Talk:Industrial music/Archive 1

Definition

This definition has some inaccuracies at the moment. I remember the definition being correct earlier but now it's been all messed up. Whoever wrote it is not nearly knowledgable enough on the subject to be defining industrial, can we find someone else who can do a better job than this? 67.161.77.236 10:53, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Make a suggestion here on the Talk page, and then we can discuss it. That's how it works on the wiki. Claiming an inaccuracy without clearly stating what the problem is, doesn't really help. --Lexor|Talk 11:46, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

My partner and I wrote a large chunk of the definition at the top of the entry -- what exactly do you feel is messed up about it? Between the two of us, we have over twenty years experience working with industrial artists, music, labels, etc -- not that this means 'what we say goes' or anything, but we certainly have enough knowledge on the subject to make a stab at a definition. If you let us know what you have the problem with, we can discuss it. Additionally, you should take a read through the archived talk page -- there was a large 3-4 month discussion on how to best define/write about/represent industrial music that might be useful background info for you to have. Twiin 12:44, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm still confused about the events that transpired here. The mods enforce a policy of neutrality on the definitions that opens them to all interpretations. Apparently this means if I write an accurate, objective paragraph detailing the origins of industrial, Twiin can erase it and put in his inaccurate and ambiguous ideas about industrials origin. For some reason beyond me 'open to all views on the matter' means 'Twiin gets to erase anything anyone else writes because he doesn't agree with it'. Then again how can I argue with Twiin, look at his crudentials, he's a DJ, clearly an expert on the topic. Everyone else that tries to contribute with their 'exact dates' and 'clearly-stated subgenres' is a heretic I tell you! 128.120.181.243 04:10, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the personal attacks, but that's not going to help build a better article. If you have an accurate, objective paragraph, put it in. If you think what I'm writing is inaccurate, please feel free to reference and correct it, or bring it up for discussion. What is it you think is inaccurate that should be changed? (And please, try to be a bit more mature in your reply.) Twiin 04:32, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We should probably simplify the article, it still looks sloppy. The definition doesn't need to be all-inclusive, we should focus on industrial and not all of the related genres. We can include mention of all the related genres listed here, but we both went too far when we started defining noise, ebm, and the like which really should have a separate and more focused definition. Let's cut the artcile down to just industrial. I think it would be best if we removed the definitions of various subgenres altogether, they should probably be mentioned in their respective entries (like electro-industrial and electronic dance under EBM, power electronics and powernoise under noise). Then under related genres we can add a link to the entries for those genres. This way people can read the definition of industrial, and if they want to read more about a specific subgenre they can refer to that entry.

Industrial is just too big of a genre to tackle all in one article, it's almost as crazy as trying to name every form of metal in one all-encompassing definition, it's just not feasible. By using separate entries for the genres we can both expand on the very sparse definitions we offer and make the entry for industrial more focused. Is this agreeable? Sanctum 06:54, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That would beg the question:"What is true/focused Industrial?". As you stated, Industrial encompass too many things and should be more of a "portal" thing to sub-genres with some history about the "movement"(if there exists such thing as "Industrial movement"...) --vininim 22:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Abstract music.

Power noise tracks are typically structured and danceable, but are known to be occasionally abstract.

Who wrote that? Whoever it was, could you please tell me what abstract means in context of music. The Abstract music article didn't help much. I also believe that there is a genre called Abstract hip-hop, what's that? Is the word used just as an adjective here or what? To me, all music seems abstract. Very good article though. -- 80.186.144.210

What is meant is "abstract in structure" -- as in, less structure and no beat. This could probably be worded more clearly. neckro 04:27, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reality

