# Talk:Industrial music

The "Industrial music and fascism" section is inadequate to the point of being wrong. I'll try to fix it in the near future if I can find the time. Laibach and the Neue Slowenische Kunst, for example, have a very sophisticated strategy governing their employment of fascist imagery. The article as it stands makes it sound like industrial groups are all fascists sympathizers or that their only defense is that they're joking. I'm the first to admit that there is a problematic fascination throughout the industrial scene, but there are a variety of positions on how that imagery is used, depending on the band. Aryder779 (talk) 22:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of first-class sources, such a controversial section should probably be deleted in its entirety.  "The Unacceptable Face of Freedom" is an interesting article, but it is certainly not enough to justify that section.  The Jon Savage quotes from Industrial Culture Handbook, say nothing about Fascism, and an interest in or fascination with "forensic pathology, venereology, concentration camp behavior," etc. might make one aberrant, but not necessarily a Fascist.  I suggest the section be removed and the relevant content integrated elsewhere in the article. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Aryder779 (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Someone restored the (highly dubious, unsourced) "fascism" paragraph. I have re-deleted it. Aryder779 (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the history page tells me there's some back and forth editing about "coldwave (U.S.)" as a subgenre. I agree with Ada Kataki that it's simply another marketing term for industrial rock or industrial metal. Aryder779 (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was around when that term was introduced (by the title of a Metropolis Records compilation album), and it didn't refer to either, but more to material with a new wave and/or synthpop influence, like Apoptygma Berserk.  I agree that the term is too fuzzy to be useful here, but it doesn't lean in the direction proposed by Aryder and Kataki. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 22:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Coldwave has apparently been used in a number of ways. Now, it most commonly refers to French dark wave and post-punk, because of the term's advocacy by Wierd Records. I'm not sure how common the word was in the actual '80s French scene at the time. In the mid-90s, I guess it was used frequently for industrial metal groups like Chemlab, and I don't doubt that maybe at some point it also described groups who became known as futurepop. Aryder779 (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
SMcCandlish is way off base. The term Coldwave predates any Metropolis compilations (1st Metropolis compilation release was in 1998); 21st Circuitry Records released the "Coldwave Breaks" compilation 1996ish. I'm pretty sure the term was around prior to that although perhaps not as prominent.  And the 21st Circuitry release (and most of their roster) were coldwave in the guitar driven industrial metal sense (16volt, Chemlab, etc.), not synthpoppy at all.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.104.39.2 (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that all original research should be exterminated. Aryder779 (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

"Since then, a wide variety of labels and artists have come to be called "industrial.""
- While this sentence may be true, that does not mean that it is correct. There is a movement going on to reclaim "industrial music" as a specific genre, rather than just let it remain a huge umbrella term. People use this specific entry, they post it all over Last.fm, and they show it to their friends when looking up information about this genre. I am not asking that the sentence be removed, but I feel that the introduction should at least make note of this discrepancy rather than have it as is; a confirmation that bands like Combichrist, VNV Nation, And One, Celldweller, etc, are torch bearers of modern industrial music.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shockwork (talk • contribs) 21:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC) 

The page will eventually be revised to cover only the original industrial musicians. The other derivatives are covered on the EBM, electro-industrial, industrial rock, and industrial metal pages. Aryder779 (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed all of the following as being poorly referenced and bring it here for discussion.  Furthermore, I removed all text that was sourced to a GoogleDocs article which is currently unavailable and is not an appropriate source in the first place.

Accordingly, Throbbing Gristle did not seek to build upon a pre-existing genre, but instead "their mythos rests on the claim that they are the founding creators of an entirely new genre, 'industrial music.'" The band wrote music about unusual as well as mundane topics, including seduction, suicide, boredom, magic, stripping, rhetoric, plants, disco, pornography, calligraphy, dactylomancy, politics, their dog, underwear, and more.

The premise behind creation of industrial music was to "pursue music in the context of the late industrial society, a dehumanized world increasingly alienated from nature", focusing on "issues of the modern age, where propaganda and the access and control of information were becoming the primary tools of power." The initial idea for music that reflects sounds from the industrial age came from the composers and musicians Erik Satie and John Cage.

Throbbing Gristle was one of the first bands to use sampling from prerecorded tapes, and also used a lot of homemade electronics through which they ran their samples and instruments, for example the loop playback machine and more famously, the Gristleizer.

