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

← archive index

Re: [idm] phoenicia (And why the list is going south fast)

17 messages · 13 participants · spans 1 day · search this subject
◇ merged from 4 subjects: phoenicia · phoenicia (and why the list is going south fast) · raison d'review · we arent reasonable people - warp records
2000-06-14 17:06Brian MacDonald [idm] WE ARENT REASONABLE PEOPLE - WARP RECORDS
2000-06-14 18:445x Re: [idm] WE ARENT REASONABLE PEOPLE - WARP RECORDS
└─ 2000-06-14 17:47Josh Davison Re: [idm] WE ARENT REASONABLE PEOPLE - WARP RECORDS
├─ 2000-06-14 17:59Julien Quint Re: [idm] WE ARENT REASONABLE PEOPLE - WARP RECORDS
│ └─ 2000-06-15 14:16Dayv! Re: [idm] WE ARENT REASONABLE PEOPLE - WARP RECORDS
└─ 2000-06-14 18:46Adam Piontek Re: [idm] WE ARENT REASONABLE PEOPLE - WARP RECORDS
└─ 2000-06-14 19:39Josh Davison Re: [idm] WE ARENT REASONABLE PEOPLE - WARP RECORDS
2000-06-14 23:21James R McPherson [idm] phoenicia
└─ 2000-06-15 00:26Adam Piontek Re: [idm] phoenicia
2000-06-15 02:58Gonzi 'Fresh' Merchan Re: [idm] phoenicia (And why the list is going south fast)
2000-06-15 05:47Gonzi 'Fresh' Merchan Re: [idm] phoenicia (And why the list is going south fast)
2000-06-15 07:13__..-- lander --..__ Re: [idm] phoenicia (And why the list is going south fast)
2000-06-15 07:36William VanLoo Re: [idm] phoenicia (And why the list is going south fast)
2000-06-15 16:19Adam Piontek Re: [idm] phoenicia (And why the list is going south fast)
└─ 2000-06-15 19:38Re: [idm] phoenicia (And why the list is going south fast)
└─ 2000-06-16 00:06alan r lucas Re: [idm] phoenicia (And why the list is going south fast)
└─ 2000-06-16 00:19[idm] raison d'review
expand allcollapse allclick any summary to toggle that message
2000-06-14 17:06Brian MacDonaldFrom http://www.freakytrigger.com/2000_05_28_hated.html : --------------------------------
From:
Brian MacDonald
To:
Date:
Wed, 14 Jun 2000 10:06:41 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:
[idm] WE ARENT REASONABLE PEOPLE - WARP RECORDS
permalink · <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000614100426.27586A-100000@falco.kuci.uci.edu>
From http://www.freakytrigger.com/2000_05_28_hated.html : -------------------------------------------------------------- WE ARENT REASONABLE PEOPLE - WARP RECORDS You might have thought that Morse code had been rendered obsolescent by WAP phones and ISDN. Not so - the "dot-dash" lives on in its more irritating "bleep-blop" incarnation, thanks to Warp. Warp has been going for 10 years and have been churning out minimal mid-tempo bleepy nonsense relentlessly over this period. Techno chinstrokers will no doubt reminisce about the days of LFO, RAC and Tricky Disco (maybe not) but the reality was that they were all crap. LFOs "We are back" sounds like someone being beaten to death with a sampler in a back alley by a Dalek. Nightmares on Waxs "Smokers Delight" - give me strength. To commemorate 10 years of bleepfoolery, Warp released a double-album of its most important influences. Suffice to say, they were all losers like the Ital Rockers and Farley Jackmaster Funk, not to mention the long-suffering A Guy Called Gerald (i.e. "Vooooooooodoooooooo Ray" x 10 mins = yawn). Worse than old records on Warp are contemporary ones, which seem to be made mainly by a series of interchangeable bands with short names beginning with "P" (Plone, Plaid, Plod, Pond, Poor et al). These bands play songs constructed around three-finger chords on 19.99 keyboards - I think some of them have only newly graduated from playing Axel F in Dixons with one digit. Even worse than that are "techy" Warp bands - the likes of Autechre, Squarepusher and Boards of Canada. Give them a soldering iron and they think theyre the Aphex Twin. Yes, it is technically quite impressive that youve managed to wire a synthesizer to an Oric Atmos, via a Fairlight, a hoover and a blender. But no, the noise that comes out at the end is not even remotely musical (or interesting). A plea for Warp in a language they might understand- BLOP BLEEP BLEEP BLEEP, BLOP BLOP BLOP, BLOP BLOP BLEEP, BLOP BLOP BLOP, BLEEP BLOP BLEEP BLEEP, BLEEP BLOP BLEEP BLEEP. For those of you with a WAPphone, thats "BOG OFF". Tanya Headon | dis/agree? | 6/1/2000 -------------------------------------------------------------- ======================================================================= Brian MacDonald <brianm@kuci.org> ======================================================================= --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2000-06-14 18:445xthis horribly dissapointing. i think we should all collectivel flame her until her wires b
From:
5x
To:
Brian MacDonald
Cc:
Date:
Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:44:58 -0600
