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

← back to listing · view thread

From:
Jeff Shoemaker
To:
Date:
Sun, 22 Oct 2000 12:19:02 -0500
Subject:
Re: [idm] Missing the Point: Define Music
Msg-Id:
<3.0.6.32.20001022121902.00909100@texas.net>
In-Reply-To:
<v04220835b6185cae72ac@[62.137.97.188]>
Mbox:
idm.0010.gz
quoted 5 lines genres are invented by journalists (and now dotcoms) as places to>genres are invented by journalists (and now dotcoms) as places to >"hang things"- >not by musicians or record labels that love what they're doing. how >many artist interviews have i read where the artists are unable to >define what to call what they do?????
while i think this is true to an extent. . .it cannot be said that genres are *completely* artificial and imposed by extra-musical forces. i mean, when i sit down to write a tune i will often think about genre. i too have been involved in many genres over my (admittedly shortish) musically conscious life (i'm 26, and let's say that i began to "think" about music in spring 1986 when i bought AoN "Invisible Silence"). since then i've jumped head first into many genres, and declared each to be the lost mother Ur-tounge of music (hip hop, metal, EBM, acid house, techno, belgian hoover tracks, uk 'ardcore, the whole new school ambient thing and idm, drum and bass, and finally whatever slop i'm into now). i like to think that i have matured, at least in the sense that i no longer think that whatever i'm into now is the great white hope of music. yet, at the same time, these genres were incredibly helpful in giving me the lexicon to think about music. sure, i could have been some musical savant who just naturally arrives at whatever semi-informed conclusions i would have arrived at, but that didn't happen. by comparing and contrasting differing musical styles i've learned SO MUCH about what music is. i can talk for hours about the differences in what Cosmic Baby (great example) and, say, Remarc brought to the musical table in 1994. i get invigorated by these discussions, and the whole "thesis + antithesis = synthesis" thing just gives me a boner. perhaps i'm just a jaded postmodernist crap artist, but i absolutely appreciate the differences in genre as something to examine and (possibly) cherish. i understand that Ninja Tune is based on the "melting pot" ideal, which is absolutely fantastic and probably one of the reasons that i consider it to be the best label in the world right now. but you can't say with a straight face that Vibert (whom i love), Roots Manuva (whom i don't), Burnd Friedmann and others on NT don't think about genre. Friedmann, a wonderful example, uses genre as a diving board to explore whatever fancy he has at the moment, be it jazz, dub, or pop. maybe if he wasn't doing this he'd just be making whatever electronic music he deemed appropriate (the musical savant thing), but he CHOOSES to align himself with these conceits, and i think the reasons for him ding so are obvious. personally i love this. hell, i'd love to see him explore tejano or black metal or appalachian folk, just to hear what a new perspective on old thinking can do. anyhow, i really wish i could boil down this stupid post into something simple and to-the-point. what i'm trying to say is that genre/formalism is a double-edged sword. it's not uniformly evil or good. i'd hate to think that the fact that journalists can option to use these labels does dilute their usefulness to honest musicians and appreciators of music. i will continue to use these labels, and if it makes me some kind of brainwashed robot then so be it :P </self-righteous> ------------ 1642 try 621 ------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org