but neither of them were goth! how can it be an attempt if neither of them were?! i've read popular articles from the time of nails, dating 1990-1995 and it is clearly stated industrial. manson, well he's changed... all the time, he started as freak shit, and then went to glam rock and now he's into this pop-goth stuff that's REALLY gross.


and the nu metal. i don't see the rise of that... i mean, i know i'm not oversaturated with mainstream music goodness, but i don't barracade myself that bad. what i hear is slipnot, linkin park, and music like that. it's not metal. i don't know what to call it, but believe me, it's definately not metal.


you know what? i've decided what to call it... noise. screaming and noise. don't get me wrong, there is something strangely musical about noise... but i can't appreciate the lyrics if i can't decifer them and that is what i cherish most from mainstream music these days. it's a lot about the lyrics... a bit about the music... more than i can tell...


blessed be,


*~skarllette~*

And yes, in the mid nineties there was rap, I should have mentioned I was leaving THAT out too, but if you had actually read what I said you would have seen that I was dealing in rock. Both Manson and NIN were called gothic based on their clothes. I never said that either were gothic and nor do I think that they are. And Manson was NOT glam rock until after his relationship with Courtney Love, before that, as he is now, he was shock rock. That is what his entire career was about. He idolized Alice Cooper, the god of shock rock (as well as the founder). Even if Rob Zombie blows Manson out of the water in that genre.

Of course, IF YOU READ WHAT I SAID, I was rushed, I have explained this about a million times at other parts of this very board. Bearing in mind, as you seem to be one who must constantly be reminded of things, I don't think any of these bands are real metal and the few that COULD qualify as metal aren't good metal. Bands, such as Staind, Disturbed, Linkon Park, Limp Bizkit, Godsmack, Static X, (Sum 41 on their next album said that they plan to do nu metal), etc, are part of a grene called nu/pop metal. It's all over the air ways, and try as I might, I can not escape it. It is the next big trend and it's not too hard to see that.

As for your next post, I NEVER SAID THAT THEY WERE GOTHIC!!!! THE FUCKING PUBLIC KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT THE FUCKING SUB CULTURE, AND DIDN'T THEN EITHER. THEY WERE WILLING TO ACCEPT ANY BAND AS GOTHIC, AND AS THEIR CLOTHES WERE BLACK AND WHAT NOT THE PUBLIC ASSUMED THAT THESE TWO GROUPS WERE GOTHIC. THEY JUST WERE THE BANDS CHOSEN FOR THE ATTACK ON GOTHIC AND MOST OF THE FANS OF THE BANDS THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE GOTHIC.

None of the bands that actually attack any of the sub cultures of any grene actually belong to the real grene. They're the pop version, the watered down version, nothing that is actually heart felt, and most of the time the bands won't even play something closely related to their supposed music grene (aka, Staind) Is that better for you?

In Flames does some excellent metal.

One thing that my friend's and I have been talking about, is how it would be a really good idea to bomb MTV's Total request live during a broadcast . . .

I like that idea, I've thought about it many times.... it would slove all of these problems.

Oh, and another "gothic" band of the mid ninties was the Smashing Pumpkins. Let me say again, this is not a gothic band, the record companies, MTV, etc, claimed that they are (they did for a while, too, unlike Manson and NIN) But yeah, bassically, the "gothic" bands of the mid ninties weren't really gothic, but as I have already said, no one knew any better. Depending on where you lived at the time this was the case. On the west coast and parts of the east, this was what happened. In the more rural settings, it did not go this way. But for the most part, the popular thing to be in the mid ninties was a goth.

LOL, sorry. Trust me, what I did to you was really nothing... at least not compared to other posts I've made... But yeah, this is a subject I've spent a long time studing so when some one comes in and goes past a few warnings and tells me I'm wrong about A: something I already knew B: Told me I was wrong about something I knew about... I didn't mean to be so insulting to you. I really didn't. But yeah, now we understand eachother so yeah

Ok... I have no misconceptions of my abilities, but I STRONGLY want to eventually make a difference (although I am concentrating on getting my doctorate in literature first, and some politics stuff).

The music scene is a tough one to fix.

Do you want to popularize good music, without wrecking its credibility? That is nigh impossible.

In ANY movement, musical, literary, political, etc., you reach stages.

Let me start with the Romantics, literature. If you read the fiction, non-fiction, and poetry, there are key similarities. However, toward the end of a movement, there are horrid popularisations of such considerations. The vampire fiction, of Coleridge, Byron, and Polidori, and the Gothic fiction, was taken by the penny dreadful writers, and made a hell of a lot of money for not very good writing. (Although Varney the Vampire IS fun to read ).

