IDM Mailing Archive

It seems that many people on the list are assualting orbital (as well as other artists) purely on the basis that they are either a) somewhat commercialized or b) musically appriciable by the general public. This attitude reeks of musical snoobery and in reality makes very little logical sense. Commercial or Popular is not synonymous with bad. If the general public can enjoy a composition, that only adds to the strength of the composition. Personally, I rate music by how enjoyable it is and how long I can listen to it without becoming bored. Many, many great musical works have sold alot of records, and were very commercial in their time. Consider works by artists such as Miles Davis or Duke Ellington. I am willing to bet that they have sold far more records than orbital or any other idm artist. Mozart was highly popular in his time (and commissioned by nobility which was the equivalent of being commercial). Still, upon listening to his work, one cannot deny the utter genius of the composition. The same goes for Beethoven, Bach, Lizst, Handel, and many other composers. When rating idm, I would call anything that sounded interesting, pleasurable, and intellectually stimulating a good composition. If after two years and many listenings I still enjoy the piece, I would call it an excellent compostion. I don't care whether the album was produced by MTV and sold 18 billion copies or if it was part of some obscure, european, 500 copy limited edition set. The same rules of judgement always apply. ` -Reagan (Helium is NOT a dairy product)

In a message dated 09/01/97 03:35:13, you write:

quoted 2 lines Commercial or Popular is not synonymous with bad. If the general public

> Commercial or Popular is not synonymous with bad. If the general public > can enjoy a composition, that only adds to the strength of the composition.

Whoa there, you've got your head in the clouds. You obviously don't have to spend hour after hour at work having to listen to horrible pop radio trash because that is what everyone else likes. I'm sorry, but the general public is a huge mass of moronic people, and the world couldn't function if it were any other way.

quoted 1 line Personally, I rate music by how enjoyable it is and how long I can listen

> Personally, I rate music by how enjoyable it is and how long I can listen

to

quoted 1 line it without becoming bored. Many, many great musical works have sold alot

> it without becoming bored. Many, many great musical works have sold alot

of

quoted 1 line records, and were very commercial in their time.

> records, and were very commercial in their time.

The general public don't buy music because they like it, it's because they hear it on a TV advert, or they heard it in a car while they had sex with a stranger, it is more about the memory that the music evokes, rather than the music itself. You assemble a team of advertising executives, and they could sell Aphex Twin's most violent and extreme track to the world's grandmothers, as the world and society revolves around being told what to do through media.

quoted 3 lines Consider works by artists such as Miles Davis or Duke Ellington. I am

> Consider works by artists such as Miles Davis or Duke Ellington. I am > willing to bet that they have sold far more records than orbital or any > other idm artist.

Maybe making music for 40 or more years could have something to do with that.

quoted 2 lines Mozart was highly popular in his time (and commissioned by

> Mozart was highly popular in his time (and commissioned by > nobility which was the equivalent of being commercial).

We live in very different times.

quoted 2 lines When rating idm, I would call anything that sounded interesting,

> When rating idm, I would call anything that sounded interesting, > pleasurable, and intellectually stimulating a good composition. If after

two

quoted 2 lines years and many listenings I still enjoy the piece, I would call it an

> years and many listenings I still enjoy the piece, I would call it an > excellent compostion. I don't care whether the album was produced by MTV

and

quoted 1 line sold 18 billion copies or if it was part of some obscure, european, 500

> sold 18 billion copies or if it was part of some obscure, european, 500

copy

quoted 1 line limited edition set. The same rules of judgement always apply.

> limited edition set. The same rules of judgement always apply.

What you've said is right, but I don't think I'll be rushing down to Woolies to buy top 10 records any time in the near future.. On Now? Share The Fall - Roni Size/Reprazent

quoted 10 lines In a message dated 09/01/97 03:35:13, you write:

>In a message dated 09/01/97 03:35:13, you write: > >> Commercial or Popular is not synonymous with bad. If the general public >> can enjoy a composition, that only adds to the strength of the composition. > >Whoa there, you've got your head in the clouds. You obviously don't have to >spend hour after hour at work having to listen to horrible pop radio trash >because that is what everyone else likes. I'm sorry, but the general public >is a huge mass of moronic people, and the world couldn't function if it were >any other way.

