From Simon Walley Sent Tue, Nov 3rd 1998, 17:40
From Simon Walley Sent Tue, Nov 3rd 1998, 17:40
>From: xxxx@xxxxxxx.xxxxx.xx.xx (Mark Stevens) >Subject: Re: (idm) Plaid - Scoobs in Columbia > >It's not the best Plaid, >merely a cheesey techno/house track Eh?!? Not at all. A classic. Heard it played out the other weekend at some jazzy house club - proper IDM in the sense that it makes you want to dance like an idiot. And its smooth and funky to nod to at home. >From: xxxx@xxxxxxx.xxxxx.xx.xx (Mark Stevens) >Subject: Re: (idm) Plaid - "Not For Threes" > >Not at all! I just think it's strange that some people in this list >refuse to listen to anything that contains vocals (or a song) or >acoustic instruments. Its not strange at all. I won't listen to any 4/4 stuff that thunders along at about 200BPM although I'm sure there are (somewhere...) some gabber tracks that might border on the innovative or intelligent. The Bjork vocal debate is different - its not whether vocals are 'good' or not in IDM, its whether people like her very distinctive voice or not. Horses for courses innit. And again: >From: xxxx@xxxxxxx.xxxxx.xx.xx (Mark Stevens) >Subject: Re: (idm) Plaid - "Not For Threes" > >And then some. I couldn't wait for Babylon -- then Warp dropped it >because it didn't quite fit in with their master plan. Arses. What master plan is this? Warp release the music they like (and, of course, are keen to see each record they sell do well). End of story. They didn't like it. They didn't release it. >From: Michael Upton <xxxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx.xx> >Subject: Re: (idm) Plaid - "Not For Threes" > >Oh yeah, and while I still hate 'Music for >Adverts', I do think Plaid's production etc. is >quite over the top on the "nice and clear" front. Yup. I love _Not for Threes_ but it is over-produced and ultra-squeaky clean, at times to the detriment of the music. Still a great album though IMHO. || [CiM] || xxx_@xxxxxxx.xxx || - ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com