Post #500 - The Top Five Songs Nobody Should Disrespect in My Presence

Since this is the 500th post, I figure I'll do something interesting for this. So, here is a list of the top five songs for which I hold the most reverence, for one reason or another. Three of these were very easy choices, but it was hard to make it to a list of five, because a solid dozen songs could have made it into the last two.

So, here's my list, in no particular order:

Spider Lilies - "Mirror in the Dark"

How can anyone make a knock against the already talented Spider Lilies, with former Crüxshadow, Stacey Campbell, and Chad VanPelt teaming up with Rachel McDonnell?

VNV Nation - "Standing"
This song brings back quite a lot of memories of my early days within the scene. I still listen to this song quite often, because it shows just how incredible and timeless VNV Nation truly is.



I:Scintilla - "Swimmers Can Drown"
This masterpiece by I:Scintilla single-handedly got me back into the scene when I was facing a heavy rut. If it wasn't for this song, I might still be listening to Paramore and Flyleaf on a daily basis.



The Crüxshadows - "Tears"
This song was what got me into a particular band for the first time. Before then, I was just listening to random songs, but this song made me become a huge fan of The Crüxshadows. For the first time, I felt like I had a band that was "mine".



Tying Tiffany - "Drownin'"

OK, did anyone ~not~ expect this on the list? Seriously? I know I was a little bit of a jerk for slow rolling you, but come on. If you know me or know about me even the tiniest bit, you don't even need an explanation for this.

Colony 5 - "Trust You" (live)

Colony 5 can really make good songs, but I'd prefer if they put on more of a show on stage. This is about as lively as they get, honestly. Looking at so much video footage over the past few months, I've begun to really appreciate when live performances have high levels of showmanship. That's not to say this performance is bad, but I'd like to see a bit more bang for my buck when I watch much of the futurepop/EBM genre live, in general.

The difference between having an opinion and being a horrible person

(Photo by Ivo Jansch, CC 2.0)

It's been a while since I've been on a good rant, but an interesting thing happened to some of my friends earlier today, and that's what prompted me to make this post. See, my other big social crowd besides the goth-industrial scene is the anime convention scene. I have a significant number of friends and associates who are active within the anime scene and are involved in a number of ways, including cosplay. As it so happened, some of my friends did group costuming at this year's Katsucon. For the most part, these people received praise for their costumes, but one incident that happened on Facebook today made for the entire spark for this entry.

There was this one person who was supposed to be a friend of one of my friends who did the cosplay. Apparently, this guy didn't like the cosplay and thought the majority of the cosplayers looked subpar. What was particularly tactless and odd was the fact the perpetrator told my friend that he looked fine, but all his friends who were part of the cosplay with him were awful to look at. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where this is going, particularly after the person making tactless comments about the cosplay threatens to put the pic in question on 4chan.

With friends like that, who needs enemies?

Cosplay is one of those small-time community art scenes, a lot like the goth-industrial music scene. There are a few people high up on the food chain, like Jessica Nigri and Yaya Han, who really make a decent living out of what they do, but most of the people who "make it" within the scene are still people who are close enough to the realities of the world of the common people that they aren't above feeling the sting or elation of what others say about their craft. If you keep up with cosplay, you sometimes see the same people get featured all the time on the big and semi-big geek portal sites, and they're the people who are really popular cosplayers who people enjoy seeing. These people may have a considerable number of followers on their cosplay pages on Facebook. But when Monday morning after cons hit, these people who are not the Jessica Nigris and Yaya Hans put their pants on one leg at a time and go to mundane jobs or classes like the rest of us.

In the goth-industrial scene, it's no different. For instance, while Brittany Bindrim might be telling you about how things were "not [her] plan" and letting you know over and over again that "[she] did this" after work, her mad skills with Photoshop are what pay the bills. I can guarantee you that nobody in I:Scintilla gets treated like Hollywood royalty. Those people shop at the grocery store and pump their own gas like the rest of us. As such, they're more like us than you might think.

We're quick to detach ourselves from artists, particularly in the age of the Internet, and we have kind of thrown decorum out the window. As a result of this detachment, we forget that someone who is a lot like ourselves worked hard on the thing we're consuming. It's one thing when someone who is very famous has a product that has been exposed to the masses, because when someone is at that level, he or she isn't even going to notice what individuals other than people with comparable clout have to say. Someone with that level of success will only notice macro-level trends from the masses, so noticing one person's flippantly biting remark is like noticing a single particular drop of rain within the context of a thunderstorm. But when it comes to most people within the indie scene, up-and-comers, and other people who haven't made it to the big time yet, those people do notice criticism on a much more micro level. Regardless of whether or not they've learned to deal with the criticism, they still notice it.

Of course, none of this is to say that I believe you shouldn't ever criticize artists below a certain level of fame. As a matter of fact, I think that idea is completely absurd. Good, constructive criticism is necessary for artists to improve and gain fame over time. Artists gamble when they completely ignore the input of their fans. Angering your fanbase is a great way make your artwork no longer financially viable. It's better to get constructive criticism now and be able to make adjustments than to wonder why your fanbase simply dwindled over time. That's not to say artists should never take risk, not is it to say that the fans are always right or perfect seers of the future, but public opinion is very important to consider when trying to peddle one's work.

