the genre known as dubstep - search and destroy

You've only got yrself to blame if you do this Vahid.

OTOH, "Request Line" is awesome yes. I think that new Davinche/Sadie tune I like whose name I've forgotten is a blatant tribute. Also have you heard Pinch's "Qawalli" yet? I would totally have put it on 6:33am Eternal if I had it in unmixed form.

what's this?!

can't find DA Vol 1 anywhere 8(

"WSHT mix", not "heavy meckle" (which is killer) ... it's sort of a dj rupture-ish thing.

which thread should i do it on?

http://www.bingobeats.com/mixes/

my copy of Dubstep Allstars #1 turned up yesterday. can anyone confirm the unfinished look to the graphics? mine had a promo sticker on it and i wonder if the artwork got an update for the final release. cheers.

I mean really, this thing practically markets itself to people who still take Simon Reynolds and Kodwo Eshun as gospel truth. It's a symptom of how inward-looking and -thinking a certain strain of British music has become

we're talking about you now instead of the record, huh? that's not so interesting.

How is this any less hermetic than most music making going on everywhere right now? And why is its hermeticness necessarily a bad thing? :Preaching to the choir perhaps? (which is bad in general,. across an entire culture, yes....)

Where is this non-self referential music- pop? mired in po mo slow mo... metal? creating avant versions of past trends... Indie? Retro a gogo... Hip Hop? Improv? Norwegian Jazz? MOR?

To what leading edge would you direct us? (forgive the sarcasm- I would genuinely like to know...)

And it's hermetic because a) very few people other than music critics know or care about the hardcore continuum b) the hardcore continuum itself is hermetic. It's just a way of constructing the musical universe in order to continually place a small subset of British dance music at the center of everything that is radical. And there were a few years when that subset arguably was at the center of British culture, if not anyone else's. But those years are long long gone, and dance music--and especially dance music like Burial--isn't anywhere near the center of anything anymore.

So sure, all music is self-referential, but when the references are picked up by a tiny audience, they become hermetic. Arctic Monkeys are totally derivative, but a lot of people like them--regardless of whatever media conspiracies you might wish to spin--and that alone makes them matter.

No 'remedy' is necessary. I don't really care about the 'leading edge,' in fact I think the very concept is bogus--a form of marketing, basically--and I'm actively opposed to it.

Aside from all that, I just think the emotional register of the music is so timid (and one could have said this about Urban Tribe, or plenty of Mo' Wax stuff, in fact a lot of dance music that professes to be for something other than dancing. It's all this wistful fading synth wash crap, and you have to work so hard at projecting meaning into it... which is perhaps why people wind up over-reading...

I suspect Burial did not write this music with these references in mind somehow, these are post-justifications for the work of someone who works with samples, likes 2 step, and feels his production skills are sub par (wrongly) and therefore cloaks them in static (thats what he claims anyway).

Craetively speaking hermeticism is crushing to future developments of interest outside of an endless post modernist cycle thru past ideas, no matter how far said music reaches... (and I think innovation is more than a mere marketing strategy, although it is that as well)

I don't buy the whole Arctic Monkeys are big and therfore "important". Significant perhaps, as a guide to what people will buy, how marketing strategies work etc...

Whether something reaches to a big audience or not is not a guide to quality (either way) tho I suspect you would agree with me there. So therefore the AMs are just as hermetic, it just happens more people like it. That means little to me (personally). They are hardly reaching out in any way other than a market-defined one (ie- musically they are not bridging any gaps, they exist in an imaginative straight jacket even more limited than that imposed by the supposed hardcore continuum...). For me to enjoy the AMs would require just as much "projection" of meaning...

NO

OTOH i DO agree with this bit:

you have to be intimately familiar with the history and theory of the quote-unquote hardcore continuum. For instance, I happen to recognize those decaying mentasm stabs ... but if you don't, it's just another electronic noise

still, i don't think somebody HAS to be intimately familiar to at least get some aesthetic pleasure out of burial.

it sounds to me like you're somewhat over-familiar with those strategies - as is probably anybody who's been following basic channel since day 1! i could see that coming to grips with that might be much harderfor you than coming to grips with layers of strange electronic noise might be for an arctic monkeys fan!

