New Burial album. More info?

"most 2-step is club fodder (even the good stuff), Burial doesnt have deejay friendly intros, crowd hyping breakdowns and buildups, etc. it stands on its own, it doesnt need to be mixed in a set to be effective."

"in fact, i bet his music would be way better received on a techno dancefloor than on a 2-step dancefloor "

Pipecock you have a real knack for finding the absolute worst reasons to like things.

""most 2-step is club fodder (even the good stuff), Burial doesnt have deejay friendly intros, crowd hyping breakdowns and buildups, etc. it stands on its own, it doesnt need to be mixed in a set to be effective."

"in fact, i bet his music would be way better received on a techno dancefloor than on a 2-step dancefloor "

Pipecock you have a real knack for finding the absolute worst reasons to like things.

-- Tim F"

i dont think those are reasons to like it, those are reasons it is not limited to its genre.

so why do you want dubstep to be more smiley and light hearted Tim, cos if it were then it wouldn't be dubstep ???

...you got funky house for that shit

so you cant express yourself through sample usage??! i disagree completely.

oh you can but that still doesn't mean you "know" it's him or that he's being entirely honest. Methinks its the anonymity thing covering the fact that he may be a name producer of past 2step which precludes me from believing he is what he says he is and the music is what it is...ie a new take on a past genre reflected through the eyes/ears of someone who wasn't ther to enjoy it forst time around. That and knowing it may all just be a cleverly contrived kode9 hyperstitious social experiment.

...would it make much difference to you if burial came out and said he was menta/artwork ??? would you feel betrayed, used and angry ??? would you then hear the tunes in a different light and would it colour your thoughts on any future releases ???

Except that most of Menta now make incredibly cheesy Hed Kandi style Euro-house.

And Arthur Smith is rumored to be half of Magnetic Man.

You think that ex 2-Step producers would have a less romantic view of the music than Burial does, they almost all make house of varying styles and quality now.

this thread is confirming all my concerns about paying attention to this genre

Get out, while you still don't care!

the problem with this thread is that it's been overrun by rampaging IDM-ists

...i dont even know what idm is ???

You think that ex 2-Step producers would have a less romantic view of the music than Burial does,

...guilty feet have got no rhythm

and there is no problem in this thread...

"oh you can but that still doesn't mean you "know" it's him or that he's being entirely honest. Methinks its the anonymity thing covering the fact that he may be a name producer of past 2step which precludes me from believing he is what he says he is and the music is what it is...ie a new take on a past genre reflected through the eyes/ears of someone who wasn't ther to enjoy it forst time around. That and knowing it may all just be a cleverly contrived kode9 hyperstitious social experiment."

i'm not sure that he ever said he wasn't there the first time and ive read every interview with him. to me it would make a lot of sense if he WAS an old 2-step or jungle producer.

"...would it make much difference to you if burial came out and said he was menta/artwork ??? would you feel betrayed, used and angry ??? would you then hear the tunes in a different light and would it colour your thoughts on any future releases ???

-- pollywog"

it would make no difference to me. the first menta record was awesome, actually:

http://www.discogs.com/release/1138589

how many of you guys got that on white label from Big Apple mail order when it came out? i did.... ;P

but it seems to me that someone would be very likely to yearn for that old feeling, to ditch the weak parts of the genre if they actually went down that bad path and found it less than satisfying!

I feel that the world would likely end if someone put vahid, pipecock and blunt in the same room for any period of time.

neo-rockism vs ultra-contrarianism.

"...you got funky house for that shit"

This is a silly sub-Martin Clark position to take. It's not like any kind of levity or lightheartedness automatically = funky house. And it's not like funky house is automatically bad anyway!

I'd struggle to come up with 5 dubstep tracks I like more than DJ Abstract's "Touch", considered a dubstep track last time I checked. Why should making tunes in that vein be considered anathema, pollywog?

"how many of you guys got that on white label from Big Apple mail order when it came out? i did.... ;P"

Yes this is precisely the way to establish your credentials in this thread pipecock.