But the key term within the last paragraph was "constructive". If there is something you didn't like about a song, a video, an album, a show, or anything, you need to explain what you didn't like in as direct and non-confrontational as you can. "I didn't like this, because..." or "I would have preferred if you have done this, because..." works a lot better than "Your album sucks!" or "Don't quit your day job!" (An exception to this is if the artist actually did something you deem wrong or offensive. (e.g. took your money and didn't give you product in return, said racial slurs on stage, etc.) In those cases, being a bit more confrontational, without doing something that will get you arrested, mind you, may be more in order.) Artists who want to continue to be artists are remarkably receptive of feedback. You may think some of them are aloof, but they listen to what you have to say. As such, you need to not treat them like garbage. Talk to them like human beings, as if they were standing in front of you in a room.

In summary, I suppose the whole point of this rant is that you shouldn't treat artists within the scene poorly. They actually notice what you have to say. Even if they may not address you directly, they pay attention. Don't be a jerk, unless you just want the scene to dry up and die.

Marilyn Manson on "The Phil Donahue Show" in 1995

We've really come a long way since those days. It's been almost twenty years since this show, and I think the general public has gotten a different point view about goth and industrial music and events since those days. Of course, the average Joe or Jane on the street is still probably going to think that people who present as goth are strange and might have problems, but it seems like, for the most part, only significantly conservative people at this point in time think that goths, by definition, worship Satan and are prone to violence. As much as we want to complain about the lack of mainstream acceptance of underground subcultures now, when we look back at things like the below video, we get a stark sense of perspective. That doesn't mean we should rest on our laurels, but we have made large amounts of progress.

In this episode of "The Phil Donahue Show", there is a debate about the safety of moshing, and there are some interesting points that are even applicable today, such as the need for competent security at clubs and the discussion about blaming media for personal actions. Also, I notice the level of shock value that Marilyn Manson attempts, and back then, it was considered super edgy, particularly to the mainstream. Now that I've been into the scene for a while, I see that Marilyn Manson is about as hardcore as a jar of Metamucil, but that shouldn't detract from his merits as an artist. I largely side with the Marilyn Manson and the other music scene people on there, although I think Manson could have worded some things better, particularly in regard to suicide as a result of music. I understand what he was trying to say, but I think he might have been a little too focused on being hardcore to try to get his point across properly. I think the point that he was trying to allude to, but didn't really come out and say, was the fact that the suicides people try to blame on music were probably a result of anything but the music and that we should be focusing on what the real problems were with these people as opposed to looking to create a scapegoat.

Anyway, sit back and enjoy some old 90s "trash TV".

The balance between self-expression and making it (Part I)

(Photo by c_ambler, CC 2.0)

This is meant to be more of an exploratory piece. This is something for which I don't claim to have the definitive answers, but I think it's worth having a discussion. The subject for the next three afternoons is what it means to be within the scene while having to be part of a greater world. I intend to focus on interaction with employers, because that's where there is the most conflict that I feel self-expression isn't going to necessarily win a significant portion of the time.

First, I'll need to explain a bit of background about myself to give people some context about where I come from in regard to what I'm going to say. I'm in my late-twenties. I have a bachelor's and an MBA. I have a day job in an office, I utilize my skills from my training, and I make an adequate living. I'm not married, and I don't have kids.

All that being said, I think the first thing we need to focus on people's definitions of two things: happiness and success. What makes you happy? What makes you not necessarily happy, but at least something you can live with? What do you find intolerable? Does success directly correlate with happiness? What do you consider to be success?

There was a study done a few years ago that tied money to happiness in which a person would be less likely to have daily emotional downturns as he or she made more money up to about $75,000 per year. I won't go into the details here, since I provided a link for you, but in short, the idea is that the more money someone makes to a certain point, the less he or she has to worry about survival needs. At about the $75K mark, one doesn't have to worry about basic survival anymore and worries generally involve things tied more to greater enjoyment of life. I'm not going to attempt to argue that exact number here, because there are a slew of different things that can make that number go up or down. The point I want to drive home is the general concept that there is a certain income point in which your worries stop being about surviving and primarily involve living. Until then, the amount of money you make has an effect on your day-to-day happiness. (Of course, I'm making the assumption that your life doesn't have any sort of extreme circumstances. For instance, you could be making $250K per year, but if your sibling is dying from cancer, your daily happiness has much different stimuli that work on it.)

For most people in an individualistic industrialized society, such as that of the US, money is a big part of life. Your quality of life is directly related to how much money you make. Pooling of resources is kept to a minimum and is frowned upon in many cases. As such, the money you make purchases your status within society. Your ability to live starts and ends with your pocketbook.

