Talk:Industrial music/Archive 2

Influences section - Should non-musical influences be stated?

There has always been much made of the writers who were influential for the movement: Burroughs, Dick, Ballard, etc. Burroughs especially, considering the work he did with Industrial Records.

What Industrial is, versus what people want it to be

Industrial music, based on the idea of the whiner baby, is fully defined within this discussion. Observe:

It seems like there is an effort by some poeple to create a falsely consistent idea of "industrial" music, when really there is little relationship between many of the artists mentioned here. Sadly, if you ask most people to name an industrial band, they will probably say something like NIN or Ministry; rather than Throbbing Gristle. Likewise, whether you like it or not, NIN, 242, FLA and Skinny Puppy are all much more musically similar to each other than they are to the original "industrial records" sound. These bands were generally considered "Industrial" during the 80's and 90's, and they were played at "industrial" clubs. So maybe there should be 2 broad categories to explain why there seems to be such a difference between these sounds-

Firstly the origins of the name, and how it related to "Experimental" or "Noise music". Perhaps making as "Industrial Records" page as opposed to an "Industrial Music" would solve this?? As people have said, much of this music would no longer be considered "industrial", some related bands such as NON and the Japanese Noise artists, have nothing in common with 90's "industrial" music at all.

Secondly, the way the name became associated with Industrial rock, electro and EBM, and maybe links where bands like 242, NIN and Skinny Puppy or whoever, can be found. As far as the more recent Ant-zen type music, quite a lot of that sounds like IDM, regular old-fashioned techno, or ambient, but I don't know if it is considered "industrial" or not by its fans.

Finally, it seems like "industrial" can be used to indicate some kind of metallic clanky sounds in the music itself, and that sometimes that can be found in a variety of music from "experimental" music, to techno dance music, to the aforementioned 90's "industrial rock" music, and that maybe that is the only "consistent" element of these various sounds sometimes called "industrial music". What do you guys think?

For my own point of view, NIN, Skinny Puppy, etc. sounds like ordinary pop, punk or rock music and I wouln't have guessed it was "industrial" if nobody told me, whereas TG, NON or Neubaten sounds "industrial"; but that's not necessarily how regular listeners will describe the music so I shouldn't delete NIN just because *I* don't think they are industrial.

I agree, but it seems that Sanctum will do nothing but consistently narrow the article to his equally narrow view of the term 'industrial'. I've asked him several times to agree to a definition, or meditation, and he has refused or ignored me on all counts. Twiin 21:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

You wrote that synthpop was industrial. Now you are accusing me of not being reasonable? I have gone to great lengths discussing these matters with you. Others agreed that the definition had grown out of control and should be simplified to defining only industrial and not every genre that's taken influences from industrial. With their consent, I made edits which you, without discussion, have twice reversed. Who is being unreasonable here? Sanctum 07:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now you've gone from just being misinformed to straight-out making shit up. I never said that synthpop is industrial, but I appreciate the lies intended to bolster your own point. My point is simple: 'industrial music' is not limited to the styles of music you say it is. There are thousands of fans, artists, labels, clubs, djs, festival organizers, and music historians who are in agreement on this point. Your lack of awareness is not my problem. Or, at the very least, it shouldn't be. The longer I spend on this entry, the more it becomes my problem.

I cannot fathom how you think the article is better now than it was, say, in late April and early May. None of the industrial musicians I work with feel that it is in a better state now than it was then. I am tired, however, of arguing with a brick wall, so I'm going to let you do whatever you want to the article. I don't have the time to spend arguing on the internet with someone who has such a limited view of a living genre. Have fun. Twiin 16:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deny it if you will, here is a link to the edit you made adding synthpop bands to the definition of industrial. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Industrial_music&diff=19331166&oldid=1074492666.92.16.177 00:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

That's an edit from 200.104.155.83, not me. Twiin 02:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

It's interesting to come back a month later, and see all the work that Sanctum's done on the article since I left. And by 'all the work' I mean 'nothing'. Good to know the entry's in good hands. Twiin 5 July 2005 11:46 (UTC)

Removed section about EBM and new wave. This has been discussed and people agreed that it was best not to get into sub-genres of industrial. There will be no exceptions here, EBM was removed along with power electronics, death industrial, and all the other subgenres. EBM and new wave have their own definitions so don't make half-assed ones on this article. 66.92.16.177 00:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

While I realize there are some people out there that believe NIN and Stabbing Westward are industrial, I cannot see why this means we should mention these bands on this definition. We know they aren't industrial, and no stretch of logic can tie such unrelated bands to the genre. These bands have no elements of industrial music, they have taken no influences from industrial music, how can we call them industrial? Hell I used to think NIN invented industrial because I read it in a FAQ written by NIN fans, that doesn't make any of it right. Sanctum 07:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article is a horrible mess. Hard to read, no real logic to it's structure. As for Sanctum- your definition of industrial seems to be "bands that I like". If, for example, Skinny Puppy or Ministry are Industrial, then NIN are Industrial. The word doesn't mean what it used to. If you only accept the original meaning of Industrial then Skinny Puppy, Ministry etc. have to go. Do you think this article should only deal with the original scene? That would make the article 25 years out of date compared to the rest of the world, where the usage of the term has changed. If everyone in the world calls NIN an Industrial band (Industrial Rock or whatever) then they are right, that's just how language works. Personally, I hate "Industrial rock", I hate "EBM", but the fact is, the words don't mean what you want them to mean, and this has been the case since about 1985. Stop living in the past, you're only fooling yourself. The bands you like will still be good whether they are called "industrial" or not- why is it so important to you to define your music by the name of a genre?? Seems like you think the word is special somehow. In the real world, nobody cares about the "industrial" genre anymore, it's old hat. TG and NON are still really good music, call them whatever you like and move on.

Nice troll. There is a lot of industrial music around today, there's no 'old' definition, the industrial music made back in the 70's is in the same genre as the industrial music being made today, industrial. So, your rant is way off. Sanctum 01:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that NIN still deserves to be at least mentioned in the article. Something like "The most popular band that is attributed to be inustrial is Nine Inch Nails, although many fans of the inustrial music do not concidter them to be a part of the genre". Something like that. Ask any random person to name an industrial band and NIN is very likley to show up, so you may at least give credit where it belongs.

