**Remember folks, you cant put the word "subscr!be" in your messages..
From:idm-owner@techno.Stanford.EDU
From: Sho Kuwamoto <sho@physics.purdue.edu>
Subject: Re: Is the end near?
Until recently, I have been very happy with the quality of
the idm list. Unlike every other list that I subscr!be to,
people seemed to be genuinely interested in talking about
music instead of arguing.
quoted 4 lines There is a particular set of styles of electronic music which the> There is a particular set of styles of electronic music which the
> music press, in their infinitesimal wisdom and constant desire to
> pigeon-hole, dubbed "intelligent techno" (this list seems to prefer
> the moniker "IDM" -- I regard the two as synonymous).
Is the purpose of this list to talk *only* about what the
press would label IDM? Or is the purpose of this list to
get people who are interested in IDM together to talk about
music?
Any time a list like this is formed, there will be articles
which go slightly beyond the charter. A discussion about
origins might lead to talk about, say, Kraftwerk, Fripp and
Eno, or maybe Juan Atkins or Carl Craig. A discussion about
Orbital might lead to someone mentioning Piano Phase by
Steve Reich. Is this bad?
Do we want to restrict all discussion to music which the
press would consider IDM?
I'd like all of you to think about the posts you have made
since joining the list, and the posts that you have enjoyed
reading since being on the list. Make a mental list.
Strike out anything which, strictly speaking, the press
(say... Melody Maker) would not lump in with all the IDM bands.
"Bzzt. The IDM police have decided that Carl Craig is not,
strictly speaking, and IDM kind of guy. Your article will
be tossed into the bit bucket."
Let me close by saying that in my experience, newsgroup and
mailing list content is determined not so much by charter,
but by mutual consent. (For those of you who have been
around long enough (Greg), think back to rec.music.gaffa.)
Before this flame war, I had had the impression that most
people here were happy with the content of the list. If it
is indeed true that there is a large segment which is
unhappy with the breadth of discussion, we should split off
a new mailing list and go our separate ways. I hope it
doesn't come to this.