On Tue, 14 Nov 1995, Ashok Divakaran 39191 wrote:
quoted 7 lines To use the Hardfloor example: I disagree on both points. Although on the
>To use the Hardfloor example: I disagree on both points. Although on the
>face
>of it Hardfloor are unoriginal--OK, hardhouse/trance/acid *has* been done
>before--they really do have a unique sound. No one sounds quite like them.
>For me, that's the litmus test of innovation. Hardfloor pick and choose
>a few elements and blend them into a thumping mass of energy that's more
>than the sum of its parts and that's also totally unique.
Fair enough - they do have their own sound. But they've re-used that
sound so much through their 12"s and mainly through their remixes, it's
become jaded for me. I loved _TB-Resuscitation_ when I first bought it,
but hearing it on every one of their 12"s afterwards? The appeal of a
building dry acid line and those rushing snares wanes after a while...
quoted 4 lines I don't see why total and unrelenting danceability equates to
>I don't see why total and unrelenting danceability equates to
>unintelligence.
>For me, intelligence is being able to identify a goal and use all your
>weaponry to achieve it. (Hardfloor certainly do that.)
I use the term 'intelligent' to mean that a track makes *me* think -it
has to interest me, inspire me and above all innovate. And if I think a
track is 'intelligent', it implies a degree of musical innovation from
the artist involved. Hardfloor acieved their goal, fine - let them move
on and try something innovative as we know they can do it. I hear their
new 12" is a bit different - maybe this is the turning point.
|| [CiM]
|| s.walley@uea.ac.uk
||
http://www.sys.uea.ac.uk/~u9323899/