This article is in a very sad state considering that all it really does is list a bunch of obscure musical acts and mentions essentially nothing beyond 1980. I don't know where this purist definition came from but it's ruining any chance this article had of being half-way decent. Genres can change and develop over time; what was industrial 30 years ago might sound a lot different now, and visa versa. We don't need to shove everything into it's own sub-genre as if we're going to somehow taint the perfection of the horrendous mess of a Wikipedia article we have now. If you ask me, industrial includes but is not limited to any type of music that utilises noise, creates a mechanical-sounding atmosphere, and is generally dark but not necessarily heavy. Apparently there are some that would beg to differ. And just for the record, a band doesn't have to be under the "Industrial Records" label for it to be considered industrial music. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen.Junkmailman 05:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. I'm just trying to work up the enthusiasm to contribute to the article again after fighting with whats-his-face for two years about it. I'm sure you can see the fallout here on the talk page, but I think the article used to be a good one, two years ago or so: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Industrial_music&oldid=10071049 Twiin 01:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The old article is at least more inclusive of different bands. I think it's outrageous that you have an article about industrial music and claim that Nine Inch Nails and Skinny Puppy are in they're own respective subgenres and have nothing to do with so-called "real" industrial or even effect each other. And the notion that "industrial music ended with the demise of Throbbing Gristle and Industrial Records" nearly makes me lose faith in ever fixing this article. Why does this article need to be so specific? Half of what's written cites essentially no real sources anyway. I feel as if this battle over the use of the word "industrial" is becoming as shallow and contrived as the definition of "punk." Please someone let Twiin rewrite this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Junkmailman (talk • contribs) 04:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

You guys will define and can define what Industrial Music is. There obviously isnt any offical or scholarly study so far, but you can choose whether it exists or not. I think anyone should be defined based upon what they consider their own music. If a band calls themselves Industrial who are we to claim they are not, and more importantly if the bands in there existence didnt refer to their music as industrial then are they?

Maybe it should be noted that what is called "Industrial" today is more derivative of bands like Joy Division and that the genre as it is known today is a misnomer? 209.248.160.82 20:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have already provided at least one source to explode the framework of this page and this idea that Industrial music should adhere to this line starting from the "Noise" bands of the 70's.

Here's the link, just watch it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42_GMwlAeiI

Once again, "Industrial" is merely a name. It's not a book, it's not a song, it is a name for a genre of music, the term "jumped" sometime during the 80's to refer to another genre of music. A word can have two meanings, and it here refers to two genres with two separate beginnings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.191.126 (talk) 02:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Revert

I've reverted the document to it's previous state. Nearly all the changes made contributed negatively to NPOV and accuracy. I'll be working to improve the article, and using Heavy metal music and Hip hop music as guidelines for this, as they've both been featured on the frontpage, so clearly they're genre articles that've gotten things right. I've also moved most of the older discussion here to the archive page, to make constructive discussion easier. Twiin 22:39, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's one way to look at it. One change that I think was clearly moving in the direction of NPOV was to cut down the number of tiny subgenres listed here. Most fans of industrial will not recognize many of the 14 (!!!) subgenres, nor agree on the distribution of bands within them. I'm not the only user to raise this criticism either, and so far the only responses have been allusions to your RL experience or RL "contacts". We're obviously going to need more to form consensus. siafu 22:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

As I've said before, I think taking the genres list and expanding them to their own (linked) entry is a fine idea. If there's consensus on this, I'll happily do it. (Edit: Done now. Cleanup should be done on the remaining bands/labels, and we need a writeup for 2nd wave.) Twiin 23:22, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I think you are alone on this. We really don't need a definition that expansive. Short and sweet, it leaves very little room for errors and disputable definitions, which we seem to have a lot of here. Also you've made some rather glaring errors. The Grey Wolves... second wave what? How did the grey wolves wind up with those other bands? Perhaps you are trying to define too many things that you aren't entirely familiar with? 128.120.181.250 12:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I didn't add the Grey Wolves to 2nd wave, actually. If you think it's better suited somewhere else, feel free to move it to the appropriate place. As for if we do-or-do-not need 'a definition that expansive', wikipedia's mission statement is to create "the largest encyclopedia in history, in terms of both breadth and depth", so I feel that breadth and depth is indeed a required component for this article. Twiin 16:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia also has a policy for consensus, so let's keep this article down to what we can agree is industrial. Clearly what you are writing here does not meet wikipedia's desired neutral point of view since it has been disputed for so long here. Now I have been willing to compromise by removing sections you didn't agree with, and it's time you did the same by not repeatedly adding your personal ideas on industrial music into this article. Keep it professional, this is not your definition alone. There most certainly is not consensus with the 14 subgenres or these 'waves' of industrial which were entirely made up for the purpose of this definition. I am still trying to bring more people into this discussion, most of them have been reluctant to make edits. Sanctum 01:18, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Major edits

The sub-genres really were useful. For all those that disagree with the def. of "industrial" could we at least agree to the fact that many people consider that the sub-genres listed previously really were valid industrial/derivatives, and at least provide easy access to them and the debate regarding this issue?

I have personally (as in, real life) recieved a large amount of unsolicited feedback about the changes made so far. Several friends of mine who are industrial musicians and run industrial record labels have approached me about the changes made, asking if there's any way it can be changed back, as they link to the article in their media (including websites and liner notes), and they don't feel that the current version of the page reflects modern industrial music in the least. And they're right. I've put an NPOV/Accuracy disclaimer on the page, and in the absence of constructive debate from the people who felt so strongly that the page needed to be changed, I'll be working with said industrial community members to rebuild the page, drawing heavily from the previous version. I think that the people who made the changes are a bit confused about the purpose of an encyclopedia. Twiin 06:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Right, so neckro and I are the only two people here that seem to still be interested in fixing this definition. We both feel that the subgenres need to be removed, since most of them warrant a separate definition. This definition is going to focus on industrial music, not the related genres. We will mention these genres and link to those definitions. I'm bringing a lot of people here to nitpick over some things on this definition, so when we finish we'll have something that everyone can agree with. 128.120.181.195 01:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm removing the link to the list of industrial artists, I'll make a new list on the definition (not linked) and keep it to only the really notable artists. Hopefully people will add any I might forget, but this list should be short and exclusive, we don't need a comprehensive list of every industrial artist ever.

128.120.181.195, I very strongly disagree with the changes you're making. If we can't decide on a happy medium, I would like to open this issue to a Request for comment -- will you agree to this? Also, it would make things much easier if you could log in before editing. Twiin 02:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The unecessarily long list of subgenres had to go. Do you want to make a new list of subgenres, this time only linking to separate definitions? If you read the rest of the discussion, neckro and I both explained our own reassoning for why a genre as large as industrial shouldn't have every subgenre listed. I'm following this policy of updating pages. The major change (the removal of the subgenres) was discussed, and I fully intend on making a list of the subgenres I removed, unless you wish to do this yourself. 128.120.181.195 02:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The request for comment seems like a good idea, but let's not drag this on too long or it will be a step backwards. What we were trying to do here is shorten the definition down from what looked like it was written by a committee to a nice, finalized definition that people can agree on without it needing to be ammended with every new development of a subgenre. 128.120.181.195 02:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to speak for neckro, but I've asked him to join this discussion so that we're not speculating on his thoughts. My interpretation of what he wrote is clearly different from yours. Additionally, I'm not faulting you for being bold, I'm simply asking you to log in so that your IP changes don't distract from the issues at hand. I don't want this to drag on either, but I believe the article is a better article with the subgenres in it. If you disagree with that as strongly as I believe it, then I think we should get outside opinions. Twiin 03:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re-reading what I wrote, I basically just said that maybe the genre list was getting unwieldy and it should perhaps be moved to a separate article. Removing them wholesale is counter-productive. And you should really register a username if you're going to be doing such things, 128.120.181.195. neckro 02:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of industrial music artists where is it? That would take care of the article being stuffed with hundreds of bands. --vininim 08:49, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can't believe how badly this article has been butchered. No-one took that RMI FAQ seriously, 128.120.181.195, and it didn't cause any confusion of note in the music media. You're not keeping an NPOV, you're pushing a very exclusive narrow definition of the term 'industrial music'. I'm not saying you're doing it deliberately, but what 'industrial' means to you is not the only meaning of the term, there are many other uses of it both that are both significant and verifiable -- and you're just cutting them out, one by one. Even if you think "this isn't REAL industrial music", there are thousands and thousands of people who consider themselves industrial musicians, fans, promoters, djs, and artists -- and they work with the music and musicians that you're purging from the article. To them, 'industrial music' means what they work with, regardless of how closely related it is to the first-wave movement of the 70s and 80s or CMI or anything that may or may not be closer ideologically to what Sleazy had in mind. The statement "Industrial music today has much in common with its origins" is simply untrue. Like it or not, Front Line Assembly, Ministry, Imminent Starvation and even the dreaded Trent Reznor have all made significant contributions to what industrial music is, and the POV that the article now speaks from serves to do nothing but misinform. Which, of course, is not what you want an encyclopedia to do. I'm asking you again to agree to a truce so we can get get some comments or mediation on this issue. Twiin 21:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Musicology section describes EBM, NOT Industrial Music.

