Music evolving through the years

[IsolatedReptile]

Okay, I concede. I thought I was right, and I had seen it, but I am apparently very wrong.

[IsolatedReptile]

I just went researching and the earliest I'm finding that seems even remotely credible is early eighties.

[LadyStardust]

Originally Posted by delicti

It's much like the music industry's recent use of the term "Indie." Indie used to mean a band that was on an independent label - now it means a band of a specific style. Think about this - in five years (or less), you will be meeting people who have never thought of "Indie" as something that came from an independent label. Some of them will even tell you you're wrong if you tell them that formalizing the term "Indie" as a genre was just another attempt by the major labels to kill off independent music.

Wait a minute. You mean "Indie" doesn't actually mean independent anymore? Christ, am I ever out of the loop. When people talk about Indie music, I thought for sure they were just bragging about how many independent, and "non-corporate" or "non-mainstream" bands they knew. Damn.

[delicti]

Originally Posted by LadyStardust

Wait a minute. You mean "Indie" doesn't actually mean independent anymore? Christ, am I ever out of the loop. When people talk about Indie music, I thought for sure they were just bragging about how many independent, and "non-corporate" or "non-mainstream" bands they knew. Damn.

LOL, nope. It's stuff like Franz Ferdinand (on Sony) and Interpol (on Capital). How Indie is that? :-D

[MIRON]

Originally Posted by IsolatedReptile

Maybe this is me reading too much into this as well, but... Alternative Press...

I was actually referring to the music magazine ALTERNATVE PRESS. It's a pretty mainstream periodical nowadays, but in the early 80's it covered the underground music scene.

[delicti]

Originally Posted by IsolatedReptile

Okay, I concede. I thought I was right, and I had seen it, but I am apparently very wrong.

Hey, thanks for keeping the conversation civil - seriously. Too often in subcultures we let our egos get in the way of finding out the truth.

[CIRQUEFREAK91]

Originally Posted by Death_Mask

About how a genre of music can evolve over years. We were talking about Emo, which I believe died in the 90’s but LadyStardust thought music might evolve and change.

I think bands that get branded as Emo like My Chemical Romance, Panic! At the disco, and fall out boy are just pop bands that have nothing to do with the genre. It’s like the whole Marilyn Manson and Goth thing.

i like totally agree with you. MCR was an all right band before they went mainstream and panic and fob are just BLOODY pop bands and just because they kinda look emo people automatically think theyre ''EMO''.

Bands like The Used were also awesome before they went extremely ''MAINSTREAM'', i guess its better for the band but they have to think about where they came from and how they got there. Marilyn Manson is awesome, people see him as a weirdo but i love that. Hes awesome and a really good person.

[ForgetThisLostLenore]

I think music gets kind of watered down once it becomes mainstream. Listen to some of theses bands before they were catering to the tastes of many to sell albums and make money, and they sound completely different.

[Draconysius]

Originally Posted by delicti

There is a rich history of the music industry deliberately obfuscating and otherwise eliminating competing music through unscrupulous methods. Unfortunately, it's still up to those of us still in the underground to set the record straight, since there doesn't seem to be anyone else willing to do it.

In my opinion, we don't NEED to set the record straight. Let the mainstream live in their little dream world while the underground remains a secret society of raw energy and progression. If they're meant to, they'll find the real scene on their own like I did.

[Rosie]

Indie isn't Indie anymore. And I don't just mean the fact that it's been picked up by major record labels - but it's not really any different from the mainstream. You can still be doing things very different from the mainstream and be picked up by a mainstream record company; it just rarely happens.

[LadyLucretia]

Originally Posted by CIRQUEFREAK91

Marilyn Manson is awesome, people see him as a weirdo but i love that. Hes awesome and a really good person.

Yeah, he's a "good person" who has exploited the goth label for profit and created one of the worst fan bases of any band I've ever seen. Feel however you want about his music, but claiming he's some great person when he's knowingly done such harm to the real goth scene is just in poor taste.

[Rosie]

I don't think HE exploited the goth label. He's said before himself that he's not goth. It's the marketing execs that do that.

[LadyStardust]

LadyLucretia, am I interpreting you correctly in thinking that you believe that whether or not someone is a "good person" depends - at least in part - on whether or not they are concerned over the accurate representation of goth culture?

[delicti]

Originally Posted by Draconysius

In my opinion, we don't NEED to set the record straight. Let the mainstream live in their little dream world while the underground remains a secret society of raw energy and progression. If they're meant to, they'll find the real scene on their own like I did.

I wish I could agree with you on that; I really do. I think over time though, I've gotten more cynical about the organic process of music, or at least its ability to survive the contamination that is the record industry.

I am thankful that file sharing has become so wildly popular, but we really missed a bullet on that one; if it happened 5 years later, I don't know if the climate would have been right for the explosion we saw in the deathrock scene.

It's also good to see that the music is finally being passed on (to some extend, even better than when I was young), but the context of our scene is a oral history that is getting harder to reach, and may be slowly dying. We will see - it is thankfully still chaos at the bottom, and chaos is the most creative force imaginable.

LadyStardust -

I think she's speaking more to the deliberate harming and bastardizing of the goth scene that Manson did. His exploitation of the goth scene did damage that we are still overcoming; anybody with basic knowledge of the music industry (as all signs point to him having) would have known that. There is a pitched war between music as art and expression, and music as the opiate of the masses. He put up camp on the side against art.

[LadyStardust]

But did he do so for the reasons we're attributing to him? Perhaps I'm giving the man too much credit, but I think it's distinctly possible that rather than having a cold "Hhhmm, there's money in this. Let's make money" mentality, Manson is openly mocking the culture that's raised him to semi-deity status.

