quoted 6 lines Meanwhile, we have Portishead described as:> Meanwhile, we have Portishead described as:
>
> " ... sparse deep Hip-Hop beats, almost film soundtrack sounding tunes ...
> strings, organs ... very 50's and 60's and ... vocals by a very strong singer."
>
> Hip-hop? Strings? Organs? "50's and 60's"? VOCALS?!?
yeah, can you *stand* it? ;)
quoted 4 lines This is supposed to be "much more intelligent"? How so? If I was in a>
> This is supposed to be "much more intelligent"? How so? If I was in a
> particularly Drukman-ian mood (:-)) I'd call it "shite". IMHO, I wouldn't
> personally be caught dead buying anything with strings, organs and vocals on
why not? what's wrong with strings organs and vocals?
quoted 3 lines it. On the one hand, as far as something vaguely & remotely similar goes, I> it. On the one hand, as far as something vaguely & remotely similar goes, I
> think Barry Adamson's "Moss Side Story" is a work of genius, but (a) that was
> 1987, and (b) I don't go around calling "Moss Side Story" IDM. But h
i was going to agree with you in saying that portishead is less
'intelligent' than that trance stuff, but i really disagree now thati
think about it. the arrangement ads for a fantatstic mood. Plus, if you
want to get technical, not only is it intelligent, it is dance music.
some of us actually have non-electronic tastes.
quoted 4 lines Anyway, the point is, there seem to be two camps in IDM (the list); the more> Anyway, the point is, there seem to be two camps in IDM (the list); the more
> Trance-oriented group (which I'll extend as far as to encompass, e.g., the
> mu-Ziq lovers, of which I count myself) and the more Gotta Have Da
> Funque-oriented group (no prizes for guessing who are in this crew (-: ).
I seem to belong to these two camps as well (tho i don't get the 'gotta
have da funque' thing either. have you *heard* portishead or massive
attack? or even la funk mob or Dj Shadow (who could even be called
*ambient* even tho there's practically no9 bleepy noises in his stuff at
all)
quoted 5 lines I don't tend to see the former group dissing on the latter here too often.>
> I don't tend to see the former group dissing on the latter here too often.
> But the latter group seem to take great glee in doing the same to the former.
> (cf. Jon's comments about liking mu-Ziq being an indicator of "low IQ" and it
> not being "Real Music"(TM).)
I haven't seen anyone else say anything about mu-ziq and low iq other
than john , and he's certianly entitled to his opinion. Why do you insist
on grouping us into these 'camps'? People can like what they want to like
and it seems like everyone's idea of what is IDM and what isn't differs.
and i think it makes a better list.
mikebee