I think in General, attention should be given to mainly early Industrial music, the death industrial, ambient industrial and Noise of the 80s, and the rhythmic industrial and so forth of the 90s. EBM and electroindustrial and Industrial metal and the such, although they should be mentioned, their main area should be the EBM page.

The second Wave has to be changed, nothing about power electronics, nothing about death idnsutrial or Dark industrial all of which were major movements in industrial.

Agreed about death/dark industrial. It's on my to-do list. (Also, please try to sign your posts when you write them -- just put four tilde ~ characters at the end of your edit.) Twiin 23:20, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I must say that I am greatly saddened to see the page in the state it is in now... I loved it the way it was before, when it had all of the sub catagories... Just the opinion of a passerby.64.229.192.206 00:10, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Me too. Twiin 02:36, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree although I think in the last version of it, there should have been a distinction between the industrial music that is derived from the origional industrial/noise sound and that which is derived from EBM sound.

This distinction is not necessary because EBM is not industrial, it's EBM. If you want to consider noise a subgenre of industrial (although technically it does precede industrial) I can certainly agree with that since it does seem to be the common convention these days. Sanctum 01:22, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Kompressor

It's in the opinion of me and my friends that Kompressor should be added to the list of artist under the 3rd generation industrial acts. Kompressor (At least here) is fairly popular and is probably one of the best known industrial musicians of our time besides Rammstein. 207.157.73.75

You funny, man. You a funny, funny man. Twiin 17:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

But seriously, some good bands aren't mentioned about enough here, like Merzbow, and he's about as industrial as it gets...

Merzbow isn't dance music, and Twiin only likes dance music so he hates to see anything else get mixed up in his grand definition of industrial. Well, it's been fixed now, Merzbow has its mention =) Sanctum 07:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merzbow isn't industrial. Him, along with Masonna, Hanatarashi, CCCC, Hijokaidan, Incapacitants, Aube etc etc etc (theres so many artists like this in Japan) are called "noise" artists and theres already a section on "noise music". It's related to the (early) industrial records scene in some ways (especially the work of NON and whitehouse) but basically after about 1980 had nothing to do with the industrial scene. Incidentally, Merzbow HAS done some specifically-for-dance music, usually for Japanese contemporary-dance companies.

Kraftwerk

I feel that more information on Kraftwerk should be included here, as they are one of the most influential groups on electronic music in general.

Industrial music is'nt really a electronic music genre, its an experimental music genre, most of the early industrial acts used guitars, found sounds and tape loop way more than they used synths, infact a lot of them did'nt use synths at all, more important to industrial musics development is musique concrete, and DADA art, and early experimental music.

Agreed. It would be folly to say Throbbing Gristle was electronic music, they did use electronics but were by no means limited to them. Industrial music traditionally uses a variety of acoustic instruments as well. I can't seem to find this interview I'm looking for, but there was a very heated debate between some early electronic artists about the ethics of music where Boyd and Genesis made it very clear they were in no way influenced by the likes of Kraftwerk. Boyd did however, note Karlheinz Stockhausen as an influence. Sanctum 01:25, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

it is true that there was no direct influence of kraftwerk on TG but I think kraut rock's infulence cannot be ignored.

groups like faust , can , amon duul , neo! and others were quoted meny times as major infulences by meny of the first wave musicians.

and ofcourse , listening to their music proves it better than anything else. but here are a few connections:

1. david tibet , steven stepelton talked meny times about the kraut rock connection (quotes can be found at "englands hidden reverse" book)

2. john murphy (who played with meny projects such as spk , whitehouse , death in june , knifeladder , foresta de ferro , ostara and meny more) said in an interview

"I first became interested in industrial music ..in the late 1970s ..back in Melbourne ..when I first came across import copies of the early releases of Throbbing Gristle and Cabaret Voltaire ..and also many other similar sorts of "art" and left field orientated acts that were emerging all over the globe around this time ...As a teenager I was also very immersed in mid 70s British style progressive and 70s glam rock plus German Cosmic Kraut rock ..so I suppose this was a natural progression for me "

3. at least two known projects are named after amon duul songs (deustch nepal , phallus dei)

4. the influence on the german first wave (mainly neubauten) is obvious and there are relevant quotes as well.

there is more. that is just out of my head.

the timeline also proves that meny of the first wave musicians were kraut fans at their teenage. so I think kraut rock must be included in the influences section

uri topheth

what is industrial music

trying to define Industrial music by using just musical terms is doomed to fail. industrial music is the result of industrial culture. industrial culture is trying to oppose pop culture and mass culture. industrial music is a shrine to indevedualism with a musical expression. it is far beyond music. that is the connection between death in june and genocide organ. coil and the grey wolves , TG and ain soph. it is all about individuality.

I reccomend reading john savage introduction to industrial culture (in re:search industrial culture handbook). savage , which imho is one of the most important writers about pop culture and beyond , counts five elements that can be found in industrial culture :

1. Organizational autonomy 2. Access to information 3. Use of anti music 4. Extra musical elements 5. Shock tactics

notice that only one of these is related to music. the industrial artist is using music as a means to an end in his journy of exposing the truth.

I think an artist that does not applay to these elements is not a industrial artist. faust used jackhammers on stage back in 1974 , the sex pistols used shock tactics , magma used elements of occultism in their works(exposing hidden information by this). each one of these elements doesn't make you an industrial artist. only awareness to you duty makes you one.

I would appriciate it if anyone can use my ideas to edit the article. I'm afraid my english is too limited for such a job. I also have comments about the history but I prefer to begin with the essence.

uri (a.k.a tgfan , topheth prophet , daysa etc...) Topheth 10:02, 21 May 2005

I think a lot of what you're saying makes sense. My partner has the re:search book, but I've yet to read it. I, too, feel that 'industrial music' is informed by industrial culture, which isn't necessarily about music itself, but the culture of art. I'll take some time soon to do some research on Savage's work. Twiin 11:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

The connection between all industrial music is Noise, even Trent Reznor said that his music is sometimes called industrial because of his use of Noise.

