---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>One the one hand, I'm jealous that these kids have the open mind
to
>everything musically AND the inclination to dance
more open music policy nights can only be a good thing. i
seriously doubt it will ever become a dominating force in music
simply because theres no way to market it thus it will never have
the organization or money that more marketable music genres will
have. especially in america where trends travel slowly because of
the large distances between cities its even harder to maintain
something like that with just the support of the people.
>(when I discovered dance
>music, I had to make a serious choice between my new raving
interest and
>my old indie friends- it sucked).
when i discovered dance music (96, late i know but im still a
youngish 24 ;) i would go out to the jungle weekly after i hit
basement style punk shows. a weekend would maybe have a ska/reggae
show sandwiched inbetween a couple club nights or raves. i only
had a couple accomplices but we loved it all. it was very good.
>But, at the same time I feel a bit
>dsorry for them that their generations music/fashion is entirely
based on
>past movements. There's nothing for these kids that can be all
>encompassing and revolutionary and fresh and new, like dance
music was for
>so many of us. It must suck to feel like everything cool in your
youth is
>actualy a hand-me-down.
everything is part of a continuum, you pretty much cant go outside
it with no influence from something thats happened before.
>Oh- and to change topic a little bit, I just listened to AMp
Fiddler album
>for the first time this morning (yeah- I've been talking without
hearing-
>flame away), but my assumptions were absolutely correct about the
record.
>Its basically smooth jazz. OK- maybe that's harsh, but its
absolutely 100%
>indebted to 70's funk and soul music. There's not even an attempt
to turn
>these songs out into something new. Not to say I dont like it. It
will
>definately hold a certain place in my catalog (dinner party
music), but
>there is absolutely nothing that's going to make me go back and
want to
>hear it again in order to explore things i might have missed (the
matt
>dear album had me going back for weeks on end as it finally grew
and
>bloosomed in my brain).
>
>I was going to point out that perhaps that is the deciding factor
between
>dear getting more press than Amp- but that topic has been beat to
death.
>
>So now I have a new question- when looking for music, do you seek
out
>stuff that is comforting and familier- or do you seek out stuff
that maybe
>takes 4-5 listens to get your head around?
for me its one simple factor: is the music good? i get as excited
for brian eno's stuff as i do for theo parrish's stuff or tunes by
the misfits. to be entirely truthful, these days ive been buying
lots and lots of old tunes because they had more and better vibes,
no matter what the genre. the lack of vibes in current stuff could
also be viewed as a symptom of that specific marketing style that
has been the rage for the past 30 years.
anyway, im not someone who will buy something just because its
new. i just want quality, no matter when it was made, who made it,
etc. for example, IDM and avant garde type musics are based
largely on new sounds or ideas. while im certainly down with some
of that stuff, i cant get way into it because the focus isnt on
quality. i would say that i judge quality in a mostly consistant
manner: i judge the ideas/emotions that are trying to be put
forward, and i judge how well theyre portrayed. for example, aphex
twin has lots of good ideas, but only a few of them really knock
it out of the park. on the flip, someone with no good ideas but
good songwriting is more likely going to be of interest to me. a
good song or melody will trump experimentation for me every day,
but i prefer my music to have some of both.
tom
________________________________________________________________
andythepooh.com