It seems that whoever penned this article originally was suffering from some severe case of genritis. There are terms used in this article (e.g., "aggro-industrial") that are never used (or at least, I've never heard or seen them before) that also serve no purpose here. If a "genre" contains only two exemplars, it's not really worth seperating into a named genre in the first place; all that does is make things overly complicated and provide us with more meaningless labels that do not reflect anything outside of this article. In short, this article needs a serious re-write. siafu 22:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can't speak for your location, but here in Canada aggro-industrial is a term in common use, and it has been in common use for at least the last ten years. Please note that "aggro industrial" returns over 5000 google hits, and google-groups returns articles from as early as 1991 that use the term. Twiin 00:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This may be, but the first band listed under the genre, and whose CD is pictured next to the entry, is Ministy, an industrial band from Chicago, IL, US. I have lived in Chicago for over 20 years (for most of it an industrial fan), and have never heard this term used ever (the first time I saw "aggro-industrial" was in this article). As far as I can tell in general, "aggro" (for aggression) is not a term used in the United States, though I've encountered it from Canadians, Australians, and Britons. The point remains, however, that this isn't really a meaningful distinction, at least not here. siafu 01:12, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The first use of the term 'aggro' was in a print magazine when Al Jourgensen of Ministry used it to describe Ministry's own sound. It might've been Apocalypse Magazine or some such. I've spoken with a very, very large number of DJs, promoters and artists in the US who all have used the term 'aggro' and consider it as integral of a subgenre as EBM or Coldwave. If you're encountering the term from people in at least three other countries, and there are a very large number of Americans using it (again, check Google and Google Groups, you'll see countless references to Ministry and Wax Trax! with the tern), that seems to indicate that it -is- meaningful and relevant, rather than the opposite. It's unfortunate that you haven't encountered the term before now, but it has a long history with Ministry/WT! and industrial music. (In fact, I think the 1000 Homo DJs CD includes a writing credit for 'Officer Aggro'.)Twiin 14:01, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I've heard and read plenty of Ministry interviews, and never heard them use the term "aggro", so if they have used it it must be very rarely or at least not recently. Their official website's bio describes them as "industrial-rock"; along with "industrial-metal", that's probably the most common term I've heard for them, and the one usually used by concert promoters in the U.S. I'm also not sure where the "industrial rock isn't industrial" pronouncement came from. Perhaps some underground scene nerds think NIN isn't "true industrial", but even Coil would disagree. --Delirium 02:34, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Trent Reznor says he's not an Industrial musician, and that NIN isn't industrial music, so that's good enough for me. (Also, Coil have said in interviews they don't see NIN as working in industrial per se, but liked "the idea of NIN", and were happy to work with him.) As I see it, Industrial Rock is a type of Rock, not a type of Industrial. That's just me. Bands like Stabbing Westward and other acts that promote themselves as industrial rock don't seem to have much in common with traditional or contemporary industrial music, aside from some of the production techniques. It's still standard rock tempo, signatures, chord progressions, etc. The musicology of NIN is much closer to the musicology of Peter Gabriel than it is to the musicology of Throbbing Gristle / Skinny Puppy / Neubauten / etc. That's not a dig against NIN, I'm a fan of the music, I just don't think it's necessarily 'industrial', per se. The first album and the new album really highlight this. As far as 'aggro' goes, I can spend some time later this week getting references for the term, if you'd like to see them. When I wrote that category, I had temporarily used the term 'industrial metal' as the header, but I feel that Industrial Metal should be used to describe a type of Metal, not a type of Industrial - and musicians and enthusiasts in the Metal scene also see this as the case. Twiin 07:10, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, a lot of those same things could be said of most of the bands ostensibly labelled "aggro"—they borrow industrial elements, as NIN does, but they don't really fit into the musicology of Throbbing Gristle / Skinny Puppy / Neubauten / etc. Certainly Ministry and Chemlab share more with straight-up angry rock than they do with tape loops and sheet metal. In particular, I don't see why Ministry isn't under the "industrial-rock" category, since it both fits their music and they themselves describe their music as such. I mean, if The Downward Spiral isn't industrial, then I don't see any possible way Filth Pig could be considered industrial. FWIW, I don't deny that "aggro" exists at all, but I'd consider it a subgenre of "industrial rock". --Delirium 07:21, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I put Ministry under 'aggro' and not 'industrial rock' because Jourgensen described Ministry as 'aggro', eshewing use of the term 'industrial' in regards to the band. I've got no interest in arguing about something that there's twenty years of articles and interviews to support, so feel free to change it if you really think it belongs elsewhere. Twiin 08:56, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't Jourgensen control the content of his own webpage? It describes them as "industrial-rock", and doesn't appear to use the term "aggro" anywhere on the site. --Delirium 18:22, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I would assume he does. I would also say that Ministry's recent albums are very much part of the rock genre, and have little-to-no connection with industrial music. Again, Google will show you at least 10-15 years of use of the term in connection with Ministry. A search for "aggro ministry" gets 12000 hits, and has newsgroup posts dating back to 1991. Where I come from, the term 'aggro' is well established and in everyday use. I had never heard the term 'death industrial' before I came to this wiki, but it seems that it's an everyday term in europe, and is very well-defined. Simply because I hadn't heard it before wasn't grounds for removing or changing it. I took some time, spoke with promoters/label owners/musicians in Europe, and through research learned about the term and the genre it refers to. I'm saying that 'aggro' is a term that people all over the world know and use in regards to this music, and Google backs me up on this. Consider that a search for Aggro Ministry results in 12K hits, and a search for "Industrial Rock" Ministry only returns 7K hits. To my eyes, it's cut and dry. Even if we're not familiar with a term used here, if research shows that it's a valid and well-defined term, then it meets the criteria for inclusion. Twiin 11:55, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That makes some sense, but I think to a large extent we're overcategorizing when categories are not universally agreed upon, and in a real sense probably are more of a continuum. For example, Skinny Puppy is on several prominent 1980s EBM compilations, and "Assimilate" was one of the more popular EBM club songs, but as a whole they probably aren't EBM (but much of their stuff isn't really elektro either). But whether to categorize or not is itself a political decision it seems, just like the "what is really industrial"... --Delirium 04:07, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you're saying here, and I think that the blurb at the bottom addresses that issue. It could certainly use some more work and expansion to let people know who visit the entry that acts cross/surfe/straddle genres fairly often, and that the whole idea of 'genres' of industrial music is often considered suspect. I think that in order to be comprehensive we do need to include the genres that seem to be popular and descriptive, but I do think that we can let people know how difficult and open to interpretation these descriptions are. Most of the work/arguments/debates for this entry in the time that I've been watching have been in regards to genre, but most of the kudos i've seen elsewhere (magazines, mailing lists, interviews with label heads) have been in regards to genre as well. If you want to expand on the "categories are not universally agreed upon, and in a real sense probably are more of a continuum" idea in the entry, I think that's a great idea. Twiin 07:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do think that perhaps the larger categories (such as EBM) should be given their own separate entries; however, they should still be mentioned in this article, as it is in fact an attempt to put each subgenre in its place (or at least I see it that way, and I believe Twiin does as well). I do agree with Delirium that the genre essentially is a continuum (for example, where would one place Controlled Bleeding, or Cabaret Voltaire, or even Ministry? They've all spanned subgenres!). The article does perhaps need some streamlining in its present form. neckro 10:32, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Did you read the definition section on this discussion page? I've been waiting some time for someone to say something about it, but if you also feel separate definitions should be used I'm going to go ahead and implement this. The definition is horrible. I am absolutely, without question removing industrial rock however. This is a misnomer that originates from a parody web FAQ on industrial music that names bands like Stabbing Westward, Marilyn Manson, and Korn as industrial. Some people didn't get the joke, and that's where this whole 'industrial rock' business comes from. Even people that confuse industrial for dance music know better than to think stabbing westward, an emo band of all things, is industrial. 128.120.181.195 12:28, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You may recall, SW toured with industrial acts and played and industrial clubs in the 90s. The article said explicitly that they were -not- considered industrial, but had associations with industrial culture -- which they did. Take a look at any industrial magazine from the 90s, and you'll see reviews of stabbing westward and nin. It's not from a parody site. Twiin 18:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The definition read that industrial rock was a genre, and listed stabbing westward, among other bands, as an industrial rock band. Either way, it's best to keep the definition simple instead of getting tangled with these subgenres. People come here for a definition of industrial, they might not be interested in every subgenre the same way you are, so let's just link to separate definitions here. Sanctum 02:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Too many sub-genres

I haven't heard of half-of these sub-genres, although I do understand that fans tend to over categorize their music as they have a need to differeniate themselves from everyone else. Anyways, Wumpscut shoudlnt be 2nd wave...he didnt even start putting out albums until the mid 90's. And how the hell can you call My Life with the Thrill Kill Kult agro-industrial? What is agro about them? What is agro anyways? I've never even heard of it. -miles

I'm attempting to restructure this talk page, in the hopes of making it more readable. I've changed a few header titles, and attributed a few comments. Otherwise, the text is unchanged. I've also added the Template:Reorganizing to the main article, which I think is appropriate given the current state of flux.

