TD, KS, Berlin School, Jarre, Synergy as "new-age" (was Re: How to classify my music)

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 07:15:10 -0500, "Bill Binkelman"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Elliottmoore2) wrote:
>
>
>> Hello, I am very confused on how I should classify my music. I write mostly
>> beautiful instrumentals on my keyboard, something that you might here during a
>> reunion scene between two people in a movie or music that would be played as a
>> wedding march. I am not into yoga, astrology, and a lot of the other things
>> that seem to have been labeled NEW Age. I just right pretty music that people
>> can enjoy, relax to, fall asleep to. Does anyone have any idea what I would be
>> classified as musically since I am not into the above mentioned ways of life?
>> Thanks, EJ
>
>Sorry to tell you this, but the only real classification is "new age music,"
>period. Your only other choice is to go with the unwieldy term "adult
>contemporary instrumental" or "contemporary instrumental." The latter two
>are fine when you are on the internet, because people on the 'net will know
>what the hell you are talking about. But in the "real world," new age (as a
>marketing and retail concern) encapsulates everything from solo piano and
>solo guitar to melodic electronic music, ambient, ethno-tribal, spacemusic,
>Celtic, acoustic ensemble work and about a half dozen other subgenres. About
>1 percent of the artists who are categorized as "new age" in brick and
>mortar stores are, by your definition, new age. Most are just
>instrumentalists but they are not jazz, rock, or classical - hence, the
>catch-all marketing term of "new age."
>
>This has been debated (i.e. the need for a new classification for this
>music) from the early '90s and is still being debated. IMO, it will be far
>easier to change the public's perception of what the term "new age music"
>_really_ means (and how it has little to do with new age spirituality) than
>it will be to come up with a single term to replace it in the minds of the
>retailers, DJs, promoters, labels, as well as the public. Contemporary
>instrumental simply does not roll off the tongue easily enough to be used in
>a day-to-day world. There is a reason why commercial radio refers to it as
>"rock" even when, correctly defined, it can be "alt-rock, grunge, Euro-pop,
>pop rock, heavy metal, hair band, speed metal, punk, etc etc etc." People
>want it to be easy. "New age" is easy. It's sad, but IMO this is the reality
>and there's no longer any reason to fight it.
>
>Bill

A very intelligent reply, Bill. I have associated and classified the
"progressive electronic/spacemusic" sounds of TS, Berlin School,
Jarre, etc as new-age since the mid-80s. I didn't even really know
about any "new age movement" prior to that so maybe it was easier for
me to just label that sound as new age.
I see how some want to keep the extremely genric "e-music" or "em" but
what;'s funny is that they only call the progressive electronic synth
spacemusic this. Do you hear anyone calling Depeche Mode "EM" or
industrial tinged electronic music? Or synthpop? No you don't.
EM/E-Music basically means 'new age'. It's a sound. It's a "genre" of
sorts. It's not the religion. 
If we listen to grunge should we feel ashamed that some may think we
sort long hair and shabby clothes? Of course not. If I listen to punk
rock does that automattically make me rebellious? Nope.
Sure some may say it's a marketing name to label a style of music but
that's been going on for years and we except it. The music is still
the music no matter what the name.
What's sad is that even the members of Tangerine Dream have embraced
the "new age" label but some of their fans will not. The term 'new age
has been used for this sort of music for years and it's time to get
over it. It's fact. It's considered new-age. Enjoy the music and go
on.

Strangely enough... I'm not sure if some in here are aware of it but
there is a alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.new-age newsgroup. If you're not
aware of it or need help with download binaries/mp3s then just ask me.
The charter for a.b.s.m.new-age is clearly for the broad term
"new-age". It states it's for "progressive electronic" and
"spacemusic" among other things.
Should fans not post TD, KS,. berlin School,. Synergy, etc in there
because they don't like the term "new-age"? That's totally ridiculous
though some don't. Or some use to but have starting posting to another
newsgroup .electronic that we created for IDM and various forms of
experimental techno (as stated in the charter for .e)

The intent of a.b.s.m.e was never for "new-age" music. They was a
.new-age group prior to our creating the .e group.
Is it wrong to ask posters to post the new-age(y) stuff in the
appropriate group? Most do post that sort of synth music to .new-age
expect for a select few thickheaded posters.

You or me or them didn't choose the new-age term for that music but
it's there and it's now "new-age". If a poster is going to pick a
genre group them it should be the genre group specifically created for
that music.