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

← archive index

Re: (idm) Evidently, I have no clothes

5 messages · 5 participants · spans 1 day · search this subject
◇ merged from 2 subjects: (idm) evidently, i have no clothes · (idm) idm has no clothes
1997-04-02 23:26Synaptic Records Re: (idm) idm has no clothes
1997-04-03 15:42Adam J Weitzman (idm) Evidently, I have no clothes
└─ 1997-04-03 19:19Random Junk Re: (idm) Evidently, I have no clothes
1997-04-03 20:39Danny Freer RE: (idm) Evidently, I have no clothes
└─ 1997-04-04 09:08paul hutcheson RE: (idm) Evidently, I have no clothes
expand allcollapse allclick any summary to toggle that message
1997-04-02 23:26Synaptic Records>If we can't decide what the subject is, then why do we have a list to >talk about it? > I
From:
Synaptic Records
To:
Date:
Wed, 2 Apr 1997 16:26:50 -0700
Subject:
Re: (idm) idm has no clothes
permalink · <199704022326.QAA04477@eazy.net>
quoted 3 lines If we can't decide what the subject is, then why do we have a list to>If we can't decide what the subject is, then why do we have a list to >talk about it? >
I assumed the subject was electronic music. As for a common vocabulary, I think we all are using English to describe our opinions. Is there an IDM language that I failed to take a course in or something? I'm not trying to be condescending, I just get so pissed off about hearing that IDM has to be a certain rhythm, texture, idea,etc...to be considered worth something. That's Bullshit. If it is, then this music is doomed. Ben Synaptic Records (Rick and Ben) 608 S. Broadway Denver, CO 80209 (303) 722-9428 (phone) (303) 722-9540 (fax) synaptic@eazy.net www.eazy.net/synaptic-records/
1997-04-03 15:42Adam J WeitzmanSynaptic Records wrote: > > I assumed the subject was electronic music. As for a common vo
From:
Adam J Weitzman
To:
Date:
Thu, 03 Apr 1997 10:42:55 -0500
Subject:
(idm) Evidently, I have no clothes
permalink · <3343CFFF.43D@individual.com>
Synaptic Records wrote:
quoted 3 lines I assumed the subject was electronic music. As for a common vocabulary, I> > I assumed the subject was electronic music. As for a common vocabulary, I > think we all are using English to describe our opinions.
Are Spice Girls electronic? If not, why not? All of the music is made with electronic machines, and their vocals are electronically spliced together from numerous takes. This is what I mean by a common vocabulary. I know what you meant by "electronic music," and I know you didn't mean to include Spice Girls. I feel pretty safe asserting that Spice Girls are not what this list is for (despite the argument I made above), don't you?
quoted 4 lines I'm not trying to> I'm not trying to > be condescending, I just get so pissed off about hearing that IDM has to be > a certain rhythm, texture, idea,etc...to be considered worth something. > That's Bullshit. If it is, then this music is doomed.
I agree entirely. Man cannot live on Autechre alone. Things have to evolve and mutate (and the vocabulary evolves with it). For instance, when the Squarepushers and Plugs and Hangable Auto Bulbs of the world started showing up, they were very different from, say, _Tri_Repetae_, but it was pretty obvious to everyone here, whether you liked them or not, that they belonged here. I'm all for a highly inclusive definition of this music, and in terms of what gets discussed here, the list tends to police itself (which is why, normally, I don't enter discussions like these). My Tenor assertion was based on the idea that _Intervision_ is not evolutionary, rather it was retreading old ground, and not in a particularly imaginative way. In other words, it used precious little of the vocabulary of this music we discuss here, and it doesn't expand it in any meaningful way. Since no one has agreed with me yet, apparently everyone feels differently about this than I do, but so far the only arguments I've heard in favor of Tenor's IDM-ness is that (a) it's "good" (which really can't be the basis for any list because it's way too subjective to be useful) and (b) it's "electronic" (as Spice Girls are). I personally think it takes more than that. That's really all I was trying to say. The Rare Guy <buh@clark.net> wrote:
quoted 1 line and what's to say lounge music isn't IDM? who says it isn't IDM.> and what's to say lounge music isn't IDM? who says it isn't IDM.
Apparently, only me. Erkki Rautio <trerra@uta.fi> wrote:
quoted 1 line So if it isn't IDM, who cares> So if it isn't IDM, who cares
Again, apparently, only me. NP: Graeme Revell - _The_Crow:_Original_Motion_Picture_Score_ -- Adam J Weitzman Individual, Inc. "Are we here?" weitzman@individual.com - Orbital http://www.individual.com
1997-04-03 19:19Random JunkAdam J Weitzman writes: > My Tenor assertion was based on the idea that _Intervision_ is n
From:
Random Junk
To:
Date:
Thu, 3 Apr 1997 11:19:20 -0800 (PST)
Subject:
Re: (idm) Evidently, I have no clothes
Reply to:
(idm) Evidently, I have no clothes
permalink · <199704031919.LAA08451@hudsucker.gamespot.com>
Adam J Weitzman writes:
quoted 10 lines My Tenor assertion was based on the idea that _Intervision_ is not> My Tenor assertion was based on the idea that _Intervision_ is not > evolutionary, rather it was retreading old ground, and not in a > particularly imaginative way. In other words, it used precious little > of the vocabulary of this music we discuss here, and it doesn't expand > it in any meaningful way. Since no one has agreed with me yet, > apparently everyone feels differently about this than I do, but so far > the only arguments I've heard in favor of Tenor's IDM-ness is that (a) > it's "good" (which really can't be the basis for any list because it's > way too subjective to be useful) and (b) it's "electronic" (as Spice > Girls are). I personally think it takes more than that.
i totally agree with you adam. compare something like funki porcini, which on the surface may not seem particularly idmish (there's precious few synth sounds in there at all) with jimi. FP twist sounds, concoct new worlds, and basically present a very mutated view of traditional jazz sounds - something that wouldn't be possible without cutting-edge software like Hyperprism and modern samplers. now listen to JT - you could pretty much do all of that stuff with "regular" instruments. that, to me, is the crucial distinction. (and it's why i worship the ninja tune guys, who may sometimes appear to the untutored ear to be hopelessly retro.)
quoted 3 lines The Rare Guy <buh@clark.net> wrote:> The Rare Guy <buh@clark.net> wrote: > > and what's to say lounge music isn't IDM? who says it isn't IDM. > Apparently, only me.
i say "LOUNGE OUT OF IDM!" and "JUST SAY NO TO LOUNGE."
quoted 3 lines Erkki Rautio <trerra@uta.fi> wrote:> Erkki Rautio <trerra@uta.fi> wrote: > > So if it isn't IDM, who cares > Again, apparently, only me.
if it ain't IDM, why is it being discussed on the IDM list? surely it would be more appropriate to the exotica list? ---jsd "Sanity is a one trick pony...you only get one trick: rational thinking... but when you're good and crazy,the sky's the limit!!" - The Tick.
1997-04-03 20:39Danny Freer>This is what I mean by a common vocabulary. I know what you meant by >"electronic music,"
From:
Danny Freer
To:
Date:
Thu, 03 Apr 1997 15:39:12 -0500
Subject:
RE: (idm) Evidently, I have no clothes
permalink · <3.0.32.19970403153910.006d5fc4@mail.jmu.edu>
quoted 4 lines This is what I mean by a common vocabulary. I know what you meant by>This is what I mean by a common vocabulary. I know what you meant by >"electronic music," and I know you didn't mean to include Spice Girls. >I feel pretty safe asserting that Spice Girls are not what this list is >for (despite the argument I made above), don't you?
The Spice Girls are what everyone should be talking about, regardless of what lists they're on. Mel C is da bomb.
1997-04-04 09:08paul hutchesonAt 03:39 PM 4/3/97 -0500, you wrote: >>This is what I mean by a common vocabulary. I know
From:
paul hutcheson
To:
,
Date:
Fri, 04 Apr 1997 21:08:29 +1200
Subject:
RE: (idm) Evidently, I have no clothes
Reply to:
RE: (idm) Evidently, I have no clothes
permalink · <3.0.1.32.19970404210829.006b817c@pop3.xtra.co.nz>
At 03:39 PM 4/3/97 -0500, you wrote:
quoted 7 lines This is what I mean by a common vocabulary. I know what you meant by>>This is what I mean by a common vocabulary. I know what you meant by >>"electronic music," and I know you didn't mean to include Spice Girls. >>I feel pretty safe asserting that Spice Girls are not what this list is >>for (despite the argument I made above), don't you? > >The Spice Girls are what everyone should be talking about, regardless of >what lists they're on. Mel C is da bomb.
Then you should seek professional help! Gone to pieces out to lunch Nik - Gone to pieces don't care what they say, just follow your own way Enigma - Return to innocence