179,854Messages
9,130Senders
30Years
342mboxes

← back to listing · view thread

From:
Chris Fahey
To:
'AeOtaku@aol.com' ,
Date:
Wed, 1 Dec 1999 13:10:02 -0500
Subject:
RE: (idm) track 2 from Windowlicker
Msg-Id:
<A6AC16578099D311BC1600508B5578E3367ACC@STEAMER>
Mbox:
idm.9912.gz
quoted 10 lines The fact that you don't know what the> > The fact that you don't know what the > > hell it was speaks volumes for its greatness. Music > > that leaves listeners utterly baffled should be treasured. > > > > what a ridiculous idea. being baffling does not qualify something as > great. > > A collection of sounds do not > a song make.
I always thought intentional obtuseness a defining trait of idm? I mean this only partially sarcastically to the extent that it seems like most of the art I enjoy endeavors to be "just different" at some level. Artistic experimentation (hell, all experimentation) requires that you sometimes do something differently just because you're trying to not be the same as everyone else. Choosing one method of being different versus another is where the real trick lies, yet (contrary to most 20th century avante-garde modernist thinking) there's no empirical logic to determining what is "good different" versus "bad different". For example, an artist could decide, "Hey, I'll try this song in a different key" or "Let's try this with a ton of reverb" just to try to inject an element of the unexpected into his or her work. Conversely, he or she could say "I'll try jacking this track up to 453 bpm and replace the kick drum with a fart sound" (but then they'd be Alec Empire). I think what we're talking about here is analogous to the difference between the words "purposeful" and "gratuitous". -cf --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org