all fair points matt. i guess i'd rather read about crazed culture with music as a secondary.
hence my love for lester bangs, hunter thompson, ect.... i think writing about music requires a presentation within another context (be it biographical, anidotal, whatever...) for me- an actual discertaion about 'the music' alone would be painfully boring. to each his own =) On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Matt MacQueen wrote: > > Everyone's music collection is based around 'phases'. Reynolds just > > does > > an excellent job capturing his phases in print. Don't diss because he > > went > > through some phases that you didn't. > > I don't have anything against phasing of techno. I'll just diss then > cause I think it's a wack book. It's a visceral reaction. You've > done a good job at citing the reasons why you like the book, fair > enough. However I think any writer that capitulates this much on > opinions, trends, phases, THIS micro-genre is better than THAT > micro-genre [at this millisecond in time], etc. (that's what music > journo's do, i admit, and it's usually more out of their desire to > generate more ink than a true proper look at something for what it is) > just killed his earnestness and credibility for me. > > I think it comes down to a vibe if you like all the ranting and > spouting and style of Reynolds. To me just sounds like B.S. through > the lens of e-colored glasses... like the guy in the chill-out room you > wish would just shut-up and finally just pass out. ;) I don't > recommend the book other than a way to react to his half-witted > blatherings and form an opinion of your own. I guess that's what good > books do, force you to react to an opinion, but not in the way this > one does? > > That said I haven't tried to write a book on techno, so I still can't > blame him for trying. Respect is certainly due for that. But this is > a book for people who want to get back in touch with their Inner > Raver... or see what other parts of the rave scene they missed out, > it's a book about drugs connection with the music... it's a book as > much or more focused on drugs than the music. In fact little all that > critically valuable on the actual music IMHO, other than some > interesting details here and there on tracks but lacks any real > perspective. Obviously you connected with Reynolds, I don't. > > Wasn't it Reynolds who called Maurizio-type music "heroin house" in The > Wire? It's almost like for Reynolds the music CANNOT EXIST without a > drug reference to compliment it. That's just such a crutch! (for the > record: I am not anti-drug, i'm more anti-idiocy than anything.) > > Hey, if you like it you like it. :) I just wanted to point out some > of the reasons it chafed me personally... your mileage may vary. If > you want to read all about drug subculture with music as the secondary > backdrop, you may love it, I didn't. If you're looking for something > meaningful about techno music, I recommend you look elsewhere. > > peace, > Matt MacQueen > >
