On 4/19/05, tim koch <tim@tundra-music.com> wrote:
quoted 15 lines :: releases had. They've micromanaged these tunes to death. Sublimit>
> :: releases had. They've micromanaged these tunes to death. Sublimit
> :: seems to turn into a different song every 3 minutes, lacking any real
> :: direction or purpose - yet when its all over, I can't remember a single
> :: distinctive tone or part that was memorable (except maybe that really
> :: cheesy synth chord stab near the beginning, but that was horrid).
>
> Mark has got it summed up very well here -- this just isn't
> *memorable* music at all .. that was the first thing to strike me
> upon the initial listen [and probably last listen coincidentally].
> This is coming from someone who has always enjoyed the majority
> of Ae's work.
>
> Tim.
> --
See this is where you get into the arguments as to whether or not
something should be instantly memorable or whether your appreciation
for it can grow upon repeated listening. While Confield still isn't my
favorite disc, I definitely like it a lot more now than I did
initially.
Does memorable = good? Perhaps just the memory that something is
complex and interesting is enough. Does there have to be a tune to
hold onto? I'm not asking these questions as attacks, I'm just asking
these questions. Take, for example, the new Phthalocyanine. I haven't
digested it, it's not "catchy," but I know that I want to go back and
listen to it.
Of course, the hardest question is "If I heard this and didn't know
that it was X artist, would I go back and listen to it again? Or is my
preconceived notion of their talent what drives me to want to listen
and appreciate it so that I can say I still like them?"
Geez, I dunno.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org