren't referring to the "cheap shot," you were referring to "the
> above" which was "'Cheap shot' implies some sort of mistruth." There
> is nothing above that.
Read what I wrote directly above your words above one more time, and
you will understand.
H. West
< H. West wrote:
<
< West, if you'd stop acting like a fool we could end this thing nicely.
< Now let's keep the flames out of this.
You call me a fool, and ask me to stop insulting all in the same statement. That
speaks for itself.
< > In article <6o5lfu$ro9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mih...@my-dejanews.com says...
< > < In article <MPG.100def375...@news.idt.net>,
< > < sua...@idt.net (H. West) wrote:
< > < > In article <35A569...@jps.net>, NOSPA...@jps.net says...
< > < >
< > < > "Innovative" music has very little to do with previous notions.
< > <
< > < Mm hmm. Tell me, did you understand your own definition of
< > < "innovation?" It said, among other things, a "new idea" is
< > < innovation. Not an old one (AKA previous notions) but a NEW one.
< > < Innovation is different from previous notions. Therefore, it's based
< > < on the opposition or expansion of previous notions. Not "it has very
< > < little to do with previous notions."
< >
< > This is fairly inconsistant. Later you tell me that if I require all
< > artists to be 100% free of all influences no artist will be
< > innovative, therefore you must also be saying that all artists
< > invariably have something to do with previous notions, otherwise 100%
< > original artists would exist.
<
< I say that innovation has something to do with previous notions
< You say that innovation has little to do with previous notions.
So you must be saying innovation has alot to do with previous notions, as that
is the only other possible contradiction to it having little to do with. If it
has so much to do with previous work, why is it so innovative.
< > < I can't HAVE a perspective on my perspective. That's
< > < redundant.
< >
< > Yes you do. You even have a perspective on your perspective of your
< > perspective (the above, which is a little redundant).
<
< Sometimes you make a lot of sense, but this isn't one of those times.
< You can't have a view on your view; it's exactly the same thing.
And that is your view on my view of your view. And this is my view on your view
of my view of your view.
< > < Not even remotely true. The Spice Girls soundtrack is not
< > < original or innovative. It's original by the definition that those
< > < specific songs haven't been done before, but not original in that
< > < their specific music hasn't been done before. Their form of pop has
< > < been repeated many times before.
< >
< > But there haven't been songs exactly like theirs before. They add new
< > elements to their music, even if only the tones of their voices.
<
< This still fits in with what I said. The voices and style may be
< unique, so the songs are original. But is the music itself original? No.
< Is it innovative? No.
What is the difference between original songs and original music.
< > < Speedy J's style of techno has not been done before. It's easy to
< > < make a distinction there because not only are the songs original,
< > < but the musical style is as well ("Ventolin" does not resemble the
< > < material on the PN1 album other than some similar _effects_, if you > < listen to it again).
< >
< > How is it different. You have the ambient songs, which aren't
< > innovative any way you look at it,
<
< I recall you once said Brian Eno was innovative. Now you're confused.
I don't see how "SJ is not innovative" and "Eno is innovative" are
contradictory, considering that Eno did ambient before anyone else and SJ added
nothing new to it.
< > and the straight four on the floor tracks with distorted samples.
< > Where are the new ideas.
<
< If you simplify it in this regard, then it doesn't sound original.
< However, no one did the same thing he did before him, so his musical
< style is still original. So are his songs.
What about his music has never been done before. If you cannot quantify it then
I must assume you do not know.
< Ask yourself that question. I am providing the truth here. You ARE
< ignorant, it has been REPEATEDLY pointed out, and you're STILL HERE.
< That's what I wrote above.
This is a silly inane opinion and I refuse to have anything further to do with
it. If you want to talk about me then go start a thread about me. If you want to
talk about innovation do that and only that here.
< > < Did you read only the first sentences of my explanations, or
< > < just skip them completely?
< > < I said that no one is a ripoff unless they steal a band's
< > < sound, with enough leeway for individual creativity. I think the
< > < Stabbing Westward/NIN relationship is a great example. Everyone
< > < else, when they are only influenced by someone's music, but still do
< > < most of their creativity themselves, are not ripoffs.
< > < Innovation is a new idea (Remember when I agreed with your
< > < definition?) that hasn't been done before. If an artist is doing
< > < exactly the same type of EBM as so many other artists out there,
< > < then he is not innovating. Snog, on the other hand, is innovating
< > < with Buy Me...
< > < By my standards, artists that introduce new ideas into their
< > < music for the first time are innovating. That's not every artist.
< >
< > Wumpscut added his voice to his music, which was a new element that
< > had never been added before, so by the standards you give above he is
< > innovative.
<
< I said "new idea," not "new element." Is it a new idea to add a voice
< to music? No. He doesn't have a new idea, and therefore he is NOT
< innovative.
It is a new idea to add HIS voice to music, since he is the first person to ever
do that.
< > < Making a new song is innovation, yes, but if the same elements
< > < have been used together before, then it is not innovation. This is
< > < simple to grasp.
< > < Like I said, mixing rock and rap for the first time is
< > < innovation. It's a new idea if it hasn't been done before, and
< > < therefore it's innovation. Mixing the elements of EBM together in a
< > < song HAS been done before, so it's NOT innovation.
< >
< > Neither introduce any new elements. Both create something new from
< > preexisting elements. Neither are innovative.
<
< It's not the "elements." It's the IDEA. If mixing rock and rap has not
< been done before, the first person to do it introduces a new idea to the
< people. He is innovating.
How is this different from mixing EBM with Rudys voice. Neither elements is new
but the idea is new.
< > < *Sigh* If you don't understand the concept of innovation
< > < potential, just say so. All innovation potential is relative to its
< > < specific genre, not the band itself. As you said, the genre is
< > < united by similarities in structure and sound, therefore the bands
< > < move together in the evolution of that structure and sound. If you
< > < consider CV to be EBM and :W: to be EBM, then :W: can be blamed for
< > < not taking the advantage of the innovation potential CV opened up
< > < for that genre.
< >
< > By the same logic W and Bach are both music and should be held to the
< > same standards. If that link should be ignored then the genre link
< > between W and CV should be ignored as well.
<
< Riiiiiiight. Music doesn't move as a whole together, so your argument
< doesn't apply. Genres DO move together, as separate units, so the bands
< in the same genre are held to the same standards.
Different bands in the same genre move as separate units in the way different
genres that are all music move as separate units. Music encompasses all musical
genres and a musical genre encompasses all the bands in it.
< > < Quit trolling. You said cheap shot implies some sort of
< > < mistruth. I said that since YOU wrote it (The cheap shot), there is
< > < no problem (You are known for mistruths). I am agreeing that there
< > < is some mistruth, not saying that it is false. And in my "Uh, I'm
< > < *NOT* agreeing with the above," I was referring to the text directly
< > < above that statement in "the above." (It seems you thought I was
< > < contradicting your statement.) It appears our differing relativity
< > < is the problem.
