deathtokoalas
i'd like to see al jourgenson beat the shit out of fred durst for being a homophobic piece of shit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLCZhQX_Fm0
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
deathtokoalas
this is so blatantly punk music! what's with the metal categorization? after psalm 69, sure. but not this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9FbBy31yDo
Dust Devil
whether its metal or not is debatable ( it is ) but referring to it as punk , well that's just funny as all hell and for the record Burning Inside (pre-Pslam) is mind bending metal...in its era
deathtokoalas
burning inside is basically a sampled ramones riff, slowed down a little and "scooped" in the eq, with a killing joke type drum beat. the chorus actually sounds quite a bit like husker du (or even nirvana).
the lyrics are anti-oppressive, anti-political, pro-anarchist - not satanic or paganist or whatever else. there's no question that it's at least an ideological punk tune, insofar as there was a punk ideology (and there was...) and definitely not connected to the culture of metal.
al & paul were hanging out with jello biafra and skinny puppy around this period, not slayer and metallica.
you can laugh if you want, but it's true. it's punk rock...
(deleted post)
deathtokoalas
what i'm getting at is that the idea of "industrial metal" doesn't really hold up well. just about everything labelled industrial metal before about 92 is totally punk rock in scope, from the nature of the guitar work to the lyrical themes.
the weird thing is that "industrial metal" is almost an oxymoron, whereas "industrial punk" is basically a redundancy. yet, the former is the term that's always used.
i'm going to spin the discussion around a little: how is this metal, when you realize it's 1988? what other metal bands explored similar themes or sounded similarly?
(deleted post)
deathtokoalas
manson was legitimately "metal". godflesh was as well. and i guess they both built their sound up on top of ministry, and neither were thematically at all similar. the thing is that that's a retroactive definition. i mean, you'd might as well call the beatles metal because they wrote helter skelter, but that's blatantly silly.
so, how does the record itself explore the musical or thematic ideas that encapsulate what was called "metal" in the mid to late 80s?
Aroldo Araújo
really hard to classify l.o.r.a.h as metal, save for perhaps deity and the missing. the sheer amount of harsh guitars in the next album, though, may fit the description. I cannot see thieves or burning inside as not being somehow metallic, yet never believe has much of an ebm sound, heavy as it my be. I really don't know. all I can say is it's heavy and very aggressive, much in line with killing joke, only amped up some notches. before psalm, there was basically no guitar solo, but that's only one side to it. I just don't know. I guess ministry is some kind of killing joke outspring that took a lot of meths. that description fits me well enough.
deathtokoalas
but, if your argument is that it's a more aggressive killing joke (i think they also wrote better hooks than killing joke), it follows that it's an outgrowth of punk. post-punk, in some way.
my point is just that i'd like to stop hearing this term "industrial metal", unless it's actually applied correctly. this was a long time ago, now. and people that are looking for industrial/metal hybrids are looking for something very different (and a little later) than people that are looking for the original industrial/punk sound - both in terms of how it sounds, and in terms of what it's articulating.
shag stars
Have you ever heard Thrash metal?
deathtokoalas
unfortunately, yes. but this isn't that, either. after this, ok. but not this...
Fragmenta Official
You're kind of right, but look at Ministry's discography like a journey. Land Of Rape And Honey was definitely a step in the right direction. They got more metal as time went on starting out not metal at all (With Sympathy) to slightly edgier and darker electronic music (Twitch) finally incorporating some heavy guitars on LORAH, making that the core of the sound for The Mind with some more metallic riffs in songs like Thieves which was fully realized on Psalm 69, the most metal influenced album they put out by that point in time, aided by the fact they had Mike Scaccia from Rigor Mortis on guitar. Things get a bit murky from there.
deathtokoalas
well, yeah. i think it's broadly acknowledged that the classic ministry period ends with filth pig. those are the records people really care about.
this is so blatantly punk music! what's with the metal categorization? after psalm 69, sure. but not this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9FbBy31yDo
Dust Devil
whether its metal or not is debatable ( it is ) but referring to it as punk , well that's just funny as all hell and for the record Burning Inside (pre-Pslam) is mind bending metal...in its era
deathtokoalas
burning inside is basically a sampled ramones riff, slowed down a little and "scooped" in the eq, with a killing joke type drum beat. the chorus actually sounds quite a bit like husker du (or even nirvana).
the lyrics are anti-oppressive, anti-political, pro-anarchist - not satanic or paganist or whatever else. there's no question that it's at least an ideological punk tune, insofar as there was a punk ideology (and there was...) and definitely not connected to the culture of metal.
al & paul were hanging out with jello biafra and skinny puppy around this period, not slayer and metallica.
you can laugh if you want, but it's true. it's punk rock...
