the reference was to the term IDM
not the list or the innovators that have followed
(the state of music catagorized as IDM is what was actually being discussed)
noone is crying over ill informed comments as the point is invalid
if you want to highlight other innovators, by all means
enlighten us, there are many worth talking about
that was the point of the thread
i think highlighting the innovators you are influenced by
will bring more validity to your point than taking jabs at my posts
personally:
the old pre-warp squarepusher vinyls have been really rocking me lately
there's something about crusty jazz with an IDM twist...
On 9/27/05, Eric <eric@synthesizer.org> wrote:
quoted 99 lines kenny ***** wrote:
>
>
>
> kenny ***** wrote:
> > [the first sentence continues after "aphex twin", though.]
> >
> > eric
> > the point was that you're trying to debase listmembers opinions
> > with something you obviously have no knowledge of
> >
> > while noone said "aphex twin roolz", he did kinda start the movement
> > (although you might not be aware of that)
> >
> > ["aphex twin roolz" isn't a comment on all the great genres that
> > IDM is responsible for. whatever those are.]
> >
> > it sounds like you don't like idm at all
> > perhaps you could find another list
> > from which you could vocally defecate upon
> > as you've already taken the i out of this IDM list
>
> boo hoo, cry me a river. who's the hater, mr. "idm was a poor attempt to
> quantify his now classic works (which is also the origins of this
> list)"? my point was that you didn't give the other people credit and
> misrepresented history. i don't see how you can dispute that.
>
> > i think sparking a bedroom producer craze would be friggin awesome
> > we need more independent music makers
>
> ...
>
>
> >
> >
> > On 9/26/05, *Eric* <eric@synthesizer.org <mailto:eric@synthesizer.org>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > kenny ***** wrote:
> > > people have conversations that are more than a series of question
> > asking
> > > the discussion was about genres, perhaps you've been following
> > the wrong
> > > thread?
> >
> > nope. "aphex twin roolz" isn't a comment on all the great genres that
> > IDM is responsible for. whatever those are.
> >
> > > here's the link to the IDM page
> > > http://music.hyperreal.org/lists/idm/
> > > you might want to read the first sentence
> >
> > the first sentence continues after "aphex twin", though.
> >
> > > i've been around since rdj only had tiny vinyl releases,
> > > trying to get my buddies to get em at the uk record stores (they
> > were
> > > very hard to get, even back then)
> > > i certainly remember when the IDM term first started circulating
> > in the rags
> > > and i still maintain that the term idm is a poor description of the
> > > music he pioneered
> > >
> > > but that was the point of the conversation and how the
> > conversation began
> >
> > only if you think genres related to idm means genres related to aphex
> > twin. it's a stupid thread anyway, especially when people mention grime
> > in this context.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > you haven't insulted me, you just appear confused
> > > maybe you should take your own advice?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 9/26/05, *Eric* < eric@synthesizer.org
> > <mailto:eric@synthesizer.org> <mailto:eric@synthesizer.org
> > <mailto:eric@synthesizer.org>>>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > the point was to actually have conversation on the list
> > > > not an excuse to be a twat
> > >
> > > you must mean your "i wonder..." question. it's the only
> > conversational
> > > part of your post because the bit before that is completely
> > > unrelated to
> > > it. i responded to both.
> > >
> > > if you don't think that sparking a retro bedroom producer
> > craze is a
> > > valid reaction to the analords then say so rather than being
> > insulting.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>