IDM Mailing Archive

On Tue, 16 Feb 1999 mcess@slip.net wrote: | Maybe a discussion of how socialization has built up expectations | about the correspondence of gender to sound is in order here. A good place | to start is Richard Leppert's "The Sight of Sound: Music, Representation, | and the History of the Body", an account of how representations of music | have evolved in lockstep with the emergence of the bourgeois family, with | populist, collective and festive music making eclipsed in favor of the | private household model that centers around the "man of the house". Surely | the lone male bedroom knob twiddler, that figure of both identification and | oh-god-it's-not-me anxiety for many an IDMer, is in fact one expression of | this historical trajectory. There's some interesting essays at http://www.let.uva.nl/~hannah specifically http://www.let.uva.nl/~hannah/genelmus.htm The author looks at the role of male and female voices, as something that is still definitely gendered, in electronic music. The trends can pretty much be directly applied to non-academic stuff, eg idm, particularly trip-hop. Michael ____________________________________________ "His eyes are TV cameras" http://www.vuw.ac.nz/~michael/jj.html

On 17 Feb 99, Michael Upton wrote re: Re: (idm) This Sex Which Is Not One:

quoted 2 lines The trends can pretty much be directly applied to non-academic

> The trends can pretty much be directly applied to non-academic > stuff, eg idm, particularly trip-hop.

What is this taboo with the word TR*P-H*P? Why has it become such a no-no, unhip, way uncool category? How, in fact, do 'we' define trip-hop? To me, it started with the first s/t Portishead album - or am I off beam here? I think I like trip hop! I know we all hate categorisation, but I would appreciate if you could post what *you* consider trip-hop, what its parameters or essential recognisable features are - then I can put it in a box, a mental compartment for easy access and reference and decide from there whether to asterisk it in future, or to write it out boldly. ;-) I *

At 02:35 AM 2/16/99 -0800, mcess@slip.net wrote:

quoted 8 lines People on this list are letting themselves make massive

> People on this list are letting themselves make massive >generalizations about gender, and even the people citing anecdotes/personal >experience are tending to use them as support for their massive >generalizations about gender. It's called "essentialism", people, and it's >a drag. Substitute "left-handed" or "Philipino" for "woman" and switch the >music under discussion to "hip hop" or "rock" and you will realize just how >unconvincing ANY of your generalizations really are. Why do you expect >aesthetic pleasure to correspond neatly to social groups? What

could you save this nonsense for some other psuedo-post-modernist thinker? people are easy to generalize about. they are not all that different and most generalizations have more truth to them than the average person would care to admit. people are boring and predictable and all this crap about gender issues is annoying. get over your insecurities. it's called "essentialism." give me a break. think of some more catchy phrases to fit your silly little ideologies. and i think i'm off topic. - wells oliver / s0ewoliv@titan.vcu.edu "If you make me look bad, I swear to God, I'll never talk to you again."

Props to Drew for writing a very insightful ( by the way for all of you scholars on the list, particularly the ones who pay attention to spelling...its *insight* , not insite ) anyways, props to Drew for bringing up the gender issue with a strong and intelligent bent. Of course as with 99% of all intelligent posting on idm, his comments will be ignored. Time after time ( though I've only been here 2 years ) I've seen intelligent commentary fall by the wayside. Whenever soemeone realy hits an issue with focus and clarity, it is typically bombarded with 50-100 "duh, yeah, me too " retorts. Many idmers might remember Sean Cooper, or Stuart's posts from some time ago and how generally, when someone threads with a brain, they are ignored. So while we're on the gender thread FOR THE TEN THOUSAND'TH FUCKING TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!! , how about picking up where Drew leaves us, but first, a vocabulary contest: Be the 900th idmer who answer this correctly ( by emailing me directly ) and you will win *The *entire* Aphex Twin catalog, on vinyl, every piece autographed.* Definitions- let 'er rip! anecdotes essentialism paternalistic rhetoric transcended rhetoric socialization bourgeois populist trajectory truism manifesto Work hard idm'ers, and thanks again to Drew...= ) Peter

quoted 1 line

>

Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 02:35:53 -0800 From: mcess@slip.net Subject: (idm) This Sex Which Is Not One People on this list are letting themselves make massive generalizations about gender, and even the people citing anecdotes/personal experience are tending to use them as support for their massive generalizations about gender. It's called "essentialism", people, and it's a drag. Substitute "left-handed" or "Philipino" for "woman" and switch the music under discussion to "hip hop" or "rock" and you will realize just how unconvincing ANY of your generalizations really are. Why do you expect aesthetic pleasure to correspond neatly to social groups? What paternalistic fantasies about educating the world in the mysteries of IDM are you indulging in by way of this handwringing about how to welcome women into your community, and who have you written out of the picture in order to feel that "your" electronic music scene is originally (heterosexual) male in the first place? Given the heavy rhetoric of the "unnatural" and the "inhuman" surrounding electronic sound, shouldn't we supposedly sophisticated listeners be less eager to nail everything down in terms of the traditional Male/Female opposition? If you've already transcended the rhetoric of the natural and human when it comes to the art you make or appreciate, why can't you leave that rhetoric alone when you're interacting online/at shows/in everyday life? Maybe a discussion of how socialization has built up expectations about the correspondence of gender to sound is in order here. A good place to start is Richard Leppert's "The Sight of Sound: Music, Representation, and the History of the Body", an account of how representations of music have evolved in lockstep with the emergence of the bourgeois family, with populist, collective and festive music making eclipsed in favor of the private household model that centers around the "man of the house". Surely the lone male bedroom knob twiddler, that figure of both identification and oh-god-it's-not-me anxiety for many an IDMer, is in fact one expression of this historical trajectory. Whatever, the points to be made are simply these: Don't assume that you know something about what women as a group really want, really like, ought to like etc. When you catch yourself reaching for some time honored truism about gender ("women are soft and they want to hear soft sounds") just negate it, laugh at its inadequacy, think past it, and while you're at it, reach for a Laetitia de Compaigne-Sonami, Kaia Saariajo, Nic Endo, Kelly Hand, Neotropic, Pauline Oliveros, Laurie Anderson, Scissor Girls, Diamanda Galas, Joan La Barbara (and on and on and on and on) CD . . . Do I have to mention Walter/Wendy Carlos or Terre Thaemlitz as well? Don't you people know the deal already? why won't somebody write the definitive third sex electronic manifesto, Drew NP: Pauline Oliveros "Alien Bog" some of the coldest, most inhuman electronic sound imaginable

quoted 1 line

>

On 16 Feb 99, Peter Becker wrote re: (idm) This Sex Which Is Not One:

quoted 1 line essentialism

> essentialism

Didn't he actually mean "existentialism" ? .... it's all endlessnessism anyway :-/ I *