---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Dennis DeSantis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>I completely agree with your explanation. I just don't hear
these
>things as inherently negative.
>I tend to really enjoy music that struggles to break out of its
>inevitable connections with history. The struggle (and
subsequent
>failure) to create something entirely new often tends to push the
>boundaries, and I'm often a big fan of things that push those
boundaries.
im not saying that theyre negative, i am however saying that
making music based on this kind of idea will not create "timeless"
music, in fact it creates nearly disposeable music. thats all. the
discussion was about why certain styles of music dont continue to
sound good years later, and if a style of music is strictly all
about "NOW" then its meaning a decade down the line doesnt mean a
thing.
>(Now at this point, anyone reading this who's heard my music is
probably
>thinking "Push boundaries? This dude writes froofy tech-house
that
>sounds like 70s disco mixed with 60s jazz!" Well, that's true.
I
>reserve the right to not practice what I preach ;)
hahahaha.
>I don't think they're shooting for the average dance music fan.
I
>recently read an interview with Richard Devine where he talked
about
>designing systems that would churn out musical material using
chaos
>theory and fractal math. I can't imagine that he's thinking
about Timmy
>Trainspotter or Ellen Ecstasytab if he's discussing those things
in
>interviews.
a good point, but for sure they might still like it. i mean you
can listen to eno's "discreet music" and its all about
mathematically making music, and it still sounds good to people
who arent hardcore electronic music fans.
>For better or for worse, I think those folks are after a
>completely different target market than most folks who are
writing
>floor-friendly techno. And I think that's healthy. I think
diversity
>among electronic music sub-genres is a good thing.
sure, i have no problem, but the problem lies in the
name "intelligent dance music". this assumes a few things:
1. you are making music to dance to
2. there is "non-intelligent" dance music
now im not ever going to argue about what music is good for
dancing or not because that is too subjective. however, i
certainly believe that the IDM scene has long since (and
admittedly, nonetheless) moved away from writing music with the
purpose to make people dance. in the same way that true "rave"
music doesnt exist anymore, IDM doesnt really exist by its own
definition either. would i like it if IDM separated itself from
what was traditionally IDM (like those old aphex records) and
began calling itself "avant guarde electronic music"? sure, since
i believe it has more in common there than it does with the early
records that were reacting to a certain element in the dance music
scene.
>And I think those
>weird areas where the boundaries blur (like the early Aphex
records you
>mentioned) are amazing as well.
blurring boundaries make the best records, no question. like i
said, my main qualm here is that what is IDM today is too
unrelated to what it once was that i think it should no longer be
considered the same thing.
: )
tom
________________________________________________________________
andythepooh.com
