From David Hampson Sent Fri, Jul 3rd 1998, 02:06
From David Hampson Sent Fri, Jul 3rd 1998, 02:06
This has been debated a bit on the list and since I think the moniker "IDM" is a pretty stupid phrase here's my thoughts on it... All music contains certain elements in it which allow us to interpret the music - for example, at a most basic level rhythm and melody, but looking at the finer detail, you have things like instrumental breaks, 4-to-the-floor beats, certain rhyming couplets etc. etc. Ultimately, these elements become more easy to recognise and thus it is easier to interpret/appreciate the music - eventually these will become so apparent that they become cliches associated with the music... We could look at house music as a good example of this - at first it was seen as adventurous, futuristic, modern; now that it has built up its stock of elements its quite happily sneered at by music purists who see its big bag of cliches as evidence for it being shallow, uncreative and meaningless. Not quite necessarily true, its just the stylistic components that its constructed from are more evident. "Big Beat" is another genre sneered at by the purist - as a style it self-consciously begins with its own bag of cliches which open itself to criticism. "Intelligent" music has these elements less apparent and thus requires more thought and more attention to appreciate it. Nonetheless, such elements must be in some form present, otherwise the music would come across as mere noise, static, whatever. Much of the music that we label "IDM" is far from danceable - it lends itself much better to listening; house, trance, dnb etc. lend themselves much better to dance music as you know the rules and thus can connect with them more instinctively. Any comments? BABY DIDDY PS I've seen no comments on Glastonbury, so I'll try and post some feedback shortly. Needless to say Richie Hawtin was the standout... ___________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E at http://www.mdma.com