The 'Proposed Rewrite' topic is where I'd like to draw your attention -- if we can agree on a new structure for the entry, we can begin a rewrite. Twiin 08:00, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Industrial Music Today

I added an "Industrial Music Today" section, which greatly expands the material in the article. There are a few gaps, it isn't completely wikified yet, and some of the information is incomplete/unclear, but it's a start. -- Neckro 12 March, 2004

Localized Industrial Scene Info?

I'm thinking about putting together a section to highlight different areas of the industrial music 'scene' -- festivals, cities with prominent nights/artists/contributions, etc. Anyone have any thoughts on this? -- Twiin 15:55, 05 May, 2004 (UTC)

That sounds good, although it really should be a separate entry (heck, I'm thinking we should maybe move the subgenres list to a separate entry). There's the danger of including too much ephemeral information, however. Also, as far as I know there's only one "regular" industrial festival (Maschinenfest), with other fests (like the recent "Saturation Bombing" fest in Toronto) being one-off deals. An article about important industrial scenes would be nice, though. (I'm thinking Chicago, Philadelphia, Vancouver, London, etc). -- Neckro 22:11, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

I really think we should keep the subgenres on the main entry, a lot of people I know who've seen the page (from outside the wikipedia community) were very impressed by it, and found it to be extremely useful. You're right about the 'scene' bit probably requiring its own entry, though. -- Twiin 19:53, 16 May, 2004 (UTC)

My suggestion is usually to put all the info on a main page until it gets too large. By then, the best method of splitting up the info into separate articles often becomes obvious. Tuf-Kat 05:53, May 16, 2004 (UTC)

Sounds interesting but how to keep information time appropriate? Only annual deals? I´d be there for Portland, OR. On a side note I´m going to be filling in some of the information here. Gr3g 06:14, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Major deletes by User talk:128.120.181.227

Please discuss major deletions to the article here on the Talk page before proceeding. I have reverted the article pending discussion. It does not help things to be rude to previous contributors, however misguided they may be. The term "industrial music" means more than the hard-edged material of the 1970s, and the article needs to include descriptions of modern usage of the term (whether agreed-to by purists or not), regardless of whether they are truly industrial according to purists --Lexor|Talk 02:22, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well I don't know what's to discuss, there were some serious errors that I fixed. I mean some wanker thought death industrial had something to do with death metal? And no mention of NON? Boyd Rice is the father of industrial, he should be mentioned. This isn't really debatable either, it's agreed upon. Boyd Rice started on NON in 1973 whereas Throbbing Gristle didn't get started until 1976.

Futurepop, EBM, and Darkwave are NOT industrial. This is agreed upon by everyone that listens to industrial, there just happens to be a lot of club-going folk that feel the music they play at "industrial clubs" is industrial. I am not taking a purist definition of industrial, just an objective one. I tried to leave everything correct as it was.

Anyways, if people want to know what industrial is we should tell them what industrial is, not popular misconceptions about industrial.

Please, consider the changes I made and if possible put some (or all) back.

The definition is not satisfactory as it stands. Sanctum

I agree that Futurepop/Darkwave aren't industrial, but I just can't agree with industrial entry without reference to the EBM of old, with Nitzer Ebb and Front 242 -- EBM/Industrial were synonymous terms to a lot of music fans and djs/promoters in the 80s. What Boyd Rice is to industrial noise, F242/Nitzer Ebb were to industrial dance.

With that said, I don't think that we should mention any of the 'new school' EBM acts, other than to say that when people say 'EBM' nowadays, they usually mean (link to modern/new EBM article or some such). Twiin 14:37, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Industrial dance? F242 and Nitzer Ebb are EBM, they never were industrial. They have synth beats and corny melodies, everything that constitutes EBM. Harsh electronics don't translate to industrial, so all that harsh EBM still is not industrial. I don't think we should mention any EBM acts, as they are not industrial, they are influenced by industrial. It's silly to mention every genre that has taken influences from industrial but isn't industrial itself. Let's keep the definition down to what actually IS industrial. Mentions of influences from industrial should go on the definitions for those genres. I do think we should include a note explaining metropolis's liberal use of the term industrial, and that terms like electro-industrial are not legitimate, they are only used in the goth club scene surrounding metropolis. Electro-industrial is basically metropolis's way of slapping the word 'industrial' onto EBM. It's also probably the reason CMI felt the need to refer to all industrial as post-industrial.

I'm aware I am not very lenient here, but I do not feel we should expand the definition of industrial to include unrelated styles because some wayward people feel they belong under the category industrial. I listen to my fair share of EBM and darkwave, and I hate to see people get worked up when I say some EBM artist isn't industrial. The genre industrial is not an elite club that only obscure 'cool' bands get into, nor is it a very specific style as it encompasses everything from Masonna to Ice Ages. Still, unrelated styles shouldn't be referred to as subgenres of industrial, perhaps as 'other electronic genres'. Sanctum

Wikipedia articles aren't necessary supposed to describe the "pure" form of any particular subject, and should conform to the neutral point of view, this means that if numerous people associate EBM or industrial dance as part of an expanded definition of "industrial music", then it should be treated as such. Wikipedia shouldn't attempt to define a musical genre in absolute, prescriptive terms, but to document and describe knowledge, which includes discussing the status quo. This means that that EBM and other subgenres should be discussed as part of the expanded notion of industrial music, whether they are considered "industrial" in a "purist sense".

To bolster the case that this article on industrial should include EBM and industrial rock in its discussion, here is allmusic:

Allmusic.com: "The second generation of industrial artists -- including Skinny Puppy, Front 242, and Nitzer Ebb -- added pummeling dance beats to their predecessors' confrontational sounds, for a substyle often referred to as electronic body music (centered around labels like Wax Trax). Meanwhile, bands like Ministry and KMFDM added metal-guitar riffs, which helped Ministry break through to a wider audience in the late '80s and early '90s; similarly, Nine Inch Nails' Trent Reznor added more traditional song structures, and made his own persona the focal point, giving the music a rare human presence and becoming a star in the process. [...]."

