[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 12/08/00 2:20:02 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > > Music evolves but it always doesn't move forward. > > Don't base progress on trends. > > > > Stephen, > > If it doesn't move forward its devolution. wouldn't that be stagnate? Devolution would be moving backward or traveling back in time. > Music evolution is the gradual > movement from one state to another - not neccesarily better, but not > neccesarily backward either. Just take some extra time to think about it. Music can evolve through a process of evolution but it may not necessarily be an improvement over the past even though music changes because of trends and technology. That was the basic premises of my argument. > And progress is a relative term isn't it? Some people like to see music > progress in terms of Top10 commercial charts - some others see it as real > innovation from one state to another. I see progress in terms of the improvement on old ideas or methods. Technology plays an important factor in electronic music and how it has evolved and progressed over the past Century. The same applies to the evolution of the human race, we are making the transition between man and machine slowly loosing are primitive animalistic traits and evolving into a more hybrid humanoid that will be superior to homosapien. It is for the best interest of mankind. > Such as the evolution from experimental electronics of the 70s (Kraftwerk, > Neu, Ashra Temple) toward the electro-techno synth movement of the 80s > (Cybotron, Cabaret Votaire, Depeche Mode). Don't forget the Chicago Acid House movement and the Detroit Techno movement of the mid to late 80's which was primarily based on drum machines and synthesizers. All the different genre and sub genre's you see today and for the majority of the 90's has to do with the advancement of digital technology, this will continue to shape electronic music in the 21'st Century. > Never was stated that the current musical progress in Detroit was based on > any present trends, because there are far and wide comparisons if one happens > to mention the Archetype release which is heavily saturated in hard techno, > the current Shake releases which are laced with hip hop grooves - and say, > the latest Theo Parrish album which is a deep forray into minimal techno and > house. I think this is the main dilemma for a lot of people. Some people see the various Detroit electronic genres a still being part of the Detroit TECHNO movement. I don't see it that way, I see a gradual decline in Detroit techno and rise of other electronic genre that no longer represent the Detroit techno sound. > Nonetheless, the only trend that I think is evident today seems to be that a > lot of people who weren't getting into Detroit previously are embracing it > more then ever now. (e.g DEMF) Is this progress??? You have to remember that DEMF is an abbreviation for Detroit *Electronic* Music Festival. I think its great that certain Detroit artist are enjoying their 15 minutes of fame. > What is wrong with empowering amazing artists like Kenny Dixon Jnr and Theo > Parrish with the future of Detroit. They have been part of the scene for a > while now and creating some of the most innovative works coming out of > Detroit now. As far as Detroit techno is concerned I really don't see them as amazing or innovative. > They make a different kind of techno music and perhaps that's > what's grabbing the ears of many right now. who cares? Detroit techno sounded better in the late 80's early to mid 90's. > The future of Detroit not only > belongs to Kenny and Theo, but all the many great artists that helped shape > its structure, and who are still currently making music - Stacey Pullen, > Kenny Larkin, The Burden Bros. , Sean Deason, Rolando, Anthony Shakir, Claude > Young, Jeff Mills, Robert Hood, Terence Dixon, Heath Brunner, Jay Denham... I'm sure the future of the Detroit belongs to many talented musicians and artist. The future of Detroit techno is uncertain. stephen. np: http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/rabbitcity/freq2.ra
