Kelley Polar - Love Songs of The Hanging Gardens (Environ CD05)

no, but at the same time IDM is not only autechre. it can have pop or retro elements.

with turntables behind our backs.

and no headphones.

anyway, biz, you say try mixing Hammer/Anvil with Can You Feel It? as if by default, as though you are taking it for granted it would sound right. i think maybe "hammer/anvil" would sound better mixed w/ "windowlicker" than w/ "can you feel it" (and sure enough, kelley polar shows up in way more "eclectic"/"downtempo" (read: IDM for people who don't aren't aggro/pimply) sets than house sets.

"can you feel it" would prob sound better mixed w/ LFO or something or monolake or juan atkins than it would w/ a morgan geist production.

about your parenthetical statement "((and sure enough, kelley polar shows up in way more "eclectic"/"downtempo" (read: IDM for people who don't aren't aggro/pimply) sets than house sets.)

did you do a search for this info? it's the "sure enough" part that makes me think you did a comparative analysis of dj set lists and discovered KP in more downtempo/eclectic/IDM sets...cuz i only know of KP appearing on Bents' Fabric (where it's mixed into Chicken Lips, another classic IDM act), Chicken Lips NRK mix (another IDM staple). Yes Bent make Downtempo (or IDM in your world) but their mix includes House Music! Even if "Intelligent" people "Dance" to this "Music", it's still House.

let's have a mini competition. I'll mix Can You Feel It with Kelley Polar or Morgan Geist and you mix it with LFO/Monolake/Juan Atkins/AFX/IDM of your choice, post a YSI to this thread in 3 days time and let the citizens decide what sounds better.

You do mix right? Cuz you know alot about what sounds good with what...so is it a deal?

um ... hello? boards of canada? morr music? isan? plone? carpark? all that "idylltronica" garbage?

(anyway, I think it's the other Chicken Lips mix - Body Music - which has the Kelly Polar track on it, yeah?)

Defining all dance music which might get a review in Pitchfork as IDM makes this a lot easier.

The problem I have with Vahid's contributions here is his tendency to link together a string of reasonable propositions in order to create an overall argument which seems to have powerful persuasive and shaming force but is actually linked together rather tenuously. Here that seems to be:

- IDM-related discourse privileged certain aspects of music
- Kelley Polar-related discourse privileges some of the same aspects
- historically, IDM-discourse sneered at dance music, and ended up missing what was really good about dance music
- therefore, Kelley Polar fans are inevitably fated to make the same mistake, and their Kelley Polar-fandom is but one example of this mistake.
- Kelley Polar's music can be deduced to be inferior by reference to the above observations.

This all hinges on the assumption that the Pitchforkization of dance music discourse (or the dancification of Pitchfork discourse) has done something awful to dance music discourse and, consequently, dance music itself. This itself rests on the assumption that Pitchfork's pitchforkiness (i.e. corny indie fuxxiness) perserveres despite its critical warming toward dance music, and in effect "conquers" dance music under the banner of corny indie fuxxx.

This ignores entirely the fact that Pitchfork really have changed, that there is a world of difference b/w ignoring all dance music except for Mille Plateux (Pitchfork circa 2000) and simply ignoring Vahid's favourite deep house and tech house producers (Pitchfork circa 2005).

http://carparkrecords.com/acute_US.html

Electronic music genres are pretty liquid. Their sounds evolve and take cues from various other genres over time. Jungle starts by appropriating Reggae and Dancehall, then takes in avant-jazz then changes to incorporate techno influences. Other genres have developed in the same way. House and techno are starting to look to IDM for cues and tricks, and repackage those exciting elements in a cozier box. This does not make House and Techno synonymous with IDM because it appropriates some defining elements of IDM.

on a brighter note, does anyone have the Morgan Geist Re-Edit from the Promo 12"?

no, not at all! i think the KP album is good music, maybe even good dance music. furthermore, at this point, i trust lots of the reviewers at pitchfork.

i'm not really sure what liking an IDM album (KP quintet) for the wrong reasons (thinking it's disco-house) says about the listener or kelley polar, i think it says a lot more about their relationship to pop and especially disco than it does their relationship to electronic music (house, IDM or otherwise)

(flash back to ethan a few years ago, complaining about ilm "disco" "fans" : "how come all you corny fuxx have arthur russell and larry levan CDs but no chic or village people albums?)

Not having heard the album yet, I had just assumed that people referred to the album as "pop" in relation to Metro Area (who could afford to be a bit more pop generally, i think), and disco because of Metro Area.

Do people really like arthur russell but not Chic? I find it hard to fathom I guess, why would you bother trying to cherry pick the indie fuxx approved disco? There's so many other generally-approved-by-fuxx genres - reggae, krautrock etc. - where the danger of populist trash is much less everpresent. Is there fuxx-aproved eighties funk-pop a la SOS Band yet?

(When I've played Unclassics at home my boyfriend has asked me what type of music it is and I say "disco, sort of" and he flat out refuses to believe me. But he sees the disco in French house v. obviously)

But if the Kelley Polar record is IDM, then so is Sylvester's I Need Somebody to Love Tonight, and Ultravox and OMD, and YMO's Behind the Mask, Gino Soccio's Remember, etc.

when is this out?

hahahahahaha...and i thought i was an arrogant asshole! First of all, I like Kelley Polar because I was working in a record store when the first Metro Area 12"s started coming out. I had been playing Morgan Geist's "I Want You" since 97?ish and was already a convert to his skills. When I saw the KPQ record come in, I picked it up and loved it. The sound on that record is undeniably "House". I like Kelley Polar because his music SOUNDS GOOD, and that's enough for me. Second, who the fuck are you to say anyone likes anything for the "wrong reasons"? If they like it, they like it, regardless of their reasons. You are in the minority here thinking that Kelley Polar is IDM. I think that's your point, though. You want to be edgy and unique in your opinions, i assume to try to carve out some space in the bloated critic circle jerk.

