IDM Mailing Archive

I was checking out Simon Reynolds yearly hate list and foudn this tirade. Its must read. I know many of you will be chucking those Gescom 12's for speed garage white labels after reading this. :-0 GEEKTRONICA, A/K/A IDM (INTELLIGENT DANCE MUSIC) This international network of home-studio-made, pressing-of-500 electronic music is basically the new lo-fi rock. That much is clear from the fact that Matador, home of Pavement and Yo La Tengo etc, now has a roster of seriously hip techno (Pole, Jega, Burger/Ink, Boards of Canada) and has done a deal with Warp, the pioneers of first-wave "intelligent techno". Then there's all these Pastels/Mogwai/Low type bands putting out remix albums with their tracks revamped by all the usual geektronic suspects. I call it geektronica because the people into it have the same trainspotter obsessive-compulsive collector mentality as lo-fi nerds, and because musically, it's deliberately enfeebled or impaired sounding. Just as the demographic constituency/class-base for lo-fi doesn't like rock that's too rockin' and rhythmically muscular, similarly the geektronica audience prefers dance music that isn't danceable. I'm not saying that good music hasn't come out of this area--IDM's patron saints Aphex Twin and Luke Vibert are household gods chez moi (although Autechre and Squarepusher, also patron saints, are decidely not), I dig Mike Paradinas, Jega and Boards of Canada. But this music's strongest trait isn't rhythm but melody (all those poignant or chipper or glum tunes) and timbre (another thing it has in common with lo-fi, an obsession with different grains of distortion). Lo-fi and geektronica fans have the same commodity-fetish for wacky sleeves and peculiar configurations of vinyl --split singles, one sided discs with drawings etched into the other side, flexis, 10 inches and 7-inches (and soon 8 inches, apparently), double-7inches, maxi-EPs and mini-albums. There's a whole on-line world of obsessives who trade and hunt down rare early 12 inches on labels like Skam and Rephlex, which sometimes fetch huge prices. Nothing against obscurity (that would really be the pot calling the kettle black I suppose) or unusual formats/packaging, or coveting rare records. But a lot of this geektronica stuff has crossed the line into wilful obscurantism. With records coming out in pressings of 250 or even fifty (with handpainted covers etc), you have to wonder what's the threshold below which music ceases to be a "cultural practice" and becomes mere hobbyism? As the phenomenon of music distributed through the Internet, downloaded and CD-burned continues to develop, this global geektronic network may well devolve into a barter economy, with bedroom producers trading their music with other artists through the Net. Momus recently suggested that rather than everybody being famous for 15 minutes, in the future everybody will be famous for 15 people. That's what it's getting like, and that's why we should be getting worried.

well, it's back to Aerosmith and speed garage with me. reynolds hath spoken. -rob

(1) Would someone like to explain to me why "wilful obscurantism" is a bad thing? (2) If "geektronica" is hobbyism, what do you call the massivly larger population who obsessivly collect Beatles or Prince music, bootlegs, and memorabilia? (3) Sounds to me like Reynold's isn't concered with "geektronica" at all, but rather the precident that it could set, ie that music becomes increasinly non-commerical entity. In which case his position in the music industry heierchy as a lofty and rather pompus music critic would be rather unimportant. --sharon

quoted 13 lines Nothing against obscurity (that would really be the pot calling the kettle

> Nothing against obscurity (that would really be the pot calling the kettle > black I suppose) or unusual formats/packaging, or coveting rare records. But > a lot of this geektronica stuff has crossed the line into wilful > obscurantism. With records coming out in pressings of 250 or even fifty > (with handpainted covers etc), you have to wonder what's the threshold below > which music ceases to be a "cultural practice" and becomes mere hobbyism? As > the phenomenon of music distributed through the Internet, downloaded and > CD-burned continues to develop, this global geektronic network may well > devolve into a barter economy, with bedroom producers trading their music > with other artists through the Net. Momus recently suggested that rather > than everybody being famous for 15 minutes, in the future everybody will be > famous for 15 people. That's what it's getting like, and that's why we > should be getting worried.

quoted 4 lines Momus recently suggested that rather

>Momus recently suggested that rather >than everybody being famous for 15 minutes, in the future everybody will be >famous for 15 people. That's what it's getting like, and that's why we >should be getting worried.