"I'd struggle to come up with 5 dubstep tracks I like more than DJ Abstract's "Touch", considered a dubstep track last time I checked. Why should making tunes in that vein be considered anathema, pollywog?"

that was the last track i bought in the "dubstep" vein before burial surfaced. that had to have been like what, 03? that shit was ill, remineded me more of old 2-step than what dubstep became. if more of the tunes were like that i'd have been buying lots more!

"Yes this is precisely the way to establish your credentials in this thread pipecock.

-- Tim F"

;P

I luv the funky house for the opposite reason i like dubstep...

...light expansive vs dark oppressive

people can do/make whatever they like and i don't have to like it. I'd hate for there to be a dark funky house trak cos then it wouldn't be funky house like i'm not really into the light fluffy dubstep traks either, not that there are too many of those, thank fuck...

...besides 'touch' isn't exactly a smiley tune

<i> I'd hate for there to be a dark funky house trak cos then it wouldn't be funky house like i'm not really into the light fluffy dubstep traks either, not that there are too many of those, thank fuck...</i>

How is this even vaguely defensible?

Woops, fucked up my italics.

How is this even vaguely defensible?

drunken monkey styles...

...think about it

to make dubstep light hearted and smiley is to negate what dubstep is...

...it's not happy music,it's dread muisc

"Touch" is certainly more up-feeling, pretty, feminine and housey than most dubstep.

I am not sure why that is necessarily wrong.

In fact there used to be heaps of tunes in this vein. Think of Zed Bias's remix of 2 Banks of 4's "Hook and a Line", or Horsepower Productions' "Django's Revenge"... Sure these tracks were part of the transition from 2-step to dubstep, but at what stage did it suddenly become verboten to play around with this feel?

...i reckon at about the same time as the garage guys started making funky house and the d'n'b guys started making dubstep

Yeah titchy is closer to the mark I think...

"gentrifying them to get rid of the stuff that might be seen as 'embarassing'"

This is basically what i mean by "rudeboyism" - what Simon Reynolds always described as a flava/cheese axis.

-- Tim F

Theres something here to resist, isn't there? A counter-fetishization of the street?

Ok vigilance, vigilance against cults of the artist and all claims for transcendence. But going one better, and sniffing for any music which accidentally makes itself vulnerable to that kind of misuse? Its the consumer doing the gentrifying, and less the producer, isn't it? Or, what femininity, what roughness is lacking from 'Untrue'?

But maybe its true--what if Burial, who is coded white and well educated, is afraid of something in the ugly & promiscuous & vibrantly pulsating street? If he is, then isn't his sin inauthenticity? Distance from where its really at? Is it possible to make it sound rudeboy when you are just posing? Do his sounds fail on these terms always, necessarily, cuz of--cultural disconnect?

Where does that leave us? and where does that leave... us?

I should say I know nothing of music mention on this here, except I have 'the Roots of Dubstep' and both 'Box of Dub' albums; yet I have learn much from reading this thread. I was wondering what is the music on the Soul Jazz Compilation 'Rumble in the Jungle' showcasing? How does it fit into Jungle/D&B/2step/grime etc.. Also where would one start if I were to explore 2step, I think I would be more inclined to like it.

"I should say I know nothing of music mention on this here, except I have 'the Roots of Dubstep' and both 'Box of Dub' albums; yet I have learn much from reading this thread. I was wondering what is the music on the Soul Jazz Compilation 'Rumble in the Jungle' showcasing? How does it fit into Jungle/D&B/2step/grime etc.. Also where would one start if I were to explore 2step, I think I would be more inclined to like it.

-- JacobSanders"

"rumble in the jungle" is what is generally referred to as "ragga jungle". the stuff on that comp is from 90-95 and shows the progression of reggae influence from hardcore into jungle. some good stuff on there, not necessarily the best stuff in the genre, but they put on some of my favorites ("under mi sensi" jungle mix!). there are probably some other slskable ragga jungle comps for more specific periods of time in there, 95 was kind of the heyday really.

i think this is a good intro to 2-step:

http://www.discogs.com/release/73083

lots of variety in producers and sounds, lots and lots of anthems. there were alot of good 2-step comps though, and lots of good songs!