Subject:
Re: [idm] WE ARENT REASONABLE PEOPLE - WARP RECORDS
permalink · <3947D2AA.558A7E71@videon.wave.ca>
this horribly dissapointing. i think we should all collectivel flame her until her wires burn up. Even worse than that are "techy" Warp bands - the likes of Autechre,
quoted 21 lines Squarepusher and Boards of Canada. Give them a soldering iron and they> Squarepusher and Boards of Canada. Give them a soldering iron and they > think theyre the Aphex Twin. Yes, it is technically quite impressive that > youve managed to wire a synthesizer to an Oric Atmos, via a Fairlight, a > hoover and a blender. But no, the noise that comes out at the end is not > even remotely musical (or interesting). > > A plea for Warp in a language they might understand- BLOP BLEEP BLEEP > BLEEP, BLOP BLOP BLOP, BLOP BLOP BLEEP, BLOP BLOP BLOP, BLEEP BLOP BLEEP > BLEEP, BLEEP BLOP BLEEP BLEEP. For those of you with a WAPphone, thats > "BOG OFF". > > Tanya Headon | dis/agree? | 6/1/2000 > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > ======================================================================= > Brian MacDonald <brianm@kuci.org> > ======================================================================= > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
-- my phone keeps ringing, or maybe that's just my ears shaun- http://www.mp3.com/5x it's good --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2000-06-14 17:47Josh Davisonit's a classic case of The Emperor's New clothes. yeah, it's just bleeps, bloops and noise
From:
Josh Davison
To:
5x
Cc:
Brian MacDonald ,
Date:
Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:47:59 -0500 (CDT)
Subject:
Re: [idm] WE ARENT REASONABLE PEOPLE - WARP RECORDS
Reply to:
Re: [idm] WE ARENT REASONABLE PEOPLE - WARP RECORDS
permalink · <Pine.NEB.3.96.1000614124426.32962K-100000@shell-2.enteract.com>
it's a classic case of The Emperor's New clothes. yeah, it's just bleeps, bloops and noise, but if that's what you like ... there you go. if you don't bring the context of other experimental predecessors to something like Autechre's EP7, it is just going to sound like horrible noise. like i said before about Kid 606, the fact that people object to seomthing so vehemently means there must be something to it. reviews like this just demonstrate the fact that music like all art is entirely subjective and you can't base your own opinions on either critical praise or slag. bravo Tanya Headon. josh -- String Theory : Digital Music for Humans http://www.enteract.com/~yoshi/index.cgi On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, 5x wrote:
quoted 46 lines this horribly dissapointing. i think we should all collectivel flame her until> this horribly dissapointing. i think we should all collectivel flame her until > her wires burn up. > > > > > > > Even worse than that are "techy" Warp bands - the likes of Autechre, > > > Squarepusher and Boards of Canada. Give them a soldering iron and they > > think theyre the Aphex Twin. Yes, it is technically quite impressive that > > youve managed to wire a synthesizer to an Oric Atmos, via a Fairlight, a > > hoover and a blender. But no, the noise that comes out at the end is not > > even remotely musical (or interesting). > > > > A plea for Warp in a language they might understand- BLOP BLEEP BLEEP > > BLEEP, BLOP BLOP BLOP, BLOP BLOP BLEEP, BLOP BLOP BLOP, BLEEP BLOP BLEEP > > BLEEP, BLEEP BLOP BLEEP BLEEP. For those of you with a WAPphone, thats > > "BOG OFF". > > > > Tanya Headon | dis/agree? | 6/1/2000 > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > ======================================================================= > > Brian MacDonald <brianm@kuci.org> > > ======================================================================= > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org > > -- > my phone keeps ringing, or maybe that's just my ears > > shaun- > http://www.mp3.com/5x > it's good > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org > >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2000-06-14 17:59Julien Quint> reviews like this just demonstrate the fact that music like all art is > entirely subjec
From:
Julien Quint
To:
Cc:
Brian MacDonald ,
Date:
Wed, 14 Jun 2000 19:59:02 +0200
Subject:
Re: [idm] WE ARENT REASONABLE PEOPLE - WARP RECORDS
Reply to:
Re: [idm] WE ARENT REASONABLE PEOPLE - WARP RECORDS
permalink · <200006141759.TAA00976@mont-chauve.grenoble.xrce.xerox.com>
quoted 3 lines reviews like this just demonstrate the fact that music like all art is> reviews like this just demonstrate the fact that music like all art is > entirely subjective and you can't base your own opinions on either > critical praise or slag.
