Music Industry Exposed

[irjO]

Hello! I don't know if you have seen this video before but i think is interesting, cuz it shows how the consortium uses the most famous artist to send messages.. the video has a religious print all over and need a little more research, but the principal idea of the artist and the music industry as a puppet is the important one.. and this one is the better i've seen about this topic. Its 1 and a half hour long, comment and discuss about it if you like :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X30M9h8xqVo

 

[Voyageur]

If not seen already, have a look also at the Laurel Canyon thread.

 

[3DStudent]

Thanks for this. They really pressed the masonic and "selling your soul to the devil" themes. It was interesting to see how artists are pulled into this industry and cannot get out. And when they try, the industry frames them in a bad light and tries to bring them down.

In the video, which looks to be around 2010-11, rapper DMX was in jail and saying that he wasn't going to do any more albums. However, it looks like he made one in 2012.

 

[PopHistorian]

Just a note -- there's a big bunch of these videos and many written expositions about the music industry for anyone interested in researching more. All "popular entertainment" seems to be carefully managed this way. It's yet another aspect of the control matrix to be aware of. I've had only peripheral brushes with the music industry, but plenty enough to reveal it as monumentally corrupt and evil, IMO.

Using music for control goes all the way back to Plato, and surely beyond, and is mentioned as being fairly basic in lots and lots of alleged bean-spilling about the "blueprint" for the NWO by alleged insiders. If interested, I just posted another one of those accounts here: http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,30254.0.html. Music is indeed mentioned.

 

[lewis_86]

Your spot on with Plato. He in discussed in length the concept of top-down culture creation. Many examples from the music industry feature messages, whether it be explicit or otherwise, that hammer down aspects of the global agenda. Created at the top, handed down to the public.

People often think I'm nuts for mentioning this and it's sometimes met with disbelief, "Why on earth would Beyoncé propagate a police state?" Well because their output lacks any substance, so it is an ideal platform to inject meaning, by her handlers (the directors, the "music" & lyrics writers, the directors of her image, ect).

The sad fact is that youngsters are to all extents and purposes, innocent and unaware of the toxic messages being implanted in them via what they deem to be the "stars" or idols of their day. These stars, in an occultic sense, are representations of the stars in the universe that "guide" us; they set the president for accepting future realities and changes of society by repeating the mantra. It's just a shame we're not talking about the hip shaking of Elvis anymore; more the acceptance of the sexualisation of children, and presence of a police state and the transhumanist agenda.

 

[Green_Manalishi]

Hi.

There is an issue that spikes my curiosity regarding this subject, that i have been wanting to discuss.

For the most part, or for all the part, all this is happening in mainstream music. Being a fan of music in general, but more of the underground, independent variety (i know independent and underground are a very broad categorization), do you think that this kind of music is also imbued with the same agenda? Or could it be a kind of opposite, or even neutral?

I know there is a program for everyone (that is why i am asking this, so i can figure this one out), but when i see musicians that have their own labels, controlled by them to release their own music, and the music of mind liked people (and sometimes have to close this labels due to lack of money, and for example split the dividends 50/50 between musicians and label), i tend to think that they are, at least, less controlled by the "consortium".

I have been finding my self get a little bit more emotionally detached from music because of this. But maybe the important thing is what you take out of it, and i believe i'm not getting nothing negative out of the music i hear (at least in the past few years :P, youth angst is long gone, i like to believe).

So, i guess that what i am asking is, if mainstream and independent music are at the same level of control (of course we could also distinguish between real independent music and less a kind of camouflaged mainstream that calls it self independent, but that would just add noise for now and maybe add nothing of importance).

 

[lewis_86]

Green_Manalishi, here's what I think...

I believe truly independent music doesn't fall under the same behemoth of control as the mass produced stuff, and therefore doesn't come with the loaded messages, in general. Coming from someone who got into punk rock at an early age, I was exposed to all sorts of politics via the music; the scene, the people and the lyrics often contained a political leaning. This wasn't to say I agreed with it all, and it took a few years to find my feet and think critically for myself; and not just accept what a band or my peers were talking about.

I would say that overall, this music having a message behind it was a positive thing; it made me think about issues on a bigger scale that I would have otherwise come across. Often the general message boiled down to "think for yourself, do what you believe in". Of course, it's rhetoric but it would be too easy to just be cynical; at least it's empowering. Punk and politics goes hand in hand - I'm specifically referring to the "underground". So many bands who I came across, whether it be punk rock, metal or hardcore, prided themselves on not being the same as the mainstream; offering something different, more personal for the audience. This was reinforced by the creativity of the scene; it wasn't just musicians making things happen. There were the people who took risks by booking unknown bands from abroad, people who cooked for them, people who put them up, etc. This wasn't just business as usual, it meant more. The intent was to create an environment where ideas and people were valid, where people could share views and trade records, meet people.

It didn't always work perfectly - many times over the years I came across people who were vegan and looked down on other who weren't, feminists who blamed everything on men/patriarchy and the so-called "P.C Brigade" - a point of contention if ever I saw one. These people were sometimes missing a sense of humour which took the fun away for others, myself included. But personally, I met a ton of great people who I will always be bonded with; through a love of music and creativity, doing things for yourself and trying to carve your own way in the world. Some of these friends I don't see often these days, because they live in other parts of the country, but I know that if I'm in their town, or the other way around, there will always be a place to crash.

I'm purely speaking from a personal perspective here. Underground punk rock has done a lot in terms of giving people a platform to be creative and independent; to consciously distinguish ones self from the mainstream. To me and many others, it's a state of mind more than a type of music or the fashions that go with that. I've never really cared for labels, but I don't mind being called a punk.

 

[irjO]

Green_Manalishi, here's what I think...

