Good records released by total dickheads - to buy or not to buy?

[david lloyd jones]

Records flirting with pedophilia and child pornography - no matter what hidden so called 'social commentary' they make (ain't that just a panic excuse when police knock your door?) - is a no-go for me (as being a father of a little girl). I don't buy any of those records - I'd rather put my money somewhere else.

I think most of the panic tends to come from parents who misinterpret or worry a lot about what exactly the content might mean when approaching a record that deals with pedophilia, child pornography, and child abuse. I've seen similar comments on other forums, and mostly it seems like the distinction between a piece of art that's dealing with something controversial and unpleasant and an actual piece of illegal material is a hard line for some to draw. A lot of folks don't want something that even discusses those subject in their house, which is fine, but seems like more of a personal moral preference than avoiding undue police attention.

After all, there is a huge difference between a record and an actual piece of child pornography. One has no real legal repercussions, while the latter obviously does. Personally, I doubt strongly that anyone releasing music dealing with pedophilia or child pornography wants any kind of police attention, and logically, they're not just showing off their illegal collections and making some kind of excuse of a "statement" like you're implying.

But, I'll also say that if you think the police should be knocking on someone's door just for the vaguely sinister artwork of a record, the issue is your definition of what constitutes child porn. And you have a rather wide definition of that, which could be potentially tricky. I have tons of books and films explicitly dealing with medical, sexual, and psychological topics which could fall under your definition, if you're actually thinking that any records dealing with these things are just a front for "when the police knock on your door."

It's fine that you want to take the worst possible interpretation of music that discusses this subject matter, but I think those type of intent readings are basically just short of hysterical. I understand that you are a parent, I'm sure that's difficult, but I doubt owning a Brighter Death Now record would get you in any trouble aside from with your own guilty conscience. I know a couple whom are wonderful parents, yet the mom lent me a copy of Lolita once, should those folks have suspicion cast on them?

speaking to friends and colleagues over the years, I think it is that parenthood is just a game changer that has little to do with morals but is largely biological.

[Marko-V]

Records flirting with pedophilia and child pornography - no matter what hidden so called 'social commentary' they make (ain't that just a panic excuse when police knock your door?) - is a no-go for me (as being a father of a little girl). I don't buy any of those records - I'd rather put my money somewhere else.

I think most of the panic tends to come from parents who misinterpret or worry a lot about what exactly the content might mean when approaching a record that deals with pedophilia, child pornography, and child abuse. I've seen similar comments on other forums, and mostly it seems like the distinction between a piece of art that's dealing with something controversial and unpleasant and an actual piece of illegal material is a hard line for some to draw. A lot of folks don't want something that even discusses those subject in their house, which is fine, but seems like more of a personal moral preference than avoiding undue police attention.

After all, there is a huge difference between a record and an actual piece of child pornography. One has no real legal repercussions, while the latter obviously does. Personally, I doubt strongly that anyone releasing music dealing with pedophilia or child pornography wants any kind of police attention, and logically, they're not just showing off their illegal collections and making some kind of excuse of a "statement" like you're implying.

But, I'll also say that if you think the police should be knocking on someone's door just for the vaguely sinister artwork of a record, the issue is your definition of what constitutes child porn. And you have a rather wide definition of that, which could be potentially tricky. I have tons of books and films explicitly dealing with medical, sexual, and psychological topics which could fall under your definition, if you're actually thinking that any records dealing with these things are just a front for "when the police knock on your door."

It's fine that you want to take the worst possible interpretation of music that discusses this subject matter, but I think those type of intent readings are basically just short of hysterical. I understand that you are a parent, I'm sure that's difficult, but I doubt owning a Brighter Death Now record would get you in any trouble aside from with your own guilty conscience. I know a couple whom are wonderful parents, yet the mom lent me a copy of Lolita once, should those folks have suspicion cast on them?