Yes, very worried.. We should report this to the music council right away and get a restraining order or something... We *cant* let this kind of thing continue.. BLECH! e Ernesto Ikerd, (817) 763-4795 Company Graphics, Dept 17, MZ-1156 Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems Fort Worth, Texas

quoted 4 lines Momus recently suggested that rather

> Momus recently suggested that rather > than everybody being famous for 15 minutes, in the future everybody will be > famous for 15 people. That's what it's getting like, and that's why we > should be getting worried.

the bulk of the text is all right until that one. i mean, the guy's basically not saying anything other than that idmsters have good taste in packaging. the worry issue disturbs me, though. the whole point behind underground music is that it allows people to make music _without being famous_. i think that's a great thing. maybe some people will feel unconfortable unless the cd they buy has been heard by millions already, but so long as other people want to hear those idm bedroom tracks, what's wrong with them? i can't get myself to understand what _is_ the matter for worry. i guess sharon maher is right; the guy has the creeps because this is getting too confusing for the regular music press to follow. which is fine by me; they should do their work for once, rather than repeat press kits verbatim in what they call "record reviews". see? even an idmster can rant! down with the idiots! ahem. -- david turgeon at http://www.notype.com

The "geektronica" piece seems to encompass everything I *dislike* about Simon Reynolds. In his world, electronic music is some sort of group therapy thats meaningless outside of the context of club culture (dancing, getting smashed, blah). Individual expression and community based on a *sincere interest in music* (not anonymous commingling, dope taking or class politics) is what he finds worrisome.

quoted 22 lines Momus recently suggested that rather

>> Momus recently suggested that rather >> than everybody being famous for 15 minutes, in the future everybody will be >> famous for 15 people. That's what it's getting like, and that's why we >> should be getting worried. > > the bulk of the text is all right until that one. i mean, the guy's > basically not saying anything other than that idmsters have good taste > in packaging. the worry issue disturbs me, though. the whole point > behind underground music is that it allows people to make music _without > being famous_. i think that's a great thing. > > maybe some people will feel unconfortable unless the cd they buy has > been heard by millions already, but so long as other people want to hear > those idm bedroom tracks, what's wrong with them? > > i can't get myself to understand what _is_ the matter for worry. i > guess sharon maher is right; the guy has the creeps because this is > getting too confusing for the regular music press to follow. which is > fine by me; they should do their work for once, rather than repeat press > kits verbatim in what they call "record reviews". > > see? even an idmster can rant! down with the idiots! ahem.

quoted 2 lines This international network of home-studio-made, pressing-of-500 electronic

> This international network of home-studio-made, pressing-of-500 electronic > music is basically the new lo-fi rock.

To me, the whole problem with this commentary is evident from the get-go. Am I being naively disconnected from the self-reference that drives a lot of modern pop culture when I expect a critique of a style of music to focus on the music? Yes, yes, culture (music included) does not exist in a vacuum (it's all about context, right, BVL?), but to rant against a style of music solely based on an outsider's perspective of the culture that surrounds it is utterly ridiculous. All we get about the music is references to the abstract...easy on the rhythm, heavy on the melody and timbre. Gee, thanks. That helps me imagine what the music is like. This sounds like an obvious thing to say, but if I didn't know what he was talking about, I wouldn't know what he was talking about. Am I supposed to complete this analogy: Low : Led Zeppelin :: Autechre : ?? I could go on, but won't. *sigh* -w. -- Warren Lapham laps@2350.org FAXlabel reviews : http://www.2350.org/

Sharon Maher wrote: <(3) Sounds to me like Reynolds isn't concerned with "geektronica" at all, but rather the precedent that it could set, i.e. that music becomes [an] increasingly non-commercial entity. In which case his position in the music industry heirarchy as a lofty and rather pompous music critic would be rather unimportant.> I bet he's concerned with "geektronica" to the extent that he'd love another of the terms he coins to enter the general vocabulary (when was the last time any of you said "neurofunk"?). However, you're quite right - I don't know how old he is, but psychologically at least, Reynolds is very much part of the generation of rock critics (Christgau, Greil Marcus et al.) that came of age in the late 60s, during the few years in which some of the most interesting music the counterculture had to offer was also the most popular and actually appeared in the pop charts. That crowd has never quite gotten over the fact that that is no longer the case (Xgau coined the term "semi-popular" in the 70s), not least because the leftist bias they bring to all music criticism requires that the music reach the broadest cross-section of "the people" to effect its real work which is some half-baked half-century old notion of "revolution" that has nothing to do with the aesthetics of music (sorry, this a well-worn soap box but I'm happy to climb on for a moment). Of course, this crudely Marxist scenario really requires lyrics to convey its message so IDM and all electronic music without vocals is always at odds with this worldview, except for populist assumptions about dance music (you snooty middle-class intellectuals prefer to appreciate your music from an armchair while the salt of the earth sweats it out on the dance-floor). The standard issue rock-crit in this mold paid lip-service to Chicago house and Detroit techno because of the non-white, urban and gay cred that came along with it, but ultimately the NY/LA hip-hop axis gave them a lot more verbal fuel and (aside from mainstream rock - by which I mean "alternative" ) it dominates the Village Voice critics poll and similar US institutions, where IDM is still virtually non-existent - this continues to make the Wire look good by comparison. Bob