"But maybe its true--what if Burial, who is coded white and well educated, is afraid of something in the ugly & promiscuous & vibrantly pulsating street? If he is, then isn't his sin inauthenticity? Distance from where its really at? Is it possible to make it sound rudeboy when you are just posing? Do his sounds fail on these terms always, necessarily, cuz of--cultural disconnect?

-- walter benjamin"

i dont doubt that there is some of this going on, definitely a lot of it happened in the move from jungle to drum and bass. but i dont think burial is doing that kind of thing either. if anything, the cultural disconnect is because the music he is making probably appeals more to an older crowd who remembers the music he likes than whatever the younger crowd is doing, that is just a symptom of the hyper-accelerated dubplate culture mentality inherent in these kinds of music.

d'n'b guys never really got into garage so when they moved across to making dubstep their beat 'roots' weren't in the stuttery, staggered type of 2 step style so it was much easier to just slow their tunes down and clone the halfstep to suit...

"d'n'b guys never really got into garage"

!! What on earth are you basing this one on.

"But maybe its true--what if Burial, who is coded white and well educated, is afraid of something in the ugly & promiscuous & vibrantly pulsating street? If he is, then isn't his sin inauthenticity? Distance from where its really at? Is it possible to make it sound rudeboy when you are just posing? Do his sounds fail on these terms always, necessarily, cuz of--cultural disconnect"

An absence of flavour isn't a necessary outcome of some sort of metaphysical relationship to the streets, it's a contingent musical outcome based on the choices a producer makes. I'd have no idea whether Burial is more or less street than other dubstep producers, other 2-step producers. Why should that form some potential barrier to the possibility of his music being good? The above quote implies that there is some sort of customs that the music has to pass through on the way from the record towards your ears where the artist has to prove their credentials before anything you hear in their music can be taken seriously.

Why on earth is every single discussion about dubstep so obsessed by such things? Why must even ILM discussions of dubstep end up mimicking tiresomely the same issues that are obsessed over in Dissensus discussions?

i'm going to go out on a limb here and say maybe its because of problems at the heart of the idea of "hardcore continuum"?

Hmm maybe, except that the notion of continuum is so obviously clearly about the audience, whereas under the weird dissensian nu-rockist twist it suddenly becomes about the creator.

Possibly the cult of personality that grew up around grime is partially to blame.

One of the great things about 2-step is that no-one knew or cared who chancers like Dubaholics, the Wideboys, United Grooves Collective or Club Asylum actually were. They just made amazing tunes.

well see that's the problem. if you're going to build a music theory around "THIS is the sound of the council estate" then you're going to have new zealanders and new englanders (and californians and australians and middle-class brits and whoever else is at enough of a remove) eliding their idea of the audience and the creator and whatever they perceive is the population of the council estate

i'm not really sure what makes this elision possible except the lazy faux-ethnography of dissensian music criticism?

Yeah that makes sense actually.

Hey Vahid I'm not sure if you saw my comment in the french house thread but i've been crushing on your jess & Crabbe CDs again. So good!

I want to start a DJ night where I play:
- full on Crydamoure french house sliding into Jess & Crabbe --> Basement Jaxx hardcore b-sides
- New Horizons style speed garage
- Only the best in early Wild Pitch/Foremost Poets style dark Nu Groove/Strictly Rhythm stuff
- Aaron Carl and similar

"ruffhouse"

:D

Srsly though I think that New Horizons' miniscule output is probably the centre of my aesthetic universe.

"Hmm maybe, except that the notion of continuum is so obviously clearly about the audience, whereas under the weird dissensian nu-rockist twist it suddenly becomes about the creator.

One of the great things about 2-step is that no-one knew or cared who chancers like Dubaholics, the Wideboys, United Grooves Collective or Club Asylum actually were. They just made amazing tunes.

