Hypothesis: metallers can't make industrial, discuss!

[Cauldhame]

Is it that a disproportionate amount of people who think it's OK to make lazy and throwaway noise/PE are from a metal background? That's all I can think of because otherwise I don't think it bears especially close examination. I'm aware you know perfectly well it's a brazen generalization and are provoking debate, but still.

To me, I think it's more that tourists are the problem in general and the fact that the genres are vaguely adjacent perhaps lends itself to a greater amount of dabblers identifiably floating in from the metal world. Anyway, I think it's a bit unfair to make metal in particular the scapegoat of a broader tendency for people to make throwaway, music because they think it's acceptable practice and that their lack of investment will go unnoticed.

Edit:
If you fancy a small challenge, have a listen to the following link and, without consulting Discogs or Metal Archives, tell me if you think this is the work of a metalhead. Not a quality judgement, just an origin judgement. https://cauldhame.bandcamp.com/album/anamnesis

[Theodore]

I'm not sure the hypothesis is true, i mean i dont know. But i get it, for some reasons already mentioned by others. I think the best starting point and approaching attitude to make industrial / noise / experimental music in general would be the square-zero / i dont know a shit / learn through fail regarding the 'technical' and 'musical' aspect. Metallers know the basics i suppose, and most likely will start from there, leaving much less room for experimentation and producing predictable results. Also the fact that they probably have some music / technical knowledge gives them more confidence to start right away, without much listening / 'study' of the genre. Add to that, that they may already have a following audience ready to buy their new 'strange' work even just from curiocity, and you have the perfect recipe for mediocre material -at the best case- .

Conclusion : An industrial / noise fanatic with limited gear and zero musical knowledge who has listened tons of stuff for years will be more critical to his own creations, and if he finally decides his work is worth releasing -i dont mean Bandcamp- , i bet 9/10 of the times will be much much better than X musician's who recently discovered the genre, liked it and thought to give his 2 cents.

[Bloated Slutbag]

I only know Swans and Foetus on that list but will check out the rest. The two I know have nothing to do with metal though, unless heavy guitars is the only criterium.

It is! Heavy guitars and yelling. Whether you attach words like metal this, grind that or something punk, I tend to lump it all together. Edit: remove "tend to". Unfair slash lazy of me, but that's how I roll. But taking that, you wouldn't necessarily need the guitars nor the yelling. Maybe just the general outcome, ie loud sounds. At which point you are fucked. Which is fine by me.

With the exception of Sink Manhattan, which as far as I know only had the one album, the others ranged both right on top of and very far away from guitars 'n yelling™. One thing they'd have in common, aside from shared members in a couple cases, is a briefly shared era of similar-sounding activity. Even if none of them got signed to Earache.

The metallers ruined industrial line has been going hard for more than a couple decades now. Roemer repeated it a few times, though not, I believe, in his Relapse interview.

Perhaps what ruined industrial is the same thing that ruined everything else. Namely, life. Mr Treriksröset blames the internet, which in many ways is largely responsible for breathing life into noise, back when "Japanase noise" had "shot its wad", in the immortal words of RRRon (re- Ne Shi, Banned Production, 1994). Metal coming into industrial and noise largely coincided with the internet coming into lives. And a not insignificant proportion of the heaving mass of metal-and-related lives coming into the tiny pimple-on-donkey's-ass that is industrial.

But if metal can be well defined enough to resist having anything to do with certain bands, I'd argue that the same could not be said for industrial. My working definition of industrial, which I trot out in these sorts of discussions: any non-academic weird-ass music, for a given value of weird-ass. This might be seen as significantly expanding the size and the scope of that aforementioned pimple, but would roll with the given value of weird-ass, which I'm not at liberty to give!

So okay, perhaps metal might be seen as potentially ruining things from a perspective aligning loosely with Mr Keep Industrial Out Of Harsh Noise, but that would all come down to how things are to be defined.

It was always ruined.

[FreakAnimalFinland]

Most of them talked a lot in interviews about how Bathory and Celtic Frost were great and contemporary metal was shit and defined themselves against the death metal trend at the time.

