"natural selection" on underground music

[harrath]

I know it's about death-metal, but it aplies to any underground scene.

Don't support the scene

After death metal and black metal had made their meaningful contributions, a cry rang out: support the scene!

By that it was meant that you should go to local shows, buy records, and otherwise give monetary subsistence and publicity to local bands.

They left off a key detail: which local bands?

Actually, they don't want you to ask that question. All local bands, they hope. That way, even if their bands are talentless, they'll be able to sell merch and music because, y'know be cool man, support the scene!

In fact, what "support the scene" really means is "abolish quality control." Forget trying to have good metal bands, let's just have a lot. That way everyone can play at this neat game called being as cool as Euronymous or Azagthoth.

I have a different philosophy: support the good bands, and ignore the bad. This idea is often called "natural selection." It means that if you want a strong scene, you only support the strong candidates, and let the weak ones die out.

Post-1994 people have no idea how cruel, judgmental and intolerant the older scene was — or how much this worked to its benefit. People shunned bands that weren't the complete package: music, lyrics, name, imagery, music, production, visual art, and personalities. The scene was more elitist than these faux-elitist hipsters could ever dream of being.

It was downright hostile to people who didn't "get it," where "it" was a complex and insular culture so alienated from the mainstream it saw anyone who believed society had a future to be a mental failure. It saw society itself to be insane, and headed for doom. It realized how modern life was constructed of very many ancient lies, fluffed up and re-covered to look shiny and new.

The underground is not a place for joiners. It's not a place for me-tooers. It's not a place for the extra people of humanity who, having nothing they really care about, go casting around for an "identity" they can manufacture out of things they buy and activities they attend.

Don't support the scene. The scene is a parasite. Support the good metal bands, and death to the rest.

source:http://www.deathmetal.org/article/dont-support-the-scene/

[Cementimental]

Personally I support the noise scene by not buying into limited heavy metal music thinking.

[Baglady]

I understand the statement, but well... The area where I live isn't exactly flooded with noise acts, and shows are very rare. If someone sets up a show here I'll be there, be it veteran noise makers or local youngsters finding their way. Living in a huge city somewhere I can easily see why one would want to get rid of 90% of the scene, but in a small town far from where it all happens I'd be an idiot to ignore the few people who at least make an effort. If one isn't happy with what's on offer, then get to work yourself.

[Leewar]

I just buy what i like, i wouldn't buy anything/go watching a band if its shit just to support a scene.

[Sleep of Ages]

Supporting a scene isn't just about checking internet samples and "buying" (most likely just downloading) stuff.
From a guy that comes from a place with barely no scene: hold on to your scene boys, it's no fun being a lone fool.

[Jaakko V.]

Well that text is actually pure bullshit coming probably from some limp-wristed IT-nerd who never - indeed - supported the scene in any meaningful or creative way. Here's to the lack of life force and real enthusiasm, cheers.

[Andrew McIntosh]

It's the Metal equivalent of parody hipster-ism - substitute smug snobbishness for arrogant elitism and you've got the approved pose. It's defensiveness. Feeling left out because Metal's gotten more popular, he has to come up with a pseudo-intellectual defence ("natural selection", as if he's ever read Darwin) to justify his own frightened reaction.

There are a few local scenes which I have friends in, all of which are doing quite well without me, and I can come and go to gigs as I want. So can anyone else. What makes them strong is being available to anyone. 

As for his attitude towards society, I'd tend to agree, but music scenes are as much a part of society as football clubs and The Country Women's Association. We're all lying in the gutter, and so on.

[Jaakko V.]

There are quite few things to criticize in that text, from the unbased straw-man about the meaning of "support the scene" as the basis of this text, to the un-adequate analogy of evolution, but the core problem I think is this: Nobody is always good.

It's quite amazing that at this day and age, when people are paying less and less attention to actual culture creating, relying more and more in ready-made entertainment to be consumed in ever quickening pace, this fellow here is encouraging people to ignore people's attempts to create. Sometimes the first demo is the best thing a band does, but often it's not. Many people suck at first, before finding their way through trial and error and feedback received from others. And sometimes people do mistakes in the middle of their "career", but then find their way again. Should be just start dissing or ignoring them at these moments? Beginners should not be given support, encouragement and feedback, but just ignored with the hope that they wither away?

