IDM Mailing Archive

There is an interview with our friend Rich in the latest issue of FACE magazine along with some pictures of him floating in space inside a lightbulb. heh. _______ (__,-, \ / /\ \ f l u i d /,_) \ \ (/ \\ brit@chopin.udel.edu \) flu'id (floo'-)

On Fri, 11 Mar 1994, Alan Michael Parry wrote:

quoted 5 lines There is an interview with our friend Rich in the latest issue of FACE

> > There is an interview with our friend Rich in the latest issue of FACE > magazine along with some pictures of him floating in space inside a > lightbulb. heh. >

Not to mention in the issue after next of XLR8R. Anyone have anything they particularly want asked? Peace, Matt <(hcy)> XLR8R Magazine, Seattle

On Fri, 11 Mar 1994, Matthew Corwine wrote:

quoted 1 line On Fri, 11 Mar 1994, Alan Michael Parry wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Mar 1994, Alan Michael Parry wrote:

I didnt write it, just forwarded it ;) flu'id (floo'-)

quoted 6 lines There is an interview with our friend Rich in the latest issue of FACE

> > > There is an interview with our friend Rich in the latest issue of FACE > magazine along with some pictures of him floating in space inside a > lightbulb. heh. >

He's in the new Melody Maker (MM) and New Music Express (NME) too. He was in MM January 22 issue...that's the one I typed in...with most the article being quotes from him... And he's in just about any other 'zine you can think of!! I believe I heard something about World News or Nat'l Inquirer printing something about RDJ's twin brother being found on a crashed alien ship in some desert...Nevada...near Area 51 or somewhere...he spoke of the technology he's been learning from the aliens which he makes his musical gear with... I think... :) Anyway, I'm surprised nobody's even been disappointed or anything due to RDJ "sellingout" as a commercial artist...he is very popular. Is he not the top seller in techno ("techno" in the very broad/general sense)?? I suppose he is an artist in the true sense. He does say he could just lock himself up in the studio and not care about selling records (except he does enjoy a small amount to buy him new toys)...but then who knows... -djkc

djkc <djkc@blkbox.com> writes:

quoted 2 lines Anyway, I'm surprised nobody's even been disappointed or anything due to

> Anyway, I'm surprised nobody's even been disappointed or anything due to > RDJ "sellingout" as a commercial artist...he is very popular.

Oh yeah. The Aphex Twin sounds just like Pearl Jam, Alice In Chains, Soundgarden. Or is it that he sounds like 2 Unlimited, Captain Hollywood Project, and Robin S? I think it's quite obvious that Richard James isn't doing music for the money. His music is anything but commercial, and it is very popular because it's GOOD MUSIC. Why is it that the techno crowd nowadays is so naive as to think anybody who sells alot of records isn't making good music? I would MUCH rather have MTV watchers listening to Moby, The Aphex Twin, or the Orb than to 50,000 Variations of 'Rhythm is a Dancer.' I'd much rather have them watching 'On' than some shite top 40 track. 99% of all the IDM artists out there are much more deserving of mass popularity than Snoop Doggy Dogg, Garth Brooks or Guns N Roses.

quoted 2 lines Is he not the top seller in techno ("techno" in the very broad/general

> Is he not the top seller in techno ("techno" in the very broad/general > sense)??

So what if he is? Just maybe it's because he's so _good_. Why the hell should we be disappointed if his video does get heavy rotation on MTV or his record sells three million copies? *I* will be extremely happy to see a truly deserving artist get rewarded for once. Flame away, but if you ask me, fuck the underground. Techno and IDM would do alot more good if the listenership weren't so restricted to an elitist few. Always keep this in mind folks: You don't deserve to be able to listen to 'halycon' any more than Eddie Vedder does. :) - Dan |=|=|=|=\=|=\=|=\=|=\=|=\=|=/=|=/=|=/=|=/=|=|=|=|-------------------------- The 8-BIt Collective - Transmission 23 - edrone dan nicholson, Clonor the Other - Finnish Techno Zyndicate 8bit@vlad.bowker.com -=>ICBM volume one available soon!<=- moddan@vlad.bowker.com "This message has been sent out - did you originate it?"

quoted 9 lines djkc <djkc@blkbox.com> writes:

> > djkc <djkc@blkbox.com> writes: > > > Anyway, I'm surprised nobody's even been disappointed or anything due to > > RDJ "sellingout" as a commercial artist...he is very popular. > > Oh yeah. The Aphex Twin sounds just like Pearl Jam, Alice In Chains, > Soundgarden. Or is it that he sounds like 2 Unlimited, Captain Hollywood > Project, and Robin S?

I agree, he doesn't. So, I'm wondering how he's becoming a success. You say it's because it's "GOOD MUSIC", but who are you to say that the above artists (Pearl Jam, Robin S) are NOT good music? As I said before, it's taste...opinion...there are no rights or wrongs.

quoted 3 lines I think it's quite obvious that Richard James isn't

> I think it's quite obvious that Richard James isn't > doing music for the money. His music is anything but commercial, and it is > very popular because it's GOOD MUSIC.

How is it OBVIOUS that he's not doing it for the money? Do you know him personally? Just cause he says it in a magazine doesn't mean it's true. He may start to like the money if he doesn't yet...then what? Will he become a sell-out like Robin S? (Just to let you know MY opinion - which is irrelevant to the main debate - I could care less if he made millions or went TOP 40, just as long as I get to listen to it cause he *IS* one of my favorites). You say he's anything but commercial, meaning he hasn't sold much yet? Somehow I got the impression that he was the leading seller in the techno underground (whatever that is).....well I mean, among the rave-style artists, he's become a hit. How is he less commercial than Moby?

quoted 3 lines Why is it that the techno crowd

> Why is it that the techno crowd > nowadays is so naive as to think anybody who sells alot of records isn't > making good music?

Exactly! It's not so much as just naivete, but also there is the element of elitism which is wholey anti-rave. There are ravers who don't like other ravers, and it shouldn't be this way...not only should music and events be bringing us together, but there should be opened-mindeness which does too. So I'm not sure if you may be naive or elitist, as it seems like you began your message flaming Pearl Jam - Robin S. Maybe it's just me reading it as "Aphex is successful because he's _GOOD_ while the others aren't". If this is so, then how are they as much a success as they are? Your statements are totally opinion, and are not absolute. So try to be more objective. However...

quoted 5 lines I would MUCH rather have MTV watchers listening to Moby,

> I would MUCH rather have MTV watchers listening to Moby, > The Aphex Twin, or the Orb than to 50,000 Variations of 'Rhythm is a > Dancer.' I'd much rather have them watching 'On' than some shite top 40 > track. >

I would too. But you're calling everything else shite. If it all is shite, then where do they deserve to be other than the Top40 charts & playlists? Your answer to this would be totally opinion...personal taste. Those guys got to be Top 40 because of something...could it be that there music is "GOOD" according to way more many people than the number that even ever HEARD of Aphex Twin? Imagine that...people liking Pearl Jam and Robin S...pfft! OK, sarcasm aside, I just want to point out that there is relatively a small number of people that love Aphex and are making him a success by buying his commercial music recordings...this means a small group, which I don't want to see become an elitist group...but rather a select few with good judgement (i.e., have made good choice in an artist such as Richard James, who, because of his rare music, shouldn't not be allowed to become Top 40, and *I* think he should!).

quoted 3 lines 99% of all the IDM artists out there are much more deserving of mass

> 99% of all the IDM artists out there are much more deserving of mass > popularity than Snoop Doggy Dogg, Garth Brooks or Guns N Roses. >

As I said, it's opinion...there is no absolute justice in who deserves massive popularity. And don't tell me that it's lack of money and promotions; music should sell itself based on quality, moreso than quantity. If quality is good, demand rises, and popularity is inevitable.

quoted 7 lines Is he not the top seller in techno ("techno" in the very broad/general

> > Is he not the top seller in techno ("techno" in the very broad/general > > sense)?? > > So what if he is? Just maybe it's because he's so _good_. Why the hell > should we be disappointed if his video does get heavy rotation on MTV or > his record sells three million copies? *I* will be extremely happy to see a > truly deserving artist get rewarded for once.