(deleted post)
deathtokoalas
what i'm getting at is that the idea of "industrial metal" doesn't really hold up well. just about everything labelled industrial metal before about 92 is totally punk rock in scope, from the nature of the guitar work to the lyrical themes.
the weird thing is that "industrial metal" is almost an oxymoron, whereas "industrial punk" is basically a redundancy. yet, the former is the term that's always used.
i'm going to spin the discussion around a little: how is this metal, when you realize it's 1988? what other metal bands explored similar themes or sounded similarly?
(deleted post)
deathtokoalas
manson was legitimately "metal". godflesh was as well. and i guess they both built their sound up on top of ministry, and neither were thematically at all similar. the thing is that that's a retroactive definition. i mean, you'd might as well call the beatles metal because they wrote helter skelter, but that's blatantly silly.
so, how does the record itself explore the musical or thematic ideas that encapsulate what was called "metal" in the mid to late 80s?
Aroldo Araújo
really hard to classify l.o.r.a.h as metal, save for perhaps deity and the missing. the sheer amount of harsh guitars in the next album, though, may fit the description. I cannot see thieves or burning inside as not being somehow metallic, yet never believe has much of an ebm sound, heavy as it my be. I really don't know. all I can say is it's heavy and very aggressive, much in line with killing joke, only amped up some notches. before psalm, there was basically no guitar solo, but that's only one side to it. I just don't know. I guess ministry is some kind of killing joke outspring that took a lot of meths. that description fits me well enough.
deathtokoalas
but, if your argument is that it's a more aggressive killing joke (i think they also wrote better hooks than killing joke), it follows that it's an outgrowth of punk. post-punk, in some way.
my point is just that i'd like to stop hearing this term "industrial metal", unless it's actually applied correctly. this was a long time ago, now. and people that are looking for industrial/metal hybrids are looking for something very different (and a little later) than people that are looking for the original industrial/punk sound - both in terms of how it sounds, and in terms of what it's articulating.
shag stars
Have you ever heard Thrash metal?
deathtokoalas
unfortunately, yes. but this isn't that, either. after this, ok. but not this...
Fragmenta Official
You're kind of right, but look at Ministry's discography like a journey. Land Of Rape And Honey was definitely a step in the right direction. They got more metal as time went on starting out not metal at all (With Sympathy) to slightly edgier and darker electronic music (Twitch) finally incorporating some heavy guitars on LORAH, making that the core of the sound for The Mind with some more metallic riffs in songs like Thieves which was fully realized on Psalm 69, the most metal influenced album they put out by that point in time, aided by the fact they had Mike Scaccia from Rigor Mortis on guitar. Things get a bit murky from there.
deathtokoalas
well, yeah. i think it's broadly acknowledged that the classic ministry period ends with filth pig. those are the records people really care about.
tyler
(deleted posts)
deathtokoalas
tyler, one of the dominant themes in 80s industrial and punk music was comparing the developing american police state to historical fascism. this sometimes took on the form of ironic use of communist propaganda. i'm just skimming the surface of something very deep. it's not about the nazis, exactly, it's about the fascist state that we currently live in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSlMmC513gg
(deleted posts)
deathtokoalas
tyler, one of the dominant themes in 80s industrial and punk music was comparing the developing american police state to historical fascism. this sometimes took on the form of ironic use of communist propaganda. i'm just skimming the surface of something very deep. it's not about the nazis, exactly, it's about the fascist state that we currently live in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSlMmC513gg
deathtokoalas
i really wish plugin developers would focus more on modularity. this goes for soft synths, samplers, effects and everything else. i know, use something like reaktor, right? but, when every developer decides they're going to make the "ultimate synth" or "ultimate sampler", what you actually end up with is a huge array of synths and samplers that can do one or two things really well and are lacklustre at everything else. if there was an easily accessible interface within cubase where i could string filters and generators and specific libraries from different manufacturers together, i could take what i like out of synth x and connect it to what i like out of synth y - allowing me to create my own ultimate synth. and, ultimately that's what all us composers actually want, even if some of us don't have the clarity of thought to realize it. it makes it more like building your own modular system, or even like stringing guitar effects together.
