From mike Sent Wed, Feb 10th 1999, 00:31
> >> idm will not be the "new classical." it shall be the new motown. > [...] > dude, this is why you need to listen to more motown. Dude, you need to reexamine Motown. When I think of Motown, I think of: * a hit factory in which a corps of talented songwriters were sequestered away to write pop songs that were later assigned to session musicians and any number of carefully trained and choreographed performers; * watered down, catchy but relatively passionless soul music in which verse, chorus, vocal harmony and on-stage presence were more important than musical accomplishment, ingenuity, and anything else, save selling records; * an operation that kept the name Motown after abandoning the Midwest for Los Angeles (not that they were dealing with small- time artists anymore, anyway); * a sugary-sweet, radio-and-TV-friendly contrast to the infinitely more stirring, foot-stomping, teeth-grinding funk and powerful Southern Soul that was emerging around the same time. IDM doesn't parallel Motown at all, at least not when you consider the music it is derived from, how it is made and marketed, who listens to it, and how it compares to what else is out there. I'm reading Simon Reynolds' _Generation Ecstasy_ (that's the US title), and he rather harshly compares IDM to progressive rock, in that it is a reintroduction of traditional notions of musicality into what was previously a 'base' genre --propulsive but simple dance music, in this case-- that was severely in want of structure, melody, complexity, and the deliberate incorporation of influences from 'high art' genres like jazz and classical. Of course, Reynolds also compares Derrick May to Eric Clapton, so you might take that with a grain of salt.