From MobileWann Sent Sat, Mar 6th 1999, 02:11
In a message dated 3/5/99 8:36:50 AM Mountain Standard Time, xxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xxx writes: > i don't think that's quite it. a "real musician" could do the most > conventional stupid dance music track, technically he could, yes, but you would not find a good musician wasting his talent... that would go against him being a good muscian. > & a kid playing with techno toys > could end up making actual "idm". Maybe you would call it IDM but I sure as well wouldn't.. nobody without talent can make good music, and that's what you're saying here.. that a person without talent could create something talented.. and that is ridiculous.. unless of course your definition of IDM is different than mine. and you know what.. I think it is. > > i think the original idea behind idm was to give an alternative to the > repetitive, unoriginal beats which then dominated techno music. Your saying that the originators of this widespread genre we know as IDM were inspired to create something new because they were bored with the unoriginal beats of the time. I don't believe that at all.. IDM is something that has existed ever since Kraftwerk. IDM is good electronic music, as oppossed to shitty electronic music. what makes it good is that musicianship, originality, creativity, skillfulness, insite, romantisism all the same ingrediants that have made good musicians since the beginning of music..That is really all there is to say about it. Artists such as aphex twin got the ball rolling faster in the small area of people creating IDM. Your definition is of IDM is far different than mine, and I don't quite care for yours, I think it's rather shallow, and extremely unromantic. Look at the term itself.. intelligent dance music, as opposed to stupid dance music.. that's all it means.. this is good.. and that other stuff is shit. ~crtrdge