From: matthew@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (M a t t h e w N. S h a r p)
Newsgroups: rec.music.industrial
Subject: Re: underground??? CC:
Date: 16 Sep 92 03:45:08 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <1992Sep16.011549.22604@nmsu.edu> ghond@acca.nmsu.edu (ICE-9) writes:
>In article <BuLwtE.9KF@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> matthew@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
>(Matthew N. Sharp) writes:
>
>> 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.
>
>First you say that this stance (of deliberate provocation) no longer
>exists; now you say it exists even in the mainstream.  Perhaps you need
>to define more rigidly what responses are no longer being provoked.

Okay.  Within the mainstream, deliberate provocation of response
means "create a positive response using proven compositional methods."
Originally, industrial music set out to create _any_ response,
and usually a _negative_ response among its listeners.  Now,
negative responses are provoked very rarely, and usually against
the most easily knee-jerk responsive (eg: American protestants)
which I feel is lazy provocation.


>Admittedly, I strayed from your original topic, to make another point. 
>So why *have* you introduced more signal into your noise these days?  I
>think that would help you to come to some legitimate conclusion about
>"deliberate provocation of response".


Because I simply do not feel like doing what I did right now.
Many new people have recently acquired net.access, and I'm sure
they will be here soon.  They will also be completely unaware
of the legitimacy/nonlegitimacy of my previous postings, which
creates a brand new batch of possible responses.  I am putting
much thought into my future activities, and hopefully they will
prove far more entertaining than any of my previous activities.

>
>> 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.
>
>Also prevalent among "classic" "industrial" fans.  To paraphrase:  "Ooooh,
>it's gonna piss off people who want melody!  That's K00L!"  "Ooooh, it's
>gonna piss off the noiseheads!  That's K00L!"  (ie., quality is determined
>entirely by ability to piss people off).  However, I refuse to get drawn
>into a discussion of objective quality.  You stated that early industrial
>recordings attemted to deliberately provoke a response in the listener,
>and that that spirit was gone.  If you wanted to, you could make the
>argument that G.P'O.'s current bland house music is intended to piss off
>those people expecting shock-value industrial.

You may have a very good point here, but I cannot bring myself
to believe that G.P.O. ever really had a clue, and therefore have
trouble with the concept of G.P.O. pulling the wool over anyone's
eyes.  I think that if Boyd Rice were making house music, it would
be probable that those were his intentions.  

Admittedly, I could be wrong.  G.P-O could have the upper hand on 
people expecting shock-value industrial.  I think that evidence
shows he has become quite lazy compositionally (perhaps he has not
"become" this way, now that I think of the TG days... seems he
always WAS lazy) and is simply creating the same crap over and over.

I must also state that it is quite easy to become lazy
creatively with the stagnation that comes as a bonus with
modern electronic musical equipment.

>
>> 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.
>
>That's exactly because your so-called "deliberate provocation of response"
>gets BORING.  (That's also why I don't buy a lot of "industrial" music
>any more).  If Throbbing Gristle were still around today doing the same
>things they were 14 years ago, you'd just have more to complain about.

You are absolutely correct.  That's why the provocation must change.
Boyd Rice, case in point.

>> 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.
>
>My point was, that's as much of a generalization as that people who
>wear your "conservative" clothes don't think for themselves.  Ie.,
>you're being hypocritical.

You cannot make such a statement without refuting factually my own
statement.  I have statistics on my side, you have opinion.


Matthew Neill Sharp
matthew@mentor.cc.purdue.edu   mnsharp@nyx.cs.du.edu
bp271@Cleveland.Freenet.EDU