Eneathedevil

Erri, Purpulan. We should first look back at parentage, and here there is no doubt: Throbbing Gristle were predecessors and their music was not "entirely" concrete, in the sense that they didn't focus on barrels and drills, while importing from the Group for Concrete Music the use of recorded tape. Among other things, the exquisitely concrete matrix of industrial music is a thesis that considers the phenomenon only partially: industrial music originated from various musical phenomena, particularly krautrock (Kraftwerk had already mentioned the term, Faust had developed similar sounds previously), and above all the matrix is social, as through industrial music the discomfort of man towards the machine civilization was expressed. In this regard, therefore, this could be expressed with all possible means: Throbbing, first, dealt with sampling, sparse guitar riffs and magnetic tapes, Einstürzende with barrels and pneumatic hammers, Clock DVA with keyboards and synthesizers, each according to their own needs.

Gee, you're as boring as a Paolo Limiti broadcast. Skinny Puppy, and this is also my introduction to Pixies, were exceptional for the reasons already described: image and the use of electronics. Young Gods and FLA, historically later than Skinny, although this album is from 1989 (I chose it because I think it's the best and Too Dark Park is already in the database: with all the Skinny tracks missing from Deb, it would have been a crime to do a duplicate), are epigonic phenomena, and in my opinion, and I believe all critics, inferior to Skinny at least in terms of imaginative-conceptual depth. They were "cassette" groups, like Clock DVA, not interested in the typically Throbbing visual factor. The Young Gods, moreover, went into industrial metal, which would also take us a bit away from the subject at hand. In any case, this is an examination of electronic music, not industrial: if I were to talk about Clock DVA (whom I adore, but had to skip for overcrowding reasons), the Young Gods, or FLA, it would truly make the column infinite, as Franci says :)

Very well. However, I must tell you that you cannot obtain an audience here, and if you had been a bit less obtuse, you would have understood that. The editors are people who simply correct and decide whether to publish reviews; they do not delete any reviews on their own initiative under any circumstances. Initiatives to remove reviews are absolutely assessed by the site managers, who are different individuals whose identities I believe are now known to most. Send an email to staff@debaser.it with your request for removal: only the managers can respond if they wish; the editors cannot take any action in that regard.

Supersoul, you need to try to organize your thoughts. Can you understand what you want or are asking for? Bartle apologized (I had missed that piece), and it was therefore a misunderstanding. You are right that the disclaimer represents an editorial choice (not coincidentally, not knowing about Bartle's apologia, I myself thought of a consensual publication), but those are logical countermeasures that come from the awareness of having unintentionally given rise to a series of accusations from which one wants to distance themselves. There are editors you can talk to at this moment; say what you wish, if you don’t just want to engage in polemics.

Exactly, Phidias has emphasized what I wrote. You can backtrack; the matter, as I mentioned right away, is not about inconsistency. But the fact that you return to writing with the same spirit of denunciation as before.

Nah, you really didn't get it. I hope the response comment to Alessio clarifies the point for you. And I repeat, it's about recidivism and the fact that you insist on areas that no longer pertain to that case. When I said "logic of open and courageous publication of the most disparate ideas by Debaser," I meant that this is the justification put forth by the site's managers (I am not part of the staff, so don't assign me any responsibility); I didn't say whether I defend it or not, in fact, as will be clear from the previous post, I said that I share Alessio's theses. So you might also be right, but now with your persistence, you're starting to be in the wrong, because you're sticking to a point that has reason to exist in that context: if you persist, it means you have a problem with the site's managers. I don’t quite understand the whole Quaquaraquà matter (nor do I understand why you quoted Sciascia to a Sicilian like me), since we are talking about criminal types. You should have called me an "ominicchio"; you picked the wrong insult.

Very good... and to think that I've always skimmed past this without listening to it, the review is intriguing.

Let’s be clear: in my opinion, the point is not Lennon’s review, in the sense that, as I see it, that issue has come to a conclusion since the staff took a stand and discussed coherently what has certainly not been a backing of a deplorable idea. I believe that the matter was settled, and it seems logical to express one’s dissent in that comments space, so I am not talking about the legality of the protests, which I obviously think is permitted for everyone (even though too many jumped to conclusions without waiting for clarifications in that area), but rather about the issue of recidivism. If Supersoul disagrees, that’s fine, but you have to agree that in this review the reference to the Lennon affair is opportunistic, thus overall out of place and indicative of a malice towards the management of the site. Moreover, I don’t understand what he hopes to achieve by insisting in this way on the legality of the publication. If he wants the review taken down, he should write to the staff and ask for it to be removed, discuss it. If, however, he has already experienced that his appeal will not be heard, well, he needs to come to terms with the site's policy. If he doesn’t like its principles, he can leave; I also don’t agree with many things regarding the management of the site, but I come to terms with it because I try to focus on other things. As for the content of that review, I generally agree with you, but I repeat, continuing to repeat the same tune in different contexts seems ridiculous to me. Moreover, by doing so, Supersoul loses out too: the review is good for 3/4, then it gets lost in ranting against the kids. Come on, this way we are just giving them attention they don’t deserve. Ignoring to purify Debaser, that's what we should be doing.

The issue of inconsistency can be a minor transgression when a person changes their mind and therefore renounces what they previously supported with a new stance. The point is that here, after expressing disdain for the site during the review of Lennon, this person returns to write the same things, using an even more striking medium like a review. So this isn't even a matter of inconsistency; there's only a sterile recidivism. Aside from the fact that the publication of the review on Lennon is always framed within the logic of open and courageous dissemination of the most varied ideas by Debaser (and indeed, regarding this, you can find online a site that publishes reviews like this one that attacks the very staff to whom it is sent), by doing so Nettadebaser becomes just a mannequin whose intent is no longer to cleanse Debaser of certain elements, but to undermine Debaser itself, because here the demon is no longer the user of the moment, but once again the staff of editors. Clearly, it matters more to stir the pot by spitting on the management of the site than anything else. If you want to run a campaign against ignorant kids, go ahead and see how many followers you can gather, but continuing down this path will only make you a huge contradiction in which you attack what you defend.

But I ask you, Saputè, do you even listen to him? Have you read my list of the '90s? Post-rock, psychedelia, techno, glitch, Brit-pop, Trip hop? If you want to dig in, I can throw some at you too: PJ Harvey, Ani DiFranco, Cat Power, Suzanne Vega, Lauryn Hill, Fiona Apple... not exactly rubbish. He's shifting the focus to the '90s, that filthy one, but he doesn't realize there's no contest.