Reviews like this give you very interesting insight to the music, even (and maybe especially) if you don't agree with them. Even better, you might find out that you agree with many points (which I certainly do) without reaching the same conclusions...
quoted 1 line bravo Tanya Headon.> bravo Tanya Headon.
Have you read the rest of the site? It's terribly funny. I think she's having a kick doing that, and I'm having a kick reading it. So why flame her? On her list of request, she has Autechre ranking quite high, hope to see her developing her point further. [Whether or not a smiley should appear somewhere in the above message is left as an exercise to the reader.] -- Julien --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2000-06-15 14:16Dayv!On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Julien Quint wrote: > Have you read the rest of the site? It's terrib
From:
Dayv!
To:
Date:
Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:16:38 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:
Re: [idm] WE ARENT REASONABLE PEOPLE - WARP RECORDS
Reply to:
Re: [idm] WE ARENT REASONABLE PEOPLE - WARP RECORDS
permalink · <Pine.LNX.4.10.10006151016090.9356-100000@ignoring.yourpain.com>
On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Julien Quint wrote:
quoted 1 line Have you read the rest of the site? It's terribly funny.> Have you read the rest of the site? It's terribly funny.
What's the URL again? -Dayv! "Don't say I don't know what I'm talking about because you lack understanding." --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2000-06-14 18:46Adam PiontekOn Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:47:59 -0500 (CDT), Josh Davison wrote: >the fact that people object
From:
Adam Piontek
To:
idm@hyperreal.org
Date:
Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:46:30 -0500
Subject:
Re: [idm] WE ARENT REASONABLE PEOPLE - WARP RECORDS
Reply to:
Re: [idm] WE ARENT REASONABLE PEOPLE - WARP RECORDS
permalink · <19095740860702@mirage.tcinternet.net>
On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:47:59 -0500 (CDT), Josh Davison wrote:
quoted 2 lines the fact that people object to>the fact that people object to >seomthing so vehemently means there must be something to it.
This is just the sort of thing people say when they can't really justify something. That statement is so incorrect Certainly, it's good to not go along with the crowd. If everyone suddenly started eating their own feces and saying it was good, and doctors approved and said I wasn't going to die from eating my own feces, I *might* give it a shot. So suddenly kid-606 is the new thing, a few reviews said it was good, and I tried it out. It was like tasting my own shit. Horrible experience and a big waste of time. Just because people object to something vehemently does *NOT* mean there *MUST* be something to it. It might mean that there might be something to it, and it might be worth trying. Open-mindedness is a Good Thing. But let's not lapse into new-world-order catch phrases from the flower-child generation.
quoted 3 lines reviews like this just demonstrate the fact that music like all art is>reviews like this just demonstrate the fact that music like all art is >entirely subjective and you can't base your own opinions on either >critical praise or slag.
Exactly. I, for one, like recent Warp releases. But rather than virtually saying that "because you don't like it must mean it's good," you might point out that many of the artists she cited (Plone, Autechre, Squarepusher, Boards Of Canada) are radically different from each other. BOC is hardly "bloop bloop bleep." Anyway, her kind of closed-minded review doesn't deserve a response. -Adam -- Adam Piontek [http://www.tcinternet.net/users/damek/] ICQ: 3456339 [damek@earthling.net] ... Understanding my arguments and agreeing with them are not, I suspect, the same thing. -- Carl Sagan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2000-06-14 19:39Josh Davisoni agree with your argument against my statement ... let me restate myself differently so i
From:
Josh Davison
To:
Adam Piontek
Cc:
idm@hyperreal.org
Date:
Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:39:01 -0500 (CDT)
Subject:
Re: [idm] WE ARENT REASONABLE PEOPLE - WARP RECORDS
Reply to:
Re: [idm] WE ARENT REASONABLE PEOPLE - WARP RECORDS
permalink · <Pine.NEB.3.96.1000614141816.32962N-100000@shell-2.enteract.com>
i agree with your argument against my statement ... let me restate myself differently so i don't sound so general ... given: an artistic endeavour -- be it theatre, music or visual art -- that is sufficiently outside the boundaries of current mainstream tastes as to elicit negative responses from those not pre-disposed to give such artworks the benefit of the doubt. given: an artist, usually bestowed with some merit from previous examples of their work that either fall within the boundaries of common taste or have influenced other works that fall into these boundaries. given: critics of the sort listed above, putting forth such negative responses. the negative review alone certainly doesn't justify the artwork. god no. the missing ingredient from my previous statement is the second given. the artist's reputation is key in deducing that what others may be interpreting as trash, noise, tunelessness, smut, etc., is