[LadyLucretia]

Originally Posted by LadyStardust

But did he do so for the reasons we're attributing to him? Perhaps I'm giving the man too much credit, but I think it's distinctly possible that rather than having a cold "Hhhmm, there's money in this. Let's make money" mentality, Manson is openly mocking the culture that's raised him to semi-deity status.

If it's all a joke, it's one with no punchline.

As for him calling himself goth - what about these tshirts that were sold to promote his last album: http://www.comparestoreprices.co.uk/...th-t-shirt.jpg

If I remember correctly, he also had a license plate and belt buckle that said "goth" in the music video for his tainted love cover.

And what makes him not a good person is his willingness to be exploitative for profit. It's not so different from televangelists who get rich on money donated to their church.

[delicti]

Originally Posted by LadyStardust

Let's make money" mentality, Manson is openly mocking the culture that's raised him to semi-deity status.

Ah, but we did nothing of the sort! He jumped on us, not the other way around.

If he's mocking us, then it's only rubbing salt in those wounds.

[LadyStardust]

Oh, I didn't mean the goth culture. I was thinking those who would readily attribute him to goth culture, and those prepubescent, angst-ridden would-be goths who so readily worship him. I can all too easily imagine him laughing himselt to tears at these stupid, gullible children.

[LadyStardust]

Originally Posted by LadyLucretia

If I remember correctly, he also had a license plate and belt buckle that said "goth" in the music video for his tainted love cover.

Ah, but it's exactly this kind of behaviour which leads me to believe he is mocking those who are claiming to be goth in order to capitalize on its pop culture popularity.

One of the fundamental characteristics of satire is the exaggeration of the characteristic/person/fault which is being satirized. By being over-the-top, a caricature of goth, it strikes me as even more likely that Manson is a walking satire.

[LadyLucretia]

Originally Posted by LadyStardust

Ah, but it's exactly this kind of behaviour which leads me to believe he is mocking those who are claiming to be goth in order to capitalize on its pop culture popularity.

One of the fundamental characteristics of satire is the exaggeration of the characteristic/person/fault which is being satirized. By being over-the-top, a caricature of goth, it strikes me as even more likely that Manson is a walking satire.

Even acts that pretty clearly don't expect to be taken seriously still are. Manson may well be chuckling to himself in his mansion, but it doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of his fans believe whatever he says and don't get the joke, if there is one. He has also said disparaging things about Peter Murphy, basically saying that because he (MM) is richer, he is better. I don't think he'd say those things if he gave a shit about the goth culture.

[LadyStardust]

I'm still not convinced that we should hold Manson responsible for what his fans do. I do realize that there is a huge debate over the ethical responsibilities of the media - hell, there are university courses on the subject. I also believe, however, that the issue is far from black and white. I do not believe that just because they have microphones shoved in their face that celebrities are automatically obliged to be complete saints, pondering for hours on the possible ramifications of each syllable they utter.

As an example, if Manson IS being satirical - which, let me reiterate, is only a theory - it isn't his fault if people don't get it. It's not his job to idiot-proof his music, videos, etc.

As an alternative example, I recently read an article discussing David Bowie's song China Girl. The author criticised Bowie, saying that by not being clearer in the fact that he was satirising racial stereotyping, he is only perpetuating the problem. He should have been more blunt about it, apparently. What?

As has been mentioned in the literature board many times, few things ruin a poetic piece (and songs are, first and foremost, poems) more thoroughly than being overly blunt and literal. Metaphors, similes, euphemisms, allusions, etc. abound in poetry. A stag is the symbol of a king, a woman wearing a crimson dress symbolises the seductive nature of death . . . whatever. Blaming the artist for not making clear enough what he is trying to say is blaming him for being an artist. It just doesn't make sense to me.

[LadyLucretia]

Originally Posted by LadyStardust

Blaming the artist for not making clear enough what he is trying to say is blaming him for being an artist. It just doesn't make sense to me.

We could argue in circles for days about whether Manson is a satirist or just a shitty shock metal singer. It doesn't change the fact that he shit talked Peter Murphy and therefore sucks at least a little.

[LadyStardust]

Originally Posted by LadyLucretia

We could argue in circles for days about whether Manson is a satirist or just a shitty shock metal singer. It doesn't change the fact that he shit talked Peter Murphy and therefore sucks at least a little.

1. But I like arguing in circles. Debating for its own sake - and not necessarily trying to change anyone's point of view - is a great way to keep the mental faculties sharp.

2. Agreed. Peter Murphy is not one to be bad-mouthed. Twenty suckage points, guaranteed.

[LadyStardust]

And one other question (though not the last, I'm sure): Was the term 'shock metal' used as extensively pre-Manson? I must admit, I'd never heard the term at all until Manson came along.

[delicti]

Originally Posted by LadyStardust

I'm still not convinced that we should hold Manson responsible for what his fans do.

Of course we shouldn't explicitly, but to the charge of promoting himself as Goth to a gullible media, I think he bears some responsibility.

Not to mention that his shock rock tactics ushered in huge waves of harassment and harm to actual goths. Whether he had control over the harassers at the time it was happening or not is irrelevant. He tried as hard as he could to make himself loathed by mainstream America, and tagged himself with the word Goth. I think the inevitable backlash was not only easily predictable, but also something he was trying to generate. So yes, he does have some responsibility somewhere.

I would argue against it being satire, because if it were so, then at least some people would get the joke. Even Andy Kaufmann, with his bizarre humor styling, did satire correctly. If Manson's image is satire, it is perhaps the worst attempt at it in entertainment history.