So, I've sufficiently beaten it into your skulls that money really does matter in regard to happiness. What's my point? Obviously, the next logical step involves the fact that you have to have to find a way to get the money you need to live a lifestyle that you can reasonably tolerate. For most people, that involves finding employment that pays a sufficient wage to live. If you're someone who has inherited a fortune, born into riches, married someone with money, or is otherwise independently wealthy from ways outside of direct employment, this series of posts is going to mean nothing to you.

At some point in your life, if you aren't already an adult who takes care of himself or herself, you will be. You will have to find some means of employment, whether it's working for someone else or working for yourself. The vast majority of people are employees of someone else, and even among those who are exclusively self-employed, they still have to answer to other people, even if those people aren't direct bosses in a chain of command. As such, because you have to answer to other people by virtue of laws, company policies, and good business practices, you do not have full control over how you operate within the confines of the workplace environment if you wish to keep your job.

I know you're thinking, "I get where you're trying to go with this. Why don't you just cut to the chase?"

That's more for tomorrow's post, because I want to set up a good base, today, for people think about exactly why I'm saying the things I'm saying. I want people to really think hard about what it actually means to be happy and successful, particularly in a country like the US, and what you have to go through to make it happen. We'll get to the goth stuff tomorrow, but today, just think about what you think I'm going to say. Think about what your priorities are in life, but more importantly, think about how you will actually go about achieving the goals you want to achieve. Remember that I mention "balance" in the title of my entry, and that is something important you have to consider.

Commentary on LeahMouse's "What Goth is NOT!"

Last week, I took a look at goth is, but this week, I think it's worth it to look at what goth isn't. Before you read the rest of the article, you may want to watch this YouTube video by LeahMouse, "What Goth is NOT!" because this post is essentially a commentary on it.

First, I want to touch on her explanation that it's a misconception that goths are innately depressed. I wholeheartedly agree with this. Based on personal experiences in the club scene, interacting with people regarding my musical interests, and dealing with the business of this site, I have no reason to believe that goths, as a whole, are overwhelmingly, overtly, and expressively depressed. I do know goths who do suffer from depression, but these people are certainly not depressed because they're goth or because they're trying to project a goth image. These people may have been somewhat attracted to the goth subculture due to their depression, but that relationship seems secondary to other reasons, such as the enjoyment of art and affinity to the music and style.

Most people who I've spoken to within the goth-industrial subculture, regardless of faction or fine-tuned identity, have been relatively well-adjusted people who lead happy lives and have a healthy self-esteem. The people who do have problems are those who have problems in regard to things that have nothing to do with the goth subculture, but from other internal or external causes. Of course, I do not claim to be the definitive expert on all people who identify as goth, but speaking from my own personal experience, I agree with LeahMouse on this point.

In regard to her next point about the religion and religiosity of people within the goth subculture, I think that's one of those points that has been beaten into the ground a bit over the years, especially in regard to goths in the US. The US has become more secular of a nation over time, and from my observations, the goth community has just as significant of a secular influence as everyone else does. From my observations, the only people who really care about the religion of a goth person are the people who care too much about the religion of anyone else. It wouldn't matter if the people in question were goths, preps, geeks, or whatever. It's not the kind of thing I would lose too much sleep over, because there is no pleasing that group of people who likes to stick their noses into the religious practices of others.

As for the points about troublemaking and delinquent behavior, I think LeahMouse could have been a little more eloquent and worded her presentation a bit better, but I agree with the ideas she presents.

People tend to look at the outside of a person and make immediate judgments based on it and previous knowledge and experience. Many people have preconceived notions of what "goth" is, and will make automatic attributions on sight. Obviously, it's unfair to judge someone by the outside, but everyone does it. I do it. You do it. If you say you don't do it from time to time, I'll immediately call you a liar. The key thing is recognizing that you do it and making an attempt to dig deeper. In regard to the goth subculture, that means that people should try to educate themselves on what it means to be goth. I don't have wild expectations that people are going to dedicate vast amounts of time delving into books, articles, and videos about every part of goth subculture, but even just a little bit of passing interest would go a long way and help to wipe away a lot of misconceptions. There are a number of misconceptions (e.g. widespread practicing ritual sacrifice) that would go away in a person with even the tiniest modicum of education on the goth subculture.

As for finding appreciation in darker beauty, I think that is part of why people who are outside of the scene get confused in regard to what it means to be goth. For instance, a goth person may find aesthetic pleasure in skeletons or blood, but that doesn't mean he or she has any interest in killing anyone to make these aesthetics come to realistic fruition. Those two things have absolutely nothing to do with one another, but a lot of people who don’t get the subculture can't really wrap their heads around it. Again, based on personal experience, I have no reason to believe that goths would have any greater propensity to perform violent acts than a non-goth, but some people tend to get worried by the level of comfort that goths have in regard to discussing the darker and sometimes more grotesque parts of life.

Finally, goth is not all about dressing in black, as LeahMouse said. There isn't a whole lot I can say about this that would not completely dominate the post, because goth fashion is something that entire magazines and websites are devoted to talking about. But in short, ignoring those who are not presenting as goth at all from a fashion standpoint, even among those who are trying to present a goth image, it's not always about dressing in all black. Depending on the type of goth, you may not even dress in black at all. There is just such a wide variety.

