Gatekeepers act as if they still matter

[Theodore]

I've seen couple of vague comments in certain finnish internet forum concerning gatekeeping problem within noise scene.

Fins complaining about gatekeeping ?! That's hilarious ! I was listening the 2nd Kylmakovamaa tape yesterday -top stuff !- and i was thinking what an endless source is Finland for noise. And i think, a big reason that is an endless source is that 'established' native labels / artists / heads support and promote native people / projects more than anything else and more than anywhere else. Seriously, i believe that especialy a Finn who is complaining he cant make an 'entry' , he 100% just hasnt good enough material, and instead of thanking those who rejected him and advice him to try harder, or at least say a 'Fuck off, dont need you anyway, i ll go by myself, and prove you wrong' , he just cries around in the internet about gatekeeping.

PS: Yvette, S&W are well known Beyonce fanboys !

Edit: Just saw Commander15's clarification post. So, people who have nothing to do with noise suppose there is gatekeeping in noise. Very typical of their such. To dont know, to just suppose / guess, and to want to change the thing that's not 'theirs' and they dont even know, based on their suppositions.

[Commander15]

I've seen couple of vague comments in certain finnish internet forum concerning gatekeeping problem within noise scene.

Fins complaining about gatekeeping ?! That's hilarious ! I was listening the 2nd Kylmakovamaa tape yesterday -top stuff !- and i was thinking what an endless source is Finland for noise. And i think, a big reason that is an endless source is that 'established' native labels / artists / heads support and promote native people / projects more than anything else and more than anywhere else. Seriously, i believe that especialy a Finn who is complaining he cant make an 'entry' , he 100% just hasnt good enough material, and instead of thanking those who rejected him and advice him to try harder, or at least say a 'Fuck off, dont need you anyway, i ll go by myself, and prove you wrong' , he just cries around in the internet about gatekeeping.

PS: Yvette, S&W are well known Beyonce fanboys !

Well put and i agree completely!

[Phenol]

At the one hand you have labels as gatekeepers and on the other you have reviewers/media. I think both play positive parts.

For labels: Labels in our little underground culture usually have a certain profile and release stuff that fit into that. If you send your stuff to a label expecting them to invest in your release, you should pick one that's a good match for you. There can be many reasons for a label to say no. Your music can be substandard or not developed enough for an actual release, in which case a label should just tell you to work on it more and improve. It could be that their finances are bound to other projects. Some don't like being approached and prefer to seek out artists on their own. Maybe they don't see how your release would fit in with the rest of their catalogue. Or a number of other more or less personal or arbitary reasons can factor in. At the end of the day, it's up to a label to decide what they release. For me personally, I think the profile and taste of particular labels work as stamps of quality. If a certain label has invested in a project, I know it will be good and worth my time and money. That's gatekeeping for sure, but it's ensuring consistent quality. I'm personally fed up with online only "releases" of no quality or consequense. People uploading last night's improvised session of feedback loops to bandcamp is simply spam in my opinion. So basically, gatekeeping via labels ensure that I don't have waste my time on crap like that.

For reviewers/media: There are very few outlets that deal with the noise/industrial underground. Very few real magazines out there + some blogs. I think a lot of people (myself included) review a mix of releases that they have received from contacts/friends within the scene and releases they have bought. Same with gigs. I have in fact never written a review of a gig where I dind't pay for my ticket. The scene is so small that reviews happen largely on a voluntary and non-profit basis. Is it really gatekeeping that reviewers choose to write about releases that have caught their attention for one reason or another? Also, even if you disagree with a certain reviewer's opinion, isn't it preferable that someone cares that this and that has been released or that this gig is happening and feel like sharing their opinion about it afterwards rather than everything being passed in silence?

As for bad reviews, well, that's just the risk you run when you choose to share your music with others as a release or live in front of an audience. In my opinion not everything should be released, and not everyone deserves to be recognized as a recording/performing artist. By all means, make your noise or whatever at home as a hobby, that's fine, but why should others care? It sometimes seems like people feel entitled to be recognized, but no one really is. So stop whining and improve instead, then maybe one day if you're good enough, you'll get that recognition.