Christ, does this elitist bullshit never end? If an artist makes a brilliant, innovative work of art, full of truth and insights into the human condition, and deliberately makes it so obscure that nobody understands it, what fucking good is it? "The Purpose of Communication is Understanding."* I know I've heard that someplace, and here's a news flash: Art is Communication. As far as I'm concerned, if and artist makes a brilliant, innovative work of art, full of truth and insights into the human condition, and makes it intelligible enough that it can make lots of people laugh, or cry, or think, or feel *something* they haven't felt before, that's about the most beautiful thing in the world. [* ObIDM] Go to your local record store, and buy a Beach Boys greatest-hits compilation. Capitol has put enough of them out that you should have no trouble finding one. Make sure it has "Good Vibrations" on it. Listen to "Good Vibrations." Forget any soda advertisements you may have seen that use it, forget any Muzak versions of it you may have heard. Listen to it. The lyrics are very simple. It's about that feeling of being transported to a place of beauty and perfection you feel when you're falling in love with someone, about wanting that feeling to last forever. Anyone can understand it. Even children can tell you it's about a pretty girl. The vocal performances complement the lyrics, and carry the feeling even more than the lyrics themselves. Listen to the voices cascade over each other. I can't listen to this record without smiling. Finally, listen to the MUSIC. Listen to the details, the percussion, the tempo changes, the way the music builds up into the chorus and then lets you back down for the verses, almost like being separated from that person you love. Listen to the harmonica in the bridge. Listen to the organ in the intro. Finally, listen to the guitar right before the final fade. That guitar, with the theremin under it, lasts for only a few seconds, but if you ask me, it's got as much futuristic power as a thousand Aphex records. "Good Vibrations" was a number-one single in 1967. It made a lot of people very happy that year, and it continues to make a lot of people happy. That's why general appeal adds to a composition's strength. If you can't understand this, I might as well killfile you, because as far as I'm concerned, you're fucking hopeless. ----- For those of you who are having a hard time getting your heads around 'In Sides,' try giving a good close listen to the second part of "Out There Somewhere?" I think it's the lynchpin of the whole album, the catharsis of all the emotion that builds up to the point it begins. In a track full of purgative, purifying riffs and sounds, the riff that comes in at 9:21 stands out for me. It's the moment when all the melancholy and pain that preceded that track are finally washed away completely and the track really turns into the party on the mothership it wanted to be (but couldn't, yet) all along. Bring on your Derrick Mays, your Kraftwerks, your Black Dogs and Aphex Twins. Find their best moments, their best riffs, their best anything. I'll take that riff from "Out There," any day. IDM needs more artists like Orbital, artists who aren't afraid to make personal, emotional records. Artists who take responsibility for their records and don't hedge their bets with a lot of sarcastic bullshit. Artists who make records that an audience outside the little IDM he-man woman-hater's club can enjoy, without compromising their work's quality at all. Artists who believe in humanity, who believe that long, slow journey out of the sea, out of the trees wasn't a waste of time. IDM needs more artists like Orbital. The world needs more artists like Orbital. As far as I'm concerned, 'In Sides' is a gift to the human race. C. -- C.Hilker (cspot@hyperreal.com) "He was mesmerized by the light-pictures, and the music sent him right into dreamland"

I really enjoyed this post. I didn't quote it because it was long. I really liked your example of the beach boys. Funny thing was is that I listened to Pet Sounds on the way to work today. I am basically responding to your comment about emotion and music. I listen to the music because I like to be challenged and have an emotional response invoked. Nothing is better than just laying down and listening to a cd. Letting the music take you places, allowing your mind to visualize what your listening to. This brings me to Orbital and In Sides. For me it did not do any of this. It was just an album. Funny thing is that when I saw them in concert <I saw them 2 nights in a row> it did do this. I was amazed by them and the response I got. Sadly, I went home and tried to listen to the album and got none of this. For some it may work but for me it doesn't. If they would have captured what I saw live then I would have voted it best album of the year. I guess it worked in concert because of their visuals and the way they acted. For me, music shouldn't need any of this. However, opinions vary and people should respect that. Also, for those of you who can't listen to something or declare it as good because it is popular should stop buying music. Your missing the point here. Hell, it makes me happy when I see that people are actually buying something with substance. It is a start. Perhaps it will open someone's mind. And in this day and age we need that. So what was my best album this year? Feed me Weird things. btw, anyone know about a band called Spirit Feel. I picked it up in a bargain bin the other day and I was most pleased. The cd is self titled and on the wax trax/tvt label. -dan

On Thu, 9 Jan 1997, Chris.Hilker wrote:

quoted 1 line here's a news flash: Art is Communication. As far as I'm concerned, if

> here's a news flash: Art is Communication. As far as I'm concerned, if

Thank you for defining Art for everyone. I'm glad your personal intpretation is now the rule, and the foundation for your entire arguement. Luckily, art and its definition is left up to the individual intrepreting it. If art=communication for you, great. Just don't assume everyone has the same definition as you. In agreement of sorts... The general public, as the word general implies, are not passionate enough about anything to really do anything about it. However, everyone has some passion about something, ours just happens to be music. So we don't listen to pop radio. Watch the way most people enjoy music...they want to sing along, to have the artists expression more immediate. If that's someone's gig, that's cool. So if someone's passion is Super Mario Brothers, sports, trading stocks and bonds, snowboarding, porn, soaps, etc. more power to 'em. At least their passionate about something. Kelly

On Thu, 9 Jan 1997, Chris.Hilker wrote:

quoted 1 line here's a news flash: Art is Communication.

