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

← archive index

Re: [idm] question

3 messages · 2 participants · spans 1 day · search this subject
2005-09-27 14:19mantrakid Re: [idm] question
└─ 2005-09-27 15:37Alan Lockett Re: [idm] question
└─ 2005-09-27 15:57Mantrakid Re: [idm] question
expand allcollapse allclick any summary to toggle that message
2005-09-27 14:19mantrakidMy contribution? I was listening. Today there exists so much cross pollination of genre an
From:
mantrakid
To:
Date:
Tue, 27 Sep 2005 08:19:55 -0600
Subject:
Re: [idm] question
permalink · <4339550B.3080808@neferiu.com>
My contribution? I was listening. Today there exists so much cross pollination of genre and style, that it beautifully becomes simply about the artist and their personal expression. I personally feel as if the experimentalism and 'technique-building' of electronic music is plateauing - copy cat musicians are immediately identifiable due to the overexposure of the experimentalism as a mainstream norm. Cats who use a gimmick in their production style as an identity get stale very very fast and what remains are musicians willing to not only push the envelope of the techniques that they've mastered via manipulation of electronic music (whether that be sampling, funky dsp shit, or simply playing a synth) but putting -themselves- into it. (Past the point of playful after school fuckery- i've been there too). Artists from all across music across the entire 'genre' board are coming forth with abundant respect towards their mutual musician brothers, regardless of style or technique they are crafting sounds and styles that are comfortable to them - that express their innermost thoughts, experiences, and emotions - not just what sounds cool or utilizes the latest plugin. The result transcends genre, it establishes musical individualism, and it has existed in all forms from bach to the beatles to nirvana and beyond. (self)Genre classification is for lazy musicians who lack the self esteem and courage to express themselves in their purest form. They assume that the only way to connect with the masses is to include themselves with the masses. When music becomes about an individuals personal sound, that's when they can be considered of substantial consequence towards the shaping of a culture. Genre exists to restrain thinking to normality and mass association. I personally would much rather be referred to as 'mantrakid' than a techno hiphop artist. I think boards of canada are reaching the point where they can be referred to and known as 'boards of canada' one day, you will be able to say 'boards of canada' and know what that sounds like. Just like when you hear 'the beatles' or 'nirvana'. Mastery of a genre is a waste to achieve. Achieving complete disassociation from it is the holy fucking grail. my 2 humble cents... as if anyone even asked for them. www.mantrakid.com www.neferiu.com Jong-Ilist Massive wrote:
quoted 79 lines yo totally mega thanks for that contribution to the discussion, too.>yo totally mega thanks for that contribution to the discussion, too. > >On 9/26/05, Greg Hill <cameron69@comcast.net> wrote: > > >>nice....finally sometype of MUSIC discussion! >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "mantrakid" <mantrakid@neferiu.com> >>Cc: <idm@hyperreal.org> >>Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 12:41 AM >>Subject: @SPAM++++ Re: [idm] question >> >> >> >> >>>Let's kick up a discussion. >>> >>>Have there been any largely prominent genre births from the umbrella of >>>IDM? If someone hears boards of canada, and has no idea what IDM is, are >>>they able to properly classify it? >>> >>>nate >>> >>>Rick Strom wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>>hey is there any actual discussion on this list or is it dead and just >>>>>for promoters these days? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>Well, actually, yes. We someti... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>www.grep-fu.net >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>Oh, nevermind. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>-- >>> >>> >>> >>>www.neferiu.com <http://www.neferiu.com> >>>www.neferiu.com >>>calgary *·* alberta >>>403*·*852*·*6801 >>> >>> >>>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org >>>For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org >>> >>> >>> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org >>For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org >> >> >> >> > > >-- >pete lastname >meatsock@gmail.com >www.grep-fu.net > > >
-- www.neferiu.com <http://www.neferiu.com> www.neferiu.com calgary *·* alberta 403*·*852*·*6801 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2005-09-27 15:37Alan Lockett--On 27 September 2005 08:19 -0600 mantrakid <mantrakid@neferiu.com> wrote: > The result t
From:
Alan Lockett
To:
Date:
Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:37:32 +0100
Subject:
Re: [idm] question
Reply to:
Re: [idm] question
permalink · <50D95407CDCDF78647A8F473@lang-pc34.arts.bris.ac.uk>
--On 27 September 2005 08:19 -0600 mantrakid <mantrakid@neferiu.com> wrote:
quoted 6 lines The result transcends genre, it establishes musical individualism, and it> The result transcends genre, it establishes musical individualism, and it > has existed in all forms from bach to the beatles to nirvana and beyond. > (self)Genre classification is for lazy musicians who lack the self esteem > and courage to express themselves in their purest form. They assume that > the only way to connect with the masses is to include themselves with the > masses.
I'm not sure there have been many musicians willingly 'self-classifying' themselves as 'IDM'. It's a tag that was devised as a kind of critical 'shorthand' to enable classification, and it stuck, regrettably, though very few practitioners adopt it in anything other than a 'knowing' kind of way, as if it had quotation marks around it, so to speak. Anyway, leaving judgments as to the term's appropriacy (and aesthetic considerations) aside, 'genre' operates simply as a form of classification, and though classification is often characterised (as here) as somehow detrimental, leading to neglect of individual elements that distinguish one from another, it's actually a very basic human tendency. At the most basic level, we do it in order to make sense of the complexity of sensory input we have to deal with daily; it says that item X is similar in several significant respects to Y and Z, though different enough to be X. Where it becomes problematic is when the aspect of difference is diminished or obscured (which is where an element of wilful deployment comes in). For example, its social psychological by-products are things like 'stereotyping', which can be used for evil and wicked purposes, of course, but there is nothing about the act of genre-fication *per se* that is to be abhorred.