-- Tim F"

music is always about the creator. otherwise every record would have an equal chance of being good, and that isn't the case at all. caring about who specifically an individual is is irrelevent, it only matters that there is an individual making that music and that they are good at doing it.

amazing that "scrap iron dubs" never made it onto CD anywhere.

music is always about the creator

what does "about" mean

otherwise every record would have an equal chance of being good

i'm not an actuary

and that isn't the case at all

so some music has a better "chance" of being good? are you a music actuary, or a music listener?

caring about who specifically an individual is is irrelevent

why? how else should we care about individuals, if not in specific? should we think about individuals abstractly? why is it irrelevant to know who a musician is? if individuals are irrelevant, why do you harp on about "theo and omar" (first names only, thanks) so much? why bother to interview omar s at all?

it only matters that there is an individual making that music and that they are good at doing it

why does this matter? why not just say that it matters that the music is good? or that omar s made a good song by accident, does that matter too? what if a song is bad, does that matter?

"amazing that "scrap iron dubs" never made it onto CD anywhere.

-- moonship journey to baja"

it made it onto mix CDs in my car mixed by me ;)

big FUCKING WHOOP you FUCKING MICROBE

your problem, pipecock, is that you seem entirely too obsessed with figuring out which music is GOOD and which music is BAD.

i've noticed that very rarely do you talk about your reaction to music. have you forgotten how to say "I ENJOYED this music", instead it's always like "THIS MUSIC is GOOD because THE MUSIC makes THOSE PEOPLE freak out out on the dancefloor".

if music is BAD (trance) then it's BAD because THOSE PEOPLE (white suburban trance fans?) like THAT BAD MUSIC (trance?) and because THAT BAD MUSIC is not related to THAT GOOD MUSIC (soul + r+b + reggae + tribal drums)

even when you do have reactions to music, it's always couched in the song as an object (that song is DEEP, that song is OBVIOUS, that song is FODDER, those beats are WICKED, the energy is IN THERE) or the creator as an object ("i knew that he had been listening to the same things i had" or "i thought he was almost there but not quite" or "they could no longer be successful doing that kind of stuff. that was a huge problem for me")

and you NEVER EVER EVER talk about the creator or listener as a subject with desires, the only time you even talk about desires is when you say "i always wanted to mix it up, play old shit, new shit of different styles, etc", but why is never clear, you just parrot the tired-ass disco/house mythology of "people have been dancing to that shit for over 30 years. and in many cases, THE SAME people have been dancing to it for that long, the old the new and everything in between."

which is true of lawrence welk, and true at the renaissance faire (dancing to the same beat for 500 years!), and you never EVER interrogate why, you just repeat the same tired-ass line ...

and god forbid you NEVER EVER talk about "this was OBVIOUS to ME because I am like THIS" or "this was OBNOXIOUS to ME because I am like this", you never even bother to consider the point of view of view or the subjectivity of the other, the person to whom 2-step garage might not be obvious, or obnoxious, or fodder, or even why they might want to make that, or why an obvious experience might be a deep one (see rob themco's awe-inspiring breakdown of JME's "tropical" mixtape)

i mean it makes me SPITTING MAD that you people waste blog-length typing sessions making nonsensical declarative sentences, that you've talked for what seems like 300 posts (time doesn't fly when you're not having fun) and i still don't know a damn thing about you our what makes your taste the way it is, hell, i don't even understand your taste because all i know about your taste is the nonsensical dogmas that it's wrapped in ("this record is DEEP and that record is FODDER")

"music is always about the creator

what does "about" mean"

i mean that a scene is a scene, but the artist is always the most important part. 100000 people can like a bad record, and 10 people can like a good record, the records are still the same.

"otherwise every record would have an equal chance of being good

i'm not an actuary

and that isn't the case at all

so some music has a better "chance" of being good? are you a music actuary, or a music listener?"

yes, music made by good artists has a much better chance of being good than music made by some joker who is trying to make tracks to get pussy or to look cool or whatever. not that these are mutually exclusive, but surely you get the point. good tracks are not made randomly (though some people get lucky once!), so what that has to do with an audience is beyond me.

"caring about who specifically an individual is is irrelevent

why? how else should we care about individuals, if not in specific? should we think about individuals abstractly? why is it irrelevant to know who a musician is? if individuals are irrelevant, why do you harp on about "theo and omar" (first names only, thanks) so much? why bother to interview omar s at all?"

the point is that their name is meaningless. really, knowing anything about them is nearly irrelevent, but its interesting for people who like the music to know. knowing the person's name doesnt make their music better or worse. but their individuality, that which makes them different from joe blow down the street who makes garbage music, is indeed very important in the abstract sense.