< >
< > You weren't referring to the "cheap shot," you were referring to "the
< > above" which was "'Cheap shot' implies some sort of mistruth." There
< > is nothing above that.
<
< Read what I wrote directly above your words above one more time, and
< you will understand.
I understand in what way it doesn't make sense. It still doesn't make sense
though.
H. West
< > < You say that innovation has little to do with previous notions.
< >
< > So you must be saying innovation has alot to do with previous notions,
< > as that is the only other possible contradiction to it having little
< > to do with. If it has so much to do with previous work, why is it so
< > innovative.
<
< the sense that it must oppose or build upon them. If the same previous
< notions are reused, nothing more, then that is not innovation. But I
< think you'll agree that if you oppose or expand upon previous notions,
< that counts as having to do a lot with previous work.
If that's the case then what could possibly have little to do with previous
work.
< > < > How is it different. You have the ambient songs, which aren't
< > < > innovative any way you look at it,
< > <
< > < I recall you once said Brian Eno was innovative. Now you're
< > < confused.
< >
< > I don't see how "SJ is not innovative" and "Eno is innovative" are
< > contradictory, considering that Eno did ambient before anyone else and
< > SJ added nothing new to it.
<
< Eno is still producing ambient to my knowledge. How can he still be
< innovative? He could have been innovative in the past, but not in the
< present.
That's why I said Music for Airports was innovative, and not SJ.
< > < > and the straight four on the floor tracks with distorted samples.
< > < > Where are the new ideas.
< > <
< > < If you simplify it in this regard, then it doesn't sound
< > < original. However, no one did the same thing he did before him, so
< > < his musical style is still original. So are his songs.
< >
< > What about his music has never been done before. If you cannot
< > quantify it then I must assume you do not know.
<
< No one else tried to rise above the rave scene in 1994. Speedy J did it
< on his own with Ginger (I think).
Oh please. And noone else made an EBM album called Embryodead in 1997, so
Wumpscut is innovative too.
< In G-Spot he made bass a big part of
< his techno, something which had not been done before.
You're really grasping at straws here. This is an element not a new idea.
< PN1 also focused
< on percussion, but it included ambient amidst the dance stuff.
Aphex Twin and Squarepusher had done this already.
< No one did this before him.
Even if the above were true they are trivial elements and do not constitute
originality, except in the same black and white world which considers Wumpscut
original.
< > < I said "new idea," not "new element." Is it a new idea to add
< > < a voice to music? No. He doesn't have a new idea, and therefore he
< > < is NOT innovative.
< >
< > It is a new idea to add HIS voice to music, since he is the first
< > person to ever do that.
<
< No, it isn't. The idea is adding vocals to the music. That has been
< done. Or, you could say the idea is to add his own vocals to music.
< That's also been done in the likes of SP, because Ogre added _his own
< voice_.
But when Ogre did it it was 'adding Ogres own voice,' not Rudys. Adding the
musicians vocals to music has been done, but adding Rudys voice has never been
done before. To say otherwise is ignorance. And what about the name of his band,
which is a word that he created and therefore never existed before.
< > < It's not the "elements." It's the IDEA. If mixing rock and rap
< > < has not been done before, the first person to do it introduces a new
< > < idea to the people. He is innovating.
< >
< > How is this different from mixing EBM with Rudys voice. Neither
< > elements is new but the idea is new.
<
< Again, no, it is not. Ideas have to be general. Adding vocals to EBM
< has been done. Adding a man's vocals to EBM has been done. These are the
< ideas. To add your personal voice would mean changing an element.
< Since adding a voice to EBM has been done, it can be called an element
< now (Remember, though, elements are not always necessary, so you can
< have instrumental EBM).
Right. Therefore mixing rock and rap isn't innovation either, because mixing
different styles has been done before. It has never been done with rock and rap
(let's say) before, just as adding male vocals to EBM has never been done with
Rudys voice before, but the idea behind them has been done so neither is
innovative.
H. West
< H. West wrote:
< >
< > In article <35A792...@jps.net>, NOSPA...@jps.net says...
< > <
< > < Because innovation is relative to those previous notions.
< > < Relative in the sense that it must oppose or build upon them. If the
< > < same previous notions are reused, nothing more, then that is not
< > < innovation. But I think you'll agree that if you oppose or expand
< > < upon previous notions, that counts as having to do a lot with
< > < previous work.
< >
< > If that's the case then what could possibly have little to do with
< > previous work.
<
< adding anything to that.
If you can't make sense out of your explanation then you can't prove me wrong.
< > < Eno is still producing ambient to my knowledge. How can he
< > < still be innovative? He could have been innovative in the past, but
< > < not in the present.
< >
< > That's why I said Music for Airports was innovative, and not SJ.
<
< Actually, you only said that Eno was innovative in general.
Since it is accepted that The Snow is not innovative, by this logic when someone
says Coil is innovative they are wrong. Only if they were an anal retentive
freak and specified every song that was and wasn't innovative by Coil could they
be correct. Since I am not an anal retentive freak I chose a statement which
would convey my thoughts to any capable minded adult.
< > < No one else tried to rise above the rave scene in 1994. Speedy
< > < J did it on his own with Ginger (I think).
< >
< > Oh please. And noone else made an EBM album called Embryodead in 1997,
< > so Wumpscut is innovative too.
<
< That's ridiculous. We're talking about music, not the name of the
< album's title. I double-checked, the name of the album IS Ginger (Hence
< my "I think" comment, as I was unsure), but that wasn't my point. I was
< showing how he advanced beyond the rave scene when that was pretty much
< the best techno had to offer then. He evolved.
How did he evolve beyond rave.
< > < In G-Spot he made bass a big part of his techno, something which had
< > < not been done before.
< >
< > You're really grasping at straws here. This is an element not a new
< > idea.
<
< I could argue that the idea of basing techno on bass (Creating a new
< style of music, I believe, but I'd rather have a techno-head say it) is
< a new idea. The element is the base. The idea is what he did with it.
< Of course, this leaves too much room for innovation. If he adds a
< little bass to music [for the first time], then he's innovative. If he
< adds a lot [for the first time], then he's also innovative.
< So, to make it better, he changed the bass enough to change the music
< substantially (Small degrees won't apply in this case). And again, I'm
< pretty sure this splintered into some techno sub-genre, but I don't know
< those well so I'd like an expert's testimony.
How did he change the bass in ways that noone else has.
< > < PN1 also focused on percussion, but it included ambient amidst the
< > < dance stuff.
< >
< > Aphex Twin and Squarepusher had done this already.
<
< Only in separate tracks. You compared "Ventolin" to PN1, and that isn't
< exactly the best comparison, but I'll use it. Ventolin is harsh and
< abrasive, but the internal music (The stuff under the rhythm) isn't
< ambient.
< I could be stretching here, but the PN1 album uses true ambient with
< dance, unlike AFX (I'd like a real expert's facts on this).
Have you HEARD Aphex Twin? Listen to I Care Because You Do before you say
something else stupid. Danceable rythms laid over ambience. That is the album.
