From: ghond@acca.nmsu.edu (ICE-9)
Subject: Re: underground??? CC:
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 01:15:49 GMT

In article <BuLwtE.9KF@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> matthew@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
(Matthew N. Sharp) writes:

> In article <1992Sep15.013439.20228@nmsu.edu> I wrote:

>> 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. 

> 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.

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".

> 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.

> 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.

> [...] 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.

Well, it's nice to have goals.

> 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.

[lame and pointless flame about .sig deleted]

-- stephen
-- 
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
Newsgroups: rec.music.industrial