IDM Mailing Archive

hey. just saw that issue of _entertainment weekly_ with the articles on the electronica "revolution" and was appalled at how innacurate they were. i'm thinking of writing a rebuttal of sorts, though since lots of electronic music's categories are somewhat fluid, i thought i'd ask all of you a couple of questions before i stuck my neck out. the writer david browne calls techno "the music's purist, most basic style" as well as "the basic building blocks of the electronic music scene of the '90s." all of which seems fair enough to me. but then he calls the chem bros.'s "setting sun" an example of this. can anyone out there defend the notion of the chem bros. being considered as techno? (keep in mind he's not using "techno" here as the catchall description of all electronic dance music.) he also lists utah saints, prodigy and underworld as further examples of techno, which isn't innaccurate, but certainly is unrepresentative -- you'd think from reading this that techno is primarily a vocal music. he also goes on to recommend the compilations _wipeout xl_ and _special brew_, both of which certainly have some techno on them, but neither of which are by any stretch techno compilations thru and thru (would it have killed him to mention sm:)e's _best of techno series_ or astralwerks's _detroit: beyond the 3rd wave_?). or do you folks think i'm wrong? in the ambient section of his piece, he refers to orbital's _in sides_ as an example. i think "ambient techno" would be more accurate, but am i just being pedantic? he also includes fsol as an example of ambient, which is sort of true, tho it might have been nice to mention that their soundscapes often include rather noisy, non-ambientish percussive events. the stuff he wrote about jungle was even worse, but i'll bother the folks at the breaks list about that and spare you all. so -- am i right that this guy doesn't really know from when he speaks, or am i being overly persnickety? all comments -- including criticism -- welcome.