---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Dennis DeSantis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>First, you're advocating "innovation" and deriding "regression".
But
>then you advocate "universality" and "basic rhythm". I'd venture
to say
>that you can't have it both ways.
thats what i was trying to point out. calling song structure
"regressive" and then calling something thats way older than song
structure "progressive" makes no sense.
>The human auditory response that
>makes people relate to motoric rhythmic cycles is, in my opinion,
the
>same one that makes people relate to "songs they can hum and whistle
>while they work."
i agree with you. i have no problem with either structure of
music, i was just wondering how "Techno" music was being defined
as "Technologically progressive" music, yet it had to adhere to a
primitive structural concept.
>I'm certainly not knocking the great artists you mentioned above.
>Surely, all were innovators. But that's not why they'll be
remembered.
>They'll be remembered because they made good music.
thats what im saying. a music's structure or sound set or whatnot
being "progressive" has never been what has drawn me to like it.
i think i subscribe to the house-like "techno is a feeling" method
of describing techno.
tom
________________________________________________________________
andythepooh.com
