In a message dated 98-04-29 01:33:19 EDT, tosh@c4.ca writes:
<< I was just commenting on the fact that people claim "intelligent" to be
subjective to taste, so if there are so many definitions, then obviously
you're defining "intelligent" with a shotgun approach (ie. spray
everywhere and you'll probably hit it), which doesn't seem the proper
way to identify something so scarce as "intelligence". >>
Everyone defines it differently when it comes to specifics, but I think I am
safe in stating that obviously some sort of consensus exists in defining the
word "intelligent" as it is used in IDM. Or else this list would be damn
tedious and confusing with subscribers attempting to convince each other that
U2 is IDM, or Ben Folds Five, or Wendy Carlos (the irony of which is that I
believe this has happened at one time or another), etc. The consensus strikes
me to state "intelligent" as music that is not club driven, but worthy of club
play. Armchair dance music, electronic listening music, and so on. Some of
it is driven by beats, some is not. Some is minimalist, some is complex in
tone and color. Some is good, some really sucks. When you start to really
attempt to nail down specifics, though, it all gets bogged down. Which does
not discredit the label used to define it - jazz, for instance, is nearly
impossible to define, but this does not damage the consensus understanding of
it.
Or maybe you are not getting your point across. Or I am truly lost AND
pretentious.
But I am confused by your calling "intelligence" scarce ... perhaps
"intelligence" is just a colorful way to describe the music we all love and is
not meant to connote anything else. I hereby vote we call this list the
sometimes-groove-ridden-electronic-but-also-acoustic-by-turns-beatwise-but-
not-beat-dependent-don't-call-it-electronica list. That way Ben Folds Five
has a chance to make it.
James (merely restating the opinions posted to the list by countless other
more worthy and lucid members at some time or another)
James
np: Best of Chess Jazz