From Mauro Longone Sent Tue, Jun 23rd 1998, 21:57
From Mauro Longone Sent Tue, Jun 23rd 1998, 21:57
On Mon, 22 Jun 1998 11:11:51 -0400 "Christopher Fahey" <xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: > The thing that's always bugged me about 'the I' is that the term >"intelligence" is usually used to refer to IQ tests, a traditional tool of >oppression and for the maintanance of racist, classist heirarchies. That's probably the main reason of all this reluctancy to use the term intelligent referring to the music we love: America's dependacy on IQ tests to define intelligence. IQ test just TRY and measure a precise, definite type of intelligence: the logical/mathematical one. As modern psychology goes, there are many other form of intelligence: social/psychological, manual, creative (possibly the most important thing to turn a simple "smart guy" into a genius) and musical (yes, explicitly considered) among others. Having a high IQ has nothing to do with being able to manage more complex and difficult music. In fact, we all know that intelligence depends strongly on practice and passing your days reading tons of books in a totally silent library won't help you to develop your musical abilities at all! Just consider this: all the few IDM listeners I know are actually deep music lovers with a knowledge of music much higher than that of the average person. And you could probably say the same for any other listener of (really) alternative and "different" kinds of music. So I definitely stand for the I in IDM, because what we listen to IS (oftenly) rhythmically and (always) sonically more complex and brain-requiring than most other forms of music, that's all. Bye! Mauro "Upanisad" Longone xxxxxxxx@xxx.xx