A member of the British Parliament reacted to this first performance with outrage, calling Throbbing Gristle "The Wreckers of Civilization."

The acts on Industrial Records were groups who "combined an interest in transgressive culture with an interest in the potential of noise as music."

It is a transgressive culture with an interest in the potential of noise as music. Unlike other forms of popular music, industrial music was and remain critical of systems of power and control and this criticism clearly extends to the record industry.
The two book sources might be notable, I do not know anything about them, but we need further bibliographic information, as well as page numbers for specific quotes.  The websites look dicey to me, and the statements are little more than opinions, or are not supported by the reference at all.  Some of this is repetitive of information already in the article and is, hence, unnecessary.
Most of the "industrial as modernist music" section is referenced to some of these same sources, so it may need to go, as well.  Any thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that the concerns of our GA reviewer have all been dealt with. An outstanding article by the way. I've played some part, but only minor compared to its great upheaval by others. Sir Richardson (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed it, although I think we've still got a ways to go on the GA review.  Thaddeus indicated that what had been discussed so far was only the beginning. Torchiest talk/contribs 05:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Just thought I'd start a section on this, since it seems to be a minor point of contention.  In the Frank Zappa article, which is a featured article, he is never described as psychedelic rock.  In fact, it states that he "lampooned" psychedelia.  I don't really care one way or the other how Kraftwerk is labeled, but there are referred to as an electronic group in their own article, so consistency between articles seems best, one way or the other. —Torchiest talk/contribs 22:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Have to agree with you on that. How Frank Zappa and Throbbing Gristle are on the same page together is a mystery. (n.b. - who can believe anything Genesis says?) -Dogears (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
P.S. Try some Noise music on for size: 100 Years of Noise (music) The Art of Noises - Luigi Russolo (1913) - Public Domain Celebration Release 1/1/2013 

A few changes were recently made to the intro that do not accurately reflect sourced material, if there was even a source included.
First, source #1 states that industrial blended avant-garde electronics experiments with punk provocation. However, this does not imply that industrial is "ideologically linked" with "punk music".
Second, the first sentence was recently changed to say that industrial is often associated with countercultural angst and anger. Besides this claim being highly questionable, it is currently unsourced, so as it stands it seems to currently reflect the opinion of the editor and not necessarily an authoritative source. Hence this claim should be removed.
Third - and please explain to me if I'm misunderstanding something here - but I see nothing ironic about the statement "industrial music for industrial people", and until an authoritative source is listed that suggests otherwise, there isn't necessarily any implication of irony by the entity that coined it.
Taking the above into account, I will be making modifications to the intro to attempt to fix the above issues. Please feel free to discuss here if there is any concern over these changes.
--82.31.164.172 (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I missed those other changes from October.  I restored the version from before those changes were made.  I didn't realize the sourced statements had been messed up.  Compare it to what you'd changed, and see if you want to blend anything from the two versions together. —Torchiest talk/edits 21:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Torchiest. Yeah, the October version is the one I remembered and generally seems more accurate to what the sources say. I'll leave the October version as it is. Nonetheless, amendments to the intro are welcome as long as they reflect exactly what authoritative sources say and not make implications that aren't there. We're all victim to making the occasional "unsourced opinion" - as I've probably demonstrated myself recently. Keeping these to a minimum is the key to producing a good encyclopedic article that's (preferably) as unbiased as possible. :) --82.31.164.172 (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Excellent.  And yes, the word ironic was clearly misused! —Torchiest talk/edits 22:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I for one feel that the current lead is poor, overly simplified. Just because you have sourced statements, it should not mean they are untouchable. That said, feel free to revert my changes as I probably won't dig up any references on my own in the near future. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 22:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I am proposing a merger of suitable material from Industrial rock to this article. A few acts are mentioned there that are not here, but most are in both and much better sourced and handled here. There is no evidence given of a clear distinction between industrial rock and industrial music in general. Even if such a distinction could be indicated by reliable sources it may be better to have a subsection here that deals with rock here. Having two articles that deal with basically the same topic creates confusion and is against guidelines. I suggest sourced material is incorporated into this article, either generally or a subsection, and that Industrial rock becomes a redirect to this article.--SabreBD (talk) 09:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Industrial music is a distinct genre from industrial rock.  The former has origins in the 1970s and is far more experimental and punk in its sensibilities, and doesn't even necessarily include guitars, which are a key instrument in industrial rock.  The bands listed in both articles are only here because they industrial rock is an offshoot of the original genre.  If anything, more of the details and sources could be moved from here to the there. —Torchiest talkedits 15:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Seriously. --Nicholas0 (talk) 10:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I am withdrawing this proposal. I think the problems are at Industrial rock, which is less than clear in its distinctions. (Probably not helped by the confusion in some "reliable sources" about definitions.) If anyone feels inclined to go over to that article and help make the distinctions clearer, that that would be great.--SabreBD (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

