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

← back to listing · view thread

From:
jon anderson
To:
Date:
Sat, 27 Jan 2001 13:38:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject:
Re: [idm] the haters
Msg-Id:
<20010127213808.21490.qmail@web614.mail.yahoo.com>
Mbox:
idm.0101.gz
"you just look like a hater"--->"everyone making it is too pussy to name names." ************ don't be so ironic. there's no need to take this list so personally or name-call others. the reason i don't name names is because it gets you involved in a tedious tangential argument over whether an artist or track has any non-dsp merit or whether the dsp is itself anything remarkable. i merely was only trying to clarify what some people mean when they say "just dsp", not identify which artists have this problem. if you think all dsp reliant idm is good, and you like the dsp, and you don't think the structure is boring, then lucky for you, you get to love way more music than me. the point is, you get to decide for yourself who (if anyone) is "just dsp". in an earlier post, i did name names, by saying r. devine. my opinion is that the barrage of clackitty sounds and industrial-strength clouds of digital noise he uses no longer hold my interest. i loved them at first, heck i still like them, but don't need to hear them again under new titles. furthermore, in my opinion, his ability to use melody is not so good and the beats are derivative. but for now, i consider that just my opinion... what makes a "good melody"? "original" beats? i'm not interested in getting involved in that kind of discussion. i just wanted to describe what it means when certain people use the phrase "just dsp". j __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org