There's a long way from panic to just being quietly opposed and making personal choices. Believe me, if I was jumping on a hysteria train, my postings would be way out different. One negligent side note seemed to lit fire. I never meant to imply that every single article hinting to pedo is automatically kiddy porn, illegal and should be inspected by authorities. It's hard to express myself in broken english but I'll give it a try. I have a gut feeling that many releases dealing with subject matter are poorly executed commentary or, even worse, just lazy uninspired shock tactics without any real idea behind it. Just like making a record cover the easy way and putting on some blood/shit/S&M/holocaust or whatever cliche imaginary without any real thought behind it, only because it has become a sort of genre standard. If I miss some extraordinary musical masterpiece by dismissing it because of subject matter... what the hell - I can live with it.
But like I stated loud and clear before... I repeat it once again: I am not getting mental over it or start preaching about it, every grown-up person should use their own heads in thinking what to support and what not. Everybody draws a line somewhere and that's where I draw it, even in danger of being labeled as 'genre denying hysteric daddy-o' by some people singing the gospel of 'everything goes'.

[Peterson]

I think I got what you mean, and to some extent, I definitely agree - I wouldn't purchase anything dealing with that kind of strong subject matter or imagery just because whomever was behind the project felt like that was the best way to shock and piss folks off. Even if they are in some way quite a reprehensible human being, I'd rather have difficult subjects approached from a real-world perspective, whether it's a pro or con judgement on the subject at hand.

There's plenty of hollow and pointless grindcore, harsh noise, and other bullshit out there that seeks only to provoke - I guess you can say that's one more criteria I have for not buying shit! There has to be a goal beyond upsetting folks.

[NO PART OF IT]

Any label or artist publishing controversial material or giving bold statements should at least be prepared that there could be stores which don't take your record for sale, bars which don't give you a chance to play, anonymous hatemail or people who refuse to buy your records for a reason or two. There is no reason to cry over some other crybaby disliking over your aesthetics, that is the price to be paid. Any label/artist can still release whatever they feel like... I mean, we are not living a Nazi Germany, right?

Yes, a label will have to be prepared for that.  A store has a right not to sell material they don't want to sell.  That said, I dislike censorship almost as much as I dislike proselytizing.  Call-to-action lyrics take away from the idea that an artist is simply looking at things from whatever perspective they choose, and asking questions.  Art itself should be a "safe space" or a "menstrual shed", as it were, and be looked at in as objective a way as possible.  People shouldn't need a "safe space" from art, they should acknowledge that art is that "safe space" for others. 

If someone does not look at Marquis de Sade objectively, that is their problem.   The role an artist plays and what an artist does in general, should not be a matter of scrutiny.  Art needs to be totally free.  If someone wants to work out their childhood traumas by portraying themselves or others as a "dickhead", then I would prefer that they do that instead of shooting up a school or raping someone, or what have you. 

That a number of these anarcho anti-racist people are getting black metal shows cancelled and such, when they don't have the where-with-all to go after people who are actually persecuting others because of their race, just strikes me as cowardly and misguided.  I find it infinitely frustrating that so-called "humanitarians" completely miss the point on matters like these.  I don't think I am a "crybaby" because I think these people that are protesting the dorky neofolk crowd etc. are largely morons. 

That said, I think Sotos is a great writer (and a very nice guy in person), just by mechanics and application alone, but the idea that raping children is some sort of "will to power" is what basically comes across to me from the few things I have read.  And of course, I think it's ridiculous.  But I will support his right to write about things.  I have never brought this up to him in person (we usually talk about music/argue about formats), but I did read somewhere (before it was taken down), that he writes about these things to quell the urge to commit pedophilia, and I would prefer that he writes about these things instead of doing them.  Call me square, but if the guy gets off by watching a film of Jamie Gillis talking a woman into going into an alley and pooping for as little amount of money as possible, that is fine with me.   Of course, I think it shouldn't be around for children to read/see.  The subconscious works in mysterious ways.   

