as one of the so-called "academics" on this list, i think i might add some interesting comments on this thread about serious crit on techno. first of all, let me admit, as my post the other day acknowledged, that i am by no means considering myself some kind of expert on electronic music and have only a slim amount of idm stuff compared to almost everyone here i'm sure.
however, i will admit that i am attempting to write about this stuff in a "serious" context. my thesis in college was about pop music and literary theory (particularly punk and sampled music) and i plan on doing my dissertation for my phD. on similar themes. so even i don't have all the recorded "goods" i have at least considered this music seriously.
first thing i would add is that the attention "rave" music, to (mis)label it generically, has been recently getting academically has been focused on it as a subculture. in other words, what makes it an "underground" phenomenon. interestingly, the focus is on drugs, style, the rave event, etc., but little about the music, man! this is primarily due to the sociological bent of academic criticism, brought on by the likes of simon frith, et al.
of course this sort of analysis has its place, but i do find it curious that techno, etc. is rarely considered in terms of musical innovation. i have my theories on why this is so, and i guess i will spurt them out here:
i would argue that techno, etc. represents a new period of popular music making, one that is obviously dominated by electronics (and particularly computerized synths, samplers, drum machines, etc.) the music that has been created and that we discuss throws a proverbial monkey wrench into how music criticism has evolved, both academically and in popular journalism. theodor adorno, german music critic and pessimist about the culture industry, wrote in the 1950s that "there is electronic music whose material laws seem to preclude the subjective intervention of the composer, just as they preclude that of the interpreter." obviously composers have been able to intervene with electronics, but the interpreters have been few and far between.
i think we can all agree on the reasons for the "difficulty" in interpretation of electronic music for typical pop journalists. there is the undermining of traditional notions of "authenticity"--this isn't "real" music, it doesn't sound "warm," it sounds like it's made by robots, etc. of course, when dylan went electric in the mid 60s, the folk community made the same accusations about his break from "authentic" sounding music. in addition, a lot of this music is purely instrumental, and critics love to fall back upon lyrics. this is probably the most annoying aspect of rock criticism IMHO, because most lyrics are crap (if i want true literary inspiration, i'll go read some real poetry--i'm overstating, so don't flame. :-).
without the safety net of what is known to them as components of "real" music, rock critics hardly attempt to review this stuff, and are more likely to review rap, which is usely made through similar means but emphasizes lyrics over musical content (usually)
i think of adorno's statement as something of a challenge; it's not to say that interpretation is impossible, just difficult with the interpretative tools we usually rely upon. i think this explains why we all have differing opinions about how we want reviews of this music to be presented. also, any kind of discussion like this is extremely important and should in fact impact on the creation of this music.
as for politics, i am disappointed with most criticism that it fails to comprehend and grapple with the aesthetic issues brought about by sampling, which isn't always of primary concern with some idm acts, but is also compelling and troubling for interpretation. how do you write about sampled music, without just describing where it's from, what it says (if it is a verbal sample), etc? my point about sampling and politics (which i sort of swept aside for a second) is that it is a radical and potentially violent act towards musical property, copyright, etc. potentially (and of course the music industry has tried to clamp down on "illegal" sampling) the use of sampling can be directed against the record industry and its institutions (i'm thinking of negativeland's "u2," for example).
i am losing steam here and i hope this has not become real dry, academic, etc. and a lot of the things i won't try to replicate in my dissertation. a couple of compiled writings may be interesting for the "serious"-minded. one is by andrew goodwin in a book entitled "on record," which is edited by goodwin and simon frith. simon reynolds put out a book entitled "blissed out" about 4 years ago or so, but has a couple of pieces about the then-emerging "acid" house scene. and i'll keep you posted if anything of mine ever gets published :-).
and please let's keep this thread going, because i believe we are all talking about the future of music, and we are thus far some of the few who actually realize this.
please forgive my great length, but i have been waiting a while to talk about this with some sympathetic ears! thanks.
sean
portnoy@chaph.usc.edu