actually a work of art that is exceeding the limits of what is NOW culturally acceptible, but is in fact expanding frontiers that can later be filled in by artists of a less ambitious bent. so really it's a combination of factors ... the negative reviews, usually containing some sort of undertone of "I don't get it", serve as more of a symptom or clue pointing to a cultural upheaval of some magnitude. this has been proven many times throughout history: the impressionists, igor stravinsky, ornette coleman, the beatles, pablo picasso, jackson pollock, aphex twin, autechre, jeff koons, etc. anyway i hope this clears up my point a little... negative reviews alone don't justify an artist ... they are a symptom that goes along with TRUE artistic achievement -- String Theory : Digital Music for Humans http://www.enteract.com/~yoshi/index.cgi On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Adam Piontek wrote:
quoted 48 lines On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:47:59 -0500 (CDT), Josh Davison wrote:> On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:47:59 -0500 (CDT), Josh Davison wrote: > >the fact that people object to > >seomthing so vehemently means there must be something to it. > > This is just the sort of thing people say when they can't really > justify something. That statement is so incorrect > > Certainly, it's good to not go along with the crowd. If everyone > suddenly started eating their own feces and saying it was good, and > doctors approved and said I wasn't going to die from eating my own > feces, I *might* give it a shot. > > So suddenly kid-606 is the new thing, a few reviews said it was good, > and I tried it out. It was like tasting my own shit. Horrible > experience and a big waste of time. > > Just because people object to something vehemently does *NOT* mean > there *MUST* be something to it. It might mean that there might be > something to it, and it might be worth trying. Open-mindedness is a > Good Thing. But let's not lapse into new-world-order catch phrases > from the flower-child generation. > > >reviews like this just demonstrate the fact that music like all art is > >entirely subjective and you can't base your own opinions on either > >critical praise or slag. > > Exactly. I, for one, like recent Warp releases. But rather than > virtually saying that "because you don't like it must mean it's > good," you might point out that many of the artists she cited (Plone, > Autechre, Squarepusher, Boards Of Canada) are radically different > from each other. BOC is hardly "bloop bloop bleep." > > Anyway, her kind of closed-minded review doesn't deserve a response. > -Adam > > -- > Adam Piontek [http://www.tcinternet.net/users/damek/] > ICQ: 3456339 [damek@earthling.net] > ... Understanding my arguments and agreeing with them are not, > I suspect, the same thing. -- Carl Sagan > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org > >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2000-06-14 23:21James R McPhersonAm I correct in thinking that the work that Phoenicia has laid out in _Lily of the Valley_
From:
James R McPherson
To:
Date:
Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:21:30 -0500
Subject:
[idm] phoenicia
permalink · <20000614.182131.10870.2.andregurov@juno.com>
Am I correct in thinking that the work that Phoenicia has laid out in _Lily of the Valley_ is their best work yet? Where the now 3 years old (!) work of _Randa Roomet_ was dry and uninvolving, these new tasters have whetted my appetite and faith in Mr. Farinas' (et al) production talents. I didn't think _Lily of the Valley_ would be as good as others had intoned, but now I see I was remiss in waiting so long to get it. Faint praise be damned, I like it.
quoted 7 lines the negative reviews, usually containing some sort of undertone of "I>the negative reviews, usually containing some sort of undertone of "I >don't get it", ------> > >this has been proven many times throughout history: the >impressionists, >igor stravinsky, ornette coleman, the beatles, pablo picasso, jackson >pollock, aphex twin, autechre, jeff koons, etc.
Um, you left off John Holmes. J np: Requiem for Ernesto's Passing (also called the central air unit) Join The Party @www.cpusa.org ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2000-06-15 00:26Adam PiontekOn Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:21:30 -0500, James R McPherson wrote: >Am I correct in thinking tha
From:
Adam Piontek
To:
idm@hyperreal.org , James R McPherson
Date:
Wed, 14 Jun 2000 19:26:30 -0500
Subject:
Re: [idm] phoenicia
Reply to:
[idm] phoenicia
permalink · <00263096975073@mirage.tcinternet.net>
On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:21:30 -0500, James R McPherson wrote:
quoted 7 lines Am I correct in thinking that the work that Phoenicia has laid out in>Am I correct in thinking that the work that Phoenicia has laid out in >_Lily of the Valley_ is their best work yet? Where the now 3 years old >(!) work of _Randa Roomet_ was dry and uninvolving, these new tasters >have whetted my appetite and faith in Mr. Farinas' (et al) production >talents. I didn't think _Lily of the Valley_ would be as good as others >had intoned, but now I see I was remiss in waiting so long to get it. >Faint praise be damned, I like it.