It's fine to split off much of the material into other articles (particularly when they get long), but a summary of the subgenres should be left in the main article, not deleted entirely. The fact that many people feel that EBM is industrial is worthy of comment in itself, Wikipedia shouldn't take sides in the debate, especially over something that is as subjective as musical style, but should document the debate. --Lexor|Talk 01:38, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Taste in music is subjective, the names of various styles is objective. Sanctum

Perhaps, but given the discussion over the term "IDM", I doubt it. It's certainly true that whether a band is a member of a particular style is subjective. Witness how quickly people (both bands and fans) wanted to be and then not be a member of the grunge music scene. --Lexor|Talk 02:37, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Trivial Nomenclature Issues

I would like to rename the 'militant industrial' subgenre section, as no-one I know actually refers to Death in June or Der Blutharsch as such, but I'm at a loss for what to call it. Suggestions? Twiin 11:38, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just the other day I changed it to Martial Industrial and took out Death in June, added some other martial industrial artists and labels. I recommend changing that back mr. moderator person. Sanctum

Albin Julius (Der Blutharsch) tends to use "kinky marching music," and originally "kinky martial music." Many releases on his Hau Ruck! label would fall under this too, I think. Migozared 23:11, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Industrial Rock

Marilyn Manson, FLA, and NIN are industrial now? I don't think so. Also, Skinny Puppy and Ministry are mentioned as the first two industrial projects to use guitars.... and no mention of Controlled Bleeding? What about blastbeats?

I think the entire Industrial Rock part should be removed, and a few words about the use of guitars in industrial can be added somewhere else. Sanctum

Considering a lot of the pioneers of Industrial including Throbbing Gristle used guitars themselves in various songs (you'd have to actually look) I think you should keep your opinions of industrial not being able to be classified as industrial because a guitar was used, to yourself... and maybe a few bands (like marilyn manson) should be classified more completely

Dark Ambient

The writer was probably confusing the marriage of dark ambient and industrial, dark industrial, with dark ambient. It's easy to mistake the two, the only thing that sets dark industrial apart from dark ambient is it's harsh nature. Could I fix this definition up? Sanctum

Death Industrial

Death industrial is when power electronics are used to create a dark atmosphere, it has nothing to do with death metal. I'm really amazed that someone could think that. Anyways, could I fix the definition and include some more artists? (namely The Grey Wolves, as they are the first death industrial project) Sanctum

NON

Since you didn't like the major changes I made, could I add a sentence or two about NON fathering industrial, and fix the part where the definition incorrectly cites Throbbing Gristles as the first innovators of industrial. Sanctum

Technoid

Harsh IDM isn't industrial, it's IDM. Any objections to removing this? I can understand industrial being mentioned as an influence to IDM, but it doesn't really belong on the definition of industrial itself, perhaps on the definition of IDM. Sanctum

Responses to above, feel free to restore any text (especially additions and expansions on Throbbing Gristle, NON etc), just don't delete whole sections without discussion here. If we do agree to remove it from the article after discussion, then unless it is entirely inaccurate (not just out of context) it should be incorporated into a new article or into an existing article, rather than being deleted entirely. Lastly, please sign your posts on the Talk page here using four tildes in a row like this ~~~~, so we know who wrote them, it expands into a user name and timestamp. Thanks --Lexor|Talk

Thanks Sanctum 02:19, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually I went ahead and restored most of your edits already now, and have more clearly separate out industrial from industrial-inspired acts/subgenres. --Lexor|Talk 02:39, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Restructuring / NPOV

I can't agree with most of the changes made, and I don't think that the entry accurately represents the current reality of Industrial Music. I think that the current two-tiered structure (Industrial / EBM and Rock) lends itself to dispute by design, and that the implementation of that design itself (Der Blutharsch + Merzbow = Industrial while Front 242 + Numb + Front Line Assembly = Not Industrial) is flawed. Why are Imminent and 5F_55 "Industrial" if Gridlock and Black Lung aren't?

Because Immenent Starvation and 5f_55 are noise and Gridlock's more recent work (surely you aren't referring to his older albums, no one could mistake those for industrial) might be harsh, but it has stucture and is based on melodies and rhythm. Black Lung has 4/4 synthbeats, how could you call that industrial? Sanctum 06:12, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If it were up to me, I'd revert the entire entry back to the way it was before all these major changes were made, and then work from there to incorporate some of the changes that were made (NON, etc). As it stands now, the entry highlights the avant-garde end of things, and the more meat-and-potatoes acts (FLA/F242/Numb) are second-class. I'm an industrial DJ/promoter (and my fiancee runs what might be the longest-lived industrial night in North America), and we feel very, very strongly that this entry is contextually and factually inaccurate in regards to what "Industrial Music" is.

DJ's dont play industrial, they play dance music like EBM. I can't begin to say how ill-tempered I've become over you DJ's who insist you are educated on music because you play some tracks at clubs. You stick to beatmatching and playing your dance music. If you want to slap the term industrial on unrelated things why don't you just use that made-up term metropolis spawned to describe EBM, "electro-industrial" Sanctum 06:12, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If the neutral point of view policy states that "one should write articles without bias, representing all views fairly", then this entry does not meet those standards. Only one view of 'Industrial' is fairly represented here. Twiin 18:46, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you. I mainly made the changes to address concerns by Sanctum (see also User talk:Sanctum), who has a very strict interpretation of what "industrial" is. I agreed (see the discussion above) that eliminating the FLA/F242 etc. acts completely (which this user originally did) was overkill and not NPOV, so I restored the sections, but split them up. Splitting out the more avant-gard from what you describe as the more "meat-n-potatoes" genres was my attempt a compromise. Perhaps we could simply retitle the sections. "Industrial genres" -> "Avant-garde industrial genres", "Crossover genres" -> "Second wave genres" or somesuch. Keeping the split between types of genres would address Sanctum's concerns somewhat, while retitling them would make it more neutral with respect to decided whether or not they are truly "industrial" in a purist "Industrial Records" sense. Certainly respected sources such as allmusic.com (see quote above) agree that FLA/F242 are part of the overall "industrial" genre. Feel free to suggest new titles, or just go ahead and change them. --Lexor|Talk 22:09, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the changes I suggested. --Lexor|Talk 22:15, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think the 'wave' classes work well. I'll think on it a bit, and then perhaps we can draft a new structure with these classes/elements from the ground up, to avoid any of the mess that comes from an written/rewritten/evolved entry? Twiin 22:45, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree it should be re-written, in more or less the same format as now. It looks like it was written by committee, and needs to be cleaned up. Tuf-Kat 00:58, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