I hate to break it to you, but this isn't, in fact, the case. As noted on the entry itself, one of the founders of Industrial Records has himself stated that "the original idea of Industrial Records was to reject what the growing industry was telling you at the time what music was supposed to be" -- it's about concept, not execution. Certainly not about what sounds are or are not used, but about why they are used. Twiin 01:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

industrial music was about rejecting what music was suppose to be, which means using non traditional ways to make music, in other words industrial was experimental music. Which is why Ministry, Front 242, most skinny Puppy, KMFDM, and all those are not industrial music, for the most part their music follows traditional forms of music, what sets einsturzedne neubauten, throbbing gristle, brighter death now and other indsutrial artists apart is that they use sounds and noises that are normally not music.

Yes, industrial music was about rejecting what music was supposed to be. This was what it was about 25 years ago and this should be mentioned. Nonetheless, artists like Skinny Puppy, Front242 and NIN have been, and still are, considered industrial by many people. The term "industrial" has been used to describe vastly different styles of music and if thousands of people consider musical styles, such as EBM, industrial rock or dark ambient, to be industrial then they are, in a sense, industrial. This article would be more accurate and comphrensive if it mentioned and explained the relationships between all styles of music that have been known as industrial. The classification of industrial music into waves, although somewhat arbitary, at least attempts to cover this issue.--144.131.125.36 23:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

If its about why they are being used and not WHAT they are than industrial music is'nt a musical genre, then einsturzende neubauten is'nt industrial music, because they were simply exploring the musical qualities of noise as were many industrial artists. Industrial music as a musical genre (not a concept) is about noise. To illustrate this look at punk music, can you have a punk band without a punk additude? yes!!!, there is punk music as a genre, and as an additude, and this article is about industrial music as a musical genre.

Read this interview - http://www.signandsight.com/features/103.html - You'll see that Neubauten was pushing boundaries the same way that Throbbing Gristle was. "Reinventing both yourself and music. That was the nature of the time and the basic concept of the Neubauten: We will push the boundaries of music till there's no music left." Industrial isn't about noise. Hell, United is a pop song. Twiin 00:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I partialy agree about the neubauten issue. it is true that en music was more about the musical ideas than the industrial concept. they still applay to most of the basic industrial ideas such as Organizational autonomy , Use of anti music , Extra musical elements and Shock tactics so maybe they are not "pure" industrial but they can be described as "experimental industrial" and obviously without them industrial music wouldn't have become what it is today. Topheth

can you have a punk band without a punk additude?

No. You can't. siafu 00:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes you can. At least if you consider punk an attittude, a lifestyle, more than simply a musical genre. If you consider punk to be just about playing a certain musical genre, you haven´t understood anything about it. If Behind Enemy Lines (for example) were to compose a pop song, they would still be some a punk band (in regard to their DIY ethics, the social contents of their lyrics, their attittudes), just playing some pop music Violenciafriki 14:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

United was a pop song not an industrial song, was it possible that Throbbing gristle produced a non indsutrial song? yes. Of coarse Throbbing Gristle and most of the early industrial bands were about pushing the boundaries, but when making noise based music thats going to happen automatically, because its not traditional, so naturally its pushing boundaries. Industrial MUSIC is a MUSICAL GENRE, and thus should be based on its sonic qualities.

Listen, industrial music isn't about noise, NOISE MUSIC is about noise. That's why it's called noise music. There are crossovers and similarities, but they are two different styles. All music is a MUSICAL GENRE, but music doesn't exist in a vacuum, and the culture that created the music is as important as the music itself. Protest music is a MUSICAL GENRE also, but there is much more to it than a few chords. Industrial music is informed by culture, and counter-culture, and the sonic qualities that arise from it are derived directly from them. Twiin 03:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

GP-O said more then once that songs like united and adrenaline were made to prove they are not doing what they are doing because they can't play "normal" music but because they choose to do it. these songs should be related in that context.Topheth

So perhaps Noise and Industrial have different styles, so what is the industrial style, thats what we should base it on. You can't just take an idea and then whoever has that idea gets attached to the genre. The reason Gruntsplatter, Winterkalte, Non, Throbbing Gristle, The Grey Wolves, Desiderii Marginis, Brighter Death Now and Imminent Starvation are considered industrial is not because of some culture, or idealogy, its because of their musical style.

the way I see it , those who take only the musical elements of industrial are post industrial. that can be said about meny cmi artists for example. noise and industrial are different genres but meny artists are doing both so the line is not so clear.Topheth

Those who take the musical elements of industrial ARE industrial Musicians, maybe they don't have the industrial additude but they still make industrial MUSIC, making them industrial musicians. The difference between Industrial Music and Noise music as I have always understood was that Noise doesn't have any structure, whereas Industrial music is using Noise in a musical context, meaning it has structure, its not just Noise for Noise Sake.

Music is often defined as a contrast to noise, thus the term "Noise music" seems somewhat nonsensical, doesn't it?

when deciding if a Musician is industrial, what should be looked at is not his outlook or phylosophies, its his MUSIC, if his music is Industrial, then he is an industrial musicial. So is Einsturzende Neubauten Industrial? YES, why? Because their sound is Industrial. If I decide to make industrial music with absolutely no purpose other than appreciation of its aesthetic qualities is it still industrial music? OF COARSE!!! Thats how we should base industrial music on.

that is an intersting issue but basicly if you will succeed in putting the industrial aesthetic qualities to your song then your song will include most of the the industrial philosophy\agenda with or without your original intention.

are coil an industrial project ? meny of their songs doesn't have the industrial sound. and what about ritual industrial , martial industrial , dark ambient ? all these are industrial genres even if they have a different sound. what about neofolk ? etc... on the other hand , are faust industrial ? they have an industrial sound in some tracks. is techno music an industrial genre ? idm ? Topheth

Well that's a rather limiting way of thinking of industrial. Of course you are right, industrial could be strictly confined to only musicians that are part of the whole art movement and industrial culture. But for the purpose of this definition can we treat it like a genre? If it sounds industrial, regardless of what the underlying philosophy is, can we agree that it's industrial? Sorry I realize I'm basically echoing what other people were saying. I do agree with you but I feel this definition should be a bit more open. Industrial music not industrial culture/philosophy pertaining to music, eh?

Either way, Topheth has a lot to share about industrial culture and at the very least should write something about it in the definition. Sanctum 01:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Not that I particularly care to see either NIN or FLA mentioned, Sanctum, but your edit said to see the discussion page, and I don't see anything by you indicating why they "aren't industrial in the slightest". Can you elaborate? siafu 02:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

FLA and NIN are not industrial because musically they are not industrial, they are completely conventional using conventional instruments and conventionally musical sounds, no use of noise or non-musical sounds, its not abrasive or harsh like industrial should be. I could see the song Happiness in Slavery perhaps being called indsutrial, but NINs other stuff is just straight rock and roll, FLA is an EBM band.

While I'd agree that while fla and nin aren't industrial, would it not be worth having a paragraph or two mentioning other genres that have industrial influences within them, both in the metal/rock domain and ebm+related domain? also, shouldn't the term Powernoise be mentioned in relation to the 'Third wave' paragraph? --MilkMiruku 15:18, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Thats a great idea, mentioning EBM and metal/rock genres as having industrial influences I think is something neccesary, I also agree with the term powernoise, although I like the term rhythmic industrial better, but powernoise is what most people call it.

