moby - the nightmare continues...

Yeah, I read that and figured that if Paul McCartney and Eric Clapton can try it, so can they. But the problem is they'll inflict it on the world (but less Sheryl Crow in past Sheryl Crow mode, no matter what Tom says, is a good thing).

But if he's inspired Keith and Sheryl Crow to make some electronic stuff then perhaps its time to worry (if it wasnt already)

AHhAHhhahHhAhHahhHAhHahHahhHahhHahhHahhhahhahhahahhahhahahahHAhahahAHHaHAhahahahHAhah (cough)

In the US, techno music (as opposed to the rave scene and associated drugs) is only going to get a certain small amount of coverage in the mainstream media, and when a disproportionate share (ie virtually all) of the attention goes to somebody that admits to not making techno, many are more interested in blaming moby instead of all the writers who couldn't be bothered to explore techno before writing about it...

the result of all of the above is that a guy who makes easy listening music suddenly has a million microphones in his face, and instead of availing himself of all the cliches that most rock stars use, he talks about other things... and he is boring, and sometimes arrogant, and that is all...

I don't like his music, but I think he would be nowhere without the hype, which is more due to historical circumstance (rock critics don't know what to do when rock is mdeiocre, so they embrace moby instead of, say, Timbaland, who should have been on the cover of that New York Times magazine months ago...), then anything else. Juan Atkins said in the Wire long ago that many were still unwilling to see black people as artists instead of entertainers, and in the case of mainstream media coverage of techno in america (which rarely admits that techno originated in detroit), I still think there is *some* truth to this (obv. jazz/hiphop is different story...) hence: Moby. I would like to reiterate that I am only discussing mainstream, general reader publications. Don't bother writing me to say that URB knows techno is from detroit.

Sorry for long post hope it was worth the time...

As for arrogance, it is there, though subtle, and certainly a different kind of arrogance than most popstars. It seems that every little thing that happens to Moby is important (who else gets press coverage for being bitten by a cat, and who else makes such a big deal of it?). He is arrogant to me because he seems to think that every opinion he has is worth sharing simply because they are his. I have no problem with him or anyone else sharing opinions, but the way he does it gets on my nerves. Self-deprecating humor is sometimes used solely to gain compliments...

I dunno. I think Carl Craig is definitely less easy listening than Moby. Aside from the actual timbral element of their respective work, what is the difference between the underlying musical ideas of their work. Moby is definitely more easy listening in the sense that he is not challenging himself or his listeners with his albums, whereas Carl Craig is pushing into new areas.

Most people are not going to like the Carl Craig album because it is not there simply to entertain. It is challenging and you need to take time to get your head around it. Moby on the other hand is making very simple music that fits into people preconcived notions of what music should be. Craig is trying to expand his voice and is letting you come along for the ride, and moby is just giving the people what they want.

Giving the people what they want = easy listening