"Consequently, placing certain restraints on how we use our musical tools is just common sense."
Ugh. Gimme a break. zzzzzzzz. I might be able to take this person's arguments seriously if he made better connections and backed them up with things other than sloppy academic and pop culture references. This article seems like an exercise in masterbation unachieved - like you know it could have been really awesome, but it just ... wasn't. LOL! Growl. lisa ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas D. Cox, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 1:39 am Subject: (313) interesting pretentious music article > http://www.furious.com/perfect/technologytrap.html > > i find myself relating to both sides of this guy's argument. in > alot of ways i find the old way of doing things to be superior. i > also find the ability of electronic music to allow a single > composer to also be a performer, arranger, engineer, etc at the > same time to be the most important musical development since jazz. > basically, i agree with his whole argument up to a point. his > theory on the use of vocoders is absolute garbage, even someone > who has heard kraftwerk once can attest to that. i think his > choice of electronic musicians that are good belies his predjudice > in writing this: jimi hendrix and stevie wonder stick out of an > otherwise extremely pretentios group of mostly white artsy > musicians. the man doesnt understand the primal greatness of > techno and house music. most outstandingly annoying to me are his > words of praise for brian eno. i love brian eno, i consider him to > be one of my musical heroes. however, chalking up his success with > nontraditional structure and composition with electronic > instruments to his "theory" alone is missing the whole point of > his music. i know eno cared about the philosophy, this is why he > put explanations of his ambient pieces in the liner notes. the > fact that his music exudes mood and texture is the real reason for > his brilliance. > > these are some of the points i liked the most from this article: > > "Computers have cracked open a plethora of fresh new noises, but > we scarcely have time to grow accustomed to using one when another > comes along to make its predecessor outdated. Too few know how to > program a drum machine well, too few recognize unpalatable digital > slickness for what it is. " > > that really sums up the best parts of his argument. however, i > dont think that most electronic music is guilty of this. if > anything, people have accused some techno and house of stagnation > because of the reliance on the old roland boxes and minimoogs. IDM > wasnt guilty of this initially, they utilized most of the same > gear and sounds. now, it, progressive house, drummy techno, and > drum and bass are the most guilty of pretty much every accusation > this guy has against electronic music. music is reduced to a cool > sound, one that doesnt last long before the new sound comes > along. part of old school techno and house's appeal to me is its > rawness, the bad tape edits, the crap pressings of trax records, > the primitive programming of the generally low end electronic > instruments. see, these instruments dont force people into > this "perfection" that alot of electronic music has boxed itself > into. the mainstream attitude does: liking these ultra-pristine > forms of music is more akin to liking bad pop music. the dirty old > techno house idm and jungle is more like punk rock, its more about > the expression and not the sound. > > yeah, lets argue about this for a while. > > tom > > > > ________________________________________________________________ > andythepooh.com > > > > >