[Peterson]

Your paragraph regarding Sotos' work should have been around for a lot of silly arguments that occurred elsewhere, I think. Nailed it. Another angle on that is that so much writing looks at antisocial psychology from outside, and not from within. His work does so from within and with a relevance to his own, real life that DeSade or others like him just didn't have as writers. Honesty is something you are allowed to exhibit, and all the better when you are being honest about something that is not at all nice. I would like to experience more of this from a wider range of authors dealing with more subjects than just Sotos and his specific focus, but until then, it's narrowed to Sotos' treatment of his chosen material.  A pen-pal of mine described it as honest writing that comes through his psychological makeup but isn't allowed the process where the brain filters itself; really terrible pun not intended, his writing is more "pure" than, say, when someone else writes about a Gillis video for other reasons.

I think the bad reactions to his work and similar stuff are to be expected, and people like me don't have as much clout in whining about misunderstandings as we generally have the tendency to do, haha.

[NO PART OF IT]

Your paragraph regarding Sotos' work should have been around for a lot of silly arguments that occurred elsewhere, I think. Nailed it. Another angle on that is that so much writing looks at antisocial psychology from outside, and not from within. His work does so from within and with a relevance to his own, real life that DeSade or others like him just didn't have as writers. Honesty is something you are allowed to exhibit, and all the better when you are being honest about something that is not at all nice. I would like to experience more of this from a wider range of authors dealing with more subjects than just Sotos and his specific focus, but until then, it's narrowed to Sotos' treatment of his chosen material.  A pen-pal of mine described it as honest writing that comes through his psychological makeup but isn't allowed the process where the brain filters itself; really terrible pun not intended, his writing is more "pure" than, say, when someone else writes about a Gillis video for other reasons.

I think the bad reactions to his work and similar stuff are to be expected, and people like me don't have as much clout in whining about misunderstandings as we generally have the tendency to do, haha.

From a psychological perspective, every trait should be examined and scrutinized in as objective a way as possible.  That said, the leftist/ activist kind tend to be the type of passive-aggressive personalities that are referred to as "lost children" with regard to growing up in a dysfunctional family; rejecting authority, not taking responsibility, running away, blaming everyone else for their problems, etc.  That is sort of mirrored in the type of person who needs to take the place of the father at a young age.  Interestingly, a family that is too open is just as dysfunctional as a family that is too closed off and conservative, and results are similar in the sense that children who received "too much attention" are often having the same sort of sexual and communication (knowns VS. unknowns to the subconscious) problems as those who were neglected.  In short, I have found that the sadists are cut from the same cloth as the masochists, and all of us sort of fit somewhere in that spectrum, some more than others.  With that in mind, I have found it necessary to accept all of it in a more empathetic but detached manner, rather than creating enemies and trying to abolish them without understanding them.   And to me it seems that the racists and the anti-racists are fighting each other, when in slightly different circumstances, they would find each other to be remarkably good in bed.  That this kind of idealism about race and sex is still happening, among other things, just absolutely baffles me.  It's like we are still in the Stone Age.   

[FreakAnimalFinland]

Any label or artist publishing controversial material or giving bold statements should at least be prepared that there could be stores which don't take your record for sale, bars which don't give you a chance to play, anonymous hatemail or people who refuse to buy your records for a reason or two. There is no reason to cry over some other crybaby disliking over your aesthetics, that is the price to be paid. Any label/artist can still release whatever they feel like...

This is true. It doesn't really differ from normal situation. People don't buy all records nor shops take all the stuff nor bars have time for all bands who ask. I doubt this has never been big issue in underground until last couple of years maybe? I mean, whole idea of being somehow entitled to "play in bar". Black Metal? Noise? Punk? Or that some oneline market has to accept you in, as everybody else is accepted? I think the material what covers the shadow side of culture, can be in shadow. That's what underground network enables. You start own distribution, label, forum, magazine, shop, venue,... whatever. That is what is done so one can do things according to own vision.


But there are also things what can be observed and commented. For example, people who loudly talk about uninspiring or utterly unacceptable content what goes beyond freedom of speech they advocate, can be utterly groundless. In reality, they aren't willing to listen, think nor to engage into dialogue. Not with material or the people. It's far more easier to file things under "lazy" or "unacceptable", as it demands nothing but the simplest gut reaction.

