I guess the reason that people care is because it reflects in a broad way on our treatment of art, and in a narrow way on the evolution of things in a cultural vacuum. It doesnt seem unreasonable to examine why things develop the way they do so that we might learn from them. In doing so we could prevent whole generations of plastic-aguileras, and maybe even prevent the destruction of styles we love. Without criticism everything goes to shit, basically.

I dont think your "criticism" has any real hard grounding though...it just seems like the whole thread is pontificating babble. which is good and has its place

but come on pseudo...prevent future generations from plastic aguileras?? thats never going to happen.
as long as there is anything good, there are going to be watereddown copy cat version to pick up scraps and make quick money. (see: trading spaces--->trading spaces family; Bjork--->emilina torrini...we could go on)
But lets be optimistic here. the real deal stays because it good, and proper...all the copy cats get lost because of their solubility.

And as far as being interested because it reflects our treatment of art, and the way we deal with cultural vacuums...I call bullshit. Thats not how we treat art. In this case people who are genuinely interested in IDM are the lovers and supporters, they make IDM big...bystanders sell (or will sell) IDM music as a commodity...they do not view it as art, its commodified, objectified into something less than it is. So the art still has its validity in certain groups, in other groups, its no longer art.

so its not at all a reflection of "our" views. and if this subject really worries you I think you are preaching to the choir...go to N'SYNCS mb and rant away.

as for the societal implications....well now we are getting into sticky stuff. This maybe to "relativistic" even for you....but this music couldnt even exist without "the evolution of things in a cultural vacuum"
you cannt separate the cultural vacuum from anything that this society produces...so how can you look at the matter objectively and learn from this discussion?

I just think the matter is being taken too seriously. Like I said, no matter what I am still going to go home, put on my music, and not give a fuck about anything.


we have talked about Radiohead, you know how much hearing them in HMV kills all the personal connections I have had with their music....yet I block out what is happening with radiohead in the world, when I go home and listen its just me and them..like it has been since pablo honey.

Enjoy, you are proving my criticism at least somewhat valid by engaging the subject at hand, though it doesnt seem like you really understood what I meant by 'treatment of art' or 'cultural vacuum'.

My point with the latter was that art has been commodified, and that commercial treatment of artistic interests has provided a backdrop for debasing creative things. You say 'we' (i.e. the people who love music treat it as art), but thats a tangential distinction in the context that I proposed. Yes 'we' (some people) treat art with care and respect, 'others' (them, commercial interests) treat art as disposable and a vehicle for self-interest. Do you see the difference? By exposing the processes of others to scrutiny - whether or not you deem it 'treatment of art' - we can learn to prevent the exploitation of art by crude interests.

"So the art still has its validity in certain groups, in other groups, its no longer art." - I disagree. How can you argue that art is only validated by the way its used? It seems handy for you to define it this way, but in reality I think that Art does become bastardized and exploited, and remains art. If you think I'm preaching to the choir about this then dont click on the thread.

"you cannt separate the cultural vacuum from anything that this society produces...so how can you look at the matter objectively and learn from this discussion?" - According to your logic, if objectivity is inseparable from the cultural vacuum, how could we learn anything? If this is true then it follows that the whole body of history becomes essentially meaningless. Again, scrutiny is a near-requisite for learning ANYTHING. The fact that we can define it within specific cultural boundaries, or outside of it, doesnt alter our ability to comprehend it.

And lastly, if you think what I write is bullshit (along with Marx, Foucault, and Chomsky - who you profess to hate for using 'such fucking gay language') then seriously, dont give it the time of day. Because, why bother? Same thing applies if its too serious.

honestly we could argue semantics all day...(and dont we always) lokk I am going to do this like mudstones because its really easier than html...and I am tanked at the moment


now there...did I avoid the subject like old muddy mud slinger? or am I just not getting through?
<3 pseudotrop.

I was never arguing semantics, Enjoy (default rebuttals, remember?). The commodification issue was never central to what I was trying to get across with this thread; it was 1 small paragraph within 4 pages of stuff. I'll break it back down for you because telling me its 'unimportant' is telling me that you didnt get what I was poking at. The commodification issue is unimportant, right out - that is, immediately. The thread might be important. And yes, I understand what you are saying but you are simplifying.

1. Idm resulted from the exploration of borrowed sounds. Because of this experimental spirit, part of its essential modus became the morphing of sound forms into pastiche (microsound, later). The expectation was, throughout its development, that a requisite for IDM was progression, and freshness. This is a fallacy, in my mind, because I think that IDM is a formalized genre. Nonetheless, the ideas of progression are typefied in IDM, however now the well is starting to run dry.

2. Idm matured extremely quickly over the past 20 years, owing mostly to the advance of technology. As a result of this quick maturation the exploration of all possible forms was quickly realized (formless, chaotic, highly structured, quantized, chopped, rearranged, - ambient, breakbeat, idm, glitch, microsound). Bearing in mind that all possible structural forms have been realized, this limits its possibility for progression.

3. Idm, in its increasingly complex use of sampled and created sounds (from 38:00 minute synth pieces, to 3 minute quanta explorations in microsound) also explored the boundaries of what it is possible for our ears to hear, aurally. The limits of sound archiecture have been realized through the genre. Another reason why this limits its possibility for progression.

4. A special case CAN be made for IDM on the terms of decline because it did not develop, and does not function, like other genres. Being that its foundation was experimental, its means where largely technological, and its outlook was essentially intellectual, it reached its apogee quite quickly. The decline is noticable even today.

As I say, there are special considerations that need to be given owing to the unusual context of IDM. IDM is a unique case. I was never making some sort of broad "my favourite music is going to die" assertion, though thats what you took it to be.

I have a question. Since you've elaborated so kindly on the evolution, history and significance of what IDM is, have you ever created any songs yourself? From the words you express it seems like you are a "big whig" (if it's possible) in the scene and/or need to be the moderator here and not me

what no goggled eyed emo-shi-con? I am hurt.

default rebuttals? no I dont remember...and I know commodification isnt central to this thread...its just the issue I came in on, because the rest of the stuff just deserved no comment.
Which I am still sticking with after reading the four point breakdown. You know youve got me by my achilles heel....so I cannt rebuke the point that progression has typified IDM..(anyone else know?)

"The limits of sound archiecture have been realized through the genre. Another reason why this limits its possibility for progression."
And you know my music knowledge just isnt up to par to contest this point (properly, that is)....but I am getting antsy, either because its true and scary, or because you are wrong.... we'll see.


Listen. point still stands...ok, what if IDM is dead? why are you taking it so seriously? GO HOME-put your pretty head down, and turn on your stereo...go ENJOY. xo.
(me reiterating this point obviously means I didnt give a toff for the "special considerations"--sorry puppyface, either I am a complete block head, or I am right in sitting in my disagreement) The funny thing is, you could probably convince me of anything with that voluble speech of yours... maybe your not trying hard enough on this *girly giggles from the peanut gallery*


(oh and apogee is a fantastic word.)

onomotopaeia is sweet.

Big Whig? Definitely not. Maybe a small whig with some connections and a careful ear. More determined then anything else; roughly 35% perspiration, 65 inspired. I realize you're joking, but yeah I'd moderate... this place is great.

i have the slightest of connections, and they piss me off.