< > < No one did this before him.
< >
< > Even if the above were true they are trivial elements and do not
< > constitute originality, except in the same black and white world which
< > considers Wumpscut original.
<
< That's rather your opinion, but I can prove you wrong.
<
< Speedy J changed elements on two of his albums and made them more
< advanced than anything else out at the time (Not sure about PN1, so I
< won't count it). He added new ideas to his music, and therefore
< innovated (By your definition).
If he did this, then why are you having so much trouble defining what makes this
innovative artist so innovative.
< > < > < It's not the "elements." It's the IDEA. If mixing rock and rap
< > < > < has not been done before, the first person to do it introduces a new
< > < > < idea to the people. He is innovating.
< > < >
< > < > How is this different from mixing EBM with Rudys voice. Neither
< > < > elements is new but the idea is new.
< > <
< > < Again, no, it is not. Ideas have to be general. Adding vocals to EBM
< > < has been done. Adding a man's vocals to EBM has been done. These are the
< > < ideas. To add your personal voice would mean changing an element.
< > < Since adding a voice to EBM has been done, it can be called an element
< > < now (Remember, though, elements are not always necessary, so you can
< > < have instrumental EBM).
< >
< > Right. Therefore mixing rock and rap isn't innovation either, because mixing
< > different styles has been done before. It has never been done with rock and rap
< > (let's say) before, just as adding male vocals to EBM has never been done with
< > Rudys voice before, but the idea behind them has been done so neither is
< > innovative.
Take your time now. I won't rush you.
MT
>
> In article <35A6A4...@jps.net>, NOSPA...@jps.net says...
> < H. West wrote:
> <
> < West, if you'd stop acting like a fool we could end this thing
> < nicely. Now let's keep the flames out of this.
>
> You call me a fool, and ask me to stop insulting all in the same
> statement. That speaks for itself.
I call you a fool because you don't know much about classical, and you
keep on misunderstanding the rest of my arguments.
However, I'll say if you stop acting misinformed, then we could end
this nicely. If you truly don't know what you're talking about, just say
so.
> < I say that innovation has something to do with previous notions
> < You say that innovation has little to do with previous notions.
>
> So you must be saying innovation has alot to do with previous notions,
> as that is the only other possible contradiction to it having little
> to do with. If it has so much to do with previous work, why is it so
> innovative.
Because innovation is relative to those previous notions. Relative in
the sense that it must oppose or build upon them. If the same previous
notions are reused, nothing more, then that is not innovation. But I
think you'll agree that if you oppose or expand upon previous notions,
that counts as having to do a lot with previous work.
> < You can't have a view on your view; it's exactly the same thing.
>
> And that is your view on my view of your view. And this is my view on
> your view of my view of your view.
And since my view of your view of my view is the same thing even when
extended, it is theoretically still my view, simplified.
Your view on my view of your view of my view can be simply reduced to
your view on my view, as nothing is lost in the translation.
It's like saying English to French to English to French. Assuming it's
the same as it was before (As it is here) it's easier to call it French.
> < This still fits in with what I said. The voices and style may
> < be unique, so the songs are original. But is the music itself
> < original? No. Is it innovative? No.
>
> What is the difference between original songs and original music.
Original songs are, as you said, variety. And as I said, not all
variety is innovation (Though all innovation is variety). If a new song
is created, we have to look at two things: elements and ideas. If the
elements vary in "Wannabe" compared to "Like a Virgin,) (Elements, as I
wrote, are voices, different beats, etc.), then "Wannabe" is an original
song. It has different elements that allow variation. However, if the
Spice Girls' voices are different, that is not a new idea (To add
multiple voices to music). Voices have been added to music before. Is
that a new idea on the Spice Girls' part? No. Therefore, it's not
innovation, but it is variety.
Original music is something that has never been done before. We don't
look at the elements in this case; they can be the same, or different.
We look at the ideas. Is it a new idea to mix rock and rap for the first
time? Yes. That new idea means it is innovative.
So the difference is, original songs contain variety in their elements.
Original music contains variety in its ideas.
Oh, and just so you can keep this in mind: A new idea is something that
has not been done before. After it has been done, you can call it an
element.
> < > How is it different. You have the ambient songs, which aren't
> < > innovative any way you look at it,
> <
> < I recall you once said Brian Eno was innovative. Now you're
> < confused.
>
> I don't see how "SJ is not innovative" and "Eno is innovative" are
> contradictory, considering that Eno did ambient before anyone else and
> SJ added nothing new to it.
Eno is still producing ambient to my knowledge. How can he still be
innovative? He could have been innovative in the past, but not in the
present.
> < > and the straight four on the floor tracks with distorted samples.
> < > Where are the new ideas.
> <
> < If you simplify it in this regard, then it doesn't sound
> < original. However, no one did the same thing he did before him, so
> < his musical style is still original. So are his songs.
>
> What about his music has never been done before. If you cannot
> quantify it then I must assume you do not know.
No one else tried to rise above the rave scene in 1994. Speedy J did it
on his own with Ginger (I think). In G-Spot he made bass a big part of
his techno, something which had not been done before. PN1 also focused
on percussion, but it included ambient amidst the dance stuff.
No one did this before him.
> < I said "new idea," not "new element." Is it a new idea to add
> < a voice to music? No. He doesn't have a new idea, and therefore he
> < is NOT innovative.
>
> It is a new idea to add HIS voice to music, since he is the first
> person to ever do that.
No, it isn't. The idea is adding vocals to the music. That has been
done. Or, you could say the idea is to add his own vocals to music.
That's also been done in the likes of SP, because Ogre added _his own
voice_.
If you want to get down to the voice differences, that's talking about
different elements.
> < It's not the "elements." It's the IDEA. If mixing rock and rap
> < has not been done before, the first person to do it introduces a new
> < idea to the people. He is innovating.
>
> How is this different from mixing EBM with Rudys voice. Neither
> elements is new but the idea is new.
Again, no, it is not. Ideas have to be general. Adding vocals to EBM
has been done. Adding a man's vocals to EBM has been done. These are the
ideas. To add your personal voice would mean changing an element.
Since adding a voice to EBM has been done, it can be called an element
now (Remember, though, elements are not always necessary, so you can
have instrumental EBM).
> < Riiiiiiight. Music doesn't move as a whole together, so your
> < argument doesn't apply. Genres DO move together, as separate units,
> < so the bands in the same genre are held to the same standards.
>
> Different bands in the same genre move as separate units in the way
> different genres that are all music move as separate units. Music
> encompasses all musical genres and a musical genre encompasses all the
> bands in it.
First, although different bands in the same genre move together, they
should not be held to different standards. One reason is that you are
talking about _music_, not the actual producers of it. The second reason
is below.
Different bands do move together, but as you said before, if they place
themselves within a certain genre they are limiting themselves to a
certain type of thing. You can't produce just "music." What is just
music? You CAN produce pop, rock, rap, classical, country, and
industrial.