One would have to see what was changing in those times and also see what was behind and the reasoning in the talk. I mentioned about it in other topic, I guess it was "advancement of PE", where I used example of Tesco's infamous "Back To Basics" slogan. I don't think that slogan meant that "lets do retro" or "lets imitate old sound", but the seeing if developments of industrial music has taken pretty dull turns for many years, and taking it couple step back, to approach where anything was possible, anything could be done. Back as revolutionary, artistic, innovative form, or art, not dance club music or shock electro rock, goth keyboards, etc. There is vast difference of bands who would have nostalgia, defend their childhood rock hereos looks & sounds, and simply look at what is happening and deciding to favor something else. In the 90's, you can see some of the most vocal guys who favored spirit that metal was dark and unique, and they rejected that everybody sounded same. Went to same studio, to play same sounding album, of same currently popular style. I don't think it was about rejection of "new", or "different". With same logic, I have criticized for example some of the "heavy electronics". Where it appears as if some of the new bands have same production (due equipment), same ideas, same instruments and therefore very quickly same sounds. My criticism isn't that they are doing something new and different and demanding getting back in the line, but exactly the opposite. I see 90's criticism for bulk death metal being partially same thing. (Although reality was that ton of DM bands were as unique as BM bands of the time.)

More notable,  back in the 90's, anyone who was around, can probably tell bit about the fanaticism what was present at the time. Skins were skins. Punks were punks. Metalheads were metalheads. Very often firmly divided music genres, with specific aesthetics, specific rules and guidelines.  These days, that is not the same, has not been for couple decades, and I don't see ANY noise or PE guys being firmly opposed to alternative ways of doing things. Perhaps I see that some people do define NOISE more to strictly harsh noise. While in the old way of what was PE and what was noise ain't that clear. Who are "noise fans" is so vague and approaching this now from perspective of 90's genre mentality will not give you any real picture what is going on.

[Andrew McIntosh]

More notable,  back in the 90's, anyone who was around, can probably tell bit about the fanaticism what was present at the time. Skins were skins. Punks were punks. Metalheads were metalheads. Very often firmly divided music genres, with specific aesthetics, specific rules and guidelines. 

There was also a lot of crossover between scenes and genres, from the 1980's onward. That was certainly my experience in those decades. Punks, headbangers and skins going to the same gigs (although usually if there were more than a few skins, it'd just turn into a fight). You had all these crossover genres like "punk metal", "folk punk", "punk techno", "noise blues", "metal hip-hop", "industrial metal", all sorts of hybrids being tried over time. It wasn't that there weren't specific scenes with their own specific traits but there was a lot of overlap as well.

But I can't say anything about what Industrial was like in those decades, because I missed all that at that time. There wasn't a lot of it going on where I am during that time anyway, that I'm aware of. "Industrial" invariably meant techno for goths.

[Phenol]

To Goat93: In the BDN topic I mainly reacted to the complete cluelessness about industrial among a good portion of the audience. That line of thought brought me to think about the importance of backgrounds for understanding genres. I have many friends who predominantly listen to metal and most of them have this idea about "music" and "bands" and "composition" as their way of understanding what comes out of the speakers, you know, comments like "what an awesome drummer" or "wow, what a solo". But for someone with a background in industrial/noise/experimental there would be a different expectation and understanding of sound not bound exclusively to that "rockist" approach. I think that must do something to the way people approach the making of music/sound too, like the way they judge whether this sounds "good" or not to their ears, the way they "compose"? I actually appreciate all the bands/artists you mention. I am not anti metal but only like certain types that have very little to do with heavy metal/rock. Nothing alienates me more that a band who puts on a show to entertain their audience. I basically think the rockist mentality is in direct opposition to the spirit of industrial and from that came the admittedly very sharply cut topic idea. And it worked, it provoked some discussion as intended and all your comments and perspectives are appreciated.

To FreakAnimal: a long and inconsistent answer that goes in many directions, haha, so bare with me...Sure, I get that back to ground zero can mean back to a place where things can restart and not sound the same anymore, yet it seems like back to basics often means simply nostalgia. That can be good but also boring, depending on your taste. Like Romain of Vomir said in the WCN interview, if you like it it never sounds the same, but to others it does. I'm like that too and not oblivious to my own inconsistency. I'd take a good Genocide Organ clone over any free jazz virtuoso or whatever who creatred a whole new genre any day, that's just how I'm wired. But really, I think the uniqueness of certain bands who subscribe to the back to bsics idea does not orignate from that idea, but from their charisma/personality or whatever you want to call it shining through - and yes, part of that is having good taste and good ears for what works. I also agree that the fanatism that was prevalent in the 90s is largely gone, and I have mixed feeling about that. There is something appealing about people who bury themselves deep into one thing and invest not only time and money but their entire existence in it. With friends I often rant about current metal/noise/industrial etc. fans being nerds behind computer screens who may listen to dark and transgressive music and have vast collections and knowledge about it but who never let any of it translate into real life. I miss the days when you lived it. But that's just me not fully understanding that what takes place online IS real life for the "kids".