"it only matters that there is an individual making that music and that they are good at doing it

why does this matter? why not just say that it matters that the music is good? or that omar s made a good song by accident, does that matter too? what if a song is bad, does that matter?

-- moonship journey to baja"

its quite possible for one hit wonders to exist, maybe even a few two hit wonders. but if someone gets it right a large percentage of the time, it is no longer luck. music doesnt make itself, it comes from someone. the great artists are what made jungle and 2-step great. though there were plenty of decent one hit wonder type records, great labels and great artists led the way every time. just look at how many innovations in the music came from Metalheadz, Good Looking, Movin Shadow, Locked On, Public Demand, Social Circles, etc.

see you can't even talk about the listener!! you start to in the first thread but then it turns into drivel about the "great artists".

i mean the first sentence

good tracks are not made randomly (though some people get lucky once!), so what that has to do with an audience is beyond me

^^ where is the SUBJECT you MORANS

tbh though, i can understand how the sort of thing pipecock's on about forms as a kneejerk assumption, however lightly or tightly it ends up being held. tim's lament a coupla posts up seems all idealistically nourishing only until you have to think about glossing over, christ i dunno, shadetek in nyc uselessly sticking their oar into grime, or grime kids doing likewise for nyc mixtape rappers, or years of crap american junglists, or what the fuck ever. (spoiled house dudes be panglossian!!)

having said that, it's only really an issue when these producers expect their stuff to slot right in to the context concerned with no consideration of how their own context's informed/malformed the tune. this isn't something i can charge burial with, in this partic case; i can however judge him on those terms, like tim did a million posts above, if they're the ones that float my boat. although tim didn't do that either did he, he judged them on burial's reception from people who weren't operating on those terms, and this is also what jealous partisan peoples afraid of their scene's misrepresentation are doing, albeit with way too much angry angry angst for any sane person to stomach.

xp sigh this thread goes way too fast

"big FUCKING WHOOP you FUCKING MICROBE

your problem, pipecock, is that you seem entirely too obsessed with figuring out which music is GOOD and which music is BAD."

i guess i could spend more time looking for mediocre crap like most people seem to!

i like and listen to all kinds of music. i know that is trite to say in 2007, but that doesnt make it any less true. i am interested in those techno records that are effective techno records based on what techno music does. i am not interested in what a rock-centered person thinks about techno because he is listening to different things. what i am all about is twisting my perception of things to fit the different music and the styles of listening necessary to appreciate those different musics. once you understand the genre, you can judge pretty easily whether something is effective or not, whether it is good or bad. i am not flawless at this, only more time listening to more music will make me better able to make these judgements.

"i've noticed that very rarely do you talk about your reaction to music. have you forgotten how to say "I ENJOYED this music", instead it's always like "THIS MUSIC is GOOD because THE MUSIC makes THOSE PEOPLE freak out out on the dancefloor"."

nah, its not all about dancefloor reaction for me. it certainly helps when youre making dance music in particular though!

"if music is BAD (trance) then it's BAD because THOSE PEOPLE (white suburban trance fans?) like THAT BAD MUSIC (trance?) and because THAT BAD MUSIC is not related to THAT GOOD MUSIC (soul + r+b + reggae + tribal drums)"

the only reason people listen to bad music is because alot of good music is difficult. most people can recognize what makes a good pop song, even if it is not to their taste. way way fewer know what makes a jazz song good or bad, since relatively few even understand HOW to listen to jazz to make that value judgement. trance is easy for non-dance music people to understand because it maps out all the emotion for you. it builds up with a drum roll, people are supposed to get excited. whoop-dee-fucking-doo.

"even when you do have reactions to music, it's always couched in the song as an object or the creator as an object"

i cannot read minds, can you? i cannot speak for exactly what drives any creative person. in fact, im not sure i would really want to know. its like the concept of being shown something vs being told it. i dont want to be told anything, be it in writing, film, or music. effective art can do that and people can arrive at the same place without knowing exactly what got them there. THAT IS WHAT INTERESTS ME!

