von_geisterhand: (Default)
A quite readable article even if they leave out a chunk of how things developed between the time that Cosey took her kit off in an artistic way and the recent Nachtmahr-Combichrist-Adversary conflict. That stuff did not happen overnight, you know? There was a logical and fairly depressing development.

On Misogyny in Industrial Music"

Funnily enough, some of the arguments in this discussion match the constantly regurgiated discussion on "Nazis in Goth", particularly when it comes to the demand that an artist should step away from their work and comment on their actual opinions/thoughts on the matter in order to quell a possible suspicions. Laibach, as the article states, "hasn’t broken character in over 30 years of interviews" and still nobody seriously suggests they might actually be Nazis or calls for them to unambigiously distance themselves from the Nazis that attend their shows.
Death In June/Douglas P., on the other hand, has (admittedly reluctantly) stepped away from and commented on his work on occasion, as well as confronting fans that found the rainbow flag onstage incompatible with their political beliefs. Yet, his explanations are simply discarded as false excuses, his contradictions are seen as invalid/irrelevant and he remains the poster boy for Nazis in Neofolk. Frustrating!
YMMV on this, but IMHO there is nothing wrong with an artist presenting him/herself onstage as a baby-eating, this-that-or-something-else-hating, satanist monstrosity calling for death, destruction and eradication of this, that or something else. That stuff has worked well for decades in metal and it probably will remain popular. As long as they don't show the same attitudes off-stage as well, it's fair enough. (Or if they do, they have to live with the consequences. That is what distinguishes Varg Vikernes from Marilyn Manson.)
This approach requires the listener/fan to critically approach the material, though, to not raise their arm to a salute when the artist does. Think of "Tomorrow belongs to me" from "Cabaret". It is rousing and if it is staged well, you do want to join in and the moment you catch yourself wanting to salute, suddenly forced to face something dark inside yourself, is the moment when the magic happens.
Reaching this critical moment is hard, particularly if the artist in question has built a complete entity that almost entirely lacks any "cracks" to begin an analysis/deconstruction with. Laibach's "cracks" are things like their avantgarde past and their usage of seemingly innocent pop songs. It bewilders the listener, thus making him/her think.
Death In June, on the other hand, have been fairly consistent and "crack"-free since essentially becoming a one man show.
Zentriert Ins Antlitz's "Geschäftsfrau" drags you out on the dancefloor with its catchy beat and then faces you with a fairly tough conversation, which hopefully let's you hesitate for a second and go "Hang on, what am I dancing to? What have I been dancing to all night for that matter?"
(To be continued)
von_geisterhand: (Default)
....you can watch somebody from the Daily Torygraph jump to random conclusions.

Lou Reed and Metallica's sick poster has no place on the London Underground

Let us disregard the questions about the musical necessity of Metallica and Lou Reed collaborating for the moment, and going into detail about Wedekind's "Lulu" here would probably lead to a whole other discussion that would sooner or later necessitate the mentioning of Lars von Trier. Which nobody wants, and which really is not relevant here, anyway.

My favourite sentence is "Children, unstable psychotics, abused women and simply people already suffering from a sweaty armpit and a 20-minute delay should not be exposed to a bloody torso.", as it combines the ever-popular "The children! Who will save our children?" with the just-as-popular feeding the fear of all the "psychos" that might lurk on YOUR! street, ready to snap at any second, about to pounce and commit heinous acts of barbarism and monstrosity. The only way to keep them at bay is to keep as quiet and civilised as possible. No sudden movements, no loud noises and for God's sake, no disagreeable culture please!

....while happily disregarding that the exciting and special thing about "psychotics" is that you don't know how they will interpret something or what will finally make them snap, if snapping is what they are about to do. Your worldview might not match theirs, strangely enough.
But let us leave the area of sarcasm and the garden-variety psychotic.
There is always this sickenly vague fear of what "they" might do, always just a vague possibility, but you never know...

What I think really aggravates me about this (assuming that I have not fallen foul of a major act of subtle satire here) is the sheer bluntness with which Lucy Jones interprets what is basically an artistically ambiguous image solely according to her own wishes/thoughts/prejudices in order to jump to conclusions. There is a definite difference between an image of a partial shop mannequin, to all intents and purposes a broken doll, which has long been a popular image, and interpreting it as being "dismembered, cut and bruised" and a likely trigger for violence against women*. Yes, I can follow that train of thought but IMHO this train is a fair few stops beyond where it should really have terminated.

*Yes, I know how the play "Lulu" ends. But I doubt that Lucy Jones does.


von_geisterhand: (Default)

June 2017

45678 910
111213 14151617
181920 21222324


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 18th, 2017 12:02 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios