#i think the industry is very gatekeepy

[goongiveusnothing]

The thing with Louis is that, he has no radio play. The only times his songs get played are when fans request them. Why is it like that? The bands that support him have radio plays and they are way more Indie than he is, one of them is like proper punk. When his album reached number 1 in the UK, bbc (jack Saunders) made the customary phone call, where louis tells him that he got that without radio support and it is thanks only to his fans. Guess what, they edited this part out before putting it on YouTube. Why would they do that? When his first single was released, and there was no radio play, some of his fans from the UK wrote a written complaint to the officials in BBC and the song was added to the c playlist, which they play at 2am. Even that they wouldn't do for more than a week. There was a q&a he did two weeks ago in London, where he again talked about the lack of radio play.

He cannot reach new audiences without that. He is the only one from ot4 who hasn't played bbc live launge or similar stuff. The next thing he can do is play festivals. Again he himself said that he doesn't get invitations to festivals. It is evident that he can pull in a crowd, then why wouldn't he get booked? He made a festival by himself and even that would hardly get any media coverage.

His number 1 album got four mainstream reviews that qualify for a meta critic score, just four. Out of which one is by an ex larrie, who wants to impregnate harry styles and fuck Zayn. He went private on twitter now. He has been abusing louis on twitter since 2017. Again if there is no review, good or bad, no new audience. Bruce Springsteen's album was released the day louis' album was released. This guy from official charts tweeted about the extreme level of promotion Springsteen has been doing and mentioned Columbia and one direction and BMG. Louis's uk promo was near to non-existent. No Graham norton, no tv performance, nothing. Again no new audience. All of this cannot be a coincidence. I hope Harry is not at least directly complicit in this( but I also hoped he had nothing to do with that whole euphoria mess, which he clearly had) . Sony 100% has involvement in this. Do the Azoffs have? I don't know, there is nothing to implicate them directly. But as you have mentioned they have a clear history of sabotaging artists. Afterall louis and harry share a fanbase. Larries like to tell that all this is happening because he left syco music. That is not true. This has been happening since his second single with bebe Rexa came out. At that time in 2017, there was this twitter conversation between her team and some rj's, where the rj's mention the lack of effort from his label's part as the reason for it not going viral. His next single just like you(which also mentions the Sony- George Michaels clash in the visuals). Was pulled off the radio within a week. And it has been like that ever since.He teased an album and world tour for 2018, instead he became a judge in x-factor. He said that he could not get people to write with him( even though he is the one with the most writing credentials in 1d), he said recently in Zach zang show that he contemplated leaking his album walls because it was going nowhere. He isn't even invited to events or after parties, since 2017. Absolute blacklisting!

Then there are larries, the bane of his existence. They have been writing essays on why he shouldn't be let to grow as an artist for the past many years, especially for the past two months. Spoiler alert: their theory is that louis is forced to make music, his life ambition is to get inside a suitcase and travel alongside harry styles and be a good loving house husband. Apparently he broke his arm, to not promote his album and go visit harry who had the flu. Now a large chunk of them are boycotting him, because he celebrated his birthday with his son. Some of these buffoons are cis white women who are senior citizens.

I am actually quite surprised that he got to make two albums. Honestly didn't expect even that.

Sorry didn't realise it became this long.

it's just that music is a gamble, and sometimes popular musicians don't even get the steam they need, and really talented ones are overlooked entirely. so it's hard to say well it's all because they're being blacklisted or whatever. it's just not a set in stone industry.

i have to say that with radio everybody knows it is a payola industry. it's pay to play. i've always assumed that because louis has real genuine convictions about pay to play and the machinations of the industry, that he's just never been willing to pay to get his music on the air. that he wants the success of his music to be organic and real, not a playlist payola or a radio payola scheme like harry styles.

with the other things like festivals and reviews, i've felt that's because the industry has decided because he's a former one d member, and because harry styles and maybe niall horan are the only ones you're "allowed" to like from one d, that they don't do these things for him. niall does more radio friendly music. louis doesn't and he knows that he doesn't. louis is trying to break into an area of music that is pretty tough because rock/indie music is very gatekeepy, so they don't want former boybanders to show up, as they think it's uncool. we've seen this already in random bands try and make fun of him. he has to really work hard to break into that scene.

we also know how the industry is all about connections. harry has masses of them, and they all cater to him. rolling stone interviews, vogue, another man, auditions to every movie in the world, MET gala, even louis has basically spoken about that. louis could try and spend his time in hollywood trying to schmooze people, but that isn't him. is louis willing to literally become a family member to some random powerful member of the industry just to get a career? do people think louis would be happy like that?

and while i also think showing up to events is something that would boost his profile, again these are things that louis has always said he's not interested in. he's always hated these PR event things, he even hated when in one d. they're very fake and everybody's posing and being full of it, it's exactly where louis would hate to be.

maybe i'm wrong about things. i can think of good promo ideas that don't involve these types of machinations. doing charity work, being seen at local charities or music for like impoverished kids type things, doing low key cheap gigs at small places, learning an instrument or showing how far along on the guitar he is.

personally, i would also change louis's sense of fashion, i think it's just boring to me to see a guy in hoodies onstage. but again, louis thinks wearing that stuff is authentic because it's him. but i personally think it's cool and fun for a musician to have a bit of flair and fun with fashion onstage, of course not clown costumes and maybe he has PTSD from thinking if you dress onstage you gotta dress like a clown like harry, but just something a bit fun. i remember the clash used to talk about how nobody would show up to a gig if you looked like shit, you had to dress cool in a way other dudes want to dress, i do think that does create a coolness and appeal and would be fun.

[lockandkeyhyena]

Pokémon is a very large and popular game I think we can all agree, but just the things surrounding it as a long time fan sort of. exhaust me? Pokémon designs have hits and misses, generally nothing new— back in the day they made literally just a crocodile and literally just a sparrow. These days I can sort of appreciate that even if a design is just a worm they try to make it visually interesting. Not everything can be a Lucario or a Garchomp. Some Pokémon fill their niches respectfully, and sometimes those niches just aren’t appealing to some people. That’s the overall appeal of Pokemon. There’s Pokémon for everyone.

Where I am annoyed as a long time fan is when, since we have decades upon decades of these games, there is a game similar to it. Now, generally they’re called ‘copycats’. I do not think this is the case.

Monster Catching is a GENRE. It’s in the same manner people make soulslike games. Pokémon gamers are just really gatekeepy to the formula for generally no reason, Nintendo doesn’t have a copyright license on Anubis or the concept of an electric fucking fish. Or a dolphin. I see games I have fallen in love with and have stellar story (EX: Monster Hunter Stories 2) be called and wittled down to nothing but a Pokémon knockoff. Which it isn’t!!!! The only thing it really has in common are “types” and the fact it’s a creature collector. It has a unique rock-paper-scissors battle formula and all monsters you have in your party have unique ride abilities and specialize in element and one of the three battle types (Technical, Speed, and Strength.) you don’t even catch them. You take the eggs and raise them alongside you. It gets on my nerves every time.

I am especially heated about this because it’s my favorite kind of game, and generally I admit I have a skill issue where I can’t play many “harder” games and if a game makes me too stressed I put it down for an indefinite period of time. Even if it is a Pokémon parody, I don’t care. I think the genre of Pokémon should be expanded so Nintendo has actual competition and everyone can have multiple games they can enjoy. I don’t think catching and loving critters should be kept behind one company with like a 60$ paywall.

Now, I think it must be stated I think Palworld is generally just like, OKAY. I don’t hate it or love it. Digimon was the original Pokémon with guns (or more accurately, Pokémon just took the digimon and removed the guns.) and I will not rest until digimon makes a creature collector similar to that of its business rival who won the metaphorical space race. Back to the topic at hand.

I find certain designs far too alike to Pokémon, sure. But ultimately I don’t think a humanoid Anubis dog is kept to gamefreak alone. I recognize the owners are sketchy but this isn’t new to the game industry. Poppy Playtime devs got into NFTS, Friday Night Funkin developer allegedly spent kickstarter money on drugs. nothing new. it can be glitchy as hell, sure. but honestly I think it has enough unique features to get a green light to me as a game. They work with you, they have unique abilities and for every “copycat” there’s an honestly pretty solid creature design. They have an eevee knockoff but some of their mythical designs are pretty. Again, not a fan. not generally my cup of tea. but I recognize an okay game. I know it’s also in a non finished state but considering the amount of content in it already, despite its game history, I have a little hope for it.

Just, sort of, generally as a Pokémon fan other Pokémon fans can be insufferable. I think we as a community need to start recognizing Pokémon shouldn’t have a monopoly on this sort of thing, and just because they make up 90% of the genre that doesn’t mean every game is a knockoff. Ooblets is a creature collector, does that make it one? Obviously not. It’s more akin to stardew valley than an actual Pokémon game. even if a game is more alike to Pokémon, we have plenty of games that have been made similar to another before and seen as a good thing. Hence my “soulslike” mention here. I have never seen such behavior from any other game community. Yeah guys let’s let the multimillion dollar company completely have ahold of this beloved type of game and let them charge any price they want because no one else is gonna make games like that.

And there’s also how some people act with Pokémon designs. Now, I can fully recognize some just don’t work (Skeledirge being supposedly drawn from a different culture although somewhat similar, but still very different) but you can still just sort of enjoy them as a Pokémon existing. Totadile is my favorite starter but I can recognize thematically it doesn’t work well and it’s overall strange what they do to it in the final stage. But I still love it. I fully understand wanting more grown Pokémon on four legs, don’t get me wrong. However starters have a bad habit of this because they’re supposed to grow like you and be similar to you somewhat with the bipedal stance along other things to solidify that sort of connection and friendship.

I just sort of get tired of the “oh god put that thing on four legs, imagine what the FURRIES will do!!!!” argument. I don’t care much for it. I don’t know why we’re giving people strays. What people want to kiss is none of my business and frankly I have no room to speak (the alien from alien isolation is hot) and even then it’s like, I don’t think we should let that dictate a design. Just say you think the two legged market is over saturated and it’s time for a change.

And I do have skin in the game!!! I remember being like 5 and playing Pokémon Pearl on my DS. I’ve been a long time fan. And I truly believe there’s no hell deeper than dedication to a company. Because they no know matter what, you’re going to buy that game. They shut down emulators so you have to buy games they don’t even make anymore. I truly recognize this is a skill issue, but this is why I think we need to expand the genre as a whole. So this sort of thing becomes less insufferable and make people less demanding overall about a Pokémon game yearly and Gamefreak would have a reason to lock in and try to make their games the best they can be.

I don’t care that cow has udders, I care about the multimillion cooperation making its fans think no other game should be like it ever and dismiss it if it links to catching or having monsters as a core part of gameplay and then buying the next 70$ yearly slop. (said as a person who enjoyed the violet story and enjoyed the POTENTIAL of it more.)

damn u needed that off your chest anon, glad to be a place u can put ur emotions haha

[alpaca-clouds]

You are not worse than big name writers

You know what? A few days ago I reblogged this one post and rebutted it in my TL. This one thing saying: "Hey, you are a worse writer than all the established writers, as you are writing your fanfics. But that is okay. You can just do something because you like to do it."

And that one really, really bugged me. Because while the post doesn't reference who they mean with established writers... either way, it rings untrue.

Let me explain: Literature as an industry and as an artistic medium has a lot of problems. Chiefly among them that it is gatekeepy as fuck and very much centered around the experience of cishet men (in the west mostly white cishet men). Meanwhile those white cishet men can at times churn out the most average bullshit, and they will still be celebrated for it.

I still remember one book that is at times considered part of the German literary canon. "Steppenwolf" by Herman Hesse. Sure, it is an old book, but also... It is unstructured as fuck. The writer is very much not interested in the female characters. Generally most characters are underwritten. Oh, and there are sentences in this book, that are almost 200 words long. A single sentence. 200 words. Yes.

And if you really look at it, a lot of the "literary canon" works are similar. Often unstructured (because that's artistic, I guess), mostly desinterested in female characters, or really anything that does not center a white man.

Back then, I compared "Steppenwolf" in an essay for the class to "Homo Faber", which for the record is one of those literary works I kinda like, because the style spoke to me. But if you do not know about "Homo Faber": It is about a depressed guy travelling the world, and by happenstance meeting a girl young enough to be his daughter, falling for her, sleeping with her, she dies. Plot twist, she was not only young enough to be his daughter, she WAS his daughter. Dude dies of pancreatic cancer in the end. It is a book I really did enjoy in terms of the writing style. But... I mean, can you think of a plot more white, cishet male than that?

The literary "genre" (that does not want to be genre, because it stands above the genre literature) is for the most part just cishet dudes smelling their own farts in a very artistic way with stylistic devices and shit. Sure, there are great books in this genre, mostly by people who are not in fact cishet or ablebodied, but those are not the ones usually getting celebrated or put into the "canon". Because we cannot challenge the fucking patriarchy, can we now?

And if we go into genre literature, like... Talking about western publishing mostly, because that is what I know: Most big releases are still mostly cishet white people, writing about white cishet experiences. Like, maybe you might find something in there, that is a white, cis queer woman, but... That's usually the most you get.

Sure, there are a few releases by non-white, trans or disabled people, but those are still super rare compared to actual demographics within each country. And usually outside of smaller publishing houses... Well, let's put it like this: Books are not allowed to rock the boat too much, right?

I have been told - and I know that the same is true for a whole lot of other writers - that a black, queer, polyamorous, autistic character is "unrealistic" and "asking too much of the reader" in a fantasy book.

Meanwhile there is tons of average, if not outright bad books being published by white, cis writers, focusing on white, cis perspectives. I mean, it is kinda a meme to rant about Coleen Hoover or Sarah J. Maas, but... Let's face it. It is, what it is. Those are not exactly well written. And, to put it frankly: Most fanfics I have read on Ao3 were at least of the same quality, if not a lot better than those books.

So, like... No?

Is there tons of bad fics out there? Yes. Are fanfics a medium for new writers to first explore their writing? Yes. But are fanfics on average worse than published literature? I would very much argue, no.

And of course, it should be said that yeah, fanfics themselves still have a big, big issue with featuring white, western perspectives. While a lot of fic writers are queer, they are mostly white, cis queer women. And a lot of writers from more marginalized groups struggle to find their audience, which is definitely an issue.

But, like... Don't act as if getting a book published somehow says something about the quality.

[patentedsun]

Spider-Man ramblings #1

Don't really fw the idea that a happy ending for Peter Parker should be him becoming a rich CEO, not even because it takes away from the "relatability" of the character, but because real life events have made it so that every person as such is inherently an asshole which is the complete antithesis to Spiderman's character. There is no way you can convince me, at the risk of sounding very gatekeepy, that a true Peter Parker would ever be okay with the existence of billionaires, especially because class struggle is literally such a huge part of what makes up the character as a whole.

Not really a long think piece. I lack the words to elaborate properly on this right now. I do adore the idea of him being a teacher though, ifl he would be incredible for students in difficult circumstances because he would try his hardest to be understanding and lenient and everything that HE would have wanted when he was a kid trying to figure out the whole superhero shtick.

This is also why I adore insomniac Peter SO much, because it mentions that he could have gotten a more comfortable job working for Oscorp, but he declines because his personal values directed him to Octavius Industries that was actively working on something that could have improved so many lives.

[thecurioustale]

I've been saying this for a long time. Technology is the physical manifestation of human civilization: nothing more, and nothing less.

I wasn't familiar with Le Guin's essay on this topic, but I am honored to be in her company when she writes:

Its technology is how a society copes with physical reality: how people get and keep and cook food, how they clothe themselves, what their power sources are (animal? human? water? wind? electricity? other?) what they build with and what they build, their medicine — and so on and on. Perhaps very ethereal people aren’t interested in these mundane, bodily matters, but I’m fascinated by them, and I think most of my readers are too.

Technology is the active human interface with the material world.

My favorite feathers-in-my-cap are always when I independently invent some piece of philosophy that was already conceived decades or millennia ago by this or that artist or philosopher.*

We often classify only things which are produced exclusively in our modern industrial paradigm as "technological"—or sometimes, even more narrowly, only those things which are electrical or electronic. But, at least by my definition of technology—AND URSULA LE GUIN'S, MUAH HA HAH—this is a mistaken conceptualization.

Technology is string. Technology is mud huts with thatched roofs. Technology is fish lures, clay cups, and that little spoon that collects honey. Technology is dirt roads, knitted socks, and burlap sacks. Technology is flutes, eyeglasses, and golden retrievers. Technology is soup.

This is important to recognize because it helps us better resolve the distinctions between the wild world and the civilized world.**

In contrast, the more popular definitions of technology are useful mainly to distinguish between modernity and the past. But to associate technology itself with this distinction is artificial, which is made abundantly clear by imagining the same distinction from the viewpoint of someone living a hundred years ago, or a thousand. There was a time when plastic was a marvel and Disneyland had an "electrical parade." There was a time when typewriters were the wave of the future. Most people don't think of these things anymore when they think of "technology," so did these things cease to be technology? I don't think so; technology is not a sociological designation. It is a physical descriptor of material human impact.

~~~ YE OLDE FOOT NOTES (a technological production of Joshtastica Enterprises) * It should be noted that Le Guin's essay is written in response to some gatekeepy dismissal of her work as not being "hard sci-fi" because it "avoids technology." Yecch!

** Ironically, then, technology is in my opinion a much better framework for discerning human impact in the world than the framework of "natural" vs. "artificial," because all technology—all human impact—is both natural and artificial in a way that hinders the meaningfulness of the distinction; human activity is intermingled with the physical world. Technology is the alteration of the environment and the objects in it, up to and including our own physical bodies as humans, but it is not a replacement of "the environment" or of "nature." Technology is that which is created by or altered by human activity***, thus affirming the definition I gave at the beginning: the physical manifestation of human civilization.

*** It would almost make sense, then, to speak of "ant technology" (anthills) or "spider technology" (spider webs) or "tree technology" (shade and shelter), akin to human technology, but, perhaps, to maximize the meaningfulness of the concept, I would say it makes greater sense to qualify that none of these species, being non-sapient or only very minimally sapient, act with deliberate purpose, and assert that there is a trait of purposefulness hidden in the definition of technologicality, which other species cannot satisfy—not necessarily a purposefulness of a technological artifact itself; incidental and accidental human alterations to the environment are also "technological"; e.g., if the mine is technology then so are the tailings; but, rather, a purposefulness of the individuals and organizations who create the impacts.

— Ursula K. Le Guin, from “A Rant About ‘Technology’”

[because-its-eurovision]

Wait so what happened between Finnish people and Lordi? This is the first I'm hearing about their reputation being trashed there :0

This is going to be one of my thousand-word essay answers, so strap in.

I also did not know how badly they were treated during the years following Esc until Yle published this article in May 2021. It is in Finnish and I can’t be bothered to translate the whole thing, but the article consists of our previous representatives Lordi (2006), Hanna Pakarinen (2007), Kuunkuiskaajat (2010), Paradise Oskar (2011) and Sandhja (2016) telling about their Esc experiences and how the Finnish public and music industry treated them during and after that (spoiler alert: it wasn’t great). The article was linked to the Finnish Esc forum and I remember us all being very shocked and upset because it was the first time we actually heard about the negativity and hatred Lordi experienced. I do think most of us just assumed their hype went away quietly. What follows is based on my own memories of the time as well as what the band has told publicly.

I remember the 2006-2007 being full on Lordi craze. Their merch and albums being sold at supermarkets. Lordi Cola, Lordi candy. Lordi themed restaurant in Rovaniemi. Celebrations, awards, statues. Squares and buildings named after them, their faces in credit cards and postage stamps. The Arockalypse being the most sold album of 2006, selling triple platinum. In Emma Gaala Lordi won Band of the Year, Song of the Year and Export of the Year, Hard Rock Hallelujah was the most played song of the year, everywhere you went you saw kids wearing Lordi shirts (...sounds familiar?😶)

The way I see it is that by just participating in the national selection, let alone Esc, Lordi had lost all the credibility they had left in the eyes of rock/metal puritans, selling themselves and whatnot because Eurovision a cringefest as we know. I don’t know if music based subcultures are as gatekeepy and stick-in-their-ass level of humourless as they used to be in the mid-to-late 00′s but I pray to satan they are not because that time was ROUGH and I think it might have something to do with what happened to Lordi. 

During those years I spent a lot of time hanging on metalhead and goth discussion forums (because social media wasn’t a thing yet) and I remember it being exactly oh you like this band? name their every song kinda tiring stuff. People arguing about genres and if some band was heavy metal, heavy rock or just metal, or if you could be a goth if you rode a bicycle (??) or listened to anything else besides Joy Division, or if you had the right to wear a band shirt if you couldn’t name all the members, or that if your favorite song from a band was a big hit were you considered a poser, or could a goth person like Nightmare Before Christmas merch or was it too emo, and so on and so forth, and everything was super serious. I remember people even throwing a fit when Children of Bodom wore Hawaii shirts in promo pics.🤦‍♀️So considering the attitudes of the era and the fact that Lordi had been a divisive artist already (can’t take anyone seriously if they wear a costume or are in character) long before Esc, it is in a way no wonder that the music puritans turned their backs on them. Goes without saying how ridiculous that is imo, but anyway.

Normies, aka not fans of the contest or the band beforehand, on the other hand jumped on the Esc boat for the year when Finland was the reigning champion. Our stupid little nation LOVES competing and being champions, so much so that we have a habit of inventing our own ridiculous contests just to win. Like, everyone wanted to get tickets to the live shows in Helsinki, more people joined the Finnish OGAE than ever before, everyone bought the Esc album of 2007 and so on.

And then when the glitter had settled, our hosting year was over and we didn’t do so hot at 2007 & 2008 Escs despite sending “heavy” entries, I guess that normies just returned to their default attitude towards Eurovision which is viewing it as embarassing, pointless, glittery, gay, good-for-nothing waste of time and money in which none of the music can be taken seriously because it’s Eurovision and thus by default shit. 

In the article I linked at the beginning Mr. Lordi tells how performing abroad and in Finland was like night and day. During the Deadache tour 2009 they sold out arenas in Central Europe but couldn’t sell even half the tickets to a club in Finland. Finnish audience spit at them, yelled obscenities, showed middle fingers, asked the band to play quieter or play the eurovision song. Like, I have no idea why you would buy a ticket and go to someone’s show just to be a dick. Teräsbetoni (Esc 2008) has also told in the interviews that at one point they had a group guys in the front row at their shows who just kept yelling GAY during the whole gig 😑

In conclusion: Finnish people got Eurovision hangover from the ridiculous Lordi craze of 2006-2007 and then moved on. Meanwhile Lordi had lost both their original fanbase and failed to gain a new one as the ESC hype went away, that’s how I see it at least.

I could go on a full length tangent about how the BC fever gives me not-so-positive flashbacks to Lordi graze, but I’m too tired for that. What I want to point out though is that I’m not that worried about BC getting the Lordi treatment for two reasons: they weren’t big before Esc so they had practically nothing to lose, and they didn’t win (THANK GOD). Niko & Joel have also brought up this in interviews which makes me admire how smart they actually are for always having known what should be the next move for the band. I also want to believe that Eurovision has changed from the campiest times (2000-2010) to more serious direction and simultaneously gained back the ability to produce global hits and stars again (Måneskin, Duncan Laurence, Rosa Linn) which is something we haven’t really seen since 1988. As a side note I’m really glad to see some of that bleeding into our national selection as well, because before BC and Bess the last time someone became successful thanks to our Eurovision NF and not despite was in 1989.

As @reunalordi importantly pointed out in their tags, this is/was what happened to Lordi’s popularity in Finland specifically. They still have a big fanbase abroad afaik and if someone knows more about their popularity/success nowadays, please do correct me <3

[thecurioustale]

I deal with feelings like this sometimes, in my own way. A lifetime of poverty has made me more and more down on even the middle class, let alone the rich. Not a in communist, "the bullet for the whole lot" sort of way, but more like "Oh, jeez, your car repairs are expensive? How terrible for you." I just have so little interest in financial struggles that aren't existential for people who are going to be Just Fine when it comes to money, regardless of whatever amount of "belt-tightening" might be required. Like, get back to me when you've stared point-blank at the Wheel of Fire.

We live in different worlds, they and I.

As for artists in particular, I do tend to roll my eyes a bit at the really successful ones, more so if I see little of value in their work. (And a lot of the most popular art is indeed vapid, even to the point where it exits the art space entirely and becomes solely entertainment, like the neverending barrage of superhero movies. (Not that "entertainment" is less valid than "art," but I do think it's fair to draw a distinction, to the extent anyone can attempt such a thing without becoming recklessly gatekeepy about it.))

Yet I think on the whole I have more solidarity with successful artists than I do with the broader middle class (and upper class). And that's because I recognize an intrinsic value to art and am familiar with the intrinsic compulsion to create art. I think I have more respect for artists, on average, than I do for the general population, because I think art is something that humanity needs, just like science and philosophy. I see an artist as someone who has contributed something greatly meaningful to the world, which is not something that everyone has necessarily done.

I do feel twinges of embitterment sometimes when I see artists and other creators dealing with the burdens of success, or when I see some viral YouTube video from one of these people talking about how some crisis has come up and they are doing a fundraiser, and they're getting tens of thousands of dollars, and if you go look on their Patreon they're making like $3 grand a month just from there, let alone any other revenue streams.

But the resentment doesn't tend to last, because that's the way it should be. Society should be structured so that there are pathways for artists to survive as artists. Maybe not every artist, and maybe not for the entirety of an artist's life (sort of like how you can't box your whole life), but it should be a space that people who are so inclined can move into, just like conventional industries. That the free market cannot deliver this is one of the biggest aesthetic, political, and ethical failures of the free market.

However, if I move away from talking about comparing myself against specific artists who are more successful, and look instead at the problem less attributively, I really do gnash my teeth sometimes at how it seems like there is absolutely no way forward for me to ever exist independently as an artist. Because my rate of publication is far too slow. I made like $100 bucks on my nonfiction book earlier this year. If that were fiction instead, and if I could publish five of those a week, I'd be fine! 🙃

But $100 just isn't gonna last you very long when rent is $1,300.

My entire life—my whole being—has been ruined by poverty (and by abuse when I was young). I have beautiful stories to offer the world, but the world doesn't even know I exist, and I don't think that will ever change. And I do feel bitter about that sometimes.

Just...not bitter at anybody. Intransitive bitterness. There's no one to blame; even the gods are fictitious. The world just is what it is, and it seems to me like, more often than not, an artist's fate is to sit outside the world and stare in at it, unable to truly belong to it, fated to describe it beautifully for the benefit of those who are already there.

if i can be candid, is hard for me to be moved by the idea of artists losing their job to automations. and frankly this indifference towards economic concerns of other artists stem a lot from sour grapes that i was never able to live of my art, and frankly i dont think i ever will.

i see it more as a privilege than a right to be able to live off your art. for sure you are entitled to set up shop, but are you entitled to getting costumers? if you cant get any, is this an injustice that has been ennacted on you? i dont know, i would feel pretty stupid if i were to claim that a harm has been done to me simply because i could never get enough people interested in buying my stuff such that i could live off it, and wether this is because the alternatives they prefer are other human artists or robots it makes no difference to me, at the end of the day i never got clients one way or the other. and so its easy for me to get a bit alienated from those worries.

[rivetgoth]

I think it’s just unhelpful and unnecessary to act like goth and industrial don’t have an overlap… Context matters and I think all goths need to know the trad music and where it came from and the subculture’s history but like, the shared evolution of goth music and industrial music thru the 80s and 90s and even now is inseparable. All the current darkwave and post punk bands play at industrial festivals and vice versa. Light Asylum got on stage with Test Dept. So many of the classic electroindustrial bands trace their influences directly to the classic post punk bands. Two of Skinny Puppy’s major influences were The Cure and Joy Division. Ministry started with With Sympathy and to this day Al asserts Specimen as one of his fave bands. Ian Curtis and Genesis P-Orridge knew each other. Curse Mackey opened for Clan of Xymox last year and took over for Peter Murphy at a Bauhaus concert when he couldn’t make it. Cold Cave opened for a Wax Trax-era Ministry set the year before last. Bootblacks and ACTORS and Twin Tribes were all openers at Cold Waves where ohGr, KMFDM, Test Dept, Chemlab, RevCo, Lead Into Gold, PIG, etc have all been headliners. Absolutely any goth club you will ever go to will play Lords of Acid and Skuppy and TKK beside Sisters of Mercy and Siouxsie. I think it’s silly and unhelpful to act like these are two entirely distinct genres because that just is not the case in actual practice.

I DO think, obviously, that not every rivethead is goth, and not every goth listens to industrial music, nor are either requirements for the other subculture, and I think there are moments where there is a very distinct separation between rivetheads and goths. But sometimes I see goths say that there is NO overlap, that industrial music is inherently distinctly not goth, will call you a poser or some shit for equating like, Skinny Puppy with “goth music” as if they aren‘t quintessentially goth in style and sound, and like… idk man, I get wanting to be pretentious about shit and be gatekeepy about genres and subcultures, I really do, and I think some people use “subcultures evolve!” to mean “I don’t have to do any research into what this stuff actually means and can just call myself anything cuz I feel like it” and I hate that shit, and I absolutely have known people who are like “I love KMFDM and NIN and Marilyn Manson so I’m goth” and like… they very objectively aren‘t. But I also think, as someone who goes to music festivals and clubs and sees the way this stuff plays out IRL, that internal squabbling over defining exactly whether or not industrial music is a form of goth music or can be called goth music just feels like… useless. These subcultures and genres have distinct meaning and history but they also do allow for fluidity and evolution and shared history as well, or else the only music goths would listen to would be a tiny fragment of post punk in the early 70s-late 80s and that’s obviously not the case, even the most hardcore post punk trad goths acknowledge the way goth music evolved thru the 80s and 90s and the current stuff coming out right now. It’s not so much “these genres and subcultures are exactly the same” and much more “in practice when you’re actually out engaging with these subcultures and genres with other people and acknowledging the amount of shared history they have it’s kind of useless to try to set a hard divide because the overlap is so extreme that it’s functionally just unhelpful and unnecessary to the way we should be conceptualizing the evolution of music and subculture as a whole.”