I had put all of these things in, but they were removed by other people. I, too, would like to see them return. I might go back and re-edit later tonight. Twiin 02:15, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

This is the definition for industrial music. Genres that haven taken influences from industrial are not industrial themselves, they should not be listed here as industrial music. Sanctum 07:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The second wave description HAS to be changed, all it is, is a description of EBM, and not a very good one at that.

Yup. This is getting ridiculous, I'm removing anything EBM related right now. Sanctum 07:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jesus, who re-wrote it? Industrial records ceased to exist in the 80s? That's completely wrong, industrial house records wasn't signing anymore artists, but they were still around. I replaced the second-wave definition with an older one which was remarkably well written and very focused on instrumentation. Although, as I've said earlier, I'm against this whole "wave" thing since it's been completely made up for the purpose of this definition (so Twiin could sneak in all those unrelated genres); even so if we are going to keep the waves of industrial music I'd like to see the other waves have some more focus on instrumentation. I'm going to re-work the first wave again since whoever felt the need to re-write it decided they could sum the entire era up in a single sentence, and they failed pretty badly at that. I'll leave the third wave up to someone else since well, it isn't industrial and rock music isn't a genre of music I know much about. Sanctum 07:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually on second thought there really isn't much to say for the 'first wave' that isn't mentioned already in the history. I guess this wave thing really doesn't work at all. The first wave is short because it's industrial music, and it's already been covered by the complete definition, the other waves, well... These made-up waves really don't belong. There have been simultaneous developments in industrial music spanning throughout the past three decades, they are not easily categorized into eras. I know Twiin wont agree to this since he wrote that wave stuff himself, but how many other people feel that the whole three waves of industrial is not an accurate way of describing the evolution of industrial music? Sanctum 07:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think we have reached a point in the evolution of industrial music that makes it as difficult to define as possible. that is what the 'waves' theory is about. trying to explain the relations between projects which doesn't have much in common. I think a better solution to this is to return to the sub genres list. maybe power electronics , neo folk , ebm and dark ambient are not 'pure industrial' but they have evolved directly from industrial. I think a definition for industrial music should be 'pure' and related to industrial culture. then we can mention the genres who evolved from industrial. GP-O said in one interview that it is amazing how the ideas of a few people back in 76 has so much influance on so meny people even 3 decades later. that this proccess and evolution are the most important thing and that the wikipedia article should refer to these.Topheth

Thats rediculous now the "second wave" just describes EBM music, and only a very small percentage of it, the second wave description needs to be changed.

Industrial Music is whatever people in general say it is. If Trent Reznor had never formed Nine Inch Nails, about two thirds of modern 'industrial' music would probably not exist. If Skinny Puppy had never formed, Nine Inch Nails and a host of other highly influential bands would have never formed. Throbbing Gristle was, from what I've heard (and I might be wrong) Ogre's favorite band. That constitutes a direct link between the bigger bands of the main three divisions. It's fairly easy to connect the most absolutely certain industrial with even the arguably near-pop NIN. Industrial music is an enormous genre, that's easy to underestimate. I'd call the roots of Industrial like TG and Suicide Old school Industrial and put it under a sub category.

list of artists

sorry to bring this subject again but the artists mentioned after "Contemporary developments" are far of representing the genre and its contemporary main artists. I understand the problem but maybe we should agree about a number of main contemporary projects to represent what goes on today and not write all the names of the projects we like. maybe one main artist for each sub genre

so I will start : power electronics: Genocide Organ

black\death industrial: brighter death now

martial industrial : der blutharsch

neo folk : death in june

avant garde : nurse with wound , coil

post industrial : deustch nepal

dark ambient : raison d'etre

now , this list hardly satisfies me as I would like to add meny great projects that I love but I think 1,2 major artist for each category should be enough. I know others will suggest other categories and that is the main purpose. to suggest sub genres and one,two representing projects.Topheth

Go ahead abd put in a more representative cross-section, I don't think anyone would complain. BUT- bear in mind a few things. Firstly you said "artists I love", you may love them (and you named some good bands there!), but it doesnt mean they are representative or important. Secondly, of that list you just gave, all the names I recognised are about 15-20 years old or even more. That's hardly "contemporary developments". For example, Nurse With Wound, in particular, should be mentioned along with the original Industrial Records sound. Brighter Death Now was part of the 80's and 90's scene, etc. They are still active, but they are not "contemporary developments". Finally, avoiding the tendency to break into "genre" sections seems like a good idea after all the problems this has caused.

This whole thing is a complete mess now, someone has to fix it, the article does'nt explain anything.

Article too vague

There appears to be a pissing match about how to make the genre more obscure rather than describing the history and understanding of the term

I believe this is why the entry is almost worse than having none at all

I took out the summary as it is not nessesary and does'nt have anything to do with the industrial aesthetic, neo-folk and martial music really has nothing to do with the industrial aesthetic.

nine inch nails, and a quick summary of industrial influenced music

i'm removing the paragraph regarding nin again because, although as i've mentioned before i think there does actually need to be at least a brief section regarding industrial and it's relation to ebm and industrial rock/metal, the paragraph, while appearing to sound npov by saying "Despite being viewed as a pop/rock band by a vocal minority of industrial music fans", actually contradicts itself by saying "even if they were not technically a part of it.". trent has used influences from many other genres such as synthpop, rap, drum and bass and plain ol' rock, so i don't feel saying "responsible for bringing the genre into the mainstream" is correct as it would be more accurate to flip the statement around to say that his music features industrial elements, and while many people perceive it to be industrial, nin are not actually an industrial band per se. saying that, i also don't think there should be a whole paragraph dedicated to one band, so i think the article requires a better npov paragraph (not as massive as the old 'waves' thing that was on here previously) summarising a) the influences of industrial on rock/metal and ebm and b) mentioning the confusion surrounding what qualifies as industrial as a genre and industrial influenced music. i might try to write something to this effect in the next couple of days but i'll be headed to infest at the end of the week and might not have the time before that. two other points; a) the paragraph should not have been entered right below the summary section; if anything is added about what i've talked about it needs to go near the bottom, and b) please can you either login or create a wikipedia account as it helps keep track of who is editing the article so we can work as a team to better it :) --MilkMiruku 00:03, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I actually think that Broken and The Downward Spiral were more industrial than almost every EBM album put out, as well as just about every Ministry or KMFDM album.

Right now the page covers late 70ies and bit of early 80ies.... that's it.