It will be purged by the facists. I'm surprised no one has come around here insisting that facism be mentioned in industrial, seeing how it's been a big part industrial. I'm not pushing for it though. Sanctum 06:23, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Proposed Rewrite

Twiin's Proposed Structure (In Progress)

Philosophy and Origins

• Luigi Russolo (and The Art of Noise), Pierre Schaeffer (and Musique Concrète)

1st Wave (70s to 80s - Industrial Records Era)

• Noise/Shock (Boyd Rice/NON, Monte Cazazza, Nurse With Wound, )
• Avant-Garde/Experimental (Einstürzende Neubauten, Throbbing Gristle, William S. Burroughs, Current 93) - Was widely considered to be the defining sound of industrial in the 70s
• Synth/Dance (Cabaret Voltaire, SPK, Severed Heads)

2nd Wave (80s to 90s - Wax Trax Era)

• Industrial Dance / Body Music (Skinny Puppy, Front 242, Nitzer Ebb, Die Krupps) - Was widely considered to be the defining sound of industrial in the 80s
• Industrial Rock (NIN, Gravity Kills, Econoline Crush) - Not currently considered 'industrial' by the scene due to perceived pop influences, but were once commonplace acts in industrial compilations and magazines
• Industrial Metal (Pigface, KMFDM, Ministry, Godflesh, Revolting Cocks, My Life With the Thrill Kill Kult, Cubanate) - Punk Rock ethic, etc. Was widely considered to be the defining sound of industrial in the early 90s in North America
• Coldwave (Chemlab, 16 Volt, Hate Dept)
• Electro-Industrial (Numb, Front Line Assembly, Haujobb, :Wumpscut:) - Now often called 'Elektro', Was widely considered to be the defining sound of industrial in the mid/late 90s in North America
• Dark Ambient/Industrial (Deutsch Nepal, Cold Meat Industries)
• Power Electronics (Grey Wolves, Masonna, Merzbow, Whitehouse)
• Death Industrial (Brighter Death Now, Dissecting Table, In Slaughter Natives)

3rd Wave (90s to 00s - Ant-Zen Era)

• Power/Rhythmic Noise (Winterkälte, Imminent Starvation, Converter) - Militant, harsh, stark.
• Post-Industrial (Gridlock, Somatic Responses, Black Lung, Orphx, Tarmvred) - Homemade gear, 8-bit/found sounds, marked difference in sound between albums
• Industrial Techno (Punch Inc., Pow[d]er Pussy, Mimetic)
• Drum n Noise (End, Enduser, Hecate)

Summary

We should also mention the current incarnation of EBM (Covenant / VNV Nation) as having industrial influences and often getting airtime in industrial clubs, but not widely considered 'industrial music' per se. Perhaps the same mention for Apocalyptic/Neo-folk in Europe. Perhaps a section for cities known for a certain type of industrial sound/bands, like Chicago, San Francisco, Vancouver, etc?

I've almost certainly left genres/artists out which I will remember immediately upon being reminded of them. Thoughts? Twiin 04:19, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Discussion

Post-Industrial

Post-industrial is a term used by Cold Meat Industry. None of those bands are on CMI. CMI stated that they refer to some CMI artists as post-industrial because they were fed up with term industrial being misused and wish to make a distinction by adopting a new name. There is no post-industrial sound, it's just industrial music in general. I still have to insist that Gridlock is IDM and Black Lung is minmalist electronic belonging to some genre I am not familiar with, it isn't industrial. I think Tarmvred should go under industrial techno. I've heard them described as techno-industrial and disco industrial before. (reviews on adnoiseam)

I don't think this whole "third wave" thing is a good idea because the powernoise artists come from the earlier noise artists. There are two seperate timelines we are looking at here, the evolution of industrial and the evolution of unrelated genres you insist on attaching to industrial. Powernoise and post-industrial artists belong on the former timeline.Sanctum 06:03, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Post-Industrial was a top-of-my-head term. We can find a better name for that Ad Noiseam kind of sound. I -really- don't think Gridlock is IDM, as IDM doesn't often have distorted vocals and military march beats.

The Powernoise artists certainly follow from the Noise artists, but there is a clear deliniation between the two, I think. The early 90s noise-industrial and the early 00s powernoise-industrial really don't have much in common, except that one came from the other ten years ago, and they both use noise. Iszoloscope and Merzbow are otherwise entirely different.

...and on a side note, it's nothing I'm "insisting on attaching" to industrial. This is the current state of affairs within 'the industrial scene', as it appears to me and the people I work with. I'm in constant contact with record labels, clubs, bands, etc, and so I'm fortunate enough to have a fairly balanced perspective on things. This isn't one man's crusade to Ruin Industrial Forever. Why make it personal? Twiin 06:24, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Haha oh god. You think gravity kills, NIN, Ministry, Godflesh, TKK, 16 Volt, Haujobb, and :Wumpscut: You're for real? I think you're a joke. Anyways, you can mention those in your second wave, but let's stick to this idea of a clear division. Think of it as a fork in the road starting at 1984 where one path splits off. Death industiral and power electronics, as well as all the industrial on CMI, should be left in the first wave. (I guess you could say, it's still 'riding' that wave because that is where it's infleunces lie)

Dark ambient is not industrial, adding /Industrial doesn't change that.Sanctum 06:28, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Clear Division between "first wave" and "second wave"