It’s not a huge deal but actually I do think that acting like industrial music and goth music are entirely separate is a little silly. I know the classic definition of goth music obviously and I know that not all rivetheads are goth and not all goths are rivetheads but I feel like it’s extremely obvious that these are interconnected and at many times inseparable genres if you’re going out to shows and festivals and clubs and stuff and I don’t think it’s like, erasing what goth means or the history of goth or industrial culture or anything to casually call industrial music “goth” as long as you have some knowledge of what goth means on a larger level as well. Does that make sense? Idk why some people act like it’s wrong to admit that these things are super super connected in lots of ways. It’s weird to me.

[mechabass]

Hi, as someone who would consider themself a person somewhat (if not very) knowledgeable about EDM I would like to talk about this and make a few points.

First of all, I’ll do a little tl;dr in advance, I’m not going to be agreeing or disagreeing with the points/purpose of this article. I’m just going to be stating some truth/what I think on various topics mentioned in this thread in general. This is going to sound very gatekeepy and I frankly don’t know how else to put this. But I feel like a lot of people reblogging this are here to get their social justice quota in for the day, and don’t actually care about or listen to EDM. That’s, like, I guess it’s fine. I don’t necessarily have a problem with that. But if you’re about to shit talk a genre you don’t listen to because you read some stuff, I figure you should hear from someone who speaks for many who do.

A lot of people are going to read this and use this to further a case supporting the “EDM is trash anyway” path of thinking. Don’t let this be you. EDM gets a LOT of shit, and I’ll admit, for all the reasons that EDM gets its shit from the drug culture to the misogyny, this is one of the more “valid” reasons. I assure you, it’s so much more than what you see on TV and hear on the radio. The broad genre of EDM is incredibly diverse, it has a little something for everyone, even if that means you need to look for it or have someone recommend it to you. Don’t let this become just another reason why EDM is “garbage” and not worth your time, because it’s not “garbage” and it does have a very promising future.

But, let’s talk about the elephant in the room.

The EDM community has a problem with Poc, LGBT+, and females in the industry. That’s pretty much an objective fact. There are such a scarcity of big names in one or more of those categories that even I could probably count them on one hand. The answer to “why” might not be as easy. But you know what else has an issue with poc, LGBT+, and females in the industry? Music. The whole music industry, inclusive of most genres there are. These “minorities” are just that. It’s pretty sad, actually. Why shouldn’t these “minorities” be given equal chance at fame for their music? I don’t really have an answer for that. I agree, it’s a problem. I’m not going to excuse or justify it, but I’m just going to say, this problem is not and never was a problem exclusive to EDM. This sucks, but this is a music problem, not an EDM problem.

Now let’s address something entirely different. I don’t have a real answer, but I have some thoughts on the question originally proposed in the article. It may have to do with the way that I think the creation of what we think of as “modern EDM” is being attributed to black gay males. I totally believe and get what was said about the music being created for the clubs being hubs for gay males. That’s cool. But we are talking about the events of, what, the 1970s here? We are talking about some of THE oldest examples of techno and house music. Do you see where I’m going with this? Basically what I mean is, today’s EDM no longer has heavy association with that. If we had black gay EDM artists who were big names today (and I refer you to my point earlier about the music industry being homophobic and racist on almost all fronts before you say anything about that) then yeah, you could logically expect to see more of it. But these gay black EDM artists haven’t been “relevant” (to a certain extent) for quite awhile. You can’t expect a group of people who did work to be credited with the creation of one thing forever, ESPECIALLY given that said thing has evolved and deviated TREMENDOUSLY from what it was in its creation.

Oh, and one last thing.

I feel a lot of assuming of sexuality going on here. The dudes listed in the article are white and there’s little doubt in my mind that they’re straight and cis, but some other huge edm personas have not disclosed anything about personal relationships. Is it largely heterosexual? Absolutely, but there’s no need to assume that someone who has said nothing about their relationships is straight. A lot of these guys are old farts too, which brings me to my LAST last point. The future of EDM is, as I said, promising. With more acceptance of LGBT+ people in media and what have you, you have my word that the works of the gay black artists may surface once again. But the unfortunate truth is, in the meantime, you have to look for them. But when you do find a producer you like that may or may not be a minority, take some time to let them know you appreciate them. If there’s anything I just said that I’m positive about, it’s that letting an artist know that you like their work does MILES more than posting about “how come there’s no x minority group in y industry?” and giving it no more thought. Thanks for reading, folks, and if you ever want to hear some good EDM, my inbox is always open.

They ain’t lie 🤷🏾‍♀️🤷🏾‍♀️