NIN may sound very different from Throbbing Gristle, but music tends to evolve over time, just like metal evolved from Black Sabbath to Opeth. Like it or now but NIN is the biggest thing to happen to industrial music in the 90ies. Funny enough, their most famous song (Closer) sounds more industrial than most of NIN's material. 'Closer' also happens to be the song 90% of people think when they hear term 'industrial music'. If the entry is to be unbiased, than it should reflect these happenings. I know that a lot of diehard industrial fans loath NIN -- that's fine, but Wiki will be crap if elitist minority would usurp the entries.

i agree, music does evolve over time, but your comparison is flawed. the difference between metal and industrial is that, while the first kind of metal was called heavy metal (metal being a catch-all term, with whole of Metal music is given over to describing the differences betwen the subgenres of metal, and Black Sabbath being described as heavy metal/doom metal and Opeth described as death metal), the first kind of industrial was actually called 'industrial'. i feel that while the current article does a fairly good job of describing the original industrial genre but as i mentioned above, there needs to be something to inform the reader of the difference (and the confusion about the difference) between that and industrial subgenres/industrial influenced genres. and btw, i do rather like nin myself ;) --MilkMiruku 10:13, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think CLoser sounds very industrial at all, Happyness in slavery was probably their most industrial track, but I think industrial in its pure sence basically goes as follows:

Throbbing Gristle+industrial records people/Einsturzende Neubauten, Non, Test Dept and others as the Classic Industrial sound.

Brighter Death Now, Merzbow, Whitehouse, the Gray Wolves and others of that sort as the later and more Noisy Industrial.

Gruntsplatter, Desiderii Marginis, In Slaaughter Natives (and other CMI people) as the later and More ambient Industrial.

Winterkalte, Converter, PAL, Noisex (and the other Ant-Zen People) as the even later beat based industrial.

That basically covores the main different styles of Pure Industrial other stuff like Skinny Puppy or Nine inch Nails are rally Other genres mixed with Industrial, for example Skinyy Puppy is EBM mixed with industrial and NIN are Rock mixed with Industrial.

Hi, everyone. I've been looking over the discussion here, and with it in mind, I rewrote industrial metal and industrial rock to try to spell out their differences with industrial in NPOV. Would it be possible to add a paragraph about those genres with a link? As it's been said many times, the average person looking for "industrial" music is probably trying to find info about NIN, Ministry, or similar bands. Cheers! Rynne 17:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Good writing you seam like you know what your doing, I would definately be for you working on the industrial page.

I do not feel like your definition for Industrial Rock/Metal work. According to your logic Pink Floyd was Industrial Rock.-Blissfreak

are you refering to industrial rock? if you disagree with the description of the genre then by all means make additions to clarify the difference between it and other forms of rock --MilkMiruku 11:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I actually believe Pink Floyd deserves a nod. They were the first to use sequencers in mainstream music.The Almighty Trickshot Jackelope Of Doom 04:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

At last, an article that makes sense

Easier to read, shorter, not full of NPOV crap..this is much better. Infact the links to "current/related subgenres" is much better than the old huge list of dubious genres..Could I suggest that the old "Industrial subgenres list" is finally put out of it's misery entirely? People can link to the individual entries for EBM, Industrial metal, or Power noise, or whatever, from the main industrial article now. So those articles can also be more focused and less compromised. Much better.

Well done whoever put this together. --219.17.48.197

i'm not entirly sure what you're meaning -- are you proposing a VfD for List of industrial music subgenres? you seem to be contradicting yourself by saying that moving the list of subgenres to another page was good but then saying that people should link so subgenres/related styles from the main article. --MilkMiruku 09:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to explain myself better. I liked the fact that the list was REmoved from the main article, not that it was moved. However, now there are two sets of explanations for the various industrial-related genres.

There is the long list, which features very short descriptions, rather arbitrarily grouped; that a lot of people weren't happy with.

There are also the various individual pages with longer and better descriptions of particular genres such as industrial rock (I think you did that one??).

Currently this means there is a lot of redundancy and it is harder to navigate. For example, should someone link to the "power noise" page, or to the description of power noise in the "list of subgenres" page?

I would suggest that all such links should be to the individual pages and that the subgenres page be done away with. The "list" as far as it is necessary, can be in the form of links to "related genres" in the main article. Then, in articles about bands and so on, they can link to the individual pages that refer to their style, rather than the whole list. --219.17.48.197

the main reason the format differs from other genre pages like Electronica, Techno music, etc, is that industrial is used both to describe a specific genre and also as a descriptor for music related to that genre in some form. like it or not, people to use the term "industrial" to refer to ebm, industrial rock/metal, power noise, etc, and i feel that rather than there being a few links in a one paragraph section on Industrial music, the best way to list these genres is on a separate page with a brief description plus a link to the main article for that genre which users should be using when linking to that genre. also, the 'subgenres' are grouped loosely grouped in decade rather than being arbitrarily grouped. --MilkMiruku 10:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

There comes a point when we should just break down and split the definition in two and say "there are two different genres of industrial and they just happen to have the same name." Sanctum 01:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

but while one is a genre, the other usage is more as an umbrella term. i agree that they should be seperate, and List of industrial music subgenres and a paragraph at the top of Industrial music are there for that effect. --MilkMiruku 01:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

demise of TG?

What do you mean by that? The guys(and girl) are still playing. vininim 22:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is too idealistic and not reflective of the primary usage of the term

The focus on this article almost exclusively on the early artists who invented the term and called themselves industrial music is symptomatic of those articles where the meaning of a word has been far detached from its component parts. It confuses people once they realize that is almost a coincidence that later groups were also called industrial even though their music sounds nothing like the noise music of the original artists. However, the VAST MAJORITY OF THE TIME people use the term industrial music to describe the later artists. Therefor the article should talk about the full range of industrial music, instead of just the original artists.

See the huge discussions at the top of the talk page. The current article is about as close to a compromise as we can get: talk mainly about the original industrial movement, then have a link to the subgenres on another page. Trying to put more of the current "state-of-industrial" on this page will (and has) caused outcry from purists; likewise, any attempt to purge the later developments isn’t taken well by folks with a more expansive definition of the term. - Rynne 18:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The current article is worthless for anything other than light historic information. It's not a good article compared to the rock, hip hop, blues, or any other genre articles, and it's not even a good article compared to what it was a year and a half ago. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Industrial_music&oldid=8613031 ). The purists are just that: purists, and not realists. This is an encyclopedia, not an etymological dictionary. It should reflect industrial music, as it exists now, with an explanation of how we got here. It needs either a complete revert or a complete rewrite. To be more specific, I think it should be rebuilt/rewritten from the ground up, using CITED SOURCES ONLY. That way there is no argument over if a genre name is real, or when a band started doing something before another band. If we use sources, we avoid the bias argument, and make an NPOV much easier to attain. Twiin 13:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. Too many of the Industrial pages have squabbles over non-original information, forums, and other refutable information according to wikipedia's rules. Xe7al (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You might as well add Nightwish and Evanescense to the Goth page, to keep up with the "current use of the word".vininim 10:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Check out Gothic Rock. Evanescense is already there. It just goes to show. Xe7al (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Skinny Puppy