[Phenol]

Is it that a disproportionate amount of people who think it's OK to make lazy and throwaway noise/PE are from a metal background? That's all I can think of because otherwise I don't think it bears especially close examination. I'm aware you know perfectly well it's a brazen generalization and are provoking debate, but still.

To me, I think it's more that tourists are the problem in general and the fact that the genres are vaguely adjacent perhaps lends itself to a greater amount of dabblers identifiably floating in from the metal world. Anyway, I think it's a bit unfair to make metal in particular the scapegoat of a broader tendency for people to make throwaway, music because they think it's acceptable practice and that their lack of investment will go unnoticed.

Edit:
If you fancy a small challenge, have a listen to the following link and, without consulting Discogs or Metal Archives, tell me if you think this is the work of a metalhead. Not a quality judgement, just an origin judgement. https://cauldhame.bandcamp.com/album/anamnesis

My guess is that you have a metal background and made this music which bears no resemblance to metal at all. I'm only happy to be proven wrong. As for tourists, that is always something that happens in youth cultures. People grow up, lose interest, gain other responsibilities etc. Then some of us don't or find ways to live an adult life and still be invested in underground cultures. I think maybe the turnaround is quicker and the investment on a personal level is smaller now than earlier bacause of internet culture. You can't blame metal for that. A point to be made about the throwaway music that you mention is that noise was always meant to be that way to some degree, you know, all the "noise is dumb" slogans and so on. In that way internet culture lends itself quite well to the noise ethos. I don't quite think that same mentality translates to industrial which was very serious (rockist in that way maybe even?) from its early onset. In that way, I can see some overlap with certain parts of the extreme metal scene and can see why people, myself included, listen to both.

[A-Z]

'study' of the genre

the problem is, none of the *genre*-defining artists did any study of the genre
because there was no *genre* to study before said artists created their *genre*-defining works
study of music in general & expanding your horizons, yeah, sure
study of the genre... for what reason?
to fit in with the *genre* snobs?
to create a pastiche of *genre*-defining works from decades ago?
if that's the goal, then yes, study of the genre is a solid starting point
although in that case i'd still study music that inpired the *genre*-defining works instead of the *genre*-defining works themselves
more useful knowing why *genre* sounds the way it does
as opposed to knowing the nuances of how it sounds

[chryptusrecords]

the problem is, none of the *genre*-defining artists did any study of the genre
because there was no *genre* to study before said artists created their *genre*-defining works

Yeah, obviously, because they were creating the genre. But we can't just re-invent the wheel every 15 years. The genres exist NOW, we're working NOW, ignore the history at your own peril.

In my opinion all of these threads about "problems with industrial" hinge around the same fact; the genre doesn't exist in stasis, it exists in time. The invention of "industrial music" occurred at a certain time, we can't simply re-do that invention over and over again, because it already happened. Painters worked in abstract expressionism for a hundred years, composers wrote symphonies and waltzes for even longer.  People in noise need to either ADMIT they're working in a form OR study and try hard to come up with something actually new. One approach isn't inherently better, only the results matter. We don't have the luxury of being ignorant and slamming pedals together to create harsh noise at it's beginning, because they already did that 40 years ago. Either accept formalism or don't!! It makes no difference

edit: the ability to be dedicated to one's weirdo lifestyle is also a luxury that is slipping thru our fingers. hardcore punk comes from the ability for kids to live without jobs. extreme metal in sweden was born in government-funded youth centers where space and instruments were provided. in 21st century of cyber-capital and austerity cycles, these things don't really exist anymore. instead you get some scam "start-up" app that you can rent dj lessons through or whatever.

