Re: (idm) re: classical is not for stodgy old wankers!

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.