And I don't buy the whole "people are sheep" thing. As Hollywood blockbusters prove every year, you cannot make something a hit unless people like it. Marketing will get you onto the radar, but it can't do any more than that.

So therefore the AMs are just as hermetic, it just happens more people like it. That means little to me (personally).

That's a sign of your solipsism, then. Artwork does not exist independent of the world, or the audience, either in its creation or its reception. How the audience reacts is an intrinsic part of the meaning of any piece of music. And one of the most interesting things to think about, too. Certainly more interesting than exhausting the dictionary of adjectives droning on about basslines that collapse in on themselves, etc.

That's just it! That's all it is. You just get the idea that there's some vague sense of sadness in the air. There's no dimension or nuance to the sadness. It's all so wan, so one-note.

Marketing does a bit more than get stuff on the radar, I think, although that is perhaps a large part of its functionality...

The AMs are hermetic CREATIVELY. They aren't building bridges ARTISTICALLY, merely COMMERCIALLY-- they sell more records. As this is not an indicator of quality (either way) they remain just as hermetic.

And how ARE the audience reacting to AMs then? Many (younger ones) say they are exciting, they say something about their lives, and they are good music to go out to etc. Many (older ones) perhaps say they are nothing special, but have some good tunes. Why is this interesting? Qualitatively?

No, it means it resonates in the kul-cha. It might not resonate in any particularly deep way. But why it does is worth teasing out, because it might tell us something about our society. (And that's what makes, say, Tom Ewing's Popular blog interesting.)

Aside from that, I find Arctic Monkeys far more vivid, entertaining, and complex on a straightforward musical level than Burial. I don't think you do need to know the references to enjoy them. But that's by the by.

Urban Tribe don't pick notes at all! Except maybe like one for every tune.

"THIS song has MORE emotions than THAT song"
"THIS song has BETTER emotions than THAT song"
"THIS song has MORE MEANINGFUL emotions than THAT song"

without actually being able to point at the emotions are in this song or that. you will probably fall back on "well, i just FEEL the emotions" - which is ironic, considering you're accusing people of solipsism. you can't have it both ways - implying overreading or overreaching in other's interpretive skills and then taking a strong subjectivist viewpoint.

also these miles davis vs arctic monkeys vs urban tribe vs burial arguments revolving around fanbase are just idiotic!

did urban tribe spend years touring and playing clubs as support for better-known bandleaders? has burial been relentlessly playing shows and making the press? i don't think it makes sense to compare arctic monkeys and urban tribe when they're working w/ two very different infrastructures - and surely you're not going to argue that the infrastructure just sprung up overnight around the monkeys because they connect that much better w/ the fans!

These are legitimate arguments... but need more clarity perhaps?

so i can't point out your wack use of rhetoric without being accused of indulging in "technical meta-debate"?

oh and AMs aesthetically=death in my mind, it is true (probably as death as Burial is in yrs...)

did urban tribe spend years touring and playing clubs as support for better-known bandleaders? has burial been relentlessly playing shows and making the press? i don't think it makes sense to compare arctic monkeys and urban tribe when they're working w/ two very different infrastructures - and surely you're not going to argue that the infrastructure just sprung up overnight around the monkeys because they connect that much better w/ the fans!

This adds up to the following: Any kind of qualitative comparison is impossible. Which is one big smokescreen that has been played out on a million threads before this one.

I don't think your dad 'proves' anything. I just think his assessment is correct.

so i can't point out your wack use of rhetoric without being accused of indulging in "technical meta-debate"?

But that's not what you're doing. Instead of responding to the specifics of what I say, you're just jumping straight into a really tedious objective vs. subjective debate that could be applied to anything at all as a way of cutting the legs out from under me.

you shouldn't compare burial and arctic monkeys

There's no shouldn't about it. I'll compare anything I like, thanks. It's a lot more fruitful than pretending that everything exists in it's own... hermetic... little universe.

And whilst examining their impact and what that means is interesting (I've done it- it was interesting yes) I don't see why this means that this impacts on the music. You yourself seem to like them for the music they make, whereas I don't...