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

← back to listing · view thread

From:
Brian & Sharon Beuchaw
To:
Date:
Tue, 7 Jan 1997 22:23:11 -0600 (CST)
Subject:
Re: (idm) in defense of orbital
Msg-Id:
<Pine.BSI.3.95.970107220853.12341A-100000@enteract.com>
In-Reply-To:
<3.0.32.19970107175518.006a1d0c@sunspot.tiac.net>
Mbox:
idm.9701.gz
On Tue, 7 Jan 1997, Ben Morrison wrote:
quoted 8 lines I was at work, listenig to In Sides, "The Box" to be precise, and a man> > I was at work, listenig to In Sides, "The Box" to be precise, and a man > came up to me, one I had never talked to before to tell me that the music I > was listening to was beautiful. This led to many other dropping by my cube > to enquire about what music I had on. Now I listen to allot of techno/IDM > stuff at work, and no other artist has ellicited any reaction from the > others I work at. They hate techno, yet embraced the entirety of In Sides > becuase of it's beauty.
Actually (and I'm not running down Orbital here, 'cos I think they do good stuff), they prob'ly embraced it because it is *accessible*. This is not always a bad thing, contrary to some opinions. I like Orbital (not to the point of adulation, however), but I do think they're popular because people can listen to them without hurting themselves. :-) I regularly listen to music that most people don't want to listen to because it requires too much of them or is too complex to "get" easily (Fushitsusha, John Zorn, Skinny Puppy, Coltrane, Arcana, some d'n'b, some electronica, etc.). Most people don't want to push themselves outside their preconceived notions of what "music" is like (how's *that* for a generalization?) and Orbital, I think, stays "In-Side" :-) this comfortable limit while still being complex enough to reward repeated listening and appeal to those of us who like our music "harder than most". Anyway, just my opinion and not much idm content there, sorry.... cya brian