"and you NEVER EVER EVER talk about the creator or listener as a subject with desires, the only time you even talk about desires is when you say "i always wanted to mix it up, play old shit, new shit of different styles, etc", but why is never clear, you just parrot the tired-ass disco/house mythology of "people have been dancing to that shit for over 30 years. and in many cases, THE SAME people have been dancing to it for that long, the old the new and everything in between.""

i believe i have said (numerous times in this thread alone, in fact) that i am interested in what makes music timeless, what makes certain pieces able to speak to people over long periods of time and across many cultures. this is the true power of any art! i can only speak for what i have deduced from my experiences, and how i manage to apply what i have learned to what i do and what the experiences i expect from it and receive from it are like.

"which is true of lawrence welk, and true at the renaissance faire (dancing to the same beat for 500 years!), and you never EVER interrogate why, you just repeat the same tired-ass line ..."

i dont think that music crosses the cultural lines quite so obviously. folk musics in general are pretty interesting because they are the result of one specific culture evolving over a long period of time. i am way more interested though in the huge appeal that african american music has and has had since the music has been exported over the last 100 years or so. something in there speaks to people, it has been called "soul". the ideas, techniques, and whatever else leads to that power in expression is my primary interest. i like all kinds of music, but that is what i focus on.

"and god forbid you NEVER EVER talk about "this was OBVIOUS to ME because I am like THIS" or "this was OBNOXIOUS to ME because I am like this", you never even bother to consider the point of view of view or the subjectivity of the other, the person to whom 2-step garage might not be obvious, or obnoxious, or fodder, or even why they might want to make that, or why an obvious experience might be a deep one (see rob themco's awe-inspiring breakdown of JME's "tropical" mixtape)

-- moonship journey to baja"

a 2-step record can be heard by 10,000,000 people, but only those who know how to understand the music can really say anything definitive about it. what interested me about this Burial record is the fact that for one album, THIS IS NOT TRUE. that is truly astounding! that is something that should be of great interest to anyone interested in this music! music that is uncompromising, yet appeals to people who should not be able to understand it under the limited conditions of its genre that they know nothing about.

this doesnt happen all that frequently, but when it does, i love it and i like to see exactly what it is that causes nonsense perceptions that people have to no longer matter. house music especially was very interesting to me because it was so wild and avant-garde and diverse, yet populist at the same time! that level of effectiveness is what i strive for in music. i want to be able to do all sorts of craziness, and have people understand it without having to do anything. is it possible? maybe not, but that is what i am pursuing.

the great artists are what made jungle and 2-step great

^^ NO PIPECOCK NO

its like what happens with deep house, where at some point a 110 BPM dirty disco loop repeated ad nauseum that would be a boring listen at best and isnt even considered "house" music by some people will cause a near riot, the energy is in there but it is just "deep", its not simplistic dancefloor fodder like jungle or 2-step can often be

^^

see you contradict yourself here, here the music is great because it makes an imaginary third person dance, not the music is great because of the creator

but you are WRONG, the ENERGY is not in the record, the ENERGY is in the AUDIENCE, the ENERGY is in YOU, pipecock, and your childlike belief in them, and your childlike belief in your own powers as an arbiter of taste.

and you know what's fucked up is that i sort of respect this, even though you haven't even got that freshman-in-college level of courage to closely examine what makes this possible, what you think gives you the power to tell apart the quality of music that makes 100000 people dance (say, the macarena or a haddaway song) versus the "dirty disco loops" that "will cause a near riot" for theo parrish fans

and i would even give you a pass, and let you continue that claim that what is subjective is actually objective, like everyone else does on ILX, except that *unlike* many other people on ILX (and like some other very tiresome people on this and many other dance threads and boards) you're not even willing to give us the *tiniest* glimpse of any sort of process or any sort of active engagement with this music, it's just endless declarative sentences about the perceived qualities of music without any sense of the perceiver's role in all of this

listening to you talk about music is like watching a fucking robot sorting out defective peanuts at the factory (this one passes ... this one passes ... this one FAILS BZZZZT ... this one passes ...) crossed with watching a homeless person theorize about the world trade center, it's that same endless confusion of CAUSES with EFFECTS (oh right, it's the "great artists" and their internal greatness that makes them great, not the fans, nothing behind this curtain) and vice-versae

makes ME want to PUKE, SIR

me: your problem, pipecock, is that you seem entirely too obsessed with figuring out which music is GOOD and which music is BAD."

