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

← back to listing · view thread

From:
Mark Stevens
To:
ntllgnt dnc msc
Date:
Sat, 14 Oct 2000 19:13:35 +0100
Subject:
Re: [idm] kid a vs. homogenic
Msg-Id:
<1b8husom6lqaj16krs8t7cd28205r8a4m1@4ax.com>
In-Reply-To:
<Pine.BSI.4.02.10010121405110.9525-100000@frogger.telerama.com>
Mbox:
idm.0010.gz
Here's a reply to the message "[idm] kid a vs. homogenic" written on Thu, 12 Oct 2000 14:10:31 -0400 (EDT):
quoted 2 lines if bjork's homogenic wasn't idm in 1997, then how the hell can radiohead's>if bjork's homogenic wasn't idm in 1997, then how the hell can radiohead's >kid a be idm in 2000?
Well, I've always thought of Bjork as being closer to the IDM fraternity than any other. The Sugarcubes were always a whacky, way-out sorta indie group and once Bjork hooked up with 808 State there was no looking back as far as her connections with electronic music was concerned.
quoted 2 lines i mean, c'mon... idioteque is the only song that really has that>i mean, c'mon... idioteque is the only song that really has that >idm-esque music.
You need to listen to some more stuff on the Fat Cat label. Too electronic to be called "indie", too indie to be called electronic.
quoted 1 line i wonder if they've even heard of "idm"...>i wonder if they've even heard of "idm"...
Who knows. The term does seem to be used more in the US than it does in Europe. -- Mark Stevens http://www.headspin.clara.net/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org