I too. I was not saying that I am disappointed, but wondering why others weren't, as it's common that such a thing happens; i.e., artist goes mainstream and fans lose that feeling of being "special." There are plenty of truly deserving artist who HAVE been rewarded! Believe it or not, millions of people think that Michael Jackson and Madonna deserve the rewards they've gotten. It's all opinion in what you consider truly deserving. There are plenty of starving artists out there (including me) who atleast one person thinks they deserve reward (hopefully not just me!) but it's basically MAJORITY RULE in the matter of who has most records sold and goes Top 40.

quoted 6 lines Flame away, but if you ask me, fuck the underground. Techno and IDM would

> > Flame away, but if you ask me, fuck the underground. Techno and IDM would > do alot more good if the listenership weren't so restricted to an elitist > few. Always keep this in mind folks: You don't deserve to be able to listen > to 'halycon' any more than Eddie Vedder does. :) >

I agree with you more than I flame you! :) It shouldn't matter if the listenership is restricted to a FEW, just as long as they don't have that elite, arrogant, egotistic attitude which could bring infamy upon the fans, or worse, the artists they listen to.

quoted 1 line - Dan

> - Dan

Nice topic, eh? :) -djkc

djkc <djkc@blkbox.com> writes:

quoted 4 lines I agree, he doesn't. So, I'm wondering how he's becoming a success.

> I agree, he doesn't. So, I'm wondering how he's becoming a success. > You say it's because it's "GOOD MUSIC", but who are you to say that the > above artists (Pearl Jam, Robin S) are NOT good music? As I said before, > it's taste...opinion...there are no rights or wrongs.

Well, actually I don't feel that way. There certainly *IS* bad music out there. I think 99% of the people here on IDM would agree with me that Richard James is much more talented than Eddie Vedder. And I'd rather not get into the subjectivism thing here in IDM. As for who I am to say that those bands are not making good music, I'm someone who has been exposed to far more different styles of music than the average listener, which is the main reason why I am convinced that everyone should be exposed to music other than the current mainstream norm.

quoted 2 lines How is it OBVIOUS that he's not doing it for the money? Do you know him

> How is it OBVIOUS that he's not doing it for the money? Do you know him > personally? Just cause he says it in a magazine doesn't mean it's true.

I'm saying this not because I read it in a magazine; to the contrary, I've never seen him talking about the money thing either way. I'm saying it based on common sense and the music that he's making. If he were in it for the money, he'd be "producing" for rap "musicians" and making pop music. If I am wrong, and he IS doing it for the money, then at the very least I think you will agree he picked an unlikely method for making an easy buck.

quoted 5 lines He may start to like the money if he doesn't yet...then what? Will he become

> He may start to like the money if he doesn't yet...then what? Will he become > a sell-out like Robin S? (Just to let you know MY opinion - which is > irrelevant to the main debate - I could care less if he made millions or went > TOP 40, just as long as I get to listen to it cause he *IS* one of my > favorites).

I agree. Really I don't care if he's doing it for the money, since I feel he *deserves* it. My argument is that techno artists like Moby and Aphex Twin

quoted 1 line You say he's anything but commercial, meaning he hasn't sold much yet?

> You say he's anything but commercial, meaning he hasn't sold much yet?

Meaning he's not making music like everyone else you hear on the radio. Sure, he's on MTV, but name one other song on MTV that sounds like "On". He's unique. Commercialism and commercial appeal to myself, and to a great number of record company executives means more of the same old shit. Techno artists as a whole are totally going against that trend, which is why techno music is superior to current mainstream pop radio.

quoted 3 lines Somehow I got the impression that he was the leading seller in the techno

> Somehow I got the impression that he was the leading seller in the techno > underground (whatever that is).....well I mean, among the rave-style artists, > he's become a hit. How is he less commercial than Moby?

I'm 99% sure that he's not. I am 99.9% sure that Moby has sold more records than he, and from the figures I've seen for sales of some of his 12"es, he's not even close. One of them (can't remember which one offhand, maybe analogue bubblebath) sold something like 30,000 (actually, that number _may_ be as low as 18,000, I can't remember the exact figure offhand). The Goodmen's "Giving It Up" sold about 160,000 for comparision. Moby's music is a bit further away from the bleeding edge of avante-garde music (which I consider the farthest opposite of "commercial" music) but I really don't think he's a sellout either. He's doing his own unique thing.

quoted 4 lines Exactly! It's not so much as just naivete, but also there is the element

> Exactly! It's not so much as just naivete, but also there is the element > of elitism which is wholey anti-rave. There are ravers who don't like other > ravers, and it shouldn't be this way...not only should music and events be > bringing us together, but there should be opened-mindeness which does too.

:-) What's really funny is that we're basically saying the same things, and yet it looks like we're disaggreeing.

quoted 2 lines So I'm not sure if you may be naive or elitist, as it seems like you began

> So I'm not sure if you may be naive or elitist, as it seems like you began > your message flaming Pearl Jam - Robin S.

Ok, I admit that this is an opinion. Some person totally off their fucking rocker (again, IMHO) might just prefer Robin S. or Pearl Jam to Scubadevils or Orbital. But I think a virgin listener (in the aural sense folks) would choose IDM over grunge. I refuse to believe that some people have genes that make them like grunge or 50 pop songs that sound quite literally the same.

quoted 3 lines Maybe it's just me reading it as "Aphex is successful because he's _GOOD_

> Maybe it's just me reading it as "Aphex is successful because he's _GOOD_ > while the others aren't". If this is so, then how are they as much a > success as they are?

Marketing. This is what I've been saying: *people don't have an alternative*. I firmly believe that if techno artists were as well known and represented (on record labels with major distribution, heavy MTV rotation, etc) as rock and pop musicians most of this week's Top 40 songs wouldn't even be in the top 400. I grew up listening to pop rock because it's all that was accessible to me. It's still this way for many people, who may not have import record stores or non-music corporation controlled radio stations by which they can gain access to other forms of music.

quoted 4 lines I would MUCH rather have MTV watchers listening to Moby,

> > I would MUCH rather have MTV watchers listening to Moby, > > The Aphex Twin, or the Orb than to 50,000 Variations of 'Rhythm is a > > Dancer.' I'd much rather have them watching 'On' than some shite top 40 > > track.

quoted 1 line I would too. But you're calling everything else shite. If it all is shite,

> I would too. But you're calling everything else shite. If it all is shite,

No, actually I was calling the 20 or so club tracks that have a spitting image of the sequence from "Rhythm is a Dancer" as their "original music". Even rock musicians rarely get away with _that_.

quoted 1 line then where do they deserve to be other than the Top40 charts & playlists?

> then where do they deserve to be other than the Top40 charts & playlists?

Quite frankly, nonexistent. Music made for the _sole_ purpose of making money (and I've seen quite enough to convince me that most of today's top 40 is) is shite. I will just laugh if someone disagrees with that opinion. I guess that makes me an elitist of some form :)

quoted 4 lines Your answer to this would be totally opinion...personal taste.

> Your answer to this would be totally opinion...personal taste. > Those guys got to be Top 40 because of something...could it be that there > music is "GOOD" according to way more many people than the number that > even ever HEARD of Aphex Twin? Imagine that...people liking Pearl Jam and

_No_. What i am saying is that these people like these groups because they've never had the chance to hear anything better. The only reason these people believe this music is good is because they don't know of anything else out there. It's a commercial form of brainwashing.

quoted 7 lines OK, sarcasm aside, I just want to point out that there is relatively a

> OK, sarcasm aside, I just want to point out that there is relatively a > small number of people that love Aphex and are making him a success by buying > his commercial music recordings...this means a small group, which I don't > want to see become an elitist group...but rather a select few with good > judgement (i.e., have made good choice in an artist such as Richard James, > who, because of his rare music, shouldn't not be allowed to become Top 40, > and *I* think he should!).

Huh? I think i agree. I want everyone to hear techno, IDM and ambient (and trance, and world music, and traditional arabic music, and _everything_ else out there). I am very disappointed by the current pop music out there, and so I am eager for people to "see the light" by the exposure of techno to the public.

quoted 3 lines As I said, it's opinion...there is no absolute justice in who deserves massiv

> As I said, it's opinion...there is no absolute justice in who deserves massiv > popularity. And don't tell me that it's lack of money and promotions; music > should sell itself based on quality, moreso than quantity.

It *SHOULD* sell itself based on quality. However, my entire point is based upon the fact that music is currently selling itself largely upon *availability*. Also it's important to remember that millions of people aren't really making their own minds up about what they listen to: a select group of people in A&R positions are. It's these peoples' opinions that are dictating what becomes popular.

quoted 1 line If quality is good demand rises, and popularity is inevitable.

> If quality is good demand rises, and popularity is inevitable.

Not if no one hears the music! And this of course is the problem with the elitist techno scene and the music industry as a whole.

quoted 3 lines I too. I was not saying that I am disappointed, but wondering why others

> I too. I was not saying that I am disappointed, but wondering why others > weren't, as it's common that such a thing happens; i.e., artist goes > mainstream and fans lose that feeling of being "special."