In short, watch this woman's video. She brings up some excellent points about what goth is not. If we want to set boundaries for the subculture, it's just as important to figure out what goes out as to what goes in.

You know what's deplorable? Misogyny.

As my readers should know by now, Unter Null is one of my favorite musicians. I've not had the opportunity to have the years of experience with her music that some people have, but in the short time that I've listened to it, it's moved me. Moreover, based on the half a shot glass's worth of information I have gathered about her personality, Erica has my respect in that category, too. In particular, I like how she's able to take things in stride and change the direction of an annoying situation using sarcasm.

(Photo by Ericadunham, CC 3.0 Unported License)

So, Erica made a status update on her official Facebook page, today. She asked people what people would like to see in her collector's boxset edition of her next Unter Null album. Most of the suggestions were mundane, such as T-shirts, autographs, and wristbands, but someone made a comment about putting in condoms. That was kind of icky, but that was one of the things you could probably roll your eyes and just skip over. The crown jewel though was when someone said "used panties."

I'm not joking here. Someone suggested she put used panties in her box set. Regardless of whether or not that was supposed to be a joke, that was still pretty vile. Erica said, "Allowing some of these comments for posterity. This is what happens when you don't have a dick and still write music." I think she hit the nail on the head with that comment.

Why are there men out there who don't see women as people? I see this all the time when I look at communication between male fans and female artists. Luckily, I don't see it as much within the goth-industrial circles as much as I see it within some other scenes, but it still happens quite a bit. There are some men out there who think women are lesser beings than men are and don't have to be treated with the same respect.

First and foremost, if you're a guy, firing off sexually charged statements, whether in jest or seriousness, to a woman you don't know, just because she's a woman, makes you a jerk. She's a person, just like any man is a person. Moreover, as far as I know, Erica has a husband, and he's likely the only person who can get away with saying things of a sexual nature to her. If you are one of the billions of men on this planet who aren't her husband, and you say things like this to her, you're also a jerk because you're saying these things to another guy's wife.

I'm happy to see that Erica was able to handle this with such poise. If I had to guess, I'd say she probably has plenty of experience having to put up with misogynist fans, and this experience is probably something fairly common among women in the goth-industrial music scene. All things considered, this is not remotely as damaging of a situation as countless others in the past that women have had to endure, but it's still wrong and should be called out for what it is.

Is goth becoming more mainstream? If so, is it necessarily bad? (Part II)

Yesterday, we saw the first half of the video from Dragon*Con 2009 in which a number of experts on goth answered a question regarding the mixing of goth and mainstream influences. Here is the second half of that video, and I will finish my commentary.

This is the more interesting portion, in my opinion, because this more directly focuses on the music and the club scene. First, there is a fair bit of talk about how European markets seem to be more appreciative of the innate experience of art while American markets care considerably less. Then, Rogue steps in and explains that pure goth-industrial nights in Tallahassee, FL, always failed, but there was major success when "dark disco" nights were introduced, where goth-industrial music would get mixed in with techno and pop. Finally, DJ Ichabod comes in and caps everything off by saying that the goth-industrial stuff really doesn't sound much different from modern pop.

In regard to the first point, I agree that goth and industrial genres and subgenres tend to have more success in Europe than in the US, but I'm not sure if it's entirely due to societal assumptions about the appreciation of art. I think one part of the equation is how the business of music is seemingly different in the US than it is in Europe. In the US, major music labels have a lot more power and seek to gain mass appeal, pouring vast investment into marketing. In the US, particularly in regard to music, what gets put on the radio is a result of huge cash flow swings. People listen to music in the US because it's shoved in their faces, and listeners are told that they need to listen to this music to be socially relevant. In Europe, there doesn't seem to be nearly that kind of pressure from huge record labels, and people's enjoyment of music in Europe tends to be more organic.

As for Rogue's talk about his experiences in building up a goth night in Tallahassee, I think part of his issue might have been his market. The metropolitan area has a population of less than 400K, and the city isn't surrounded by any known major goth or otherwise alternative subculture concentrations. What he did was a matter of survival in a relatively small market, but what about larger markets?

Take, for instance, goth nights in very large metropolitan areas, such as Boston, New York, or Washington, DC. Logic would state that adding pop, techno, and other non-goth-industrial things to those scene nights would dilute the brand and make people not overly interested. Unlike Tallahassee, where a crowd of 50 people would be considered a boon, in these places, prominent goth nights can easily have 200 on a so-so night. In a large market, people have choices on where to go. In that situation, would it make any sense at all to have a hybrid night, or would that be just a waste of resources?

Finally, in regard to Ichabod's point about goth-industrial sounds being similar to pop sounds, I agree with him. If you think about it, you can make a case that many types of music sound similar due to similar melodies and compositions. Furthermore, musicians intentionally borrow from other genres to add depth and uniqueness to their sound, so they don't become stale and irrelevant. That being said, certain things still sound much more pleasing to my ears than others, and even if those things sound similar to one another, there is only one that will bring a positive emotional experience.