I agree. I haven't liked any Phoenecia previous to the material on Lily of the Valley. Randa Roomet was ok, but it was indeed rather dry. Everything else I've heard is garbage to my ears. In fact, pretty much everything on the previous schematic compilation was garbage to my ears. _Lily_ reaffirmed in my mind the potential of Schematic... -adam -- Adam Piontek [http://www.tcinternet.net/users/damek/] ICQ: 3456339 [damek@earthling.net] ... `:-| "Fascinating, Captain!" -- Spock --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2000-06-15 02:58Gonzi 'Fresh' MerchanFrom: Adam Piontek <damek@earthling.net> To: <idm@hyperreal.org>; James R McPherson <andre
From:
Gonzi 'Fresh' Merchan
To:
Adam Piontek
Cc:
Date:
Wed, 14 Jun 2000 19:58:29 -0700
Subject:
Re: [idm] phoenicia (And why the list is going south fast)
permalink · <001101bfd675$95b75140$10c40018@flrtn1.occa.home.com>
From: Adam Piontek <damek@earthling.net> To: <idm@hyperreal.org>; James R McPherson <andregurov@juno.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 5:26 PM Subject: Re: [idm] phoenicia
quoted 16 lines On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:21:30 -0500, James R McPherson wrote:> On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:21:30 -0500, James R McPherson wrote: > >Am I correct in thinking that the work that Phoenicia has laid out in > >_Lily of the Valley_ is their best work yet? Where the now 3 years old > >(!) work of _Randa Roomet_ was dry and uninvolving, these new tasters > >have whetted my appetite and faith in Mr. Farinas' (et al) production > >talents. I didn't think _Lily of the Valley_ would be as good as others > >had intoned, but now I see I was remiss in waiting so long to get it. > >Faint praise be damned, I like it. > > I agree. I haven't liked any Phoenecia previous to the material on > Lily of the Valley. Randa Roomet was ok, but it was indeed rather > dry. Everything else I've heard is garbage to my ears. In fact, > pretty much everything on the previous schematic compilation was > garbage to my ears. _Lily_ reaffirmed in my mind the potential of > Schematic... > -adam
You know IDM has really been disappointing recently and this post strikes me as one that is quite a good example. Just as a matter of politeness, and especially if you know the artist is on the list, it is fucking very disheartening seeing people refer to music as 'garbage.' If you don't like it, that's fine and you can say so and ideally explain why. But how about having some fucking manners, alright? This list was developed to foster a sense of community among those who enjoyed what was at the time very obscure music. Originally it was impossible for most of us to find anyone else in the same area who enjoyed what we had discovered. I still believe this list can be used to that end, and it's especially heartening to see people encourage and give criticism to the younger generation of artists that have developed around the list and were inspired by the music for which it was created. Please take a moment to think twice before you post comments like the one above. Yours, Gonzi Merchan. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2000-06-15 05:47Gonzi 'Fresh' Merchan> I'm sorry, but for the most part, this is shit too. Your whole post came > down to "if t
From:
Gonzi 'Fresh' Merchan
To:
Date:
Wed, 14 Jun 2000 22:47:25 -0700
Subject:
Re: [idm] phoenicia (And why the list is going south fast)
permalink · <016101bfd68d$2ef368a0$10c40018@flrtn1.occa.home.com>
quoted 3 lines I'm sorry, but for the most part, this is shit too. Your whole post came> I'm sorry, but for the most part, this is shit too. Your whole post came > down to "if the artist is on the list, don't insult them". Well, duh. > Don't call their mom names, that's fine.
Actually this is not the point at all of what I'm saying, or perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Simply labeling music 'garbage' is the sort of immature, dismissive, counterproductive comment the list doesn't need, regardless of whether or not an artist is on the list, but I feel especially if as a matter of simple courtesy. I would extend the same to phoenecia, autechre or someone who is just beginning to experiment and release/submit tracks for our approval. I find it increasingly hard pressed to sit idly by while I see the level of discussion degenerate to 'this is trash' on IDM. Many people who remember what the list was several years ago can surely relate to this sentiment.
quoted 6 lines But saying a piece of music is garbage, whether the artist is on the> But saying a piece of music is garbage, whether the artist is on the > list or not, is fully part of what this list is about. That's the risk > you take when you release something - you're exposing it to the world, > and soliciting the world's feedback. Since all this is about personal > taste anyway, why should Phoenecia care if some IDM-L luser thinks their > latest masterpiece/work/DSP-wankery/insert-your-opinion here is garbage?