you: i am not flawless at this only more time listening to more music will make me better able to make these judgements

QED!

the only reason people listen to bad music is because alot of good music is difficult

QED again AND you're a prick!

i cannot read minds, can you?

you should be able to read, and speak for, your own, rather than speaking for tens of thousands of listeners, as you did upthread?

its like the concept of being shown something vs being told it. i dont want to be told anything, be it in writing, film, or music

ah, but you have no problem telling me what is good music and what is bad music, and when you try to show me how or why, you show me imaginary dancefloors and imaginary "deep" listeners that have the secret knowledge to unlock the music that teenagers and grandmas and dubstep fans don't, but you can't even SHOW me how it affects YOU, you can just refer to your credentials ("i dj'ed with scrap iron dubs back in 2001!") and endless strawmen and endless fake musicology

i guess i understand now why geir winds people up so bad??

I blame myself partially for this, but why is the IDM list inside this thread? :(

"the great artists are what made jungle and 2-step great

^^ NO PIPECOCK NO"

so what was? the crappy quality white label bootlegs? some of those were amusing, but i mean the level of nonsense crap (both legal and illegal releases) was no different from any other genre. it all works out the same in any kind of music, some people are good at making it, most are trash.

"see you contradict yourself here, here the music is great because it makes an imaginary third person dance, not the music is great because of the creator"

exactly wrong. im not sure how you could get that out of that statement. the meaning of that statement is that PEOPLE MAY HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO EVEN JUDGE WHETHER MUSIC IS GOOD OR BAD UNTIL THEY EXPERIENCE IT THE WAY IT IS MEANT TO BE EXPERIENCED. its like listening to gabber when youre trying to go to sleep, will any of it be particularly useful? nah.

"but you are WRONG, the ENERGY is not in the record, the ENERGY is in the AUDIENCE, the ENERGY is in YOU, pipecock, and your childlike belief in them, and your childlike belief in your own powers as an arbiter of taste."

then why is every deejay night/music show of any sort not a rip roaring party? if the energy is in the people, why doesnt it just come out?

"and you know what's fucked up is that i sort of respect this, even though you haven't even got that freshman-in-college level of courage to closely examine what makes this possible, what you think gives you the power to tell apart the quality of music that makes 100000 people dance (say, the macarena or a haddaway song) versus the "dirty disco loops" that "will cause a near riot" for theo parrish fans"

what gives anyone any greater knowledge about anything that someone else? years of study, obsessive desire to learn all i can, years of hard work, etc etc.

one of the best things about theo parrish records, and the reason i am so interested in his music in particular, is the fact that when placed properly in a set by a deejay who knows what they are doing, those records tear up people who have no fucking clue about dance music. i've seen it happen many times with different deejays, ive even used them like that myself more than a few times. the problem is that outside of that moment they are made for, im not sure how easy it is for most people to understand WHY that repetition and dirtiness is such a good thing.

"and i would even give you a pass, and let you continue that claim that what is subjective is actually objective, like everyone else does on ILX, except that *unlike* many other people on ILX (and like some other very tiresome people on this and many other dance threads and boards) you're not even willing to give us the *tiniest* glimpse of any sort of process or any sort of active engagement with this music, it's just endless declarative sentences about the perceived qualities of music without any sense of the perceiver's role in all of this"

i just made a whole post about this. happy?

"listening to you talk about music is like watching a fucking robot sorting out defective peanuts at the factory (this one passes ... this one passes ... this one FAILS BZZZZT ... this one passes ...) crossed with watching a homeless person theorize about the world trade center, it's that same endless confusion of CAUSES with EFFECTS (oh right, it's the "great artists" and their internal greatness that makes them great, not the fans, nothing behind this curtain) and vice-versae

makes ME want to PUKE, SIR

-- moonship journey to baja"

puke, then!

BITCH, PLEASE