From Philip Sherburne Sent Sat, Mar 20th 1999, 00:46
From Philip Sherburne Sent Sat, Mar 20th 1999, 00:46
For the most part, I agree with Lance and Peter in their defense of Chain Reaction (and all affiliated artists). I do get a little uneasy, Lance, when you fall back on a "commonly held opinion" as part of your reasoning; I don't think popular opinion is ever much of a defense when aesthetics are at issue. I feel like although you point out CR's value as an innovator & influencer (something that can hardly be denied), falling back on commonly held opinions doesn't do much to defend CR's real aesthetic value. Beyond their influence, what is it that validates them? Part of the problem might be that Joshua never really spelled out what he dislikes about Chain Reaction (Joshua, I'm not singling you out at all; I'm just interested in working through an argument, really). By calling it "bad minimal house" are you implying that there is *good* minimal house? Or is it the genre of minimal house (or even just house) itself that is problematic? I'd be interested in hearing from those anti-four-on-the-floor types on this (you know who you are!) -- how do you evaluate Chain Reaction, even if you've got a fundamental argument against 4OTF? For the record, I absolutely fucking swoon over Chain Reaction (Maurizio, Vainquer, Various artists especially) and the offspring labels & projects. And I suppose I should offer an aesthetic defense here, but I'm too damn lazy for now. phil