> And another thing - once you're famous, does that mean you don't have to > create danceable music anymore?
It means you don't have to create danceable music if you don't want to. Witness Richie Hawtin - the Concept series and "Consumed", specifically. After years and years of being successful making people dance, he decided he wanted to try something different, and did so. Would have have been as successful in getting those records heard if he hadn't spent years making dance music? No. Was it his right as an artist to do those records? Of course. Carl Craig is another great example - after years of making *some* danceable stuff (Paperclip People, 69, etc), he decided to try something different, and did Innerzone Orchestra. Would that record have been as successful if Carl hadn't already been established? No. Would it still have been great music for an admittedly different audience? Yes. We don't own the artists whose work we enjoy; they have no responsibilities to us. It's "consumer beware". If "party kids" were dissapointed when they saw Carl perform as Paperclip People, perhaps they should have understood that he's not a one-dimensional guy before purchasing their ticket. A listen to his catalog besides just "Throw" or "The Floor" would have established that. I'm not trying to flame or preach, by the way, and I apologize if I come across that way. I just get irritated by the overwhelmingly closed mindset of so many in the "dance music" scene. Fuck art, let's dance. Fuck dance, let's art. Take your pick, or have both (my preference). Bill / dj marathon -- AppNet MidWest Interactive [formerly Sigma6] / http://www.appnet.com now available: http://techno.ca/cognition/show598.htm always on: http://www.chromedecay.org