The Victorians had the same problem (I'd cite examples, but my internet cuts in 20 min ).

Moderns.

Postmoderns. I feel strongly about postmodernism. There are truly good Postmodern poets, but when I read through this (I forget the poet, but it was published in 1969, and is in the Norton American Postmodernism anthology), I nearly puked with disgust.

Nothing in that drawer.
Nothing in that drawer.
Nothing in that drawer.
Nothing in that drawer.
Nothing in that drawer.
Nothing in that drawer.
Nothing in that drawer.
Nothing in that drawer.
Nothing in that drawer.
Nothing in that drawer.
Nothing in that drawer.
Nothing in that drawer.
Nothing in that drawer.
Nothing in that drawer.



Note, the only surviving texts of the past, the only surviving music of the past, are the truly remarkable pieces. We have surviving compositions of the same time as Bach, written by now unknowns. They are horrid in comparison, and the attempt to copy, while perhaps popular at the time, didn't last. This is my hope for the future. However, the recording industry IS trying to destroy good music, and if no-one tries to resist the death of real music, it WON'T last.

It goes against the underground, in a way, but underground musicians MUST rise to the top, become known nationwide, "popular," while remaining true to their sound. In order to do this, a recording company, with sufficient starting funds, needs to believe in underground music.

I've no doubt there are people in the Midwest and New England willing to listen to good Seattle music, but I can't support them unless I hear them.


BTW, I've several grand schemes to help music and poetry out of their plights... poetry is being destroyed by Academia, and music is being destroyed by the Recording Industry.

Personally, if I were to be a musician, I would combine classical symphonic capabilities with an alternating sound (I like Tool in the respect that every album has a different sound). Going from morbid, to satirical, to plain goofy, then serious, etc. I'm only a singer, and hopefully will learn to be a lyricist, and hopefully become a better composer of music for voice, but I'd need a good collaborator/s for the rest.

*Strokes beard* Collaboration you say? . . . Hmm . . .

I'm not denying the fact that this does happen in other elements, however, I do not believe that bring out the good underground artists will do any good... If you would like an example, Tool. Maynard is one of the best artists in the world. But while he himself has pretty much managed to keep his music unchanged (discounting the changes every band goes through just in an evolution of sound) he really can't do anything to stop the recording industry.

There are a few other artists I can think of that stayed good, but none of them can really do anything... Bassically, it's going to take something from the outside. Sending in our best work is a sure fire way to loose. If we choose to take those artists, slap them into a half assed nu metal band writting the lyrics an 8 year old can then that's one thing. But taking the GOOD underground band and placing them on MTV is simply going to give the recording/fashion industry a foothold to say "See, this is what THEY are doing! Now you should!" to all the trend followers.

I was going to say the same thing, just more calmly.

Find me someday. Composer, lyricist, player of (too) many instruments. It sounds cool. You should find some version of Finale...very good for composition, whether starting out or experienced. Unless you have it. I have a very legal pirated copy that I got from a friend. Its a pretty expensive prog otherwise.

Boy/Girl band pop will die out, probably soon

but some other cheesy mass-marketet crap will take it's place and the void won't be empty for long

I believe nu-metal is being groomed for that privilage.

Neon

Yes, that's obvious. Turn on the radio, what do you hear? constand Nickelback, Saliva, Etc.

Although I do have respect for Saliva, as in "Click Click Boom" they make fun of whiner bands.

Speaking of whiner bands, I wish I understood Staind's transformation...Songs like "Mudshovel" and "Crawl" were great, but then they pump out 'Cycle and now....

Although "Epiphany" is amazing.

I figured it out, I think

DS talked about how Punk became distorted by pop culture, somehow. I think I've gotten the "How."

It starts with Green Day, though it wasn't their fault, they were used and misportrayed like NIN. The term "punk" wasn't really applied to them until they became mainstream. Not once, as far as I can tell. Then people who had never bought Punk or listened to Punk took what they heard from Green Day as the entire punk culture, when they were just doing what they wanted to do. They were distorted. This taste of Punk led to the Pop-Punk that we saw so recently.

This is sort of very condensed, I'm sure I could come up with something a little more descriptive.

As long as there are teenage mindless girls roaming about, music industries will continue to market fake, lyrically-deprived, groups of attractive, young, mindless men.