In summary, what purpose does the meshing of goth with mainstream serve? Is it beneficial? Is it detrimental? Do you think we'll see more or less integration? The panelists seem to think this is just a passing fad, but one thing that we need to remember is that everything changes, not just the mainstream. If you look at how much post-punk music has changed and evolved over the years, it only makes sense that new things will pop out of the woodwork over time. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Is goth becoming more mainstream? If so, is it necessarily bad? (Part I)

The background for what I have to say is this excerpt from a panel from Dragon*Con 2009 in which Holly Hasty, Jessica Lackey, and Rogue from The Crüxshadows, DJ Ichabod, Michelle Belanger, and DJ Spider participated. The questions presented are about how goth culture elements are meandering their way into the mainstream.

The first part is mostly about Twilight and the ilk becoming mainstream hits and making elements that were originally part of the niche goth subculture into things that were accessible to everyone. I felt the first video rambled a bit, so I won't focus too much on it. But in short, the point seems to be that by having gothic elements become part of the the mainstream, it makes goth more acceptable and goth things won't be as likely to be singled out as bad, unacceptable, or deviant because they're goth. Although I agree with that sentiment from a logical standpoint, I feel we need to be careful about the general premise of what "goth" is. Can "goth" be broken down to a set of elements, or is it more complicated than that?

I remember the South Park episode in which the brooding goth kids went completely insane when everyone else in the school started getting into Twilight and wearing goth fashion, as prescribed by Hot Topic. At the end of the show, the goth kids burned down the Hot Topic and everything went back to its previous status quo. Obviously, South Park isn't going to give us a deep insider's understanding of the goth subculture, but I do think that they give an excellent portrayal of what people on the outside think goths are. Of course, Matt and Trey portrayed the goth kids as a number of the stereotypes that much of the mainstream does for goths, such as making them prone to substance abuse. I think the key idea that is at the center of that episode though is the set of interactions based on inclusion and exclusion.

Based on the perceptions of the writers, the goths not only feel like they have been scorned by the mainstream society, but they also feel territorial about their place within it. The goth kids feel like their boundaries have been breached and seek to assimilate with the prior status quo as a means of rebellion. They end up feeling completely directionless and decide to take matters into their own hands to accelerate the end of the wave of mainstream goth.

Although I do not suggest that South Park is a bastion of enlightenment, I do think they bring up a good talking point that goes back to the talk of the panel. Is the concept of goth a boundary that self-proclaimed goths establish? Is there an unacceptable price to be paid by acceptance into the mainstream? Much of the gothic subculture revolves around feelings of self-expression, but one could argue that self-expression that aligns itself to the status quo really doesn't express anything at all. Or if something is expressed, it's not novel or interesting.

If goth is considered to be "deviant" by the mainstream, then when gothic elements become wrapped up into the mainstream, an impasse is created. It leads to a slew of conflicting messages about the attitudes and identities of the subculture. I think a significant amount of the backlash that sometimes gets created by mainstream goth is because people who self-identify within the subculture begin to feel confused about their identity. Many goths care so much about their identity as "goth", and when something threatens the definitions of what they think they are, these people panic. In short, backlash against mainstream goth is a reaction of fear.

Do goths have anything to fear by mainstream usage of gothic elements? Do you think there is a threat to identity? I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

What does it mean to be part of the scene?

I want to be a branch out and talk more about the scene. I think that being more in touch with how the scene operates at its core can bring added depth to an understanding of the music and the social issues that float around it. One thing that makes for an interesting discussion is the topic of acceptance. Today, I came across the YouTube channel, kazlovesbats, and that provided the inspiration for this post. There are a slew of different videos that I think matter (such as this one, this one, and this one), but I'm going to use just one video for this entry.

I think these videos can start an excellent discussion in regard to the visual aspects of goth subculture versus the actions, thoughts, and motivations. What does it mean to be goth? Then again, a more important question may be whether or not the meaning really matters.

First, from a more baseline standpoint, like she mentions in the video, everyone's definition of goth is going to be different. What she thinks goth is may be different from what someone else thinks. So, when someone puts himself or herself out there with the "goth" label, he or she is projecting a perception of self, and when people decode the message, it goes through another round of interpretation. The one communicating will send out a message based on the experience and knowledge he or she has gained over time, and the one receiving the communication will be interpreting the message based on a different set of experience and knowledge. As such, there can be a breakdown in communication. To put it more simply, if the person who claims he or she is goth has a different definition of what goth is than the person who he or she is talking to, then that automatically causes conflict. It's perfectly OK for people to have different opinions on what "goth" is, but some people don't quite seem to get that.

Furthermore, goth subculture has so many different branches and related subcultures that being able to draw a definite boundary is incredibly difficult. For example, cyber goths are a fantastic example of how boundaries get completely obliterated. A cyber goth has the goth label, but also incorporates a lot of futuristic aspects to his or her style. On a club night, it's not uncommon to see the cyber goths dancing hard to futurepop and aggrotech beats. There are a number of goths who would roll their eyes at the idea of letting KMFDM or Skinny Puppy within their sphere of influence, as there are a number of rivetheads who would groan at Bauhaus or Siouxsie and the Banshees. Likewise, there are people within both groups who shudder at the idea of VNV Nation or Funker Vogt.