[Baglady]

Coming from a metal background myself, I get it. And I think it's true for most people who are at home in a more conventional genre of music and are discovering  something that, by their standards, isn't conventional. As a hessian death metal boy, I liked harsh noise as a thing from the start. The thing as a whole, so to speak. But when putting in that tape by The Rita or Paranoid Time or whatever it was I bought first, I was at a loss. I searched for something to cling to in the torrent of loud sound- a rhythm, a structure, anything to hold on to basically. But it wasn't there. I kept buying and listening though, sinking into the textures, the shifts in timbre, the contrast between raw and effected sounds etc. And when I finally got to see a proper harsh noise artist perform (Treriksröset, 2008), something really clicked.
It's a different thing, harsh noise, and in order to properly enjoy it, most people need to adjust their ears and brains. Not saying it takes more brains, just different brains. Same with alot of industrial.
But in my experience... Isn't BDN one of the few "underground" industrial acts any underground metal head knows about and possibly is a fan of? Structures, the occasional rhythm yet still relatively chaotic, cool artwork, nihilistic titles... It sure spoke to me and it was easy to get into. And take an act such as Trepaneringsritualen. Even more appealing to the metal crowd.

In my own noise and borderline industrial work, I'm not sure if people can tell I come from where I do. At least noone has told me so. I am myself reminded of it everytime I record though, as I realize I'm sort of counting  pulses and loops, and try to time certain shifts in texture as if I was playing the incantationesque death .etal I used to play.

Anyway... "Metallers can't make industrial". Well,sure they can, but it will be colored by their background, at least  initially. There are some horribly bad cases of that, especially if they have a label willing to support these "experiments on the side" (the Funeral Mist man's... "thing" being a rather fresh example). But there many good ones as well. A close and for me heavily biased pick would be Arkhe (who's played the bass in death and black metal bands for close to 20 years now). I'm sure his background as a more conventional musician affects his industrial work, but I believe he's aware of that, and knows to work around that "problem" or perhaps have it serve his purpose.

[Theodore]

'study' of the genre

study of the genre... for what reason?
to fit in with the *genre* snobs?
to create a pastiche of *genre*-defining works from decades ago?
if that's the goal, then yes, study of the genre is a solid starting point

By 'study' i just ment listening as much as you can, from the past and the current times. Be interested what has been done and what's happening. This is the only way to judge / evaluate your own material, having criterias, references for comparison. To come to your point, If you dont know what the defining works are, how you know you havent created a pastiche of them ? Most likely bad ! At least if you know, and you decide to imitate, you know if your material stands as good imitation.

My point is that Even if your artistic goal is to create something new, you have to know what has been done already.

I am not against imitations BTW , neither against 'elitism' in noise . - Knowing / analyzing the whys : i think this leads to academic fields, that when presented in practice -sound creations- might be interesting, but when it is with words, blah-blah, fuck, i cant stand reading such stuff.

[A-Z]

This is the only way to judge / evaluate your own material, having criterias, references for comparison.

this is indeed a way, but not the only one and not always the best one
an advice i heard from professional mixing engineers more than once: don't mix to references from the same genre as the track you mix in
mirrored by an advice from professional composers also heard more than once: don't listen to (or rather control how much you listen to) music that is too similar to what you want to write
the point here is that one should try to make "a good mix, period" and "a good arrrangement, period" rather than "a good *genre* mix" or "a good *genre* arrangement"
unless the goal isn't to imitate something as close as possible, which of course could be the case

To come to your point, If you dont know what the defining works are, how you know you havent created a pastiche of them ?

easy, the definig works are usually created by peculiar people and express their peculiar individualities
so unless you are, for instance, Steven Stapleton the odds of you accidentally making a NWW record are pretty much nil
and if you do you and end up with a NWW record that stands on its own, nothing wrong about that

Even if your artistic goal is to create something new, you have to know what has been done already.

sure thing, that's why the goal to imitate (ie make something that sounds like X) and the goal to "make something new" (ie make something that sounds unlike X) can be seen as goals of the same order
in the sense that both goals make your work dependent on X
not saying this is universally bad and having such goals is wrong
come to think of it, depending on X is inevitable in making art, and the real question is the content of X
does it primarily consist of music you intend to make, or of something else?

