> Which contradicts your theory of the techno movement having no unifying > principles.... So which one is it? >
Yes your right, I just confused my whole statement, lemme clarify that... Techno doesn't have a *defined* message, something that most (if not all) past "movements" had... Instead, techno is a device for imagination aimed towards escapism (both possitive and negative). Techno, because it says nothing recognizable, is a tool for individuals to use in whatever way they see fit. In listening to techno, one person can see a future in which the present society doesn't give, one person can see an emotion in which they can't express, one person can see a statement in which they can't normally express. Techno, because of its message ambiguity, can be everything and anything in meaning, *as long as it allows the listener to escape with it, in any direction they see fit*. This is why toneshifting is so appealing, wheather realized or not. Since toneshifting implies that every individual can project onto the music whatever melody and emotion they want, the music becomes totally unique to each listener, and because of that, the music lacks any real defining meaning, instead, it is interactive, the listener is not told what to feel, is not told a specific message being drawn out from the artist, it is the listener that does these things... I will use an arguement to demonstrate that I had with someone else on this list privately... ...Perhaps if we look at this way, in levels of interpretation... To look at a fascist propaganda poster would entail interpretation, but the message behind it is clear, the work projects *outward* to the looker... to look at perfectly round ball in which someone has proclaimed as art also requires interpretation, however, the message is almost none existent, the looker projects *onto* the work (emotionshifting)... To listen to Brittany spears requires interpretation, but the message is clear, the song projects *outward* to the listener... to listen to a lock groove on c side requires interpretation, but the message is almost none existent, the listener projects *onto* the song (toneshifting)... > Quite the contrary. > Techno was born because there were people that were *not* apathic, > because there were people that heard a certain sound and ran with it. Yes, but you have to admit that both techno and rave are on a totally different platform than just parties with some experimental music, there is a reason why ravers are almost uniformly excapists, there is a reason why techno people are so passionate about it, I am trying to figure out these reasons... > > It is what it is. > See, I just can't let something be like that, I want, no need, to know what that "is" is... darw_n "create, demonstrate, toneshift..." http://www.mp3.com/stations/clevelandunderground http://www.mp3.com/darw_n http://www.sphereproductions.com/topic/Darwin.html http://www.mannequinodd.com