> here's a news flash: Art is Communication.

I disagree. Written to the Cage list (silence@bga.com) by me, Nov. '95: "As I understand it, Cage believed the 'signal' (as you say) contains no objective "content" whatsoever except the sounds. This does not mean the sounds cannot evoke a reaction or emotions, according to Cage, but this is purely up to the listener. I agree with this only in the sense that--as in other conventional forms of communication--the person speaking (etc.) places words on the table, and the person listening picks them up. The listener does not necessarily hear what was said. Accurate, effective communication is nonetheless possible." May '95: "Neither can one prove the composer's intention. Even by asking the composer. They may not recall correctly. They may have accomplished something different than they intended. They may have accomplished exactly what they intended, and many other things which they did not intend. None of this has much to do with the actual piece of music." --Mark __ <http://www.xnet.com/~mkolmar/BurningRome> ==> MPEG audio clips <== m u s i c : w e b : s o u n d d e s i g n : h t m l : c g i : e t c "We invented machines in order to reduce our work. Now that we have them, we think we should go on working." (John Cage)

In message <970109144738_239163954@emout02.mail.aol.com>, Humanerr0r@aol.com writes

quoted 3 lines music itself. You assemble a team of advertising executives, and they could

>music itself. You assemble a team of advertising executives, and they could >sell Aphex Twin's most violent and extreme track to the world's grandmothers, >as the world and society revolves around being told what to do through media.

You've hit the nail on the head there, as far as I can tell. The majority of the general public are simply sheep, who follow the next big thing that they're told to like by magazines etc. It ends up with everyone wearing the same clothes (checked shirt phenomenon of last year fr'instance), listening to the same music (but not *really* listening) and going to the same nightclubs. Grrrr -- Ben Coffer Hybrid Productions

On Thu, 9 Jan 1997, Chris.Hilker wrote: ]If an artist makes a brilliant, innovative work of art, full of truth and ]insights into the human condition, and deliberately makes it so obscure ]that nobody understands it, what fucking good is it? <endquote> I think that I speak for every "artist" I know personally in saying that the only reason to create "art" is to entertain oneself. To do otherwise would be a waste of time. .------------------------------------------------------------------------. | nm: nickworthington | ml: nworth1@umbc.edu | "Gott wuerfelt nicht!" ae | |------------------------------------------------------------------------| | http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~nworth1 | [.sig_gn] @ 17:00:00 EST on 12.21.96 | `------------------------------------------------------------------------'

. Bring on your Derrick

quoted 8 lines Mays, your Kraftwerks, your Black Dogs and Aphex Twins. Find their

>Mays, your Kraftwerks, your Black Dogs and Aphex Twins. Find their >best >moments, their best riffs, their best anything. I'll take that riff >from >"Out There," any day. > >IDM needs more artists like Orbital, artists who aren't afraid to make >personal, emotional records. Artists who take responsibility for their

oand don't hedge their bets with a lot of sarcastic bullshit.

quoted 13 lines Artists who make records that an audience outside the little IDM

>Artists who make records that an audience outside the little IDM >he-man >woman-hater's club can enjoy, without compromising their work's >quality >at all. Artists who believe in humanity, who believe that long, slow >journey out of the sea, out of the trees wasn't a waste of time. IDM >needs more artists like Orbital. The world needs more artists like >Orbital. As far as I'm concerned, 'In Sides' is a gift to the human >race. > >C. > >--

we have obviously reached a level of irrationality and insanity unsurpassed on this list to date....i hear sirens....many of them....and they all sound like orbital tracks.... tom w np: kraftwerk - radioactivity