Nothing against obscurity (that would really be the pot calling the kettle black I suppose) or unusual formats/packaging, or coveting rare records. But a lot of this geektronica stuff has crossed the line into wilful obscurantism. With records coming out in pressings of 250 or even fifty (with handpainted covers etc), you have to wonder what's the threshold below which music ceases to be a "cultural practice" and becomes mere hobbyism? As the phenomenon of music distributed through the Internet, downloaded and CD-burned continues to develop, this global geektronic network may well devolve into a barter economy, with bedroom producers trading their music with other artists through the Net. Momus recently suggested that rather than everybody being famous for 15 minutes, in the future everybody will be famous for 15 people. That's what it's getting like, and that's why we should be getting worried. for fucksake .. I used to collect NME's and Melody Maker's for 10 years (weekly UK music rags) and immediately switched off to any of Mr.Reynold's dribblings .. so this thread surprises me .. that the man is still eager to put down what he doesn't understand ..

Sharon Maher wrote:

quoted 10 lines (1) Would someone like to explain to me why "wilful obscurantism" is a bad

> > (1) Would someone like to explain to me why "wilful obscurantism" is a bad > thing? > (2) If "geektronica" is hobbyism, what do you call the massivly larger > population who obsessivly collect Beatles or Prince music, bootlegs, and > memorabilia? > (3) Sounds to me like Reynold's isn't concered with "geektronica" at all, but > rather the precident that it could set, ie that music becomes increasinly > non-commerical entity. In which case his position in the music industry heierchy > as a lofty and rather pompus music critic would be rather unimportant.

I agree thoroughly with Sharon. The idea that we could all be hobbyists, trading and selling our wares to each other has a very healthy ring to it. Fuck the star system. And as for geekism, geeks are everywhere. I was leafing through the Hendrix estate "EXPERIENCE" magazine today at a bookstore, and believe me, geekism follows even the most "muscular" and overexposed rock acts of all time. The list is endless. Reynolds is obviously proud of his belittling "geektronica" label (if it's his), and here we see somebody trying to put an evolving, growing, mutating phenomenon into a critcal box. This is a foundational problem with criticism, it tries to freeze a moving entity. The obsessive geekism of the DIY electronica community is what spawned (for better or worse) such acts as Prodigy and Fatboy Slim. The scene evolved for years before such commercial appeal developed. I DJ'd the stuff at a radio station for five years before it broke, and I have to admit it was a bit of a disappointment when it went overground. I think the music suffered and some talented people went wrong in the pursuit of the buck. That's the gristmill of the star system that Mr. Reynolds holds favorably in comparison to the electronica DIY crowd. I disagree with him. That's just my opinion Critiqueing the critics, Charlie James

quoted 4 lines The obsessive geekism of

>The obsessive geekism of >the DIY electronica community is what spawned (for better or worse) such >acts as Prodigy and Fatboy Slim. The scene evolved for years before such >commercial appeal developed.

Bzzz. Sorry. Acid and techno records were going straight into the UK charts from the begining. The Prodigy had number one hits with their third (? something like that anyway) single. I think a lot of the problems you guys have with reynolds' view point comes down to the trans atlantic divide. In America electronic music has always been underground and obscure, and a lot of you guys like it that way. I'm not saying thats a bad thing, I like searching out the latest one sided 10" as much as anyone, but in England electronic music was/is huge. I mean HUGE! Like I said in my previous post tens of thousands of people where at the big orbital raves around London every weekend. Hard acid house was in at number one in charts (yes folks, thats instrumental music in the charts) When I was at college everyone I knew was into electronic music. I'm not sure what my point is here now, but it just seems to me that a big part of Reynolds' viewpoint is to do with the popular status that seriously avant garde and just plain fucked up music reached in England during the first flush of dance music. Whatever. I think this is a big part of the complete lack of common ground between IDM and reynolds. Cheerio andrewC.