>detroit had their own dance culture already going on, as well as >taking part in chicago's house culture.
detroit had it's own sub-culture yes, they shouldn't have come along and appropriated chicago's. and chicago shouldn't have appropriated new york's. music institute was just a wannabe music box was just a wannabe paradise garage where do you draw the lines? why bother? >i dont care if the permutation is new. there are plenty that are just >fine and dont have anything to do with cultural appropriation in any >way. i dont have any problems with that. that is a ridiculous statement. culture can't be narrowly defined, nor can appropriation. you can say virtually everything is appropriation. there is no such thing as originality in the objective sense. besides, appropriation is a scary word, very negative connotations, but it's not as sinister as all that necessarily. white radio appropriated the jive talk style of black radio, but you could argue that helped bring black culture further into the mainstream and promoted racial equality. it had bad effects, it had good effects, like lots of things do.. >it can exist all it wants. but im going to talk sh*t on it. and call >it names. which is what im doing. and youre saying i shouldnt? no, i'm saying all your points about culture and realness and blah blah blah have nothing to do with whether their music is sonically pleasing to you or not. there are factors other than your ears affecting your opinion. those other things have their place, but not in your ears. >it has nothing to do with keeping it real. i like how since we're then why do you keep talking about how they are fronting and not down and not real, and comparing to who is real, and etc etc? what about the SOUNDS??? just say they use crappy samples and you don't like their voices. the rest is noise when it comes to talking about music. >> some of the best music of all time is made by ultra reclusive socially >> retarded people who >> could care less about being down with a scene or culture, they just make >> music. > >name these people whose music is not from a culture. it doesnt exist. dummy, "sub-culture that they themselves 'belong' to" then, however you go about defining that in the first place. i do not consider myself a part of house sub-culture. at all. and yet i make house. i love house. should i give it up? where do you draw the lines? why do you give so much credit to scenes/culture in the first place? what's so great about them, other than getting the bragging rights to claim you are "real" and to get credit or whatever? scenes just breed homogeny and boring politics. i'd rather just make music i like and get paid for it. i'm getting too old to care about anything else. credit where credit is due is great of course, but getting credit isn't going to make technics as popular as spank or ayres. because all these issues you are talking about has nothing to do with their popularity. they make relatively mainstream, radio-friendly party music. nobody cares about the rest. except music geeks like us, the .01% >all i can go by is what i hear and read. if they dont want to be >judged on that, they should do a better job of PR. i think they'd like to be judged on their music and i think the other 99.99% of the people who hear them do that. >why then does every single review, writeup, etc mention baltimore and >club music? they dont even live there anymore. they try to cash in on >that credential. because they are highly influenced by bmore club stuff? i'd probably mention detroit in any interview, but i've never lived there. i'd also mention music that is 80 years old that i wasn't even alive to experience. i think you are miffed because they are coming across as the pioneers of bmore club, and that's unfortunate, but that's how it goes. they are treated that way by the media because they are the first to make waves (similar things have happened with dance music, like how portishead or chem bros became the pioneers of trip hop in the mainstream's eyes). they give credit to the bmore scene in every interview, like you say. so...? what more can they do? and what is there to cash in on? there was no bmore club craze until them, and it's still not really about bmore. they are bringing attention to the music. they shouldn't? btw, tom and i just like to argue. we friends. i think he says dumb stuff sometimes but so do i (see above and previous 1000 messages on 313). but i <3 tom