In confusing Industrial Metal and Electronic Industrial music, these genres really need two separate articles. It's as simple as that.
(Sorry for creating an unessecary thread, i really couldn't find anything about this in the history, or maybe i just dont understand the system well enough.)
I would do this myself but I'm not adequately informed, so this is just a notice, maybe one of you guys could just split it up? :P
Thousand Thanks
130.237.8.171 (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)puddler

No worries.  There are articles for both industrial metal and electronic body music. —Torchiest talkedits 00:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I guess the biggest problem is the citation of Allmusic at the beginning of the article. A fusion of Rock...? Industrial music was Anti-Rock and definitely not a part of the Post-Punk movement. Any better sources out there? --94.134.11.109 (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm kind of shocked at the complete lack of reference to KMFDM, as they were instrumental in the Industrial scene from the time they came onto the scene in the mid 80s. I can't believe someone didn't add a reference to them... did such references just get deleted?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.5.13.65 (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC) 
Totally agreed! btw can bjork be considered industrial? I didnt find anything about her n this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.114.148.251 (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC) 

KMFDM was never an Industrial group. North Americans and their misinterpretation of Industrial music. Industrial music was always Experimental music. KMFDM is Popular music with catchy rhythms and melodies. Same with Ministry, F242, FLA, Skinny Puppy, etc. etc. That's definitely not Industrial music in the proper sense.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.134.12.74 (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that beside Laibach, the band Autopsia should be mentioned as one of the pioneers of the genre.--Milosppf (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

"Electro-industrial music is a more recent development."
Are you kidding me? It's older than the whole Industrial Metal thing! Without Electro-Industrial music an Industrial Metal genre wouldn't exist.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.244.75.37 (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC) 

Good point.  That also didn't match what the article body, with sources, says, so I switched it around to say electro-industrial developed in the 1980s, then came rock and metal in the 1990s.

The insistence on this page that OMG Skinny Puppy is not real industrial and we mustn't mention KMFDM or EBM or whatever is really out of step with both the social reality of genre and the most recent scholarship on industrial music.  It's bugging me out that nobody is citing Assimilate (by S. Alexander Reed) here—it's the most authoritative source on the topic, and this page kinda looks like petty hairsplitting in light of it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.129.48.131 (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC) 

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Industrial music is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Industrial music until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 08:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

An IP editor added "1960s" to the infobox.  From what I see in this article, all the sources say that it began in the 1970s.  Where is this source that says the genre started in the 1960s?  Some of the bands say that they were influenced by 1960s music, but that's all I see. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

