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

← back to listing · view thread

From:
To:
Date:
Fri, 17 Nov 95 12:00:17 -0800
Subject:
Re: (idm) IDM
Msg-Id:
<9511171958.AA28431@hub.scp.caltech.edu>
In-Reply-To:
<Pine.SUN.3.91-heb-2.05.951117214729.13951D-100000@actcom.co.il>
Mbox:
idm.9511.gz
quoted 3 lines Almost every new genre was innovative as it started, blending things>Almost every new genre was innovative as it started, blending things >not blended before and giving sounds a new aroma. Keeping that aroma >or enhancing it is the problem.
Genres are only created when a number of musical groups or albums are retroactively placed under a unifying moniker. The creation of a genre is a sign of stagnation. An eddy in the forward flow of music. This is not a bad thing, for in these vortices of genre specific work there is both forward and backward motion. Genre specific works can churn up new ideas and it is out of these eddies that new innovative works eventually spring. Now, if you want to start a movement and write a manifesto, that's a whole different story. You cannot 'start' a genre. Though it can be seen in retrospect that you were the start of a genre. So, since we can only look back on genres, if you can place a new album in a genre then it is not substantially innovative. If you have a hard time placing it in a genre then it may be innovative. I should bracket all this with a small clarification that I am talking about subgenres of techno music. The genre of techno itself is in a much larger framework. So by genre I mean ambient house, goa, electro, etc. [fletcher]