it works with samplers, too. there's been this tendency recently to create these 50 gb libraries full of these ready-made samples. but, composers and arrangers and mixers and producers just don't think like that. the way we think is in terms of separating each track as much as possible. i've been sequencing some string sections recently and realizing that the best samplers are in kontakt, but you can't really separate them well without using 50 gb of ram. see, the flaw is that it's not designed to separate them, you're supposed to pick the ensemble you want out of the box. no real composer is going to want that, as it makes it impossible to isolate the tracks. i could, for example, want some bassy fuzz on the cello, a heavier distortion on the viola and a harmonic exciter on the violin. to do that in the kontakt sample libraries, you need to load the instance as many times as you have instruments - and it defeats the aim of the software. i'd rather see the sample libraries split into instruments. sell me 5 gb of cellos, 5 gb of violins, etc and let me load them as separate instruments with smaller footprints and mix it myself.
i know this is going to require a rethink and a new interface, but i think the developers have to come to the realization that they're using the wrong approach and go back to thinking in terms of modularity. ultimately, they're programmers - they get modularity, they're just ignoring it. perceived market demand for total solutions, or something. it's not actually what we want. what we want is control. these sample libraries - whether they're strings, horns or whatever else - are really largely useless to actually compose with.
OK
I wish everything worked more like Nexus tbh, yes it's simple and yes it's basic but damn that's how they should all work with added features instead of a new UI for everything and also having to have 49234932 different instances taking up 10x more ram that exists in your pc
deathtokoalas
the benefit of modularity is that it allows user control over the level of complexity. the way i would use a modular sampling system would be quite elaborate.
it's not like options don't exist, but they tend to be outdated and not really designed for modern daws - or they require a level of programming to build. when it comes to synthesis, that pre-requisite for programming is necessary. but, if i'm orchestrating something, i want to just do it, not write a program to do it. what they're selling is really the samples.
again, i think it's just a disconnect between what a composer is going to want and what the designers think they want. and i think it's sort of obvious that this standard approach is backwards for almost everybody, upon a moment's reflection. it's useful if you want to write film scores, i guess, but not very useful, otherwise.
i really wish plugin developers would focus more on modularity. this goes for soft synths, samplers, effects and everything else. i know, use something like reaktor, right? but, when every developer decides they're going to make the "ultimate synth" or "ultimate sampler", what you actually end up with is a huge array of synths and samplers that can do one or two things really well and are lacklustre at everything else. if there was an easily accessible interface within cubase where i could string filters and generators and specific libraries from different manufacturers together, i could take what i like out of synth x and connect it to what i like out of synth y - allowing me to create my own ultimate synth. and, ultimately that's what all us composers actually want, even if some of us don't have the clarity of thought to realize it. it makes it more like building your own modular system, or even like stringing guitar effects together.
it works with samplers, too. there's been this tendency recently to create these 50 gb libraries full of these ready-made samples. but, composers and arrangers and mixers and producers just don't think like that. the way we think is in terms of separating each track as much as possible. i've been sequencing some string sections recently and realizing that the best samplers are in kontakt, but you can't really separate them well without using 50 gb of ram. see, the flaw is that it's not designed to separate them, you're supposed to pick the ensemble you want out of the box. no real composer is going to want that, as it makes it impossible to isolate the tracks. i could, for example, want some bassy fuzz on the cello, a heavier distortion on the viola and a harmonic exciter on the violin. to do that in the kontakt sample libraries, you need to load the instance as many times as you have instruments - and it defeats the aim of the software. i'd rather see the sample libraries split into instruments. sell me 5 gb of cellos, 5 gb of violins, etc and let me load them as separate instruments with smaller footprints and mix it myself.
i know this is going to require a rethink and a new interface, but i think the developers have to come to the realization that they're using the wrong approach and go back to thinking in terms of modularity. ultimately, they're programmers - they get modularity, they're just ignoring it. perceived market demand for total solutions, or something. it's not actually what we want. what we want is control. these sample libraries - whether they're strings, horns or whatever else - are really largely useless to actually compose with.
OK
I wish everything worked more like Nexus tbh, yes it's simple and yes it's basic but damn that's how they should all work with added features instead of a new UI for everything and also having to have 49234932 different instances taking up 10x more ram that exists in your pc
deathtokoalas
the benefit of modularity is that it allows user control over the level of complexity. the way i would use a modular sampling system would be quite elaborate.
it's not like options don't exist, but they tend to be outdated and not really designed for modern daws - or they require a level of programming to build. when it comes to synthesis, that pre-requisite for programming is necessary. but, if i'm orchestrating something, i want to just do it, not write a program to do it. what they're selling is really the samples.
again, i think it's just a disconnect between what a composer is going to want and what the designers think they want. and i think it's sort of obvious that this standard approach is backwards for almost everybody, upon a moment's reflection. it's useful if you want to write film scores, i guess, but not very useful, otherwise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)