To represent all opinions fairly, let's stick to this wave idea. The first wave will be about purely industrial music (it will be the first wave because it came first, fair enough?). The second wave can have all the artists that happened to be at some distant point be influenced by skinny puppy and you DJs insist on calling industrial because it makes trendy assholes feel hip at all the indsutrial clubs. I know I'm being stubborn, but you aren't giving me any leeway either. Let's just agree to have two waves to represent both views, state that some people consider the second wave industrial while others do not, and call it a compromise. Sanctum 06:17, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As this conversation goes on, I'm having an increasingly difficult time believing we can work together on this, when you're throwing snide comments about my motivations for playing music for 'assholes'. I think it might be best if we call in outside arbitration to solve this. Twiin 06:24, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are going to have to resolve this conflict with me. There are many people like me, that feel the music you consider industrial is not industrial. I'm not proposing to ignore what you consider industrial, so I don't think it fair that you feel entitled to ignore all the people who do not consider it to be industrial. We can make an unbiased distinction. Work it out.Sanctum 06:30, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to continue this outside this entry, on your talk page. I'll see you there. Twiin 06:37, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Boyd Rice / NON

In other news, after extensive research (including the Boyd Rice website), I am unable to locate any mention of Boyd Rice releasing anything prior to the self-published Black Album in 1977. In 1977, of course, Throbbing Gristle also released their first album. I'll gladly revert the edits if evidence is shown to the contrary, but I'm rewriting the Boyd-Rice-as-progenitor mention in the interim. While it's possible NON may have been making music in 73, if it wasn't released for four years it certainly couldn't have been 'the first wave' of industrial music. Twiin 04:19, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

he started making music, and had performances (in which he sent audiences fleeing in terror, or so the rumor goes) before he ever released the black album.Sanctum 05:54, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Avant-garde industrial subgenres / Proposed revisions / Industrial Music Today

Those are all industrial subgenres and have nothing to do with avant-garde. Also, avant-garde and experimental are two different things. Let's just remove the avant garde. The genres listed are subgenres of industrial and it's bothersome to put a preface saying they are anything other than industrial. Sanctum 05:54, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just seeing you list bands like Nurse with Wound and Current 93 I have to wonder what you think industrial is. Neofolk isn't industrial in the slightest. We aren't here to mention every experimental artist from 1976 to the present, let's stick to what's industrial. Sanctum 05:54, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

These category names aren't intended to be definitive and final titles, but loose categories that we can agree upon. Neubauten were Industrial. Also, they were Avant-Garde. Not part of the Avant-Garde MOVEMENT, but Avant-Garde in the sense that they did novel things with art and culture. I think the art/culture element is important to mention, as much so as the fact that it was experimental. I don't care what terms we use to best express this, as long as it's expressed.

The 'preface' isn't to say "this isn't industrial", but rather to say "this is -this- type of industrial". :And I agree, Neofolk != Industrial. You may note, I said as much in my closing paragraph. I have no particular attachment to listing NWW/C93, to be honest I thought they were bands you might want to include, given what you've contributed to the entry so far. Twiin 06:07, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that, I think it explains the conflict in a very unbiased way. Of course, I still feel that I am "right" and all the unrelated genres should be stricken from the definition. Maybe something could be added mentioning the second wave of 'industrial' *cough* came about when industrial was popularized. Sanctum 05:58, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ideally, I'd like to have a fair-sized description of the rise/fall/etc of each 'wave'. This includes popularization / top 40 industrial artists, etc. Twiin 06:07, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think you are taking a metaphor a bit too far. Both 'waves' are simultaneously existing, and supposedly in the same place. There never was a popularization of the first wave.

Current Status

After some discussion on Sanctum's talk page, I think Sanctum and I have found a compromise on the outline structure. We can move the Death Industrial and Dark Industrial sections to the 1st wave, with a note saying that there are a number of people who consider anything past 1st wave to not be 'industrial' per se.

With that said, i'd very much like to hear comments on the rest of the outline from everyone else, instead of expending so much energy on this one point. Twiin 08:00, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like a good start to me. I'm not as much of expert on industrial music as either of two of you, but I'm interested in keeping the format consistent with and similar in tone/style with other music genres articles particularly electronic music articles. (Minor stylistic niggle: don't forget to lowercase your heading names (Manual of Style), i.e. "Industrial Records" should be uppercase [a proper noun phrase], but "era" should be lowercase). --Lexor|Talk 08:45, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Everything is fine the way it is. Death industrial, powernoise, and dark industrial are already listed there, and someone already wrote a note that was unbiased. Sanctum 22:13, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As mentioned by others, the entry looks like it's written by commitee, and isn't fine the way it is. Industrial Rock is listed twice, a number of bands/labels are in multiple sections -- hence the need to clean it up. Twiin 22:56, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Lexor, I'll be sure to do my best keep the formatting and style consistent with the other electronic music genre articles, and I'd very much appreciate your input and assistance with this, once we start reworking the article itself. Twiin 22:56, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm putting up the first draft of the re-write now. I still need to fill in subgenres/info about some 1st wave acts (Cabaret Voltaire, SPK, Severed Heads, Coil, Neubauten), more about what happened post-EBM, and expand on the 2nd wave description, but I think this is a much more solid entry than the previous incarnation. Your comments are welcomed. Twiin 07:45, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The new disclaimer about the dispute over the term industrial is very biased. Please restore the one someone else was kind enough to write earlier, it is unbiased and prevents both sides. I discussed powernoise on my talk page with Twiin and will be moving it into the first wave with all the real industrial genres. Sanctum 03:58, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry I've been so long in checking up on this discussion. I think Twiin's outline is good, with the exception of the "Synth/Dance (Cabaret Voltaire, SPK, Severed Heads)" in the First Wave. I'm not familiar with Severed Heads (a lapse, I know), but CV and SPK are first-wave bands who later evolved into a second-wave style (IMO). They began as "original industrial" bands and then moved on to more synth/dance oriented material in the eighties. Arguably this is part of the reason why the second-wave style continued to be referred to as "industrial".

