From Zenon M. Feszczak Sent Fri, Apr 9th 1999, 02:44
From Zenon M. Feszczak Sent Fri, Apr 9th 1999, 02:44
Phillips, Brock wrote: > As far as Simon Reynolds' tirade, I can't say that I disagree entirely. Maybe > it's because I've read his book "Generation Ecstasy" (also worth scoring) and > know his whole argument. If you read that one you'll understand better where > he's coming from - he's more interested in music as an agent of social change > and personal transformation, and idm seems a bit too self-indulgent and > deliberately elitist to work in that direction. Have not read the book. However, the above seems just bizarre: Why does social change need to occur via mass movements of the lowest common denominator? Has not IDM wrought changes in the lives of its creators and listeners? Further: IDM has affected the mainstream as well, indirectly. The "underground" eventually affects the above-ground world. For example, "mainstream" musicians will listen to "underground" music to cop ideas. Or the underground artists break through into the mainstream, and what was music once rarefied goes stupified. A great number of creative movements have developed in this manner. (jazz, rock, house, techno, jungle, etc.) > Compare someone who makes > "difficult/avant garde" music to a kid who goes out to raves every >weekend and > eats loads of drugs - Reynolds would argue that the kid is actually doing >more > to push the envelope, challenge the status quo, etc. while the "avant-garde" > musician is actually just working within the system for primarily >self-indulgent > reasons. A few points here: One could argue that the rave/drug/hedonism culture is in fact the status quo. Beyond this, why assume it is positive to challenge the status quo? Is it not possible that there are some things of value to take from the past, or do we need to make the futile attempt at re-inventing the wheel on a daily basis? Sounds like a rebel without a cause. Regards, 3