Originally Posted by SYRFox
I probably am. But then again I'm only 19. I'm still in the point where I find my own musical classics. I think everyone's delusional at 19. At least I am, ahah.
But anyway. There's no such things as "you have to take drugs and have a crazy life to be rock&roll" or "you have to be a depressed guy to be an indie folk singer" or whatever in electronic music. You just do. Boards of Canada are just two normal Scottish brothers. Pantha Du Prince is a regular dude from Germany. When Burial unveiled his name and face, nothing changed about the appreciation of his work. Zomby released an album called Where Were U In 92? , while he probably was only like 3 or 4 at the time. And so on. Of course, I'm generalising things, both for rock music and electronic music. But that's the way I see things.
and sonic youth are just a bunch of people from new york, there's no rock n roll lifestyle with them either. but on the other hand dance culture is easily as drug fueled as rock if not more so, in 10 years of rock shows i can't recall ever someone trying to sell me drugs, on the other hand if you go to a dance club someone will be offering you pills or coke within 10 mins. if it wasn't for ecstasy then it's questionable as to whether the whole dance scene would have kicked off in the first place to the extent that it did. getting fucked up is integral to all forms of popular and unpopular music since the dawn of time.
also to state that one form of music is more emotional than another is just daft, especially when you support this by saying that it is more emotional because it is less driven by personality, that's completely backwards. and thirdly this "no attitude" stance of dance music (and other scenes like improv, and certain art movements) is as much of an attitude in itself as anything gg allin ever did. although i will agree that dance music places no requirements on it's artists to also be performers, that is the crowd's role.