So yeah, I say keep the gatekeepers, they still have their place as they highlight what's worth your attention in the constant flood of self-releases and events where most of them are just a waste of time.

[host body]

I listen to noise almost exclusively curated to me by gatekeepers i trust: a bunch of labels that have a history of releasing stuff i like. Anyone can make noise, put it up on bandcamp and consider themselves of the same level as worth or anyone else i guess, but labels serve a really important role in sifting thru all the shit and putting time and effort to make a release look and sound as good as possible. Gatekeepers, meaning labels are a good thing. As are reviewers, i really enjoy reading well thought out reviews that maybe have insights that deepen my understanding of a release.

[FreakAnimalFinland]

In new JEPH JERMAN book there is great stuff in many ways, but there is also curious remark about role of tape in music culture.
Common idea has been, that c-cassette democratized the music creation. Before that, the true gatekeeper - old style record labels - dictated what was released. Studios were expensive and hard to get into. Suddenly tape came, and everybody could do it. By themselves.

Author of the book brings different view, which is absolutely great. He argues that what tape really did, was freeing us of democracy!

In short, he says that no longer we had to please masses.

Indeed, it may be easy to see that old style record labels would do anything what had market. Anything with mass appeal. It was not really labels who dictated what should be released, but the democratic voice. so to say. The mass appeal, the market. Finally with tapes, you didn't need approval. Didn't need "support". You could do what you wanted, regardless of opinions of the others. Especially opinions of larger public.

Still now, we are luckily free of democracy. In noise scene. I suppose I did say what I have to say about gatekeepers earlier in this thread. For me it seems most guys who are blamed gatekeepers are way way way less about preventing anyone doing something and more about waving in front of the gate welcoming signal. If you don't like the type of thing happening behind that gate, I'm sure there is another person waving in folks who prefer to hang out in different crowd.

[cantle]

I listen to noise almost exclusively curated to me by gatekeepers i trust

that is key to me too- I don't have the time to sift through bandcamp and whatever myself, much as I'd like...

[Phenol]

Tangentially on Mikko's post + a few extra thoughts...There was a Frank Zappa interview where he said that things were better when label bosses were just old farts with cigars who din't have a clue about music. they were simply money guys. According to him, things turned shit when the young and hip took over and curated everything, in consequence making real experimental music much more rare because these new people "knew" what was "good" (=had a market) and what was not. In the reality of today, I have been thinking that the easy acces to recording equipment and so on means that everything is basically ready for release when a label receives it. Labels know exactly what they get and have a chance to reject things they don't believe there's a market for making them (perhaps) take fewer chances. Back in the day, the result from some newly signed band wasn't certain until after the studio time had been paid for. I think that meant that what was recorded was released anyway since the money had already been spent, even if the label felt that the result was a bit of a letdown or not exactly what was hoped for. It also feels like artists in the past grew and learned more on the job, so to speak, whereas now people don't really get released until they've matured enough as artists to deliver something that has a market, however niche that market might be. Labels seem to gamble less, even in the deep underground, probably because the media itself is now the expensive part. Even cassettes are getting unreasonably expensive. All in all, it might be a fair point to make that more democracy in terms of music production does not necessarily lead to more creativity or more daring releases, it might actually be that the opposite is true.

[Thermophile]

I'm personally fed up with online only "releases" of no quality or consequense. People uploading last night's improvised session of feedback loops to bandcamp is simply spam in my opinion. So basically, gatekeeping via labels ensure that I don't have waste my time on crap like that.

Principle of least effort :))

I agree, the world of digital releases is total chaos and a mess as there is no practical way for a listener to discern what is what in terms of quality if one has the daunting task of searching through an entire landfill. A question I have is how gatekeepers today keep up with the daunting task of doing the filtering process when confronted with the sheer volume of output due to democratisation of the means of creation. Someone in the comments mentioned that some labels/reviewers don't accept material but prefer to do themselves the selection process. So where do they look at? Does that mean they face the same demoralising prospect of filtering thousands of half baked digital releases as the causal listener on Bandcamp would do.

[host body]

I'm personally fed up with online only "releases" of no quality or consequense. People uploading last night's improvised session of feedback loops to bandcamp is simply spam in my opinion. So basically, gatekeeping via labels ensure that I don't have waste my time on crap like that.