William, saying that a piece of music is garbage is exactly AGAINST everything the list is about. IDM used to be about a sense of community and shared interest. The increasing lack of thought put behind some the opinions I see here serves only to alienate people and discourage them from exposing themselves and releasing something in the first place. If the list comes to that then what's the point of continuing with it at all? The current state of the list and the decreasing number of contributing artists and label representative to it is no coincidence. Whether or not Phoenecia cares (and I'm sure they probably don't), you should care. This is our list, damn you. (ok perhaps that was overly dramatic)
quoted 5 lines Now, regarding your point about *explaining why you don't like> Now, regarding your point about *explaining why you don't like > something* - that to me is what IDM is actually about, or should be. I > fully agree that people shouldn't just label something garbage - put a > few seconds of thought into your post and *tell us why you think that*. > It's like those English essay exams you hated - "Why? Explain".
Agreed. Love, Gonzi Merchan. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2000-06-15 07:13__..-- lander --..__...maybe the problem is that people aren.t putting themselves in the shoes of the artists,
From:
__..-- lander --..__
To:
Date:
Thu, 15 Jun 2000 00:13:51 PDT
Subject:
Re: [idm] phoenicia (And why the list is going south fast)
permalink · <20000615071351.8832.qmail@hotmail.com>
...maybe the problem is that people aren.t putting themselves in the shoes of the artists, or giving them the respect and appreciation that they deserve...i mean, i really don.t think that any artist, or group of artists, or what have you, goes into music, especially "idm" with the notion that they will inevitibly make something bad, and that someone.s going to call it s***. eventuall someone will...(i.e.: "i hate music" blog, etc.), and eventually they might make something which they thought was indeed, bad, but at the time they were either finding themselves as musicians, as artists, as crafters, as whatever...and at the time, they put all of their effort into it. i think that the majority of artists that we discuss on this so called "intelligent" list, making so called, "intelligent" music, make the music that they do because they enjoy doing it. seemingly, an "idm" artist, or artists, make[s] little money from releasing their music, so why else would they be making it?...to impress the babes?...highly unlikely. and if we all make the assumption that effort is put into all of the work that these artists make, with the exception of (my own opinion) *** ***, then we won.t have to disregard our f***ing manners and call an artist.s or artists.s music "garbage" even though they have put a lot of time and effort into creating it. opinionatively, i would never call anyone elses music "garbage," rather, i would deconstruct the peice of music paying attention to exactly just what i didn.t exactly like, (but could still appreciate), (the tones, the mood it created, or lack of mood it created, the patterns, the loops, the sounds heard, and so forth), and comment on that, instead of just a first listen and saying, "man this stuff is plain s***." incidently, it.s not stuff, and none of it is s***. haven.t any of us ever gone by the motto "to each their own." i think this applies here. maybe i.m being naive, but i think that the ability to do this, taking into account that we are so called, "intelligent" people, listening to so called, "intelligent" music, i think that we all have the ability to "intelligently" listen to and appreciate the music we do listen to and discuss it in such a manner. because, one can appreciate something AND not like it. this is easier with the assumption of effort and time. and that ********, or ****** ** ****** album not coming out yet...maybe said artists are working their asses off to put out a good record because they don.t go by *** ***'s mentality that they can put a peice of turd on a record and anyone will buy it, just because it.s a *** *** record. lander np: while:: lash (chocolate ind.) ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2000-06-15 07:36William VanLooGonzi 'Fresh' Merchan wrote: > > You know IDM has really been disappointing recently *Rece
From:
William VanLoo
To:
Gonzi 'Fresh' Merchan
Cc:
Adam Piontek ,
Date:
Thu, 15 Jun 2000 00:36:31 -0700
Subject:
Re: [idm] phoenicia (And why the list is going south fast)
permalink · <3948877E.F72CBFF@mediaone.net>
Gonzi 'Fresh' Merchan wrote:
quoted 2 lines You know IDM has really been disappointing recently> > You know IDM has really been disappointing recently
*Recently*? It's been shit for years! ;)
quoted 4 lines Just as a matter of politeness, and> Just as a matter of politeness, and > especially if you know the artist is on the list, it is fucking very > disheartening seeing people refer to music as 'garbage.' If you don't like > it, that's fine and you can say so and ideally explain why.