This dude seems to have a very limited view of support. Evolution is all about feedback and adjustment. If someone sucks, he shouldn't be ignored, but told why he sucks and how he could improve. That's supporting also. And that may give perspective for others as well trying to make their stuff better. For that it's good to have a active, fertile scene with dedicated reviewers willing to analyse also crap stuff, a possibility for people to try their wings on the live front, good label curators willing to give honest feedback and a chance to new-comers and old-timers as well, and so on.

Here we have a dude effectively promoting the dissolution of any kind of creative network and discussion. In fact he seems like a pissed off bourgeois consumer merely demanding better products delivered to him to consume. Fuck that keyboard-warrior.

And for the record, the reason why shit bands are popular is not that people started to magically buy their stuff first, and then they grew. Most usually it's just some clever marketing con which makes a band big, and then people start to buy it. Cradle of Filth's Playboy-bunnies and the following result on the global metal scene are a good example. It has nothing to do with the "underground scene" and it's state, and everything to do with basic market laws dominating humans.

[Baglady]

^ Exactly. And has the guy who wrote this done anything himself? If so, he must be extremely content with himself since he consider himself to be in a position to write this.
And being elitist is so relative. There isn't just ONE elitist view. Not in any scene I know. Everyone's a judge.
Doesn't it sounds like his life is kinda... boring? Can't be easy being so discontent.

[Cementimental]

People shunned bands that weren't the complete package: music, lyrics, name, imagery, music, production, visual art, and personalities.

In other words a lot of people pretending to be 'underground' still basically only really liked things which cargo-cult imitated the tropes, "quality" and control systems of the old mainstream pop record business.

[crudchampion]

It was downright hostile to people who didn't "get it," where "it" was a complex and insular culture so alienated from the mainstream it saw anyone who believed society had a future to be a mental failure. It saw society itself to be insane, and headed for doom. It realized how modern life was constructed of very many ancient lies, fluffed up and re-covered to look shiny and new.

The guy who wrote this is behind at least ten tapes with Xeroxed images from Time Life's Picture History of World War II, lost in a moving box and remembered only once you run into the fella hopping his miscreant child on one leg while working afternoon shift at Kinko's.

[tinnitustimulus]

it's funny because some of the worst noisers make the best company and some of the best that I know are human beings that I would rather have limited interaction with. I am terrible at booking/promoting shows and never do it, but I have thought about how I see acts often from their relationship of the venue rather than quality of material. Every show a party with a pat on the back at the end.

Yet I think noise is too small in most places to have a darwinian approach, it's a bunch of damn outcasts to start with anyways. I have left in the middle of gigs that had slide whistles, pan flutes or new age poetry though, everyone has their standards.

[FreakAnimalFinland]

Many good comments already.
In a way, I can see where this guy gets his ideas, and I'm quite sure he has some point, but is expressing it wrong ways. I think what he says is basically valid in some music styles. I don't see relation to noise that much.
In case of local 3rd rate Hammerfall, Bon Jovi or Discharge sound-a-like, I certainly agree that support in form of obligation to financially support artists isn't really wise. Obligation, such as there being assumption that artists are somehow entitled to sell & earn. Or to go see band that was always known to suck, but is local band what "needs support".

This hardly is valid within noise. Simply due facts there are so little to gain in first place. Bands are motivated often by other things than merch sales. They are very rarely in situations in live gigs that could be compared to bunch of youth house Red Hot Chilipeppers cover bands.
I don't see that much noise what people buy for sake of "support", but rather for sake of really wanting the stuff.

About "scene", one could observe this:

I have a different philosophy: support the good bands, and ignore the bad. This idea is often called "natural selection." It means that if you want a strong scene, you only support the strong candidates, and let the weak ones die out.

Has there ever existed this thing called "strong scene" in sense as suggested? = Has scene ever been responsibility of merely the strong bands? If one would think that it is possible to just decide to create "strong scene", I'm sure they have quite bizarre idea of what it means.

Most of scenes were born very natural and organic ways. There are much more factors involved than just elite of creative bands. Alone, most often these groups remain meaningless. No matter how good release or how good live show they'd play, it can never compete with collective force, zeitgeist or such. Many times the support for band is merely to offer honest criticism. Reject bad materials so they hopefully will aim higher next.

It's childish to see "natural selection" as this battle between 2 things. 1 good and 1 bad, where you choose the good and scene becomes good. One could observe where does the good "scenes" exist? In places where honest communication and collective efforts for getting things happen does exist, or the places where there are number of isolated guys considering them be elite, above everybody else?

Certainly I think supporting scene isn't about buying and selling successful product. I think it's being part of creation of something. It's about making things flourish, instead of waiting the diamonds to fall into your lap.