(idm) the limits of IDM/ philosophers/ etc.

From Philip Sherburne
Sent Wed, Sep 9th 1998, 19:15

To second what Lance was saying, re: Phthalo & Plug Research:  IDM, in a 
broad interpretation, certainly doesn't exclude experiments in noise & 
extremities of structure-hell, otherwise why would Autechre have remixed 
Merzbow?  I even hear links between Phthalo and Freeform, who, with his 
Warp/Skam/MaS releases, must be considered textbook IDM.

As far as Plug Research goes, "minimal four-to-the-floor" doesn't have 
to mean it's reductive or simplistic.  Within the repetition there's 
room for a world of nuance.  And for more expansive styles on Plug 
Research, just check the Trash Aesthetic 12" (Mannequin Lung + Low Res, 
if I'm not mistaken), for some really experimental reworkings of the 
minimal techno form.  What "minimal" music might lack in complex 
structures can be made up for in the depth of texture achieved.  Also 
check the new Mr. Hazeltine 12", for some mindblowing, stripped-down 
funk.  No, it doesn't sound like Paradinas (thank God), but it's smart, 
dazzlingly arranged, and mandates a categorical imperative to move to 
it.  That, in my book, equals "IDM."

As for reading material:  I've been reading Simon Reynolds' "Blissed 
Out," and so far the writing on 80s rock is stunning.  Morrissey, 
Prince, Throwing Muses-he manages to tell an important story about 
culture through each of them.  And he may name-check D&G (the 
philosophers, not the fashion designers), but I wouldn't discount that 
as pretension.  It's a reference to concepts, methodologies, etc., that 
can't necessarily be explained in "commonsense" terms.  Or perhaps he's 
simply straddling multiple traditions.  Think about it: if you're an 
academic and a music head, and you're reading Barthes on the "grain of 
the voice" and trying to get at the particular qualities of Prince's 
voice (or Meredith Monk's, or the guttural howl of Arthur Doyle's sax, 
or the digital grit of Autechre, etc.), then it makes sense to link the 
two.

As for his aggressive coinage of terms, yeah, it can be annoying, but 
then again, it's a smart move.  It's "proactive" (terrible word, but 
what can I do?), it secures Renolds' own place as a critic who defines 
categories, and must be reckoned with by subsequent critics.  Cocky, 
aggressive, sure.  But all criticism is power-play.

Finally, anyone know where to get Kodwo Eshun's book in the US?  I can 
only find it through Waterstone's website, and it's like 10 pounds 
sterling, + another 5 pounds for airmail.  Not a cheap endeavor.

Ok, finally, really:  as to someone's comment about "pseudophilosophers" 
getting namechecked in music criticism.  What philosophers do you find 
more appropriate?  Because there is no criticism without philosophy.  As 
a case-in-point:  without philosophical, theoretical work being executed 
through music, you don't get, for example, John Cage.  And without John 
Cage, I would say you couldn't have IDM.  

philip sherburne

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com