Who cares what label you put on it (besides some pretentious
wankers). It's fucking good. Isn't that what matters most?
-m
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, ian wrote:
quoted 31 lines Here's a reply to the message "[idm] kid a vs. homogenic" written on
> >Here's a reply to the message "[idm] kid a vs. homogenic" written on
> >Thu, 12 Oct 2000 14:10:31 -0400 (EDT):
> >
> >>if bjork's homogenic wasn't idm in 1997, then how the hell can radiohead's
> >>kid a be idm in 2000?
> >
> >Well, I've always thought of Bjork as being closer to the IDM
> >fraternity than any other. The Sugarcubes were always a whacky,
> >way-out sorta indie group and once Bjork hooked up with 808 State
> >there was no looking back as far as her connections with electronic
> >music was concerned.
> >
> >>i mean, c'mon... idioteque is the only song that really has that
> >>idm-esque music.
> >
> >You need to listen to some more stuff on the Fat Cat label. Too
> >electronic to be called "indie", too indie to be called electronic.
> >
> >>i wonder if they've even heard of "idm"...
> >
> >Who knows. The term does seem to be used more in the US than it does
> >in Europe.
>
> That's probably 'cause americans are fucking idiots. And, by the way, I called the IDM main offices in NYC and they said homogenic was IDM, even for '97, go figure. I dont know about Kid A, either, it always seems to take the offices quite a long whileto determine the Intelligent Danceable quality of works of art. I still havent even heard the album yet, personally, I'm anxious to see how the style has progressed.
>
> Ian
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
>