When you limit yourself to a certain [sub]genre, you place yourself at
its mercy (Assuming you want to create that music only). And so, in
creating that music, you take everything that comes along with it,
including that specific innovation potential. Even if you produce what
you want regardless of classification, you will fit into _some_ genre,
and you will be measured against the innovation potential.
Comparing a physical thing (Band) to a non-physical thing's standards
(Innovation potential) would never work.
MT
>
> In article <35A792...@jps.net>, NOSPA...@jps.net says...
> <
> < Because innovation is relative to those previous notions.
> < Relative in the sense that it must oppose or build upon them. If the
> < same previous notions are reused, nothing more, then that is not
> < innovation. But I think you'll agree that if you oppose or expand
> < upon previous notions, that counts as having to do a lot with
> < previous work.
>
> If that's the case then what could possibly have little to do with
> previous work.
I don't know. I'm just proving that what you said was wrong. I'm not
adding anything to that.
> < Eno is still producing ambient to my knowledge. How can he
> < still be innovative? He could have been innovative in the past, but
> < not in the present.
>
> That's why I said Music for Airports was innovative, and not SJ.
Actually, you only said that Eno was innovative in general.
> < No one else tried to rise above the rave scene in 1994. Speedy
> < J did it on his own with Ginger (I think).
>
> Oh please. And noone else made an EBM album called Embryodead in 1997,
> so Wumpscut is innovative too.
That's ridiculous. We're talking about music, not the name of the
album's title. I double-checked, the name of the album IS Ginger (Hence
my "I think" comment, as I was unsure), but that wasn't my point. I was
showing how he advanced beyond the rave scene when that was pretty much
the best techno had to offer then. He evolved.
> < In G-Spot he made bass a big part of his techno, something which had
> < not been done before.
>
> You're really grasping at straws here. This is an element not a new
> idea.
I could argue that the idea of basing techno on bass (Creating a new
style of music, I believe, but I'd rather have a techno-head say it) is
a new idea. The element is the base. The idea is what he did with it.
Of course, this leaves too much room for innovation. If he adds a
little bass to music [for the first time], then he's innovative. If he
adds a lot [for the first time], then he's also innovative.
So, to make it better, he changed the bass enough to change the music
substantially (Small degrees won't apply in this case). And again, I'm
pretty sure this splintered into some techno sub-genre, but I don't know
those well so I'd like an expert's testimony.
> < PN1 also focused on percussion, but it included ambient amidst the
> < dance stuff.
>
> Aphex Twin and Squarepusher had done this already.
Only in separate tracks. You compared "Ventolin" to PN1, and that isn't
exactly the best comparison, but I'll use it. Ventolin is harsh and
abrasive, but the internal music (The stuff under the rhythm) isn't
ambient.
I could be stretching here, but the PN1 album uses true ambient with
dance, unlike AFX (I'd like a real expert's facts on this).
> < No one did this before him.
>
> Even if the above were true they are trivial elements and do not
> constitute originality, except in the same black and white world which
> considers Wumpscut original.
That's rather your opinion, but I can prove you wrong.
Speedy J changed elements on two of his albums and made them more
advanced than anything else out at the time (Not sure about PN1, so I
won't count it). He added new ideas to his music, and therefore
innovated (By your definition). :W: has done nothing except provided
inbreeding within EBM. No new ideas, so he is not innovative/original.
> < No, it isn't. The idea is adding vocals to the music. That has
> < been done. Or, you could say the idea is to add his own vocals to
> < music. That's also been done in the likes of SP, because Ogre added
> < _his own voice_.
>
> But when Ogre did it it was 'adding Ogres own voice,' not Rudys.
> Adding the musicians vocals to music has been done, but adding Rudys
> voice has never been done before. To say otherwise is ignorance.
It's nice that you state the obvious, but I'm not going to say
otherwise. Remember, ideas are general things, and that allows us to
look at music on a broader scale and tell if something is innovative. On
the other hand, elements are specific, which narrows down our choices
and therefore limits originality to the realm of variety.
The general concept is that vocals are added to music. That's enough to
say :W:'s adding vocals is not innovative. Specifically, a man's vocals
have been added to music; that still leaves Rudy out. Even better, a
man's vocals have been added to EBM music. Rudy's still not original. Go
any further, and you will be comparing elements. The best you can do
then is tell me Rudy has original songs.
> And what about the name of his band, which is a word that he created
> and therefore never existed before.
This is music, not band names, that we're talking about. His band name
has no influence on his sound. He could call himself the Rabbit-Humpers
and he'd still create the same music.
> < > < It's not the "elements." It's the IDEA. If mixing rock and rap
> < > < has not been done before, the first person to do it introduces a new
> < > < idea to the people. He is innovating.
> < >
> < > How is this different from mixing EBM with Rudys voice. Neither
> < > elements is new but the idea is new.
> <
> < Again, no, it is not. Ideas have to be general. Adding vocals to EBM
> < has been done. Adding a man's vocals to EBM has been done. These are the
> < ideas. To add your personal voice would mean changing an element.
> < Since adding a voice to EBM has been done, it can be called an element
> < now (Remember, though, elements are not always necessary, so you can
> < have instrumental EBM).
>
> Right. Therefore mixing rock and rap isn't innovation either, because mixing
> different styles has been done before. It has never been done with rock and rap
> (let's say) before, just as adding male vocals to EBM has never been done with
> Rudys voice before, but the idea behind them has been done so neither is
> innovative.
>
--
MT
>
> In article <35A7FB...@jps.net>, NOSPA...@jps.net says...
> < H. West wrote:
> < >
> < > In article <35A792...@jps.net>, NOSPA...@jps.net says...
> < > <
> < > < Because innovation is relative to those previous notions.
> < > < Relative in the sense that it must oppose or build upon them. If
> < > < the same previous notions are reused, nothing more, then that is
> < > < not innovation. But I think you'll agree that if you oppose or
> < > < expand upon previous notions, that counts as having to do a lot
> < > < with previous work.
> < >
> < > If that's the case then what could possibly have little to do with
> < > previous work.
> <
> < I don't know. I'm just proving that what you said was wrong.
> < I'm not adding anything to that.
>
> If you can't make sense out of your explanation then you can't prove
> me wrong.
Ah, but I CAN make sense of my explanation; you just asked me for a
different thing.
Let's recap: you told me innovation has little to do with previous
notions. I said innovation has to oppose/expand those previous notions,
so it has a LOT to do with them. Then you asked me what could possibly
have nothing to do with previous notions, which wasn't what I was
getting at.
To answer your question, I don't know (Nothing, I believe, since all
music has something to do with what happened before). Your question just
had nothing to do with my explanation (It went to the opposite end of
the scale, actually) which is why I couldn't answer it.
> < > < Eno is still producing ambient to my knowledge. How can he
> < > < still be innovative? He could have been innovative in the past,
> < > < but not in the present.
> < >
> < > That's why I said Music for Airports was innovative, and not SJ.