I dunno. I have seen a few disgruntled people, but most of these people weren't terribly enamored of RJ in the first place. I think people are finally accepting that selfishness (ie "doesn't it suck that big life is going to release all the rare Orb stuff so millions will own my until-now ultra-rare bathroom recording of Perpetual Dawn that only nineteen people have ever heard before) does not enhance our rave culture. At least I hope this is the case.

quoted 7 lines There are plenty of truly deserving artist who HAVE been rewarded!

> There are plenty of truly deserving artist who HAVE been rewarded! > Believe it or not, millions of people think that Michael Jackson and Madonna > deserve the rewards they've gotten. It's all opinion in what you consider > truly deserving. There are plenty of starving artists out there (including > me) who atleast one person thinks they deserve reward (hopefully not just me! > but it's basically MAJORITY RULE in the matter of who has most records sold > and goes Top 40.

Sad to say, but it's not the case. The market is not dictating the product. The product is dictating the market. As I said before, a tiny number of people in high places are deciding which artists will suceed and which won't. However, it's basically fact that technology will make these people obselete within the next twenty years and distribution will be as easy for you and I as for Moby and Madonna.

quoted 4 lines Flame away, but if you ask me, fuck the underground. Techno and IDM would

> > Flame away, but if you ask me, fuck the underground. Techno and IDM would > > do alot more good if the listenership weren't so restricted to an elitist > > few. Always keep this in mind folks: You don't deserve to be able to listen > > to 'halycon' any more than Eddie Vedder does. :)

quoted 1 line I agree with you more than I flame you! :)

> I agree with you more than I flame you! :)

yes, we actually are agreeing much more than disagreeing.

quoted 1 line It shouldn't matter if the listenership is restricted to a FEW, just as long

> It shouldn't matter if the listenership is restricted to a FEW, just as long

whoah. it does matter. i don't believe the listenership should be "restricted" at all. i think it should be encouraged to grow as much as possible. My opinion (g) is that any restriction can only hurt the culture and music.

quoted 2 lines as they don't have that elite, arrogant, egotistic attitude which could

> as they don't have that elite, arrogant, egotistic attitude which could > bring infamy upon the fans, or worse, the artists they listen to.

This I agree with. Fuck elitish bullshit :)

quoted 1 line Nice topic, eh? :)

> Nice topic, eh? :)

:-) - Dan |=|=|=|=\=|=\=|=\=|=\=|=\=|=/=|=/=|=/=|=/=|=|=|=|-------------------------- The 8-BIt Collective - Transmission 23 - edrone dan nicholson, Clonor the Other - Finnish Techno Zyndicate 8bit@vlad.bowker.com -=>ICBM volume one available soon!<=- moddan@vlad.bowker.com "This message has been sent out - did you originate it?"

Before I reply, I wanna say that it's hard to tell sometimes from the tone of my posts if I'm for or against - agreeing or disagreeing - with certain points. This is most likely due to my being hardcore about a debate or topic, just so all the meaty points come out. Dan Nicholson wrote:

quoted 17 lines _No_. What i am saying is that these people like these groups because

> _No_. What i am saying is that these people like these groups because > they've never had the chance to hear anything better. The only reason these > people believe this music is good is because they don't know of anything > else out there. It's a commercial form of brainwashing. > > It *SHOULD* sell itself based on quality. However, my entire point is based > upon the fact that music is currently selling itself largely upon > *availability*. Also it's important to remember that millions of people > aren't really making their own minds up about what they listen to: a select > group of people in A&R positions are. It's these peoples' opinions that are > dictating what becomes popular. > > > If quality is good demand rises, and popularity is inevitable. > > Not if no one hears the music! And this of course is the problem with the > elitist techno scene and the music industry as a whole. >

[...]

quoted 7 lines Sad to say, but it's not the case. The market is not dictating the product.

> Sad to say, but it's not the case. The market is not dictating the product. > The product is dictating the market. As I said before, a tiny number of > people in high places are deciding which artists will suceed and which > won't. However, it's basically fact that technology will make these people > obselete within the next twenty years and distribution will be as easy for > you and I as for Moby and Madonna. >

I agree with 99% - if not all - of what your talking about here! Commercial brainwashing, and the A&R people controlling what's pumped into the heads of the masses. It's sad to think that there's people who listen to music mindlessly. IDM is all about the opposite of this. But I'd say we on this list are more into loving music than those mindless masses are. I mean, these masses I speak of have more important things to do & think about than being critical about music. Music is more background to them than it is to us. And it would be really great if Aphex were to make them stop, open their eyes, and see the light! :) Well, atleast make them pause and pay attention to the music and possibly realize that they've been brainwashed until now... But with this A&R 'conspiracy' in mind, if Aphex Twin became as hardcore Top40 mainstream as "Rhythm is a Dancer," would you still buy & listen to him? I assume yes. But then, wouldn't his repertoire be a part of the 'conspiracy'? He'll be pumped into every club, radio, ears just like "Rhythm is a Dancer." So you're against the elite power held by the people who select what's gonna be popular (is it soley A&R?), unless it's Aphex Twin...then you'll condone what the 'conspiracy' stands for? See this is where a kind of contradiction comes in. "Brainwashing is bad, unless it's Aphex!" :) It's all opinion... But I see what you mean about the product dictating the market...and about technology taking over distribution. And I suppose it *IS* about how much promotion, exposure, and distribution the artist and his/her music get. Imagine: What if promotion, exposure, and distribution of ALL forms of music were the same in the states here...equal number of copies of whichever recording medium is being sold...same pricing and all...and equal exposure for all artists...then where would the wind blow? Who would be the most popular, and where would Aphex fit in? What would this (hypothetical) market be like? Something to think about... :) -djkc p.s. - If I make no sense at all, or contradict myself, it most likely would be due to the fact that it's 6:20am and I've been up all night!

The following is long, but I think it's well worth reading, if only to get another side of the picture. On Sun, 13 Mar 1994, Dan Nicholson wrote:

quoted 2 lines I think 99% of the people here on IDM would agree with me that

> I think 99% of the people here on IDM would agree with me that > Richard James is much more talented than Eddie Vedder.

Apples and oranges. You can't compare a singer to a musician. Is Aretha Franklin more or less talented than Stevie Ray Vaughn? You can't say. Not only are they attempting to achieve completely different ends, but they have completely different means for doing so.

quoted 5 lines As for who I am to say that

> As for who I am to say that > those bands are not making good music, I'm someone who has been exposed to > far more different styles of music than the average listener, which is the > main reason why I am convinced that everyone should be exposed to music > other than the current mainstream norm.

Oh, well excusez-moi, Mr. I've-heard-more-styles-of-music-than-thou. People *should* be exposed to what they want to be exposed to, nothing more and nothing less. Has it occurred to anyone that, bad as most of us think she is, some people actually *enjoy* listening to Mariah Carey? Sure, I think that US radio should be less segmented and there should be more experimentation, but just like every other art form, the high-quality music *will* have an audience, whether it is large or not. It is only those of us willing enough to take chances that will hear it, but fortunately, for the most part, there are *always* enough of us to make some quality form of music viable. I'm sick and tired of the theory that "the masses are clueless; only we know what good music really is." This delusional and condescending attitude makes one seem like a complete snob, which turns people *off* to the music you're trying to expose them to. When I give someone a piece of music that I know is very different from what they've listened to, I will usually tell them, "I happen to think this stuff is fantastic, but you might not. It's (harsher/more ambient/noisier/less melodic/whatever) than what you usually listen to, but if you give it a chance, you just might go for it." And by far, more people have ended up giving it an open mind and enjoying it than they used to, when I just handed them a tape and said "This stuff is godlike; you're gonna love it." I happen to think that Pearl Jam is making *great* music. I also think that AFX is making *great* music. They are making *different* music, and I make no attempt to compare one to the other. If I had to choose one or the other to take with me to a desert island, I'd agonize over the choice for days, end up flipping a coin, and not be happy with the choice no matter which one it was, because I was missing the other. And don't get me wrong. If _Selected_Ambient_Works_II_ goes triple-platinum I'd be the happiest guy (besides Richard James :-) on Earth. But if it doesn't I'm not going to fret about it because, well, it couldn't be expected to accomplish such a thing, no matter how good it is.

quoted 4 lines He's unique. Commercialism and commercial appeal to myself, and to a great

> He's unique. Commercialism and commercial appeal to myself, and to a great > number of record company executives means more of the same old shit. Techno > artists as a whole are totally going against that trend, which is why > techno music is superior to current mainstream pop radio.

Oh, please. Dross is dross, no matter how you dress it up, and just as there's tons of pop dross, there's tons of techno dross as well. I would agree to the statement "Richard James' music is superior to *most* current mainstream pop radio," but nothing more, and certainly not a blanket statement like "Techno is superior to top 40."

quoted 6 lines Ok, I admit that this is an opinion. Some person totally off their fucking

> Ok, I admit that this is an opinion. Some person totally off their fucking > rocker (again, IMHO) might just prefer Robin S. or Pearl Jam to Scubadevils > or Orbital. But I think a virgin listener (in the aural sense folks) would > choose IDM over grunge. I refuse to believe that some people have genes > that make them like grunge or 50 pop songs that sound quite literally the > same.

