![]() |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Amazon.com Textbooks Store
Shop the Amazon.com Textbooks Store and save up to 70% on textbook rentals, 90% on used textbooks and 60% on eTextbooks. |
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
In an effort to disavow his own bourgeois status as music critic and conoisseur, Reynolds routinely sides with the more "populist" sub-genres out there. Jungle and gabba are good. Trip-hop and IDM are snobby. Hardcore and house get the thumbs up, 'intelligent drum and bass' and illbient get the thumbs down. While he often has a point, this siding with what 'moves the masses' turns too easily into apologetics for the culture industry (the mass manufacture and consumption of musical cliché). Under the misguided notion that if a certain class or ethnic group consumes a certain type of music it must be good stuff, Reynolds gets pulled into the knee-jerk dismissal of more "marginal" creativity. At certain points in his book I get weird echoes of Edmund Burke attacking the French Revolution and insisting on the necessity for incremental change within the hallowed lines of tradition. Whatever happened to radical criticism? Reynolds should know that "what sells" is not necessarily the destiny of a genre. The future of music is often (but admittedly not always) heard in its avant-garde. I think Reynolds' pseudo-populism goes hand in hand with his annoying habit of tracing electronic music back onto the grids of music he already understands. Witness just one of many: "If rave is heavy metal (rowdy, stupefying, a safety valve for adolescent aggression) and electronic is progressive rock (pseudo-spiritual, contemplative), Digital Hardcore is punk rock: angry, speedy, 'noise-annoys'-y." Analogies like this create a false sense of illumination and profundity. What has he really said by rave=metal, electronic=prog rock, hardcore=punk? The effect of such equations is to call us back to the familiar and to erase the historical specificity of electronic music. Rave is NOT just the repetition of metal with synthesizers, etc.
Take these caveats with a grain of salt--the book is still a great pleasure to read.
The historical aspect of the book is a good overview, but extremely biased towards the hardcore and related genres of techno. In particular I was offended by the author's suggestion that 'Intelligent Dance Music' was virtually racist because it avoided the use of black hip hop beats while those beats were getting a lot of play in clubs and at raves. The author presents himself as an outsider at the beginning of the book, but he was clearly part of and influenced by the hardcore scene. That isn't bad in of itself, but in this author's case it means that ever other niche is compared to the original hardcore scene (as well as its closely related genres) in a negative light; the author insinuates that the other genres simply don't get the point. Frankly, I think the author is the one who is unable to get any of the other genres.
All of this aside, I give this book four starts because it is a truly excellent resource for techno music fans, as well as anyone who is interested in learning more about the different genres of techno. Each section of the book presents (biased) descriptions of leading artists in each genre, and there is an excellent list in the appendix of tens of genres of technos with several album recommendations for each genre. This makes it an excellent reference for anyone interested in learning more about the different genres of techno.
|