Shutit yellowman! ;-)
(List forgive me, I just used up my brain energy for a year in half an hour) k >-----Original Message----- >From: Robert Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 2:36 PM >To: Ken Odeluga; Brendan Nelson; KiDDy*RaVeR; ThReE-oNe-ThReE >Subject: RE: (313) Detroit In Effect/Whatever Happened To The Future? > > >Anyone fancy a pint? > >:) > >-----Original Message----- >From: Ken Odeluga [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 12:30 PM >To: Brendan Nelson; KiDDy*RaVeR; ThReE-oNe-ThReE >Subject: RE: (313) Detroit In Effect/Whatever Happened To The Future? > > >This is long so beware: > >>In a way, their sound is what "techno" would have turned out >>to sound like if Techno Kut had had the impact that Metroplex, >>Transmat etc ended up having. I'm quite interested in that >>parallel 'path' of post-electro stuff and the way that it started >>out calling itself "techno" before being superceded by what we >>*now* know as "techno"... > >There's a line in the track 'Men You'll Never See': 'Making techno tracks >...' Which I was bemused by. Incidentally, are these tracks new? Once again >we meet that oft-talked about (currently) retro-future/future-retro thing.. >Are these old tracks released late or new tracks made in such a way that >they sound old? > >I feel that I'm on the verge of being a hypocrite with my appreciation of >these tracks. I've said before that I am wary of the 'retro' phase that's >sweeping through our music(s) at the moment, but I'm quite enjoying these >tracks. Also, basically, everybody likes a bit of nostalgia don't they?! If >these tracks weren't so naive, raw, and unpretentious, I thgink I'd be less >inclined to like them. I'm a sucker for basic and unpolished. To me, if >there's a 'soul' to be seen, you'll see it more clearly that way. Don't get >me wrong. D.I.E isn't particularly deep. It's about fun. That >seems to count >for a lot right now. > >I'd also say something similar on the discussion about 'future vs retro' >which we've had this week, albeit late - excuse me. > >I do share the misgivings which some have about what looks like a >capitulation to that pull to the past and apparent relinquishing of efforts >to push boundaries to create what we think of as 'futuristic music'. At the >same time, I do sympathize with the fact of the zeitgeist under which we >live - markedly conservative and controlling governments, >unforgiving if not >impossible macroeconomic backdrop, which makes any sort of risky artistic >innovation seem out of place, let alone hard to sell. > >Perhaps you might view this as a semantic device but I would question >however, just how 'retrospective' in attitude a lot of what is looked at >that way is regarded. > >'Let Me Think' by Kenny Larkin, might be a case in point. Apparently the >track is at least a decade old - some people said they used to hear it on >the radio in Detroit in the 1990s. I'd say, if you compare it to anything >which is even remotely similar - the average piano-based jazz track by >whoever (I don't follow that genre) how would it compare? To me, the >atmosphere on it, not to mention the haunting use of synths still >differentiates it sharply from most chart fodder and from specialist stuff >of similar ilk. > >Of course I recognize that it's not avant-garde in the sense of being off >the map in comparison terms, but I feel some comments suggesting it and >similar stuff are going backwards, in terms of progression are going too >far. > >Also sometimes, we ought to consider whether, in relative terms, some of >what we call progress in terms of sounds, actual musical and recording >technology - relating to the music that we in our relatively specialist >world like, has progressed so far in expertise and innovation, that it will >take much of the rest of 'popular' music many years to catch-up. Therefore, >in relative terms, based on a wider perspective than say 'techno' electro, >etc, etc, stuff like Juan Atkins' 'Back To Basics', Kenny Larkins' 'Let Me >Think', D.I.E., recent Carl Craig productions, even things by Claro >Intelecto here in the uk (if you haven't heard it - believe me, you should) >is still - in as real terms as it's possible to speak of when talking about >something as intangible, subjective relative and refractive as values in >electronic music(!) - far, far, far off in the far future to most people. > >Again, don't get me wrong - whoever is cutting the edge in this world, I >will always give their efforts more than a cursory listen (- right not it's >the 'Cologne' school, Kompact, Dial et al which gets my vote for genuine >unforeseen music, imho). But my view of what else is good has never been >that restricted I guess. > >Sorry for the length. Difficult subject. It's all *just* my own humble >opinion of course, before I get a flaming of as many words! > >k > >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: KiDDy*RaVeR [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Sent: 30 April 2004 11:59 >>> To: ThReE-oNe-ThReE >>> Subject: Re: (313) Detroit In Effect >>> >>> >>> Yep, they seem to belongs to the hiphop scene, being very >>> 'electro basis', >>> as if we were back 20 years ago when techno wasnt even come >>> into the world! >>> They have evolved in their own 'path', thats what it makes it >>> attractive, i >>> think. >>> - KiDDy. >>> http://www.paradisemassage.org/pm_newsletters/bb07/bb07ok.html >> >################################################################### >################## >Note: > >Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not >necessarily represent >those of Channel Four Television Corporation unless specifically >stated. This email >and any files transmitted are confidential and intended solely for >the use of the >individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have >received this email in >error, please notify [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Thank You. >################################################################### >################## > >
