From Philip Sherburne Sent Mon, Sep 20th 1999, 19:31
From Philip Sherburne Sent Mon, Sep 20th 1999, 19:31
just a quick note: claiming that house music is "body" music and IDM (whatever the hell that is) is "brain" music is rather specious. music is not simply the sum of what you use it for. (and just 'cause most folks use house for dancing, and most use IDM for...well, whatever the hell they do -- i'd say it's a soundtrack for trainspotting -- doesn't limit either, or commit either, to those spheres.) the whole idea of a mind/body dichotomy, in terms of music, is unfortunate and simplistic. in *practice* house tends to accompany dancing, but that doesn't render it, as a genre, useless for intellectual stimulation. get beyond the beat and check the nuance of really fine music like herbert, kompakt... and finally, i agree with chris fahey that the "difficulty" of much "experimental" music (excuse the scare quotes) is often just a pose masquerading as intellectualism. just because a choppy beat is undanceable doesn't mean it conveys some sort of intellectual depth. i'd say that most current IDM fodder is pure style. interesting, in that respect, but no more transparently mind-oriented than anything else. david, i agree with you in one respect -- music triggers thinking, but it doesn't convey thought (i think that's what you said). and so of course, any music -- no matter how crap -- can trigger thinking. throw me out as a cultural-studies head if you must. if African ritual music is "dance" music, does that mean it can't be studied & intellectualized? (mind you, i also fault simon reynolds for privileging the bodi-ness of dance music against the head-ness of geektronica... he's just upholding the same pointless opposition.) if i weren't at work i'd probably make these points a lot more intelligently. i hate to dance but i love dance music, p onnow: binger the voyager, which is really sounding more and more like Hab meets smashing pumkins.