But in the end, what is goth? Does someone have to be just goth? Is it unreasonable to think someone can be part of the goth, industrial, punk, and whatever other subcultures at the same time? Many musicians themselves intentionally try not to be genre-specific, because they don't want their music to become tired and irrelevant. Why would it be any different with people in their everyday lives? If people try to prescribe to a functionalist ideal of fitting into neat little boxes, they end up intentionally cutting themselves off from a significant portion of the world without a second thought.

Also, and individual's scene tendencies develop and evolve over time. People aren't going to like exactly the same things they liked when they first got into the scene, and people will behave differently. For instance, what got me into the industrial scene was listening to a lot of KMFDM and Chemlab, but then I got into the more danceable stuff like Covenant, VNV Nation, and The Crüxshadows. Then, I hit a bit of a lull, and now I'm heavily into I:Scintilla, Unter Null, and Tying Tiffany. Things change over time, but although the subtle nuances of how I self-identify may change, I still consider myself to be part of the goth-industrial subculture. (And I'm fully aware, like I implied before, that some people will completely have a fit over the idea of a goth-industrial mesh. Considering the tone of my post, I think my readers can get a good grasp of how much I care about those people's opinions on the matter, too.)

In summary, I feel like when people try hard to compartmentalize others within the scene, we end up causing lots of problems and solving none. Why should it matter how people identify? And in the end, do the opinions of those who are more goth/industrial/punk/whatever than thou really matter?

The idiocy of the passively accepting "true fan"

(Public Domain License)

This is a more general rant that I think can apply to virtually any entertainment. It doesn't have to be the goth-industrial scene. It doesn't even have to be music.

Why is it that there some people who are under the impression that you are not a "true fan" (and I use that term loosely) of a band, artist, or whatever if you do not think everything that person or those people do is the best thing since sliced bread? Despite what some people may believe, musicians put on their pants one leg at a time, just like the rest of us. Nobody's perfect, and there are times when these musicians put out things that not everyone is going to like. Furthermore, some people seem to ignore at this is a fact of life that is perfectly natural and fine.

There are a lot of musicians I gush over, and obviously I like a significant amount of these people's work. If I didn't, I'd obviously not be a huge fan. That being said, I'm a critical person, too. I call a spade a spade, and I'm not going to shell out money for products that I don't enjoy, regardless of whose name is on it. Furthermore, even if I don't enjoy something, that doesn't automatically mean I think the work was bad. It can mean that, but it doesn't have to.

For example, you all should know by now that I'm a huge I:Scintilla fan. That band is a huge reason why I'm talking to you right now. I have a ton of songs of theirs within my playlists. I couldn't help but to completely fawn over Skin Tight. When Marrow 1, their acoustic EP, came out, I knew it would be different, but I was willing to try it out, anyway. I can't say I was impressed though, and even after a number of listens on the sales page stream, I couldn't bring myself to buy it or even any songs from it. (I might buy their Devo cover, but that's about it.) Do I think less of them because I didn't like that one EP that isn't even representative of much of their discography? Am I a lesser fan because I didn't like something with I:Scintilla's name on it? Possibly even more importantly, does the fact I didn't like the release mean their music was bad?

If you answered "yes" to any of those previous three questions, I need to educate you as to why you're wrong.

First, I have realistic expectations of musicians. Even among my favorite artists, I don't have the expectation that every artist customizes their musical decisions on my personal whims. Regardless of whether their creative focus is more on the desires of fans or their personal wants, decisions are made almost entirely someone who is not me in mind. As such, I don't delude myself into thinking that disagreeing with these decisions is wrong or abnormal. It feels like some people think that disagreement with the choices that musicians make shows some level of deviance. In my opinion, if this is a worry, it shows some level of insecurity. If a fan or an artist is so insecure that disagreement about musical choices causes backlash of some sort, that is squarely a problem with that person.

Second, I consider my opinions of an artist or artists to act like a balance scale. If the good outweighs the bad, I have a favorable opinion, and vice-versa. Even if I don't like something an artist has made, I don't usually write off that person as horrible, assuming I have evidence of the contrary. I admit that first impressions do matter to me, and if my first impression is bad (like it was with Santa Hates You, for example), I will be a lot harder to please. Still, it's not like I just write musicians off because they make one thing I don't like out of a sea of otherwise enjoyable work. That's unreasonable. Some people are under the impression that this is black and white though. If you don't fall over your own feet over everything, you might as well despise everything. There's no middle ground with these people. Obviously, that's asinine.