I'm sorry, but for the most part, this is shit too. Your whole post came down to "if the artist is on the list, don't insult them". Well, duh. Don't call their mom names, that's fine. But saying a piece of music is garbage, whether the artist is on the list or not, is fully part of what this list is about. That's the risk you take when you release something - you're exposing it to the world, and soliciting the world's feedback. Since all this is about personal taste anyway, why should Phoenecia care if some IDM-L luser thinks their latest masterpiece/work/DSP-wankery/insert-your-opinion here is garbage? Sorry Gonzi, but that argument just doesn't fly with me, especially with the number of people who've praised the recent Phoenecia work on IDM. You gotta take the good with the bad. Now, regarding your point about *explaining why you don't like something* - that to me is what IDM is actually about, or should be. I fully agree that people shouldn't just label something garbage - put a few seconds of thought into your post and *tell us why you think that*. It's like those English essay exams you hated - "Why? Explain". Peace, Bill VanLoo http://www.chromedecay.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2000-06-15 16:19Adam PiontekOn Wed, 14 Jun 2000 22:47:25 -0700, Gonzi 'Fresh' Merchan wrote: >> Now, regarding your po
From:
Adam Piontek
To:
idm@hyperreal.org
Date:
Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:19:36 -0500
Subject:
Re: [idm] phoenicia (And why the list is going south fast)
permalink · <16215557801734@mirage.tcinternet.net>
On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 22:47:25 -0700, Gonzi 'Fresh' Merchan wrote:
quoted 7 lines Now, regarding your point about *explaining why you don't like>> Now, regarding your point about *explaining why you don't like >> something* - that to me is what IDM is actually about, or should be. I >> fully agree that people shouldn't just label something garbage - put a >> few seconds of thought into your post and *tell us why you think that*. >> It's like those English essay exams you hated - "Why? Explain". > >Agreed.
From the IDM webring's home page (http://www.gridface.com/idmring/): "IDM is not a genre; it's a mailing list hosted by Hyperreal." I don't know how many of you would still agree with this, but I certainly do. So many different things pass for "IDM" - recently and in the past. To me, IDM has always seemed more like a club than a subset of music. Generally, I've found people who say they like IDM to be more interested in the techniques and/or technology used to create the sounds, and/or the music theory the sounds represent or "push forward". I am personally more interested in music that I enjoy listening to, and would classify my favorites not by my technical appreciation of them but by how often I tend to listen to them. This would seem to indicate not how accomplished the artist was at impressing me with a unique sound, but how that sound impressed itself upon my mind. The point that I'm trying to get to is that I take issue with the exclusionist idea that everyone must fully justify what ultimately are subjective opinions. The reason I have a problem with this is that not everyone is fully capable of satisfying everyone else's requirements in this regard. For example, if I write in to the list that I just purchased some new album, and then go on simply to say that I liked it and then compare it briefly to some other artists -- this might not satisfy some of you. You might want more specifics than simply "I liked it and it reminded me of a cross between Squarepusher and Bola" or something like that. Well, I'm sorry, but I don't have a knowledge of (or care about) how this music is produced, nor do I have an extensive knowledge of the history of this non-genre. Nor do I have more than the most limited knowledge of music theory, nor can I say why I feel Squarepusher is better than kid-606. Such a statement would indicate an opinion anyway, not some sort of fact. I would be saying that I enjoy Jenkinson's work more than the kid's. Should I be excluded from the list or harrassed because I couldn't provide as "intelligent" an opinion as someone else would like? I don't think so. My lack of advanced technical and theoretical knowledge should not exclude me from expressing my likes and dislikes with regards to new music. All you have to do is pay less importance to my statement if it consists merely of "I didn't like this or that." Anyway, short, negative comments are just as uninformative as short, positive comments. If I write into the list saying "I just got the new Bola track and I like it. Period." -- are you going to go buy it just because of that? Of course not. It would be better and more useful if I wrote more, but if I don't, at least you know one more person liked this or that. Finally, I'd like to clear up a wild misconception many people who like IDM seem to have. The misconception I'm referring to is based on the idea that "radical new advances in anything are usually reacted to harshly by society at large at first, only to become accepted later on, after the frontier has already advanced to the next thing." Basically, this is true. But, first of all, something new is not always an advance. Particularly in art, where ideas evolve like species, and some are just bad and don't survive. New /= better. Second -- and this follows from the first -- just because people react negatively to something new does not mean it is an advance and that they're just being closed-minded. Sometimes something is really actually bad, even though it is new. Perhaps "90% unlistenable" is a better thing for me to say about Ischemic Folks than "mostly garbage," even though to me they're the same. Regardless of how I say it, I think Ischemic Folks is a bad release from an otherwise OK label, despite the fact that it was new and complex. And that's how I feel about kid-606 and most of the new "let's make noise" trend. I find it does not appeal to me, and I don't think it's better than what has come before simply because a lot of people don't like it. -- Adam Piontek [http://www.tcinternet.net/users/damek/] ICQ: 3456339 [damek@earthling.net] ... As social beings we live with our eyes upon our reflection, but have no assurance of the tranquillity of the waters in which we see it. -- Charles Horton Cooley --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2000-06-15 19:38edhall@weirdnoise.com"Adam Piontek" <damek@earthling.net> wrote: > Perhaps "90% unlistenable" is a better thing
From:
To:
Date:
Thu, 15 Jun 2000 12:38:47 -0700
Subject:
Re: [idm] phoenicia (And why the list is going south fast)
Reply to:
Re: [idm] phoenicia (And why the list is going south fast)
permalink · <200006151938.MAA04332@screech.weirdnoise.com>
"Adam Piontek" <damek@earthling.net> wrote:
quoted 8 lines Perhaps "90% unlistenable" is a better thing for me to say about> Perhaps "90% unlistenable" is a better thing for me to say about > Ischemic Folks than "mostly garbage," even though to me they're the > same. Regardless of how I say it, I think Ischemic Folks is a bad > release from an otherwise OK label, despite the fact that it was new > and complex. And that's how I feel about kid-606 and most of the new > "let's make noise" trend. I find it does not appeal to me, and I > don't think it's better than what has come before simply because a > lot of people don't like it.