This is the silliest thing I've ever read. One does not have to be "off one's rocker" to prefer Pearl Jam to Orbital. And shame on you for thinking so. You have *no* right to dictate to anyone but yourself what is worth listening to and what isn't. You just have to have a different frame of mind and expect different things from your music. You can refuse to believe what you like, but I think the numbers belie your conclusion.

quoted 5 lines Marketing. This is what I've been saying: *people don't have an

> Marketing. This is what I've been saying: *people don't have an > alternative*. I firmly believe that if techno artists were as well known > and represented (on record labels with major distribution, heavy MTV > rotation, etc) as rock and pop musicians most of this week's Top 40 songs > wouldn't even be in the top 400.

Well, you're wrong. Point fucking blank. And do you know why? Because record companies have *nothing* to gain by pushing one set of artists over another *if* it is the case that either one will produce equal returns. If Elektra *truly* thought that Moby could sell as much as Metallica, don't you think they'd spend an equal amount of marketing dollars to make this so, so that they could rake in even more money? Of course they would. But they won't because no matter how good you or I think Moby is, the fact is that his market is limited, and that limitation is much lower than that of Metallica. And now I'm going to make your argument for you: Why is Metallica huge? Because Elektra started pushing the "One" video on MTV relentlessly, leading to lots of plays for it, leading to an introduction to the band, which carried over into massive success for their next album. It was the accessibility that did it. Once they had major label support and play on MTV, they automatically became popular. The same could happen to Moby if Elektra pushed them enough. This argument ignores a number of salient facts. First, Metallica signed to Elektra in 1985, a year before the _Master_Of_Puppets_ album, long before "One" was released. Second, the reason MTV played "One" so much was by *viewer* request, not marketing. Third, "One" is an atypical song for Metallica; most of their songs (ie, "Enter Sandman") are faster, heavier and "dirtier" (for lack of a better term). If anyone listened to "One" and bought _...And_Justice_For_All_ based on it, it is very possible they would have disliked the album. This would not translate directly into massive first-week sales for _Metallica_ (it debuted at #1 on the Billboard chart). Fourth, while "One" was a popular MTV video and single purchase, it did *not* by any stretch translate into airplay, because at the peak of "One"'s popularity, it hit the mid-30s on the pop chart and only *one* of the polled stations countrywide even had it in its playlist. Its chart strength was almost *entirely* sales. (Which is also true for "Enter Sandman," so that doesn't explain the big first-week sales for _Metallica_ either.) My point here is that while exposure *did* drive Metallica's popularity somewhat, that exposure was not driven by Elektra (and *definitely* not by top-40 radio) but by the American public. After all this time, they decided they *wanted* Metallica, and Elektra was more than happy to give it to them in large doses. But it was a happy accident more than anything else. Perhaps one of these days, the American public will tell Elektra, "We want Moby!" But until then, don't expect Elektra to push Moby any more than they did Metallica in their earlier days.

quoted 1 line I grew up listening to pop rock because it's all that was accessible to me.

> I grew up listening to pop rock because it's all that was accessible to me.

So did I, and so did most people. So how come only some of us ended up here, while the *vast* majority of people are still stuck in top-40-land? Because we decided to test other waters, to see what else was out there. Most people don't want to do that, don't have the time, or simply don't care. I don't have a problem with that. It's human nature: stick with what you know. I won't begrudge the masses their Madonna, as long as I can have my Aphex Twin, and, as you can see, I'm getting it.

quoted 4 lines Quite frankly, nonexistent. Music made for the _sole_ purpose of making

> Quite frankly, nonexistent. Music made for the _sole_ purpose of making > money (and I've seen quite enough to convince me that most of today's top > 40 is) is shite. I will just laugh if someone disagrees with that opinion. > I guess that makes me an elitist of some form :)

Personally, I thought Sigue Sigue Sputnik's album was *brilliant*. :-) Money-making ability aside, I think that most top-40 is crap too, but strictly from a quality standpoint. I don't have to stand on the commerce soapbox to make my point, because occasionally there's a cool track or ten that makes the top-40 and I don't want to have to turn away from it just because it's making money.

quoted 4 lines _No_. What i am saying is that these people like these groups because

> _No_. What i am saying is that these people like these groups because > they've never had the chance to hear anything better. The only reason these > people believe this music is good is because they don't know of anything > else out there. It's a commercial form of brainwashing.

You're giving people much less credit for their personal tastes than you ought to. This is a disturbing characteristic of your entire email.

quoted 6 lines It *SHOULD* sell itself based on quality. However, my entire point is based

> It *SHOULD* sell itself based on quality. However, my entire point is based > upon the fact that music is currently selling itself largely upon > *availability*. Also it's important to remember that millions of people > aren't really making their own minds up about what they listen to: a select > group of people in A&R positions are. It's these peoples' opinions that are > dictating what becomes popular.

Ah, I get it now, it's the "grassy knoll" theory. Give me a break. As many bands that become "popular" for a short period of time, there are ten times as many failures. Bands that A&R people have pushed hard that just didn't sell anything, because it just wasn't very good, or it wasn't accessible enough, or whatever. Their CDs are available in mass quantities for $1 at used CD stores (and for $5.99 in cutout bins) everywhere.

quoted 2 lines Not if no one hears the music! And this of course is the problem with the

> Not if no one hears the music! And this of course is the problem with the > elitist techno scene and the music industry as a whole.

Who's calling the scene "elitist"? Not me. You certainly fit into that category, though.

quoted 6 lines Sad to say, but it's not the case. The market is not dictating the product.

> Sad to say, but it's not the case. The market is not dictating the product. > The product is dictating the market. As I said before, a tiny number of > people in high places are deciding which artists will suceed and which > won't. However, it's basically fact that technology will make these people > obselete within the next twenty years and distribution will be as easy for > you and I as for Moby and Madonna.

And I guarantee you that on that day, Madonna will still outsell Moby. By a lot. And then your entire argument will disappear.

quoted 2 lines My opinion (g) is that any restriction can only hurt the culture

> My opinion (g) is that any restriction can only hurt the culture > and music.

True. But you are pretending that there are restrictions to techno becoming massively popular, when I happen to believe that it's just about as popular as one would expect. - Adam J Weitzman INDIVIDUAL, Inc. weitzman@individual.com

Adam J Weitzman wrote:

quoted 6 lines I'm sick and tired of the theory that "the masses are clueless; only we

> > I'm sick and tired of the theory that "the masses are clueless; only we > know what good music really is." This delusional and condescending > attitude makes one seem like a complete snob, which turns people *off* to > the music you're trying to expose them to. >

Is that quoted theory from someone's post? Or are you putting words in someone else's mouth? The masses *are* clueless...due to the their ignorance of a wider musical spectrum. Nobody is saying "only we know what good music really is." We're just saying that Top40 rarely gives way to alternative/experimental stuff, which means the masses stay ignorant to the stuff. If they are given the chance to hear it from the places where they hear current Top40 (clubs, radios, MTV), then they are given a spectrum to choose from! The masses shouldn't have to blindly (or rather deafly) buy music they aren't sure about, or be required to have a friend to give them a sample (as you say you do, but this isn't mass exposure or distribution). The masses only stick to what they know. Most people don't arbitrarily try out new stuff in a music store unless they've been exposed to it...a lot. And to give the masses a choice, the music currently not being exposed as much should be given atleast equal exposure. I'm not saying be in the charts regardless of popularity, but it should all be given as much chance as the "One" video did. BTW, How do you know that is was *viewers'* choice that made that video play so much?? It's very possible that a video can be paid-to-be-played so many times that it's driven into the heads of the masses. And much of the *clueless* masses *will* buy into it. Mainly because other varieties of music don't get equal exposure and thus don't seem "popular". Masses do go with the flow. Your argument is that each music deserves the level of popularity that it currently has...that techno deserves to be right where it is... My argument is opposite. It's NOT the masses which make the music popular - - it's the music which makes the masses popular: Stick to the norm, conform, fit in, go with the flow. Well, it is a little bit of both, but MORESO the latter than the former. No, it's not the "grassy knoll" theory, but rather more subtle, it's corporate conspiracy. A big reason why techno is not up there in the Top40 is because it's on SMALL labels run by SMALL businesses, rarely corps. Aphex is getting recognition (exposure) know because he's on a BIGGER label, not because the viewers/masses requested him. So he's being given a chance like Metallica did, but there will be unequal exposure... Popularity of music is not due totally to the interest/disinterest of the masses; it's moreso due to the industry. Only a small number of people even heard of Aphex Twin. This is due to the industry! Not because the masses don't request it! HOW CAN THEY REQUEST SOMETHING THEY HAVEN'T HEARD??? And about snobbery: I find more snobs in the current Top40 world (however, due to the fact that there are more people in the mainstream, the percentage of snobs will be a greater number). There are more closed-minded people... They aren't willing to go against the flow! This happened to me lastnight; going around mainstream/Top40 clubs lastnight promoting for a rave, there are SO many cautious, unsure, some stuck-up, snobby, ignorant, closed-minded people (or maybe it's just Houston:)... WHEREAS, at a rave, nearly everyone is basically easy to chat with on a similar wavelength (well, this may be due to the fact that ravers have a more common wavelength than the vast variety of people in the mainstream do with each other). But anyway, I find many more NUMBERS of open-minded, intelligent people at raves than I do in the masses (and raves are ITTY BITTY compared to the masses!!!) Don't call us elite simply because we are a small people powerfully trying to expose the masses to the music that we play. There are those of us who get so frustrated with the industry sometimes that they seem like arrogant elitist jerks, but this should not affect the music or the mass' decisions and opinions on the music itself. So those who indeed DO have that attitude of "The top40 you listen to is crap; here, listen to some REAL music" can't be blamed for any music's unpopularity among the masses...but it would help to prevent a notorious rave scene if this attitude were left at home (I have a friend who is like this and was promoting with me last night...he turned several people off, but those people were rather snobby to begin with). Anyway, I hope atleast some of this post has valid points which disprove your theory that "techno deserves to be right where it is." How can it deserve to be there when the ladder hasn't been raised to give it a chance to climb??? The major force which raises this ladder is the industry, not the music quality or choice of the masses. That's my argument. -djkc

