yo man, you gotta read the posts.. this is just a music oriented mailing
list, people are here to discuss, if the discussion bothers you then
don't subscribe and participate in those mailing lists. sharing points
of view, total opinion, and critiques, are interesting to those who like
to read and participate in mailing lists.
so comments that desire to stifle the topic at hand, and ask people to
stop thinking and talking about it are really quite silly, within a
voluntary subscription mailing list.
the point I was making was not at all about how culture is shared
between us or isn't (it is), my post was about recognizing where credit
is due. -- yes, of course it goes without saying that we are cultural
animals and share and borrow with each other in many was, that is our
inherent social nature. -- awareness of this sharing, discussion and
recognition of this sharing, is however what I was talking about... what
we ascribe to whom is often very important. also, if one read my email,
you'd see that in fact 'radiohead' didn't 'do' anything to me, at all,
rather the annoyance is part of wanting to stop ascribing in ways that
have been done for far too long, which is ascribing credit to those that
deserve little of it.
as well it is an incorrect assumption to say that those of us who are
critical of mainstream music (and especially today more than ever)
categorically dislike it, wrong. being critical of something in no way
implies being against it. pop music is great for what it is, especially
britpop and its contributions, (for some of the best appreciation of pop
music I suggest finding the text of the KLF's 'the manual'.)
again, many today have no idea what it means to be critical or to
appreciate it, and understand the value in it. (what? be conscious and
skeptical and questioning about what we think and what we are told, oh
my god, no!)
based on other comments it is also clear that many are un-critically
anti-mainstream and/or and un-critically isolationist.
based on other comments it also seems there is yet another assumption
that being mainstream and on a major label is the goal or ultimate
reward. to some I suppose it is, but selling records does not equal
being good, which that assumption totally implies. the marketplace is
merely one aspect of culture, but in a consumer-corporate culture many
often think that is all there is. (but I'm stating the obvious here.)
so you see, I actually want to discuss things and share my thoughts and
try to explain them. this is a mailing list after all, and it is
therefore discussion oriented. if we all posted only once with long bits
of copy with our complete thoughts it'd be lame, that's what magazines
and books and certain online formats are for. discussion means back and
forth, so if you read a post that jars you in some way (positively or
negatively), try to take a breath and reply back asking why or asking
for clarification... but of course many people will continue to just
assume everything and answer their own questions with their yet more
assumptions and fire back even less thoughtful posts. such is life.
quoted 120 lines -----Original Message-----
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CAPOIIEE@aol.com [mailto:CAPOIIEE@aol.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 1:36 PM
> To: dan@tint.org; idm@hyperreal.org
> Subject: Re: [idm] the topic of discussion
>
>
> yo man, you gotta chill out.. its just music. one piece of
> culture isn't necessarily "superior" to another, just
> different. i dunno what radiohead did to you as a child
> (laughed at you as you ate your pureed dead parents,
> perhaps), but i suggest you focus your hatred of mainstream
> music elsewhere. there's a lot worse shit on the radio. use
> your energy for more constructive means...
>
> ps: id like to know who your "actual innovators" are because
> i can gaurantee you they bit their shit off of somebody else
> and took the credit as well. thats what culture is, a cycle
> of using someones idea, making it mainstream, and then
> someone else biting off that. its how everything we know has
> been invented. get used to it.
>
> In a message dated Thu, 25 Jul 2002 9:37:36 PM Eastern
> Standard Time, dan@tint.org writes:
>
> >
> >
> > To explain further I think the distinct response some are
> shocked by, or
> > annoyed by, is to the over exaggerated hype of radiohead's
> significance.
> >
> > This over-exaggerated state is due in part to the
> consolidation of major
> > label driven music and its effect on our culture/s, as
> there is little
> > innovation or creative exploration within that group due to
> demands for
> > profit above near-all else-- resulting in something like
> radiohead which
> > trivially adds in glitch for an aesthetic come across to many
> > conventional types as oh-soooo significant. its not. the hype is not
> > warranted is what most of us are trying to say. (and as
> capoiiee sort of
> > admits below).
> >
> > and part of the tone of resentment, that seems to be
> disproportionate to
> > the status of the group (as capoiiee also sort of admits below), is
> > perhaps due to the fact that many of us are sick and tired
> of the actual
> > innovators, actual creators, and actual contributers not
> getting credit
> > for their activity. and perhaps that is why we protest so
> much about
> > such claims or comments lacking in much thought that legitimize the
> > 'alternative' and mainstream press and major label claims
> of grandeur,
> > when so many artists outside that system by choice or
> neglect ought to
> > get the props.
> >
> > so, to add further, the 'hyping of radiohead' is to electronica,
> > as al jolson is to jazz
> > as elvis is to rock [and you know what chuck d said!]
> > as 'british invasion' is to blues
> >
> > (I say 'hyping of...' above since radiohead isn't even on
> the level of
> > those in my comparisons, but the hyping of them would lead
> one to think
> > so as is the case in these corporate controlled and increasingly
> > mono-cultural-media times, or so it seems.)
> >
> > additionally, to say that radiohead can "play their instruments and
> > utilize music theory" is again repeating the same types of specious
> > arguments that have supported previous thefts of credit
> where credit is
> > actually due, not to mention using erroneous assumptions of
> what is and
> > is not superior in culture.
> >
> > imho,
> > dan
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: CAPOIIEE@aol.com [mailto:CAPOIIEE@aol.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 7:35 PM
> > > To: idm@hyperreal.org
> > > Subject: Re: [idm] the topic of discussion
> > >
> > > > Unless they're [radiohead]
> > > > >saying stuff like "if you like this, try this autechre cd!"
> > >
> > > actually they are, they've mentioned warp in a few interviews
> > > if i recall
> > >
> > > personally ive listened to radiohead for years and ive
> > > listend to autechre
> > > for the same ammount of time, and i must say that i've been
> > > very pleased with
> > > recent radiohead output.
> > > the idm community has been ragging on radiohead ever since
> > > kid a. its as
> > > though they were nine inch nails to industrial or eminem to
> > > hip hop. which is
> > > bullshit, because radiohead has never even been categorized
> > > as "idm" anyhow.
> > > imo, they have done one of the best jobs combining idmish
> > > music with rock,
> > > ever. plus they actually know how to play their instruments
> > > and utilize music
> > > theory, which is more than most of our idm heroes can say.
> > > (i think timbaland has come much closer to making idm
> > mainstream than
> > > radiohead will ever do...)
> > >
>
>