>>>>> "dn" == darw_n <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
dn> I am so interested in this, so excuse my frequent posting!!
dn> But I am interested in how personality typing plays in all
dn> this...
dn> For instance, are the lovers of Swedish techno generally
dn> introverted (i.e., only needs very slight informational input
dn> to feel fulfilled) and is people, like Diane here, who find
dn> Swedish Techno boring and lacking more extroverted (i.e. needs
dn> generally more sensory input to achieve satisfaction)...
This notion is so off-base that I can't stay away from it. It's like
poking a loose tooth with my tongue. But since you went out on a limb
and posited a theory, I'll reply with a theory of my own. In short:
no, I don't think that's the way things work.
For starters: I like extremely dense, maximalistic dance music (which
is what first attracted me to UK hardcore and jungle), but I also like
the more ascetic sorts of minimalism (Plastikman, Riou, Landstrumm).
You could make the argument that I'm both introverted and extroverted,
but that seems silly. My real point is that any real human being is
far too complicated to explain with such simple models. I think our
musical / artistic tastes arise from the same sorts of processes that
produce our sexual tastes, and I shouldn't have to tell anyone here
how infinitely variegated _those_ are. The process is deep,
mysterious, and not really amenable to any theory any less complex
than, say, Freud's.
dn> A neat thing is this "soulful" and "soulless" concept. Again,
dn> I think the beauty of any good music is that it captures the
dn> makers/artists "soul", but the beauty of things like Swedish
dn> techno is that indeed it is "soulless", allowing the listener
dn> to add their own "soul"...
Hmm... again, not buying it. I will agree that one of the cool things
about techno is its generally neutral emotional context, but that's
different from being "soulless". A productive conversation could
probably be had about what constitutes "soul" in music, but I think
the general populace of 313 would quickly grow impatient with a
discussion that theoretical. In any case, one person's "soulless" DJ
tool is another person's favorite, most emotional track in the whole
world, and both listeners may have arrived at that conclusion
independent of the context in which they originally heard the
music. They both might find the music inherently soulful. Again,
things get all complicated and psychological.
For me, the essential attribute is balance, particularly having to do
with the frequency range of a track. For techno, the midrange is
negative space, in the same way that the sky and the horizon line are
used as negative space in all those Italian Renaissance paintings. All
the interesting stuff happens around that negative space. A track
that's got lots of intricate things happening in the high trebles and
low basses is more interesting than a track that has a lot of
undifferentiated stuff going on in the midrange. This is a lot of why
I find most trance so unappealing -- there's lots going on, but it's
all in the midrange, which is what sounds the least interesting when
you turn it up loud. Likewise, part of the reason I've grown
disenchanted with d'n'b is that it's obsessed with that midrange
hoover groan over the last couple years, leaving out the chunky
basslines and spastic high hats.
All the Detroit innovators appear to have intuitively figured this
out, because most of the old Detroit tracks have, for me, the perfect
balance of low and high end. It's this same balance that the
Birmingham crew appear to have hit upon recently, which is why I like
their new material so much more than the old. Good two-step garage has
this pegged as well.
Well, it's a theory, at least.
Forrest
. . . the self-reflecting image of a narcotized mind . . .
ozymandias G desiderata [EMAIL PROTECTED] desperate, deathless
(415)558-9064 http://www.aoaioxxysz.com/ ::AOAIOXXYSZ::
