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

← back to listing · view thread

From:
ian
To:
Date:
Mon, 16 Oct 2000 12:05:51 -0500
Subject:
Re: [idm] kid a vs. homogenic, IDM, US
Msg-Id:
<200010161205.AA1575354610@webice.net>
Mbox:
idm.0010.gz
quoted 22 lines Here's a reply to the message "[idm] kid a vs. homogenic" written on>Here's a reply to the message "[idm] kid a vs. homogenic" written on >Thu, 12 Oct 2000 14:10:31 -0400 (EDT): > >>if bjork's homogenic wasn't idm in 1997, then how the hell can radiohead's >>kid a be idm in 2000? > >Well, I've always thought of Bjork as being closer to the IDM >fraternity than any other. The Sugarcubes were always a whacky, >way-out sorta indie group and once Bjork hooked up with 808 State >there was no looking back as far as her connections with electronic >music was concerned. > >>i mean, c'mon... idioteque is the only song that really has that >>idm-esque music. > >You need to listen to some more stuff on the Fat Cat label. Too >electronic to be called "indie", too indie to be called electronic. > >>i wonder if they've even heard of "idm"... > >Who knows. The term does seem to be used more in the US than it does >in Europe.
That's probably 'cause americans are fucking idiots. And, by the way, I called the IDM main offices in NYC and they said homogenic was IDM, even for '97, go figure. I dont know about Kid A, either, it always seems to take the offices quite a long whileto determine the Intelligent Danceable quality of works of art. I still havent even heard the album yet, personally, I'm anxious to see how the style has progressed. Ian --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org