IDM Mailing Archive

I spent this weekend reading _Silent Interviews_, a book of written interviews with Samuel Delany (*), and it was a thought- provoking experience. In it he discusses all kinds of interesting and strange aspects of both his own thought processes and the idea structures that impinge on science fiction in general (including, but not limited to, the difficulty of representation in language, the marginalization of science fiction / gays / blacks, the difference of the reading process itself in science fiction as compared to "mainstream literature" and how this reading process is what actually defines science fiction, and the fascination with markets inherent in sword & sorcery fantasy). One of the many feelings I was left with was how little real thought and analysis has been expended on techno. Why? Other musical genres have their theoriticians. There are academics that spend their entire careers discussing meaning, context, and the musicality of early 20th century Appalachian folksingers! There are critics who spend their entire lives studying the canons of Bach! Hell, you can even get a fat book contract talking, in great theoretical depth, about the various phases of the history of punk! It seems odd to me that, in a field of music that refers to intellectual domains such as technology and estrangement, and plays with ideas like self-reference and the concept of name so much, the level of discourse is most often at the level of "Wow! This record is fucking awesome! BUY IT NOW!" or (in interviews) "Why did you start making music?" And when artists do try to talk about things at a higher level, nobody supports their attempts by trying to push them further (I'll be the first person to say that interviews with FSOL tend to make them look unbearably pretentious, but at least they're trying). What would I like to see? More interviews that really go after artists' deep thought structures: what are they trying to communicate with their music, what's their governing aesthetic, what sort of theoretical concerns inform what they're doing? Questions that ask, instead of why somebody makes music, why they make the music they do and not something else? What about techno appeals to aspiring musicians? Is it the culture? Is it something in techno's history? Is it the sound? If it is the sound, what is it about the sound that appeals to them? Questions like this, and people's answers to them, can serve to push techno forward and help it grow. Especially if we are quite clear about what we, as listeners, do and do not like about what we're hearing. The vast majority of reviews of dance music completely miss the point. I don't know how many of you have ever seen an issue of Base 10 (pronounced "base twelve"), but the reviews I've seen there are typical of reviews I see everywhere in the dance music press: heavy on the superlatives, very little actual discussion of the music's elements and textures, very little space given to stuff that fails (and, concomitantly, very little discussion of _why_ it sucks), and numerical judgements that often seem to vary widely from a reviewer's stated opinion of the track. They review absolute shitpiles of stuff, but they give it all such cursory treatment that they needn't have bothered. Stated another way, since they only seem to review stuff that they like, and their reviews all read pretty much the same, the only real way they tell you the value of the recording is by putting its review in the zine! (I only single them out because they have a net presence and therefore my criticisms of them might serve some constructive purpose.) Good reviews should communicate effectively to someone who has never heard a given piece of music a little bit of the flavor of the work. It helps if you can avoid comparisons to things that your "average" listener hasn't heard, although comparisons can be very useful. They should be concise and avoid buzzwords. They should be information-rich and follow the normal rules of grammar. Look at the reviews of books in the NYT Review of Books. Make sure, however, that you make it quite clear whether you like something or hate it, and if you have strong feelings about it, make it clear _why_ you feel that way. Of course, I know how hard it is to write good reviews. You've all seen my reviews at one time or another (except maybe for some of you on lowlands), and I would judge them only partially successful by my own criteria. I have a tendency towards exaggeration, and I also have a problem with making errant comparisons (despite the fact that I have a fairly good ear for samples, I tend to hear influences in music that non-mutants give me the raised eyebrow for mentioning). Plus, being the human that I am, I want to convince everybody that I'm "cool," so perhaps I namecheck a bit frequently. Examples of REALLY good reviews that come readily to mind are Pete Ashdown's XDZebra reviews (despite his initial inclusion of the next-to-useless "dance factor" and his inability to be rational when it comes to either Aphex or Orbital) and Dave Walker's many freeke reviewlets. On the other hand, Jon Drukman's reviews consistently make my tonsils ache because of the vague hyperbole and approbation he puts in his reviews (no offense, Jon, I do like many of them, it's just that I can't figure out what the rambling ringtailed hell you're getting at sometimes). It also seems odd to me that despite techno's many obvious parallels to punk (the do-it-yourself ethic, the millions of small labels predicated more on getting music out to people than selling lots of copies, the huge culture of zines, the support given to travelling DJs and techno artists), there is one obvious key element of punk that never gets much play in techno: that of the political. This seems strange because the production and use of techno have so many links to politics: the racial tension between techno's black originators and the overwhelming flood of whites that have come after them, the resounding lack of women involved with just about every level of techno's production (and the existence of Saskia Slegers, DJ Rap, Marusha, and Plavka does not mean there is not a lack), homophobia, the continuing tug-of-war between rave promoters and the police (and therefore the establishment), the association with rave culture and from there with drugs, and many other politically charged ideas. And even when these ideas do get discussed, they very rarely manifest themselves in the music. And before people jump on me for being some sort of People's Advocate: I'm not advocating political correctness in our discussions, I'm just advocating political discussions _of any kind._ Didn't any of you find it to be a bit ironic that, of all the people to be involved in techno, Kenny Larkin was the one that got shot? What does the Criminal Justice Bill really mean? What the hell is going on in San Francisco right now with the cops? Why is there so much discussion of sexuality and drugs (well, glib discussion at least) inside the music of house and techno but nothing deeper? (except for the odd track, the most recent being Florence's "Off Balance" (is that the right name?)) Does the constant subliminal link between IDM and drugs (the assumption that IDM is somehow improved by the consumption of psychotropics) bug anybody besides me? This is not to say that politics don't ever make their way into techno. Autechre's "Flutter" was political in the same way that John Cage's "4:33" was, and I think it's an admirable way to start a discussion, even if they're mostly preaching to the choir. A more direct attempt was Terre Thaemlitz's discussion of AIDS safety in the liner notes of _Tranquilizer_ (and I feel that the discussion that stirred up was actually pretty useful, if you discard the usual complement of useless flames). But why aren't there more examples of this sort of topical reference? Why do people politely ignore James from Drexciya or Mad Mike Banks when they start going off on the white establishment? Even if you agree with them, don't you have some kind of reaction to their words? All right, I've spewed enough. The only reason I bring all of this up is because I'd like to see more meaningful discussion about what is one of the central elements of my life. There's a hell of a lot more to techno than trainspotting (which reminds me, I _am_ working on those discographies. Please don't beat me!), and the internet has the promise to be the most dynamic forum for worldwide discussion of these issues that there is. I think we should all do what we can to use it more effectively. impassionedly yrz, ozymandias (*) Samuel Delany is a brilliant science fiction author who has probably done more than anybody else to give sf its own theory. He's written books like Dhalgren, which is an analysis of ghetto life and what bonds people create when the normal social structures fall apart, Babel-17, which is a deconstruction of language in the form of a space opera, and the Return to Neveryon series, which is simultaneously a discussion of marginalization, literary theory, a deconstruction of the genre of Sword & Sorcery fiction, and a proud example thereof. ozymandias G desiderata AKA Forrest L Norvell AKA DJ AladdinSane GCS/CW/DJ d- H++ s++:-- !g p1 !au a- w+++ v+++ C++(---) U?++++(----)$ P--- L 3 E++ N++ K++ W---(-----) M++ V-- -po+ Y++>+++ t@ 5- jx R-- G'' !tv b+++ D++ B-- e++ u*(**) h-- f++ r++ n++ x+(*)