> <
> < Actually, you only said that Eno was innovative in general.
>
> Since it is accepted that The Snow is not innovative, by this logic
> when someone says Coil is innovative they are wrong. Only if they were
> an anal retentive freak and specified every song that was and wasn't
> innovative by Coil could they be correct. Since I am not an anal
> retentive freak I chose a statement which would convey my thoughts to
> any capable minded adult.
Let's put it this way. When you say that Coil and Speedy J are not
innovative, I assume you mean exactly that. Not "innovative in some
cases," but just plain not innovative. So when you say the opposite,
that Brian Eno is innovative, I assume you mean exactly that. Not
"innovative in some cases."
> < > < No one else tried to rise above the rave scene in 1994.
> < > < Speedy J did it on his own with Ginger (I think).
> < >
> < > Oh please. And noone else made an EBM album called Embryodead in
> < > 1997, so Wumpscut is innovative too.
> <
> < That's ridiculous. We're talking about music, not the name of
> < the album's title. I double-checked, the name of the album IS Ginger
> < (Hence my "I think" comment, as I was unsure), but that wasn't my
> < point. I was showing how he advanced beyond the rave scene when that
> < was pretty much the best techno had to offer then. He evolved.
>
> How did he evolve beyond rave.
Either you're unfamiliar with rave or you don't have Ginger. If
neither, then listen to Ginger again, carefully.
Rave is a lot more energetic and unpredictable, while he makes Ginger
almost formulaic yet still smooth and energetic.
> < > < In G-Spot he made bass a big part of his techno, something which
> < > < had not been done before.
> < >
> < > You're really grasping at straws here. This is an element not a
> < > new idea.
> <
> < I could argue that the idea of basing techno on bass (Creating
> < a new style of music, I believe, but I'd rather have a techno-head
> < say it) is a new idea. The element is the bass. The idea is what he
> < did with it.
> < Of course, this leaves too much room for innovation. If he
> < adds a little bass to music [for the first time], then he's
> < innovative. If he adds a lot [for the first time], then he's also
> < innovative.
> < So, to make it better, he changed the bass enough to change
> < the music substantially (Small degrees won't apply in this case).
> < And again, I'm pretty sure this splintered into some techno
> < sub-genre, but I don't know those well so I'd like an expert's
> < testimony.
>
> How did he change the bass in ways that noone else has.
He made it a more substantial part of the rhythm, which, as I said,
probably branched into a techno sub-genre.
> < > < PN1 also focused on percussion, but it included ambient amidst
> < > < the dance stuff.
> < >
> < > Aphex Twin and Squarepusher had done this already.
> <
> < Only in separate tracks. You compared "Ventolin" to PN1, and
> < that isn't exactly the best comparison, but I'll use it. Ventolin is
> < harsh and abrasive, but the internal music (The stuff under the
> < rhythm) isn't ambient.
> < I could be stretching here, but the PN1 album uses true
> < ambient with dance, unlike AFX (I'd like a real expert's facts on
> < this).
>
> Have you HEARD Aphex Twin? Listen to I Care Because You Do before you
> say something else stupid.
Despite your cooperation on this with classical, I am listening to it
right now to satisfy you.
What I said was that the "ambient" he uses may not be true ambience.
> Danceable rythms laid over ambience. That is the album.
Not all the tracks are like that. Listen to "Wet Tip Hen Ox" (?? Track
8). "Mookid" and "Next Heap With," also. Those are just ambient, not
dance. "Icct Hedral" is sort of abrasive, not dancey. Those are my fave
songs, and they're the one I'm absolutely sure about (I might mix some
stuff up with other RDJ albums).
But PN1 isn't exactly a dancey album, it's more noise and
listen-friendly. It's harsher than anything RDJ has done, and quite a
bit more experimental.
But it's obvious that I'm not doing too good a job of comparing PN1 to
RDJ, so I'd appreciate it if anyone into techno that's reading this
would correct me. Enlighten me. Whatever.
> < > < No one did this before him.
> < >
> < > Even if the above were true they are trivial elements and do not
> < > constitute originality, except in the same black and white world
> < > which considers Wumpscut original.
> <
> < That's rather your opinion, but I can prove you wrong.
> <
> < Speedy J changed elements on two of his albums and made them
> < more advanced than anything else out at the time (Not sure about
> < PN1, so I won't count it). He added new ideas to his music, and
> < therefore innovated (By your definition).
>
> If he did this, then why are you having so much trouble defining what
> makes this innovative artist so innovative.
I'm not. You simply refuse to believe it. I'm having trouble getting
you to -ACCEPT- what made this innovative artist so innovative (If only
on certain albums).
> < > < Again, no, it is not. Ideas have to be general. Adding
> < > < vocals to EBM has been done. Adding a man's vocals to EBM has
> < > < been done. These are the ideas. To add your personal voice would
> < > < mean changing an element.
> < > < Since adding a voice to EBM has been done, it can be
> < > < called an element now (Remember, though, elements are not always
> < > < necessary, so you can have instrumental EBM).
> < >
> < > Right. Therefore mixing rock and rap isn't innovation either,
> < > because mixing different styles has been done before. It has never
> < > been done with rock and rap (let's say) before, just as adding
> < > male vocals to EBM has never been done with Rudys voice before,
> < > but the idea behind them has been done so neither is innovative.
>
> Take your time now. I won't rush you.
Shit! I'm really sorry, I forgot to cover this part! My bad.
Okay, things are actually a bit more complicated than the picture you
paint above (Though that is damn good arguing).
In the case of mixing: Mixing is the action. Mixing what? Two different
styles. That's the idea, mixing two different styles.
In the case of adding: Adding is the action. Adding what? Rudy's vocals
to music (EBM). That's the idea, adding Rudy's vocals to music.
It seems like the two cases are parallels, and if one idea has been
done, then it becomes an element. So it looks like mixing rock and rap,
since it's a general idea and has been done before in mixing, let's say,
rock and classical, is only an element (Just like adding Rudy's voice is
an element).
However, as you thought I was going to say, things are different.
Mixing rock and rap is something that's going to benefit either genre.
If a rock artist raps, he's innovating in rock, and vice versa.
Rudy's voice, however, is not something that's going to benefit the
entire genre. It's not pushing the boundaries of EBM anywhere. If
someone wants to use Rudy's voice, they can't duplicate it without
getting him to sing for them. It's unique to himself, and it's something
that can't be used by anyone.
Basically, although mixing two different styles may not be a new idea,
it is still advancing the genre[s] and introducing something new to it
[them]. Adding Rudy's voice to music is not furthering the EBM scene in
any way, so it is not innovation.
Gwei-lo
MT <NOSPA...@jps.net> wrote in article <35A7FB...@jps.net>...
> H. West wrote:
> >
> > In article <35A792...@jps.net>, NOSPA...@jps.net says...
> > < Eno is still producing ambient to my knowledge. How can he
> > < still be innovative? He could have been innovative in the past, but
> > < not in the present.