I believe truly independent music doesn't fall under the same behemoth of control as the mass produced stuff, and therefore doesn't come with the loaded messages, in general. Coming from someone who got into punk rock at an early age, I was exposed to all sorts of politics via the music; the scene, the people and the lyrics often contained a political leaning. This wasn't to say I agreed with it all, and it took a few years to find my feet and think critically for myself; and not just accept what a band or my peers were talking about.

Yup, i guess everything that is very popular are part of the agenda!

 

[The rabbit]

So, i guess that what i am asking is, if mainstream and independent music are at the same level of control (of course we could also distinguish between real independent music and less a kind of camouflaged mainstream that calls it self independent, but that would just add noise for now and maybe add nothing of importance).

I would say that anything you are hearing coming through the mainstream radio and other mainstream media chanels is controlled. Independent commercial radio stations get a play list of the music to be played sent from crappo music central which they have to play. It is usually safe music who´s lyric content is meaningless and crass, though sometimes the actual instrumentation may be cool. Having had connections with Radio City in Liverpool back in 1996 I can state this as a fact.

 

[Medulin]

Music is okay, but please don't watch videos.

 

[irjO]

Music is okay, but please don't watch videos.

Could you clarify?

 

[PopHistorian]

Regarding mainstream vs. independent music, the C's covered this in Session 19 November 2005, here: http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,20999.0.html

Q: [...] Bubbles wants to know what’s up with her memory loss?

A: Too much TV and too much music with encoded brain jellifying signals. Learn to sleep properly and cut way back on the music. It is better to listen to music of that type only when physically active.

[...]

Q: ... (Mr. Scott) So you can listen to it when you’re exercising. (Perceval) But it’s probably better not to have it right in your ears.

A: That’s it in a nutshell!

Q: ... (Atriedes) Is Eminem a complete tool of the powers that be? Sometimes it seems to have a good thing; sometimes it doesn’t.

A: If it is popular and/or widely sold, it is part of the “program.”

Notice that the qualifying phrase "with encoded brain jellifying signals" implies clearly that there is also music without such signals. The C's have commented in very positive terms about music in many other instances of the sessions.

The phrase "popular and/or widely sold" contains subjective adjectives, but I think we can figure out the meaning. You know that "news" is controlled by what is effectively a corporate monopoly, and 99% of people (that's just an arbitrary guess) know little else. "Music" is the same. Virtually all music that fits the C's description is under the control of the big corporate monopoly -- even though it is actually only a small percentage of music recorded and released by artists. So, tiny bit of controlled music, but a vast audience. Via mainstream media, the news accomplishes psychological herding of the public. It's the same with mass-media music (or art or history or diet, etc.). If something doesn't have mass exposure and isn't inundating his brain, Average Joe is likely to view it as not "legitimate" or "real," or "good," etc. And people who do know about other news, music, history, diet, whatever, are "fringe," "weird," or otherwise marginalized.

If interested, myself and others made longer personal comments on corporate vs. independent music here: http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,20999.msg223788.html#msg223788

 

[domwatts23]

The message coming through from this mainstream music has been pretty clear for years. Lately the message is 'Act as though today is the last day of your life and, therefore, have as much fun and sex as you can'

The sex has been an enormous part of it right back to the beginning of Madonna and even further back. 'Like a virgin' features her writhing around on the floor in a church dressed all in black...hmm...great message.

It's just classic Satanic tactics in action - these puppets are promised wealth and fame and in return they have to sell their 'talents', integrity, free will and become part of the depraved, soulless program. It has gone so far now in videos it's just ridiculous.

The real question seems to be - Is there anything more sinister going on than just trying to keep people asleep, unconscious and ridden with vice (whilst at the same time rubbing it in aware people's faces with all the symbolism)? I'm not too sure.

 

[Deleted member 8431]

Music is okay, but please don't watch videos.

Could you clarify?

I think he meant that the videos are too explicit.

Anyhow, whatever you meant, I wouldn't agree so much that the music is necessarily okay. They might not contain images but the words and ideas are there and anyways, reality is that those who enjoy that kind of music do watch the clips. With the Internet is has became as easy as breathing. And with illegal downloading, they can get all they want for free. Mainstream music is also the easiest to find of course and even an 8 yo can do this.

Think about it, kids/teens listening to that all day long through their MP3 players. It obviously has an effect on them and it is reflected through their behaviors. I see that on a daily basis and so do we most likely all (without generalizing too much).

I personally can't support it. The lyrics are nauseating. And so are the video clips. Totally degrading for mankind and misogynistic in essence. It has a synthetic/fake taste to it. Really bad vibes in other words. But that's just me.

That's why I've always hated clubs. The closed I've been was some 10 years ago and it was in a parking lot and the people I saw there didn't look well in general. They looked, talked and acted exactly like those in those songs/video clips. It was quite interesting to see and already back then (I was only 17) I was already observing and reflecting on the relation between their behavior and music style.

 

[PopHistorian]

domwatts23 wrote: << The sex has been an enormous part of it right back to the beginning of Madonna and even further back. 'Like a virgin' features her writhing around on the floor in a church dressed all in black...hmm...great message. >>

You seem to be referring to video, but you're right that it goes back much farther than that. The Beatles/Stones/Kinks and artists of the 50s before them have admitted that they were singing about sex and quite deliberately disguising their meanings with ostensibly neutral or tame language, playing games with the censors, etc. Popular music before then, I don't know much about and can't comment. But the trend appears to have been constant and incrementally reaching new extremes, as incrementalism is intended to do. And we're talking here about relatively tame "singles" or "emphasis tracks" meant for radio. A lot of these artists use much more explicit language, that encourages a mundane attitude towards sex and violence and even murder, on the tracks that are still effectively censored.