Reverting a band because you think they are not "electronic body music" or "EBM", when it is widely ackowleged by everyone that they are pioneers of modern industrial music makes no sense. Please explain before you revert. Rsm99833 22:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You would have an easier time finding people who thought Skinny Puppy were irrelevant to industrial than you would finding people who think they are electronic body music - they have very little to do with that kind of music. Schicksal 23:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're sources are, however, I trust my ears, the article on Skinny Puppy itself, and even various critical sources such as Trouser Press, All-Music-guide, and others. So while you can argue that they are not "EBM", deleting them from an article on Industrial Music does not make sense. Explain why they are *not* Industrial music, not why they are *not* "EBM". Don't forget, if you delete them, you might as well delete Ministry, RevCo, and Front Line Assembly as that all those bands either colaberated with SP, or had members in SP to start off with. Rsm99833 23:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Put them in the article, but not under an EBM label. Maybe you should try reading the text you are editing rather than focusing on the fact that the words "Skinny Puppy" were removed.Schicksal 23:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Read the article. However, I placed them in the wrong spot for clarification. However, I can say for certain, being quite framiliar with their body of work that they can easily fit into any of the given classifications, for what it's worth. But beyond that, where they are placed at the moment is quite acceptable. Rsm99833 23:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that Skinny Puppy's style is based off of the original Industrial groups such as Throbbing Gristle. I never see anyone saying their style is based off of anything other than groups associated with Industrial Records. At least I've never seen any places that associate Skinny Puppy's style with electronic acts. Maybe I'm wrong. Xe7al (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Skinny Puppy 2

In continuation of the above discussion: why is SP being classified as Electronic Rock? Yes 3 of their albums could be easily classified as such, but the overwhelming majority of their catalogue is not. The reason I have reputably removed them from the 'Electronic Rock' example list is this, I have never once found them listed as such. Avador 17:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Personaly I have no idea what Electronic Rock is and would generaly classify them as Industrial Rock. Do you consider Skinny Puppy to be an Industrial band, and therefore having a place being mentioned in this article?
—Asatruer 18:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes of course they are an industrial band, and they are nearly always sited as such. They are not an industrial rock band, which electronic rock is a alternative name for *I'm assuming). Avador 18:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

My thinking of them as Industrial Rock is not based on much other than supposition and the vaguest of notions. If you were to catagorize Skinny Puppy, how would you do so? Also, which bands do you feel fall under the header of Inustrial Rock?
—Asatruer 22:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Genre wise they are hard to catorgorise, a few of their albums would fall under the industrial rock header (Rabies, Process, & GROTR) though the majority of their work does not. The AMG lists them as Industrial Dance, which is for most the most part accuarte, though not all of their music is Danceable. I say it would be best to place then under the EBM lsit on the top. Avador 23:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The earliest Skinny Puppy releases (Back & Forth) were obviously heavily influenced by Industrial Records-era industrial music. The Remission and Bites albums relaxed this style in favor of a more 80's infusioned pop music not unlike similar work by Cabaret Voltaire around the same period of time. Political themes became most obviously apparent with VIVIsectVI not long after. Where most of the 'industrial rock' notion comes from is Rabies - an influx of influence from Ogre's work with Ministry and Ministry-related projects. After that, Skinny Puppy delved back into further electronic experimentation again, most obviously with Last Rights - Of course, the aborted final album The Process shows a totally different side of the band. Now, of the new stuff, I can't say a whole lot about since I haven't heard a lot of it but it seems to be pretty easily pegged into the 'industrial rock' model. Basically, what I'm saying, is that the Skinny Puppy discography would be inaccurately simplified by labeling it entirely under 'industrial rock.' :bloodofox: 19:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Avador 02:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The first paragraph contains merely examples of artists, not comprehensive "lists". Not every notable artist need be present. You've all established that Skinny Puppy is not a good example of industrial rock, and I don't think I need to explain why they aren't EBM, Industrial Metal, avant-garde, writers, etc. Therefore, don't list them. Schicksal 04:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Rabies is the best example of clear-cut Industrial Metal I can think of. Industrial Metal is much older than Industrial Rock. The newest album is identical to OhGr, but with a more obvious breakbeat and IDM sound. Skinny Puppy falls under a long list of styles and subgenres, but is always under the umbrella of Industrial. Some of their earlier stuff is more Industrial than a few TG songs I've heard.The Almighty Trickshot Jackelope Of Doom 04:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Industrial Vs. Agricultural

It's normally assumed by those in the know that the term was coined by Cazazza not as a reference to the newness of the music, but rather the manner in which it was created, and the "assembly line" speed with which the music was produced. Change?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.4.167.112 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 2006 October 9 (UTC)

Well, if those in the know have written on the subject and we can find a verifiable and reliable source that indicates what you say, then it can be added to the article. Like say, for example, if RE/Search No. 6/7: Industrial Culture Handbook's interview with Cazazza mentions that, we could cite it, and thus add it to the article.
—Asatruer 01:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Confusing genres and sub-genres!!

I have read through most of these discussions on Industrial vs E.B.M vs Dark-electro and so on…It looks like to me that if you have an Industrial song and you put in a extra loop in it, you can coin your own style and make it a sub-genre of something, say” LOOP-INDUSTRIAL” I think there are just too many sub-genres and sub-sub-genres in this music scene. To me there are just Industrial / E.B.M. and sometimes the line between them are blurred.

I think some of you should just climb of your high horse and stop cluttering up the scene

I'm sorry you're confused, but with 30 years of development and changes, it's not surprising that there are a range of genre/sub-genre terms within the overall sound. It's not anyone on WP making these up, geographical differences, artists' egos, label promotions and a range of other things have impacted on how some styles are defined. That said, Industrial as a sound is older than the whole "dance" scene and there are far more sub-genres there than there are here. Oh, and please sign your comments. Donnacha 13:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That giant list actually reflects the way things are. Magazines make fun of that kind of thing all the time. It gives an accurate picture of how many sub-sub-sub-classifications of subgenres you'd hear at any Industrial show from any namechecking rivethead on the floor. It's sad and inconvenient but it's accurate.

The Almighty Trickshot Jackelope Of Doom 04:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Thank you Trickshot, my sentiments exactly. Davestrand 02:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:20 Jazz Funk Greats.jpg

Image:20 Jazz Funk Greats.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I have solved the problem. :bloodofox: 02:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Post-industrial developments

American people have a really strange idea of industrial music. Skinny Puppy and Front 242 are a part of the Post-industrial movement... hmm, ok. But Ministry? Nine Inch Nails? It's simply Rock music with an influence of electronic music/EBM, nothing more. The real post-industrial part is missing in this article. Music groups such as Genocide Organ, Death in June, Thorofon, Con-Dom are the Industrial music artists of the 90s. Forget Marilyn Manson. Manson is an Alternative metal group. Forget NIN, it's a simple rock music group. The same thing with Gravity Kills, Filter etc. This is an article of Industrial music, not an article of baby pop. --Breathtaker 23:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the article should represent everything that both underground culture and mainstream media has labelled as 'industrial' in order to provide a clear understanding for anyone coming across the genre for the first time. A few months ago, this article was incredibly pretentious and devoid of any scope for what the phrase 'industrial' has evolved to (or been corrupted to, depending on your perspective) represent. For example, some teenager who's just discovered Nine Inch Nails for the first time, reads in an issue of Kerrang that it was 'industrial' music, then comes to Wikipedia to learn more and sees nothing but a massive elitest list of underground artists with no nods to what led him here in the first place does nothing but a disservice to the music and to Wikipedia's value as a resource. People need to shed the elitism and pretentious underground credentials used to repeatedly turn this article into nothing but an ego-trip to show off how hardcore or oldschool they are. Whether people like it or not, there will be people who'll ultimately be led to the music of Throbbing Gristle or Test Dept. all because they once picked up a Rammstein CD and those who constantly nitpick anything remotely commercial or released after 1980 need to respect and understand that. --Napalm Frost 18:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Rammstein is kiddy crap, nothing more. A simply rock group. They're absolutely irrelevant.