Well, he is still producing music, and he is still innovative. He doesn't
just stick to the same old ambient stuff you know. Listen to his 1997
album "the Drop", and "Nerve Net", from 1993. Two recent, very innovative
albums from Eno.
> > That's why I said Music for Airports was innovative, and not SJ.
>
> Actually, you only said that Eno was innovative in general.
He is, and always has been.
--
Gwei-lo,
clown prince of crime
np: Scorn- "Whine"
MT
> > > < still be innovative? He could have been innovative in the past,
> > > < but not in the present.
>
> doesn't just stick to the same old ambient stuff you know. Listen to
> his 1997 album "the Drop", and "Nerve Net", from 1993. Two recent,
> very innovative albums from Eno.
Well, the reason I was nitpicking was because West was referring to all
ambient as NOT innovative, thus taking out both Eno and Speedy J in one
fell swoop.
> > > That's why I said Music for Airports was innovative, and not SJ.
> >
> > Actually, you only said that Eno was innovative in general.
>
> He is, and always has been.
Glad to hear you say that. I stand corrected.
DSBP c/o Tommy T or cyber_burnt
--jeezez.....you guys are so insecure...it's so
funny!!!hahahahahahahahahaha!!
H.WEST can really shake you boys up....;)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-TOMMY T.,.,,.,the DSBP.......CYBERAGE rules you!!
np:VAC-"calling ov the dead"...yeah..bite me!
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 /
H. West
< H. West wrote:
< >
< > In article <35A7FB...@jps.net>, NOSPA...@jps.net says...
< > < H. West wrote:
< > < >
< > < > In article <35A792...@jps.net>, NOSPA...@jps.net says...
< > < > <
< > < > < Because innovation is relative to those previous notions.
< > < > < Relative in the sense that it must oppose or build upon them. If
< > < > < the same previous notions are reused, nothing more, then that is
< > < > < not innovation. But I think you'll agree that if you oppose or
< > < > < expand upon previous notions, that counts as having to do a lot
< > < > < with previous work.
< > < >
< > < > If that's the case then what could possibly have little to do with
< > < > previous work.
< > <
< > < I don't know. I'm just proving that what you said was wrong.
< > < I'm not adding anything to that.
< >
< > If you can't make sense out of your explanation then you can't prove
< > me wrong.
<
< Ah, but I CAN make sense of my explanation; you just asked me for a
< different thing.
< Let's recap: you told me innovation has little to do with previous
< notions. I said innovation has to oppose/expand those previous notions,
< so it has a LOT to do with them. Then you asked me what could possibly
< have nothing to do with previous notions, which wasn't what I was
< getting at.
But if that can't be explained then your argument has no scale. If you create
music that has nothing to do with anything before it then it is still
associated, because having nothing to do with something means it has has
something (nothing) to do with it. I'm talking about literal similarities. If
some music has alot of literal similarities to previous music, like Wumpscut,
then it probably won't be innovative. If it has few literal similarities then it
most likely is innovative.
< > < > < Eno is still producing ambient to my knowledge. How can he
< > < > < still be innovative? He could have been innovative in the past,
< > < > < but not in the present.
< > < >
< > < > That's why I said Music for Airports was innovative, and not SJ.
< > <
< > < Actually, you only said that Eno was innovative in general.
< >
< > Since it is accepted that The Snow is not innovative, by this logic
< > when someone says Coil is innovative they are wrong. Only if they were
< > an anal retentive freak and specified every song that was and wasn't
< > innovative by Coil could they be correct. Since I am not an anal
< > retentive freak I chose a statement which would convey my thoughts to
< > any capable minded adult.
<
< Let's put it this way. When you say that Coil and Speedy J are not
< innovative, I assume you mean exactly that. Not "innovative in some
< cases," but just plain not innovative. So when you say the opposite,
< that Brian Eno is innovative, I assume you mean exactly that. Not
< "innovative in some cases."
And if you make this assumption then you also must assume when someone says
innovative they mean "innovative in all cases," not "innovative in some cases."
Therefore the statement "Coil is innovative" is invariably incorrect since in
one case (The Snow) they are not innovative from anyones perspective, and
therefore not innovative in all cases.
< > < > < No one else tried to rise above the rave scene in 1994.
< > < > < Speedy J did it on his own with Ginger (I think).
< > < >
< > < > Oh please. And noone else made an EBM album called Embryodead in
< > < > 1997, so Wumpscut is innovative too.
< > <
< > < That's ridiculous. We're talking about music, not the name of
< > < the album's title. I double-checked, the name of the album IS Ginger
< > < (Hence my "I think" comment, as I was unsure), but that wasn't my
< > < point. I was showing how he advanced beyond the rave scene when that
< > < was pretty much the best techno had to offer then. He evolved.
< >
< > How did he evolve beyond rave.
<
< Either you're unfamiliar with rave or you don't have Ginger. If
< neither, then listen to Ginger again, carefully.
< Rave is a lot more energetic and unpredictable, while he makes Ginger
< almost formulaic yet still smooth and energetic.
This is too vague to mean anything.
< > < > < In G-Spot he made bass a big part of his techno, something which
< > < > < had not been done before.
< > < >
< > < > You're really grasping at straws here. This is an element not a
< > < > new idea.
< > <
< > < I could argue that the idea of basing techno on bass (Creating
< > < a new style of music, I believe, but I'd rather have a techno-head
< > < say it) is a new idea. The element is the bass. The idea is what he
< > < did with it.
< > < Of course, this leaves too much room for innovation. If he
< > < adds a little bass to music [for the first time], then he's
< > < innovative. If he adds a lot [for the first time], then he's also
< > < innovative.
< > < So, to make it better, he changed the bass enough to change
< > < the music substantially (Small degrees won't apply in this case).
< > < And again, I'm pretty sure this splintered into some techno
< > < sub-genre, but I don't know those well so I'd like an expert's
< > < testimony.
< >
< > How did he change the bass in ways that noone else has.
<
< He made it a more substantial part of the rhythm, which, as I said,
< probably branched into a techno sub-genre.
He can't take the credit for doing that first. For instance Godflesh have some
very dancey tracks that rely heavily on bass, and they weren't the first to do
it either. Early techno was mostly centered on the bassline, which in many cases
was real bass. Now it's been turned into Big Beat. In any case turning up the
volume on the bass track can't be considered innovation by any sensible scale.
< > < > < PN1 also focused on percussion, but it included ambient amidst
< > < > < the dance stuff.
< > < >
< > < > Aphex Twin and Squarepusher had done this already.
< > <
< > < Only in separate tracks. You compared "Ventolin" to PN1, and
< > < that isn't exactly the best comparison, but I'll use it. Ventolin is
< > < harsh and abrasive, but the internal music (The stuff under the
< > < rhythm) isn't ambient.
< > < I could be stretching here, but the PN1 album uses true
< > < ambient with dance, unlike AFX (I'd like a real expert's facts on
< > < this).
