i see your point. otherwise what is idm? good point.

idm is that style which doesn't fit any style but has influences from all styles always pursuing innovation and experimentation in the sound design. that is why it is stocked right there

Good IDM has always had a spark of creativity and abstractness which I think is why people are getting despondent now.

Where else is there to go?

What new sounds are there?

Well there are many directions you can go in which are new and creative but it's making sure you get the balance. Not just creating new but greating good as well as new. Using your ears as well as your head.

There are too many people out there rehashing old ground thinking they're being creative and new when being a funckarma soundalike gives you no more musical creativity points than being a black sabbath soundalike, you're still not making anything new.

The main thing seems to be there are two divergent directions in IDM at the moment. One being the "lets go back to the early days where it was just ticky drums and nice melodies" and the other being "lets get increasingly more abstract".

I personally think there are more directions than that.

Not at all. I'd say Sigur Ros are experimental when it comes to sound design and innovative, I would say Merzbow is always seeking new ways to alter his sound.

IDM is a very clear style. Put and IDM record on, it's very obviously an IDM record.

Bull...synth pop, experimental, ambient all have common boundries with idm.

Lualtone, Pacifica, Lali Puna...that could be IDM

Pete Namlook's Wired that could be IDM

Pan Sonic...that could be IDM

IDM is nothing.

Ok there are no recognisable boundaries within IDM.

Gimmik - Back to Basics.

idm is not going retro

well, i kind of made a weird statement there. what i meant was that there is a clear definition of what idm is--and that is Back to Basics.

Good call, autpt. Thats sheer honesty right there.... _________ should take note. Back To Basics is a great IDM album.

P.s. IDM exists... only people who are desperate to save it will try to tell you that it doesnt exist. Just like an ostrich will tell you that its predator doesnt exist by sticking its head in the sand. I guess the psychology behind saying such a thing goes like this: If I make the category of IDM equivocal enough, I will never have to face the fact that its true potential has been exhausted enough... because as long as I pretend that IDM is vague it doesnt have to fit into its own coffin. In reality, give a jazz head a stack of those mentioned earlier (Lulatone, Pacifica, Lali Puna, Namlook) and they wont have too much difficulty noting that they are all in a similar style. Same way that an IDM fan, if faced with a stack of jazz (Ellington, Coleman, Davis, Baker, Simone) wont have difficulty telling you that they are Jazz.

The important distinction is that IDM is a blanket term. It is the broadest categorical imperative for the style which includes many subsets... but all of which fall under it.