Whoops, here I go again. I gotta say, this ambient techno stuff really is conducive to writing long passages about the music industry. The last one was on Cabaret Voltaire's _Plasticity_; this one's on Moby's _Ambient_. On Mon, 14 Mar 1994, djkc wrote:

quoted 10 lines Adam J Weitzman wrote:

> Adam J Weitzman wrote: > > I'm sick and tired of the theory that "the masses are clueless; only we > > know what good music really is." This delusional and condescending > > attitude makes one seem like a complete snob, which turns people *off* to > > the music you're trying to expose them to. > > Is that quoted theory from someone's post? Or are you putting words in > someone else's mouth? > > The masses *are* clueless...

OK, so I'm quoting from your post now. :-)

quoted 1 line due to the their ignorance of a wider musical spectrum.

> due to the their ignorance of a wider musical spectrum.

Ignorance is not cluelessness. The two are not synonymous. Cluelessness implies some familiarity with the subject matter, ie, a person who says "all techno sounds the same to me," or when presented with any piece of techno says "turn that techno shit off" within ten seconds without allowing it to develop, is clueless. The average top-40 radio listener has not been exposed to much techno at all, and is thus ignorant.

quoted 2 lines We're just saying that Top40 rarely gives way to alternative/experimental

> We're just saying that Top40 rarely gives way to alternative/experimental > stuff, which means the masses stay ignorant to the stuff.

This is a tautology.

quoted 1 line Nobody is saying "only we know what good music really is."

> Nobody is saying "only we know what good music really is."

Dan Nicholson, who said "someone completely off their rocker might prefer Pearl Jam to Orbital," was definitely making a statement that the average person does not know what really good music is, whereas he does (and, by extension, the people who like what he likes).

quoted 5 lines The masses shouldn't have to blindly (or rather deafly) buy music they aren't

> The masses shouldn't have to blindly (or rather deafly) buy music they aren't > sure about, or be required to have a friend to give them a sample (as you > say you do, but this isn't mass exposure or distribution). The masses > only stick to what they know. Most people don't arbitrarily try out new > stuff in a music store unless they've been exposed to it...a lot.

True. But it's not necessarily in a radio station's best interest to do this. Let's try and live in the real world here. It's a self-perpetuating circle, but it starts with the consumer, not the record company.

quoted 4 lines And to give the masses a choice, the music currently not being exposed as

> And to give the masses a choice, the music currently not being exposed as > much should be given atleast equal exposure. I'm not saying be in the charts > regardless of popularity, but it should all be given as much chance as the > "One" video did.

The people have to ask for it. At one time, "One" was only played during Headbanger's Ball, just as "On" will likely only be played during 120 Minutes unless there's an outcry for it.

quoted 4 lines BTW, How do you know that is was *viewers'* choice that

> BTW, How do you know that is was *viewers'* choice that > made that video play so much?? It's very possible that a video can be > paid-to-be-played so many times that it's driven into the heads of the masses. > And much of the *clueless* masses *will* buy into it.

Because MTV hardly ever played it except during their Top 20 Request Countdown at the time. (Of course, nowadays, they hardly play anything except during their top 20 request countdown. I don't know when people are seeing videos that they then request later on, because I sure as hell never do when I switch on MTV.) Before the requests started rolling in, "One" was not being played during the day. It was in its specialized compartmentalized show until lots of people phoned up MTV and told them that they wanted to see it more often, during the day. And that drove it to #1 on the Top 20 Request Countdown, and after *that* they started playing it in a "regular" rotation. Of course, Sire could do the easy thing and pay MTV to make "On" a "Buzz Clip" or something (and I'm sure this is how clips get into that situation), but they obviously feel that it won't come back to them in record sales. What does that tell you?

quoted 2 lines other varieties of music don't get equal exposure and thus

> other varieties of music don't get equal exposure and thus > don't seem "popular". Masses do go with the flow.

True. But there's certainly enough spanners in the works to show you that that isn't *always* the case.

quoted 2 lines Your argument is that each music deserves the level of popularity that it

> Your argument is that each music deserves the level of popularity that it > currently has...that techno deserves to be right where it is...

No, I said nothing about *deserving*, I was talking about *expectation*. I fully expected techno to reach the current level of popularity it has now, and it would surprise the hell out of me if all of a sudden Moby, The Aphex Twin and FSoL were crashing the US Top 40. I would be elated, to say the least, but I would be surprised as hell.

quoted 4 lines My argument is opposite. It's NOT the masses which make the music popular -

> My argument is opposite. It's NOT the masses which make the music popular - > - it's the music which makes the masses popular: Stick to the norm, conform, > fit in, go with the flow. Well, it is a little bit of both, but MORESO the > latter than the former.

Of course there's a fad element here, but for the most part, I don't think that people buy music because all their friends have it or that it is being rammed down their throats on MTV. No matter how much MTV (or WFNX, the station I listen to most here in Boston) plays "Laid" by James, I'm not going to like the song and I'm not going to buy the single/album/ whatever. And this is not to say that all music consumers think like me, but it makes sense that, over the long haul, you buy what you like.

quoted 4 lines it's corporate conspiracy. A big reason why techno is not up

> it's corporate conspiracy. A big reason why techno is not up > there in the Top40 is because it's on SMALL labels run by SMALL businesses, > rarely corps. Aphex is getting recognition (exposure) know because he's on > a BIGGER label, not because the viewers/masses requested him.

Uh, excuse me, but, just how did The Aphex Twin end up on that bigger label, hmmmm? It couldn't be because he was selling lots of records and Sire wanted to cash in, hmmmm? Just maybe? Or perhaps they're taking a loss on him and are doing it just for street cred? (NOT!) This is a *company* with a bottom line, and if they didn't think AFX was/would be popular they wouldn't have signed him.

quoted 2 lines So he's being

> So he's being > given a chance like Metallica did, but there will be unequal exposure...

Until he proves himself, yes. Just like Metallica. And just maybe, seven years from now, Sire's investment will pay off and RDJ will sell 450,000 copies of _Selected_Ambient_Works_IX_ in its first week of release. These things take time, though, and you can't expect it to happen overnight. Remember, Elektra had Metallica for four years before they even released a video or a single. (And "One" was the second single from _Justice_.)

quoted 4 lines Popularity of music is not due totally to the interest/disinterest of the

> Popularity of music is not due totally to the interest/disinterest of the > masses; it's moreso due to the industry. Only a small number of people even > heard of Aphex Twin. This is due to the industry! Not because the masses > don't request it! HOW CAN THEY REQUEST SOMETHING THEY HAVEN'T HEARD???