quoted 3 lines Genre exists to restrain thinking to normality and mass> Genre exists to restrain thinking to normality and mass > association. I personally would much rather be referred to as 'mantrakid' > than a techno hiphop artist.
Hmmm. I don't think genre 'exists' to do this. Genre is used to signal to recipients of a message what category something might be said to fit into, so as to enable a rough and ready processing of the message (that is not to say it is considered the whole story). It may be *deployed* by some for the purposes mentioned above admittedly, but I don't think there's anything pre-wired into genre that disposes it to 'restrain' individuality (i.e. it's a container, but not a prison); things can be situated at a different level/order at one and the same time depending on what system or sub-system they enter into, being part of a smaller or larger group of similar things. To make an analogy, I'm aware that a pink grapefruit is, at one and the same time, a type of *fruit*, a type of *citrus fruit* at that, and what's more a type of *grapefruit*. Acknowledging its status as 'fruit' doesn't diminish its essential pink-grapefruitiness, nor does rejoicing in the particular individual sweet tartness of a particular specimen require it to be placed apart from the universe of other fruits and fruitiness in general. Being referred to as 'a techno hiphop artist' doesn't of itself deny the individuality of 'mantrakid' any more than calling a pink grapefruit a fruit restrains its status as a grapefruit, and a pink one at that, and, what's more, an especially sweet one ... urgh... my head hurts now... my mum told me not to mess with ontology... Now off to listen to some Elevator Shitcore Ether-Gospel alan ---------------------- Alan Lockett (Senior Language Co-ordinator - EFL) Language Centre, University of Bristol, 30-32 Tyndall's Park Road, Bristol, BS8 1PY, UK tel: +44 (0)117 3310914 e-mail: Alan.R.Lockett@bristol.ac.uk --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2005-09-27 15:57MantrakidNicely put. Thanks! Alan Lockett wrote: > > --On 27 September 2005 08:19 -0600 mantrakid <
From:
Mantrakid
Cc:
Date:
Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:57:38 -0600
Subject:
Re: [idm] question
Reply to:
Re: [idm] question
permalink · <43396BF2.2060405@neferiu.com>
Nicely put. Thanks! Alan Lockett wrote:
quoted 80 lines --On 27 September 2005 08:19 -0600 mantrakid <mantrakid@neferiu.com>> > --On 27 September 2005 08:19 -0600 mantrakid <mantrakid@neferiu.com> > wrote: > >> The result transcends genre, it establishes musical individualism, >> and it >> has existed in all forms from bach to the beatles to nirvana and beyond. >> (self)Genre classification is for lazy musicians who lack the self >> esteem >> and courage to express themselves in their purest form. They assume that >> the only way to connect with the masses is to include themselves with >> the >> masses. > > > I'm not sure there have been many musicians willingly > 'self-classifying' themselves as 'IDM'. > It's a tag that was devised as a kind of critical 'shorthand' to > enable classification, and it stuck, regrettably, though very few > practitioners adopt it in anything other than a 'knowing' kind of way, > as if it had quotation marks around it, so to speak. > Anyway, leaving judgments as to the term's appropriacy (and aesthetic > considerations) aside, 'genre' operates simply as a form of > classification, and though classification is often characterised (as > here) as somehow detrimental, leading to neglect of individual > elements that distinguish one from another, it's actually a very basic > human tendency. At the most basic level, we do it in order to make > sense of the complexity of sensory input we have to deal with daily; > it says that item X is similar in several significant respects to Y > and Z, though different enough to be X. Where it becomes problematic > is when the aspect of difference is diminished or obscured (which is > where an element of wilful deployment comes in). For example, its > social psychological by-products are things like 'stereotyping', which > can be used for evil and wicked purposes, of course, but there is > nothing about the act of genre-fication *per se* that is to be abhorred. > >> Genre exists to restrain thinking to normality and mass >> association. I personally would much rather be referred to as >> 'mantrakid' >> than a techno hiphop artist. > > > Hmmm. I don't think genre 'exists' to do this. Genre is used to signal > to recipients of a message what category something might be said to > fit into, so as to enable a rough and ready processing of the message > (that is not to say it is considered the whole story). > It may be *deployed* by some for the purposes mentioned above > admittedly, but I don't think there's anything pre-wired into genre > that disposes it to 'restrain' individuality (i.e. it's a container, > but not a prison); things can be situated at a different level/order > at one and the same time depending on what system or sub-system they > enter into, being part of a smaller or larger group of similar things. > To make an analogy, I'm aware that a pink grapefruit is, at one and > the same time, a type of *fruit*, a type of *citrus fruit* at that, > and what's more a type of *grapefruit*. Acknowledging its status as > 'fruit' doesn't diminish its essential pink-grapefruitiness, nor does > rejoicing in the particular individual sweet tartness of a particular > specimen require it to be placed apart from the universe of other > fruits and fruitiness in general. > Being referred to as 'a techno hiphop artist' doesn't of itself deny > the individuality of 'mantrakid' any more than calling a pink > grapefruit a fruit restrains its status as a grapefruit, and a pink > one at that, and, what's more, an especially sweet one ... > > urgh... my head hurts now... my mum told me not to mess with ontology... > > Now off to listen to some Elevator Shitcore Ether-Gospel > > alan > > ---------------------- > Alan Lockett (Senior Language Co-ordinator - EFL) > Language Centre, University of Bristol, > 30-32 Tyndall's Park Road, Bristol, BS8 1PY, UK > tel: +44 (0)117 3310914 e-mail: Alan.R.Lockett@bristol.ac.uk > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org