On Sun, 13 Jul 1997, thomas m weibrecht wrote:
o}
o}ryan|b|shaw writes:
o}>i think you may have misunderstood. he is suggesting new *non-music*
o}>categories--categories for useful/interesting idm resources, not new
o}>musical sub-genres. the former i think is a good idea, the latter i
o}>agree is unnecessary.
o}
o}again, the question remains: why categorize? in any way shape or form?
in general, or in regard to the idm poll?
the idm poll would be pretty useless were it not for categories.
i suppose there could be just an "IDM's Favorite Things" list, with no
categories, or even limits on size as long as we're breaking boundaries.
then everyone could be treated to a huge file with everyone on the list's
favorite records, books, rocks, people, flowers, abstract concepts...of
course, it would be up to the individual to figure out if some particular
item were flora, fauna, or rare 12"...
i am glad for categorization in every shape and form every time i
visit the library. categories become harmful only when they are treated
as absolutes not subject to interpretation. for things like polls they
provide useful guidelines as long as they aren't taken too seriously.
r|s
o}np: in the court of the crimson king (category: prog-rock) :}