< >
< > Have you HEARD Aphex Twin? Listen to I Care Because You Do before you
< > say something else stupid.
<
< Despite your cooperation on this with classical, I am listening to it
< right now to satisfy you.
<
< What I said was that the "ambient" he uses may not be true ambience.
Aphex Twin maybe, but Squarepusher uses non rythmic ambience in the back of his
songs. And, as Jeremy pointed out to everyone, before Music for Airports Eno was
making pop music with Ambient in the background.
< > Danceable rythms laid over ambience. That is the album.
<
< Not all the tracks are like that. Listen to "Wet Tip Hen Ox" (?? Track
< 8). "Mookid" and "Next Heap With," also. Those are just ambient, not
< dance. "Icct Hedral" is sort of abrasive, not dancey. Those are my fave
< songs, and they're the one I'm absolutely sure about (I might mix some
< stuff up with other RDJ albums).
Just because they aren't your favorite songs doesn't discount them. It's been
awhile since I've heard it, but I believe Wax the Nip is a good example. A dance
beat laid over Ambient synths.
< > < > < No one did this before him.
< > < >
< > < > Even if the above were true they are trivial elements and do not
< > < > constitute originality, except in the same black and white world
< > < > which considers Wumpscut original.
< > <
< > < That's rather your opinion, but I can prove you wrong.
< > <
< > < Speedy J changed elements on two of his albums and made them
< > < more advanced than anything else out at the time (Not sure about
< > < PN1, so I won't count it). He added new ideas to his music, and
< > < therefore innovated (By your definition).
< >
< > If he did this, then why are you having so much trouble defining what
< > makes this innovative artist so innovative.
<
< I'm not. You simply refuse to believe it. I'm having trouble getting
< you to -ACCEPT- what made this innovative artist so innovative (If only
< on certain albums).
Then why do you keep asking people to help you.
Then why didn't you mention any of this before? Could it be, because you just
made it all up?
< Rudy's voice, however, is not something that's going to benefit the
< entire genre. It's not pushing the boundaries of EBM anywhere. If
< someone wants to use Rudy's voice, they can't duplicate it without
< getting him to sing for them. It's unique to himself, and it's something
< that can't be used by anyone.
<
< Basically, although mixing two different styles may not be a new idea,
< it is still advancing the genre[s] and introducing something new to it
< [them]. Adding Rudy's voice to music is not furthering the EBM scene in
< any way, so it is not innovation.
Adding Rudys voice to EBM pushes the boundaries of EBM to include Rudys voice.
In either case it's adding a new element to a genre through an old idea. The
only difference is that mixing rock and rap adds something to two genres, mixing
EBM and Rudys voice only adds something to one genre. It's still a parallel
situation.
MT
>
> In article <35A840...@jps.net>, NOSPA...@jps.net says...
> <
> < Ah, but I CAN make sense of my explanation; you just asked me
> < for a different thing.
> < Let's recap: you told me innovation has little to do with
> < previous notions. I said innovation has to oppose/expand those
> < previous notions, so it has a LOT to do with them. Then you asked me
> < what could possibly have nothing to do with previous notions, which
> < wasn't what I was getting at.
>
> But if that can't be explained then your argument has no scale. If you
> create music that has nothing to do with anything before it then it is
> still associated, because having nothing to do with something means it
> has has something (nothing) to do with it. I'm talking about literal
> similarities. If some music has alot of literal similarities to
> previous music, like Wumpscut, then it probably won't be innovative.
> If it has few literal similarities then it most likely is innovative.
And that's what I'm getting at. Innovation, to me, is the
opposition/expansion of previous notions. That still has a lot to do
with previous notions.
And in the sense that it has no scale, you're correct. However, it
isn't actually my perspective, I was only saying that what you said
wasn't correct.
Innovation has something to do with previous notions, all the time.
Since innovation can happen in small steps or in leaps, there are
degrees of similarity. Innovation rarely happens in large amounts, so
the basic thing is that innovative music will still sound similar to
previous notions. And my argument is just a different way of looking at
it.
However, since the second one doesn't have any scale to it, you can
look at the other one and tell me what you think.
> < Let's put it this way. When you say that Coil and Speedy J are
> < not innovative, I assume you mean exactly that. Not "innovative in
> < some cases," but just plain not innovative. So when you say the
> < opposite, that Brian Eno is innovative, I assume you mean exactly
> < that. Not "innovative in some cases."
>
> And if you make this assumption then you also must assume when someone
> says innovative they mean "innovative in all cases," not "innovative
> in some cases." Therefore the statement "Coil is innovative" is
> invariably incorrect since in one case (The Snow) they are not
> innovative from anyones perspective, and therefore not innovative in
> all cases.
Your point is? I haven't heard The Snow, so I don't know if I should
argue whether it's innovative or not. However, you do measure innovation
with the wrong standards as shown by your treatment of classical, so I'm
not sure if I should agree that The Snow is NOT innovative.
If it isn't innovative, then what you describe above is true.
> < > How did he evolve beyond rave.
> <
> < Either you're unfamiliar with rave or you don't have Ginger.
> < If neither, then listen to Ginger again, carefully.
> < Rave is a lot more energetic and unpredictable, while he makes
> < Ginger almost formulaic yet still smooth and energetic.
>
> This is too vague to mean anything.
Not if you squint and look real carefully...
Again, I'm not the foremost expert on techno, so I can't give you a
minute-by-minute comparison. The above is the best I can do. However, if
you listen to examples of rave and then listen to Ginger, you will hear
major differences.
> < > How did he change the bass in ways that noone else has.
> <
> < He made it a more substantial part of the rhythm, which, as I
> < said, probably branched into a techno sub-genre.
>
> He can't take the credit for doing that first. For instance Godflesh
> have some very dancey tracks that rely heavily on bass, and they
> weren't the first to do it either. Early techno was mostly centered on
> the bassline, which in many cases was real bass. Now it's been turned
> into Big Beat. In any case turning up the volume on the bass track
> can't be considered innovation by any sensible scale.
I'll disregard the Godflesh example, because it doesn't fit into
techno.
> < > Have you HEARD Aphex Twin? Listen to I Care Because You Do before
> < > you say something else stupid.
> <
> < Despite your cooperation on this with classical, I am
> < listening to it right now to satisfy you.
> <
> < What I said was that the "ambient" he uses may not be true
> < ambience.
>
> Aphex Twin maybe, but Squarepusher uses non rythmic ambience in the
> back of his songs. And, as Jeremy pointed out to everyone, before
> Music for Airports Eno was making pop music with Ambient in the
> background.
Jeremy who? Anyway, I suppose I won't argue the point about ambient.
> < > Danceable rythms laid over ambience. That is the album.
> <
> < Not all the tracks are like that. Listen to "Wet Tip Hen Ox"
> < (?? Track 8). "Mookid" and "Next Heap With," also. Those are just
> < ambient, not dance. "Icct Hedral" is sort of abrasive, not dancey.