The industry cannot possibly exert as much influence over the consumer market as you think they do. They sign what they think will become popular so that they can make money. It cannot possibly be that they sign someone, and force everyone to buy their record, thereby making them popular. This is just backwards. Now granted, the label definitely has some star-making capability, and a little marketing goes a long way. I'm not denying that. But you guys are talking about it like it's the norm, and it just ain't so. I agree that the label has to give the music exposure, but you can't expect them to do so if they don't think the music will succeed on a sales level. Somewhere, the expectation of what the artist can do for the label has to enter into the equation. If Sire thought that _SAW2_ would sell 5,000 copies, they never would have signed him. Obviously, they are going to make some sort of attempt at making his music gain some level of popularity. But after that point, he's on his own. They're only going to sink so much marketing capital into him before they decide they're throwing money down a hole, and he has to make up the difference by selling to a wider market. This is simple economics, folks. If Sire thinks they can sell 300,000 copies of _SAW2_, you can be darn sure they'll try to do it, because it is very much in their interest to do so. They gain nothing by "holding him back," so to speak.

quoted 2 lines Anyway, I hope at least some of this post has valid points which disprove

> Anyway, I hope at least some of this post has valid points which disprove > your theory that "techno deserves to be right where it is."

It does. Except that was never my theory to begin with.

quoted 3 lines How can it deserve to be there when the ladder hasn't been raised to give

> How can it deserve to be there when the ladder hasn't been raised to give > it a chance to climb??? The major force which raises this ladder is the > industry, not the music quality or choice of the masses. That's my argument.

And it's a valid one, and I agree with you. What I'm disagreeing with is the notion that the record companies somehow drive the consumer to buy certain things, which makes them popular. There are far too many exceptions to the rule (both successes that had no label backing and failures that had tons) for it to even be considered a rule. Yes, the label gives it a push, sometimes a big push, but in the end the consumer makes the choice. Elektra had to *beg* Metallica to make a video for "One," and they did so because they thought that if Metallica had more exposure, they could sell 2 million copies of _Justice_ (as well as a healthy number of "One" singles). And they were right. They didn't beg them to make a video for "Orion" or "Disposable Heroes" (songs from _Master_Of_Puppets_) because at the time it would not have made them any more popular and would not have sold any more records. Now, they may have ben right and they may not have, but it's kind of like the stock market: some of it is guesswork and some of it is self-fulfilling prophecy. Sure, deciding how to push a band is an art, not a science. But it's a consumer-driven art. The consumer builds the canvas on which the record companies must paint its favorite colors on. Sometimes, different canvases demand different colors. I think it's obvious that now, the labels are seeing the value in techno acts, so that when the consumer canvas demands techno colors, they'll be ready to splash it on in large amounts. This is the buildup here, folks. They obviously think they can make it happen, as the signings of Moby and The Aphex Twin clearly indicate. - Adam J Weitzman INDIVIDUAL, Inc. weitzman@individual.com

Adam J Weitzman wrote:

quoted 9 lines Ignorance is not cluelessness. The two are not synonymous. Cluelessness

> > > Ignorance is not cluelessness. The two are not synonymous. Cluelessness > implies some familiarity with the subject matter, ie, a person who says > "all techno sounds the same to me," or when presented with any piece of > techno says "turn that techno shit off" within ten seconds without > allowing it to develop, is clueless. The average top-40 radio listener has > not been exposed to much techno at all, and is thus ignorant. >

OK, I'll try to be more accurate from now on! :)

quoted 6 lines Of course, Sire could do the easy thing and pay MTV to make "On" a "Buzz

> > Of course, Sire could do the easy thing and pay MTV to make "On" a "Buzz > Clip" or something (and I'm sure this is how clips get into that > situation), but they obviously feel that it won't come back to them in > record sales. What does that tell you? >

I dunno, maybe they think he's high-risk? What does it tell you? Why do they obviously feel that way? Because Sire has NOT made it a "buzz clip"?

quoted 6 lines other varieties of music don't get equal exposure and thus

> > other varieties of music don't get equal exposure and thus > > don't seem "popular". Masses do go with the flow. > > True. But there's certainly enough spanners in the works to show you that > that isn't *always* the case. >

I see. When I say "other varieties," I most likely mean techno (ambient, trance, etc) because that's what we on IDM are into (keeping this debate relevant to the list), so who are some examples of BIG label techno spanners that don't fit the case?

quoted 9 lines Your argument is that each music deserves the level of popularity that it

> > Your argument is that each music deserves the level of popularity that it > > currently has...that techno deserves to be right where it is... > > No, I said nothing about *deserving*, I was talking about *expectation*. I > fully expected techno to reach the current level of popularity it has now, > and it would surprise the hell out of me if all of a sudden Moby, The > Aphex Twin and FSoL were crashing the US Top 40. I would be elated, to say > the least, but I would be surprised as hell. >

Hm, I see. Well, why did you expect it to go only this far? Is it due to the industry, or the music quality, or expected popular demand? Who or what is to blame? And how can we solve the problem and get what we listen to (and what's played at raves) up in the charts?

quoted 13 lines it's corporate conspiracy. A big reason why techno is not up

> > > it's corporate conspiracy. A big reason why techno is not up > > there in the Top40 is because it's on SMALL labels run by SMALL businesses, > > rarely corps. Aphex is getting recognition (exposure) know because he's on > > a BIGGER label, not because the viewers/masses requested him. > > Uh, excuse me, but, just how did The Aphex Twin end up on that bigger > label, hmmmm? It couldn't be because he was selling lots of records and > Sire wanted to cash in, hmmmm? Just maybe? Or perhaps they're taking a > loss on him and are doing it just for street cred? (NOT!) This is a > *company* with a bottom line, and if they didn't think AFX was/would > be popular they wouldn't have signed him. >

My conspiracy theory WAS pretty far fetched. :*) [mentality of the industry deleted] That's it! That's what bugs me! It's the OUT-FOR-MONEY attitude which keeps SO many artists from being given a chance. Labels won't know if they should take a chance unless there's demand...unless someone else takes a chance (like Grant at RePHLeX). Everybody's gotta climb this absurd ladder! The industry selects what it sells...but the consumer selects what s/he buys... The artists NEED exposure to GET exposure...it's like you NEED money to GET money...you NEED experience to GET a job that gives you experience... the rich get richer and the poor stay poor. Sometimes I hate the conflictist, dog-eat-dog, capitalist society we live in... OK, that's out of my system...back to the topic. :)

quoted 12 lines How can it deserve to be there when the ladder hasn't been raised to give

> > > How can it deserve to be there when the ladder hasn't been raised to give > > it a chance to climb??? The major force which raises this ladder is the > > industry, not the music quality or choice of the masses. That's my argument. > > And it's a valid one, and I agree with you. What I'm disagreeing with is > the notion that the record companies somehow drive the consumer to buy > certain things, which makes them popular. There are far too many > exceptions to the rule (both successes that had no label backing and > failures that had tons) for it to even be considered a rule. Yes, the > label gives it a push, sometimes a big push, but in the end the consumer > makes the choice.

Well, my "conspiracy" was far fetched, but the way the industry is selective about what it promotes/exposes has a large influence on the masses...and the masses really can't demand something they don't know about (RePHLeX has done a great job in exposing Aphex, thus he got popular demand, and is now on Sire) so they select from what's available...and what's available is selected by the industry...and what the industry selects is based a lot on what the people select...etc...etc...etc...Industry & Consumer go hand-in-hand when it comes to an artist's success I suppose...but for the artist, it must be like trying to climb a greased pole most of the time!

quoted 10 lines Sure, deciding how to push a band is an art, not a science. But it's a

> > Sure, deciding how to push a band is an art, not a science. But it's a > consumer-driven art. The consumer builds the canvas on which the record > companies must paint its favorite colors on. Sometimes, different canvases > demand different colors. I think it's obvious that now, the labels are > seeing the value in techno acts, so that when the consumer canvas demands > techno colors, they'll be ready to splash it on in large amounts. This is > the buildup here, folks. They obviously think they can make it happen, as > the signings of Moby and The Aphex Twin clearly indicate. >

What do you think? Do you think they CAN make it happen? Do you think it WILL happen? Do you (personally) want it to happen? I sure do!!!!!!!!! Wouldn't it be nice if it were the other way around? Industries build the canvas and we, the consumers&artists, do the painting. :) So, debating point-for-point aside, and I agreeing with most if not all of your points, how can we either make this industry better, or learn to work with the current one in a better way? I'd like to learn about the industry before I dive in head first...as I'm a (starving) artist. Don't wanna get taken advantage of and starve even more! :) I've got a decent book called _Sound_Advice:_The_Musician's_Guide_to_the_Record_Industry_ by Wayne Wadhams. It's got the industry flowchart, explanations of royalties, lawyers and how to do business, and copies of contracts and forms in the back. Any suggestions for how to "beat the system" are greatly appreciated. Too bad Moby isn't on this list -- he could share some experience and ideas with us, and/or learn a thing or two.

quoted 1 line - Adam J Weitzman

> - Adam J Weitzman

-djkc

quoted 3 lines Who or what is to blame? And how can we solve the problem

>Who or what is to blame? And how can we solve the problem >and get what we listen to (and what's played at raves) up in the >charts?