Third, I can respect a work without enjoying it. Using the Marrow 1 example, it's not like I thought any of the songs on the EP were poorly made. It just wasn't my thing. Would you complain about the culinary expertise of a sushi chef if you don't like sushi? Of course you wouldn't, because that wouldn't make sense. The same goes for my opinion of Marrow 1. That type of acoustic music usually bores me to tears, and this was no exception. I'm not going to say I:Scintilla made bad music though, because that's an unreasonable statement to make. That all being said, there are plenty of things that I don't like because I do think they're badly done. I'm just saying that my dislike for something doesn't necessarily mean that I think something is of poor quality.

What do you all think? Am I full of it? Am I being reasonable?

Santa Hates You - It's Alive!

I have a slightly interesting story about how I got to listening to this album and liking it.

(Property of Trisol and Santa Hates You, used under Fair Use for direct, substantial commentary on product)

I'm not going to lie. At first, I was incredibly skeptical. Before I started listening to this album, my only experience with Santa Hates You was watching the "Rocket Heart" music video. In what may be a severe understatement, I did not like the song or the video. To be a little more blunt, it actually turned into a running inside joke that a friend of mine and I shared. I found this bewildering, because Peter Spilles is touted as being a creative genius, and Project Pitchfork is fantastic.

So, a few days ago, I was looking around for some new music to listen to again, and I came across people talking about how great Santa Hates You's It's Alive! was. Needless to say, although I heard glowing reviews, I couldn't help but to still be unconvinced. I looked around for a way to listen to the album before committing any resources to it, because I had no reason to believe I'd enjoy this album, considering my previous experiences. But, in what may be a textbook example of what I talked about in my post about music evaluation, I came across Santa Hates You's official MySpace page and was pleasantly gobsmacked. The entire album is on there for streaming with every song in full. I listened to the whole album a couple of times on there, and I found myself absolutely wanting to buy their album (and doing so).

This album was chock full of substance, and I felt like every song had a fulfilling element to it. Of course, there was still a lot of the "goth-industrial cheese" that I expected, but my experience with this was as far removed from my experience with the "Rocket Heart" video as it could be. My favorite songs from this album were "Independence", "Scum", "How to Create a Monster", and "Skeletal Parade".

"Independence", "Scum", and "How to Create a Monster" feel related to one another with a general theme of fighting against a status quo of evil and despair. "Independence" feels like the anthem, "Scum" is the battle cry, and "How to Create a Monster" is a public service announcement.

In "Independence", Jinxy and Peter pump you up, making a stand in regard to having the right to be free from a world that chooses not to prescribe to a progressive point of view. They don't want to be part of, as they call it, a "killing machine". There aren't tons of lyrics in this song, but the point is clear. The tapping-tapping-tapping-booming percussion methods used in the background really serve to bring about the opening act mood of the song, too. As such, this is a perfect lead-in to "Scum".

"Scum" is the crown jewel of this album. (If you want to see the music video for this song, go here.) This is truly a powerful song that shows just how wonderful of an activist influence musicians can be. "Scum" is certainly not a song for those with sensitive sensibilities, but it gets the point across. The beat is sinister and angry, and the lyrics explain in full that the musicians feel like it's all over for people who want to oppress others, particularly for personal gain and purported religiosity and morality.

"How to Create a Monster" is all about power and how the quest for it creates corruption and evil. There is plenty of imagery of the immorally ambitious person creating justifications to himself or herself about heinous acts and oppression. Meshed with this is the intervention-like tone of the chorus, explaining to this hypothetical power-hungry person that swallowing all this power will turn him or her into a monster. At the end of the song, the idea comes across that no matter what the recklessly ambitious person tends to believe, in the end, the only evil who really needs to be vanquished is that person, himself or herself.

I like "Skeletal Parade" for different reasons than I like the other three. The tune is exceptionally catchy, and it makes a really interesting idea for the afterlife (assuming I'm not way off in regard to my interpretation). When someone dies, he or she goes to the moon and joins a parade of skeletons. It's a little off the wall, but it almost sounds like a dark mix of a children's song. If you didn't pay too much attention to the lyrics, you'd almost think the song was trying to come across the same way as "Bungalow Bill" for The Beatles. This song is oddly fun.

All in all, it's difficult to not enjoy this album. My opinion of Santa Hates You definitely changed after listening to It's Alive!, and I think this is a perfect case for making sure people are adequately informed to make decisions on music purchases. I can safely say that I would have not even considered buying this album had I not been able to hear the full songs, first.

Evaluating music for purchase

This is a subject that I'm sure will get people stirred up. How do you evaluate music for purchase? What makes you buy albums as opposed to single songs? What makes you buy anything, as opposed to streaming it? Of course, the answer in for this questions boils down to just one thing:

(Photo by c_ambler, CC 2.0)

When I evaluate music, I won't purchase it until I've listened to the entire song, usually multiple times. A number of artists don't seem to like it when people put their music on YouTube for people to listen to whole songs, but I feel that's been a necessity for me to find out about a lot of the bands that I'm into now and evaluate songs and albums for purchase. I'm firmly of the opinion that if you like a song, you should support the artist and buy it, but I don't feel like the ways that many artists give us to make that decision are terribly useful.