Principle of least effort :))

I agree, the world of digital releases is total chaos and a mess as there is no practical way for a listener to discern what is what in terms of quality if one has the daunting task of searching through an entire landfill. A question I have is how gatekeepers today keep up with the daunting task of doing the filtering process when confronted with the sheer volume of output due to democratisation of the means of creation. Someone in the comments mentioned that some labels/reviewers don't accept material but prefer to do themselves the selection process. So where do they look at? Does that mean they face the same demoralising prospect of filtering thousands of half baked digital releases as the causal listener on Bandcamp would do.

Doubt it. I mean when you're deep into a scene you get to know enough active people to hear from potentially good projects from friends and acquaintances . But yeah there could be a brilliant harsh noise project somewhere in the Bandcamp landfill that we'll never hear.

This talk of gatekeepers within the context of a scene as miniscule as noise is just selfish. Selfish people who think that because they have to work with other people to get their stuff out to be heard they're being put down of kept from expressing themselves. It's all just another example of modern day social media mentality: only thing that matters in anything is me and my experience.

[FreakAnimalFinland]

To put context into what Commander15 was talking about concerning "gatekeeping" in finland, the recent case was polemic of certain antifascists being concerned that artists who have released material on FA, even as form of mere compilation track, should maybe not be allowed to play in antifascist venue. For being dirty fascist collaborators.  There was theory explained, that true antifascist can not join for example Terässinfonia compilation series, and therefore FA as gatekeeper pushes them into side, not to be recognized as part of Finnish noise history and by doing that normalizes fascism (and sexism) as known qualities of Finnish noise.

It is funny notion, as most people who are really into noise, know that I have zero problems supporting and publishing antifascist noise if they meet the quality standards label has. Many such artists have had no problem working in terms that feels acceptable to all parties involved. However, there is now the new breed guys who feel entitled to attempt to make guidelines how scene is allowed to work. Peer pressure in parts of the scene is probably just about same as it is in some other countries? Guys hunting down dirty links, who worked with who, what year, who should issue apology or casted out to not be enough.. something. Pretending to "raise discussion", while tactics are tagging venues day before questioning why someone is allowed to play etc.  Talk about gatekeeping, haha....

It should be obvious, noise has space for anyone. It is not homogenous single minded community. Nobody is forced to work with eachother, but in all honesty, if idea of gatekeeping is throw into discussion, it would be good to acknowledge who are the gatekeepers who want to prevent, suppress, silence and sabotage opportunities and make it difficult and unpredictable for even guys who are pretty much on the same side. And who are the ones aiming to advance, popularize, enable and help all things good noise. I don't think this topic needs much more attention and there is lots of good artists in difficult position who should not get further shit thrown at them. Trying to balance with openminded tradition of noise scene and finding themselves pulled into games of... lets say less open minded contemporary circles.

[host body]

It was inevitable that current identity politics enter the noise scene as they have every other music scene. I'm actually surprised noise seemed to be a free-for-all playing field for so long. But I guess in the end everything is political, even noise and who you choose to collaborate, play or do business with. Especially if a person is actively involved in fringe politics, rather than just releasing artists who have controversial political opnions and perhaps having personal opinions on the matter. I'm personally really fed up with right wingers and anarchist activists bringing their political strife to music and gigs. I wish noise could just concentrate on itself rather than these tiresome social games.

And while I greatly appreciate your work as an artist and running a label, I do think you cast such a large shadow on the finnish scene and people's perception of noise as a whole that it distracts people from the actual content and intent of artists who have nothing to do with you or FA, which is a shame and not really fair. Not to mention the artists who have worked with you recently. If working with someone gets you pigeonholed into something you don't agree with and puts in you the middle of an argument you have no interest in being a part of, is it really worth it?

[FreakAnimalFinland]

And while I greatly appreciate your work as an artist and running a label, I do think you cast such a large shadow on the finnish scene and people's perception of noise as a whole that it distracts people from the actual content and intent of artists who have nothing to do with you or FA, which is a shame and not really fair. Not to mention the artists who have worked with you recently. If working with someone gets you pigeonholed into something you don't agree with and puts in you the middle of an argument you have no interest in being a part of, is it really worth it?