As example, still in recent history, Con-Dom gig getting cancelled over mid 80's tape cover with swastika. I mean, of course, you don't have to like it. You can say that I've heard this flanger vocals over noise wall so many times, and it's "getting old". But nevertheless, it's most of all guys acting exactly as pavlov's dogs. It's one of the processes what Con-Dom, as well as many other industrial acts, have hoped to deprogram. To see yet another failed case where once again dogs are barking in the most expected ways, under the very same triggers, it of course may result at least two conclusions.

1) Perhaps deprogramming ain't done very well or fails to show people how this reaction was expected? 2) Or perhaps we accept the pavlov's dog response as legit conclusion just like any other reaction? While actually it should be criticized and sometimes even ridiculed. As it may not be the lazy "outrage" what release is intended to cause.

Just like some guys holocaust erotica may not be entitled to be in mainstream music networks, overtly sensitive poodles may not be entitled to cry about every little thing. Both can be addressed and criticized. Even when it's clear they appear to have no intellectual capacity to handle the situation.


As a side note, finally, after many many years of intending, actually started to read England's Hidden Reverse book. Revised new edition, I think, has new foreword. It is curious how Keenan goes in length about acceptance of nightside of culture. Also goes in length defending Bennett etc. All these Misunderstood great artists he likes, associates and feels people treat so wrong with foolish accusations. People who just don't understand it. Hmm... isn't this the same guy who....  well, nuf' said! haha!

[Duncan]

If there is one thing we probably all can agree on unanimously it's that Keenan is a fucking tool and hypocrite.

[tiny_tove]

most non industrial people I listen to are people I despise or I would shoot in the head.

no name dropping on my side... a good 90%

never had issue in buying records of people who didn't fit my outlook on life.

[Marko-V]

not taking responsibility, running away, blaming everyone else for their problems 

So easy nowadays, happens everywhere, not just leftist/anarchist types (who seem to become a public enemy/annoyance no.1 in this forum). I see it more as a personal feature even though people prone to same kind of views tend to cluster together. It is tempting to find enemies and reasons for personal troubles everywhere: society, left-wing/right-wing/chicken wing, media, boss, family, muslims/christians etc. etc. etc. The list is endless. The hardest part is looking into mirror or letting it be.  Got a little out of topic, sorry 'bout that.

[NO PART OF IT]

not taking responsibility, running away, blaming everyone else for their problems 

So easy nowadays, happens everywhere, not just leftist/anarchist types (who seem to become a public enemy/annoyance no.1 in this forum). I see it more as a personal feature even though people prone to same kind of views tend to cluster together. It is tempting to find enemies and reasons for personal troubles everywhere: society, left-wing/right-wing/chicken wing, media, boss, family, muslims/christians etc. etc. etc. The list is endless. The hardest part is looking into mirror or letting it be.  Got a little out of topic, sorry 'bout that.

I did not intend to condemn leftist/anarchist types any more or less than the people on the other side of the spectrum, or anyone else.   The concept in the book "The True Believer" had a good effect on me, for one.  Mob rules, Jung hated them too.  He thought that people inherently become more savage in groups, and so did the collective psyche.   

And two,  I was reluctant to go on too much of  a tangent, but this is not simply about racism etc. to me.  If you have someone, let's say it is a Christian, who hates homosexuals so much that they would wish harm and violence upon them, it is extremely likely that they have strong homosexual impulses that they are ashamed of.  I suspect this is the case with matters of racism too. 

[impulse manslaughter]

I guess there are a lot of 'dickheads' in my collection. Unless there are personal issues i don't see the problem. I only try to avoid artist acting like total imbeciles like Komissar Hjuler..

[Marko-V]

Sometimes it's actually hard to recognize (if you don't know him/her personally) if someone is being a moron or arrogant bastard on purpose as a 'publicity stunt' or keeping a distance between audience and self or for some other reason.

[aububs]

imbeciles like Komissar Hjuler..

how is he an imbecile? isn't he a cop or something?

[Leewar]

I met him and his wife a few years back, nice people.