And you continue to make the kind of statements I'm hoping people can be mature enough to refrain from obnoxiously posting. It's music, not a personal attack on your identity. The punk page talks about the pop styles and popular artists that emerged decades after the origins of the genre, and as such so should this page. Besides, Rammstein were featured on the 21st Circuitry compilation 'Coldwave Breaks Vol. 2' (1997) meaning they were at least once considered more than just "a simple rock group" by a well-known "post-industrial" label. Not to mention that you made no comment on the fact that I said these commercial 90s artists, MARKETTED as 'industrial' by labels and the media (even if their music has very loose if any true ties to that term) will no doubt have led people to the 'real' stuff. --Napalm Frost 19:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Rammstein is considered NDH, not straight Industrial. It's merely an Industrial influenced rock style. Then again, it is disputed if NDH is really just another Industrial sub-genre. Xe7al (talk) 04:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

21st Circuitry is absolutely irrelevant. Its an american rock music label, nothing more. But you must know, american people are stupid. They think that every kind of rock music with synthesizers is industrial music. But it's rock music with synthesizers, nothing more.

---

...and in with the racism. Nice one. Disregard that user please. For the record, many of the original coldwave acts cited the early noise groups as huge influences. It would be convenient for certain elitists to imagine, say, Jared Louche as some kind of ignorant rocker but this interview he talks knowledgeably about the pre-industrial artists such as Stockhausen, which would suggest he know what he's talking about. Anyway, I hardly think Wikipedia is a suitable battlefield for elitists vs. people who actually enjoy industrial music of any sort, save it for another site.

Oh and for the record--power noise is undeniably industrial. Possibly more so than anything on Industrial Records, as to the average listener it appears to be nothing more than factory noise. Presumably that was the whole point. 84.69.3.99 22:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There are Industrial sub-genres that can be differentiated. Aggrotech for example is a form of Industrial that has a focus on intense tempo and feel with harsh and aggressive vocals. You can't place Funker Vogt and Grendel in with Skinny Puppy or Rotersand. It just goes to show there are some sub-genres that are quite valid. Darkwave also has its own style to its own. It's just like how rock music has Funk, Hard Rock, Industrial Rock, Punk Rock, Gothic Rock.... Xe7al (talk) 04:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Metal Machine Music "successful"?

It seems pretty perverse to describe "Metal Machine Music" as "successful". Since it was universally excoriated by the critics and hardly anyone bought it, I wonder what the author's criteria for success are? Perhaps Lou Reed's success in getting the record company to release it? Rodparkes 07:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that's a highly dubious claim. Personally, I'd argue against the claim that it was the first actualized industrial record, too (Cromagnon's Orgasm from 1969 is much closer in sound to the original Industrial Records artists, and is demonstrably influential from the band's inclusion on the Nurse with Wound list), but I think the idea of MMM being "succesful" is the easier claim to disprove.

I'd say that if no other evidence of the albums' success is given in the next few days, that line should be removed. -- rynne 14:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Industrialculturehandbook.jpg

Image:Industrialculturehandbook.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 13:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This is bad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.126.234 (talk) 01:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Meaning Controversy

Since there are raging arguments still going on over what Industrial really is, why don't we place a controversy section in this page? We could denote that there is a disagreement between purists and expansionists over what Industrial was and is. Since both sides to this fight apparently cannot come to terms with each other, we could at least point out that there are different definitions from different groups. 137.48.29.34 Xe7al (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Post-Industrial Genre Section

I have removed the Post-Industrial Genre section for a few reasons:

1. The section before it mostly covers that information.
2. There is a page for that information which was provided as a main page.
3. There is very little that was contributed by adding that section. It makes it look more professional without the repetitive section.
4. The main page link could be placed in the Post-Industrial section.

The genre page could use some updating and I'll look it over and see what I can do with it. Instead of reverting, I would suggest to definitely make the Genre page look better or to delete it completely and incorporate it into this page. Since Post-Industrial genres bring more arguments over Industrial music as a whole, I would go for improving the existing page. Xe7al (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

A Fact Nobody Can Deny

I have revised part of the introduction, in particular the last line to read:

"broadening of the term's musical definition has led to an overwhelming number of sub-genres and lines of influence, [superseding the term's original obscure meaning to represent the much later electronic music sound.]"

The addition is in brackets. If the grammar isn't perfect, someone should improve upon it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.191.126 (talk • contribs) (01:06, 24 June 2008)

What you have offered here is not "a fact nobody can deny," it is an opinion, your opinion, for which you have provided no reference. As such, I have reverted same. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Offered no proof? Is that what you say? Why not look at your entire article, just examine the artists mentioned in the article. Are you going to deny, that for every one person who know who Throbbing Gristle are, there are NOT ten thousand people who know who Front 242 and Skinny Puppy are -- indentifying them with Industrial -- and that these same people would have no idea about the origins of (Noise) Industrial?

According to the very rigid definition of early Industrial, it would in fact disqualify any mention of any band outside of its original genre. Mind you, I am not a fan of either "Noise" or "EBM." But I dislike the fact that this article, which posesses a critical imbalance, when in fact, the most "sources" refer to the later Electronic Industrial sound. If this very article simply identified itself as Industrial (Noise), and not delving into any other explanation of the roots of the more popular Industrial, then I wouldn't have a problem. But what I find here is that, you want it both ways: you like the noteriety that the later music styles, not recognizing that the volume of "sources" points to the fact that the very name's meaning had not only "jumped" to refer to a different approach to music, but that it essentially supplanted the original meaning.

Just now, a few minutes ago I ran a search on the web, and I found this link to a Youtube interview of Trent Reznor in 1990; watch it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42_GMwlAeiI

Now, the report gives a token mention to Cabarat Voltaire, but that is obviously Reznor's "planted" information for the journalists, in order to distinguish "old" from "new" Inddustrial; but the journalists were not there to interview Cabarat Voltaire; in fact, they doubtlessly had no idea who they were (or Throbbing Gristle); otherwise, they wouldn't even be referring to NIN as Industrial, but under some electronic dance lable. But to even label these bands Post-Industrial is ridiculous. I say this because these later bands would have emerged even without NON or Throbbing Gristle, and they DID. That's the whole crux of the matter. The band that Reznor was in before NIN was a synth pop band, not some occult noise ensemble. And yet, he is the very person who broke "Industrial" into the mainstream into the 90's. What everythings points to, and eve our article has it written all over it is: that the term simply "jumped" sometime during the early 80's. But you omit this reality.

But I am sure I can troll the web and produce for you literally a thousand sources, which do not even refer to those earlier "Noise" artists, if you do not like the NIN interview, and what Reznor described as the contemporary Indstrial scene, what it had become, how the earlier meaning had become superseded...

HEll, why don't we just go into what this "INDUSTRIAL/NATION" magazine focus was??? It's focus is and was on the development of a sort of "hardcore" electronic dance music.

Unbelievable. Your whole Wiki article undermines itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.191.126 (talk) 04:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)