This is mostly the question, that being dragged in middle of argument gets tiresome for people who have nothing to do it with. This is exactly the point I was making. One can look who are the ones who keep building noise and supporting it in all shapes and forms. And who are the ones making mess and bullying people until they run out of steam and think it ain't worth it.

FA has been pushing new good Finn noise since mid 90's, keeps doing it now. Some artists are vile, many artists are not. Why many people put so much emphasis on the shadow side is probably question they should ask themselves. It is like people who insists on noise being vulgar - while those who are actually into that stuff almost can't find it. It is so marginal in contemporary noise and visible almost nowhere - except is you really do the legwork and go to find it. Especially the older generation of Finn noise has stepped aside and left so much space that it would be weird to put blame on them.
For me personally, it may be old school attitude, but I stand for noise in its all incarnations and believe it can work together and keep morphing into new interesting things. Some mess has to be tolerated as it is unavoidable in human interaction, but intentionally advocating such thing seems foolish.

[Goat93]

It was inevitable that current identity politics enter the noise scene as they have every other music scene. I'm actually surprised noise seemed to be a free-for-all playing field for so long. But I guess in the end everything is political, even noise and who you choose to collaborate, play or do business with. Especially if a person is actively involved in fringe politics, rather than just releasing artists who have controversial political opnions and perhaps having personal opinions on the matter. I'm personally really fed up with right wingers and anarchist activists bringing their political strife to music and gigs. I wish noise could just concentrate on itself rather than these tiresome social games.

it may be tiresome after so long, but to be fair its also the best working effect to get people into the noise scene. just noise doesn't work too well and the mathematic/technical/art side doesn't get also much people into the scene. Depend whats better, nearly no listeners or a lot of stupid attitudes from idiotic listeners

[Commander15]

It was inevitable that current identity politics enter the noise scene as they have every other music scene. I'm actually surprised noise seemed to be a free-for-all playing field for so long. But I guess in the end everything is political, even noise and who you choose to collaborate, play or do business with. Especially if a person is actively involved in fringe politics, rather than just releasing artists who have controversial political opnions and perhaps having personal opinions on the matter. I'm personally really fed up with right wingers and anarchist activists bringing their political strife to music and gigs. I wish noise could just concentrate on itself rather than these tiresome social games.

it may be tiresome after so long, but to be fair its also the best working effect to get people into the noise scene. just noise doesn't work too well and the mathematic/technical/art side doesn't get also much people into the scene. Depend whats better, nearly no listeners or a lot of stupid attitudes from idiotic listeners

I would argue that the idpol crowd will inevitably bring their own, inherited operating models to the scene. In case of i.e finnish HC punk scene, those would mean forcing microlevel rock business hierarchies into noise, rigorious persecution of percieved "harmdoers", dependancy on city-funded venues or standard, bland rock clubs and degeneration of traditional distros, trading and overall communication etc.

[Goat93]

It was inevitable that current identity politics enter the noise scene as they have every other music scene. I'm actually surprised noise seemed to be a free-for-all playing field for so long. But I guess in the end everything is political, even noise and who you choose to collaborate, play or do business with. Especially if a person is actively involved in fringe politics, rather than just releasing artists who have controversial political opnions and perhaps having personal opinions on the matter. I'm personally really fed up with right wingers and anarchist activists bringing their political strife to music and gigs. I wish noise could just concentrate on itself rather than these tiresome social games.

it may be tiresome after so long, but to be fair its also the best working effect to get people into the noise scene. just noise doesn't work too well and the mathematic/technical/art side doesn't get also much people into the scene. Depend whats better, nearly no listeners or a lot of stupid attitudes from idiotic listeners

I would argue that the idpol crowd will inevitably bring their own, inherited operating models to the scene. In case of i.e finnish HC punk scene, those would mean forcing microlevel rock business hierarchies into noise, rigorious persecution of percieved "harmdoers", dependancy on city-funded venues or standard, bland rock clubs and degeneration of traditional distros, trading and overall communication etc.

This brings the "Gatekeepers" into play, cause they exist only in this Microlevel Scenes and it won't get new Blood into the scene. There are already a lot of Microscenes dying all along and nobody cares