Issue 2, Article 3
Charles Monaco likes electronic music. Kim "The Eternal Naysayer" Wetzel apparently does not. We conducted this point/counterpoint via email, working on a decreasing line limit pattern of 8-8, 6-6, 3-3, 2-2, 1-1. The general idea was that some sort of intelligent discussion would arise from this format, and that we would all come away more informed on electronic music.
I think it was Bjork who once said, "If I hear one more person tell me that electronic music has no soul, I'll kill them." Or something along those lines. Yes, unenlightened ones, what we call "electronic music" is by far the most vibrant and dynamic realm in today's musical landscape. In both popular and "serious" music alike, electronics have become ubiquitous. And for good reason - as technology increases at an exponential rate, artists are drawn to explore the boundaries that new technology provides. Today's diverse electronic scene, ranging from experimental to ambient to droney rock to drum n' bass, is where some of the most important new music is being made. It's the new punk rock. It's the new hip-hop. It's the new jazz. So to all the techno-haters who think that Alec Empire and Richard James are the spawn of the devil: you'd best get with the program. Bjork isn't gonna take your shit any more. And neither am I.
Electronic music was designed to imitate the noises that authentic instruments make by live human performers. Electronic music does not have a soul. It is the "a capella" of the music industry. (You know, where college kids make instrument noises with their mouths to create artificial and grating pop covers.) Electronic performances consist of one engineer and their computer; hit a button, out comes music, out goes soul, out goes spirit, out goes a message, out goes a culture. Don't you dare say its the new punk rock or hip hop. Punk and hip hop are products of marginalized groups of people. Music, especially live performance, serves many capacities within these groups which electronica cannot. If you want to argue that techno is the latest fad to be picked up by Top 40 modern rock stations and SPIN magazine, go ahead and insult yourself. Bjork is an alcoholic. She is annoying. Bjork can eat my shit.
Right. Electronic music's purpose is the imitation of "authentic" music. Bollocks. The first analog electronic instruments sounded like nothing that came before them, and new sounds are constantly being created. Punk, hip-hop, and electronic music are similar in that they're all revolutionary, musically as well as socially (drum n' bass, for example, is a decidedly multicultural movement). And don't give me that "techno is a fad" line - it just makes you look like a fool. Electronic music has been round since the 19-fucking-50's and it's not going to stop just because a group of advertising/music executives decided they wanted to co-opt it.
You still have not addressed the performance issue in this argument. Where is your social revolution in a faceless/nameless medium? Computer nerds can download your multicultural movement, go to the menu option, select some more "bleeps" and "bloops", and now they're musicians? And what about ravers? I win.
Yeah, the same way talentless punks can learn three chords on a guitar and call themselves musicians. The fact that some electronic music can't be performed live doesn't automatically make it artistically invalid. Anyone can go hear a DJ spin (you don't have to be a raver). And anyone can buy CD's.
Three chords and a mission. That's the difference, DJ dumbname. I was not arguing that electronic music is not a form of musical expression. I'm just saying that it is a lifeless bad form of musical expression... just like a capella is the worst form of noise.
You think it's bad and lifeless, I think it's passionate and innovative. Maybe if you listened with an open mind, you might hear what I'm hearing.
Yes, my mind is closed to crap. The day computers replace musical live performance is the day I join Onomatopeia.
Never mind. You don't get it. Go back to Alaska.
Go fuck off Charles.