> -----Original Message----- > From: lisa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 19 March 2004 20:40 > > [advance length and possible use of brain warning] > > ...[do] people here think it's possible to convey "what is Detroit > techno" to another person *without* actually having them > listen to some of the music? My feeling at the moment is that it > really has to be experienced to be understood/known. Then the other > person could learn the language of 'Detroit techno' for themselves > and perhaps create their own meaning(s) of it. :) > Thoughts?
I certainly think it's possible to convey the concept of 'Detroit techno' to someone else without actually playing the music - but only to a certain extent, which is itself dependent on the musical experience and knowledge of the person you're talking to. One way to approach this whole question is to remember whether you yourself had any knowledge of what Detroit techno was supposed to be before you heard any of it - did anyone try to convey its "meaning" to you? Did it make any sense at the time? Did it arouse your interest? And when you first heard it, was it in line with your expectations? I was aware of the existence of Detroit techno for about six months or so before I properly heard it. As a precocious sixteen-year-old I was in the process of seeking out all this hitherto undiscovered spacey/futuristic electronic music (The Orb, Black Dog, Ultramarine etc), and started to notice frequent references to Detroit techno in interviews with these British artists I'd been getting into. For quite a long time I was fascinated by this concept of modern cerebral electronic dance music having this "root", this source in the shape of Detroit techno, and built up quite a detailed idea of it in my head before I was able to hunt any down. I could go into some detail about that, but won't bother - I'll cut a long story short by saying that when I first got my hands on some proper Detroit gear I found that it did fit in almost perfectly with these sounds that had played in my head whenever I thought about "Detroit techno". Of course, in the years to come I ended up realising just how narrow my initial perception of Detroit techno actually was, and how broad the genre is in terms of sound, rhythm and emotion, but generally speaking I'd say that the various interviews and articles I'd read did give me a partially accurate idea of the language of Detroit techno. These days, I never try to explain Detroit techno to anyone who doesn't already know it. One of the reasons is that people are generally more savvy about dance music terms now, even if they're still not very savvy about what they actually *mean*, and as a result a lot of people have preconceptions about Detroit techno that I couldn't even begin to imagine. Some people see it as relentlessly minimal, some people see it as a scene where quality of music takes a back seat to rarity of music, while others see it as a slightly "brainy" cousin of normal club trance/techno fodder. These days I find that people already have an opinion on Detroit techno (usually a very misguided one), while in the past people had never even heard of it. So maybe it's more difficult, now, to convey a notion of what Detroit techno is to someone without actually playing them the music? Brendan