I've been trying to stay out of this discussion but I can be silent no longer. This point has me infuriated... Who says keeping techno out of the charts is a PROBLEM!? First off, you don't say which charts you're talking about, but I'll assume you mean the Billboard singles chart. Well, there's only one way onto *that* chart - payola. And I can't see anybody shelling out the $ required just to get Aphex Twin on the Hot 100! If you don't believe me or don't know what I'm talking about, read the book "Hit Men" by Fredric Dannen. It explains everything you never wanted to know about the US record industry. Put it this way: even Pink Floyd can't get on the chart without paying the right people. Charts are inherently bogus anyway. In the dance scene you have magazine editors calling you up and negotiating what position you'll appear at. Or you have DJ Top 10s which usually just list their friends' records or even records that haven't come out yet and maybe never will. What I can't figure out is why you are so desperate to have music you like validated by these creeps. Good music stands on its own. Jon's Chart: Cotton Club - Dowhatchawanna System Exclusive - The Cat Single Cell Orchestra - Unleashing The Horrors Of Some Of Our Great Power Tranquility Bass - Broadcast Standard Series #1 Juno Reactor - Transmissions Freaky Chakra - (white label) Praxis - Sacrifist Underworld - Dubnobasswithmyheadman Higher Intelligence Agency - Colourform Ramp - Rock The Discotek /jon

quoted 4 lines Charts are inherently bogus anyway.

> > Charts are inherently bogus anyway. > Good music stands on its own. >

That's good enough for me, Jon! --- DJKC's Singles Chart: 4 Voice - "Music Hypnotizes" (FAX) Illuminatae - "Termora del Terra" (XVX vs. Monotone) Opium Dreams - "Final Notice" (Homegrown) Soundscape - "Do they mean us?" (Indian) Defender - "Feel It remixes" (Gyroscope) United States of Sound - "Oscillator" EP (Bomba) Airplay - "Artic Trance" (Bonzai) Orange 8 - "Out There" (<23>) Arpeggiators - "Elements" EP (Harthouse) Astronuts - The Nasa EP (Zebra) --- -djkc

Adam J Weitzman <weitzman@individual.com> writes:

quoted 3 lines Whoops, here I go again. I gotta say, this ambient techno stuff really is

> Whoops, here I go again. I gotta say, this ambient techno stuff really is > conducive to writing long passages about the music industry. The last one > was on Cabaret Voltaire's _Plasticity_; this one's on Moby's _Ambient_.

quoted 1 line This is a tautology.

> This is a tautology.

Isn't 'tautology' a CV track? I could swear i've seen it on one of their albums. :-)

quoted 2 lines Dan Nicholson, who said "someone completely off their rocker might

> Dan Nicholson, who said "someone completely off their rocker might > prefer Pearl Jam to Orbital," was definitely making a statement that the

No, I said IMHO someone completely off their rocker might prefer Pearl Jam to Orbital. This is my opinion of the two bands; people that are off their rocker include my best friend, who likes Pearl Jam, although I think at this point he likes Orbital more. :)

quoted 2 lines average person does not know what really good music is, whereas he does

> average person does not know what really good music is, whereas he does > (and, by extension, the people who like what he likes).

Again, this is my opinion: that the average person, meaning the person who's musical experience consists of MTV, top-40 radio and Sam Goody record stores, has not been exposed to a large enough variety of music to really appreciate music. They simply don't have enough of a reference point from which to make their decisions, so they're taking whatever they find. If all you've been exposed to is one type of music, you're probably not going to be very critical of the actual quality of the music. I certainly was not while i was growing up listening to casey kasem.

quoted 4 lines Of course, Sire could do the easy thing and pay MTV to make "On" a "Buzz

> Of course, Sire could do the easy thing and pay MTV to make "On" a "Buzz > Clip" or something (and I'm sure this is how clips get into that > situation), but they obviously feel that it won't come back to them in > record sales. What does that tell you?

how is this so obvious? there are a number of reasons why they might not want to do such a thing. what does it tell you? that 1) Sire feels the practice of paying for playing is unethical (this is always a possibility)? 2) richard james sucks and has no potential for commercial appeal (this does appear to be what you're insinuating) 3) Sire is making a big mistake? 4) Sire is absolutely correct to think that it won't come back to them?

quoted 6 lines Of course there's a fad element here, but for the most part, I don't think

> Of course there's a fad element here, but for the most part, I don't think > that people buy music because all their friends have it or that it is > being rammed down their throats on MTV. No matter how much MTV (or WFNX, > the station I listen to most here in Boston) plays "Laid" by James, I'm > not going to like the song and I'm not going to buy the single/album/ > whatever. And this is not to say that all music consumers think like me,

exactly. most of them DON'T. that's quite obvious, isn't it, because if they did, they'd be buying techno :) *But* a large number of them WILL buy James' albums, because it's being played so much, and it's what they're hearing.

quoted 1 line but it makes sense that, over the long haul, you buy what you like.

> but it makes sense that, over the long haul, you buy what you like.

this makes sense for you and I, and it's true for us. but the average music consumer sees Snoop Doggy Dog, Michael Bolton and James in the record store commercials, displays, and advertisements, and assumes this is all that's out there, so they satisfy themselves with it. perhaps this means we who actually are getting what we really want are spoiled?

quoted 6 lines Uh, excuse me, but, just how did The Aphex Twin end up on that bigger

> Uh, excuse me, but, just how did The Aphex Twin end up on that bigger > label, hmmmm? It couldn't be because he was selling lots of records and > Sire wanted to cash in, hmmmm? Just maybe? Or perhaps they're taking a > loss on him and are doing it just for street cred? (NOT!) This is a > *company* with a bottom line, and if they didn't think AFX was/would > be popular they wouldn't have signed him.

but they were, and are taking a chance with him, much more so than with a standard pop/grunge/rap/metal band. unfortunately, 99 times out of 100, they go with the safe bet, which, as i said before is 'same old same old' this is why rock music has largely become stagnant and lacks the innovation it did in former decades.

quoted 5 lines The industry cannot possibly exert as much influence over the consumer

> The industry cannot possibly exert as much influence over the consumer > market as you think they do. They sign what they think will become popular > so that they can make money. It cannot possibly be that they sign someone, > and force everyone to buy their record, thereby making them popular. This > is just backwards. Now granted, the label definitely has some star-making

is it so backwards? large companies sometimes buy their own product out of the stores to inflate sales of albums. the record industry exerts just as much influence as we're saying it does, and probably more so. they control almost all the channels of distribution, which is the entire key to what becomes popular.

quoted 3 lines capability, and a little marketing goes a long way. I'm not denying that.

> capability, and a little marketing goes a long way. I'm not denying that. > But you guys are talking about it like it's the norm, and it just ain't > so.

I hate to look like I'm trying to sound superior, but how do you know? Do you have friends in the industry who are telling you what's going on? I do, and this is where I'm getting my facts from. I can fully understand how you can't possibly imagine these kinds of things because these people are getting away with so much it's mind blowing. Advertising's entire purpose is to _create demand_. A large part of that is making people buy something they don't need or want. They do this by _making you think you want it_. That's much of how the record companies go about daily business. - Dan |=|=|=|=\=|=\=|=\=|=\=|=\=|=/=|=/=|=/=|=/=|=|=|=|-------------------------- The 8-BIt Collective - Transmission 23 - edrone dan nicholson, Clonor the Other - Finnish Techno Zyndicate 8bit@vlad.bowker.com -=>ICBM volume one available soon!<=- moddan@vlad.bowker.com "This message has been sent out - did you originate it?"

djkc <djkc@blkbox.com> writes:

quoted 10 lines Adam J Weitzman wrote:

> Adam J Weitzman wrote: > > > > I'm sick and tired of the theory that "the masses are clueless; only we > > know what good music really is." This delusional and condescending > > attitude makes one seem like a complete snob, which turns people *off* to > > the music you're trying to expose them to. > > > > Is that quoted theory from someone's post? Or are you putting words in > someone else's mouth?