From: Alistair Stray <storm@powernet.co.uk> To: idm@hyperreal.com Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Thu, 9 Jan 1997, Chris.Hilker wrote: ]If an artist makes a brilliant, innovative work of art, full of truth and ]insights into the human condition, and deliberately makes it so obscure ]that nobody understands it, what fucking good is it? <endquote> If the artist says they made it deliberately obscure then maybe it's more likely that they failed to transmit their message as well as they would have liked. I hear this methodology espoused quite a lot, and it always seems to be a cop out to me. Your completely right, it's no fucking good at all. It is a waste of time. Somebody said art was for self entertainment, that has to be wrong unless you keep it to yourself. If you try to sell it, or display it, then you are seeking validation for your work. If an artist doesn't seek validation then fair enough, but don't make the rest of us suffer listening or viewing it. As soon as you try to sell it then the self entertainment starts to be questioned. YES, you are exploring yourself through your art, but your now also trying to see what peoples reactions are. You are trying to see how you can alter the scene you see yourself as being part of. Another waste of time is battling against commercial success. I'm a video artist, and I'm well established in the live circuit here in the UK. And I would love commercial success, if I can quit my day job and concentrate on my art I would be a hell of a lot happier. It would give me more time to concentrate on my art, without the distractions of rent, food and my tune addiction. So when Andy Weatherall (after we worked with him at a gig in Leeds) asked if I could produce a two hour video to accompany 'The Fifth Mission' LP I jumped at it, eyes wide and with broad grin. It wouldn't give me enough to live on, and I would still have my day job. BUT, it would get me noticed more, and would lead on to more work. However the current silence from 'Emissions' is deafening. Avant Garde means advanced guard. Anyone who describes themselves such, and shies away from any sort of commercial crossover doesn't understand the term. Either that, or they are scared of failure. Or worse, they are hiding from the fact that they're not good enough to make an impression. I'm completely open to the fact that what I do maybe invalid, pointless and poor. If my work is good/bad or irrelevant is not my decision. That is the decision of the spectator, the art gallery, the club, the audience and posterity. I have some confidence from the success of various shows, and also from the distribution of some of my more traditional video art. I know I do have an audience. But if I were to rest on my laurels I wouldn't be doing anyone any favours, least of all myself. Some people say that Post modernism is a new description of a phase we have been through a lot historically. Basically it happens when there is no Avant Garde about to change things, so we end up reanalysing and reprocessing previous work. Therefore anyone who is doing something even slightly different must fight like hell to get it noticed, if they don't then Art will never advance at all. I mix four decks of audio and three video sources to improvise art films on the fly. It's very rewarding, the reactions of the audience have a direct effect on how my films progress. I can always find somewhere to do this, I can always find an audience. But it's my edited work, the traditional form of the video art medium, where I want the most success. Because that is the accepted face of the medium, and that is the acceptable route to commercial crossover. Although the live work is the most rewarding, it's also a pain in the arse technically. If I can survive by making a couple of music videos and then concentrate the proceeds into my art then my life would be complete. I want money. And money will not compromise my art. self promotion bit: Will be at the Big Chill Benefit, Brixton, with Hexstatic and Netmare on the 14th FEB. FutureSONIC again later in the year for the proper full on show. Transmedia Berlin, all being well. - Stray http://users.powernet.co.uk/storm

Ben Coffer wrote:

quoted 6 lines In message <970109144738_239163954@emout02.mail.aol.com>,

> > In message <970109144738_239163954@emout02.mail.aol.com>, > Humanerr0r@aol.com writes > >music itself. You assemble a team of advertising executives, and they could > >sell Aphex Twin's most violent and extreme track to the world's grandmothers, > >as the world and society revolves around being told what to do through media.

sorry, i just don't agree....if it was that simple, then why haven't they done it.....sure, the media has alot to do with such things, but it's a combo of the media and having a product the masses want. why do you think that god awfull ID4 movie was so big....big media push combined with total formula that's easy to digest....................... if the media was so powerfull, there would be no such thing as a one hit wonder(jesus jones, emf, blah, blah, blah.....the fact that these bands are of questionable merit shouldn't enter the equation; since lord knows their record label pushed the hell out of that last Jesus Jones album.......... Don't get me wrong, i know the media is a huge factor in deciding what people like.......i just don't think it's that black and white......... (Colombia or whoever sure spent a hell of a lot of dough on Living Color, and where are they now?) (and goodness knows people like crap just because Spin tells them too (just check out the chemical brothers mailing list...oi vey!....but i'll bet Guided By Voices list is mighty quiet!!) just my thoughts..... Brian eeyore@zebra.net on now: Paris: Sleeping With the Enemy

In a message dated 12/01/97 22:41:30, you write:

quoted 1 line here's a news flash: Art is Communication.

> > here's a news flash: Art is Communication.

quoted 1 line I disagree.

> I disagree.

quoted 1 line Written to the Cage list (silence@bga.com) by me, Nov. '95:

> Written to the Cage list (silence@bga.com) by me, Nov. '95:

quoted 4 lines "As I understand it, Cage believed the 'signal' (as you say) contains no

> "As I understand it, Cage believed the 'signal' (as you say) contains no > objective "content" whatsoever except the sounds. This does not mean the > sounds cannot evoke a reaction or emotions, according to Cage, but this is > purely up to the listener.

Absolutely in agreement. Doesn't the best idm works this way - that the listener can absorb the abstract and adapt the moods of the music for their own situation. It's what irritates me about Orbital with their 'meaningful' stage projections and flatulent angst_ridden samples (on Snivilisation at least), and Autechre's Keynell Remix sleeve comment. I'm thinking 'Shut up! I just don't want to know!!' Each to his own though, you know... On Now? My Mini Pops Junior DM..