I find Ischemic Folks QUITE listenable. I'm not alone in this (go back to the IDM archives if you don't believe me). You can say you don't like it, you can say it sounds unmelodic/mechanical/noisy/whatever to you. Describe it any way that seems suitable, but calling it a "bad release" or "garbage" crosses the line into telling other people what they should think of it. Perhaps that's a line many critics are willing to cross, but this isn't a mailing list for professional critics to ply their trade (and amateurs risk looking silly, which isn't to say many "Professionals" don't). -Ed --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2000-06-16 00:06alan r lucaswell, i think that just flat out declaring that a release is garbage is one thing (i.e. "i
From:
alan r lucas
To:
Date:
Thu, 15 Jun 2000 20:06:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject:
Re: [idm] phoenicia (And why the list is going south fast)
Reply to:
Re: [idm] phoenicia (And why the list is going south fast)
permalink · <Pine.BSI.4.02.10006151956140.20976-100000@frogger.telerama.com>
well, i think that just flat out declaring that a release is garbage is one thing (i.e. "ischemic folks is garbage!"), but then, the reader should realize that it's just the writer's opinion. maybe a better way to say it would be "*i think* ischemic folks is garbage". would that make some people feel better, by qualifying where that statement is coming from? what else can you say if you feel that something is complete crap? i don't think you should have to keep quiet just because that's how you feel about something, because i know that i and probably everyone else on this list sometimes go about purchasing/not purchasing things based on the things we hear on this list. although to tell the truth, i end up buying a lot of the stuff that everyone else says is crap and usually really like it. be that as it may, if you think something sucks, you should feel free to say it, although i do agree that you should at least give reasons why. and same goes if you like it, but lots of people have already said that. and as far as "telling other people what they should think of it", well hopefully people are smart enough not to take everything they read/hear as the final word on something. alan np:invisible soundtracks IV (haven't heard enough to responsibly critique ;) but i'm leaning toward the "i like it" side.) On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 edhall@weirdnoise.com wrote:
quoted 19 lines I find Ischemic Folks QUITE listenable. I'm not alone in this (go back> I find Ischemic Folks QUITE listenable. I'm not alone in this (go back > to the IDM archives if you don't believe me). You can say you don't like > it, you can say it sounds unmelodic/mechanical/noisy/whatever to you. > Describe it any way that seems suitable, but calling it a "bad release" > or "garbage" crosses the line into telling other people what they should > think of it. Perhaps that's a line many critics are willing to cross, > but this isn't a mailing list for professional critics to ply their > trade (and amateurs risk looking silly, which isn't to say many > "Professionals" don't). > > -Ed > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org > >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2000-06-16 00:19anything@synthesizer.org>well, i think that just flat out declaring that a release is garbage is >one thing (i.e.
From:
To:
Date:
Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:19:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:
[idm] raison d'review
Reply to:
Re: [idm] phoenicia (And why the list is going south fast)
permalink · <Pine.BSF.4.21.0006151711470.14342-100000@shell3.ba.best.com>
quoted 3 lines well, i think that just flat out declaring that a release is garbage is>well, i think that just flat out declaring that a release is garbage is >one thing (i.e. "ischemic folks is garbage!"), but then, the reader should >realize that it's just the writer's opinion.
Everybody already knows this, but they don't pay attention. I see no difference between "<x> is garbage" and "<x> is worth buying, it'll probably be on my top 5 of the year." The one-sentence critique is the meat-and-potatoes of the promotional force of this mailing list, get on the bandwagon or do something about it. -- http://www.synthesizer.org/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org