Thomas D. Cox, Jr. wrote:
if a style of music is strictly all
about "NOW" then its meaning a decade down the line doesnt mean a
thing.
I claim the exact opposite - if a style of music is stricly all about
"TEN YEARS AGO" then its meaning a decade down the line is "wow, that
sounds 20 years old."
To my ears, the most revolutionary, awe-inspiring music is the music
that comes the closest to breaking with its tradition. In my personal,
completely subjective box this will include music like the late
Beethoven string quartets, The Rite Of Spring, Sgt. Pepper, the early
Basic Channel records, Theorem's "Ion", some Autechre.....
For me, those records make my ears burn because I'm hearing stuff that's
only tangentially related to historical context but that takes a
COMPLETELY different spin on it and in a direction that's different from
anything else happening at the time.
<flame retardant suit>
And this, to swing things a bit back more on topic (and probably to
paint a big red target on my head), is why I have yet to hear any of
this 80s revival stuff that I want to hear more than once. It's because
I DON'T hear an attempt to push at the edges. I don't even hear an
attempt to refine a tradition. I only hear an attempt to REPEAT a
tradition. And I never hear it done as well as I heard it done the
first time. So if I want to hear that music, I'll listen to Yello, or
Gary Numan, or Art of Noise, or Kraftwerk. If I want nostalgia, I'll
take the stuff that I'm ACTUALLY nostalgic for, not some half-assed
knock-off.
</flame retardant suit>
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.
Right, but it's simpler math. I don't mean that in an elitist way at
all, but Eno's music doesn't wear its design on its sleeve. The process
is below the surface and the surface is shimmering and pretty and even
little kids and grandmas won't get hurt by it.
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
ahhhh....I couldn't agree with you more about this. IDM is the most
ridiculous name imaginable because it doesn't actually tell you anything
about the music, the artists, or the listeners besides their assumed air
of importance.
yet 2 more cents, and pockets full o' pennies,
--
Dennis DeSantis
www.dennisdesantis.com