> < Those are my fave songs, and they're the one I'm absolutely sure
> < about (I might mix some stuff up with other RDJ albums).
>
> Just because they aren't your favorite songs doesn't discount them.
True. However, I was challenging your statement that ICBYD is
"danceable rhythms laid over ambience." Not all of it is like that.
> It's been awhile since I've heard it, but I believe Wax the Nip is a
> good example. A dance beat laid over Ambient synths.
Track 3? Yeah, you're right.
Of course, you realize that simplifying Speedy J's/RDJ's music to
"danceable rhythms laid over ambience" is about the same thing as
describing :W: as electronic pop. In this case, I think you might be
going too far.
Of course, you have to think about the experimentality (Is that a
word?) found on PN1. RDJ and Squarepusher don't come even close.
> < > If he did this, then why are you having so much trouble defining
> < > what makes this innovative artist so innovative.
> <
> < I'm not. You simply refuse to believe it. I'm having trouble
> < getting you to -ACCEPT- what made this innovative artist so
> < innovative (If only on certain albums).
>
> Then why do you keep asking people to help you.
Because although I can define the innovation in Speedy J's music, I'm
not as well-versed in techno. I don't know if anyone's done the same
thing that SJ has before him (However, I'm familiar enough with your
examples to refute them).
That's my downfall, because you seemingly don't accept the testimony of
anyone other than a real expert. I can tell you what I have heard in
SJ's albums but not in all techno, and you won't accept that because I
don't know techno.
And in case you don't accept these latest rebuttals, let's drop this. I
admit I'm not going to convince you with my cursory examinations of
techno, nor are you convincing me that his music has been done before.
Which is why I'd like a techno expert to take this argument off my
hands.
> < Shit! I'm really sorry, I forgot to cover this part! My bad.
> <
> < Okay, things are actually a bit more complicated than the
> < picture you paint above (Though that is damn good arguing).
> < In the case of mixing: Mixing is the action. Mixing what? Two
> < different styles. That's the idea, mixing two different styles.
> < In the case of adding: Adding is the action. Adding what?
> < Rudy's vocalsto music (EBM). That's the idea, adding Rudy's vocals
> < to music.
> <
> < It seems like the two cases are parallels, and if one idea has
> < been done, then it becomes an element. So it looks like mixing rock
> < and rap, since it's a general idea and has been done before in
> < mixing, let's say, rock and classical, is only an element (Just like
> < adding Rudy's voice is an element).
> <
> < However, as you thought I was going to say, things are
> < different.
>
> Then why didn't you mention any of this before? Could it be, because
> you just made it all up?
The first time around, I missed your argument. This is the same thing I
would have written then. Saying it earlier wouldn't have made it truer
if it were false now, would it?
After all, you responded to my arguments about classical immediately.
That didn't mean they were true.
> < Rudy's voice, however, is not something that's going to
> < benefit the entire genre. It's not pushing the boundaries of EBM
> < anywhere. If someone wants to use Rudy's voice, they can't duplicate
> < it without getting him to sing for them. It's unique to himself, and
> < it's something that can't be used by anyone.
> <
> < Basically, although mixing two different styles may not be a
> < new idea, it is still advancing the genre[s] and introducing
> < something new to it [them]. Adding Rudy's voice to music is not
> < furthering the EBM scene in any way, so it is not innovation.
>
> Adding Rudys voice to EBM pushes the boundaries of EBM to include
> Rudys voice. In either case it's adding a new element to a genre
> through an old idea. The only difference is that mixing rock and rap
> adds something to two genres, mixing EBM and Rudys voice only adds
> something to one genre. It's still a parallel situation.
Not quite. I'm not judging by the number of genres it expands. I'm
asking IF it expands.
Adding Rudy's voice to music does not push the boundaries of EBM
anywhere. It's not changing the music itself in any way. EBM can still
go on without voices (That's why innovation in vocals is limited to one
singer, multiple singers, distorted singer, distorted singers, and some
shades of emotion). Since EBM is a music genre, it's not the voice that
matters, but the music.
After Rudy dies, no one can duplicate his voice. All voices are
different, if only slightly. That means Rudy's voice, if it IS
innovation, is only temporary innovation. It's very limited as well,
since not everyone can use that as an element in their music. That's
rather paradoxical; innovation is supposed to be specific to the genre,
not to the band. If it doesn't help the genre evolve, then it isn't
innovation. It isn't helping the genre, nor is it evolving the genre
(Because it's a temporary element).
Mixing rock and rap will expand both genres, but above all it will
expand the MUSIC. The music itself grows, allowing everyone in the
genres to take advantage of that innovation. It will be around for as
long as music is around.
Therefore, although the situations seem like parallels, they are not.
Rudy's voice (Or anyone's voice for that matter) is not innovation; it's
variety. Mixing two genres is variety, but it's also innovation.
NP: Aphex Twin: I Care Because You Do (Track 1) [This is good, too]
MT
Damn, this is getting ridiculous. It's the second time I've done this.
Here's my complete argument.
> In article <35A840...@jps.net>, NOSPA...@jps.net says...
> < H. West wrote:
> < >
> < > How did he change the bass in ways that noone else has.
> <
> < He made it a more substantial part of the rhythm, which, as I
> < said, probably branched into a techno sub-genre.
>
> He can't take the credit for doing that first. For instance Godflesh
> have some very dancey tracks that rely heavily on bass, and they
> weren't the first to do it either. Early techno was mostly centered on
> the bassline, which in many cases was real bass. Now it's been turned
> into Big Beat. In any case turning up the volume on the bass track
> can't be considered innovation by any sensible scale.
As I wrote in the other post, I'll disregard the Godflesh example, as
it's not techno (And, therefore, not innovating the techno genre).
Speedy J isn't turning up the volume on the bass track. He's centering
the tracks on them. Early techno, actually, was more "house" kind of
stuff, which is barely comparable to techno. It's the same thing as
saying hip-hop focuses on bass so techno isn't innovative for doing
that. Speedy J's music is completely different from the original techno,
just as post-industrial differs from old industrial.
Basically, Speedy J is the first to create techno based so strongly on
the bassline. He's innovative in that regard.
You may notice this is crossposted to alt.music.techno for the first
time. To AMT browsers: this is also a partly Speedy J-based topic.
Basically, I'm trying to say that SJ has done original things in all
three of his albums. H. West is claiming that SJ copied Aphex Twin and
Squarepusher on PN1. He also claims that Ginger and G-Spot didn't
innovate in any way.
I'm not a big techno fan, so I can't compare the genre as a whole to
Speedy J's music. If you know what you're talking about, please do me a
favor and tell me if I'm right or not.
Ginger: evolved beyond the fast, unpredictable rave genre, focusing on
slower, smoother techno (Almost formulaic).
G-Spot: see above.
Public Energy No. 1: just a hell of a lot noisier and more experimental
than anything by AFX and Speedy J.
meehans...@gmail.com
heyman
> Wow man; I can’t believe Rudy retired & sold all his gear because the
> record industry collapsed