From Jonathan Tedds Sent Fri, Jun 11th 1999, 17:42
From Jonathan Tedds Sent Fri, Jun 11th 1999, 17:42
> Aaron wrote:
> Take a psychological look at this list. For god's sake look at the name
> "intelligent" dance music. Meaning.. this is intelligent.. and that
> other stuff is stupid. That's all it possibly could mean.. there would be no
> reason to have to divide dance music unless we thought some of it was
> dumb and for some reason the shit we were listening to was superior.
Why is a value judgement necessary? You might *classify* music as being
say 'appropriate for listening' = idm and 'appropriate for dancing' =
dance/techno/whatever? One form does not have to be 'better' than the
other if they serve different purposes.
> That is the nature of this list, it always has been. But here on the
> very list, the pinicale of elitism
^^^^^^^
says you - but convenient classification doesn't have to imply elitism. I
think 'idm' is a bit of a dodgy label actually as it can be
perceived to carry elitist baggage....I think I prefer 'electronica' or
'ambient techno'. None of the labels are that accurate when trying to
classify music though - written language is limited.
By the way, this is not a personal attack on anyone so please reply to the
list rather than personally as some are wont to do.
Cheers,
Jonny