He's insinuating that that's what I was saying; basically, I was.

quoted 6 lines The masses *are* clueless...due to the their ignorance of a wider musical

> The masses *are* clueless...due to the their ignorance of a wider musical > spectrum. Nobody is saying "only we know what good music really is." > We're just saying that Top40 rarely gives way to alternative/experimental > stuff, which means the masses stay ignorant to the stuff. If they are > given the chance to hear it from the places where they hear current Top40 > (clubs, radios, MTV), then they are given a spectrum to choose from! The

exactly! exactly! we need a larger variety of content going out over the same high-volume distribution and communications channels that currently largely confine their bandwith to the status quo. (stuff deleted)

quoted 3 lines "One" video did. BTW, How do you know that is was *viewers'* choice that

> "One" video did. BTW, How do you know that is was *viewers'* choice that > made that video play so much?? It's very possible that a video can be > paid-to-be-played so many times that it's driven into the heads of the masses

Many record companies currently do this with MTV. And for those who don't think so, just watch for a while and see how many times you hear the _same_ video (whatever janet jackson's latest is called, and the new Nine Inch Nails song have been practically looping for the last 24 hours) again and again. There is _no_ way that this is based entirely on demand. Even the radio stations can't get away with playing the same song seven times a day. (stuff deleted)

quoted 4 lines more subtle, it's corporate conspiracy. A big reason why techno is not up

> more subtle, it's corporate conspiracy. A big reason why techno is not up > there in the Top40 is because it's on SMALL labels run by SMALL businesses, > rarely corps. Aphex is getting recognition (exposure) know because he's on > a BIGGER label, not because the viewers/masses requested him. So he's being

exactly. it's ridiculous to expect the listeners to dictate what succeeds and fails *unless* the listeners are exposed to something. if no one has seen an aphex album in a store, heard the song on a radio show, or seen a video, how are they supposed to dictate whether or not he succeeds? they can't.

quoted 5 lines given a chance like Metallica did, but there will be unequal exposure...

> given a chance like Metallica did, but there will be unequal exposure... > Popularity of music is not due totally to the interest/disinterest of the > masses; it's moreso due to the industry. Only a small number of people even > heard of Aphex Twin. This is due to the industry! Not because the masses > don't request it! HOW CAN THEY REQUEST SOMETHING THEY HAVEN'T HEARD???

:-) i just read this after saying the same thing above!

quoted 6 lines Don't call us elite simply because we are a small people powerfully trying

> Don't call us elite simply because we are a small people powerfully trying > to expose the masses to the music that we play. There are those of us who > get so frustrated with the industry sometimes that they seem like arrogant > elitist jerks, but this should not affect the music or the mass' decisions > and opinions on the music itself. So those who indeed DO have that attitude > of "The top40 you listen to is crap; here, listen to some REAL music" can't

which, contrary to what some people on here probably think, isn't myself. while i certainly feel that most of it is, i also recognize that it's subjective and that some of it's really good. and also that some techno absolutely sucks.

quoted 5 lines Anyway, I hope atleast some of this post has valid points which disprove

> Anyway, I hope atleast some of this post has valid points which disprove > your theory that "techno deserves to be right where it is." > How can it deserve to be there when the ladder hasn't been raised to give > it a chance to climb??? The major force which raises this ladder is the > industry, not the music quality or choice of the masses. That's my argument.

and a fine argument it is. for Adam, who likes Pearl Jam :-), i have no problem that you like Pearl Jam. I don't, and for _myself_ I would have to be off my wahootie to like it, but i fully expect that some people might really like it. hell, i like Beck. who am I to talk, right? :) - Dan |=|=|=|=\=|=\=|=\=|=\=|=\=|=/=|=/=|=/=|=/=|=|=|=|-------------------------- The 8-BIt Collective - Transmission 23 - edrone dan nicholson, Clonor the Other - Finnish Techno Zyndicate 8bit@vlad.bowker.com -=>ICBM volume one available soon!<=- moddan@vlad.bowker.com "This message has been sent out - did you originate it?"

quoted 1 line I'd much rather have them watching 'On' than some shite top 40 track.

> I'd much rather have them watching 'On' than some shite top 40 track.

`On` was a top 40 track!

quoted 2 lines 99% of all the IDM artists out there are much more deserving of mass

> 99% of all the IDM artists out there are much more deserving of mass > popularity than Snoop Doggy Dogg, Garth Brooks or Guns N Roses.

This is true, but it`s impossible that IDM could become massively popular because it is too experimantal, and too varied.

quoted 1 line So what if he is? Just maybe it's because he's so _good_.

> So what if he is? Just maybe it's because he's so _good_.

As I`ve said before I think that there`s loads of techno artists that are better than Ricky James: Ken Ishii, UR, Red Planet, Juan Atkins, Carl Craig, Kenny Larkin etc but they don`t sell that well, do they?

quoted 1 line Flame away, but if you ask me, fuck the underground.

> Flame away, but if you ask me, fuck the underground.

Flame flame flame!! If IDM was commercial then it would be controlled by the big labels, your musical taste would be manipulated, you`d be paying 30 quid to see The Orb at Wembley Stadium and what`s worst the music would be _destroyed_ after 6 months, because whenever anything becomes popular it gets burnt out, becomes extremely unfashionable and dies. "I got a question for ya... Are you down with the undergroud? Yeah? Well check this out..." Brendan Nelson Lost Transmission From Cowley *We will never surface*

On Sat, 12 Mar 1994, djkc wrote:

quoted 4 lines Anyway, I'm surprised nobody's even been disappointed or anything due to

> Anyway, I'm surprised nobody's even been disappointed or anything due to > RDJ "sellingout" as a commercial artist...he is very popular. > Is he not the top seller in techno ("techno" in the very broad/general > sense)??

Well, considering the quality of SAWII, I wouldn't be too worried... But if he puts out a track called "You Make Me Feel So Good"... Peace, Matt <(hcy)> XLR8R Magazine, Seattle

quoted 12 lines On Sat, 12 Mar 1994, djkc wrote:

> > > > On Sat, 12 Mar 1994, djkc wrote: > > > Anyway, I'm surprised nobody's even been disappointed or anything due to > > RDJ "sellingout" as a commercial artist...he is very popular. > > Is he not the top seller in techno ("techno" in the very broad/general > > sense)?? > Well, considering the quality of SAWII, I wouldn't be too worried... But > if he puts out a track called "You Make Me Feel So Good"... >

But what? Does musical style determine if one is a sell-out or not? Imagine if Aphex's music became mainstream without changing style, then you all would probably go for something else, something underground, and do the whole thing over again. Exactly what I was going to say at first - What's the difference, aside from performance & music, between Moby's success and Aphex's success? Both guys are on several labels, even big ones. How does Sire compare to Elektra? I've only seen one guy really wonder about Aphex's success...someone saying "He is 'not interested in the money'? Ya, right..." I'm just trying to understand the psychology behind it all. Aphex is becoming a *BIG* star, and nobody's complaining, whereas Moby became the "rave-god" of the US, and lots of people flame him (on the net atleast). So what's the difference in commercial success? Could it be that Moby is successful cause his stuff is closer to mainstream, pop techno, and LOTS of people are in the mainstream? And Aphex is successful cause his tracks are gifts from the heavens given to him in his dreams, and LOTS of people are into this sound of his and the experimental stuff? So then, they've made the same kind of commercial success but with different styles of music; but why does Moby get all this heat and not Aphex? Soley due to the musical style?? But then you must understand that style is a taste, an opinion, and there is no right or wrong, so I must say that the crap directed towards Moby and/or his music is unwarranted. Don't mean to make this into a Moby topic only - I am more interested in hearing how others would react if Aphex became TOP 40 in the same charts that Moby has... Anybody? -djkc

quoted 2 lines Not to mention in the issue after next of XLR8R. Anyone have anything

> Not to mention in the issue after next of XLR8R. Anyone have anything > they particularly want asked?

How many pennies are in a dime? What is the square root of 72? What is my future?

Dan Nicholson writes:

quoted 2 lines Dancer.' I'd much rather have them watching 'On' than some shite top 4

>Dancer.' I'd much rather have them watching 'On' than some shite top 40 >track.

Actually, "On" is a top 40 track, at least in the UK. I think it made it to #29 or something. Shite? Well, that's up to the listener...

quoted 4 lines Is he not the top seller in techno ("techno" in the very broad/general

>> Is he not the top seller in techno ("techno" in the very broad/general >> sense)?? > >So what if he is? Just maybe it's because he's so _good_.

Hurrah! Another "this music is GOOD(tm)" debate! ;-)

quoted 6 lines I dunno. I have seen a few disgruntled people, but most of these people

>I dunno. I have seen a few disgruntled people, but most of these people >weren't terribly enamored of RJ in the first place. I think people are >finally accepting that selfishness (ie "doesn't it suck that big life is >going to release all the rare Orb stuff so millions will own my until-now >ultra-rare bathroom recording of Perpetual Dawn that only nineteen people >have ever heard before) does not enhance our rave culture.

Obviously, you have never been a real record collector. You spend a lot of time and money to find a rare recording, because it's an inspiring challenge. A couple of months later that recording is flooding the country and you basically trip over a copy every time you leave the house. Of course you get upset because you wasted a lot of time and money. - chris@minsk.docs.uu.se