Well, Arturo, i got your point. But i really have another opinion
about "minimal". I'm not a native english speaker, but i'll try.
Forgive any mistakes.
Minimal is not necesserally less, or minus. But, sometimes, it ends
up being the use of less elements. The use of silence and "empty
spaces" as an element instead of a pause or a "nothing". We know that
when we say something, or when we write something, people will never
get exactly what we meant. There'll be always pieces blent together
and "holes" that opens the possibility to other interpretations to
fill in. Maybe, in the minimalistic forms, you these holes stretched.
The intention of minimal, i guess, comes from the oposition to the
whole dictationship created by the music of the romantic period, wich
involved high eloquence to tecnically impose an established and only
one interpretation.
In many parts of the world, folk music is born minimal. The music
from the people of the Xingu river valley, in Brazil, is very very
very stripped to the bones. Japanese music is naturally minimal. In
fact, most of the inspiration for many of the minimalist artists came
from Japan. I see a lot of people categorizing dronal or repetition
as minimalism. Sometimes, a drone or a repetitive pattern can
configure a minimal structure, but not always. They can be in a modus
of adding up indefinetly till turn into a mass of noise or white noise.
The songs you linked, i feel what you say about they're being
minimal. Well, when you compare two songs, there will always be a
minimal one comparing to the other. Again, in these songs i can hear
many textures, some walls of textures. Maybe they can be called
minimal inside the style people call minimal (people name things that
sound like EBM or New Beat as electro). They have a shade of some
Isaac Hayes dark, dense and slow soul. I think they're intimal,
delicate, not eloquent, sutil, but not minimal, in my opinion.
A man, sitting in an empty room, playing a violin, can be minimal. Or
not. It will depend on what he will play.
On 07/04/2008, at 15:17, Arturo Lopez wrote:
Good points, Kw.
I guess I was focusing more on the classification stuff. You are
certainly right about those words being used to describe an approach
to production. I guess I'm also drawing my own imaginary line between
the sort of disciplined minimal approach t o production you describe
versus the sort of minimal that's trendy nowadays. Here's samples of
something from I. A. Bericochea, which I think is pretty good minimal.
http://www.iabericochea.com/A.mp3 and
http://www.iabericochea.com/rojo.mp3 I'd consider that very
different than the stuff they are playing in Berlin, even if those
samples are from Minus releases (hehe).
Arturo
Arturo,i think both minimal and dub are named genres, but, above that,
minimal and dub are techniques, methods of music production. You can
hear minimal not only in techno, you can hear it in the philip glass
music, in some post-punk bands, steve reich music, and in many areas
of academic/modern music. Minimal is the way of the synthetic, the
reducing, the way of the minimal elements necessary for certain
expression due to intensify that expression or leave the receptor
totally in charge of the interpretation. Dub is style of reggae, yes,
but it's a studio technique before that. The use of effects, the focus
on the process, the concept of remixing, the producer turning into a
composer instead of a simple engineer. Dub techniques are responsable
for a revolution in the music production aesthetics. You can see dub
versions from Carl Craig songs, Hi-hop songs, Madonna songs, Stevie
Wonder songs, etc etc etc. When you have music made in layers, you
have dub.
Kw