Knowing / analyzing the whys : i think this leads to academic fields, that when presented in practice -sound creations- might be interesting, but when it is with words, blah-blah, fuck, i cant stand reading such stuff.

i meant a much simpler thing
for instance, the NWW list
imo, NWW sounds the way it does to a significant degree because Steven Stapleton listened to the NWW list and interpreted what he heard in his particular stapletonian way
which resulted in chance meeting on a dissecting table of a sewing machine and an umbrella etc... in the case of NWW this is the why is was talking about
now, one could take the same list, interpret it in one's own particular way and come up with one's own personal version of "chance meeting", not imitating the record, but sharing the influences behind it

[A-Z]

the genre doesn't exist in stasis, it exists in time.

or maybe it's the other way around and when something becomes a genre, it goes into stasis
the borders are set... miss the mark, cross the border and you're out
just checked the thread named The Advancement Of PE/Industrial In 2022
didn't find any concrete and convincing examples of advancement

[FallOfNature]

Is it that a disproportionate amount of people who think it's OK to make lazy and throwaway noise/PE are from a metal background? That's all I can think of because otherwise I don't think it bears especially close examination.
https://cauldhame.bandcamp.com/album/anamnesis

I would agree with this.

I definitely had the crossover of Industrial/Dark Ambient releases in the earlier days of the artists I was releasing... While I always definitely leaned more towards the industrial side of things in terms of intended output - because of the association a LOT of metal guys would try to push their throwaway experiment projects on to me. A common thing I noticed is that when it never gained any traction they didn't continue with it, and in a lot of cases those recordings remain unreleased.

In the case of metal musicians being unable to create genuine industrial/pe/noise/experimental though, can't get my head around that with
Funerary Call/Sistrenatus - began in metal bands
Subklinik/Torturecide etc - extensive and successful history in many genres
Global Genocide Division - newer project of long time Australian metal musician who'd been experimenting with various projects for some time. Current project is the result of constantly polishing skills and sounds and is really good.
RxAxPxE - project began as part of goregrind scene, splits with bands like Intestinal Disgorge. Since carved out a large discography of original sounding PE
Justin Stubbs - in many death/black metal bands. Ran a few small tape labels producing artists like Swallowing Bile. His own projects finding homes on Malignant side label.
Nordvargr? An interesting one. Produced some classics with MZ.412, Folkstorm, and under his own name...but his Black Metal output, average - and that's being kind.
Dunkelheit recently released a project called WOMB11 or something. Very decent dark ambient from ex Black Metal musician.

Just a few off top of my head.

[Theodore]

To A-Z :

- The only other ways to evaluate your material, the only ones i can think of, are not better. 1. Your ears [without knowledge of the genre] : well, for obvious reasons. For example i like the sound hitting a metal barrel, it satisfies me, just as is. Is it enough, worthy to release it ? Note we talk about releasing something, purpose is other people to listen it too. Even if it is intended just for a few friends, you have to know your friends' tastes, isnt it ? 2. Having someone else / a label evaluate it : Again, you come to someone with knowledge, i suppose.

- Everyone is peculiar people with peculiar individualities. Still in every genre there is plenty of the 'same' material. I dont think this is mainly because people want to imitate one another. Just happens cause of the same influences, same gear, same 'rules' followed. Talent -and work- make the difference. And knowledge ! The NWW list you mention is Knowledge !

OK, i am somewhat confused about what we really debating here, heh. But i understand -correct me if i am wrong- that you advocate that ideal is 'noise from people without noise references' in order to be created something new / unique. New style ? New sound ? Nothing new will be created this way. -If there is any possibility for something 'new' to exist- . Many mathematicians could have come with Pythagorean theorem after it was proven. New discoveries came with the theorem as granted, not from scratch.

What i advocate is 'noise from people who forgot music' , as much as possible, i know this cant be done entirely, and doesnt have to. Just to put it as slogan.

Edit : Rereading your post i understand you dismiss the 'make something new' goal . So i assume the goal is to make good, interesting music [?] . Still i dont understand how / why different references than this you intent to make, will help you better than knowledge about what you intent to make. To avoid imitation ? Imitation by accident is more likely to happen than imitation by choice. And it will be of worse quality. The former will imitate / sound like C-Class material. The latter, at least, will try to imitate good stuff. Though, i must admit that in some cases in the weird world of noise a failed imitation of C-Class material may has more charm than a failed imitation of a classic, heh.

Edit 2 : And now i am reminded that in your post 'avoiding imitation' = 'make something new'. Yes, makes sense in a way. So dismissed as reason. So Disregard the italicized lines.