Regarding the Sanctum controversy, I do think he has a point but the personal attacks are unwarranted in a forum such as this. We need to reach a compromise (and it sounds like we almost have one) because he does represent a common viewpoint among fans of "original industrial", and this should definitely be emphasized in the article. -- Neckro 17:00, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

New Introduction

I'm strongly against this new introduction as it is filled with errors. You're calling NIN and KMFDM industrial, and that is flat-out wrong. I have to draw the line somewhere, and it'll be here. It's not fun having to compromise with someone who is clueless about industrial music but insists on having his opinion heard. These changes were not at all discussed, and I request they be removed. Sanctum 04:05, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please, Sanctum, there are no personal attacks on Wikipedia. We are all here to write good articles, and there are many different points of view. Calling somebody clueless doesn't help. Focus on content, not the contributor. It would be best if you could post a version of the introduction that you would prefer with here on this Talk page, then we can all come to a compromise version. It's better to describe specific content that you object to than to describe something as "riddled with errors", and even better to propose a constructive change. Cheers --Lexor|Talk 09:51, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Look, Sanctum -- attacking me is not the way to make a better entry. Are you willing to agree to mediation to help find middle ground on this? Twiin 16:48, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Preface to Second Wave

I fixed a glaring contradiction in the preface to the first wave of industrial where it stated that the genre had mostly died off and that many bands are still actively producing music. I also erased the sentence about purism, it didn't seem relevant. To be consistent, I think the second wave should have a preface as well. Twiin should write it, but please remember to mention that some consider the second wave to be music influenced by industrial, but in no way industrial itself. Sanctum 18:11, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What's this?

"It should be mentioned that there is much disagreement within the industrial scene as to the current state of industrial, to the extent that some (including artists mentioned on this page) are of the belief that there is no "current state of industrial", and that industrial music ended with the demise of Throbbing Gristle and Industrial Records. Thus, the subgenre outlines that follow are by no means definitive, and indeed are often a point of contention between fans of the music."

I have never encountered anyone of the opinion that only bands signed to industrial records are industrial. Throbbing Gristle did tour somewhat recently, although it was supposedly going to be their last. Industrial records still exists: http://www.brainwashed.com/tg/industrial.html So that bit about the demise of Throbbing Gristle and Industrial Records is incorrect. I'd like to remove this paragraph if Twiin is willing to mention the disagreement over industrial in his preface to the second wave. Sanctum 18:17, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Some points: "It should be mentioned that there is much disagreement within the industrial scene as to the current state of industrial, to the extent that some (including artists mentioned on this page) are of the belief that there is no "current state of industrial""

This statement should be reworded, but its basic idea is correct. Many bands which are called industrial chafe at the label because they see how the label was applied by music critics from one semi related musical form to another. I think thats a source of confusion about this article and to many people, TG was industrial and invented it simply because they called their music industrial and were the first ones to do so (even though musically their music was mostly noise). Modern industrial music is similar in dark aesthetic but way more based on skinny puppy and synthpop.

Also, industrial metal and industrial rock should cease to be seperate subgenres, ive never heard of this nomenclature. Either call it industrial metal or industrial rock. Examples would be a combination of both examples listed (ministry, KMFDM, and nine inch nails which IS industrial music, it was consistantly labeled that by every single press thing ive read, and I challenge anyone to give a logical reason why nin wouldn't be considered industrial)

Any progress on this?

As a long-time fan of industrial music, I'd have to say Twiin's proposed rewrite above is more in keeping with what I and most people I know would recognize as "industrial" than what's currently on the page. Part of the problem, I think, is that "industrial" as a genre is multiheaded, with numerous originally unrelated experimental strains sort of converging uneasily into a genre. I think insisting on a particular viewpoint of "real 1st-wave industrial" as only one of those movements is inaccurate and biased. In particular, the genre and sub-genre listing completely leaves out: Cabaret Voltaire, Coil, Einstuerzende Neubauten, and Nurse With Wound. It's hard to imagine a reasonable categorization of industrial music that completely omits them. --Delirium 16:32, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Yep, agreed. --Lexor|Talk 11:37, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Another suggestion for the third wave section: I think the earlier albums of some of the futurepop/synthpop groups should be mentioned as transition points between their industrial albums and their futurepop albums. Whether the earlier albums themselves are "industrial" is of course debated, but the connections are fairly clear. In particular, Covenant's first album, 1994's Dreams of a Cryotank, has clear industrial influences, and one might venture to call it "approximately as industrial as :Wumpscut:", whatever that means. The first VNV Nation album, 1995's Advance and Follow, is another good example, and even the heavily futurepop Empires (1999) includes a track, "Fragments", that draws on the rhythmic noise scene. --Delirium 16:43, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

This is a good point. The issue with defining "industrial" as a genre is twofold: 1) There are many disparate genres that are defined as "industrial", but 2) Many "industrial" acts draw upon more than one of these genres. Additionally, someone who likes both (say) Winterkaelte and God Module would be labelled an "industrial" fan, even though those two acts have nothing in common (other than being all-electronic). There's a lot of cross-pollination going on, even with non-industrial genres -- for example, the industrial-rock era of the mid-90s, or the current "technoid" movement which blends industrial aesthetics with IDM sounds. One particularly interesting example of this convergence with other genres is the Speedy J album "A Shocking Hobby" -- it comes from the IDM scene, with no industrial lineage, yet it sounds almost exactly like a rhythmic industrial album! neckro 16:17, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've made some of these changes, and written a bit under 'third wave' about the cross-genre issues. We need descriptions for some of the 1st wave subgenres, and a nice blurb for 2nd wave (like we have for 1st and 3rd). Twiin 19:58, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Idea of Dark and Death Industrial being in the first wave is silly. Both of those genres came out in the 80s, most of it in the late 80s, the people who think there was no industrial after the 1rst wave are very few. The Rythmic/Techno Industrial of Ant-zen/Hands and the Dark/Death Industrial of Cold meat and the such are just as Industrial as Throbbing Gristle or Einsturzende Neubauten, although they came much later, in a later wave. -64.161.226.56

I agree with you -- The dark/death industrial in first wave was Sanctum's suggestion. He came online and was very vocal for about two weeks, but I think he's since dropped off the face of the earth. If you're in favour, and there's no other objections, I'd like to restructure the genres as I had originally proposed here. Twiin 22:05, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed again. --Lexor|Talk 11:37, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Dark Ambient, and Dark Industrial are basically the same and both Industrial, most of it is basically Industrail/Death Industrial with a subdued Ambient style, but still just as industrial as Death Industrial.