So, your highness, what are the "right reasons" to like Kelley Polar? I bet Mike (Kelley) would like to know too.

I guess if you can't support your theory with specific tracks from KP that are IDM, then this argument is pointless. Go ahead and post a segment of a KP track that sounds like IDM. I'm willing to listen to your reasoning.

cos i like the packaging, cos i saw a photo of someone involved who looked cute, cos i read in a magazine that that genre was cool, cos someone wrote a really ewnthusiastic review on a blog that got me hyped. etc etc

i think what that says about me is that i am a bit of a knob, but not really any more of one than anyone else.

i havent heard this, but the other kelley polar stuff on 12" always sounded like lush symphonic....disco-house. this is obviously wrong, but for some reason, this thought will perturb not one jolt throughout the whole time i buy or listen to the record.

oh, i agree entirely. sorry about the unfortunate phrasing.

frankly, biz, i am not particularly interested in why YOU like KP, at all. you are free to like kelley polar for whatever reasons you want, and that's cool with me, because i like kelley polar, too.

i am more interested in what the public critical response is going to be - and i think i have a right to be, because that's what critics do - they put their reasons for liking or disliking things into the public record, for the rest of us to pick over and agree with or disagree with.

(if you want to ask who i am to judge other people's reasons for liking/disliking things then you can start calling every university humanities department and every newspaper and start calling for the resignation of all their art critics and lit critics and cultural critics, good luck)

when i say "wrong reasons", i guess i am interested in how the critical response (haven't read the pitchfork review yet, can't wait to) is going to pan out. i have a suspicion that a lot of reviews are going to make a big deal of the disco/pop elements, and make a big deal of KPQ's place in house / microhouse when really it's another record pushing the same IDM buttons as the junior boys was a year or so ago.

if my suspicion doesn't pan out, well, then i'll look like a jerk and you won't have any reason to get all het up under the collar.

i don't know? i'm not trying to be normative or anything here - i'm just wondering what it means - how people end up w/ larry levan CDs instead of chic CDs. why don't people start w/ the canon? should we resist the formation of an alternative snob-disco canon? of an alternative snob-house / snob-techno / snob-electronica canon? didn't we already fight this battle years and years ago with "intelligent jungle", and is microhouse just "intelligent jungle pt 2" or not?

i'm not sure why the question offends so much.

also dan, i gotta disagree w/ you about placing the KPQ and sylvester on the same plane. it just wouldn't work for 95% of the populace (or more). you are just saying KPQ = disco (when most people would probably say something like "this sounds like soundtrack music ... you know, like for a videogame or movie or something ... is this like orbital?") because you understand KPQ's specific place in the continuum/flux of the evolution of house music / electronic music and not because of any sort of really strong formal similarities.

The SPIN Alternative Record Guide was my bible for a couple of years, which means I heard a Captain Beefheart album long before I heard a Led Zeppelin album. Led Zep not being in the book mistakenly indicated to me that they weren't that interesting.

I think everyone should give the canon a try, if they like a specific genre. But for some people, perhaps these pitchfork readers, what they like about Arthur Russell is his qualities that are divergent from the more mainstream disco. It sounds like you want to berate someone for liking "Let's Go Swimming" but not "YMCA".

But there's already a well formulated alternative disco canon, at least as of the release of Disco Not Disco.

The Sylvester comparison isn't specific to disco in general, but that song in particular, a meloncholy electronic disco song that is more of a late night ballad then a dancefloor stormer. And I think there are very strong formal similarities, if you don't know that song, check it out.

-- Ronan

Ha - it's like, how many books does he has to be the focus of until he gets there?

But then, I guess it gets back to "Disco as a widespread mainstream pop phenomenon" vs. "Disco as a precursor to later developements in underground dance music."

yes! except what i wonder is: how divergent is arthur russell really? is there more melancholy in "let's go swimming" than in "i will survive"? is "kiss me again" more minimalist-psychedelic-dub-freaky than (the temptations) "papa was a rolling stone"? more hermetic?

i have been browsing meltzer's "aesthetics of rock" lately and am wondering when the companion volume for disco/rap/house will be written.

anyway i want to ask the similar questions about kelley polar.

the very definition of "INTELLIGENT" music?!?!

i guess what is fascinating about kelley polar is that it plays w/ genre in an unexpected direction - instead of the usual IDM tricks (electro w/ references to musique concrete, jungle w/ references to gabba + grindcore) we have this sort of mid-tempo electronic album (the reference to PLAID upthread was spot-on) that references disco in the way autechre integrates influences like xenakis or zoviet france, or arthur russell integrates terry riley - i guess a corollary to what i am saying is that this is different in the way that early jungle artists incorporated ragga and the way deep house artists incorporate gospel + jazz music.

i think i agree with this. but for some reason it doesn't seem interesting to me. i feel like he got there by doing a relief of what's already been done when you can't always turn things around. there's a reason why you can pull genres together in certain ways. he's using stuff as a base when they don't have the appropriate qualities for that. he could do it, but he doesn't know how tweek it or relate it. the effect is stuff its not transformed, just misplaced and you can feel exactly where it should be. everything about this feels miscalculated to me. and i feel like i can tell what he's going for, but maybe I just don't get it or it is truly novel and gotta get used to it.