---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Dennis DeSantis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>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."
sure, but so little music is just straight up derivative. it might
use influence from the specified older sounds, but thats it. for
example, Metro Area records are clearly influenced by some old
music, yet they still sound fresh. on the other hand is the new
synthpop derivative music, which i will discuss later on in this
email.....
>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.
sure alot of those musics you mention did do things in a new way.
however, you can sit down and listen and hear where they came
from, even if they flipped it around and changed it a good bit.
you can follow the change of the sound through these people and on
to others.
><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>
i agree with you totally. there is a distinct difference between
knowing your music's history and your place in it and showing your
influence and to just knocking something off totally. the
difference is impossible to describe in words though. i think the
worst thing you can say about any music is that it
is "derivative", and the recent 80's knockoff electroclash stuff
for the most part is entirely derivative.
>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.
but thats not a bad thing : ) he didnt attempt to sacrifice good
music for complexity in composition. beethoven did the same thing,
some of his best parts are the simplest and easiest to understand
for just about anyone.
>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.
i dont necessarily disgree with it so much on those grounds, even
though all of what you said is true. i just like musical terms to
make sense in relation to each other. i call what i used to
spin "jungle" because thats what it was to me, not "drum and
bass". what LTJ bukem made was "intelligent jungle". if IDM was
still similar to what it once was, i would understand continuing
to call it that.
tom
________________________________________________________________
andythepooh.com
