From: matthew@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Matthew N. Sharp)
Newsgroups: rec.music.industrial
Subject: Re: underground??? CC:
Date: 15 Sep 92 06:32:01 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <1992Sep15.013439.20228@nmsu.edu> ghond@acca.nmsu.edu (ICE-9) writes:
>In article <BuHLqu.M4o@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> matthew@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
>(unknown) writes:
>
>> Industrial music wasn't about noise.  It wasn't about beat.
>> [MY FLAWLESS POST DELETED]
>
>This is very much what the punk movement was about too.  And very
>much what your previous posting style was about.  So why have you stopped?
>Presumably, because you got BORED of it.  Rejecting the status quo
>can only go on so long.  Eventually, you become the status quo. 
>See: "alternative" music in America.  Every major record company has
>an "alternative" department now.  It doesn't mean "an alternative
>to the mainstream", any more.  It means a particular section of the
>mainstream.  The same thing is currently happening to "industrial",
>and "techno/rave" will probably be next.


What does being in the mainstream have to do with deliberate
provocation?  If nothing else, this so-called mainstream is
an area where the science of provocation is much more polished,
with most songs being created for the direct purpose of creating
happiness within the listener, so that said listener will purchase
said product.

What, exactly, does "Rejecting the status quo" have to do with
industrial music, or deliberate provocation?  You have made
a poor analogy, and one all-too common among punk fans who wish
to reconcile their musical tastes (or lack of) with one another.


At no time have I said that "industrial music has sold out"...
My point is, regardless of financial success, the spirit originally
so strong in this music, has been replaced by boring political
correctness and moronic "alienation" themes.

>
>There's no point in complaining about it.  It's just what is.
>If you don't like it, do your own thing and don't pay any attention
>to the peons.  Perhaps your work will be hailed as revolutionary, or
>perhaps it will be ignored.  Either way you will be happy.
>
I will be happy making people mad.  You are unqualified to tell
me what will and what will not make me happy.  You should know
better than this.  I am well aware that complaints will change
nothing; I have no interest in changing anything, I simply like
to bitch, as well as make other people react to me, after presenting
them with controlled information.



>Or if you're greedy, take advantage of the system and try to predict
>where it will head next (see: Malcolm McLaren).
>
(see: Al "Buttgeek-from-Chicago-with-PHONY-ACCENT" Jourgensen)

>> [...] although I feel fairly safe
>> in assuming that someone who wears a Skinny Puppy t-shirt
>> and has toothpaste in their hair is not someone I wish to talk
>> to.
>
>You say this, and then complain about said people being biased
>agaist you because of *your* appearance.  Hmmm.

Is there something you can't figure out here?  People who tend
to wear their personalities so obviously usually lack much 
substantial personality to begin with.  There are, of course,
exceptions to this, but often times conspicuous outward appearance
is some sort of attention-cry, which is indicative of psychological
insecurity.

Prove me wrong, Mr. White.  I dare you.

>
>-- sfw
>-- 
>stephen white			| the priests and the friars
>ghond@sloth.nmsu.edu		| approach me in dread
>				| because i still love you,
>				| my love, and you're dead - not s. o'connor
				  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
					This is _still_ stupid.



Matthew Neill Sharp
matthew@mentor.cc.purdue.edu  mnsharp@nyx.cs.du.edu
Newsgroups: rec.music.industrial