For instance, hearing a short preview for a song isn't going to give you any emotional investment in a song. You'll hear thirty seconds of it, but a song isn't like, say, food. With food, you can have a small sample and your body creates emotions quickly. You (usually) know right away whether or not you like what you're eating. With a song, on the other hand, it's not nearly so simple. Once in a while, a sample may pop up that has epic levels of innate beauty, but rarely is a disjointed sample from a cohesive whole going to give you an adequate understanding of what the song is about. Samples are good for two things:

1. It's a lot easier to tell from a sample whether or not you're going to dislike something. You may not be able to decide easily whether you're going to definitively buy something from a sample, but you'll know for sure if you're turned off by it to the point that you won't consider buying it. Hearing something nice won't necessarily bring you to buying a song, but hearing something you don't quite like will probably make you not buy it.

2. It helps you to determine authenticity on major music selling websites. Often, someone will come in with a cover of a song and be intentionally misleading about that. You can tell from the sample whether the music is actually from the artist you think, usually by hearing the singing in the sample. (Protip: If you're on a major music selling site, listening to samples of songs that aren't instrumentals, and you don't hear any singing, be very suspicious.)

So, you need to listen to the whole song. Some may say that there is always Pandora and other online radio sites like it. The problem with that is the level of randomness involved. You could be listening to Pandora all week and not get a good understanding of an album (or even a song). If you're anything like me, you can't just listen to a song once and make an immediate decision to purchase. You may need to listen to a song four or five times before deciding that a song is worth your money.

"But it's only 99 cents! Why should it matter?"

If you only intend to purchase one song, ever, or one song every once in a great while, that argument holds some merit. If a person is going to be miserly over a single dollar, then that person probably shouldn't be buying music in the first place. The problem lies in the fact that it's not a single dollar. For people who consume and purchase music regularly, those dollars add up. For example, if someone were to purchase, on average, one song a day that turns out to be a throwaway, that means about $362 would get wasted per year. There might not be a lot of things I can do with a dollar, but there are plenty of things I can do with $362. Even if it's every other day, it would still be $181. If it's only once a week that you make such a mistake, it's still over $50. That's why being able to sufficiently evaluate music matters. Adopting that philosophy doesn't cause the consumer to lose out on a single dollar, but rather drastically more.

This is why I defend the YouTube uploaders. I don't feel that artists usually give us good means of deciding our purchasing decisions. There may be a few that offer significant amounts of streaming or put up a lot of videos of their own, but usually, you get maybe one or two music videos per album (and sometimes, they want you to pay for the music videos) and virtually no streaming. I'm not going to buy a song, let alone an entire album, just because someone tells me it's great. I've had way too many people sing praises for music, only for me to think quite differently.

What would make me happy would be if artists put all or a significant portion of their music on YouTube. Obviously, I can understand not wanting the music to be in purchasing grade (320 bitrate for MP3s), but if you could hear the songs at an adequate quality before purchase, like 128 or 192 bitrate, you can make a fair decision on purchase. I won't lie and say there won't be people who will abuse the system, but I think there will be a lot of people who will also be very happy and be more willing to purchase music, too, because they've been able to level the information disparity within the transaction. Those people who abuse the system are probably not customers artists will be brokenhearted about losing, anyway.

All in all, I think the important take-home message here is that artists and record companies need to come up with better ways for customers to make informed decisions about how they buy music. I think that will help to bring in more new business as well as make current customers more loyal to the brands.

My music is harder than yours, and you are inferior as a result.

You know what I don't understand? I don't quite understand why listening to "harder" stuff is somehow considered a badge of pride or a talking point when evaluating a musician or band. It's like these people think they'll get an achievement on XBox Live or a gold star on a progress sheet on their walls if they happen to listen to music with more bass and harsh vocal distortion than other people. When you step back and think about it, it's very difficult to even take such comments seriously. It makes you wonder if these people actually listen to themselves when they speak.

(Photo by kevin dooley / Foter / CC BY)

Usually, comments like those are a self-validation mechanism in which the poster has to make himself or herself have a confidence boost in regard his or her place within fandom. This flavor of antagonism is meant to make the person saying it feel better about his or her own music choices, which tend to be an extension of a greater self. The popularity of music that falls outside of these people's worldviews is considered to be a threat to these people's worth, so combativeness occurs.

A lot of the combativeness seems to be grounded in some level of misogyny and/or homophobia, too. A significant portion of the time, people get called sexual orientation insults or anti-woman insults in relation to listening to music that doesn't fit this almost entirely arbitrary and falsely linear level of musical composition. When I hear insults like being called a certain word for female genitalia due to listening to a certain musician, I hear this, "Your music lacks enough bass and scratchy vocals to meet my arbitrary standard. As a result, I will attribute feminine characteristics to you, and by definition, feminine characteristics are bad and should be met with hostility." Does anyone actually see logic in making a statement like that?

All in all, none of it makes sense to me. So, if you're one of those people who attributes a desire to listen to music with a certain level of harshness as some form of achievement, think to yourself, "Does this make sense? Is it logical?" Then, once you've figured that out, ask yourself why it matters to you so much in the first place. The answer may surprise you.