I can't believe you said this. You must be really insecure about what
you do to try and justify its (and your own) existence with some
bullshit about free expression.
It's like saying one "intellectual" wanker taking a bunch of crap and
throwing it haphazardly on a canvas is groundbreaking intelligent
collage, like Jackson Pollack, and has more freedom to express themself
than another "intellectual" wanker who paints precise lines and shapes,
like Barnett Newman.
The only reason for anyone to dismiss house music is because they are
unfamiliar with it and the surrounding culture makes them feel insecure,
and this holds true for EVERY kind of music and possibly cultural things
as well.
Tosh
----------------
From: "Matt Anderson" <655321@telus.net>
Subject: RE: house vs. idm
Message-ID: <NCBBKNDBGLJADEIFLFFPCEFICJAA.655321@telus.net>
WARNING: this post is coming mainly from a 'musician's' point of view...
( I
use musician because I don't know what else to use)
What it comes down to for me is that I am not generally a fan of any
purpose
built music. Mainly because to do so, it has to conform to rules. I make
music because I love the creative freedom that comes along with doing
so. It
is just an audible version of a collage or poem. No rules, and I can do
whatever I want. So to me, when I see that to make a house track, it HAS
to
have energy, HAS to be between 110-135 BPM, HAS to have a consistant
beat,
etc. I say no thanks... These rules/guidlines seem totally restricting.
If
you enjoy making regimented music, then fine, but I would certainly feel
like part of a cookie cutter process if I made house music. Don't take
this
as an attack on skill or intelligence... It takes great skill in
producing
good house, but for me it's about creative freedom.
-Matt-
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org