How is this tagged as a good article? It's an absolute mess, there's a random list of early albums which I've never seen on a genre page on here ever. There's also a lot of anachronistic writing tagging bands from the 1960s or early 1970s as "industrial," as well as later developments being placed earlier rather than later. It all reads horribly, and the article is way too long and needs a lot of trimming and copyediting. Aradicus77 (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Aradicus77 Thanks for all the work you have put into this page. It is much improved.
I had restored the list of early industrial albums because I think it concisely summarizes who came onto the scene, when, and their location. It's not actually a "random list of early albums".  It's a comprehensive list of early industrial bands. The reason for selecting their first studio EP/LP is that is a verifiable means of dating their arrival on the scene. Other options such as when members first got together or first played live or first demo tape would be hard to consistently verify.
I do understand your concern about the list of album names. What really matters is the date of the album. I'm considering reworking that table to drop the album names and to instead include columns for other genres as listed on each group's main page. For example, Throbbing Gristle lists post-punk, noise, experimental, electronic. Caberet Voltaire lists post-punk, EMB, electro, acid house, techno. Nurse With Wound lists experimental, avant-garde, dark ambient, noise, drone. For the 29 bands currently in the table, I would figure our which genres are most common and create columns for those genres. Each band that met that criteria would have a check-mark in the column. The number of columns could be limited to a reasonable amount and less common genres not included in the table, or a final miscellaneous column could list the low-frequency genres.
The point would be to show how those early groups overlapped or differed in the various directions that bands took.
I like to present information in tables if it makes it easier to readily identify information. Many people like to skim rather than read long articles, and I think the above would be a useful addition to the article.  What do you think? Mikebrand (talk) 23:30, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
It's fine I only thought it wasn't supposed to be here because I've never seen anything like that on any genre page, but if you feel that it's informative do as you see fit. I've organized a lot of the industrial and noise pages and a lot of music pages on here because it was crazy how much cluttered information was on the pages with no chronological order. Like you said people prefer brief straight to the point articles, not long jargon-y pieces. Me being a big fan of industrial, noise and other alternative music genres found it hard reading and understanding these pages, so imagine how someone who has no clue what these genres are would feel lol. So much info was outdated, with most pages being written 10 years ago with minimal reworks.
Thanks for your contributions man Aradicus77 (talk) 00:48, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Not really much mention of Cabaret Voltaire in the history when they were just as important as Throbbing Gristle in the early advancement of industrial music Aradicus77 (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I see 9 mentions of Cabaret Voltaire in the body of the article and 16 for Throbbing Gristle. Perhaps there could be more mention of Cabaret Voltaire, but I don't think they are neglected. But I'm not sure what the scope of the article is supposed to be. Is "industrial rock" in scope? Front 242, Front Line Assembly, KMFDM, and Sister Machine Gun are mentioned exactly once, which is in the lead, and with no source. Material in the lead should at least be supported with sources cited in the body of the article. Only one of the 10 places where Wax Trax Records is mentioned has a citation, and there are few citations in the history sections for the late 1980s onwards.
If the scope of the article doesn't include "industrial rock", Cabaret Voltaire and Throbbing Gristle could be discussed more, and it would be beneficial to deal with "post industrial" music in a more coherent way while dumping a bunch of uncited stuff about post industrial acts. If the scope does include industrial rock Cabaret Voltaire doesn't necessarly need to be mentioned further, but citations are needed for post industrial stuff. Plantdrew (talk) 01:52, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
What is post industrial? Since industrial has many subgenres, the lead has made mention of these. Industrial rock is only mentioned in passing because that isn't the focus of the article, more to be found there would be in Industrial rock. Yes you are right some sources should be added for what is mentioned in the lead in the body of the article. I haven't really touched the Wax Trax and proliferation stuff mentioned later on, that's just what has been on the article by whoever wrote that section in the past.
Since the article is mostly about the first wave of industrial, Cabaret Voltaire should have as much info on them on here as Throbbing Gristle imo. Aradicus77 (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Searching right now I found someone online saying "post-industrial" was used in the 90s for bands like skinny puppy, 242, ministry to differentiate from the genre's originators like TG, Neubauten, Clock DVA Aradicus77 (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Ah I think I've realized what the terms mean now. So the original industrial wave which was rooted in avant-garde music genres is considered "industrial". But everything that came after it, such as industrial rock, and all those kind of commercial or pop/rock/EDM based subgenres are considered "post-industrial". Aradicus77 (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
I don't think "post-industrial" is really a thing, but this talk page is littered with threads debating what the scope of this article is supposed to be.
This particular previous comment really stood out to me:
"The page will eventually be revised to cover only the original industrial musicians. The other derivatives are covered on the EBM, electro-industrial, industrial rock, and industrial metal pages."
I don't agree with that being the scope of this article, but I guess "original industrial musicians" would've have had releases on Industrial Records, or been active in the time frame when Industrial Records was releasing stuff, and anything later could be labelled as "post-industrial".
As it stands, this article has a bunch of material on "pre-industrial" (early influences including one from the 1950s that the article describes as "later retroactively recognized as a precursor to industrial" with no source provided), an equivalent amount of material on "original industrial" and a fairly short section covering anything after 1985 ("post-industrial"). Plantdrew (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2025 (UTC)