You have some good points, and I don't entirely disagree. I might want to talk about this more with you off-list. A couple points off the top of my head, however, that still seem somewhat relevant:
1. I don't mean to say that techno's basic rhythm is innovative, however, I find what has been done with it, in terms of form, to be at least somewhat innovative. All though one might find some simiarities with non-western traditional musics, performances within such musics would be limited to the whataver timbres and techniques were characteristic of the local tribe. Moreover, the basic rhythms would be underlaid with mythological and ritual significance specific to the group. Techno, on the other hand, is really a global phenomenon, and while it utilizes the primal underlying rhythm it allows for an almost surrealist collage of a multitude of tonalities and musics over this basic rhythm. It is almost a "meta-music" in that sense. It the moments of intense collage over the basic beat that I've always found rather fascinating, and so far I haven't found any more abstract music that was able to deal with this collage effect in such an interesting way (off hand, John Cage and Anthony Braxton both spring to mind as artists dealing with collaging fragments of music.) 2. In terms of texture and timbre, techno has been quite successful in exploring new ground, perhaps as successful as any Euro-moderns in terms of developing music on the basic of pure textures, which is the way a lot of post-classical European music was moving towards any way. If you ignore the "motor rhythms" which surely would offend many experimental music advocates, what you are left with is simply an open form made up of large fields filled with variable sounds and textures. In this sense techno isn't necessarily primitive at all, although one must concede that since it is tied to repetitive rhythms its innovations remain ambiguous. 3. I should be more clear, when I talk about "regression" in reference to song structure, I don't mean it in terms of a one-way street leading from cave men to rockets. I am really talking about the music's socio-political significance (granting that my view is rather subjective) in terms of possibilities for human evolution. The song structure, as I see it, cannot be understood within our given historical situation outside of an understanding of the entire system of pop music, MTV, record labels, stars, and hyper-capitalism. The song structure, on its own, in my opinion reinforces the norms of this society and orients individuals more towards being subjugated consumers than active subjects. The primary mechanism in this is probably the set of lyrics which the listener is supposed to "identify" with, and the star themselves. But it seems to me that the basic form of the pop song itself is designed to reinforce a whole set of negative reactions. I find it quite unpleasant, for example, when a TV commercial comes on and hours later I hear in my head a voice singing "she wore an itty bitty teeny weeny..." etc. That really is an attempt at mind control. So it seems to me that there is something inherently negative in the song structure, at least in OUR current historical period (not necessarily universally or for all time!) I suppose there our ways to write songs that at the same time subvert and rip apart the song structure, perhaps the Sex Pistols succeeded for a moment, but these efforts are always getting reabsorbed back into the commodity culture. Techno itself of course, runs up against the very same barriers since a record is, after all, just another commodity. 4. While techno has many problems of its own, in the anonymous nature of many productions, and the collective nature of a DJ performance, I do find something that seems novel and offers possibilities that could be build upon and expanded upon by humans in the future. The possibility of an art that is not only for the FEW but can allow participation by many certainly intrigues me, especially since it seems possible on the global level. (ON THE OTHER HAND, could there be a danger, forms of techno-fascism that use techno as the basis of a sinister rather than utopian collectivism?) 5. More generally, techno allows for a posing of questions about the limits, uses, and meaning of technology for humans in a world that is increasingly over-run by machines. Is the machine our saviour, or will it destroy us? These questions MATTER in the world we live in, and techno gives us one possible form for exploring them. In such a context, it seems that song forms, melodies, and lyrics, aren't very relevant. Perhaps the sinister nature of a great deal of techno, the lack of "soul" is a very necessary response to a dehumanized world where machines seem to be in control. At the same time, the concept of "techno-soul" would point to some kind of reconciliation between man and machine... But is such an image of reconciliation premature, when the world at large seems poised on the brink of catastrophe? 6. I don't think about these questions as an acedemic (I dropped out) but as someone who sincerely wants to understand the world around me, as I am stuck living here and making art here and I'd like my life to count for something. The question of progress in terms of my life and the world around me is not academic, it is a question of whether we we nuke ourselves and all the other living beings on the planet, or create a world where people no longer need to fear starvation or a nuclear war. I do think that, before anything, music is something to LISTEN to and not primarily to discuss, but music is also a part of culture, and culture has the power to bring people together and unite them which has implications that go far beyond music. Music also can reveal much about the values and goals of the society where it originates. But can music actually be a positive force in the world, who knows in the end? .dave -----Original Message----- From: Dennis DeSantis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 3:57 PM To: 313@hyperreal.org Subject: Re: (313) t-1000 interview (techno rant) Cyborg K wrote: > However, I do believe that innovation in > form is an essential aspect of all forward thinking music, whether we are > talking about a techno record, or Cecil Taylor, John Coltrane, Pierre > Boulez, Gustav Mahler, John Cage, etc. The desire to return to a > traditional song structure, to "songs I can hum and whistle while I work" is > in my opinion a form of musicial regression. and then wrote: > The universality of techno's basic rhythm > allows it to a truly universal human phenomenon, something that can be > accessed and understood by humans from all over the globe regardless of race > or creed (which is not to say that individuals cannot bring their own point > of view to any given production.) First, you're advocating "innovation" and deriding "regression". But then you advocate "universality" and "basic rhythm". I'd venture to say that you can't have it both ways. This aspect of techno's basic rhythm that makes it universal is the same aspect of traditional song structure that makes it universal (or close to it. Dave, we both took Dr. Steel's Non-Western music course, right?...I'm sure we can both think of examples of folk musics that don't operate in any sort of conventional song structure. Gamelan music, with its broad gong cycles, comes immediately to mind...) And that has to do with primal response. The human auditory response that makes people relate to motoric rhythmic cycles is, in my opinion, the same one that makes people relate to "songs they can hum and whistle while they work." What you've started advocating is a kind of Darmstadt-era Euro-modernism. But the folks from that crowd wouldn't be caught dead listening to techno because motor rhythm and cyclic patterning is fundamentally regressive as well. At the end of the day, progress and regress don't mean a damn thing to people who are actually LISTENING. They're buzzwords for academics - people who operate in the shadows of those who create, scurrying about trying to glean information from the footprints and napkin sketches of their more-talented peers. I'm certainly not knocking the great artists you mentioned above. Surely, all were innovators. But that's not why they'll be remembered. They'll be remembered because they made good music. There are plenty of innovators who exist only in history books. Everyone who studies opera knows about Lully, Rameau, and Gluck. But does anyone listen to them? -- Dennis DeSantis www.dennisdesantis.com