EBM/Industrial metal and all that stuff is not really Industrial but should be mentioned just because of their Industrial influences and their huge impact on the musical scene, but if those are to be mentioned, Modern Terror EBM. I agree that All the EBM derived stuff is not really Industrial but what are you going to do? Ignore it? You can’t do that, I think perhaps having 2 second and 2 third waves would be smarter, to show the difference between Commercial Industrial and the Real deal. But none the less More should be concentrated on the real stuff. Perhaps all the EBM derived stuff should be under the EBM name. -64.161.226.56

Some mention should be made about how the EBM derived music (EBM, electro Industrial, Industrial metla and so on) is not truly Industrial but rather Industrial inspired Dance/Rock music, Whereas the Death Industrial/Dark Industrial/Rythmic INdustrial and others are actually true Industrial. I think something should be mentioned about the difference between, EBM derived Commercial music and true INdustrial -64.161.224.99

I don't even agree that't true, much less think we should take such a stringent point of view within the encyclopedia article. Keep the "OMG TROO INDUSTRIAL" on usenet. :D You can argue that any branch of industrial is "true industrial" or not. I'd argue that rhythmic industrial owes more to the noise scene than to industrial, myself. --Delirium 20:35, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

You are assuming they are all branches of industrial in the first place, which they are not. But if some of you guys are so far gone that you are going to call VNV Nation industrial, there's really nothing I have to say. 128.120.181.226 02:26, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the current content regarding Industrial/Not-Industrial is more than enough. Less is more, and all that -- and the more we write about any perceived dispute about what's "really" industrial, the harder it'll be to maintain NPOV. Twiin 21:42, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To Do

This is my own list, feel free to contribute/ignore. :)

• Write/expand descriptions for 1st/2nd/3rd wave headers
• Write genre descriptions for Noise/Shock and Electronic/Dance
• Expand all genre descriptions to elektro/ebm/technoid-style descriptions
• Upload 2 audio samples and a popular/important album cover per genre
• Perhaps write 'community' section with info about some industrial circles (such as the revco/lard/ministry/etc ranch, or invisible records), and information on *important/distinctive communities (Vancouver, Chicago, etc)
• Perhaps include more information about the popular industrial aesthetic -- notable books/movies that have had an impact (I'm sure the Top Samples List will come in handy), as *well as prominent themes (animal/personal rights, tyranny, etc)

Twiin 00:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What aesthetic are you talking about? Animal and personal rights? Are we talking about the same industrial? The only political side industrial music has ever taken is fascist, and there has been a lot of aesthetic fascism (back in the day when people would wear SS uniforms to shows). Or is it your intention to mention a bunch of EBM artists that have a liberal bias, and being the fair minded gentlemen you are, entirely exclude everything industrial has ever stood for because it isn't something club goers like to hear about? 128.120.181.226 02:43, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The aesthetics I'm talking about includes Throbbing Gristle fascism, but also Skinny Puppy/Ministry politics as well. We're not taking a Industrial-Records-Only view of industrial music here -- and while you're not seeing VNV nation listed as an industrial act on the page (as you referred to above), Skinny Puppy and Ministry are considered industrial acts by most music critics, fans, and musicians. To pretend like these acts don't carry their own politics is foolish, and harmful to the article -- which is intended to be comprehensive, and adhering to a NPOV. Twiin 03:54, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just one thing to keep in mind, INdustrial music is Noise Based music. If your going to include things under the industrial blanket it must be based on noise and abrasive sounds 69.111.9.73 23:51, 23 Dec 2004

Industrial music is more than noise-based music. It's also loop-based music, and sample-based music, and many other types of music. Even Throbbing Gristle wrote pop songs. There is more than one definition of what 'industrial' was, or is, or will be. Also, when contributing to the talk page, don't delete other people's comments. Twiin 01:30, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

First off sorry about the deleting, I was a bit confused about how this thing worked, any who Throbbing Gristle did write pop songs (united, adrenalin), but the majority of their stuff was based on abrasive Industrial sounds. Throbbing Gristles point was to challenge musical concepts by making music out of noise, the same with Einsturzende Neubauten. Modern Death INdustrial does the same, and rythmic industrial makes noise based music with a beat. Dark Industrial, makes noise based music that is calm and ambient like. BUt they all have one thinkg in common, harsh Noise

Agro Industrial??? What the hell is Agro Industrial??? I've never heard that term used.

I think the genres that can actually fit under Industrial and be true to the Industrial sound are

Industrial/

Power Electronics/

Death Industrial/

Dark Industrial/

Power Noise/

Techno Industrial/

Technoid

Those are really the only Genres that put enough emphasis on abrasive Noise and Harsh INdustrial sounds to be put as Industrial. Perhaps the others should be under EBM. Or mentioned but mentioned as Industrial inspired music, or Metal/Dance Music with an INdustrial feel, not Industrial music perse. 64.161.225.57 23:36, 25 Dec 2004

Wikipedia policy is that all articles should have a neutral point of view. While you feel that Industrial is defined by harsh noise, other people believe industrial is defined by aesthetic, or philosophy, or record label, or band members, or countless other criteria. In order for the article to conform to Wikipedia policies, we need to include more music in our article than just that which passes the 'noise' criteria -- that would leave out Coil, Psychic TV, Ministry, and a number of acts which are/were important to industrial music.

If you read back over the talk page (I know it's pretty large), you'll see the arguments for/against including/excluding certain subgenres, and over the past 4-5 months we've managed to hammer out a working definition for the purposes of this article. It's not an exclusionary one, and we need to keep in mind that the article isn't just about what you or I would consider to be 'industrial' music, but what information we should have available as a resource to someone looking up what 'industrial' is, and what other people think it is. Twiin 08:43, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But there still should be some separation between the commercial EBM derived INdustrial and the true Noise derived Industrial. Industrial Metal btw seams like a much better name than agro industrial, I've never heard it called that.

You may not have heard it called 'aggro', but that was the term for it. Labels used it, magazines used it, distributors and record stores used it, and a number of bands used it in song and remix titles. If you google it, you'll find four or five thousand people using the term. If 'industrial rock' is rock with industrial influences, then 'industrial metal' is metal with industrial influences -- Rammstein, maybe, or Fear Factory? Or in the other direction, The Swans and Godflesh. These bands aren't in the same category as TKK and Cubanate, I'm sure you'd agree. I've reverted your changes for this reason. Twiin 08:43, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removed {{reorganizing}}

As the reorg seems more or less complete, I went ahead and removed the tag. ---Lexor|Talk 02:43, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)